Stormy Daniels Sues Trump, Geek Squad Served as FBI Stooges for a Decade, France May Set Sexual Consent Age at 15: A.M. Links

|


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

NEXT: Brickbat: Package Delivery

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. Porn star Stormy Daniels is suing Donald Trump for allegedly failing to sign the nondisclosure agreement…

    Maybe he thought it was a terrible deal.

    1. If she signed the document and accepted the money, the contract is binding on her, no question. Isn’t that the definition of contract?

      She may have redress of Trump has violated the terms of the contract herself, but I imagine she merely thinks the payoff from the spilling of the news is going to be greater than the money paid previously. Sad.

      1. I imagine she merely thinks the payoff from the spilling of the news is going to be greater than the money paid previously

        If the money is all that is at stake, that sounds like a pretty rational reason to break the agreement.

      2. This is a shakedown for more money. Its the only explanation that makes sense.

        Shes suing to have the contract voided, and if it is she’d have to give the money back. But why? She could just say what she wants to say and make Cohen sue her for breach of the contract, which would have as a worst case result her being liable for damages equal to the money she was paid. Either way, if she talks she’s liable for the money that was paid to her. Theres no additional possible damages under the contract, any other liability would be based on some other claim (such as defamation) which could be made regardless of the validity of this contract.

        I mean, she could come out today and just say whatever she wanted to say, and the worst case result of that would be the same as if she wins this lawsuit. So what benefit accrues to her from this suit?

        None. She gains nothing. Winning this suit puts her in the worst possible outcome. What it does do is signal her high willingness to talk, possibly inducing a settlement offer for a new NDA. I can’t really think of anything else this suit might do for her.

        1. And, realistically, everyone thinks he’s diddled this Stormy Daniels anyway, and they just don’t care. I’m sure that the news networks would run night and day with the salacious bits, but there are so many new stories they could invent. Maybe she’s signalling her willingness to talk/settle, because she has tried to flog this story around to the newsies who yawned; now she’s hoping for a better offer on the NDA.

          [I’m imagining a bored CNN exec saying ‘Pics or GTFO’, and she’s remembering a pair of age-blotched polaroids. Ah, the hardships we endured before digital cameras.]

          [[Interesting point, OGREtheTroll. You changed my thinking on this.]]

        2. Perhaps the lawsuit prevents him from simply signing the contract today.

          1. Trump doesn’t need to sign the contract for it to be valid and binding on Daniels. He doesn’t even need to be a party to it. If Cohen and Daniels had an agreement where he pays her money for her not to talk about Trump, thats sufficient whether Trump even knows about the agreement or not. The agreement doesn’t need to be signed either, oral agreements are binding except in certain particular cases (such as transfers of real estate. depends on state law).

            I’d point out that she took the money. Did she think it was a gift from an adoring fan? She knew what it was for. I’d also point out that she doesn’t appear to have offered to give it back, or to do the appropriate thing and deposit it with the court so the court can determine where it should go pending final declaration on the contract.

    2. Hello.

      As if France doesn’t have bigger problems.

  2. Congress’ pursuit of Backpage.com is risky…

    Like Congress ever suffers consequences.

  3. I think ENB has a girl crush on Stormy.

    1. She clearly ain’t that interested in men from looking at her beard, whoops, I mean “husband”.

      1. Stay classy, Simple Mikey.

        1. Don’t deny it – that was an improvement over the standard.

        2. As everyone knows, all Asian-looking dudes are not real men and have tiny penises.

        3. A real man uses catty internet comments to show off his masculine superiority.

          1. A real hetero man gets banned from a site that almost never bans people by threatening to use l33t haxx0r skills he in no way possesses, and then returns with a new screenname that is entirely about how much he wants to hold another dude’s junk.

          2. This is the primary reason why HnR is the manliest comment board on the internet.

              1. No, YOU shut up, cuckasaurus!

          3. That is just what a beta like you would say Crusty.

            1. If you were really tough you’d kiss us all right now.

              1. Crusty is a tease and never will.

          4. “A real man uses catty internet comments to show off his masculine superiority.”

            Oracular!

        4. It’s not just a mere coincidence that ENB’s Twitter image is an angry, scowling blonde leftard. It fits to a T, because that’s exactly what she is! An angry, hostile, man-hating feminazi.

          1. Do you own a mirror? Because you need a mirror.

          2. It’s not just a mere coincidence that Simple Mikey’s Hit’n’Run screenname is a reference to a piece of genital apparatus intended for a minor, third-rate Beltway journalist, because that’s exactly what he is! An angry, hostile, paranoid dude who wants to wrap himself around Dave Weigel’s penis.

            1. Jesus Christ, you people spend way too much time replying to his inane comments.

              1. You’re probably right. [kicks pebble]

          3. hawt

  4. The FDA has approved an at-home DNA test that checks for three gene mutations associated with breast cancer risk…

    Seems like this information would be too great for someone to receive sans a certified doctor to filter it. Or something.

    1. The mutations in question are largely in the Ashkenazi population.

      Maybe they figured they are all doctors and lawyers and stuff.

  5. France, which does not currently have a minimum age of sexual consent, may set the age of consent at 15.

    They don’t want their teachers diddling future presidents.

  6. The FBI’s relationship with Best Buy Geek Squad employees goes back at least a decade, according to an investigation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    Never trust a guy whose idea of fashion has room for a cell phone holster.

    1. The real crime is dressing up college drop-outs with rudimentary computer and electronics knowledge in shirts with the word ‘geek’ on them, and pretending this makes them tech savvy.

      1. It’s the fake glasses that they force them to wear that I find reprehensible.

  7. Opioid painkillers may not be all they’re cracked up to be.

    Our four-star generals don’t even need them.

  8. Opioid painkillers may not be all they’re cracked up to be.

    Just take a Bufferin and tough it out.

  9. The FBI’s relationship with Best Buy Geek Squad employees goes back at least a decade…

    Best buy elsewhere.

  10. Gary Cohn, the one person in the Dotard administration that understood economics, has quit over the idiot’s tariffs.

    Wall St does not like.

    1. If he is leaving why hasn’t he left. He is sticking around for weeks

      Is we waiting for the next batch of “Make America Great” pens and pencils to arrive so he can snag some?

      Does he want his White House credentials to give him head of the line or discounts to the Washington Monument?

      Does he want to give more advice to the President who will ignore it?

  11. I heard Trump’s economic adviser is bailing. Is this a case of an idiot lefty getting trolled by Trump or is it another move in Trump’s 20-D chess game?

    1. Warren Buffet said you want prices to go down, or up, so: genius.

  12. Still find it amusing how obsessed with Stormy Daniels the “Move On from Monica Lewinsky” feminazi crowd is.

      1. Plug your butt buttplug, loose stools

    1. Principals, not principles.

  13. OT, but bizarre: rental car managers report long stories of Miami, SF police doing all they can to avoid tracking down stolen rental cars. I guess this is what happens when “policy” is king.
    Stolen van in SF
    Stolen Bentley in Miami
    via Overlawyered. Sorry for the abhorrent twitter streams.

  14. The Dotard’s people are all quitting or falling around him and he is reminding me of Tony Montana at the end of Scarface.

  15. Any reason why this thing with the porn star is news?

    1. or important?

      Don’t see how this is pertinent to MAGA!

    2. Any reason why this thing with the porn star is news?

      I can’t imagine why it has piqued anyone’s interest.

      1. Joe Walsh hardest hit.

      2. It’s pretty perverse how many people are interested in the president’s sex life.

        1. especially a consenting relationship. If she had cried rape people might listen but its to late for that

    3. The libertarian edition of the National Enquirer?

    4. Any reason why this thing with the porn star is news?

      Poor, Roofus. He is trying to protect his dream-date Dotard.

      How cute.

    5. Have you ever seen the news?

    6. “Any reason why this thing with the porn star is news?”

      MEDIA: “You had us at ‘porn star.’ (and Donald Trump)”

  16. Commentary: Why Americans should give socialism a try

    In the United States, we’ve arrived at a pair of mutually exclusive convictions: that liberal, capitalist democracies are guaranteed by their nature to succeed and that in our Trumpist moment they seem to be failing in deeply unsettling ways. For liberals ? and by this I mean inheritors of the long liberal tradition, not specifically those who might also be called progressives ? efforts to square these two notions have typically combined expressions of high anxiety with reassurances that, if we only have the right attitude, everything will set itself aright.

    Hanging on and hoping for the best is certainly one approach to rescuing the best of liberalism from its discontents, but my answer is admittedly more ambitious: It’s time to give socialism a try.

    1. Someone needs to break it to this person that the US has been trying socialism since the 1930s.

    2. The ‘long liberal tradition’ is anathema to a socialist society. The idea of the individual above the state is kind of the entire basis of the liberal tradition.

      I assume they mean the actual philosophical tradition, and not just “US Democrats since the 40s”.

    3. I wish more people were aware that socialism and progressivism are repudiations of liberalism, not offshoots of it. Seems like it would be useful if words meant things anymore.

      A thing that is true: the socialist critique of capitalism, which is that capitalism can sometimes lead to exploitation.
      A thing that is also true: the capitalist critique of socialism, which is that socialism doesn’t fucking work.

      1. A thing that is also true: the capitalist critique of socialism, which is that socialism doesn’t fucking work.

        That’s because true socialism lead by true socialists hasn’t been tried.

        1. The bigger question is why the CT publishing rubbish from a remedial mind like Elizabeth Breunig?

          1. They shouldn’t be allowed to.

            1. They can publish whatever they want. The point is one could ask a little more substance from them.

          2. Because there are plenty of socialists in the US and it’s worth hearing their opinion, and as dumb as we may find Bruenig to be, she is a socialist writer of some note.

            1. And she’s cutish.

            2. “and it’s worth hearing their opinion,”

              Nope.

            3. If true, shouldn’t she be better at it?

      2. Socialists don’t like capitalism because it produces inequality. They would rather everyone be equally poor than unequally rich.

        1. I think that is just a rationalization. Socialists hate capitalism because capitalism allows people to do things socialists don’t like and allows people to get ahead based on luck, hard work, and ability at things socialists find distasteful. Look inside any socialist and you will find a judgemental person embittered at the world’s refusal to see their genius. Socialism is nothing but an excuse for self-important failures to force the world to recognize their genius and control everyone else.

          1. Yeah, for the actual ideologues, I think it’s all about control. Capitalism produces the wrong outcomes. Doesn’t matter if those outcomes make people happier or better off. They don’t know what’s best for themselves.

          2. Socialists hate capitalism because capitalism allows people to do things socialists don’t like and allows people to get ahead based on luck, hard work, and ability at things socialists find distasteful.

            I think that’s part of it. Socialists are authoritarians. They don’t want anyone to do anything unless they have asked permission or are obeying orders (“Who said you could do that?!?”). Innovation should not allowed unless it is approved by authority. So yeah, people getting ahead without asking permission or obeying orders is definitely distasteful to them.

            1. Maybe it’s only that the socialists are the authoritarians that aren’t apparent; they cloak their authoritarianism in caring for others [see Nancy Pelosi’s many speeches on inequality].

              Fascists and Technocrats and Dictators are easy to see as a problem. Socialism is a word for authoritarians who are smart enough to camouflage themselves.

              1. To paraphrase Bastiat, socialists see no distinction between society and government. Which means the government cannot be totalitarian, because the government is us.

        2. Conveniently ignoring the fact that socialism also produces inequality that is, at best, similar in degree to what you will find in a mostly capitalist country.

          1. But the inequality benefits those who are politically connected. In capitalism, the inequality benefits people who do things that intellectuals consider to be beneath them. In a capitalist world, the guy who dropped out of high school and started his own home improvement business that he builds into a chain of franchises is a much more important person than some guy with a Ph.D. in comparative literature teaching at a college or some half-assed novelist writing polemics. Intellectuals hate that. In a socialst system the PHD and the novelist are likely much more important since socialism makes those who hold the right ideology and have the right political connections most important. This is why intellectuals have such an affinity for socialism.

            1. Until the intellectuals get killed by the Party.

          2. Socialists worship authority, and under socialism the inequality is between authority and everyone else. So it’s acceptable.

          3. Of course socialism creates inequalities, it’s just that the self-appointed masters get to control the direction of the inequalities.

            My brother in law once told the story of having gone on a ‘spiritual retreat’ in the woods with a priest back in the early 70s. The priest drove them like crazy to teach them about honest work and all that stuff. When they left their tents to see how the priest was living they found him in a comfortable cabin eating steak while they froze with canned foods.

            They learned a lesson that day alright. Just not the one the priest had in mind I reckon.

          4. When we think we are opting for equality, we are in fact upsetting one equality in making another prevail. Love of equality in general may or may not be inherent in human nature. Love of a particular equality in preference to another (given that both cannot prevail), however, is like any other taste and cannot serve as a universal moral argument.

            . . . Very few of the countless inequalities people are liable to resent lend themselves to levelling, even when the attack on difference is as forthright as Mao’s Cultural Revolution. It is no use making everyone eat, dress and work alike if one is still luckier in lover than the other. The source of envy is the envious character, not some manageable handful of a countless multitude of inequalities. Envy will not go away once chateaux have all been burned, merit has replaced privelege and all children have been sent to the same schools.

            1. Err… quoting Anthony de Jasay

              1. I guess the theory might be that envy goes away when everyone is so busy chasing down bugs to eat, they don’t have time to notice their neighbor is eating rats?

        3. “They would rather everyone be equally poor than unequally rich.”

          Sadly, they fail even at that goal. They may impoverish the masses, but the nomenklatura get extra perks and wealth.

          1. “They would rather everyone* be equally poor than unequally rich.”

            *except for them

      3. It would be nice, but the people who honestly believe that also believe that Nazis were hard core conservative Republicans and they haven’t found the folly in that for 40 years.

    4. “give socialism a try”

      It’s not like cutting out dairy for a week.

      reassurances that, if we only have the right attitude, everything will set itself aright.

      Granted, I’m probably not reading the liberals that ole dead tooth* reads, but that’s not how liberalism is supposed to work. It’s about the institutions, and if we’re talking capitalism, the resilience of market institutions, that will set things right, not people in power having the right attitude.

      *of course it’s friggin Bruenig

      1. Note that like all Socialists, she must dictate what you think and feel in your heart of hearts to make their plan work. Notably, they need to dictate those things because naturally humans don’t work with socialism.

        It’s why socialism doesn’t ever work. Specifically, it’s because most of those that support socialism think that other people working will support them not working. Few of them expect to be the person working to support others. Mankind isn’t selfless. If we were, as a species, selfless than socialism would be the natural and organic state of being.

        Whoops.

  17. The dinner that destroyed Gawker

    Thiel had spoken about Gawker many times. He had spoken about it in interviews, he had complained about it to friends. It had come up in passing in conversation when Mr. A and Thiel had first met a few years before. Now sitting at this table in the city that birthed a thousand Cold War plots and counterplots, he finds that first successful return of those many trial balloons. Ambition and opportunity have collided and the kid in front of him is proposing a solution to that problem that Thiel has set upon trying to solve: Peter should create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to find causes of action against Gawker. Gawker has written thousands of articles about thousands of people; it must have made a mistake somewhere. Mr. A’s proposal is more than just an idea, it’s a comprehensive, structured plan: he has researched some names, he had a timeline and a budget.

    Three to five years and $10 million.

    1. Peter Theil should get some kind of award for his service to humanity.

      1. I want to see Trump give him the Medal of Freedom just to watch the utter meltdown by Sam Biddle.

  18. Opioid painkillers may not be all they’re cracked up to be.

    Pain don’t hurt.

  19. The Secrets of Snail Skin Care

    In these divided times, one truth seldom disputed is that animal secretions are gross. No matter how lovely the pup, dog slobber is plainly nasty. The yellow fluid that seeps from scared ladybug legs has befouled too many picnics to count. Bird shit is a windshield’s scourge. As a general statement of fact, people do not usually relish or seek out the presence of animal goop on or in their bodies.

    There are exceptions, of course. Squid ink is a culinary delicacy. Elite perfumeries covet the ambergris secreted by sperm whales, which is treasured for its irreproducible musk. Everyone loves honey, which is basically bee vomit. Over the past decade, another special case has risen from a cult cosmetic treatment to a standard component of skin care routines, first gaining popularity in South Korea in the 2000s and then moving into the rest of the world. Snail slime, the mucus oozing from a gland on a snail’s foot, is now a commonplace ingredient for facial ointments, masks, and treatments. “Cover Your Face In Snail Slime,” cosmetics website Into the Gloss implored readers in 2014. Both CNN and Bloomberg called it a “craze” in 2017. Drew Barrymore and Katie Holmes are reportedly fans.

  20. Steve Wynn ‘demanded manicurist touch his genitals by placing his hand over his groin while she worked on his nails and insisting they intertwine legs’ claims THIRD sexual misconduct filing

    It goes on to claim that ‘Wynn would rub Plaintiff’s arms or legs without invitation or permission’ and ‘become angry and agitated’ when the woman ‘objected or otherwise tried to retreat from the seating arrangement.’

    That was just one of the ways that Wynn forced the manicurist to touch him according to the complaint, which later states: ‘On several occasions when Plaintiff began to manicure WYNN’s hands, WYNN would place the hand being manicured over his genitals, thereby making Plaintiff contact his genitals through his pants.’

    1. The man thought manicures came with a happy ending. Who hasn’t made that mistake?

      1. I am confused. In all of Las Vegas he couldn’t find a decent manicurist who would actually consent to this?

        1. It’s not fun if they consent, dummy.

          1. I always get that wrong.

  21. Forget missionary! Tracey Cox reveals the ten show-off sex positions guaranteed to impress your partner – including the hang ten, the bamboo and the HANDSTAND

    Hang Ten

    Step one: He kneels at her feet, she sits on his lap and you both get as close as possible, him relishing the feel of her breasts squashed between you and both luxuriating in the feel of skin-on-skin.

    Step two: She pulls back and raises herself slightly to allow him to penetrate. Again, it’s not cheating to use your hands to guide him in!

    Revert back to the same position you adopted in step one, except this time he’s inside. No thrusting at this point, instead she contracts and releases her pelvic floor muscles.

    Step three: He stands as she holds on tight, keeping his knees bent. He then carefully lowers her, so she’s sitting as low as possible while still maintaining penetration.

    It’s hard to do much more than simply bash against each other once there but she can ‘milk’ him by repetitively squeezing her pelvic floor muscles.

    If you fancy finishing with some good old-fashioned vigorous thrusting, it’s relatively easy for him to plonk her down on an appropriate height piece of furniture.

    1. If sex with someone is so unengaging that you have time to work through a gymnastics routine, you are likely not doing it right.

      1. If they ever made this an Olympic sport, half the porn stars in America would be gold medalists.

        1. And if there is a dictionary definition of people who find sex uninteresting it just says “Porn Star”.

    2. Step 2: cut a hole in the box.

    3. Fact: “plonk” is the sexiest possible word to use in a situation of intercourse.

  22. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..8b433c7eea

    A day after Andrew Weinstein reaches levels of stupidity previously thought to be unreachable, Elizabeth Bruenig says “hold my beer’. We need to give this socialism thing a try because apparently, it is a really new idea that no one has ever given a chance to see how it works.

    Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.

    I don’t think that every problem can be traced back to capitalism: There were calamities and injustices long before capital, and I’ll venture to say there will be after. But it seems to me that it’s time for those who expected to enjoy the end of history to accept that, though they’re linked in certain respects, capitalism seems to be at odds with the harmonious, peaceful, stable liberalism of midcentury dreams.

    Words fail.

    1. I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor

      Um. Isn’t commodifying labor pretty much exactly what socialism does? At least for those with Marxist influences?

      1. Yes. It is called the labor theory of value. You are paid based on your labor and work not on how much money your labor makes. The entire premise of socialism is that labor not productivity should be commodified.

        One of the really remarkable things about the last thirty years has been the complete intellectual degeneration of the Left. The old leftists were nasty and evil but they at least understood their own views. Current leftists like Bruenig cannot even say that. She doesn’t even understand her own ideology. From what I can tell she doesn’t understand anything. All she seems able to do is string together buzz words and catch phrases with no understanding or regard for what those words mean.

        1. Let’s see if I understand this. According to the labor theory of value, something’s value is determined by how much work went into it. So a ditch dug by hundreds of men with spoons is more valuable than a ditch dug by one man with a backhoe. Is that correct?

          1. Pretty much.

            1. Anyone remember the name of the Soviet project to build a super computer to objectively determine everything’s labor value?

              1. So kidding? I have never heard that.

                1. So, this was an anecdote I got in an economics class about a decade ago, but I cannot find info on it now, so it’s best to assume I’m just mistaken until proven otherwise.

              2. “Come visit Moscow Museum of Science and Industry, and see world’s LARGEST transistor.”

          2. You see this all the time with art students. Some painting that someone spent hundreds of hours on, they cannot understand that it is not hundreds of times more valuable than some clever and engaging cartoon someone blasted out in minutes.

            And when the cartoon sells thousands of copies, and their masterpiece sits collecting dust … they feel so deeply how the universe has wronged them, and call it capitalism.

            1. One artist I met was acutely aware of how her role in society only satisfied the highest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy.

              Didn’t really seem to bother her, and I respect that. It requires an implicit acknowledgement that her goods and services are the first to be cut during a crunch, so her options are, like the great minds of the past, be born rich or die poor.

              If Isaac Newton hadn’t been from a wealthy family, we probably wouldn’t have gotten to the moon. Or possibly had cars.

              1. Artists understand that making up a cool sounding explanation for that work of ‘art’ you threw together can make you a ton of money, but only if you find a rich sucker to support you. Same as it ever was.

                1. Is there any sucker richer than a government that’s decided to take money away from people and spend it on promoting the arts?

          3. Not quite, because you have to account for the labor that went into making the backhoe. The labor theory of value isn’t as simplistic as it might sound, even though it’s wrong. People weren’t as dumb as all that not to recognize the fallacy of a theory that says a work of art must be very valuable just because someone put a lot of effort into it.

            1. Yes. And if you have a skill the labor it took to get that skill counts as well. So even under the labor theory of value, not all labor is the same. That being said, it is still an absolutely bizarre theory.

            2. “Not quite, because you have to account for the labor that went into making the backhoe. ”

              I didn’t think of that.

        2. Indeed. I can’t even get some people to acknowledge that socialism and communism are both governmental and economic systems. Karl Marx would be slapping these people for their ignorance.

          Just after I got out of high school they made Ayn Rand’s Anthem required reading. It focuses more on an Orwellian dystopia than her other works, but it’s a good step.

          Dystopian fiction was a huge theme for young adult novels in the past ten years. How can you read Hunger Games and then want to advocate for giant governments?

      2. If you don’t attach monetary values to it, it’s not commodified!

        Note: scrip or vouchers or the generic Credit is not money and does not assign value to your work, shut up

    2. “I’m not a totalitarian nostalgist. I just want the kind of socialism where a totalitarian state controls everything.”

    3. “”capitalism seems to be at odds with the harmonious, peaceful, stable liberalism of midcentury dreams.””

      Yep, it’s all about the dream.

      The biggest problem with socialism is that it empowers the state which empowers the power hungry people in control of the state. Those people will then use the power of the state to enrich themselves, and give themselves special legal privileges that the common man will not have. There is no democracy in socialism. It becomes corruption rules.

      The big difference between socialism and capitalism is that in capitalism the 1% gets their money by people conducting business with them. Amazon, facebook, ect. Where in socialism the 1% gets their money by taking from the citizens and stealing the countries wealth (Venezuela).

  23. France, which does not currently have a minimum age of sexual consent, may set the age of consent at 15.

    *cancels vacation*

  24. http://pjmedia.com/trending/gray-ladys-baby-steps/

    The New York Times admits Europe may have a problem. The word “Muslim” never appears in the article. But, the Times noticing that hand grenade attacks becoming common in a nation (Sweden) that has historically been one of the safest and most stable in the world is kind of a big problem is a huge step for them. Apparently the fact that these attacks are effecting leftist Latin American exiles rather than just typical white people makes the issue significant to the Times.

    1. “”””hand grenade attacks””‘

      I believe that is called “vibrancy”

      1. Sure the hand grenade attacks can be a problem but look at all of the delicious food trucks and how accessible uber is.

        Signed

        The Reason staff.

    2. What exactly do you want to see happen to the Muslims, John?

      1. I want to see them stay where they are. If I wanted to live in a Muslim country, I would move to one. Tony. What exactly do you want to see happen to the people of Sweden? Is it their duty to die and see their country destroyed so you can feel good?

        Why don’t you just be honest and admit that you don’t give a shit about the people Muslims murder? You make it painfully obvious that you are too narcissistic to see them as people or be bothered by their deaths. Everything is about you feeling good about yourself and knowing you are more tolerant than everyone else. If that “tolerance” means a bunch of people get murdered and see their country destroyed, that is not your problem because it is as it always is all about you.

        1. But you don’t give a shit about any Muslims the USA murders. Wanna tally up the score?

          And you certainly don’t give even a shart about how many people crazy fanatic white Christians murder. They do have the silver medal in terrorism in the USA to this day.

          1. Yes Tony you care so much about Muslims. You care so much about them you are happy to let other people die at their hands. We get it. You are tolerant. And you feel morally superior and that is all that matters. Leave facing reality and the world as it is to the adults.

            1. I’m just not sure how it’s productive to place your law-abiding Muslim neighbor in the same basket as ISIS.

              And I’m pretty sure you 100% endorse the Christian Sharia that Republicans are eternally trying to impose on me.

              1. The proportion of Republicans who give a shit about your sexual proclivities is small and shrinking. You’re going to need a new culture war.

                1. I never asked them to become obsessed with my sex life. But how generous of them to admit defeat.

                  Sorry, I mean shamelessly pretend that they haven’t been absolutely fucking obsessed with my sex life for decades.

                  1. Not everything is about you Tony.

                    1. You don’t know that.

                  2. Both sides of the spectrum are so interested in your sex life that they’re legislating on it constantly. Let us not pretend that the left doesn’t have it’s own special brand of puritanism running through it, and that it’s not increasing in scope.

              2. “”I’m just not sure how it’s productive to place your law-abiding Muslim neighbor in the same basket as ISIS.””

                Actually Tony, I think it’s about as productive as placing your law-abiding gun owners in the same basket and school shooters, which is to say it’s not very productive.

                Both have the same logical problem, they commit the hasty generalization fallacy.

                1. We’re not blaming law-abiding gun owners, we’re blaming the prevalence of guns.

                  1. Which just jump up and kill people all by themselves.

          2. But you don’t give a shit about any Muslims the USA murders

            This is pretty rich coming from an Obama supporter.

            1. You gotta stop watching FOX News if you want to have an intelligent conversation dude.

              1. You gotta stop watching FOX News if you want to have an intelligent conversation dude

                You gotta stop projecting your own ignorance on to others if you want to have a conversation in the same galaxy as intelligent. The first president in US history to have combat operations active in the Middle East during all eight years of his presidency is not exactly Muslim-friendly.

                1. Look at what he did to Libya and the hell it unleashed.

                  But Fox News.

                2. Bush started those operations and Trump is fulfilling his campaign promise to kill exponentially more Muslim civilians than Obama.

                  But Obama.

                  1. So the best you got is ‘he started, so Obama continued?’

                    And no…Obama was more lethal:

                    http://bit.ly/2ob2SMn

                    1. Who the fuck is talking about drones? Are you trying to confuse people or are you just stupid?

                      Do you remember Bush starting these wars and having a bunch of fucking troops on the ground doing a lot of fucking killing? Libya was a weekend sojourn compared to that.

                      God, I hate you people.

                    2. Yeah, Bush was awful, and Obama continued the awful shut Bush did so…Obama isn’t awful?

                      This makes sense to you.

                    3. Obama was less awful. Democrats always are. I didn’t pick their team randomly.

                      Nobody ever said Bush’s quagmires would stop being quagmires once he left office. That’s what a quagmire is.

                    4. “Nobody ever said Bush’s quagmires would stop being quagmires once he left office”

                      You mean like saying he’d close the Gitmo quagmire? Yeah, no one ever said they’d do that…

                    5. And Obama was perfectly legally capable of doing it and just… what? Tripped and fell on his way to the desk?

                      Do try to understand the actual history of things. I’m just as disappointed about Gitmo as you pretend to be.

                    6. “And Obama was perfectly legally capable of doing it and just… what? Tripped and fell on his way to the desk?”

                      Seems like it, yes.

                      ” I’m just as disappointed about Gitmo”

                      Disappointed enough to continue carrying water for the people who lied about closing it.

                      ” as you pretend to be.”

                      Unlike you and the people you nuthug, I don’t lie about my motivations.

                    7. Again, remind me which party started more wars historically?

                      And the dropping of the bombs came by way of a Democrat.

                      But I agree with them in that episode.

                    8. Oh. So now you’re differentiating on how the killing is done?

                      Right back at ya.

                      This coming from the idiot who thinks Putin impacted the Italian result because he’s friends with Berlusconi. It never occurred to him Russia took a stance well after the conditions were already laid before Russia could ‘influence’ anything.

                      The result was all Italian and by the Italian people based on the conditions of their country.

                      Just like in the USA.

                      Only a smug, left-wing prick would be pompous enough to think it’s not them the problem but some monster. In this case, they choose Russia as a scapegoat.

                      Evil.

                    9. I don’t know why you think actual right-wing fascism taking over Europe organically is a better thing than Putin sockpuppeting it.

                    10. He didn’t make a value judgment, he was correcting you.

          3. I think most people here are in favor of less blowing up of Muslims.

        2. I want to see them stay where they are.

          What about the ones in Sweden? That’s a pretty good question. If damage damage has been done by the large influx of refugees/migrants (and I think it’s pretty clear that there are problems), what do you suppose the best path for Sweden to follow from here on is? I honestly don’t know.

          1. what do you suppose the best path for Sweden to follow from here on is

            Something that would actually fix the problem is not going to be something most libertarians would like, that’s for sure.

          2. What about the ones in Sweden?

            It may be that Sweden’s value in this is to serve as a warning to others. Germany, you’re next. US has a while to learn, but may find lessons in Sweden that are applicable to Central American immigration.

            1. If we were able to learn from the mistakes of other countries, we wouldn’t be reading an OP-ED called, Let’s try socialism.

          3. It is a real mess Zeb. There are no good solutions. The Muslim populations of Europe refuse to assimilate. Some of that is the Europeans fault for not insisting on it and not opening up their societies for immigrants to succeed but not all of it. In Sweden, you have a large group of people who have no interest in adopting the dominant culture or doing the things that are required to succeed in it. And short of really drastic measures there is no way to force them. Meanwhile, they are violent and criminal as hell. So doing nothing is not an answer either.

            You can’t have Sweden as we know it if a quarter of the population is from Africa and has a culture that is tribal and fundementalist Islamic. But deporting that population or forcing that population to change is a very nasty process requiring some very nasty actions. They are just fucked. And the lesson is you don’t let large numbers of refugees in unless you are willing to really force them to adopt the dominant culture or know they are willing to.

            1. Honestly, I lay the blame squarely on the locals. Swedes won’t let *German* immigrants assimilate. Muslims have no chance.

              Two generations in and my 1/2 German relatives are second class citizens in Sweden. They have the wrong last name.

              1. That is part of it, but even if the Swedes had been totally inviting, I don’t think many of the immigrants they have taken in would have assimilated, especially with the Swedish welfare state. Why assimilate when you can live on welfare better than you ever dreamed?

  25. Gary Cohn’s resignation is far more troubling than any tweet by Donald Trump.

    If Trudeau doesn’t want to suffer the impact of the steel tariff, he better hurry up and acquiesce to Trump’s demands on opening Canada’s market to American imports.

    If Trudeau does accede, he’s gonna look like a pussy to Canadian voters.

    I mean, he already looks like a pussy in a lot of ways, but looking like the King of Cuckistan is one thing.

    Looking like a pussy to American pressure–and Trump at that–may be unforgivable.

    If you thought Canada losing to the U.S. in curling was bad, wait ’til you see how they take to their PM bending over for Trump–and either way it goes, that’s what it’s going to look like.

    1. “If Trudeau doesn’t want to suffer the impact of the steel tariff, he better hurry up and acquiesce to Trump’s demands on opening Canada’s market to American imports.”

      If Americans don’t want to suffer the impact of the steel tariff, what should we do?

      I thought this was just a negotiating tactic. You wouldn’t still support Trump if he actually went through with it would you?

      2020 primary season can’t get here soon enough.

      1. It depends. If one steel tariff as a show of force results in the killing of several others….

        If not…

        1. How did you feel about Ron Paul voting against the ratification of NAFTA?

          1. Ron Paul is the epitome of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

            I agree with the math that imposing tariffs is bad for our economy.

            I also observe that it is bad for our economy when other countries impose tariffs on our goods. Though not as bad as when we do it.

            I think we want other countries to lower trade barriers, and I think that in real life, a threat of imposing a retaliatory tariff is an effective tool in getting other countries to lower their own barriers.

            I think NAFTA, etc are a political necessity for getting everyone to reduce barriers to trade.

            So, if the goal of Trump’s tariff talk is to lower barriers to trade, then that’s great. I think this is consistent with his goal of “protecting our jobs.”

            I think that the tariff itself won’t protect jobs. It will destroy jobs. But a negotiation that results in lower tariffs is the right answer.

            And having read his book, I think that everything he has said and done is consistent with the goal of lowering trade barriers.

            He should be judged on the end result rather than try to guess what it is he “really means.”

            1. I think Ron Paul voted against NAFTA because voters because Ross Perot style concerns about jobs going south of the border were scaring a lot of swing voters in Texas, and Ross Perot’s party was likely to eat into his support base.

              I don’t think that was idealism at all.

              I think it was crass survival pragmatism.

              There are always rationalizations, and Ron Paul’s arguments against NAFTA were precisely that.

              If there’s any defense of Ron Paul voting against NAFTA, it’s that his vote was inconsequential. NAFTA was ratified anyway.

              1. Well, there’s also the fact that NAFTA could have just been a few sentences long and instead it’s a massive crony-capitalist feeding trough. Which is more or less what everyone seems to have expected from it the whole time.

      2. Trump has already said that the tariffs go away (or won’t happen) if our trading partners accede to two demands.

        1) Allow more imported cars from the U.S.

        2) Add a sunset clause to NAFTA.

        If the ultimate consequence of all this is that there is no steel tariff and Canada has to open its border to American imports, then we won’t have anything to complain about–except for the saber rattling.

        I don’t want to see a sunset clause to NAFTA, and that may be something that Canada can insist on not doing in order to open up their markets more to American auto imports.

        I don’t know that this is Trump’s strategy, but the ultimate effect of this may be to split the UAW membership off from their leadership. Canadian auto workers split off from the UAW a long time ago, but they still often work together with the UAW, support each others’ strikes, etc. Trump is effectively pitting them against each other–intentionally or otherwise.

        Trump’s rhetoric on trade doesn’t impress me, but I didn’t take it too seriously–until now that Gary Cohn has resigned. His record will be a function of what he does, and he still hasn’t actually done much yet.

      3. The thing about Trump is that I wasn’t counting on him to be a deregulator or a tax cut guy or a free trade guy or a fiscal conservative or a pragmatist in foreign policy. Everything he does right on those issues is a pleasant surprise–can’t be disappointed when your expectations are zero.

        I still feel like Rand Paul stabbed us in the back on fiscal conservatism over the revision of ObamaCare, and I was depending on him. That was bitterly disappointing.

        I probably won’t vote in the primaries.

        1. Rand’s vote was a negotiating tactic for full repeal. 🙂

          “Canada has to open its border to American imports”
          I would agree… open borders would be the best approach.

          1. Rand Paul voted against a bill that cut $1.022 trillion in entitlement spending–because of the things it didn’t do.

            And the alternative to that bill was ObamaCare.

            I have not forgotten, and I will not forget.

            1. Obamacare will die on its own accord.

              1. What about the expansion of Medicaid?

                1. What about the expansion of Medicaid? The Republican party rolled over on the subject of the ACA and cemented it into law, and we’re supposed to be pissed that Rand didn’t go along with it to make the outrageous and continuing cost slightly more palatable to fiscal conservatives? A group, one might note, who considers the whole thing to be an abortion of a program?

                  That’s certainly one way to ensure that guys like Rand can’t be elected, and that only McConnell’s are in office. That seems like a desirable goal, right?

                  /sarc

          2. I would be terribly amused, if Canada opened the border to US vehicle imports … and no Canadians wanted them.

            Outside of pickup trucks, the US auto industry is still pathetic. I laugh every time I see a JD Powers award for reliability given to anything made by GM. [Quick internet search reveals JD Powers was purchased in Aug 2016 by Chinese Xio Group. Huh.]

            1. I believe the issue is the American auto builders that are operating in Canada.

              Trump wants them to be able to grow that production here in the U.S. so they can be shipped across the border without tariffs.

              Canada has played that game for a long time. The idea that Canadian policy should favor or even require things that require work be done in Canada is as common as snow.

              Some of the laws Canada has that favor Canadians might be considered racist or unconstitutional here in the U.S.

              1. Like I said down thread…branch plant.

                I don’t give a shit we ‘build” GM cars better as alleged. A real, mature country develops its own car industry. Canada plays games with companies that aren’t even Canadian at their root.

                By extension, I don’t give a shit Spain produces more cars than Italy. No one who knows the history of automobiles would ever put the two in the same sentence when it comes to which has contributed more in the development and history of that industry.

            2. I travel to Canada on business and it seems to be full of American cars.

    2. Can we just skip to the part where you people claim never to have voted for Bush Trump?

      1. We all voted for GayJay.

        1. Yeah. I voted for Gary’s Johnson.

          1. The logic of principled non-voting always seems to creep up grab me in the days leading up to an election.

          2. How can I go around, as a libertarian, telling people that politicians aren’t the solution to our problems–and then turn around and vote for one one politician rather than another?

            1. I vote for the entertainment value of seeing the results be the inverse of my ballot.

              1. I remember as a kid in Massachusetts my dad always liked that he could see his vote on the county map pretty often. 1 vote for the libertarian and he would say that it was him.

                1. 1 vote for the libertarian and he would say that it was him.

                  Nice. I live in a town of 3000 or so, and the libertarian always gets double digits. So I can’t claim all the credit.

            2. There are more to elections than just politicians. There are also bonds and citizen initiatives. Which I tend to vote against as a general rule. Yet they always pass.

              Representative government my ass. It certainly doesn’t represent me.

              1. Yeah, I’ll vote on that other stuff sometimes.

                Yeah, one of the great things about markets is that you get to represent yourself. Representative democracy is insufficiently democratic by comparison.

            3. You are letting the perfect be the enemy of the “not as bad as the other guy.”

              1. It’s more than that.

                It seems to contradict my central belief that politicians aren’t the solution to our problems.

                Hell, if we persuaded the American people to our side, most of the politicians–who are already in office–would fall all over themselves to be more libertarian than each other.

                In my heart of hearts, I want to believe that some white knight will emerge from the shadows, win my vote, and make America the libertopia its always meant to be. In other words, I want to be wrong about my most basic idea–that politicians aren’t the solution.

                Wouldn’t it be great if solving our problems was just a matter of voting for the right politicians?

                In reality, we’re the solution to our own problems. The shit the government gives us to climb through is the shit we’re willing to take. It’s hard to tell people that out of one side of your mouth, and then tell them that brand x shit is better than brand y. But I’m a patriotic American, and I’m susceptible to those arguments.

                I want to believe.

                1. P.S. They use our participation as an excuse to fuck us.

                  How would they achieve the legitimacy necessary to screw us if our participation in elections fell dramatically?

                  1. How would they achieve the legitimacy necessary to screw us if our participation in elections fell dramatically?

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

                  2. Considering how many people actually vote compared to the number of eligible voters, I’d say no one gives a shit about ‘legitimacy’.

        2. Speak for yourself. I voted for none of the above.

      2. I didn’t vote for Trump or Hillary, but I laughed my ass off when Trump won.

        I’m still laughing.

      3. I didn’t vote for Trump. I voted against Hillary. And boy, was I surprised Wednesday morning!

        1. Guess we’re already here.

    3. So Ken believes Trump sacrifices pawn in ultra 20-D chess match.

      1. If you’re ignorant of the Trump administration’s demands in the NAFTA talks between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, which just concluded in Mexico City yesterday (or the day before), then that’s your problem–not mine.

      2. “Knight jumps Queen! Bishop jumps Queen! Pawns jump Queen! Gangbang! Come on jump the Queen!”

        1. I think the tariffs are tied to Trump’s NAFTA demands because Trump said he would drop them if Canada acceded to his demands on a revision of NAFTA.

          I think Trump’s demands for a revision of NAFTA are mostly about Canada allowing more cars built in American to be imported into Canada without a tariff and a sunset clause because in the ongoing meeting in Mexico City between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico over whether and how to revise NAFTA, that’s what the Trump administration was demanding.

          Chess has nothing to do with it.

          Me reading tea leaves has nothing to do with it.

          People are just uninformed.

          They know there was a shooting. They know Hollywood is going bananas over sexual harassment.

          And the next thing they know, Trump wants to slap a huge tariff on steel–because he got up on the wrong side of the bed that day.

          You can tell he’s grumpy because of his tweets!!!

          That’s the way things seem in the media. That’s not what’s actually going on. In reality, negotiators from Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. met all last week to discuss revising NAFTA. Trump’s tariff was a function of those meetings.

    4. What if the tweet prompts the resignation? Whether directly or as an expression of the attitude that prompts the resignation.

      1. Anybody who does anything differently than they would have otherwise, merely because of any tweet, is almost certainly an idiot.

        It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if people who pay more attention to tweets have a lower IQ than others.

        1. Do you think tweets just appear out of the aether?

          1. No, I think they’re the most important thing in the whole wide world, to the point that you should ignore everything else you know because of them.

            . . . to the point that you should quit your job because of one?!

            Are you still in high school?

    5. “he’s gonna look like a pussy to Canadian voters.”

      He already does.

      And yeh, now USA curling goes back to being door mats. Gushue would have slaughtered the U.S. team. /wink

      1. Like I said, being the King of Cuckistan is different.

        It means you’re so tolerant.

        Bending over for an American president isn’t like that.

        No Canadian–on either side of the culture war divide–wants a PM that will be a lapdog of the U.S. That’s one thing all Canadians agree about, isn’t it?

        1. That’s true. It’s always been a real feature of Canadian politics. Not to look like you’re the lap dog to the USA even if it’s in the best interest of the country.

          It’s all so wink-wink.

          Canada is ALREADY a branch-plant economy so it’s all academic if not moot. I always get the distinct feeling American diplomats (maybe even Canadian ones) know this and just play along.

          To me. I’m sure Canadian nationalists see it differently.

      2. “Gushue would have slaughtered the U.S. team”

        You mean that guy who couldn’t even qualify?

        (kidding)

        1. DAMN YOU!

          Koe was just too chill for my taste.

  26. “France, which does not currently have a minimum age of sexual consent, may set the age of consent at 15.”

    Maurice Chevalier hardest hit.

  27. “The FBI’s relationship with Best Buy Geek Squad employees goes back at least a decade, according to an investigation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.”

    I wanted to work at Best Buy in high school. I kept failing the personality test for answering like a human instead of a perfect little lemming.

    It’s definitely not because I’m not personable.

    I’m a libertarian, FFS!

    1. “I have people skills, goddammit!”

  28. IANAL, but maybe Stormy is suing Trump to prevent him from correcting his oversight?

    Maybe if she had moved forward with a book, he would have just signed the document and then shut her down? This way she might be able to get the contract voided, and she pays back the $130k from her $1M book advance?

    1. He doesn’t need to sign it, nor does he even need to be a party to it. If A pays B money to not talk about C, C doesn’t have to have any relation to the agreement for it to be binding with regard to A or B.

      And if she wanted to write a book she can still do that, she’d just have to pay the money back she was given under the NDA. She could do that today and doesn’t need a ruling on the NDA, as the result would be the same…shed have to pay the money back whether the contract is valid or void.

      1. The agreement was supposedly between Stormy and Trump. Not between Stormy and Trump’s lawyer.

        And I would think that one method of enforcing the contract would be an injunction against the book/movie/etc.

        1. You can find copies of the lawsuit online. Attached as exhibits to the complaint are the Agreement and the Side Letter. The Agreement states it is between “EC, LLC and/or David Dennison, on the one part, and Peggy Peterson, on the other part.” There are certainly provisions in the Agreement that could only be agreed to by Trump, but there is a severebility clause as well which intends to make the agreement enforceable to the extent that it can so be construed. As such, given that party A paid a sum of consideration to party B pursuant to the contract, and that party B accepted said sum, there is strong evidence of acquiescence to the agreement by these two parties. Whether ‘David Dennison’ is a party to the agreement or not doesn’t negate any obligations owed by the other parties to one another.

          The contract does contain a liquidated damages clause for $1M, and a right to seek injunctive relief to enforce the agreement. Voiding those might well be the primary purpose of this suit. If Trump isn’t a party to the agreement, then he can’t use the agreement to claim the liquidated damages or to enforce it with an injunction. But I’d consider it highly unlikely Trump himself would pursue either remedy while sitting as President; his best recourse would be simply to deny the whole thing like he has or to sue for defamation.

          Theres an issue regarding whether EC, LLC was acting as Trumps agent or apparent agent, and that can get tricky.

  29. I like the argument that the FBI didn’t order the geek squad to actively search for contraband, they merely offered them instructions and a bounty.

    1. The third-party doctrine has in the age of the internet because a trap door that drops the 4th Amendment right out of the BOR. It has to go.

      1. OK, but how do you do that without completely fucking over business owners? I’m assuming more than half the time their motivation/punishment is extrajudicial anyway. Even if you do fully empower them to protect their customers and/or bottom line at any cost, they’re going to end up dumping ‘problem customers’ into the cold anyway and we’ll all pick up the tab for their fundamental human right to internet access the way we do healthcare.

        1. You just require the police to get a warrant. If the business chooses to rat you out, I am not sure there is anything we can do about that.

    2. What would stop the geek from putting something illegal on the person’s computer and then collecting the bounty?

      Audit the FBI!

  30. The FBI’s relationship with Best Buy Geek Squad employees goes back at least a decade, according to an investigation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    I bet it was funnier and more entertaining when the FBI did it. OTOH, Yvonne Strahovski.

  31. Can’t decide whether it’s progress that the POTUS fucking a porn star is only seemingly relevant to whether his wife stays with him, but is not a national crisis, or whether it’s just Republicans being the universe’s biggest hypocrites again.

    1. If you’re fishing for people to defend Trump you’re in the wrong place.

      1. The same people who spent years defending Bill Clinton are now deeply concerned about the dignity of the office. It doesn’t matter what you think of Trump. We had this debate in the 1990s. And the people who said that it didn’t matter where the President stuck his dick or when or how he did it won. It is what it is. If those people don’t like those rules now, too fucking bad. They should have thought about that when they were making them.

        1. Oh, come on. You should know by now that these people have no principles. Their outrage is based not upon what the person does, but upon who the person is.

        2. We had an interminable national crisis over Clinton’s BJ John. That’s what I’m talking about. I get that Trump is such a massive fuckup in so many ways that fucking a porn star weeks before the election is barely a blip, but I still get to call you a fucking hypocrite.

          1. No one cares Tony. You lost the election and Trump is President. Get used to it. As much as your tears and anguish over that give me pleasure, at some point even I feel kind of sorry for you and feel obligated to tell you to grow the fuck up and move on for your own good.

            1. Okay I just feel kind of vindicated that all of you have outed yourselves as hypocritical nihilists who only ever used morality as a shiny object to distract idiots on your way to grabbing power for its own sake.

              1. Being a hypocrite stopped mattering to you a long time ago Tony, they’re just playing by your rules and you can’t take it.

                1. But I’m not a hypocrite. I don’t think what Trump does with his dick should be of national importance except insofar as it makes him a security risk.

                  1. “But I’m not a hypocrite”

                    The people you support are. That’s what was meant when I said “Being a hypocrite stopped mattering to you a long time ago Tony, they’re just playing by your rules”

                    YOU accepted hypocrisy. Now you cry about it and expect people to care.

          2. interminable national crisis over Clinton’s BJ

            Actually, the crisis was over the lying and it did terminate.

            1. That was a witch hunt, which if nothing else is a helpful comparison to the current actual hunt for real high crimes.

              1. That was a witch hunt

                Your use of the past tense means the hunt terminated, no?

                1. Technically there will be a heat death of the universe so the use of the word “interminable” is always figurative.

            2. Actually, the crisis was over the lying and it did terminate.

              I have yet to meet a leftist who would admit that Clinton was charged with perjury. Not a single one. They all insist he was charged with getting a blow job.

              1. Seriously. IDGAF about the BJ or any of his (consensual) sexual transgressions. Sounds like something he and Hillary need to work out. Stay out of my bedroom, and I’ll stay out of yours.

            3. The frosting on the cake was that Clinton signed a couple statutes which empowered the investigation into his behavior (Special Council law and Molinari Amendment in the crime bill).

              There’s the actual scandal – he empowered investigations into people’s sex lives, then got butthurt when it turned out the bills he signed applied to him.

              1. It’s hard to take all the cries of “Witch Hunt” when, by their standards, Clinton signed the Witch Hunt Act.

              2. Water under the bridge considering the only lasting outcome was egg on Republicans’ faces for their rank hypocrisy.

          3. It’s just about a BJ!

            Let’s recap.

            Clinton was accused of harassment by multiple women.
            He tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that he couldn’t be sued because he was POTUS.
            His affair with an intern was uncovered as part of the ongoing harassment suit.
            Bear in mind that an executive fraternizing with an underling is considered harassment in many companies. Consent is irrelevant.
            He then committed perjury when asked about said affair.

            1. Because there’s so little going on in the world what we really need to do is relitigate the Monica affair.

              1. No one is re-litigating it. It’s just that people (you) conveniently forget 90% of the relevant facts.

                And it’s just fun laughing at Team Blue hacks acting like an alleged sexual harasser is beneath the ‘dignity’ of the office.

                1. “”And it’s just fun laughing at Team Blue hacks acting like an alleged sexual harasser is beneath the ‘dignity’ of the office.””

                  I call it the Bill Clinton precedent.

                2. There is so much more Trump is doing to the dignity of the office that there’s really no reason to dwell on just his sexual improprieties.

                  1. That’s cute. You think the office had dignity.

                  2. Then why do you keep bringing it up?

          4. “”We had an interminable national crisis over Clinton’s BJ John. That’s what I’m talking about.”‘

            And what was the conclusion on that crisis?

            The dems in the house didn’t think it was impeachable, the dems in the senate didn’t think it was worthy of removing a president from office.

            Think about that last one. That’s why dems are looking like hypocrites on the issue too.

            And lets be honest, there are so many hypocrites now, that their opinion is not worthy of anyone’s ear.

        3. #metoo has obviously failed if Tony can’t see the difference between having an affair and sexually harassing an intern.

          1. You see how you’re doing that? Pretending you give a shit about hashtagmetoo if you think it can score you a petty political point on a message board?

            Why is Bill Clinton relevant to anything in this morning links? Whataboutism is for partisan hacks. Are you a partisan hack/

            1. “”Whataboutism is for partisan hacks.””

              First of all, whataboutism is really appeal to hypocrisy. It is a fallacy if you are trying to counter a point in an argument. It is not a fallacy if the purpose is solely to point out you are a hypocrite.

    2. Trump wasn’t using the power of his office to assault women and sexually harass interns.

      #metoo

      1. In all fairness, Clinton was having an affair with that intern. We only heard about a couple of things they did.

        Cigar anyone?

  32. Incidentally, here’s a short list of things (in no particular order) that are more important to me than Stormy Daniels suing Donald Trump:

    1) The weather in Kazakhstan
    2) What the receptionist is having for lunch . . . next week
    3) Who the Miami Dolphins* will draft in the seventh round
    4) Whether my girlfriend’s sister enjoyed her recent vacation
    5) The average wind speed of the African red-tailed finch

    *I don’t give a shit about the Dolphins.

    1. Now do it and pretend it was Obama.

      1. Now do it and pretend it was Obama.

        Having an affair with Trump?

        1. I’d watch that video.

      2. Well, the press sat on pix of him palling with Nazi-like Farrakhan…

  33. Not to be harsh, but why would anybody expect privscy from Best Buy?

    1. I think no one expected Best Buy to be able to use forensic software.

      1. If i am asking a third party to fix my computer, i already assume they will snoop.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.