A.M. Links: Trump Rescinds Obama Rule on Bathrooms for Transgender Students, Iraqi Forces Recapture Mosul Airport from ISIS, New Poll Says More Americans Trust Media Than Trust Trump

|

  • Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

    The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration's guidelines on bathroom access for transgender students.

  • Iraqi forces have recaptured the Mosul airport from ISIS.
  • "Hundreds of protesters rallied in Anaheim, California, Wednesday night after video surfaced of an off-duty police officer apparently firing a gun during a scuffle with a 13-year-old after kids walked on his lawn."
  • Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that she is open to the idea of using a subpoena to gain access to Donald Trump's tax returns.
  • Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in Mexico to discuss trade, immigration, and other issues.
  • According to a new poll, "a majority of Americans say they trust the media more than President Trump."

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

NEXT: Dallas Is About To Go Broke

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. The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration’s guidelines on bathroom access for transgender students.

    So it’s an anything goes situation now?

    1. Stop this! This is serious! I have to pee!

        1. How does that affirmatively endorse my lifestyle choices?

          1. No one gives a fuck about your lifestyle choices.

            Deal with it.

            1. A technicality that will shortly be remedied.

            2. “Get your fucks right here! Only one dollar each!”

        2. Ooh, a corner. Look at Mr. Fancy ova heer.

          1. CAN I HOLD THIS DISCARDED MATTRESS UP TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY, YOUR MAJESTY?

            1. “When full, an internet-connected sensor alerts a “urine attendant” to swap out the lower compartment, bringing its contents outside of the city for composting.”

              This will no doubt end poorly.

              Some day in the not too distant future a politician will suggest cutting the benefits of the urine attendants causing them to strike. The roads into Paris at that point will be blockaded with bins of urine soaked straw and burning tires.

    2. Hello.

      “The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration’s guidelines on bathroom access for transgender students.”

      Can we get an apocalypse tune now?!

      1. I read this as “apocalypse tuna”

    3. Removing a federal mandate and returning schools to more local control

      Seems like an actual ‘libertarian moment’

      1. Seems is the operative word. Those locals could be IS fighters.

      2. More of a federalist moment. But it’s something.

      3. People want a king

        1. No, I want to be king.

          Though I’ll accept figurehead status if it’s comfortable enough.

          1. It is comfortable enoough, until winter solstice…

      4. Naturally, the local news is going apeshit about Trump’s hateful treatment of trans-kids.

        1. And progs are confused because they hate Devos but are learning she is sympathetic to trans issues.

      5. How does it constitute a libertarian moment? Seems more like a culture war moment.

        1. Well, it is a slight roll back of implied federal powers via the deletion of non-mandatory “guidance”. It’s a little something.

        2. Getting the feds out of local issues that are none of their concern is a libertarian moment, no? The culture war aspect is beside the point.

          1. Depends on how you look at it, I guess. I don’t see student bathroom access as much of a libertarian issue. The only reason I could see one really caring to the level that people do is because of the culture war aspect of it.

            1. Right, so then libertarians should be happy that the federal government is backing down from controlling a local, non-issue. The letter was just virtue signalling that advanced the power of the state. A win-win for liberals.

              1. I don’t agree that individual rights are local issues.

                1. I don’t agree that individual rights are local issues

                  Considering the Obama administration was threatening to withhold federal funds if schools didn’t implement those measures, getting the feds out of that soup was a win regardless.

                2. I don’t agree that individual rights are local issues

                  Considering the Obama administration was threatening to withhold federal funds if schools didn’t implement those measures, getting the feds out of that soup was a win regardless.

                3. Why is this an individual right to have decreed from the federal government?

                  1. That’s where the argument is, and why I’m not sure it constitutes any type of libertarian moment.

                    1. Well the feds back off from a top down decree. That usually does not happen.

                    2. Libertarianism directly relates to the individual’s rights. Something would be a libertarian moment per se if it restrained the government with respect to the individual. This was a government to government matter–about the Federal government, specifically the Executive Branch, restraining local governments over what their public bathroom policy should be.

                      With respect to what that policy should be, it is more or less neutral–or rather, not particularly obvious–what sort of facility policy should be regarded as “more libertarian” than another. The most straightforward way in which libertarians should applaud this qua libertarianism, I think, is that the Obama rule was outrageous Executive overreach. Libertarians are probably going to celebrate, all things considered, the Executive having to do things by the book.

                    3. Again, I’m not sure that public bathroom policy is a local issue. This goes back to the civil rights movement.

                4. Well that then kinda contradicts your previous statement. Individual rights are a libertarian issue. Your playing both sides v as usual.

                  1. You might need to find a quote from me on that.

                    1. Were you replying to me? I never said public bathroom policy was “a local issue.” I don’t see how what you said replies to any point I made.

        3. If stopping the executive from reinterpreting law against the literal meaning of the text and returning decision-making to local entities is not seen as a strike against Laviathan, than I’m not sure what would qualify.

          1. Making the right white people feel uncomfortable by forcing their daughters to pee next to trannies at Target is obviously the pinnacle of libertarianism. Unless you are some bigoted culture warrior yokeltarian or something.

  2. According to a new poll, “a majority of Americans say they trust the media more than President Trump.”

    And is there any higher bar to hurdle?

    1. Odd, I’ve seen more polls that say the exact opposite.

      Wait, were these the same pollsters who said Donald had a 3% chance to win?

      1. Considering that everyone got the election wrong, it’s safe to say there was something unique about that situation.

        1. Yeah, it “uniquely” proved that consensus is not reality.

        2. Well there are contradictory polls out there so it really depends on which ones you use. You or the media can’t say trump is lying about his support due to cherry picking polls to support your case… while conversely he cherry picks his.

          It is as if you and the media want to be able to cherry pick but he shouldn’t be allowed to.

          1. There’s a difference between making an attempt to cherry pick and straight up lying. At least there is a modicum of intellectual honesty in cherry picking.

            Also, there has been, what, one poll that places Trump’s approval rating over 50%?

            1. Modicum of intellectual honesty in cherry picking.

              Intent to deceive? I concede that the cherry-picker knows they are full of shit at the time, and are therefore honest with themselves about what they are doing, but it’s not called cherry picking with a disclaimer of the methodology beforehand.

              This is that fast and loose liberalism that makes fast and loose friends. “It’s not like cherry pickers are bad per se…”

              1. What I basically mean is that I can respect someone more intellectually if they at least make an attempt to base claims in reality. That indicates that someone is still grounded in some way.

                On the other hand, completely making shit up and saying it in all-caps? I can’t deal.

                1. On the other hand, completely making shit up

                  like polls?

                2. But all you are doing is using polls that confirm your world view to determine he is lying. Why do you get that luxury but he doesn’t?

            2. At least there is a modicum of intellectual honesty in cherry picking.

              Cherry-picking is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty–it’s a deliberate omission of data or facts because they don’t fit your preconceived narrative.

              1. It is intellectually dishonest. It’s just less intellectually honest than completely making something up.

                It’s kind of like saying punching someone in the head and shooting someone in the head are the same thing because they’re both violence. I think it’s okay to explore things with a little more nuance than that.

                1. There are polls that support trump and polls that don’t. you are saying he is lying based on using your own and ignoring others.

                  You are being dishonest

                2. It’s just less intellectually [dis]honest than completely making something up.

                  Not really, no. With cherry picking, you are still making stuff up. You’re just applying your made-up stuff differently.

                  Inventing numbers to support your cause and only using numbers that support your cause are not materially different.

                3. You are arguing a different point now. Stop shifting the goal posts.

            3. Again you are calling it lying because that POLL says what you want to believe. You can find polls that say what Trump wants to believe.

              There are also polls for the EOs, the sanctuary cities, protests, media polls etc that support Trump. Others don’t

              Why are your polls better than his? He can use his polls and say you are lying

              1. The vilification of polling, and data in general, among Trump and people here is analogous to Christians vilifying science as a tool of the devil meant to lead believers astray.

                Nowhere did I say Trump was MORE wrong than the media in the case of cherry picking actual polls. I said he was more wrong than the media in simply making shit up that has no basis in reality. Are you the guy who attempted to lecture me on recognizing straw men? If so, ironic, as you’re engaging in a straw man in this conversation.

                1. You said he was lying because of polls… that you happen to support. There are polls that contradict what you believe.

                  Now you are just going off into some other tangent about villification of polling.

                  1. No, I said he was lying because.. he is lying. I don’t need polls to confirm that he lied about crowd sizes, rain, or his margin of victory in the electoral college.

                    It’s a relevant tangent. I see people vilifying polling in the same way religious fundamentalists vilify science. The same arguments are used.

                    1. How did you confirm the crowd size to determine that he was lying? A photo 40 minutes apart? Did you take a count?

                      The original post was about the validity of polls. You are going on some tangent now

                2. The vilification of polling, and data in general

                  Nobody’s vilifying “data in general”. Conflating all data with polling is disingenuous. Opinion polls make for weak data.

                3. It’s kind of like saying punching someone in the head and shooting someone in the head are the same thing because they’re both violence. I think it’s okay to explore things with a little more nuance than that.

                  Does the deceiver’s knowledge play into this? you know, since we are considering nuance. I.e., knowing that cherry picking is harder to disprove, does this factor into the gravity of the consequence?

                  E.g.: Tabloids versus legacy media.

                  Also, konima: where do you stand on gun control? I feel like this is relevant to our discussion, since cherry picking is the primary thrust for gun control advocraps.

                  1. “Does the deceiver’s knowledge play into this? you know, since we are considering nuance. I.e., knowing that cherry picking is harder to disprove, does this factor into the gravity of the consequence?”

                    Maybe if you gave me more detailed example, I would understand where you’re going with this.

                    “Also, konima: where do you stand on gun control? I feel like this is relevant to our discussion, since cherry picking is the primary thrust for gun control advocraps.”

                    I’m a normal libertarian when it comes to gun control. However, I am realistic about the notion that citizens having guns so that they can rise up against the government being a bit silly at this point. I don’t see that being a possibility in today’s age of technology.

                    1. “However, I am realistic about the notion that citizens having guns so that they can rise up against the government being a bit silly at this point. I don’t see that being a possibility in today’s age of technology.”

                      What does this have to do with anything?

                    2. “What does this have to do with anything?”

                      It has to do with gun control. I see that type of reasoning frequently among pro-gun advocates, and it’s an argument that shouldn’t be used.

                    3. I see that type of reasoning frequently among pro-gun advocates, and it’s an argument that shouldn’t be used.

                      Why?

                    4. Maybe if you gave me more detailed example, I would understand where you’re going with this.

                      It is a simple question of weight placed on known effects of actions taken by the individual. Yes certain actions have certain similar effects, as per your previous equivalence of an assault and a murder being “violence.”

                      But what I am asking is how you determine the “effect” of intentional deception with the knowledge beforehand that your methodology will be passed along more easily due to its increased difficulty to disprove.

                      You had stated that there is a modicum of intellectual honesty in cherry-picking. I would argue, due to the knowledge of the deception’s efficiency, that cherry-picking is worse than lying.

                    5. “You had stated that there is a modicum of intellectual honesty in cherry-picking. I would argue, due to the knowledge of the deception’s efficiency, that cherry-picking is worse than lying.”

                      I find that a lot of people who cherry pick information in the ways we have described do so somewhat unconsciously. This is generally known as confirmation bias. They see the thing that they agree with and use that information while disregarding whatever they have found that challenges their views. All humans are vulnerable to these psychological biases. There are different levels of this. I would have an easier time dealing with someone who cherry picked legitimate data rather than someone whose confirmation bias led them to believe a story off of The Onion.
                      I’m sure there are many who do cherry pick data while cognizant of everything that they are doing. I think those are the people are comparable to someone who simply makes something up. I’m not sure if I would say either is worse in that scenario. I would say that, maybe, the one who cherry picks data consciously is more clever, and thusly a more formidable adversary. That’s as far as I would take the analysis.

                    6. This is generally known as confirmation bias.

                      The Question becomes: “Due to the generally known confirmation bias effect, is cherry picking more dishonest than regular lying?”

                      Again, the answer here must be “Yes, cherry picking is a specifically more harmful form of lying, due to the generally accepted knowledge that people will experience confirmation bias.”

                      “Unintentional” confirmation bias exploitation is still exploitation, right? We would have to argue the cherry picker, (under your pretense that it contains a modicum of intellectual honesty) was merely “innocently cherry picking?”

                    7. I think my contention could be boiled down to this: Everyone has to battle confirmation bias. I do think that a regular, baseless lie is worse than subconscious cherry picking. I think it’s comparable to conscious cherry picking. Intent does matter when we’re making a judgement of character. Intent may not matter when you’re just judging the results of actions.

                    8. As per your request, a specific example:

                      Lying isn’t always cherry picking; but cherry picking is always lying. [Square rectangle]

                    9. There were people in every age that didn’t see a rising up against the government as being a possibility, regardless of technology of the time.

                    10. “There were people in every age that didn’t see a rising up against the government as being a possibility, regardless of technology of the time.”

                      There are also people in every age who can’t admit that times have changed and that certain ideas don’t hold water any longer.

                    11. What does this have to do with what he said? Also your point about going against the government while interesting had no relevance to the conversation so i am not sure why you bothered with it other than to distract from what you were asked.

            4. Wait–so you don’t understand that ‘cherry picking’ is using corrupted means to generate corrupted data that you know is false that upholds your point?

              Know why it’s worse than simply lying?

              Because you fabricate something to cover for you when your initial lie is exposed.

              Get it?

              Trump says “I’m doing better in the polls.”

              Konima says, “No, you aren’t.”

              Trump says, “Yes I AM.”

              Konima produces faked data, “See, this says you’re not.”

    2. If you can’t trust Quinnipiac University (A place I have never heard of) then who can you trust

      1. They have been a well known and well regarded polling outfit for quite some time now. For whatever that’s worth.

        1. Agreed, however all bets are off in the Trump Era.

      2. Where do you think people go to pollster college?

        1. I always hang up on them so I never get to know their history

      3. Beautiful campus, Sleeping Giant Hill is neat. They accepted me, decided to go elsewhere.

        Anyways, yeah, well regarded polling institution.

    3. Some polls said Trump was more trustworthy and now this new poll says the media is more trustworthy

      Can we just agree that both are degenerate liars?

      1. Coming soon: Pollsters ask Americans, whose a bigger asshole, Hitler or Stalin? Their answers will amaze you.

    4. Nobody’s pointing out that, as far as I know, the public’s trust in media and their approval of the press has not changed since Trump arrived on the scene. It’s been like this for awhile. He took advantage of it, but he absolutely is not the reason for it. Their love affair with Obama is what caused it.

      1. Exactly. Relative numbers are less interesting in this case than absolute numbers. I’d be stunned to find that there’s a massive uptick in the media being considered more trustworthy in absolute terms.

  3. “Hundreds of protesters rallied in Anaheim, California, Wednesday night after video surfaced of an off-duty police officer apparently firing a gun during a scuffle with a 13-year-old after kids walked on his lawn.”

    13-year-old kids can make you fear for your life whether on-duty or off. The cracking voice alone is enough to make you wet yourself.

    1. This video is beyond disturbing. It was a cold-blooded murder

      1. Murder on my sensibilities. The shot that was most disturbing was the vertically shot video. Stupid kids. ROTATE YOUR PHONES.

      2. Reports I saw did not say the kid was shot or killed. Just that the cop shot his gun.

      3. Attempted murder. Bastard tried killing Gaia, firing his gun at the ground like that, fortunately he failed.

    2. You know what?

      If people saw that video, without knowing that the guy was an off-duty cop, I bet people’d react very differently.

    3. Hey, at least the brave hero went home. Oh wait, he already was home….

  4. According to a new poll, “a majority of Americans say they trust the media more than President Trump.”

    If we wanted people to trust the president more than the media we would just elect Jon Stewart.

  5. Iraqi forces have recaptured the Mosul airport from ISIS.

    Awesome! Now my wife and I can land in Mosul and she will still have to wear a head covering!

    1. She wouldn’t need a head covering for long, if ISIS remained in control.

  6. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in Mexico to discuss trade, immigration, and other issues.

    And to get estimates on the wall.

    1. CNN had a picture of him cruising a Juarez Home Depot in his pickup truck.

      1. Send that idea in to The Onion. I’m already picturing the photoshop in my mind.

        1. In Mexico, who does the jobs that Mexicans don’t want to do?

  7. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that she is open to the idea of using a subpoena to gain access to Donald Trump’s tax returns.

    His tax returns from when he was a private citizen?

    1. That’s the only tax returns he has so far.

    2. My guess is this is a R in a purplish state talking up her anti-Trup bonafides on NPR. I don’t understand what getting a peek at his returns accomplishes in this investigation. I doubt Trump reported his Russian cash infusions as income (or is is payouts? I don’t know what he is supposed to have done to be complicent in this scheme).

      1. They key is never being able to confirm. The shroud of doubt is much more effective than actual proof.

      2. Pretty much. I suspect if there was anything shady within his tax returns, someone in the IRS would have leaked information about it long before now (witness the leak of his return from 20 years ago when he spread out his business losses from the 90s). They’ve been auditing his returns for months now, for god’s sake, and this was Obama’s IRS at the time–does anyone honestly believe that there aren’t Democrat partisans within that organization that would love to take down “Literally Hitler” with this stuff?

    3. The president is not legally any more or any less than another citizen. Is there probable cause that justifies a subpeona? If there is, fine. If there is not, go pound sand.

  8. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in Mexico to discuss trade, immigration, and other issues.

    For his sake, I hope he left that big beautiful door unlocked to be able to get back home.

    1. Expect the helicopter evac (see Saigon) from embassy roof later today.

      And looking for the iconic picture of the Saigon evacuation, I learned that it was called “Operation Frequent Wind.”
      That’s some sweet operation naming guys.

      1. Yeah, it stunk.

      2. It was one evacuation, not exactly very frequent.

  9. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that she is open to the idea of using a subpoena to gain access to Donald Trump’s tax returns.

    News is not being open to it.

    1. Yea. What are these congressional republicans doing….it is as if they have no spine and want to play suck up to the chattering class. And the things they run on…they are more afraid of being talked bad about than actually doing what they campaigned on

      1. You know how scientists want to cull the mosquito population by releasing a bunch of sterile GMO mosquitos so that mosquitos mate without breeding?

  10. Iraqi forces have recaptured the Mosul airport from ISIS.

    And what’s the deal with those ISIS peanuts?

    1. Charlie Brown always getting duped into thinking this is time he’ll finally be able to kick that nuclear football.

      1. It’s the Great Satan, Charlie Brown!

    2. Fist, you are consistently a treasure. But you already know that.

  11. Rogan calls Hillary a monster.

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

    1. You know who else would have called Hillary a monster?

      1. Hitler?

      2. Seth Rich (if he were still alive)?

      3. George Washington?

        (in honor of President’s Day week)

      4. Juanita Broderick?

    2. He had Gavin McInnes on yesterday, pretty entertaining.

      1. Were they discussing this day in Black history?

      2. have to put JRE in the podcast queue.

  12. ?”Hundreds of protesters rallied in Anaheim, California, Wednesday night after video surfaced of an off-duty police officer apparently firing a gun during a scuffle with a 13-year-old after kids walked on his lawn.”

    More like off-duty cop illegal detains 13 year old, recklessly fires weapon in direction of neighboring house when the other kids tried to intervene.

    Any normal person would have gone to jail right away for doing that but it’s good to be a member of the King’s Men.

    1. Homeowner brandishes firearm to thwart invasion of his property and assault by a pack of feral illegal immigrants.

      What’s not to like?

      Other than sending em all back to Guatemala.

    2. Responders hauled him off to celebrate his first kid pop.

  13. “The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration’s guidelines on bathroom access for transgender students.”

    One of the alphabet news shows had this headlined as: “Trump rolls back Transgender rights”.

    1. And the press wonders why they are considered dishonest

      1. But now they can cite the Quinnipiac poll in support of the proposition that the American public has far more trust in the media than they do in the carnival barking crony-capitalist.

      2. Trump did roll back federal protection of transgender rights in public schools leaving the states free to do as they please. I’d love to hear your explanation of why that headline is dishonest though.

        1. The “Right” to impose on other people is not a right.

          1. The headline should read “Trump rolls back transgender protection in nod to bat shit crazy Jesus freaks and free loving libertarians”.

            1. “freedom loving”

            2. “Trump rolls back federal threat to withhold funds to schools”

          2. That… that is what a right is. All rights impose an obligation on others.

            1. An obligation “not to do” is distinct from an “obligation to act”. The difference here is one of negative rights versus positive rights. Positive rights are is a category that imposes an obligation to act onto others, gays can be said to have a positive right to gay wedding cakes, for example. Positive rights are a silent nod to the legitimacy of slavery and thus internally inconsistent and illegitimate.

              1. So we are in agreement that UCS is wrong.

        2. How can the state just grant one rights? They aren’t being deprived of using a bathroom. Also it was guidance

          1. No big deal, just guidance? I guess the cons in Jesus land missed that memo.

            Re: Not technically a “right”? I’ll accept that answer.

        3. Please explain what legitimate right was rolled back.

        4. Trump did roll back federal protection of transgender rights in public schools leaving the states free to do as they please.

          This, pretty clearly, lays bare the fact that you don’t actually care about transgendered people, you just care about the people in charge doing some things that you want them to do and/or punishing your enemies.

          Trump’s roll back, effectively, enables the State of California to make every public school as exceedingly transgender-friendly (above and beyond any needs or rights) as it sees fit. While, simultaneously, allowing the State of Nevada to explicitly forbid specific transgender accommodations in any/all public schools. While, again simultaneously, allowing Oregon to make accommodations on a community-level basis as students and economic situations vary.

          The only way this is about transgender rights and a loss of freedom is if you expect every transperson to use the bathroom(s) in the same way and everyone around them to accommodate them (or not) in exactly the same way. To wit, fuck off slaver.

  14. Rand Paul Has Become Trump’s Most Loyal Stooge

    By Jonathan Chait. The money line is: “Every authoritarian requires spineless lackeys who will attack his dissidents.”

    1. What a POS of thing to say; and groundless.

      Glad Welch kicked his ass.

      1. Chait really is a wise guy.

    2. Trump hasn’t done anything that would be considered authoritarian. Didn’t chait slobber all over obama?

      Chait is mad that Rand called out the new media darling John McCain.

      1. Lol, wut?

        1. What do you mean? At this point he hasn’t done really anything that is authoritarian.

          1. Winning is authoritarian. Participation should be good enough.

      2. I think that presuming he could get away with banning visa and green card holder is a bit authoritarian. Attacking the integrity of the courts and suggesting that they should be held accountable if a terrorist attacks occurs is a bit authoritarian. I also feel like authoritarians would tend to lie about their amount of support amongst the people, as Trump does repeatedly.

        1. hat was a mess up, not authoritarian….it was rushed to check the box. Now he is apparently exempting the green card holders so that argument doesn’t really hold water.

          For courts, he went on twitter…he didn’t shut the court down or try to throw them out and get a friendly one.

          Sure he may have exaggerated but i am not sure or convinced of the methodology that determines these “lies”. There are contradicting polls….it depends on which ones you use. To me it is really uncertain.

          1. Based upon the evidence, I’m working under the theory that Trump shitposts on Twitter to vent about things he’s not actually going to act upon just to get it out of his system.

            1. Yea and or to get media going nuts. While he pushes the pipelines forward

            2. FDR trying to court pack would be a bit authoritarian. Trump whining on twitter…not so much

              1. FDR locking up Japanese Americans would also be a bit authoritarian. Deporting illegal immigrants, whether wise or not, is not the same thing.

          2. He is only exempting the green card holders because he experienced push back at every level. Remember that we’re only a month in.

            Again, because he didn’t go to the absolute greatest extreme of authoritarianism in attempting to literally shut the courts down doesn’t mean hat what he did do doesn’t fall on to the continuum of authoritarianism. Remember, we’re only a month in.

            He has been caught straight up lying about crowd sizes, margin of victory, and lied about there being any reason to believe that there were 3+mil illegal votes cast. If you can’t concede this point, which is the most obvious and easy to concede, you’re not being a reasonable person.

            1. So since he got push back that contradicts your notion that he is an authoritarian. It was rushed and poorly executed. The reasoning for the block which was written on here is weak at best. 8 USC 1182 section f contradicts what you said about green card holders.

              He criticized them on twitter. He has thin skin and needs to get a grip but calling that authoritarian suggests the word has no meaning anymore. It

              The margin of victory is the only thing that i have seen definitive proof on. The 3 million thing he should put up or stfu. And the crowd sizes i don’t think were as big as obama, but it isnt really clear what they were. Labeling these things where he is full of himself makes him look petty and a blowhard…not authoritarian.

              If you are using whining about crowd sizes, hastily conceived orders and twitter rants to describe someone as authoritarian…it suggests to me you aren’t to be taken seriously

              1. I don’t think he has proven to be a complete authoritarian at this point. I’m simply contending that, being only a month into his presidency, he is displaying some authoritarian leanings that could manifest further.

            2. Lying is not authoritarian. Authoritarians may lie, but so do libertarians, anarchists, socialists, capitalists, communitarians, communists, populists, etc. Trying to use lying as evidence of authoritarianism is grasping at straws, and it is evidence of someone who has reached a conclusion first and then gone in search of the evidence.

              Criticizing the courts is not authoritarian. If it were, everyone would be authoritarian, as anyone who is paying attention will have criticized some court decision, as there are decisions out there that offend every ideology. Stating that any organization is off limits from criticism is authoritarian, as it is the germ of censorship. Ignoring court decisions (unless they be unconstitutional) or using executive power to shut down the courts or remove justices would be authoritarian, but afaik that hasn’t happened yet.

              The only point you’ve raised that supports your argument is overstepping bounds with the green card holder ban.

              1. This.

                Konima is turning the term into a joke. And the green cards are being exempted now…it was rushed with not much thought, it suggests amateur hour…not authoritarianism.

                1. The green card bit was a conscious decision that his team was advised against. You can’t blame that on being rushed.

                  1. I can blame it on Bannon overstepping his authority in a very amateurish move.

                  2. Who advised him and the team against this? Where and when, what did it entail?

                    It was rushed…look at the horrible implementation. The new one exempting green cards kind of throws water on that fire….instead of you know trying to bring the original to the supreme court to get it over turned.

                    1. Konima? You made the claim i am interested to know.

                    2. It must have been fake news, right? The leaks are real, but the news is fake.

                    3. I have never said such thing. You claimed his team was advised not to do green cards…yet you haven’t shown anything. I want you to back it up.

                      I am not aware of this so i am interested. Using anonymous leaks is not really that convincing since you appear to be certain that it took place and it was ignored by them. I want the details

                      Thanks son

                    4. Konima back it up man. Anonymous sources days after the fact aren’t really convincing.

    3. So that is why Jonathan Chait wanted Hillary to win, he was hoping for a job as spineless lackey.

    4. This is a jackass hit job. What has Rand Paul done to qualify him as a lackey? What the hell has Congress done to qualify any of them as lackeys? They have done anything substantial yet.

      Rand voted for Sessions. So what? How many Democrats voted against any of President Obama’s cabinet picks? How many Republicans even voted against any of Obama’s cabinet picks (I know, Rand voted against Loretta Lynch and she was such a super lady)?

      The Left is alienating more allies than it’s gaining. Paul has gone out against Bolton and Abrams when Trump was considering them in his administration. So, by that measure he has accomplished more against Trump than any Democrat right now

    5. May the wracked psuedo-sensibilities of those that wring their gnarled fingers over Rand Paul crash awake under the gentle guidance of bestial tourbillions unfurled from freedom vistas.

      1. AG, with a shout-out to Abraham-Louis Breguet!

        1. Do you ever get tired of responding to yourself?

          1. So now Agile Cyborg is Tulpa?

            1. Was that not clear to everyone?

              1. You shut the fuck up about Agile, he is a treasure. He should have his own article.

                1. Herc was better. There. I said it. All of you were thinking it.

    6. Jesus the comments in that article.

      Well done Chait. Well done.

  15. Trust develops over time within the remnants and rudiments of reality.

    Deriving an objective orientation of existence from the press and president will forever remain a tenuous galloping adventure through the dream-strewn landscape of remote recollections and fantasy-dancing on lightning strikes and calculator paths.

    Trust no one, fine ones.

      1. Indeed, just as we trust that you will always endeavor to be first to post.

        1. Nope. Just seems to happen to turn out that way.

          1. Well, lets just say that you are H&R’s primus inter pares.

  16. Know what? I hope Trump rescinds and repeals everything that dope did. They weren’t rooted in principles anyway so the damage to society will be negligible. Obama did things for show more than anything. He was as superficial a thinker-politician as they come.

    I’d like to think this is what’s driving Trump.

    1. He was purely for show. If anything he was a celebrity president. He didn’t seem to be all that intelligent and just wanted to get stuff to sign for a photo op.

      1. But Trump seems intelligent, or at least more intelligent, to you?

        1. Don’t blame Trump for setting the bar so low.

        2. The comment was purely about Obama and had nothing do with Trump.

          1. No, it wasn’t. You literally replied to a comment about Trump. Why would you even evade the question?

            1. amsoc was replying to the part of your comment regarding obama:

              Obama did things for show more than anything. He was as superficial a thinker-politician as they come.

              to which amsoc replied:

              He was purely for show. If anything he was a celebrity president. He didn’t seem to be all that intelligent and just wanted to get stuff to sign for a photo op.

              yw

              1. Wasn’t my comment. Within the context of a discussion about Trump, you don’t get to make an Obama comment and pretend it had nothing to do with Trump. I feel like I’m in the comment section of Jezebel.

                1. Yes it was. And one uses ad hominems when you know you don’t have a good argument. The original comment was geared towards obama and about him.

                  “Obama did things for show more than anything. He was as superficial a thinker-politician as they come.”

                  That was what i based my comment on…nothing more, nothing less. you are seeing things that aren’t there. I provided no commentary (for or against) trump in that post.

                  I am not sure why you feel the need to bring up trump

                  1. You responded to Rufus The Monocled. His comment was about Trump. His last sentence was: “I’d like to think this is what’s driving Trump.” Of course your comment had absolutely nothing to do with Trump, and Trump was nowhere to be seen in your mind.

                    You didn’t quote any specific part of his comment in yours. Even if you did, you would have a weak argument. Being that you didn’t, you have none. If you weren’t hiding your ideology, you would have simply replied to what I said. It would have taken far less time. If you have no affinity for either, why would it have triggered you in this way? Why even fall back on claiming that your comment had nothing to do with Trump? What motivation could you possibly have for being defensive?

                    If I were being as dishonest as you are being, I could claim that I knew your comment wasn’t about Trump and that I was simply asking you who you thought was more intelligent.

                    1. His focus was on what Obama was as a president such that he wishes what trump would do.

                      Stop making stuff up that isn’t there. I was merely commenting on what i thought how Obama was as potus. I did not provide any opinion pro or con on trump.

                      Why are you getting so upset with my comment regarding Obama seeing how you have 3 questions in that post. Seems a bit like projection and you should be really asking yourself those questions.

                    2. You’re still evading the question. Again, I can’t say that I care for your reasons behind evading the question. Either answer it, or admit you’re hiding your answer.

                      “Why are you getting so upset with my comment regarding Obama seeing how you have 3 questions in that post. Seems a bit like projection and you should be really asking yourself those questions.”

                      More evasion. Maybe your nickname should be american evader.

                    3. Again my comment was just about obama and i am not sure why i need to give you an opinion on trump. You are the one flinging a bunch of questions such that i can’t possibly answer them all and thus can claim victory.

                      you seem upset, not me.

                    4. Projection isn’t just a mathematical mapping.

            2. No, the proper response to your inquiry is, “Who the fuck cares if Trump is more intelligent or not? It doesn’t mean that Obama was anything other than a dull, incurious President.”

              1. You forgot “undeservedly self-assured.”

              2. “No, the proper response to your inquiry is, “Who the fuck cares if Trump is more intelligent or not? It doesn’t mean that Obama was anything other than a dull, incurious President.””

                How would that be a legitimate, proper response? The only scenario in which that would be a logical reaction would be if you were a self-professed member of team Trump.

                1. No it does not mean that at all. It was an opinion about Obama…whether he is that or not has nothing to do with trump. Or any other president.

                  Using your logic that would mean i would have to rank all 45 in order to have an opinion on 1…otherwise i must be in favor of all the others.

                  For example: I think GWB was not a good potus…i dont have to give an opinion on Obama to make this determination. This does not make me Team Obama.

                  Bo please calm down.

                  1. Alright. Continue to evade.

                    1. konima (aka bo cara) i suggest you chill. You got real upset above about Rufus comment regarding obama…such that you obsessed to trying to get my ideology wtf. Relax man.

                      What it suggests is Obama is an important figure in your life and you didn’t like what was said. Instead of arguing a counter point, you go on a witch hunt to determine ideology or something.

                      I am not a trump fan and did not vote for him if this helps you feel better.

                    2. konima (aka bo cara)

                      You know, I was thinking that.

                      That focus on extraneous things combined with the demands that one recognize and respond to those extraneous things before any opinion can be considered–by Bo–to be valid.

                    3. What profession are you going to pretend to have this time konima?

                    4. Now you’ve fallen back on the mentality of a troll.

                      I’ll lead by example: Ask me a question about Obama that might seem inflammatory to me if I were an Oabama supporter, and I’ll show you how easy it is to answer.

                    5. What are you talking about? I suspect this is projection on your part.

                      You got upset that Rufus described obama in a certain way and agreed with him. That is all this is. I gave you my view of trump per your request.

                      I suggest you relax, have a coke and smile. I will tell you when you are older.

                    6. Yawn. I’m not sure who you’re having a conversation with, as all of your responses go off on unrelated tangents without ever addressing the questions raised.

                      “You got upset that Rufus described obama in a certain way and agreed with him. ”

                      I got upset with him and then agreed with him? Do you do English?

                      You’ve proven incapable of having an honest conversation, so I won’t attempt or respond again. Good luck in life.

                    7. I left out the “I”. I agreed with him. You are the one getting upset and trying to go off on tangents about trump.

                      I find it ironic considering under your previous name you were considered a troll. Why did you drop it by the way?

                    8. Konima why did ya feel the need to change your name from bo cara? Who is the troll again?

    2. Not “Dinner Party Retribution”? Is Seth Meyers the burning pitch in the Cheeto in Chief’s antediluvian core?

    3. It would be great if the lesson learned is that laws need to be made through the proper ways and not by a pen and a phone. Dems are surprised their homes built on sand are falling apart.

    4. I’ll be a little more interested when he really starts undoing the executive power expansions that happened under Bush and Obama. I’m not holding my breath.
      Trump also does things for show. Which could mean he’s a good counter to Obama in many ways. But he’s also like Obama. He’s “hope and change”, but in a very different package.

      1. A vulgar hope and change if you will.

        Hillary was a more corrupt version of mccain

    5. I don’t know. Trudeau seems more of a virtue signaller even than Obama. I still think overall Obama is worse as he is the more effective culture warrior and race baiter. But when Trudeau is bragging about how dickless he is or going to Mosque or Sikh temple fully costumed and pretending to be one of them, my face-palming seems to stretch on to infinity. The next logical step is for him to start washing the feet of Islamist migrants.

      1. Oh, God, I just saw that. What the fuck is the matter with that asshole?

        The Sikh thing I can kind of see. If you enter one of their gurdwaras you are supposed to cover your head with a wrap. It’s not a sacred garment per se; it’s just like wearing a yarmulke while visiting a synagogue. I don’t know why the “guest wraps” had the Sikh symbol so prominently on them, though. Maybe the Sikhs provided them. I would not display another religion’s symbol on my forehead like that.

        The Muslim thing is inexcusable. First of all, why is he wearing that shirt? Is that supposed to be a “Muslim” shirt or something? Who told him to dress like that? More importantly, he is fucking praying like a Muslim, or at least pretending to pray or something. Fuck him. If he did that to my religion I’d tell him to fuck himself. If he did it in a place of worship I was running, made a mockery of my faith and worship like that, I’d remove him myself.

        Jesus Christ what a dick. He’s like a fucking caricature of himself. I wouldn’t be surprised if he grabbed some poor Muslim woman’s baby on the way out and posted a shirtless selfie of himself cradling it on Instagram with a “This is what an intersectional feminist looks like” caption.

  17. The date on this is Feb. 7, but I was ‘gifted’ this article this morning.

    White People: I Don’t Want You To Understand Me Better, I Want You To Understand Yourselves

    No, I do not know everything. I do not cover every angle all the time. Sometimes, I’m flat-out wrong. But here’s the thing: I do know white culture. I know white culture better than most white people know white culture. I know white culture, white history, white politics. I know it better than you because if you knew why you were really in my DMs right now, you’d be embarrassed. Why do I know white culture so well? Because I’m a black woman.

    1. To quoted person – Fuck off, bigot.

      1. It’s hard to pick the top item in the list of all the awful things Obama is responsible for but setting “race relations” back 30 or 40 years is up there.

    2. “Yo, bitch. A little self awareness never upended the plantation, now, did it? Axe yourself that.”

    3. Because you’re white you’ll never understand what it’s like to be black. Only blacks know what it’s like to be black.

      Because you’re white you’ll never understand what it’s like to be white. Only blacks know what it’s like to be white.

      What a pretty little bow.

      1. My diagnosis: Hubris with a lack of introspection. There is a cure, but it must be self-administered, so she’ll likely suffer this for the rest of her life.

    4. It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand.

      1. I thought blacks only had thangs. I’m so lost, surely because I’m white.

        1. You may be lost because you are white; I am lost because I am bat-shit insane.

    5. “Ijeoma Oluo
      Come for the feminist rants..stay for the selfies and kid quotes. Inclusive feminism here.”

      And proceeds to denigrate whites and call every single Trump voter a racist.

      This my friends is the very definition of an ignorant cunt.

      “Why do I know white culture so well? Because I’m a black woman.”

      Why do I know black culture so well? Because I’m a white man.

      See how that works? Critical thinking. Look it up sometime you idiot.

    6. What the fuck is “white culture” supposed to even mean? I assume they are talking white American culture. But even that is a hugely broad and diverse thing. As is American Black culture and American culture in general. It’s idiotic and insulting to people of all races to talk about culture as if race is the most important thing in defining a culture and that all members of a race share a culture.
      I have no more culturally in common with an Appalachian hill billy or a Bay Area progressive than I do with any black culture.

      1. What the fuck is “white culture” supposed to even mean?

        I don’t know, but I like it.

        1. I think it has something to do with Jello salad and country music.

          1. #NotMyCulture

        2. Please, whites have a number of cultures ? each based upon a different manner of drinking!

        3. White culture is that stuff that tends to grow on cheese when left unrefrigerated….

      2. Not to say the author’s head is not up her own ass. But you don’t think there’s generally any kind of cultural divide between populations of whites and populations of blacks?

        1. There are all kinds of cultural divides. Some do fall largely along racial lines, but not all by a long shot. There are also huge cultural divides between different groups of white people and between different groups of black people and between groups that are made up of people of various races.

          Because of the history of legal and de facto segregation in the US, there certainly are obviously distinct black cultures. But the author seems to be insisting that by virtue of race, everyone belongs to one side or the other. And that I find to be idiotic and detrimental to the improvement of race relations.

          1. Well sure there are different cultural groups and “appropriation” is bunch of horseshit, I wouldn’t argue against that. And yes it’s true that “race” is not a synonym of “culture”, for a reason. But there are cultural differences that blacks hold to by virtue of “being black” and those cultural values are not all helping them to succeed.

            Not to say this is necessarily a negative cultural attribute, but the most simple and readily apparent example is that almost everywhere in the country there are blacks, they tend to speak a dialect distinct from the rest of the population in their area. Whether it’s Atlanta, or Portland, or LA, blacks tend to put themselves linguistically outside of the local dialects and instead use some form of AAVE, even if they’re code switching to normalize their vocabulary when speaking to outsiders, the syntax and inflection patterns usually remain distinct. That’s an expression of a widespread desire for separateness.

    7. I’ll bet you guys didn’t know that MTV’s original tag line was “All white people all the time”.

    8. I had to learn how many times I could voice my opinion in a work meeting before I was labeled “difficult.”

      Or maybe you’re just a difficult, self-centered, walking stereotype?

      1. If the opinion she voiced in those meetings was like the opinions she voices in that article, she can be labeled “unemployed”.

        1. But how will achieve diversity if you don’t include everyone?

          1. Yeah, I was always short on my raging hosebeast quotas back in the day when I ran a small business. Somehow I survived.

      2. Does she think that no white people are considered a pain in the ass by their coworkers?

    9. I don’t understand – what’s “white culture”? Is it the same as Basque culture? Or Albanian?

      1. I think it signifies an amalgam of European cultures, particularly as they mixed more thoroughly in North America. I know it’s hard to believe Old Mexican, those icky white people have values and norms too. But rest easy, they’re not as authentic as you though.

        1. I’m pretty sure OM is white and is making the point that it’s ridiculous to talk about it as if white people all share the exact same culture and values, and that other races are somehow excluded from any supposed “white culture”.

          1. If that may be, I apologize. Just as the author is wrong to assume that “white cutlure” is a monolith or that she has any insight to anything for that matter, I also think that the people who claim “whites have no culture” are dead wrong. There are, broadly, norms and values of ultimate European origin that have been picked up and adopted by most white cultural groups in North America, Yankees, Midwesterners et cetera. But those values have also been successfully adopted up by many Asians and Indians and to a lesser extent some blacks. But for blacks there’s a certain level of taboo around adopting “white” cultural norms and values, that we need not get into here.

            1. I’d love to see the list of these values, and why “most” whites in America have adopted them but only “some” blacks “to a lesser extent.”

              1. Well MJG I suppose you’ve never heard of “acting white”. It covers a range of behaviors and activities deemed by many blacks to be categorically typical of white people and therefore suspect. This is anything ranging from academic achievement to speaking in such a way as to be easily understood in the wider dialect continuum of the region.

                1. I have. I’m wondering what within that cliche count as distinctly European norms and values.

                  So “academic achievement” and “talk in the local dialect (but not the local black dialect, which is aberrant and impure)” are European values? And you find that the overwhelming majority of white Americans respect these values?

                  1. There are a lot of communities of white people who have the same kind of problems, where people will give you shit for thinking that you are better than where you come from if you try to achieve academically and things like that. That is pretty close to the stigma against “acting white” in black culture.

                  2. So “academic achievement” and “talk in the local dialect (but not the local black dialect, which is aberrant and impure)” are European values?

                    I said it speaks to a widespread desire for separateness. I don’t know of any Asians who’ve been here for generations that develop their own dialect distinct from everyone else in the area they reside, same for Indians. The fact that blacks have their own distinct dialects drawn along racial lines is not something I’m foisting on them, it’s a separateness that they’re holding onto all on their own. I’m just pointing to it’s existence, but if that makes me racist in your enlightened eyes oh well.

          2. Leave Free Society alone with his fantasies of white ethnonationalism.

      2. She thinks it’s South African culture.

      3. Being the remnant of non-Indo-Europeans living in Europe before what we think of as Whites (in this case literal Caucasians) invaded the place, I think that the Basque get an out.

    10. How in the graces of Jebus did you even stumble upon this article?

      1. I have a relative who is deeply involved in radical politics. This relative is best described as an intellectually broken human being. I was linked to this particular article so I could understand my the intersectionality of my priviledged male whiteness.

        My relative is unhappy with my reaction.

        1. Did you write back “Pretty funny bro”?

      2. How in the graces of Jebus did you even stumble upon this article?

        Damned if whitey knows. Go ask a black woman…

    11. white culture = sunscreen, less likely to be run over at night, better Vitamin D absorption, being openly mocked the first time you wear shorts in summer

      The writer has a point, it’s not that hard to understand white culture. Not sure why they’re bragging though, it’s a pretty short list to memorize.

      1. oh and hefty dermatologist bills

        (in case you can’t tell, I have the ultra white privilege)

        1. Sunburns are cultural appropriation.

  18. According to a new poll, “a majority of Americans say they trust the media more than President Trump.”

    And if you actually believe that, you probably also believed that Hildog was going to crush Trump.

    1. That kid talks worse than Trump. Get him off the stage.

    2. The kid stole the show, Fatty! Stole. The. Show!

    3. I mean if a seven year-old gets it…

    4. A seven year old kid is a bit more mature than the average proggy demonstrator.

    5. That’s basically true and should be a bumper sticker. The wall requires new spending and the conservatives have signaled their willingness spend money on that whilst signaling a willingness to defund PBS and parks. Why do conservatives hide from their values. They want to spend money on national defense and they loosely define national defense and they don’t like spending money on anything else.

      1. PBS funding should be eliminated whether a wall is built or not. Likewise, the wall should be built with or without a continuation of pbs funding.

      2. The handful of worthwhile programs on PBS are more than capable of surviving without government subsidy. The rest should not be siphoning off taxpayer dollars.

        If parks can’t fund themselves through admissions, I have to ask why the land is supposedly so interesting as to be blocked from improvement.

        1. Every PBS program seems to lead in with lists of the wealthy sponsors paying for it. At most, we’d lose the “and viewers like you” euphemism or get an additional seasonal pledge drive.

      3. You contradicted yourself. You said why do they hide from their values but yet your own post says the cons admitted to want to spend on national defense and don’t like anything else

      4. The wall requires new spending

        Not necessarily. Reallocating from one part of DHS to another would not involve any new spending at the top level.

        If that wasn’t enough, I’m sure they could come up with a few hundred million overnight after breaking the border patrol and TSA goon unions.

        1. I had heard somewhere that the funds were allocated for the wall back in the 90’s, but never spent.

          1. The law on the books already makes provisions for building walls/fences when and where needed. I don’t know how the funding works, but if there was a pot of money sitting around in government for a couple decades that didn’t end up spent, wasted, or funneled into a union, I’d be shocked.

        2. Why not just borrow it? What is another 12B? It is only .25% of the budget!

          /sarc

          1. Trump needs to host a “Build the Wall Pledge Drive,” with random reality show actors manning the phones!

        3. Reallocating from one part of DHS to another would not involve any new spending at the top level.

          You’re basically making the same point except I’m saying the cons want to reallocate money from parks and PBS to pay for new spending on the new expensive wall.

          Sure, they have the choice to keep funding the same for PBS and Parks and take the money for new security spending (i.e. the wall) from the existing money already spent on security but that’s not the con way.

          1. But they aren’t going to take the money from parks and PBS. Stop peddling BS

          2. Even by conservative estimates, a wall that inhibits just one tenth of crossers pays for itself in ten years. Earlier, if you include children of illegals born here. I think the wall is a dumb idea (even if border interdiction generally isn’t), and prioritizing immigration reform over domestic economic reforms is retarded, but yours isn’t nearly as strong a case as you think it is.

          3. No, the “con” way lately has been to eat their cake and have it too. The last time the Republicans actually cut something from government was what, 1996?

  19. The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration’s guidelines on bathroom access for transgender students.

    If history is any guide, now come the death camps. But first Trump will make them wear badges to signify their transgender status. Perhaps a handicap accessible bathroom icon.

    #LiterallyHitler

  20. The Trump administration has rescinded the Obama administration’s guidelines on bathroom access for transgender students.

    Transgender students will have to go back to using a chamber pot, like Gawd intended.

    I mean, that’s how it was just a few months ago, wasn’t it???

    Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that she is open to the idea of using a subpoena to gain access to Donald Trump’s tax returns.

    We all want to learn from the great capitalist magician.

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in Mexico to discuss trade, immigration, and other issues.

    It’s going to be a very short meeting.

    According to a new poll, “a majority of Americans say they trust the media more than President Trump.”

    To put things in perspective, I switched this morning to CNN (after 6 years of not watching them) right after Laura Ingraham said on Forx and Friends she could hardly wait until El Se?or Presidente Bananero Trumpo taxed remittances…

    And I still hate CNN.

    1. Back at you OM.

    2. The problem is not with the chamber pot. The problem is where does one dump the contents of the chamber pot?

  21. Is it possible that if the person who fired the gun was not a cop, many here would be celebrating his defense of his property? Isn’t that what the 2nd Amendment is about? It’s often said that simply brandishing a gun or firing warning shots are some of the most common ways people defend themselves with guns. I complain that this kind of use is often overlooked by anti 2nd Amendment people.

    It looks like a case could be made that this gun owner used his gun recklessly and irresponsibly. I’m not really sure how to think about this.

    1. Based on the video, I’d call it reckless. Doesn’t look like a case where deadly force was called for. Just my quick take.

    2. As usual, the actual story is a bit more complicated. The cop originally was yelling at a girl to get off his lawn. The young man and his friends then came to the defense of the fair maiden by telling off the cop. Then the cop started molesting the leader of the honor defense force and dragging him all around by his backpack. When he started getting surrounded, he pulled his gun and fired a shot.

      1. I agree it’s complicated. But why do you say “the cop” and not “the guy”? Is a cop never allowed to be considered just a citizen? Where is the line between official use of a weapon vs private use protected by the 2nd?

        What I’m poking at is the knee-jerk anti-cop thinking that is pretty common here. Yeah, cops are supposed to be trained on how to use their weapons responsibly. But so are concealed carry permit holders.

        1. What I’m poking at is the knee-jerk anti-cop thinking that is pretty common here.

          Maybe it’s unfair sometimes. But I’m sticking with it. Cops want to be treated like they are special, I’m going to treat them like they are special too. If they think they are more than other civilians and deserve special privileges, I’m holding them to higher standards.

          I’d bet a lot that his behavior has a lot to do with his being a cop. Any non-cop would have been arrested discharging a gun like that (especially in suburban California), and knowing that, would have been a lot less likely to pull a weapon.

          1. They don’t just want to be treated special, they are treated special. LEOPA and LEOBOR don’t make much distinction between on- and off-duty cops.

            1. Did you mean LEOSA? Yeah, that law makes no distinctions between on and off duty because it explicitly grants cops and retired cops the right to carry concealed anywhere in the nation.

              The LEOBOR is a bunch of procedural protections but it seems to be regarding investigations of official acts.

              I think it’s bullshit how the police unions circle the wagons and that cops literally get away with murder sometimes.

              But I think it’s a pretty slippery slope to disregard even the consideration of some guy’s 2nd Amendment right to protect his property simply because of his profession.

              1. Did you mean LEOSA?

                Yes. Looks like LEOPA is another bill.

                The LEOBOR is a bunch of procedural protections but it seems to be regarding investigations of official acts.

                Not in my state. LEOBOR is about law enforcement officers charged with offenses regardless of the nature of those offenses.

                But I think it’s a pretty slippery slope to disregard even the consideration of some guy’s 2nd Amendment right to protect his property simply because of his profession.

                I’m not discounting anyone’s right to keep and bear arms, or to use those arms in self-defense. But people should be held equal before the law.

                1. Yes. So the best way to think about all this is this: Whenever a private party has its rights violated by another party, that is in a broad sense a matter of concern for anyone concerned about rights. But if it’s just one private party violating another, normally that is a matter of journalistic note per se only for the police blotter rather than for the libertarian magazine.

                  But in certain cases things are different. For instance, if the local PD allows counterdemonstrators to attack a Klan rally, then even though the police do not really have a duty to protect any specific party, there is an obvious matter of potential 1A/14A interest there. And likewise, if as here the serious rights-violating party is a public official, even while acting privately (and remember, a cop can invoke the power of the state any time at the snap of his fingers even when “off duty”), it is naturally a matter of interest.

                  I think to call Reason‘s attention to this matter out-of-context “cop hate” would be completely unwarranted.

                  1. So DiegoF actually is saying that cops can never be treated as private citizens and therefore they may or may not be afforded as much protection from the 2nd Amendment as any other citizen. And perhaps other rights as well?

                    It shouldn’t matter whether that guy is a cop or a baker. If he recklessly endangered the safety of those kids, and/or assaulted them, then he should prosecuted. If not, then he should get off. Everybody should be held to the same standard. Isn’t that what we all complain about when cops get away with shit? It goes both ways.

                    I didn’t say “cop hate”. And I guess it wasn’t clear, but my comment was more directed toward the commentariat than Reason itself. The fact that there were big demonstrations make it newsworthy.

                    1. So DiegoF actually is saying that cops can never be treated as private citizens and therefore they may or may not be afforded as much protection from the 2nd Amendment as any other citizen. And perhaps other rights as well?

                      Where did I say anything remotely like that? To the contrary, I was saying exactly what you just said in the rest of your comment. Yes, I did misread you as commenting about the article, but I didn’t really see anything in the comments that suggested people were declaring that cops don’t have the same rights as the rest of us do. I may well have missed some comments; I didn’t read all of them too carefully. But maybe also you misread some of them yourself, given how you completely misread mine, no?

                    2. Well darn. I don’t really know how to interpret this part of your statement much differently:

                      if as here the serious rights-violating party is a public official, even while acting privately (and remember, a cop can invoke the power of the state any time at the snap of his fingers even when “off duty”)

                      The fact that you used scare quotes around “off duty” makes it pretty clear to me, as does the part say “even while acting privately”.

                      You’re right this thread in particular doesn’t have many of those kinds of comments, although there are a few. I was perhaps speaking too broadly about the long history of the commentariat.

                    3. If a mayor had done this to some kids who were on his lawn, of course he should be treated no differently by the courts. But, as I mentioned, it would draw the attention of libertarians in a way another crazy old man’s actions would not. While it would not exactly be an abuse of power per se, its proximity to power, so to speak, makes it a natural matter to want to keep a closer eye on. Being a state official, having power, is not something that one magically can take on and off. It does adhere to a person’s person, in some sense, even when they are not “on the clock.” Yes, even when acting privately.

                      Additionally, with respect to cops: Look, it is conceivable that a state could have written the law so that LEOs are completely “off duty” when they punch out. They’d have no more privileges, and be no more able to invoke full cop privileges in an instant, than I would be. But that is not how any state operates. I didn’t write the law that way; it’s just reality. (Though I think I do indeed pretty much support the way it’s written.)

                      I continue to be puzzled why simply pointing this out is somehow misinterpreting or denigrating the reality of the cop’s off-duty status. And I continue to be utterly baffled as to how it in any way suggests that he is less entitled to the protection of the Constitution.

        2. But why do you say “the cop” and not “the guy”?

          My post may have been eaten so I’ll try again. The short version is: because the news story refers to him as a cop I did too.

    3. luckily, the kids didn’t have a dog with them.

  22. Breaking Legal News

    In a controversial decision, the International Trade Commission has ruled that, for import tax purposes, the Snuggie is a blanket and not clothing.

    1. Whew, really dodged a bullet there.

    2. What bearing does this case have on the status of bagel bites? Is it pizza or a bagel? It really doesn’t help clear things up that when pizza is on a bagel, you can eat pizza anytime.

      1. You know what else has pizza identity confusion…

        1. pizza burgers?

        2. Taco Bell?

    3. Huh. Snuggies are still a thing?

  23. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that she is open to the idea of using a subpoena to gain access to Donald Trump’s tax returns.

    So, let’s utilize Congressional subpoena power to conduct fishing expeditions when there’s not even any credible allegations of any actual wrongdoing. Yeah, I’m sure that won’t turn out to be something we regret.

    1. Dems should have gotten Reid out on the floor to lie about Trump’s taxes like he did Romney’s when they had the chance.

  24. Follow-up on Rio post-Olympics. No surprises for us libertarians.

    1. At least they’re not throwing good money after bad by trying to maintain the lots.

      1. I don’t think it’s a sudden bout of fiscal common sense that the government is letting the venues fall apart. It’s probably more like broke & disorganized.

        1. I’m sure more than a couple grifters took a look at those abandoned stadia and thought… we could house the next x/y/z there, and this time only lose 500 million on it.

  25. konima (aka bo cara) i suggest you chill. You got real upset above about Rufus comment regarding obama…such that you obsessed to trying to get my ideology wtf. Relax man.

    What it suggests is Obama is an important figure in your life and you didn’t like what was said. Instead of arguing a counter point, you go on a witch hunt to determine ideology or something.

    I am not a trump fan and did not vote for him if this helps you feel better.

  26. According to a new poll, “a majority of Americans say they trust the media more than President Trump.”

    And what of us who do not trust the polls??

  27. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that she is open to the idea of using a subpoena to gain access to Donald Trump’s tax returns.

    Why? To what end?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.