A.M. Links: Gorsuch Fight May Go 'Nuclear' in Senate, U.S. Threatens Unilateral Action Over Syria Chemical Weapons Attack

|

  • C-SPAN

    Today is the day Senate Republicans may invoke the "nuclear option," a rules change that would kill the filibuster for all Supreme Court nominees going forward and bring the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to a final vote this week.

  • "The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has warned that the Trump Administration would consider acting unilaterally or with partners if the Security Council doesn't respond to the apparent chemical weapons attack in northern Syria."
  • Stephen Bannon has been removed from President Donald Trump's National Security Council.
  • President Trump told The New York Times that he may move forward soon with his plans for a $1 trillion infrastructure bill. "Infrastructure is so popular with the Democrats and pretty popular with the Republicans. A lot of Republicans want infrastructure, too," Trump declared.
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan: "The House has a [tax reform] plan but the Senate doesn't quite have one yet. The White House hasn't nailed it down…. So even the three entities aren't on the same page."

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

NEXT: California's Governor Rejects Anti-Competitive Marijuana Rules

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. Today is the day Senate Republicans may invoke the “nuclear option,” a rules change that would kill the filibuster for all Supreme Court nominees going forward and bring the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to a final vote this week.

    Life, as the American people know it, will never be the sa- ZZZzzzzZZzzzzz huh what?

    1. Hello.

    2. This is a big deal. The Democrats have made a bet that the media will continue to carry their water for them and blame Republicans at every turn.

      They haven’t been wrong on this yet. When Clinton announced that he was going to shut the government down and blame it on the Republicans if he didn’t get his way, I was sure that the media and the American people wouldn’t fall for it. But then a couple of weeks later he did shut the government down, and the same reporters and anchor men who told me that Clinton was going to do this and blame the republicans…. blamed the republicans.

      So it shouldn’t be a shock.

      But here we go yet again. We have a perfectly uncontroversial nominee. And the Democrats are out whipping up opposition based entirely upon “oppose everything” – which is an illegitimate rational for any serious legislator. An honest 4th estate would put every story about this into perspective by mentioning the Democrats stated strategy of intransigence in all things – particularly saying they would oppose any nominee.

      But the won’t.

      This morning I listened to the Today show explain that Trump was dipping in dangerous waters in Syria by opposing Russia. The same Today show that told me that Trump was in bed with the Russians. The same Today show that told me that Clinton’s strategy of enforcing a no fly zone and shooting down Russian jets was sound policy and not dangerous.

      They will carry that water, no matter how dirty it gets.

      1. The Democrats have made a bet that the media will continue to carry their water for them and blame Republicans at every turn.

        I wouldn’t say they’re making a bet, they’re acting on about 40-50 years worth of history, plus the fact that so many media and Democratic operatives are connected to each other via marriage or family ties.

      2. An honest 4th estate would put every story about this into perspective by mentioning the Democrats stated strategy of intransigence in all things – particularly saying they would oppose any nominee.

        When the media does this, most of the population cheers. People fully support the Ds opposing the Trump administration on everything.

        1. Team D cheers.

          Team R gets all mad and calls talk radio shows.

          But what do the guys who don’t follow politics do? Those union workers in Ohio who were supposed to be reliable Clinton voters? What do they make of it? How would you know?

          The only people telling you this are the national media. And the only way they have of knowing is talking to their New York and Washington media friends. And looking at polling data. The kind of polling data that has proven unreliable – gathering the honest opinions of people who do not agree with the mainstream media narrative.

          1. Maybe one day we’ll get to see if that matters.

      3. But here we go yet again. We have a perfectly uncontroversial nominee. And the Democrats are out whipping up opposition based entirely upon “oppose everything” – which is an illegitimate rational for any serious legislator.

        Same was true for Merrick Garland. Politics isn’t based on rationality, it’s based purely on expediency.

        1. Well, except for all the times that spite trumps expediency.

        2. The opposition to Garland was based on the Biden rule, that any nominee would be rejected until the upcoming presidential election was held. It wasn’t like the Republicans refused to vote on any of the SCOTUS justices nominated by Obama.

          The timing here is * slightly * different.

          1. Let’s be honest here – the Republicans would never have adopted that stance if it had been the last year of a Republican president’s term (and vice versa for the Dems). It was purely out of self-interest, not some principled, genuine stance that it shouldn’t be filled until after the election. I’m not advocating for Garland, but let’s not pretend the Republican reasoning wasn’t pure partisanship. I would have had a lot more respect for them if they simply said they found him to be an unacceptable nominee.

            1. If it were RBG or Breyer, they wouldn’t have fought an Obama replacement. Replacing Scalia with anybody Obama appointed would have drastically realigned the court for decades. Even if it was a retirement instead of a death, I think they would have let somebody through. Scalia’s death was just so sudden and surprising, and it was in an election year, and the Republicans held the Senate. I just think it’s bad precedent for people to start openly wishing for the death of Supreme Court Justices on the other side of the aisle. Vacancies from deaths are rare nowadays, and will likely be rarer in the future. I wouldn’t mind a precedent of replacing a surprise death vacancy with somebody similar, but allowing the president to get his choice when there is a retirement.

          2. There is no Biden rule. The Republicans don’t want Dem nominees, so will do anything to prevent it that they can get away with without losing the next election. The Democrats don’t want Repub nominees, so will do anything to prevent it that they can get away with without losing the next election.

            That’s fine, that’s how the game is played. But don’t insult my intelligence with bullshit about imaginary rules and the people’s voice, etc.

        3. And if Democrats won the Senate in 2014, they would have gotten Garland. That’s how this works. You need the Senate and the presidency to approve a judge. Also, putting off replacing a judge in an election year has been done many times before. The exact situation here was unique because of the surprise death and it being a conservative under a Democrat president and a Republican Senate, but it is hardly a radical change from usual.

          Besides, the Democrats are not even arguing about Garland or the stolen seat anymore, they have gone into full personal attack mode, portraying Gorsuch as a extremist radical that is an imminent danger to America. The Republicans never said Garland was a bad judge. They didn’t go into personal attacks on his legitimacy or his qualifications. They just said since a conservative died we should wait until the election, which would act as a referendum on the seat replacement. They took a huge risk, and it paid off. The Democrats are the ones being more dangerous and dishonest here, though.

          1. I agree. My point is to stop pretending this is about who is or isn’t an acceptable judge. It’s purely about who has the political power to push a nomination through, regardless of the actual merit or lack of merit of the nominee in question.

            Republicans blocked Garland because he was a dem nominee. Democrats are filibustering Gorsuch because he’s a repub nominee.

            Either side acting SHOCKED by the behavior of the otherside is completely phony, and I’m sick of the phony BS.

            1. Repulicans blocked Garland because he was replacing Scalia, who died completely unexpectedly, not because he was a Dem nominee. Had RBG died, I fully believe they would have let Garland through as her replacement. The Republicans let Sotomoyor and Kagan through without any real fight. Sotomoyor got 9 Republican votes. Kagan got 5 Republican votes.

              It was the Democrats led by John Kerry, and joined by Obama, who tried to filibuster Alito in 2006. That was more ridiculous than what Republicans did last year. On most things, the Dems and Republicans are equally terrible. On the Supreme Court, however, the Dems have always been the worse side, starting with Bork and Clarence. Ted Kennedy nearly single-handedly ruined the nomination process.

      4. The same Today show that told me…The same Today show that told me…

        Oh you poor dear! Victimized by the leftist gossipers.

      5. Ehh, the dangerous bet here is that Ginsburg doesn’t croak before 2019 (and that the Dems miraculously capture 3 Senate seats, otherwise they’re fucked until 2021). If the nuke is deployed, Trump only needs to nominate someone that 50 Republican senators can support. Hearings don’t need to be held, just put it up to a vote and the Senate consents.

        Granted, the next time Democrats have the Senate and the White House, they get to do the same thing. But most of the conservative justices are young and healthy, so it may not pay off for a while.

        Also, while going all-out against Gorsuch is probably based on “oppose everything” thinking, a lot of the complaints by Democrats are legit. From their POV, anyway. Look at the Posner opinion from yesterday. More and more Democrats are adopting a judicial philosophy based on results. Gorsuch is strongly opposed to that perspective. If Clinton nominated a Gorsuch to fill, say, Ginsburg’s seat (to remove us from the particular anxiety over Scalia’s long vacant seat), there’d probably be push back from several Democrats.

      6. The Democrats started with “we’re mad about Garland” but have gone full blown Bork. They are smearing Gorsuch as an extremist danger to the very existence of the country. He is well-respected from all of his peers on both sides of the aisle.

        The Democrats are so fucking shameless here, yet the press are carrying their water. I am legtiimately so fucking angry at how despicable they are and the press has their backs at all times. I hate the Republicans, too, don’t get me wrong, but the media is fucking useless. This new bullshit plagiarization story they’re not peddling is absurd as well.

        1. they *are* peddling…

    3. Didn’t the Federalist have an article showing how they could move forward without going nuclear? Of course, that would require prudence, so odds of it happening are pretty much nil.

  2. “The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has warned that the Trump Administration would consider acting unilaterally or with partners if the Security Council doesn’t respond to the apparent chemical weapons attack in northern Syria.”

    Haven’t we heard this tune before?

    1. The Red Line Waltz?

    2. Crazy old libertarian begs to differ.

      Ron Paul: “Zero Chance” Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..false-flag

      I too fail to see why Assad – who at this point has won the war – would bother using gas on a civilian target of no value. I would guess other terrorists, or a conventional bomb hit a supply of chlorine gas.

  3. Stephen Bannon has been removed from President Donald Trump’s National Security Council.

    Will the president still get his news from Breitbart?

    1. No, Infowars. Alex Jones would be much better on the National Security Council.

  4. “Infrastructure is so popular with the Democrats and pretty popular with the Republicans. A lot of Republicans want infrastructure, too,” Trump declared.

    Three cheers for roads!

    1. What’s Tyre,chopped liver?

  5. Professor behind designated drivers takes on distracted ones

    A Harvard University professor who introduced Americans to the concept of designated drivers to deter drunken driving is now taking on the deadly problem of motorists distracted by cellphones and other electronics.

    Jay Winsten is consulting with federal and Massachusetts officials to develop a new generation of public awareness messages.

    “We wanted to find out why all efforts to date to tackle distracted driving have utterly failed,” Winsten said.

    The key, he said, is finding a way to convince motorists they have but one job: drive the car. Studies demonstrate the plummet in a driver’s ability, when absorbed by an electronic device, to anticipate potential risks and react in time.

    Winsten also hopes to empower passengers, including children, to speak up if a driver is distracted.

    Thanks, Daddy!

    1. “We wanted to find out why all efforts to date to tackle distracted driving have utterly failed,” Winsten said

      Maybe a SMS text campaign will get driver’s attention.

    2. Nothing is more helpful in the car than a second or third driver mis-assess and shout, ‘WATCH IT!’

      1. That’s why I always tell my wife to either be quiet or close her eyes.

        1. My wife calls out point values and multipliers.

          1. My GF gasps when routine but to her scary stuff happens while I chauffer, but refrains from criticizing.

            Perhaps she realizes I’d blandly offer to let her take the wheel if she were to imply she could do better – my version of the “nuclear option.”

    3. The key, he said, is finding a way to convince motorists they have but one job

      Was he doing his professoring job or his nannying job when he said this?

      1. Yes.

    4. Today blames rising pedestrian carnage on distracted pedestrians, citing examples of pedestrian carnage that were not the result of distracted pedestrians.

    5. “Jay Winsten is consulting with federal and Massachusetts officials to develop a new generation of public awareness messages.”

      It’ll be really ironic if these messages take the form of those signs over the Interstates that show Amber alerts, etc.

  6. Obamacare Was a Political Success

    But in the long run, these policy defects may be overshadowed by the ACA’s great political achievement: popularizing the idea that the government should guarantee health care to its citizens as a right.

    I think that’s sadly true.

    1. I’m sure that will come as a comfort to the political animals who lost their congressional seats in 2010.

    2. I said it then and I will keep saying it. You’re fucked. You’re on your way to whatever shitty universal system is out there.

      Unless of course, America’s strong impulse for free enterprise is deep enough to reverse it.

      1. You are underestimating the American capacity for Hate and Grudges.

      2. And knowing us, we will make it even shittier than every other government-run “health care” out there.

        1. In fairness, we have a huge country of 320 million people (likely millions more when this universal system arrives), an incredibly heterogenous population, governed by a collection of competing polities with individual taxing and spending powers. There’s no way for it not to be a clusterfuck, and worse than a lot of other countries’ systems. And that’s before you get into the existing cartels and corporate policies that an American single payer system would have to accommodate.

    3. popularizing the idea that the government should guarantee health care to its citizens as a right.

      Also, popularizing calling health insurance health care.

    4. I don’t think it’s been made popular yet. And if it’s true “in the long run,” whenever that may be, that many Americans see health care as a right guaranteed by government programs, that was probably gonna happen with or without the particular bill we got in 2010.

      1. I agree with the latter part of your statement, but I think we are there now. We can’t have poor people dying in the streets, or recent college grads who move to Brooklyn not being able to afford health insurance because they wanted to live in Brooklyn.

        1. Nice things for people in need is always popular. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and ACA are all conditioning Americans for full government provision, but the difficulty with rolling back any of those programs is not because of a trust in government health care. It’s that rolling them back looks like it requires short-term pain and chaos, which isn’t nice and should be avoided. I think dissatisfaction with the ACA is a yuge reason Trump won, even if a lot of those same dissatisfied people oppose actually repealing many of the nice-sounding provisions of the law.

          If the ACA sticks around long enough for a new generation to grow up with it, that may be the final straw. They will be fully conditioned to the government guaranteeing their health insurance policies, and it’s an easy and seemingly rational step to transition to government-provided health care. It will save money and reduce redundancies, right?

          1. a lot of those same dissatisfied people oppose actually repealing many of the nice-sounding provisions of the law.

            Correct. It’s something like: Obamacare is bad, so I don’t like it, but I want something, so make it cheaper. Maybe that doesn’t constitute a “right,” but I do think the younger generation – let’s say anyone under forty – thinks that the government should be directly involved somehow. They don’t understand the details, or how much it costs, they just want to make sure that their friends with shitty jobs and poor people are taken care of.

            1. Yes, a lot of Americans will agree with that weakass notion of the government “guaranteeing” this or that, but I do think we have a ways to go before reaching rights status. If you take a guy from Michigan or Oklahoma and a guy from Manchester or Montreal, and ask them about a right to health care, you’ll likely get very different answers.

              1. The definition of whatever a “right” is would receive a different answer from everyone as well, which is why I think people think there should be a “right” to healthcare.

  7. “The House has a [tax reform] plan but the Senate doesn’t quite have one yet. The White House hasn’t nailed it down…. So even the three entities aren’t on the same page.”

    They haven’t figured out how to streamline the US Tax Code and still add the right number of tax credits and schemes to buy votes from the American people. It’s not like anyone is going to give up using the code to leverage elections and engineer society.

    1. True,a flat tax is the enemy of congress and K street.

      1. A flat tax would stay flat for exactly one election cycle. Then they would start tacking on exemptions, carve-outs, special bonus tax rates for super wealthy evil rich folk… and we’ll be right back where we started before long.

        They can’t help themselves. The local incentives are far to great to think that people would continue to resist them.

  8. High school sports coach, 25, is suspended after ‘having lesbian sex with a 17-year-old pupil TEN times’

    A female softball coach has been charged after reportedly having ten sexual encounters with her 17-year-old pupil in two months.

    Kendall Lucas, 25, allegedly had sex with the girl between March and May last year while she was head coach of her softball team at Taylor High School in Austin, Texas.

    1. The most trying part of secretly having sex TEN times is that she’s too young to rent a U-Haul. Am I right, people?

    2. There is no question that the woman pictured in the article is a softball coach.

      1. But would you have ever guessed that the softball coach was a lesbian? So weird, right?

        1. All stereotypes exist for a reason. I say this as a gay man who hates most of the other gays.

    3. She did not have sexual relations with that young woman….

      You just have to know how to correctly parse the English language.

    4. Would…but can’t.

      CB

    5. She could be jailed for 20 years

      Oh FFS how could that possibly be justified. Some murderers get less time.

  9. Pictured: Ringleader of ruthless gang of strippers who ‘spiked their rich clients’ drinks’ with drugs and robbed them’ changes from fuzzy slippers into killer heels to court as she’s sentenced to just probation

    Barbash and her cohort of adult entertainers were arrested in the summer of 2014 for allegedly plying unsuspecting victims with ecstasy, cocaine and prescription drugs and then taking them to Scores in Manhattan and the RoadHouse NYC Gentleman’s Club in Queens.

    An undercover investigation was said to have found that the women joined in a scheme to rip off the men by drugging them with Molly, a powerful powder form of ecstasy after arranging to meet them on ‘dates’.

    Three years probation?

    1. You would need to be on drugs to want her to adult entertain you.

      Also, she robbed and drugged people with *illegal* drugs. Drugs shouldn’t be illegal but secretly forcing people to take drugs should maybe remain illegal.

      1. there’s another word, “poisoning” I think.

        1. If she would have just asked I am sure they would have willfully taken the molly.

    2. Now, had they SOLD the men the molly, that’d be a life sentence. Maybe two.

    1. Bloop! was my nickname in grad school.

  10. Border wall with Mexico won’t be built ‘from sea to shining sea,’ DHS secretary says

    “It’s unlikely that we will build a wall or physical barrier from sea to shining sea,” Kelly told the Senate Homeland Security Committee Wednesday. A wall will instead be built where it “makes sense,” while other portions of the border might include high-tech fencing or other “technology.”

    Fire that cuck!

    1. How will we protect our amber waves of grain?

  11. It’s now illegal in Russia to share an image of Putin as a gay clown

    the picture was described last week on the Russian government’s list of things that constitute “extremism.”

    Item 4071: a picture of a Putin-like person “with eyes and lips made up,” captioned with an implicit anti-gay slur, implying “the supposed nonstandard sexual orientation of the president of the Russian Federation.”

    The gay menace is everywhere.

    1. Is there one where he’s fucking a leopard and once he’s done he breaks the feline’s neck?

    2. If Putin had been more David Bowie and less, oh I don’t know, Machiavelli? the world would be a different place.

      1. My KGB one five, he, he just stares back unblinking
        So hologramic, oh my KGB one five

    3. What about as a gay fish?

    4. Putin-Like Person was my nickname in college.

    5. How about a sad clown?

  12. House Freedom Caucus signals support for healthcare bill with changes The entire story:

    The majority of House Freedom Caucus members will vote for a Republican healthcare bill if changes offered by the White House are included in the legislation, the head of the conservative group of House Republicans said on Thursday.

    U.S. Representative Mark Meadows said the group wants to see health insurance coverage waivers related to community rating protections with the exception of gender, essential health benefits and guaranteed issue.

    “If those offers that were made over the last couple of days actually appear in the legislation, the majority, if not almost all of the Freedom Caucus, will vote for this bill,” he said at a Politico news event.

    1. Sooooo, the Not-Really-Freedom Caucus?

      1. It’s more like they woke up with marker drawings all over their faces, a terrible headache, and suddenly remember that at some point during the party, they screwed the pooch in front of everybody.

        1. They’re getting concessions from Trump, but they’re still idiots who totally fucked this up, right?

      2. Look, nobody in the ruling class is gonna have the same definition of “freedom” that a libertarian or an anarchist or a leftist poser might have.

    1. Meh, she’s got ugly feet.

      /John

    1. Excellent quote:

      “Shrimp and lobsters are the cockroaches of the ocean”.

      —-Brooke Burke

      1. mmmmm, yummy delicious cockroaches of the ocean

        1. Incidentally, crabs are the crabs of the ocean.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw28hmEYrJM

          1. Chicken of the Crab. or something.

      2. My uncle called them the ‘scavengers of the sea and you eat their shit’ back in the 1980s.

      3. She’s a smart cookie.

        1. I didn’t know that she wore clothes to begin with.

  13. “Today is the day Senate Republicans may invoke the “nuclear option,” a rules change that would kill the filibuster for all Supreme Court nominees going forward and bring the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to a final vote this week.”

    I’m not sure which side is worse on this: the Republicans for making permanent rule changes for just one nominee or the Democrats for forcing rule changes over a nominee whose main point of controversy is being nominated by Trump.

    I suspect the Democrats would take a lot of heat with swing voters for filibustering a good nominee, and the Republicans may need to filibuster someone truly awful that, say, President Elizabeth Warren appoints in the future.

    And who’s to say the Democrats’ filibuster won’t wither under public criticism?

    So, I say the weight of blame goes more to the Republicans. Maybe the reason the Democrats rarely hang themselves is because the Republicans rarely give them enough rope.

    1. Supreme Court nominees are all apolitical supporters of strict interpretation of the Constitution. It doesn’t matter who nominates who.

    2. Other than Gorsuch could get in the final round of this session on SCOTUS what is the harm of continuing to trot him out there for confirmation? Are there rules against it? I think you are right that the Rs could make the Ds look worse and worse if they start to be seen as the ones who are unworkable.

      1. Trump wants his appointee (whomever it is) weighing in on Supreme Court decisions sooner rather than later.

        Also, after being rejected, an appointee may not be willing to go on the rack twice.

        Those are probably the overriding considerations.

        Along with the fact that the general public frowns on the Senate holding up appointees without good reason.

        Incidentally, that’s what keeps Congress from impeaching Presidents, too–the American people won’t stand for that without just cause.

      2. I think you are right that the Rs could make the Ds look worse and worse if they start to be seen as the ones who are unworkable.

        They’ve already publicly and loudly announced that they are opposing any nominee Trump sends up. This has been covered (sometimes glowingly) on every news network.

        The two base audiences aren’t going to change their mind. They are with the team hive mind regardless. The media is full-tilt on Team Dem.

        Plus, nobody understands this stuff, and nobody cares. Trump ain’t getting the middle behind him by complaining about an unfair process. The media will spin anything he does hard to the negative. So he might as well win now.

        In years past, Senate decorum would hold the partisanship back enough to let an uncontroversial nominee pass with bipartisan support. But in the current environment neither base is in a mood to let their representatives work together.

        So nuclear it is.

        1. I’ve seen playground tard-fights with more dignity than Congress.

      3. How can Gorsuch be not controversial? Sen. Merkley, elected by the dipshits in Oregon, has told us:
        “This is an extreme nominee from the far right who doesn’t believe in the fundamental vision of ‘We the People’ and makes decision after decision through tortured, twisted, contrived arguments defined for the powerful over the people.”

        1. That’s the worst part. The Democrats are saying they will never let any sort of mainstream conservative justice on the court ever again. By portraying a well-respected and mainstream judge as a radical dangerous extremist, they are going far beyond what the Republicans did to Garland. They just wanted to replace a conservative with another conservative. They never went into personal or professional attacks on Garland or said he was a dangerous threat to America.

    3. I don’t know why this would be a surprise to anyone. It was obvious the Democrats were going to pull this after the Republicans refused to appoint Merrick Garland, and it was obvious that this would be the Republican response after Harry Reid rubbed this tactic in their face.

      One of the reasons Trump’s supporters put up with his chaotic governing style is because, unlike the majority of his party, he doesn’t mind getting in shit-flinging contests with Democrats. He seems to be one of the few who understand that the media and the Dems will never give a Republican a fair shake unless that Republican rolls over and shows his belly like McCain, and thus treats them with the contempt they deserve. Long term, it won’t work very well in holding this country together, but at least its a recognition of certain political realities.

  14. the apparent chemical weapons attack in northern Syria.

    The old “weapons of mass destruction” fake news again. Sounds like we may be getting thrown another “curveball”.

    Don’t fall for this tired, recycled old bullshit mister president. Normal Americans struggling just to make ends meet simply don’t give a flying rat’s ass about the Syrian civil war. Killing each other is those peoples’ regional pastime; it’s the only thing they’re any good at. And enough Americans have already been killed and maimed for absolutely nothing. Remember why it is you got elected.

    1. Simple Mikey thinks Donald Trump is going to come to Hit’n’Run looking for encouragement and advice.

      1. I bet an Obama-worshipping, Islamonazis-loving lib scumbag like you would love to see us get dragged into another pointless war based on fake news to help ISIS and Al Qaeda too.

        1. Simple Mikey’s invented aspersions are just as retarded and baseless as the nicknames he comes up with. Sad!

    2. Dumpestic Pissident has clearly never had a good falafel.

      1. I hear you can get good ones in Aleppo. Too bad we can’t strap a parachute onto your sorry ass and drop you in the middle of town.

        1. Simple Mikey seems unclear on what “falafel” is.

    3. Normal Americans struggling just to make ends meet simply don’t give a flying rat’s ass about the Syrian civil war.

      Mikey, what is a “normal American,” and what do these “normal American’s” want?

      1. Well, they DON’T want falafels, and they don’t want “curveballs.”

        1. Complete losers who get their jollies talking to themselves using different screen names: DEFINITELY not normal.

          1. Names like Mike M. and Domestic Dissident?

          2. Oh dear. Simple Mikey is starting to assume that everybody making fun of his stupidity must really be just one person. Sad!, but also hilarious!

  15. Are the Mexicans going to pay for the infrastructure?

  16. Jobs programs and unilateral action, huh? So it took about a month in DC for trump to go native. I’m shocked.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.