A.M. Links: Trump, Tariffs, Stormy Daniels

|

  • Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

    President Donald Trump is expected to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum today.

  • President Trump: "Looking forward to 3:30 P.M. meeting today at the White House. We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military."
  • "An attorney for adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, who performs under the pseudonym 'Stormy Daniels' says the White House's claim that President Trump won an arbitration case against his client is 'ludicrous' and insists that Mr. Trump didn't 'win' anything at all."
  • Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam are expected to sign a new Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement today.
  • A U.S. drone strike has reportedly killed the son of the head of the Pakistani Taliban.
  • The gun control bill recently passed by the Florida Senate has now been passed by the state House. Gov. Rick Scott has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the measure into law.

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

NEXT: Don't Blame Tech Companies for Russian Election Trolls

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. A U.S. drone strike has reportedly killed the son of the head of the Pakistani Taliban.

    There’s always another son waiting to take his place?

    1. Does he get 72 virgins if he is a virgin?

      1. No he has to get in line with 71 of his buddies for the next drone strike.

    2. Hello.

      “Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam are expected to sign a new Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement today.”

      Afterwards, Justin Trudeau will perform for guests dancing and dressing in traditional attire of each country represented!

  2. Gov. Rick Scott has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the measure into law.

    Just wait it out, Scott. We’re already moving on.

    1. All Rick wants is to be the best dog-g-g-gone US Senator he can be. His ambitions must not be foiled by these amazing, but darn, kids.

    1. The Weather Channel is good for overblown storm coverage.

      1. Hahaha this was good.

    2. You need more porn stars? I thought lefties like banning porn and prostitutes from Backpage.com?

  3. We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military.

    See? It’s all perfectly reasonable.

  4. An attorney for adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, who performs under the pseudonym ‘Stormy Daniels’…

    Way to pull back the curtain on the magic.

    1. The beef curtain, am i right?

      1. Does it match the drapes?

        1. The beef drapes? What kind of women have you been dating, Leo?

    2. Sloppy purse?

  5. “An attorney for adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, who performs under the pseudonym ‘Stormy Daniels’ says the White House’s claim that President Trump won an arbitration case against his client is “ludicrous” and insists that Mr. Trump didn’t ‘win’ anything at all.”

    Then why am i so bored of winning?

  6. A U.S. drone strike has reportedly killed the son of the head of the Pakistani Taliban.

    WHY IS OBAMA STILL DRONING INNOCENT FOLKS?

    1. Ooooooohhhhh, now you want to say something about a president killing innocents via drone strikes.

      1. No, I was mocking the wingnuts who thought Obama was “soft on terrorism” and simultaneously the Droner-in-Chief.

        1. Obama was soft on terrorism and also droned innocents.

          Looks like Trump is not as soft on terrorism and drones innocents.

          1. We don’t know that he’s droned any innocents yet.
            I think those numbers usually come out in December.

        2. Droner-in-Chief may be the best description I’ve ever heard of for Obama. Thank you!

    2. Well its no worse than your constant retarded droning on and on and on that you pass off for arguments.

  7. “A U.S. drone strike has reportedly killed the son of the head of the Pakistani Taliban.”

    Well, Trump did warn us during the campaign that killing family members was a good anti-terrorist strategy.

    1. When is he going to take Iraq’s oil to pay for that shitty war?

      1. Afghanistan has far more valuable resources underground than oil.

  8. President Donald Trump is expected to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum today.

    Tin foil hats are about to be priced out of range, which is likely Trump’s ultimate goal.

    1. You lefties can always switch to paper hats, since Commifornia banned plastic accoutrements.

      1. “you lefties”?

        Yeah, LoveCons is the idiot who called Penn Jilette a “commie leftist” – confirming his idiocy for all.

        1. I called Penn a commie leftist, huh? You will need to cite, or you are lying piece of shit.

          Actually, you are a lying piece of shit, but if you can cite that quote, I will say you are only a dingleberry as far as pieces of shit go.

          1. Yes, when you said PJ was not a libertarian.

            Fuck off, you troll. Go back to Bratfart.

            1. That’s not a citation.

          2. I lost a lot of respect for the man when he voted for Hildog.

            At least he had the balls to admit it though, unlike many of the frauds in this joint.

            1. I think it was Bailey who voted for Obama because he wanted an end to the Iraq War.

              He regretted it, said he was embarrassed, . . .

              If I have the wrong attribution, I’m sorry–on the other hand, I meant it as a compliment.

              Everybody makes mistakes except progressives. They’ve never been wrong about anything.

    2. “…and aluminum
      Tin foil hats…”

      Swing and a miss!

      1. Puh-lease. The president knows that, like all facial tissues aren’t Kleenex and all adhesive bandages are Band-Aids, tin foil hats are actually made of aluminum now.

        1. My family and I kick it old school… Sn > Al

  9. Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam are expected to sign a new Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement today.

    BERNIE TRUMP DON’T LIKE NO FREE TRADE TPP.

    1. PB – for trade to be free, there need not be any role played by the state. Treaties which are thousands of pages long are anathema to free trade.

      If you manufacture product X and want to do business with an Irish supplier, why should the state be involved, whether it be the state of Georgia, the USSA, the Republic of Ireland or the County of Mayo?

  10. The gun control bill recently passed by the Florida Senate has now been passed by the state House. Gov. Rick Scott has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the measure into law.

    Thanks tot he 14th Amendment incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the rights of residents of all states, all gun control is unconstitutional.

    1. All constitutional rights are equal, but some are more equal than others.

      In all seriousness, isn’t the question whether the state is discriminating against gun owners on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or, now, what you like to do with your tallywacker?

      Incidentally, Walther has introduced a new (ugly) home defense pistol aimed at the novice market called the “Creed”. Given the way the left likes to read the Constitution, that might make the government discriminating against that model unconstitutional.

      Maybe Smith & Wesson will come out with a new model of AR-15 called “Sex”. After all, you can’t discriminate on the basis of “sex”–it says so right there in the Constitution.

      1. Perhaps a trans-auto?
        Sure it has the parts and functions of a select-fire M16, but it identifies as a revolver.

        1. That’s what the “+” in LGBTQI+ is all about!

    2. FL has a constitution as well, and it says things about guns, things that might give a power hungry scumbag politician like Scott pause to consider which move will produce the most votes.

      1. The people who care a lot about their gun rights care a whole lot about them–to the exclusion of other issues, I’m sure.

  11. “An attorney for adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, who performs under the pseudonym ‘Stormy Daniels’ says the White House’s claim that President Trump won an arbitration case against his client is “ludicrous” and insists that Mr. Trump didn’t ‘win’ anything at all.”

    I’m more interested in what Palin’s Buttplug is having for lunch today.

    1. Corn?

    2. Harvest Box?

    3. As his cock ring, I know firsthand that he has the same lunch every day: a peanut butter and jelly sandwich cut in half, and a juice box.

      1. grudging +1: meta trolling.

      2. Does his mom cut the crusts off?

      3. I hope the crust is cut off for him. I

        don’t think I’d trust him with sharp objects.

        1. Or myself with sentence structure.

  12. President Donald Trump is expected to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum today.

    Doesn’t it take legislation to enact a tariff or is there existing legislation that gives the president the authority to enact a tariff? Either way, I vehemently disagree with this.

    1. I would say Congress is the only government body to enact a tax like a Tariff.

    2. “Trump can also use the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Ronald Reagan used this one. It allows Trump to slap targeted tariffs on certain industries, like steel. It’s not as broad, but Trump can raise tariffs as high as he wants on specific things. “Source.

      I think that’s the option he’s using here. If the cowardly Republicans who claim to be for free trade had a single backbone among them, they could put a stop to this, but alas, they won’t.

      1. Republicans who claim to be for free trade

        The problem is that they are the party of mercantilism. I think they get away with the “free trade” mantra because Team Blue, having started as the party of free trade, went socialist when the proggies took over. I do believe there are free trade Republican’s these days and that, relatively speaking, they are currently the party of free trade. But, as you mention, they do not have a backbone to support this position in any fundamental way.

      2. All three statutes are without textual support in the constitution.

        Congress was just given the power to permit the President to impose tariffs. The proponents of the constitution assured the folks who participated in the ratifying conventions that Congress lacked the power to do anything not specifically set forth in the text. There were no powers to be implied, and any attempt to construe such implied powers would be void.

        Of course, if a judge approached the law that way, he or she would be quickly neutralized, euphemistically speaking.

        1. Additional reading

          Congress often cedes its power to the Executive, whether it be rule making by the FCC, EPA, etc. This case is no different. The appropriate check on executive power, though, should be to rescind those broad sweeping concessions of power and force Congress to do its job of passing legislation/regulation.

          Congress has become nothing more than an oversight body. That’s not what was intended by the founders.

          1. Thanks, it was good reading.

    3. They’ve deferred making these changes to the president for a couple of good reasons.

      1) To negotiate agreements in the first place.

      Foreign countries won’t negotiate with a party that doesn’t have the authority to make changes.

      Why should they stick their necks out and anger interests in their own countries by opening them up to American competition, when the American they’re negotiating with has no authority anyway?

      So, congress has effectively limited themselves to up or down votes on the treaty itself and not the administration of it.

      It’s a lot like a vote to go to war. Only Congress can declare war, but how awful would our war efforts fail if all 535 of them had to be involved in approving every battle plan? So, they defer to the president on overseeing the actual conduct of the war.

      2) They gave the president the authority to enact tariffs if it were necessary to do so for the security of the U.S.

      If Lockheed develops a giant robot with lasers in its eyes, the President can put a tariff on it to keep it away from our allies. Steel and aluminum may not seem like a national security interest, but lawyers can stretch that clause to mean anything. I’m surprised Obama didn’t use that authority to impose a carbon related tariff on all goods entering the U.S.–after all, protecting New York City from flooding up over the Empire State Building is about national security, isn’t it?

      Well, isn’t it?!

      1. If Lockheed develops a giant robot with lasers in its eyes, the President can put a tariff on it to keep it away from our allies.

        Proving once again that you have no idea what you’re talking about, tariffs are levied on imports, not exports. You’re talking about export control which is a totally different policy.

        1. Whatever.

          Sheesh, is your next comment about how I should say magazines instead of clips?

          Do you take care of proper punctuation, too?

          And to think I looked at this comment hoping it might say something interesting about the Vandals or Jonny Sokko.

          Ultraman even? You got nothin’?

        2. Export control is the same principle. When we tell companies they can’t sell something abroad, we are controlling international trade just as much as when we tell foreign companies they can’t sell something here. Conceptually there is no difference between the two. One is just the reverse of the other but the underlying principle is the same.

          The point is that there are cases where other interests outweigh the benefits of trade. One easy example of that is selling military technology overseas. Another example would be buying products from a hostile nation that then uses that money to do bad things to you. Once you admit that, then you can no longer claim free trade as some kind of moral end. Free trade is just another economic policy with its pros and its cons.

          1. Except you can’t get around export control by paying a tax.

            Free trade is just another economic policy with its pros and its cons.

            I disagree. Free trade is a special economic policy because it’s the only one that doesn’t involve and require government coercion.

            1. You can get around an export control by paying a tax. It just depends on the export control. There is nothing to say we couldn’t tax exports of some commodity we didn’t want to see exported in too large of quantities. And there is nothing to say you couldn’t enact protectionist measures by just banning some imports. The corn laws in England did just that.

              And saying “but it doesn’t involve coercion” is not a sensible response to my point. My point is that either free trade is some kind self-evident moral end that is beyond debate or it is not. If it is, then there can be no debate and every form of trade has to be allowed even selling military secrets. A moral end is a moral end. If it is not and there are some times when other interests must be considered and can outweigh the good that comes from free trade, then it is no longer a moral end and become just like any other economic policy that is subject to debate. Is doing this or that measure a good idea or a bad idea?

              1. I’m thinking of ITAR and stuff like that. No matter how much you pay, there are certain things you can’t export to certain places.

                My point on the free trade thing was about “just another economic policy”. The lack of coercion does make it morally superior in one sense. Yeah, there are probably pragmatic concerns about certain exports which probably justify some export restrictions. But those cases should be very limited. A lot of restrictions on technology exports are pretty silly. Some things you just can’t control like that.

  13. The gun control bill recently passed by the Florida Senate has now been passed by the state House. Gov. Rick Scott has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the measure into law.

    Well, just reading the summary of the bill in the article, it’s not as bad as it could have been, I think, but the worse part is that it’s a knee-jerk reaction to a mass shooting, not really an example of deliberative legislating. One big point of having this complex system of government is to allow for cooler heads to prevail in the face of rising passions from the mob. That seems to be thrown out the window here.

  14. A U.S. drone strike has reportedly killed the son of the head of the Pakistani Taliban.

    You guuuuuysss…we did it! We won, you majestic sons of bitches!

    1. Finally, the world will know peace.

    2. Finally, the world will know peace.

    3. Finally, the world will know peace.

    4. Finally, the world will know peace.

    5. Finally, the world will know peace.

      1. Huh, this was not my intention in the least.

        1. Well, I’m mean there was some cause for excessive celebration and all…

  15. In response to last year’s violence in Charlottesville, Virginia Democrats pushed for gun control and clothing bans

    “I would have preferred addressing the firearm issue because it really just makes a very volatile situation that much more dangerous.”

    He noted that state law prohibits people from impersonating a police officer or wearing a mask, so he didn’t think the legislation prohibiting people from dressing in military garb should have been controversial.

    1. Clothing bans? Hmm. Never thought of Virginia as a nudist paradise, but whatever…

    2. legislation prohibiting people from dressing in military garb

      Sounds like a constitutional violation to me.

      1. What about paramilitary garb? SWAT Teams across the Commonwealth want to know.

    3. state law prohibits people from […] wearing a mask

      How very European of them.

  16. http://pjmedia.com/trending/an…..e-threats/

    Anti-gentrification mobs getting violent. What group is known for being early gentrifiers? Gays. And Gays are no doubt a significant portion of the targets of this. At some point, it is going to dawn on gays that the Progs hate them just like they hate everyone else and only used gays as a tool to advance leftism to be discarded when no longer useful. It is going to be quite a shock for most of them.

    1. When white people move out of a neighborhood it is “white-flight” and that’s bad. When white people move in to a neighborhood it is “gentrification” and that’s bad. White people are just bad, mk.

      1. Nothing helps a neighborhood like burning down its businesses. This is especially true if you burn down businesses owned by evil white people or Jews apparently. These people are animals.

        1. Don’t forget about the evil Koreans, John.

          Oh, and worse than animals.

    2. Eventually on one side there will be nothing but stupid progs and the other free thinking minds regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation.

      All their actions do is further drive people to our side. And that’s awesome.

      1. They are really unhappy and unattractive people. They are no one you would ever want to be. At some point, that is going to make them the tiny minority they deserve to be.

    3. Muslims throw gays off buildings but the left wants more refugees and no assimilation.

      1. Yup. And the moment Muslims become an important enough source of power for the left, being openly gay will be seen as a form of Islamiphobia. That is already happening in Europe and will happen here if the left is ever able to import enough Muslims to be an import source of power.

    4. I thought Portland was always gentrified.

      1. It is almost like they just want an excuse to terrorize people. If this didn’t involve real violence and violation of people’s rights, it would be comical. The targets are straight out of Portlandia.

        A gallery closed its doors after its “staff and artists were routinely trolled online and harassed in person.” An experimental street opera was shut down after members of the Roosevelt High School band — egged on by a group of activists — used saxophones, trombones and trumpets to drown it out. A real estate bike tour promising clients access to a “charming, historic, walkable and bikeable neighborhood” was scrapped after the agent reported threats of violence.

        First, they came for the bike tours and experimental street operas and I said nothing…

      2. I’m sure the majority of Portland is not whatever the hipster part of Portland is called just like the majority of Brooklyn is not Park Slope or Williamsburg. In fact, they might just resent being lumped in with those assholes all the time. But hipsters get a lot of attention from the media so people forget these things.

        1. I hate these people even more for making me defend hipsters. I hate hipsters and would not want them in my neighborhood either. That, however, doesn’t give me or anyone else the right to terrorize them.

  17. Here’s someone willing to take ACTION!

    “Bumble Dating App Bans Images of Guns in Response to Mass Shootings”
    […]
    “”As mass shootings continue to devastate communities across the country, it’s time to state unequivocally that gun violence is not in line with our values, nor do these weapons belong on Bumble,” the dating app said in a released statement.”
    http://freebeacon.com/culture/
    bumble-dating-app-bans-images
    -of-guns-following-mass-shootings/

    1. There is something sexy about a woman with a gun.

      1. Seconded.

      2. I know which is my rifle and which is my gun, so they must be talking about banning dick pics.

    2. mass shootings continue to devastate communities

      Foreal. I mean, there’s been at least 12 in the time it took to write this comment.

      nor do these weapons belong on Bumble

      Virtue. Signaled.

    3. Whose values are in line with gun violence?

        1. Those are death threats against violence!

        2. Peaceful death threats, obvs.

  18. McDonald’s to Flip Arches Upside Down to Honor Women.

    http://freebeacon.com/culture/…..nor-women/

    Nothing like a pair of saggy tits to honor women.

  19. If Trump goes full retard on trade, it’ll have one funny aspect to it.

    The other week, Bernie Sanders was asked if he would repeal the Trump tax cuts if he was elected. He said “no, three times no”.

    I’m not sure who on the Democrat side is all against steel tariffs on principle–is there anyone out there in the Democratic Party like that?

    All this is to say that if Trump really does follow through on these tariffs, won’t he be doing everything for unions and against free trade that the Democrats have been pining for since the days of Reagan and Bush Sr.? Except for Obama making a mess of our healthcare system and bailing out Wall Street, will there have been a bigger lefty president than Donald Trump on economic issues?

    Is hatred of Trump really all about him banging porn stars, beating Hillary, and progressive hatred for the white, blue collar, middle class?

    What else are they running against Trump on, immigration? That bid to shut down the government over Dreamers only lasted for about five minutes because they couldn’t generate enough support for them–from within the Democratic Party!

    1. The Democrats used to be the protectionist party because they were the party of the working class. The Democrats are no longer the party of the working class. The Democrats represent the underclass and the overclass. The underclass just want welfare and the overclass just want cheap shit and the benefits. So the Democrats are now the party of “free trade” to the extent their cronies and supporters benefit from it.

      1. But are there an free trade Democrats?

        Trump’s behavior has got to be driving a wedge between the union members and their leadership.

        1. It totally is. But the Democrats have told the Unions to go fuck themselves for decades. The Democrats walked away from the Unions in the 1990s when the money from the green movement and the delicate sensibilities of the gentry left took over the party.

          1. I expect the Republicans to lose the House this midterm–for reasons that have little to do with the issues.

            But long term, if all the Democrats have is LGBTQI+, BLM, illegal aliens, radical environmentalists, and feminists, then the future is ugly for them.

            I don’t know if a free trade capitalist can hold onto the support of union households (and those who are sympathetic to them), but I’m not sure they’ll have anyplace else to go after the next Trump win.

            And the way things are going, Trump is building a real coalition for himself like we haven’t seen since Reagan in ’84. People would love to blame Trump’s win on Hillary, but I’d put his odds of winning the next election higher than his odds of winning the last.

            1. I don’t think the Republicans are losing the House for the reasons you give. All the Democrats have in the House is the desire to impeach Trump. All that does is give Republicans who might not otherwise have a reason to show up and vote a big reason.

              If you don’t believe me, consider this. The media has been hyping the possibility of the Democrats turning Texas blue. Well, yesterday they had the primaries for this fall. And a half a million more Republicans showed up to vote in the primary than Democrats. Understand, the Republicans hold both the Senate seat up and the governorship. Both Republican races were basically unopposed. Republicans had no reason to show up and vote in the primary and the Democrats did. And still, a half a million more Republicans showed up. The Republicans are not losing the House. Red districts and states are not turning blue despite the media propaganda campaign to convince people they are.

              http://victorygirlsblog.com/po…..miss-mark/

              1. I want to believe that the Republican ascendancy in the states will continue to the point that they can call a convention to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution–and to the point that they can ratify it in the state legislatures without any help from Congress.

                They already control all the houses of almost enough state legislatures to call a convention.

                I think the Republicans will continue to make gains in the states, but I wouldn’t bet on that carrying over to the House in this upcoming congressional election. I want to believe, but I wouldn’t bet on it . . . yet.

                For president, I don’t think anyone who isn’t a social justice warrior can win the nomination from the Democrats, and hating the white, blue collar, middle class is just no way to win a national election. The left has deluded itself into thinking that the world is all social justice warriors now.

                Everywhere I look, I see social justice warriors losing, and millennials moving to the suburbs to but houses and have kids. The SJWs had a moment. It lasted from 2012-2016, but it’s over. They can’t even get the Democrats to stick their necks out for the Dreamers!

                So, I expect the Democrats to throw themselves a fiesta if and when they take back the House, but they’ll still be in the truck on the way to the glue factory.

              2. There’s that reason, and I think another: the Ds have already put too much on tape about gun control. Between those two motivations, I’d expect R and I turnout to be higher than normal.
                The question is:
                Will it be high enough to overcome the voter fraud?
                I think the Ds actually know they’re in trouble, and I expect voter fraud to be higher than it’s ever been in these midterms.
                But hey, who needs IDs? Besides, we need to focus on all the Russian meddling that’s been foretold…

              3. “”not turning blue despite the media propaganda campaign to convince people they are.””

                And when it doesn’t turn out like they wanted, they will point to the media reports to claim why the election was rigged in favor of the republicans.

            2. But long term, if all the Democrats have is LGBTQI+, BLM, illegal aliens, radical environmentalists, and feminists, then the future is ugly for them.

              They’re not losing the entire public sector, entertainment, and media industries any time soon.

              1. No, they are not. But you can’t win any elections outside of deep blue states with just that support. The Democrats have made themselves totally uncompetitive in large sections of the country. And in a representative republic like ours, that is making yourself a permanent minority.

              2. Some of that’s indirect support–not grass roots.

                The public sector might be an issue long term, but they’re not opposed to Trump on spending.

                Trump may be overwhelmingly popular with first responders.

                Teachers much less so.

            3. Lol. -15 poll spread on RCP. Coalition of the ascendent!

          2. You mean private-sector unions, right? Because the public sector unions more-or-less run the Democratic party. The other components of their base that you mentioned (the underclass, overclass) are just along for the ride.

            1. Yes. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.

            2. Seems like low-skill service unions are pretty well attached to Democrats too.

              1. All of the unions are. It is just that no one but the public sector unions gets anything in return.

  20. http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/…..tizen.html

    Old story but a great example of the consequences of transnationalism. The Swedish prosecutor recommended against deporting a rapist he admitted was going to be a danger when he left prison because he didn’t see the welfare of the Swedish people as being any more important than the welfare of people anywhere else. If you do not believe in borders, you do not believe in the government’s right to put the interests of its citizens above the interests of anyone else. And this is the result. The guy is going to be a danger no matter where he goes. So, why deport him if doing so will make him more of a danger? You can only justify deporting him if you think the Swedish government has some obligation to put the safety of its own citizens above those of other places. And you can’t believe that consistent with transnationalism.

    1. Why don’t they put him in prison?

      1. They did. But when he gets out he is not going to be deported

    2. Don’t deport him. Have him pay back the victim “an eye for an eye”, which in case of rape, sounds to me like “whatever you used to violate the victim’s body is now the victim’s to do with as they like”.

      I highly doubt there would be repeat offenders. Or too many first time offenders.

      Also, “justice” is repayment to the victim, not to “society” (by which the government means “government”).

  21. http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/woman…..-1.3832541

    The chick had a garrotte. A garrotte!! They are going to murder this poor bastard because he refuses to bow down to the totalitarian ideology of transgenderism. And if they do, Reason will put up a single Soave post at midnight on a Saturday saying something to the effect of “you really can’t tell what this is all about and Peterson was a controversial hate figure anyway.”

    1. They say she fled the scene but was stopped nearby by plain-clothes officers, who had to bring in extra officers when the woman became violent during her arrest.

      I’m picturing a 6’5″ woman with an Adam’s apple and a bad attitude.

      But yeah, Canada. So they’re circling the drain a little faster than we are. Sucks to be them. *shrug*

    2. KINGSTON, Ont. — A woman in eastern Ontario is facing numerous charges after taking part in a protest against a lecture by a controversial Toronto professor.

      Standing up for free speech is, to be sure, controversial these days.

  22. “An attorney for adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, who performs under the pseudonym ‘Stormy Daniels’ says the White House’s claim that President Trump won an arbitration case against his client is “ludicrous” and insists that Mr. Trump didn’t ‘win’ anything at all.”

    Is it just me, or is the story about 13 Russian twitter bots with a poor grasp of the English language, a copy of MSPaint and tens of dollars in advertising beginning to lose steam?

    1. Trump banged a porn star Paul. Banging porn stars is treason. Didn’t you know that?

    2. THAT’S JUST WHAT TRUMP WANTS YOU TO THINK.

    3. Following those HS kids around seems to be played, too.

  23. How to root android with or without PC Step by Step howtoandroitroot

  24. How to Root ZTE Zmax Pro with or without PC Step by Step http://howtoandroitroot.com/ar…..ep-by-step

  25. 9022x firmware gofirmware

  26. the 8 best indoor tv antenna for rural areas the8best

  27. the 8 best wifi router under 100 the8best

  28. yamaha rx v1900 firmware update yamaha rx v1900 firmware update

  29. the 8 best 4k monitor for photo editing the8best

  30. root mobiistar lai zumbo j2 bestandroidtoroot

  31. the 8 best camera for wildlife photography beginner the8best

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.