Reason Roundup

Trump Mocks Christine Ford and Calls for 'Getting Tough' on Media Rape Reports: Reason Roundup

Plus: the FBI raids Juul and Trump's real-estate empire was built on tax-dodging.

|

screenshot/Associated Press

Trump says we must start "getting tough" on media rape reports. Last night, to loud laughter and applause, President Donald Trump mocked testimony from Christine Blasey Ford about her alleged assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. "I had one beer. Well, do you think it was—nope, it was one beer," said Trump, imitating Ford, at a Tuesday night rally in Southhaven, Mississippi.

"How did you get home? I don't remember," Trump continued. "How'd you get there? I don't remember. Where is the place? I don't remember. How many years ago was it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What neighborhood was it in? I don't know. Where's the house? I don't know. Upstairs, downstairs: Where was it? I don't know—but I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember."

That Trump's impulse is to mock Ford should (alas) surprise no one. But the politics of it are still astoundingly bad. Last week, Trump said Ford had been a "very credible" witness. He has for days been asserting that the FBI investigation into claims against Kavanaugh would be legitimate and thorough.

Openly mocking the same claims and saying they're perpetuated by "evil people" doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this is true.

The president went on to conjure a melodrama in which hardworking "IBM or General Motors" employees will be facing down a gauntlet of fake rape claims if we don't take a stand now by putting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court ASAP. "Mom, a terrible thing just happened," said Trump, taking on the part of this innocent young man:

A person who I've never met said that I did things that were horrible, and they're firing me from my job, mom, I don't know what to do, mom, what do I do? What do I do?

Trump warned the women in the audience to "think of your son. Think of your husband. I've had so many false accusations."

This, of course, set Trump off on the media and how sad it is that he can't sue us more. America has the "worst libel laws anywhere in the world," he said. It's a "damn sad situation. And we better start as a country getting smart and getting tough. We shouldn't let those cameras back there tell us how to live our lives."

In other Kavanaugh-related news:

  • Sen. Jeff Flake told an Atlantic Festival panel this morning that Kavanaugh had been "sharp and partisan" during his Senate testimony. "We can't have that on the court," he said.
  • A letter obtained by Fox News from an ex-boyfriend of Ford's claims she lied about various things during her testimony.
  • A letter obtained by The New York Times was allegedly written by Kavanaugh in high school. In the June 1983 letter, someone who signs off "FFFFF, Bart" makes plans for an upcoming beach week in Ocean City, Maryland, and describes himself and his friends as "loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us."

FREE MINDS

FREE MARKETS

Trump's real-estate empire was built on tax-dodging, according to a new report from The New York Times. Trump "has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today's dollars from his father's real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s," the paper reports.

It's good to have some confirmation of those long-held suspicions that Trump's self-made-man schtick is dubious. But it would be nice to see a few less stop letting people pass down wealth through these "loopholes" takes and a few more tales calling for a lower tax burden on us all.

QUICK HITS

  • The FBI raided the e-cigarette company Juul and seized documents.
  • The International Court of Justice says the U.S. government needs to repeal some sanctions on Iran.
  • Around half of women and 36 percent of men will get dementia or Parkinson's or have a stroke within their lives, according to a new study in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.
  • D.C. repeals a measure requiring a $15-per-hour minimum wage for tipped employees.
  • Should a "killer so impaired he no longer recalls the crime" still face execution?

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Proper Policing

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

  1. Trump says we must start “getting tough” on media rape reports.

    Someone just cancelled his subscription to Rolling Stone.

    1. Hello.

      I think the time is ripe for mocking.

      1. Does the SCOTUS hold mock court?

      2. Sometimes I think the mock is ripe for mocking.

        Not this time though.

      3. Mocking in the streets?

        It would say ENB deserves mocking, but only because she become such a reliable purveyor of whatever narrative the latest rendition of Journolist is pimping.

        1. Huh? Her job with the Morning Roundup is to literally give a roundup of what is in the news media.

          1. Along with her credible interpretations, of course.

            1. Plausible interpretations;

          2. Right, so her failure to do that and instead pimp her Trump hate is the problem.

            What are you not getting? Because you could pay ENB and she’ll give it to you.

            1. If you’re expecting people not to expresss distaste for Trump, you’re going to be disappointed a lot. He’s a detestable human being, even for we libertarians.

              1. I expect her to do her job.

                “If you’re expecting people not to expresss distaste for Trump”

                “Her job with the Morning Roundup is to literally give a roundup of what is in the news media.”

                You know, that job.

            2. I don’t think she’s wrong in this, either. Whatever else I’ve said about Blasey Ford, I still think she believes she’s a victim, even if she’s opportunistically promoting her victimhood. It just looks bad when the actual President of the United States is mocking her to laughter for an audience. My dislike for Trump’s opponents doesn’t mean I’ve set aside how much I dislike Trump’s bad decisions.

              It’s also not exactly wise to call for tougher libel laws, since those often end up as infringing on free speech. It’s nice to hammer the media over how bad they are and how many blatantly false things they’ve run with and had to retract-raise awareness of their issues without using government force to silence them.

              1. Who cares what she thinks. Ford is making unsupported allegations that have been rejected by people she claimed were present.

                Shes a liar and should be dismissed as such.

    2. Like requiring evidence before we take accusations seriously. Yes.

      But I guess that is a crazy idea in the Twilight Zone that is today’s world.

    3. Like requiring evidence before we take accusations seriously. Yes.

      But I guess that is a crazy idea in the Twilight Zone that is today’s world.

  2. Last night, to loud laughter and applause, President Donald Trump mocked testimony from Christine Blasey Ford about her alleged assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

    Is it at all possible that it’s the outraged, and not Trump, who are out of step with the times?

    1. Nope. So say the “libertarians” that write articles here.

      (Not really going to start pointing the libertarian finger, but do like to tweak them every once in a while.)

      I’m not sure why it’s inappropriate to mock someone who makes an accusation on such flimsy testimony though. We’ve made fun of Trump for less.

      1. A woman who allegeds sexual assault is sacred and can’t be questioned or criticized even if she is lying. This is what all “right thinking people” seem to believe these days.

        1. It all depends on politics. If hers lean left and his lean right, then of course he’s guilty. Unless your politics lean right, in which case she’s full of shit. Truth is determined by politics.

          1. You and your buddy collectivistjeff are nothing if not vacuous.
            Tell us, sarcasmic, since you’re so staunchly “un”partisan: what do you think is the most likely truth here?

            1. The most rational explanation is that they both believe what they are saying, and that the truth will never be known.

              1. Hmmm. Nah. I think the most likely explanation is that she is lying, but originally did so harmlessly, thinking nothing would come of it, and now she’s in WAAAAYYYY too deep to back out now.

                1. Welp, you and sarcastic both have your opinions. But only yours is based on presuming facts nobody possesses.

                  1. Of course you can explain the facts supporting sarc’s speculation.

                  2. Nobody possesses any of the facts bro.

                  3. Welp, you and sarcastic both have your opinions. But only yours is based on presuming facts nobody possesses.

                    Not at all.

                    The presumption that she’s lying comes from the fact that the people she said could corroborate her story ALL–and let me stress that ALL— say that none of them remember anything like this ever happening. Not just the ‘assault’. The entire get-together/party/whatever she’s calling it today.

                    This means that Kavanaugh has corroboration, provided by Ford.

                    Tulpa’s opinion is based on accepting everything presented.

                    Sarcasmic’s opinion is based on ignoring things that were presented that contradict the stance he has chosen.

              2. I disagree.
                Maybe you can convince us why it is rational to think that a pathological liar (Ford, as displayed in testimony) sincerely believes what she is saying?

                1. Maybe you can convince us…

                  Yeah, right. Like I said, your mind is made up because of your politics. There is no convincing anyone of anything.

                  1. Not everyone’s mind is made up because of politics sarc, you should know better.

                    1. “you should know better.”

                      What he knows, and what he says are related but not congruent.

                      That’s his entire schtick.

                  2. “Yeah, right. Like I said, your mind is made up because of your politics. There is no convincing anyone of anything.”

                    So, no you cannot.
                    Blaming others for your own deficiencies isn’t healthy.

                    1. Trying to prove innocence is an impossible task when the accuser has made up their mind that the person is guilty.

                      It is as impossible to prove to you that Ford is not guilty of lying as it is impossible to prove to Tony that Mr K is not guilty of rape.

                      Besides, I don’t really care. If anything I find it somewhere between amusing and disturbing that people determine guilt and innocence based upon their personal politics.

                    2. Innocence should be the default.

                    3. Her own friend Leland Keyser that she claims was at the party just told federal investigators under oath that it didn’t happen, dumbfuck. It’s all over.

                    4. It will be interesting of the FBI recommends the DOJ indict Ford for perjury then.

                    5. I’m looking for concrete reasons why YOU believe she is sincere. In that sense, my or anybody else’s beliefs are immaterial.

                      “sarcasmic|10.3.18 @ 9:57AM|#

                      The most rational explanation is that they both believe what they are saying, and that the truth will never be known.”

                      Show your work.
                      Otherwise, you’ve made up your mind based on prejudice (perhaps dogma) just as much, if not more, as you accuse anybody else of.
                      So, again, what do you base your opinion “The most rational explanation is that they both believe what they are saying, and that the truth will never be known” on?

                    6. So, again, what do you base your opinion “The most rational explanation is that they both believe what they are saying, and that the truth will never be known” on?

                      I base it on the notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses, the amount of time that has passed since the events, and the seriousness of the accusations.

                      People commonly remember things differently from what actually happened. Memories change over time. And people generally don’t make serious accusations like that unless they believe them to be true.

                      I’m not saying that I believe either one of them. I’m saying I believe that they believe themselves.

                    7. “I base it on the notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses, the amount of time that has passed since the events, and the seriousness of the accusations.

                      People commonly remember things differently from what actually happened. Memories change over time. And people generally don’t make serious accusations like that unless they believe them to be true.”

                      Fair enough.
                      Follow up, then: how do you explain (to yourself) the lie about her fear of flying, her home remodel, and potential lie about her experience with polygraphs?
                      And what of her willingness to level “serious allegations” without the slightest memory of details other than her target?

                    8. how do you explain…

                      I don’t know the details and I like it that way. It’s all partisan bullshit as far as I’m concerned, and I really don’t give a shit. Sorry, but I’m done.

                    9. Sarc, if you’re done, then be done.

                      But so far, it seems like this entire stupid fucking story keeps luring you back and coaxing you into not being done.

                    10. I think you have it exactly right, sarcasmic.

                    11. You cannot accuse people of crimes without proof and Ford does not have proof.

                      Ford decided to make the accusation and use the public as the trier of guilt. The public found her proof not sufficient.

                      Game Over!

                    12. Pick your venue carefully, as they say.

                    13. Based on precisely which facts again?

                    14. Since you e volunteered, Mike, why do you think she sincerely believes her story – and how do you rationalize the numerous inconsistencies and outright falsehoods she’s stated?

                    15. I don’t believe anything about her credibility, one way or another. Not being on the Blue or Red team frees me from having to have an opinion on a matter where I don’t have enough information to form an opinion.

                      Why does sarcasmix believe she believes she is telling the truth. You have to ask sarcasmic. Just note that it’s not the same as sarcastic saying she’s telling the truth ? he’s never claimed that.

                    16. I asked you and sarcasmic why you think SHE believes her story. Sarcasmic answered, even if he ignored the inconsistency required to arrive at his belief.
                      Your reply is simply a non sequitur

                    17. For my part, I don’t know if she does or does not believe her story.

                      How would I possibly know what she’s thinking?

                    18. I don’t see how forming an opinion based on the available information (or lack thereof) automagically makes you part of TEAM BE RULED.

                    19. re: I don’t see how forming an opinion based on the available information (or lack thereof) automagically makes you part of TEAM BE RULED.

                      I didn’t say that. Here’s the logic of what I said:

                      Team A or B players have to have opinion on this matter.

                      I am not a Team A nor Team B player.

                      Therefore, I am not required to have an opinion on this matter.

                      Here’s what you seem to think I said:

                      Mike Laursen says Team A or B player have to have political opinions.

                      I have an opinion on this matter.

                      Mike Laursen says I’m a Team A or B player.

                      Except I didn’t say or imply the latter.

              3. There is a new letter where an ex-boyfriend said she coached her best friend on a polygraph for an FBI job. Directly contradicts her sworn testimony to Mitchel.

                The woman is a liar. She provided zero evidence that could possibly be contradicted by alibi. To me, it is dishonest even making the claim that she could be truthful at this point. If by some chance she actually believes what she is saying, it is due to the fact that she convinced herself of it because of hate and her politics, still makes her an epic scumbag. Just changes the timeline of her scum-baggery.

                1. Yes, but the woman that the boyfriend claims Ford had coached has denied that it ever happened.

                2. This is where I find some logical inconsistencies. If you don’t believe her unverifiable story (you shouldn’t) why would you believe an unverifiable story from an anonymous ex boyfriend?

                  I don’t buy either. If more evidence comes out or a way to verify either of those stories I’ll buy into them.

        2. the news this morning was claiming Trump was aggressively attacking her. the medias new term “aggressive” to denounce any attempt to counter credibly false accusations. Note like the media claiming credible i shall use credible false or credible consipiracy to give it gravitas, as if teh words alone are proof.

        3. There’s a few degrees between “questioning” and “mocking.” Trump can be crass like this and it’s generally never good.

      2. Yeh, I’m not overly impressed these days around these parts. But what can you do?

        Mock I say!

        1. Was Trump mocking her?
          Or, was he accurately summarizing her testimony?
          If both are true, what does it say about the editorial position Reason has taken and continues to promote?

          1. Was SNL mocking Mr K, accurately summarizing his testimony, or both?

            1. I basically couldn’t care less about this whole thing, but that SNL skit was hilarious.

            2. Haven’t seen the whole bit.
              But, when did Kavanaugh state that he was “going to start out at an 11 and quickly take it to a 15” or anything that could be paraphrased as such?

              1. I think it was a reference to the intensity of his testimony. Also, it’s comedy. Lighten up, Francis.

                1. Then they accurately characterized his testimony, they didn’t accurately summarize it.

                  Maybe stay in your lane next time, leo

                2. “Lighten up, Francis.”

                  Ah yes, the clown nose off, clown nose on.

            3. Both. A little more toward the mocking side.

              Unfortunately, the fucking monkeys that fling their shit everywhere will just remember Kavanaugh being that ridiculous, just like they do with Palin.

            4. What’s SNL?

              1. The Symbionese Navy of Liberation.

                1. And they try to be funny?

            5. Hmm did he say he was starting at an 11 and taking it up?
              Did he ever say he is a keg half full guy?

              Did Ford say she didn’t know when , where, but did know she had exactly one beer?
              Did Ford’s stated witnesses not corroborate her story/

              Trump was telling the truth without all of the cuddly classifiers.

          2. Trump understands the zeitgeist more than Reason does.

            Reason is falling in love with its own reason.

            1. Or more accurately, “Reason is falling in love with its own lack of reason.”

      3. Really? You don’t see a problem with the President mocking someone in public, not even a problem with the lack of decorum or the divisiveness of it?

        1. Blasey Ford has been shown to have highly deceptive, if not downright dishonest, she deserves public scorn.

          1. to have been…

        2. Mike, do you think that a false accusation of attempted rape is better/worse/same as attempted rape?

          1. What does that have to do with Trump’s awful deportment or his adding to divisiveness and incivility in this country?

            1. It seems you’re incapable of answering a question.
              That inability or unwillingness certainly contribute to divisiveness and incivility, if only here.

              1. You responded to a question with an irrelevant question. He asked the purpose of that question and then you claimed HE is incapable of answering a question….when the original question was ignored.

                1. Because the question was too loaded and irrelevant to answer.

        3. Really? You don’t see a problem with making a heinous accusation with no substantiation? You don’t see a problem with a gang of senators springing an allegation with no substantiation through a post hoc leak to friendly media?

          But you DO see a problem with a president “mocking” a “credible” accuser with her own words. My, my, look at those pearls.

        4. This is a shameless political game.

          So…no.

        5. Nah, for the same reasons the offended parties have no problem mocking their political opponents

        6. not even a problem with the lack of decorum or the divisiveness of it?

          It’s only a problem if it makes independents sway more over to her side. These “lack of decorum” and “divisiveness” complaints are Weekly Standard/NR-style hand-wringing.

          There’s literally nothing Trump or any Republicans can do to decrease “divisiveness” other than bend over and accept total Democrat authority, so those complaints can be summarily dismissed.

        7. I think we need to mock and deride the garbage that’s been embedded in our society by the left.

          I think it needs to be treated as if it is as loathsome and worthy of derision as it’s little brother, Fascism–and IT’S little brother Nazism.

          And Ford’s baseless accusations and the show trial engendered by them is a prime example.

    2. “Is it at all possible that it’s the outraged, and not Trump, who are out of step with the times?”

      Credible, but not Reason credible.

  3. Report: Christine Blasey Ford’s ex-boyfriend says she coached a friend on taking a polygraph, more
    BREAKING: Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging: dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”. pic.twitter.com/jVeW0qaJD0

    ? Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 3, 2018

    1. For all the thoughtful or thoughtful-adjacent (hinh) people who were parsing Kav’s answers to try and find evidence of lying, how come they couldn’t spare a single synapse to consider how blatantly obvious it was that Ford was lying through her teeth? While this letter merely adds to the evidence, it was obvious that she had no fear of flying based on the questions about vacations laid out by the prosecutor.

    2. Weird that this wasn’t included in the round-up.

      1. Whoops, it was.

        Which begs the question why you are you re-posting this?

        1. Notably missing the precious ‘credible’ tag or any analysis at all.

        2. the roundup gave no details.

  4. D.C. repeals a measure requiring a $15-per-hour minimum wage for tipped employees.

    just the tipped?

  5. Sen. Jeff Flake told an Atlantic Festival panel this morning that Kavanaugh had been “sharp and partisan” during his Senate testimony. “We can’t have that on the court,” he said.

    Dull and partisan or nothing at all.

    1. I can’t believe how partisan he behaved after he was accused of being a gang rapist with no evidence to back up the accusation.

      1. And that members of one party had behaved with regards to how they handled the accusation in a stunningly unethical manner by withholding it until after his initial hearing for pure reasons of gamesmanship in manipulating the confirmation process.

    2. Because rebuking gang rape accusations and pointing out the partisans that were making them is way too “truthy” ?

  6. A letter obtained by Fox News from an ex-boyfriend of Ford’s claims she lied about various things during her testimony.

    And if you can’t trust a person’s ex…

    1. There’s an anonymous accusation by a supposed ex of Kavanaugh’s and the media is treating it as absolute proof.

      FWIW, he too swore under penalty of law that what he said was true, so his statement should be treated with the same validity as the left would treat Ford’s

      1. I’ll be just as skeptical about the anonymous claims about Kavanaugh and Ford as I am skeptical of Ford’s unverifiable claims. People are saying a lot of shit and anything that’s not solidly corroborated needs to get tossed out.

        The problem is that the Democratic Party and the media have invited this sort of crapfest. If CBF can start making claims that are too vague to be disproven without any evidence to support her story, it’s opening the doors for people to share all their garbage. Can’t blame a former boyfriend of CBF for deciding he’ll throw out his own bullshit to see if the media will run with it.

        1. Add in one really questionable polygraph, conducted by his attorney’s own ‘expert’ and his statement is as ‘credible’ as Blasey Ford’s initial statement.

          The one that started this whole charade.

          1. Kind of my point. I’m not accepting unverifiable vague accusations on their face value, even if they seem plausible.

  7. The FBI raided the e-cigarette company Juul and seized documents.

    do you use word documents to roll e-doobies?

    1. Google docs, dude. Get with the times, Grandpa.

  8. …and describes himself and his friends as “loud, obnoxious drugs with prolific pukers among us.”

    Obnoxious drugs? That sounds like cocaine.

  9. Freelance journalist @ZachWritesStuff was charged with contempt of court and arrested after he recorded part of a high-profile murder trial, in violation of the judge’s order that limits recording to a media pool.

    Didn’t ask permission and wasn’t under orders.

    1. Will it be easier to get forgiveness?

      [scrolling through @ZachWritesStuff, he seems at first glance to be an obnoxious little twit who keeps commenting on various #MeToo allegations as the troof. I wonder if this event will make him begin to question authority, or just double down cluelessly.]

  10. but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s,”

    i get the impression that he’s not always shy about the “i know how to work the system, who better to run it?” reasoning to vote for him.

  11. Naturally, this fake libertarian journal never saw fit to mention that Ford’s friend Leland Keyser just told federal investigators under oath that this party with the attempted rape she was supposedly at never happened.

    Send this lunatic Ford back to California with the rest of the fruits and nuts where she belongs, and let’s get on with confirming Kavanaugh already. Too bad we can’t send Lizzie the Lezzie away with her.

    1. Yet the libertarian journal provided you with this comment space where you can post additional news stories every morning. Do I hear a thank you from you?

      1. Thank you for doing their job for them? Do we get a cut of their pay for that?

        1. Their job is actually to write articles for Reason magazine. The Hit & Run blog is just a blog that is not the core of the “editors” jobs.

    2. I find that testimony to be NOT CREDIBLE!

      *pounds gavel*

    3. Leland Keyser just told federal investigators under oath that this party with the attempted rape she was supposedly at never happened.

      Actually no, that is not what she said.

      What she said was that she didn’t recall the party.

      She did not say that the party didn’t happen at all.

      It is possible that the party did happen, but that Keyser doesn’t remember it. Or it could be that there was no party at all. Neither one of these two possibilities has been eliminated.

      1. Yes, that is exactly what she said.

        The party Blasey Ford described specifically included the presence of Keyser.

        Keyser says she was at no such event.

        Ergo it did not happen.

  12. Relax – Trump was in Mississippi. He knows his audience.

    1. Black Southerns?

      1. Rednecks.

        1. How does see if a black man’s neck is red?

  13. Sen. Jeff Flake told an Atlantic Festival panel this morning that Kavanaugh had been “sharp and partisan” during his Senate testimony. “We can’t have that on the court,” he said.

    you cant spell snowflake without flake and you cant spell jeffersonian without jeff, so i dont really know what i’m implying here.

    1. That Flake is brave about unsubstantiated accusations that allow him to go to the Atlantic Festival, while having no qualms about voting for the most recent budget; the re-authorization of the data collection program, and voting for Gina Haspel?

      Seems like virtue-signalling is his highest ideal, which would make him the perfect woketarian

      1. Cue “newly woke” Welch’s latest article about how Flake’s efforts to block a Yemen resolution, while criticizing the president is just the right kind of superficial bullshit that woketarians love and America desperately needs

    2. That remark is a great example of how fucking useless jellyfish Flake really is. He can’t even appeal to MUH PRINCIPLES here because it shows such a deliberate avoidance of reality.

      Every single appointee has been a partisan choice going back at least 45 years, if not longer. Every single one. Just because they may have moderated their positions as time went on, or even changed them completely, as Stevens did, doesn’t mean they weren’t appointed with their political biases in mind.

      Someone made the remark that Flake is a weakling who needs to be led by stronger personalities in order to make decisions. Now that McCain’s dead (see Season 2 of his funeral on Netflix!), he’s getting jerked around by anyone with a more forceful presence instead of staking out a position and holding to it.

  14. Should a “killer so impaired he no longer recalls the crime” still face execution?

    The execution isn’t really about him, is it?

    1. Aren’t the leftists making arguments like this the same ones pushing for ‘voluntary’ assisted suicide for impaired people to ease their suffering?

    2. State executions save space in prisons.

      1. Yeah, you’re not authoritarian at all.

        1. Crimes punishable by death are perfectly in keeping with the Constitution.

          I do think the criminal justice system needs honest top-to-bottom fixing to make in tune with the Constitution before any more executions are carried out.

          Once every defendant gets non-excessive bail, there is probable cause and a search warrant for every search, hung juries are considered acquittals for double jeopardy purposes, all felonies are brought by grand juries, the police cannot force you to do anything to be a witness yourself, all defendants must have a speedy jury trial and no pleas, and defendants get a comparable public defense as the prosecutors get…. then we can re-commence the state executions.

        2. “Yeah, you’re not authoritarian at all.”

          So locking them up for life is not authoritarian?

          1. I am used to Leo bouncing around on his schtick.

            1. If your shtick were this large you would bounce on it too.

              1. Your vagina is large? Makes sense.

          2. I certainly wouldn’t argue for giving the power of life and death to the state on the basis of its pragmatism for controlling the prison population. At least not if I were pretending to be a libertarian.

            1. “… giving the power of life and death to the state on the basis of its pragmatism for controlling the prison population…”

              Intentionally ignoring sarcasm or hyperbole in an attempt to score rhetorical points is pure sophistry.

            2. The State isn’t given the power of life and death.

              The jury is.

              The jury decides, not the State.

            3. Since youre NOT a libertarian, you guessed wrong again about Libertarianism.

  15. Around half of women and 36 percent of men will get dementia or Parkinson’s or have a stroke within their lives…

    Hey, at least there’s no “and” in there.

    1. Ex*cuse* me? Anyway, you can’t spell “around” without “and”.

      1. IN THE PART WHERE THEY’RE NAMING THINGS YOU’RE GONNA GET.

        1. Thank you, Fist. Remember we strive for precision here, if not accuracy.

  16. Should a “killer so impaired he no longer recalls the crime” still face execution?

    Or it could be like Richard Glossip, who had nothing at all to do with a murder, but he still faces execution.

    1. You never rrad the details of that case, did you?

  17. http://fredrikdeboer.com/2018/10/02/statement/

    Freddie DeBoer is some dirtbag hipster Marxist education professor in Broklyn. Because he is often critical of fellow leftists, he commands this strange respect from people on the right, including most of the reason staff, who should know better. Well, it appears that like all Marxists, he is a broken, awful person who is now admitting he lied and accused someone of rape that he knew was innocent

    1. Back when Lizzie falsely (and rather despicably) accused Eli Lake of laughing about dead Arabs, that guy was the only one who tried to support her; everyone else said that she’s completely full of shit, which of course she is.

      Then a short while later, he admitted on his blog that he’s severely mentally ill and disappeared himself for a while. Those two are absolutely perfect for each other.

      1. I am sorry but I don’t buy mental illness as an excuse to do shit like that. He may very well be mentally ill. But that should not cause him to knowling slander people. He admits he knew what he was doing when he did it. He is just using his “mental illness” whatever it is as a rationalization to be a horrible person.

  18. Does it violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute a convicted murderer who has such severe dementia that he doesn’t remember the crime he committed?

    I don’t know. Does it violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute a convicted murderer who was so drunk or high that he doesn’t remember the crime he committed?

    1. I’m sure the victim doesn’t remember it either, but he still did it.

    2. You don’t kill a criminal to make him feel bad about his crime. You kill him because he earned it. His exact mental state at the moment of his demise is irrelevant.

    3. The other thing is that murderers make prison more dangerous for less violent inmates.

      Murderers are likely never getting out of prison so they have nothing to lose. If you got 8 years for robbing a bank but nobody was hurt, you just want to do your time and get out of prison.

    4. Of all the reasons to void a capital sentence, this may be the silliest.

    5. I’d look to common-law practice to see if it’s unusual (aka unknown to the common law). Then if unknown to the common law, I’d decide if it was cruel.

      1. (We know that the common law allowed lots of cruel punishments; the language is cruel *and* unusual, not *or* unusual. Fortunately, many cruel common-law punishments have been abolished by legislative, not judicial action)

  19. The FBI raided the e-cigarette company Juul and seized documents.

    And then rolled tobacco up in those documents and forced the company to smoke like a man.

  20. “Should a “killer so impaired he no longer recalls the crime” still face execution?”

    Do the victim’s family and friends remember the crime?

  21. OMG, just as the media was totally unfair to Hillary Clinton in 2016, they’re giving the same harsh treatment to Beto O’Rourke in 2018. First they overemphasize a minor vehicular incident from years ago. Now they’re digging up something he wrote in college about actresses with “phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks.”

    People can change a lot over the years. Why don’t conservatives care about forgiveness and second chances?

    #LibertariansForBeto

    1. Your link was so much not what it was labeled.

      1. Right?
        I clicked and all I saw were words, then some dude’s face.
        I call fraud!

        Anyway, I agree with the B+. Had your link gone in another direction, probably would’ve been an A

      2. You are right, the link doesn’t actually include “something he wrote in college about actresses with phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks.”

        So yes, you are correct.

        What it does note is Beto having apologized for writing about actresses with “phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks” in college.

        So yeah, you sure nailed him on that one.

        1. I think we were all hoping for something a bit more… photogenic

          1. Or you could google “big breast tight ass” and see all you want.

            I thought O’Rourke’s comment was a funny commentary on a bad play. So of course he apologizes for humor, cause butthurt SJWs.

            1. College has been a transition into adulthood for quite some time. Personally I don’t put much stock in what people may have said in such circumstances.

              Now high school on the other hand, well apparently the Reason standard is that shit stays with you for life.

    2. minor vehicular incident
      Today’s definition of drunk driving

      A+

    3. B-, you failed to properly employ the terms ‘whataboutism’ and ‘hypocrisy.’

  22. ‘The International Court of Justice says the U.S. government needs to repeal some sanctions on Iran.’

    How many divisions does the international court of justice have?

    1. They’re trying to ‘divide’ the Good side of this debate, that’s for sure.

  23. Trump warned the women in the audience to “think of your son. Think of your husband. I’ve had so many false accusations.”

    That card may yet prove to be a successful counter.

  24. Trump’s real-estate empire was built on tax-dodging, according to a new report from The New York Times.

    I guess the NYT will leave out the part where Trump turned Millions in to Billions!

    1. So, Clinton deducts underwear from his taxes and its cool.

      I can never figure out when paying more than you legally owe is an obligation,

      1. When you are the “bad guy” it is.

      2. YOU ARE STARVING THE WELFARE STATE!

        Enemy #1

    2. Meanwhile the entire State of New York is scrambling and coming up with ever desperate ways to avoid losing the deductions for their outsized state and local taxes.

      But don’t call that tax dodging.

    3. the NYT the company owned by a Mexican billionair is truly impartial with nothing for its owner to gain from Trumps downfall

      1. Oh yeah. Forgot about who owns the NYT.

    4. Reason Magazine: Taxation is theft!

      Also Reason Magazine: Trump is a tax dodger for legally minimizing the taxes he had to pay.

  25. It’s “nice” to see Reason stay true to who they are by uncritically pimping MSM/progressive agitprop and demonizing independent/contrary thought.

    Keep up the “good” work, comrade ENB

  26. ENB has been credibly accused of losing her shit yesterday after the obviously poor quality of her work was brought up to her.

    Someone with such a temper, who will explode at commenters, has no business reporting for Reason.

      1. Hi ENB’s cuck hubby!

    1. The interesting thing is that if Kavanaugh was this boozer with an alcohol problem, how can Ford’s testimony be accurate that she knew that Kavanaugh would be on the Supreme Court someday?

      What elite ladder climbing future jurist, would party like its his last day on Earth and potentially soil the family name?

      1. Claiming you know someone is going to be on SCOTUS someday is the clear mark that you are actually a retard. Set aside that there’s actually no requirement that you be a lawyer to be on SCOTUS. There are over a million lawyers in the U.S. and only 9 at any given time sit on SCOTUS, and most of those nine sit there for decades. The odds are probably better that your little leaguer will become a pro in the MLB.

        You would have to accurately predict, of a drunken cad, acceptance at an undergrad university prestigious enough to land you at either Harvard or Yale for law school (and acceptance there) a sterling legal career in a profession mired with ethical traps, appointment by an unknown president at an unknown time in the future to a federal appellate court (after first having been appointed to district court), and further avoidance of uncontrollable traps that would sabotage a potential SCOTUS nomination like drawing the wrong controversial case and issuing a decision that will be viewed disfavorably in the future by some as yet unknown president and composition of various unknown senators. And you would have to know that some lunatic like you wasn’t going to crawl out of the woodwork and kill the nomination with bullshit accusations backed by zero proof AND that people would not laugh at your obvious bullshit and tell you to fuck off. And of course, all of this also overlooks the various accidents that can happen in life to kill him off before he makes it that far.

        1. If only one of the Senators had the balls to articulate to Ford what you said in public.

    2. She called you “sweetie.” I’m jealous.

      1. God she waa so obviously mad.

        1. You flatter yourself to think your opinion is so important to her as to make her mad. Be happy that she called you “sweetie.”

          1. She was using her “pay me for sex” voice and trying to solicit my business, what’s to be happy about?

            My refusal to care about her solicitation was a large part of the reason she was so obviously upset.

            1. She was using her “pay me for sex” voice…

              Now I’m really jealous.

              1. Don’t be she gets mad and explodes very easily.

                1. explodes very easily

                  Dude… I’m like totally jealous now.

                  1. She was pretty unimpressive, but she mads it clear she whores for comments, so you can have it if you want it.

                    1. I don’t know why you guys are arguing here. I think the compromise is obvious here: ENB cares as much about Tulpa’s opinions as any libertarian cares about hers

                    2. Who’s arguing? Sarc are you arguing?

                      Sarc is, admittedly a little jealous that I made her mad, which is more attention than he ever got, but I’m just trying to help him get some of that.

                      No arguing bro.

                    3. I’ve never gotten attention from ENB, but I have gotten attention from The Jacket and from The Glasses. So I guess we’re kind of even.

                    4. No, you win this one, I’d trade a week full of pissing off ENB for one day of pissing off the guy who hasn’t changed his look in 3 decades.

    3. Shackford did the same thing the other day.

      1. Admitted he was a click whore then verbally assaulted someone like ENB did?

        1. Or used his “pay me for sex” voice?

          1. Him I’d fuck. Hard. And then soft. And then hard again.

          2. Ha! Not quite.

            been credibly accused of losing [his] shit yesterday after the obviously poor quality of [his] work was brought up to [him].

            That’s, at least, how I’d characterize telling John to stop visiting the website that employs him (SS).
            Didn’t see the ENB thread.

            1. Rather than defend his take in the article in question from John’s criticism, Shackford just suggested John go elsewhere.

              It was fascinating to see.

              1. Link? Or a description of the article so I can find it?

                1. Yes please, what article was it?

                  Not that I doubt you.

                  Just, that’s the sort of thing I want to see with my own eyes.

                2. I missed this one, but looked it up because of the discussion on it.

                  It appears it wasn’t yesterday, but Monday’s article on junkies deserve government funded injection sites. Which John criticized, and Scott responded to by telling him to find another website to read.

                  Reason really has given up on libertarianism. If they ever really believed in it.

                  1. So, in 2 days, 2 Reason writers deigned to come down from on high and basically admit that libertarianism isn’t what this site is about . Once to John, then to Tulpa.

                    1. Extra points for John though. He pissed Scott off so bad that SS had to respond to basically every one of John’s comments, telling him to go somewhere else. That’s some serious butt-hurt. I bet Scott’s boyfriend can’t make his ass hurt that bad.

    4. Which article was that on?

        1. Just found it.

          chemjeff arguing further down that innocent until proven guilty shouldn’t be the standard for the court of public opinion was especially idiotic.

          1. If nothing else we can all thank Trump for making everyone so patently obvious.

          2. Really? Why is it so idiotic then?

            If you wish to throw someone off your property, even someone who is not a trespasser, should you first have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of some crime? Should you have to prove to the mob that the individual deserves to be thrown off?

            Be careful about abusing the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. If applied in all situations, it means undermining your own property rights.

            1. No, because it’s your property. We can still call you an asshole if you invite us on to your property, accuse us of something without any proof and eject us.

              You, as a private property owner, can eject anyone you want at anytime.

              The DMV (or any other government building), on the other hand, cannot.

              If private employers really want to go this route of allowing baseless accusations from a person’s competitor or political opponent to be treated as fact, I foresee a huge rise in unemployment claims (and employer premiums), not to mention lawsuits and discrimination by some.

              “As an employer, I would never discriminate and resent the accusation, the applicant/employee in question was fired after we received an anonymous letter claiming he was a rapist. We do not need to employ any sort of due process or presumption of innocence standard. As for the claims that we only fire/fail to hire black people, that’s false These 4 (7,12,etc) were fired because they were rapists, robbers, murderers, etc. as evidenced in these anonymous letters. We hope that clears things up.”

              1. You, as a private property owner, can eject anyone you want at anytime.

                Thank you. This is the point I was trying to get across. Some people here have tried to claim that “innocent until proven guilty” is a universal standard that ought to apply at all times. No, that is not the case. “Innocent until proven guilty” is only a legal standard. John rewrites this to mean “benefit of the doubt”, for situations outside of a courtroom, but I would argue that even this standard really only applies in cases where the power differential isn’t too high. Since Kavanaugh (and Trump, and Feinstein, and any politician) are going to wield enormous power over all of us, why should they be given the benefit of the doubt in ANY case?

                If private employers really want to go this route of allowing baseless accusations from a person’s competitor or political opponent to be treated as fact, I foresee a huge rise in unemployment claims (and employer premiums), not to mention lawsuits and discrimination by some.

                Yes, and? You offer some arguments as to why employers may want to investigate claims before acting upon them. But shouldn’t they nonetheless have the right to hire and fire as they wish? Isn’t this part of what the FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!! crowd has been screaming about for years now? (And I’m a part of that crowd!)

                1. The presumption of innocence is still a standard which should be generally demanded from people when dealing with others.

                  It should be absolutely (far beyond generally) demanded in interactions with the government.

                  When we see people labeling others as X without proof, we can still argue with them and tell them that people should be treated as innocent (or at a bare minimum, not guilty) without some sort of proof.

                  If you want to keep your kids from coming to my house because you think I’m a molester, that’s your call. I would understand your position (kids first, presumption of innocence later), but would chafe at a friend doing this based on an anonymous accusation from someone else (especially a political opponent) that I molested their kid or something similar.

                  Everything changes when you (or this anonymous person) start telling the world I’m a molester and you/anon/others begin demanding that I be fired, denied a promotion, evicted, publicly shunned, denied bank accounts or whatever. At that point, I start demanding proof and pointing out that the standards of a free society should (or do, in an ideal world) presume innocence of the accused.

                  Supporting/endorsing/advocating the public acting as though accusations are proof is a very dangerous road for society to go down and you ought to know it.

                2. “… I would argue that even this standard really only applies in cases where the power differential isn’t too high…”

                  That’s it Jeff, let if flow.

                  Just keep denying that you are a Marxist.

                  1. Shorter ThomasD: “chemjeff uses words that some other lefties sometimes uses, that makes chemjeff a Marxist!”

                    Tune in next week when I use the word “bourgeois” and ThomasD accuses me of being a Stalinist!

            2. There’s no public opinion about kicking someone off of your property (unless they want you to bake a cake). Now, if you publicly accused this person of fucking your goats while they were on your property with no evidence presented, then yes, they should receive the benefit of the doubt and their innocence maintained until you provide the video/photographic proof.

              1. DesigNate:
                Now, if you publicly accused this person of fucking your goats while they were on your property with no evidence presented…

                Brendan:
                Everything changes when you (or this anonymous person) start telling the world I’m a molester and you/anon/others begin demanding that I be fired…

                The key items to note in these hypotheticals are: (1) the accusation is made publicly, and (2) the accused is a private person, not a public person like a politician or a federal judge.

                If a false public malicious accusation against a private individual leads to material harm, there is already a legal remedy for that. Which is proper and correct. So in your two hypothetical situations, the accused would have the protections of the law on their side to protect against this situation.

                The standard is different (IMO rightly so) for public individuals, because (1) they wield power over us, so we have a much larger right to know about the types of person who potentially have the power to throw us in jail, send us to war, and otherwise screw over all of our lives; and (2) the whole point of the First Amendment’s free speech protections is to enable free and open discussion about the politicians who rule us, and not giving them leverage to quash our speech using libel laws as a loophole to get around the First Amendment.

            3. “If you wish to throw someone off your property, even someone who is not a trespasser,…”

              SMH.

              Unless you have some other sort of binding contract anyone on your property against your will IS a trespasser.

            4. If you wish to throw someone off your property, even someone who is not a trespasser, should you first have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of some crime? Should you have to prove to the mob that the individual deserves to be thrown off?

              Why the hell do you keep repeating this idiocy?

              You can throw someone off your property for any reason, at any time–guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant to this. Completely.

              Innocent until proven guilty is the proper standard for any type of court situation–be it an actual court, or the court of public opinion.

              What the public might think about you throwing someone off your own property for ANY reason is irrelevant.

    5. Rage clicks & comments still count toward my traffic

      1. Consider my comments in kind donations to sex workers everywhere.

        1. “For only a few comments a day, these whores can finally afford to pay for their own birth control”

          1. “For only a few comments a day, these whores can finally afford to pay for their own birth control”

            That’s funny.

        2. I suspected some Reason writers only care about web traffic.

          Got my answer.

  27. someone who signs off “FFFFF, Bart” makes plans for an upcoming beach week in Ocean City, Maryland, and describes himself and his friends as “loud, obnoxious drugs with prolific pukers among us.”

    Nerds!!!

  28. Ford is “credible” and her slander is “well sourced”.

    STOP PICKING ON HER!

    1. You really can’t overstate how insidious this whole thing is. Ford made allegations that lacked even a specific time and place and took place decades ago. This makes it impossible for Kavanaugh to ever prove his innocence. If the allegations had been about his actions at a specific place and time, Kavanaugh could have conceivably proven he wasn’t there or produced witnesses that could testify with certainty nothing happened. But without knowing exactly where and when the event took place, there is no way for Kavanaugh to do that. Worse, the media then deemed the accusations “credible”, whatever that means. Since the allegations lack the specificity to ever be disproved, they will forever be “credible” and leave Kavanaugh presumed guilty. It is just disgusting what what the media and Democrats have done to the guy.

      1. They’re credible as in, could theoretically have happened and not something like “I was groped by an alien from Alpha Centauri” but, and here’s the all important crucial part, there’s not a smidgeon of evidence linking her alleged event to Kavanaugh.

        1. There is that as well. If her allegations are “credible” then any allegation short of one that violates the laws of nature is credible. They all use that word like they know what it means. They don’t. Saying credible is just their way of saying he is guilty without having to worry about being sued for libel.

          1. They’ve (intentionally, I suspect) conflated “credible” with “sincere”. “Credible” relates to logic and reason, “sincere” is all about the feels. Nobody gives a shit about objective facts, it’s all about subjective feelings. It’s true if you feel that it’s true.

          2. From the sum totality of what I know so far of Prof. Ford Balsey, lies, evasions, changes in her story etc. = an unreliable and emotionally damaged woman.

            1. Credible = physically possible, apparently, as John notes.
              I don’t think even those in the MSM actually believe that her accusation is truly sincere.

              1. We’ve got two words that mean the same thing, but common usage of them has given them different subtextual meanings. Plausible and credible.

                Plausible is often used in the, “Well I doubt it, but it’s possible,” sense. In that sense, plausible often comes out as a concession.

                Credible is often used to mean, “It sounds believable even though I don’t know anything else.”

                It tells you why people are latching so hard onto the idea that Ford is “Credible,” because if people are saying she’s credible, it means they believe her.

      2. Yeah, it almost seems like the media and Democrats have some sort of agenda to drag this confirmation process out.

        I am sure OBL can explain it more clearly than I am able to do.

        Am I the only one in the country that thinks Ford’s testimony sounded like the neurotic moaning of a 16 year old girl rather than a 53 year old college professor?

        1. She sounded pathetic. I know several women who were embarassed by her and couldn’t believe a grown woman could act that neurotic and helpless.

          1. the amazing thing is I meet women of her age and they are still as Neurotic as 16 year olds. I often wonder how did they get to the employed position they are in then i realize the neurotic crazy ones all work for the government. the private sector does not put up with that BS

          2. Mrs. Casual was spitting mad from the “I anticipate needing a little caffeine if that is available.” onward. She rightly pointed out that her attitude and demeanor were that of a 6-yr.-old girl hopping into the back seat of the family car and asking if she could have a Coke on the way to wherever they were going.

            The difference between Ford testifying, Hill testifying, and Broaddrick being interviewed should make women/feminists cringe at Ford even having been given a seat at the table.

        2. No you’re not, that weird quavery childish voice. I haven’t mentioned it because it’s just a subjective response, but still. Does she lecture in that voice, we need hear a recording of her teaching?

          Also, a Professor and she doen’t know what the word “exculpatory” means?!

          1. “Does she lecture in that voice, we need hear a recording of her teaching?”

            Was having this exact same conversation with my friend (a cynical academic) Monday

      3. ” the media and Democrats have done to the guy”

        But you repeat yourself.

      4. How come Kavanaugh denials are never deemed credible when they are certainly just as credible as Fords?

        1. Because they are not. Everyone knows that only 2% of all accusers are lying. So that means there is a 98% chance that Kavanaugh is lying, because that’s statistics work, right?

          #BELIEVEallVictims

          1. Ugh, I can’t believe people actually had the balls to actually USE that 2% bullshit number. Even common sense tells you that’s a lie.

  29. “FFFFF, Bart”

    His sign-off is only one F away from the hex code for white? I just can’t even at how problematic that is

    1. Comment of the day.

        1. No, I don’t see it. No one who takes intersectionality seriously could possibly have a sufficiently ordered mind to code.

    2. So much intersectionality.

  30. “It’s good to have some confirmation of those long-held suspicions that Trump’s self-made-man schtick is dubious.”

    I suppose it is, if you’re a socialist reporter with a habit of verbally assaulting people on the website where you pretend to be a libertarian.

    1. Or a critic of crony capitalism. Which everybody knows is how things get done in just about any big city with complicated zoning and codes enforcement – scratching backs and greasing palms and kissing asses are far more important ways of getting ahead in business than anything you’re going to learn in business school.

      1. I think Rodney Dangerfield explained how things work in New York in the movie, “Back to School”.

        A really great movie!

        1. First of all you’re going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there’s the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I’m sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that’ll cost ya. Oh and don’t forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there’s long term costs such as waste disposal. I don’t know if you’re familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it’s not the boyscouts.
          Rodney Dangerfield- Back to School

          1. A truly great movie!

            1. +1

      2. Yeah no. Taxation is theft. Even for Trump.

        1. Honestly Jerry, it’s pretty fucking pathetic that your anti-Trump fanaticism has led you to a place where you abandon libertarian principles.

          1. I honestly assumed Jerry was giving her the benefit of the doubt because he missed her exchange with you yesterday rather than it being anti-Trump fanaticism.

  31. Heard some dude give a, um, credible explanation for Ford’s story.

    She intensely remembers the horror, yet nothing about how she got to or from the house.
    No people she considers witnesses remember the event.

    Therefore, it was a nightmare.

  32. This one goes out to fake market genius Dipshit Dave Weigel: Dow jumps more than 100 points to another all time high.

    Trump, making America great again one record-breaking day at a time.

    1. Dow has been setting records for about six years now.

      Japan’s stock market just hit a 40 year high (among others) – does the Con Man get credit for that?

      1. Japan’s Bonzaii culture gets that credit.

      2. Don’t forget to mention Sam’s Club closed a bunch of stores ? an important indicator of a terrible economy.

        #DrumpfRecession

      3. So how much has your portfolio increased in the last 20 months?

        Oh that’s right, you don’t really have a portfolio, Dipshit. You have an advance you got on a shitty rock and roll book that next to nobody has actually read.

      4. “Japan’s stock market just hit a 40 year high (among others) – does the Con Man get credit for that?”
        Pick them cherries, turd; it’s all you got.

    2. Whatever. I hadn’t yet discovered Reason when Dave Weigel wrote for it. But I read Palin’s Buttplug posts, so I know the two most important facts about the economy.

      (A) Drumpf has been absolutely terrible from an economic standpoint, and

      (B) Any good economic news should still be credited to Obama.

      1. Damn, that was a good one.

        A++

      2. Home run!

      3. I’m probably wrong, but you do so remind me of SugerFree trolling Jezebel.

  33. The International Court of Justice says the U.S. government needs to repeal some sanctions on Iran.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…now go fuck yourself.

    1. The Socialists in Europe think Obama is still president and they can control him. Hahaha.

  34. The International Court of Justice

    Nice band name.

  35. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb called youth e-cigarette use an “epidemic” last month, saying the practice “shows no signs of abating.”

    “The FDA won’t tolerate a whole generation of young people becoming addicted to nicotine,” he continued.

    When are we going to do something about the epidemic addiction to power that has been so well known and so well documented for thousands of years before tobacco was even discovered?

    1. Gottlieb called youth onanism an “epidemic” last month, saying the practice “shows many signs of ‘bating.”

      1. Many youths leave signs of their ‘bating. Clean up for gods sake.

  36. I still find it inexplicable that nobody from Ford’s family has made any comments or been interviewed. Shouldn’t her parents have some pertinent information?

    There were rumors that they are estranged because she got too political, which could be true or not.

    I just have a feeling that her family doesn’t believe her but they still love her and don’t want to get involved and hurt her.

    1. I understand they sent a letter to Dianne Feinstein requesting privacy.

      1. “I understand they sent a letter to Dianne Feinstein requesting privacy.”

        Assuming that’s true, it says nothing as regards the points John raises.

        1. Note to self: Use less-subtle sarcasm.

          1. Note to self: Sched sarc meter calibration.

            1. And THAT’S why you always leave a note.

              1. And THAT’S why you dont try to teach other people lessons.

      2. “I understand they sent a letter to Dianne Feinstein requesting privacy.”

        Not.Sure.If.Serious…

        But, if that is being reported, are there any indications that Feinstein has given a copy to Grassley?

        Because, if it’s legit, and she wants it to stay that way, then she really does have an obligation to pass the letter along to the head of the Committee.

    2. I find it hard to believe that any set of parents who believed their daughter had been sexually assaulted would not want to stand up and provide some corrobortation and support for her. There are a million things her parents could say that would help her credibility. They likely knew who her friends were in high school and could potentially vouch for her knowing Judge at least or maybe even Kavanaugh. Even if she didn’t tell them, they could maybe remember her behavior changing after the event. They could vouch for her attending parties with guys from Georgetown Prep. If nothing else, they could vouch for her character and how they don’t believe she would lie about this. I mean, your mother believing you isn’t much but it is something. The total absence of her parents is telling.

      Maybe she told them to stay out of it for their own good. If she did, she hasn’t said so and you would think she would. Because her family’s refusal to vouch for her is pretty damning without an explanation.

      1. If I lied about something as serious as an assault to the national media my dad would probably break the speed of light to tell the nearest reporter I was full of it. But that’s probably the kind of parenting that prevents someone from turning into a shameless liar in the first place.

        1. My dad would do the same. My mother would have disowned me. I can’t help but think her parents are similar and just don’t want to be a part of it. If they didn’t think she was lying, they would be out supporting her in some way.

        2. My dad would do the same. My mother would have disowned me. I can’t help but think her parents are similar and just don’t want to be a part of it. If they didn’t think she was lying, they would be out supporting her in some way.

          1. There’s much more to this story and hopefully others will continue to investigate post-Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

            1. Can’t we just leave this poor, credible victim alone? It’s just a job interview.

              1. No, let the 4th estate go forth and do the job it yearns to do.

                I kid…

        3. My kid sister was teaching a friend to drive with a stick shift. Neither actually had a license. The friend managed to drive the car (not ours) up onto some rocks. They got the car unstuck and drove on back to her house. A witness (neighbor) called the cops and reported both by name.

          Later that afternoon my sister is home, and the old man and I are watching sports. Front door rings, it’s a Sheriff’s deputy asking to speak to my sister. “Dad, a deputy wants to talk to Ellen” I say. My dad walks to the front door, looks at the Deputy and says “no,” then closes the door.

          Parental silence doesn’t prove anything, but it sure means something.

          1. Smart dad.

            Did the cops ever call back?

      2. How do you explain Ford having disclosed it all privately years ago? She really believes it.

        1. She disclosed that something happened but she never named Kavanaugh. Also, she disclosed it during marriage counseling. Maybe something really happened. It is also possible she made the entire thing up as a way to rationalize her behavior in her marriage. Her counselor and her husband made her confront a lot of things she didn’t like about herself and couldn’t really defend or excuse and rather than face it she makes up a story about being assaulted in high school to excuse it. I am not saying that happened. I don’t know. But I think that is just as likely to be true as it being true and her just never telling anyone all of those years.

          1. Credible

        2. She’s a delusional and psychologically damaged woman:

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion
          /2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-changing
          -memories-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/
          1497661002/

        3. And as proof of that she has her husband and contemporary friends stating that she was specific. Now tell me how you verify those conversations actually happened and included the specifics mentioned.

          Or her friends are lying for her to prop up her “credibility” with unverifiable statements.

  37. “That Trump’s impulse is to mock Ford should (alas) surprise no one. But the politics of it are still astoundingly bad. Last week, Trump said Ford had been a “very credible” witness. He has for days been asserting that the FBI investigation into claims against Kavanaugh would be legitimate and thorough.”

    Agreed. I’d have much more respect for him if he’d just said right from the start, “It’s obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that this is politically motivated BS.”

    1. He has a certain “style” when it comes to these things.

  38. Pointing out that her story had glaring holes is hardly attacking her. Either women are equals to men or they are not.

    1. Per the “attack on female reporters” by Trump, no, women do not think they should be treated equally.

      1. No joke. It’s always “TREAT US AS EQUALS” until the MOMENT they are treated as equals.

        He called a female reporter an idiot. Which, mind you, she was. +1 for honesty, Mr. President.

  39. Trump’s real-estate empire was built on tax-dodging

    Not just tax dodging but mostly Daddy’s money.

    The Con Man is a shitty businessman who got lucky by being born to the right real estate guy at the right time.

    1. Not even green looks good on a turd.
      Fuck off.

    2. And he is President and undoing everything Obama did. I don’t really see how thinking he is a conman makes you feel better, considering that the worse you make Trump look the bigger bumbling fool Obama is for watching Trump make his entire Presidency a null set. But, whatever soothes your fevered little brain.

      1. If he fucks up Obama’s sound economy (which he hasn’t done yet) then you can say he has undone everything 44 did.

        There is not one single economic number that is not in the same trend that it was in Jan 2017.

        1. Your citation fell off liar.

        2. Obama’s “sound economy” of stagnant wage growth, historic low employment particpation and the worst recovery since the 1930s. It was really solid alright. And Trump is destroying it with 4% growth, wage growth not seen since the 1950s and historicly low unemployment.

          1. Obama took over a GOP Bushpig GDP of NEGATIVE 7% (4th qtr 2008) and increased GDP more than any other administration.

            Trump’s last quarter of 4.1% growth would be the FIFTH best of the Obama years.

            Friday’s announcement marks the nation’s highest rate of growth during Trump’s presidency so far, though it is not unprecedented, despite Trump touting it as evidence of an “economic turnaround of historic proportions.”

            President Barack Obama, whose first election coincided with a debilitating economic collapse, had four quarters of higher growth than this during his presidency. It would tie for the fifth strongest quarter under President George W. Bush and the 13th strongest quarter under President Bill Clinton.
            https://goo.gl/SymzHm

            You have been CONNED!

            1. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.3.18 @ 10:37AM|#
              “Obama took over a GOP Bushpig GDP of NEGATIVE 7% (4th qtr 2008) and increased GDP more than any other administration.
              Trump’s last quarter of 4.1% growth would be the FIFTH best of the Obama years.”

              Turd, you’ve been busted on those lies many times, and yet you continue to post them.
              How can anyone be so stupid?

              1. I linked, you idiot.

                I know your trauma from being ass-raped by a dozen Turkish freighters is causing a debilitating condition with you but for crying out loud READ THE FUCKING LINK.

                1. Yes, you fucking scumbag, you linked to the same cherry-picked ‘data’ you’ve been busted for many, many times.
                  How stupid are you?

            2. Explains the Fed keeping interest rates so low under Obama.

              Because the economy was super strong.

          2. Look how mad Buttplugger gets and is still wrong.

            1. President Barack Obama, whose first election coincided with a debilitating economic collapse, had four quarters of higher growth than this during his presidency.

              You’re such a fucking idiot – our resident idiot in fact.

              Dispute the bolded fact above then. Oh, you can’t. All you do is contradict like a child.

              Are you 10 years old? That would explain a lot

              1. Why are you still blowing the guy who is out of the office?

              2. Oh Buttplugger, YOU are the idiot no matter how many times you accuse others of things.

                Its even funnier that YOU dont see it. Just like you didnt see Hillary losing and Trump winning in such a big lead of EC.

                Just like you dont see Trump winning reelection in 2020.

              3. “President Barack Obama, whose first election coincided with a debilitating economic collapse, had four quarters of higher growth than this during his presidency.”

                He’s been posting the same cherry-picked ‘info’ for two years, and somehoe hopes, this time, someone will say, ‘Oh, gee I didn’t know that!’
                Hit, turd: He started from the lowest point in 50 years and managed to get that growth for 4 quarters in 8 years? What a fucking disaster…

        3. Buttplugger is partly right, the USA started to get out of the Great Recession the day Trump won the 2016 election and that was still during Obama’s term as president.

        4. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|10.3.18 @ 10:24AM|#
          “If he fucks up Obama’s sound economy …”

          Hard to believe this isn’t trolling; it’s better than OBL manages at his/her best!

      2. “Undoing everything Obama did.”
        So, no more targeted extrajudicial killings?
        Draw-down in Afghanistan?

        “Everything” is a bit over the top.

    3. You know what else was built on tax-dodging?

      The Clinton Global Initiative.

  40. MAGA!

  41. I think Dr. Ford should wear a pussy-hat to all media interviews.

    1. She scrubbed her social media so those photos of her in a pussy hat would not go public.

    2. She probably was in all her social media posts, which is why they were wiped before her ‘allegations’.

      1. Surely there is an archive of her social media comments out there? Nothing is forgotten nowadays.

  42. About the Press Freedom Tracker, is there anymore to the story or is the mere image of a tweet supposed to suffice?

    Maybe the section header needs to be Free Neurons instead of Free Minds.

  43. ENB is clearly not happy that the narrative is collapsing

    1. Neither is Shackford and others.

    2. There should have been nothing to collapse.

      A simple sniff test of all these claims against Kavanaugh, smelled like Bullshit..

      Kavanaugh was/is a drinker. So what.

      The entire Lefty World, the FBI, and ENB could not find a single supported claim of a crime that would even come close to tarnishing Kavanaugh’s character.

      1. Right from the start the sniff test smelled like bullshit.

        1. You know that even those behind the bs accusation recognize how thin it is when they don’t even go for rape, but instead “attempted” rape

  44. http://thefederalist.com/2018/…..ly-flawed/

    This wierdo goes out and creeps around some small town in Iowa stalking Nunes’ parents. Journalists are freaks all of them.

    1. You’re not joking, used to know one…

  45. It’s degenerated now to, “we’ve moved on from the Ford and don’t want to address her many inconsistencies and instead need to focus on his Kavanaugh’s “ice throwing” crimes.

  46. “Last night, to loud laughter and applause, President Donald Trump mocked testimony from Christine Blasey Ford about her alleged assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”

    “That Trump’s impulse is to mock Ford should (alas) surprise no one. But the politics of it are still astoundingly bad.”

    How is it possible that these two sentences appeared in the same article?

    If his base is loving it, and judging by crowd sizes they are, how is this astoundingly bad politics?

    1. He wasn’t mocking her. He was calling her a liar because the shoe fits.

      1. This point needs to be repeated over and over and over. I don’t know about the “politics” of it but high lighting a flimsy accusation is not mocking.

    2. Part of it may be that rational consistency isn’t the goal.

      Part of it may be that some are incapable of rational consistency.

      Some quarterbacks don’t throw accurate passes more than 30 yards downfield–because they can’t.

    3. Because all those cheering people are thinking the wrong thoughts.

      1. Dregs and deplorables, every single one!

      2. The reason some pitchers don’t throw a 100 mph fast ball isn’t because they don’t want to. It’s because they can’t.

        The reason some people aren’t logically consistent isn’t because they don’t want to be. It’s because . . .

        I guess it’s like Occam’s razor, but I try to avoid assuming a nefarious motive when assuming a simple lack of ability will suffice.

  47. I wonder if Jeff Flake is just trolling the Republican Party as a parting “fuck you”. That would be sort of funny.

  48. “A person who I’ve never met said that I did things that were horrible, and they’re firing me from my job, mom, I don’t know what to do, mom, what do I do? What do I do?”

    It’s amazing that it takes Trump to point this out before someone like ENB notices it.

    Haven’t we been talking about this here in comments since day one? This is perhaps the best reason to confirm Kavanaugh–to slam the door on the world progressives are trying to create, where doing or saying something stupid in high school permanently disqualifies you from positions of authority.

    Did you refer to a friend as a “fag” in high school?

    Did you ever laugh at a racist joke?

    Did you ever write anything stupid about Barack Obama on Facebook?

    Have you ever indulged in slut shaming? Post something obnoxious during the Gamergate controversy?

    Could you plausibly be accused of such things?

    Did you ever write online that there’s a hot place in hell for . . .

    No, it isn’t about idiots like Preet Bahara and the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York.

    It’s about how the progressives would like nothing more than to have a future in which employers use all this against you when making personnel decisions.

    1. “Haven’t we been talking about this here in comments since day one?”

      That’s why they keep writing garbage takes. If they did the moral thing and just called bullshit then we wouldn’t be here right now.

      They’d rather have dollars than promote righteousness.

    2. Ken, you will never be on the supreme court. You won’t even be dog catcher.

      1. I’ve willingly left jobs you’ll never have to pursue better opportunities, but you’re right if you mean that I’ll never work for the government.

        Where have you been for the last year? Does the term #MeToo mean anything to you? Do you think that’s all about the Supreme Court?

        Are you familiar with what happened with sexual harassment in corporate America in the wake of Anita Hill and the Clarence Thomas hearings?

        Yes, the progressives want all management considerations to take your social justice history into consideration–including anything you’ve done on social media and anything that’s part of the public record.

        And if you think that’s far fetched, you’re being willfully obtuse.

        1. It was sardonic humor, Ken. I am with you. We are all “guilty” of culture war-crimes.

          1. I invoke Poe’s Law!

            1. It’s ok. He sounded credible.

            2. Guilty as charged.

              Never more…

    3. It’s about how the progressives those who support freedom of association would like nothing more than to have a future in which employers use all this against you or in your favor when making personnel decisions.

      There, fixed it for ya

      1. Yeah, if anybody should be trusted to stand up for our free association rights, it’s the social justice warriors.

        Is that what I’m supposed to think?

        1. I don’t trust them to stand up for free association rights. I *should* trust libertarians to stand up for free association rights even if SJW’s reveal an uncomfortable consequence of the expression of these rights.

          If you believe companies should have the right to hire and fire whom they choose, and if certain companies choose to hire and fire based on SJW-endorsed criteria, then by what basis should libertarians complain? That they are exercising their liberty in a way that we ourselves would not choose to exercise it? But that is true of EVERY expression of liberty. We say all the time that individuals should have the right to smoke pot, even if certain individuals abuse that liberty and choose to become potheads. Why is this any different in principle?

          1. You seem to think that because I don’t want the government to force companies to fire or hire people against their will, that means I can’t have an opinion.

            No, I don’t want to see a world in which social justice warriors have bullied companies into excluding hard working people from ever achieving positions of responsibility because of stupid shit the candidates for a promotion wrote on Facebook 35 years ago.

            . . . and that’s without even taking the lack of corroborating testimony or evidence into consideration.

            If confirming Kavanaugh is slamming the door in the faces of the shrieking social justice warriors who want that world, then let’s do so with enthusiasm.

            1. No, I don’t want to see a world in which social justice warriors have bullied companies into excluding hard working people from ever achieving positions of responsibility because of stupid shit the candidates for a promotion wrote on Facebook 35 years ago.

              Do you want to see a world in which companies, of their own free will, have the liberty to choose to hire and fire people “because of stupid shit the candidates for a promotion wrote on Facebook 35 years ago”?

              1. Are you retarded?

              2. Are you against meritocracy?

    4. My only disagreement with your post is that eventually (if not to some extent, already) conservatives will adopt the same standards.

      1. Well, that’s what we’re talking about with the McCarthy hearings reference below.

        The John Birch Society of today is the social justice warriors of the McCarthy, with Dianne Feinstein standing in for McCarthy himself.

        “Are you now or have you ever been a communist [sexist]?”, indeed!

        I think there is a bit of a difference in that McCarthy was probably more about purging the government of communists in order to appease the voters. The social justice warriors, on the other hand, are trying to purge the voters of their thought crimes.

        “Are you now or have you ever been a communist [homophobe]?”

        I see your wrote something once about bakers should be free to discriminate against gay couples–care to explain that? How can we promote you to oversee gay employees when you’re on the record having espoused such intolerant views? How can we hire you to work with gay customers?

  49. This is what we were talking about when we contrasted the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings to the McCarthy hearings. The principle difference is that where the McCarthy hearings were directed at people in the government and Hollywood, the Kavanaugh hearings are directed squarely at average people like you.

    Are you now or have you ever been a communist [sexist]?

    Using the stupid things we’ve said and done over 35 years (even as minors!) would be bad enough, but when uncorroborated accusations are enough to make you presumed guilty, the burden of proof is on the accused, and due process goes out the window, too?

    Fuck that noise! They should have confirmed Kavanaugh last week.

  50. Is this really a libertarian site any more?

    What about the presumption of innocence? Without that, we have no rights.

    I am appalled at Reason these days, completely appalled.

    Of course, the President mocked Ford’s testimony. It was ridiculous.

    1. Is this really a libertarian site any more?

      No. It’s a fully standard, conventional left-liberal media outlet that reliably pushes the same exact viewpoints and narratives you can get from the New York Times and the Washington Post every single day, but just happens to still have one or two real libertarians that get published (for now at least).

    2. KMW, Gillespie, Jesse Walker, and other Reason staff are Anarchists.

      ENB, Shackford, Welch, Shikha, and other Reason staff are Lefties.

      Have you seen the in depth Libertarian reporting on Libertarian politicians running for office this November? The scathing Libertarian reporting on Democrats and Republicans running for office this November?

      Me either.

      1. I get that they can’t endorse particular candidates due to their 503(c) status, but would it kill them to highlight some of the L’s running for state offices? Do any of those people stand a snowballs chance in hell of actually winning?

    3. Is this really a libertarian site any more?

      The staff is libertarian. The comment section is filled with Trump redneck conservative dumbasses like Louis Gohmert.

      1. You wouldn’t know a libertarian if you walked in on the Planter’s Peanut fucking your mother.

      2. As well as Obama hicklib wastes of life like shriek.

    4. Long story short:

      It used to be a site for libertarians.

      They apparently decided to go for millennial progressives a while back.

      It used to be the kind of place where people would come to learn about or argue with libertarians.

      Now it’s the kind of place where some of the staff (some of the more active of which do not appear to be libertarians) troll their libertarian audience.

      Half the libertarian participants that used to come here split off ’cause they just couldn’t take it anymore.

      1. Where did they go?

        1. DuckDuck Go glibertarians.

        2. glibertarians.com

          I check it out every so often. Kind of fun to see some old names still kicking around there.

        3. I thought we aren’t supposed to mention “The Glibbening”

      2. To your point, Ken: Yeah, Reason has become a semi-progressive lifestyle magazine that gives token defenses of libertarian positions as long as they don’t interfere with the overall progressive/big government agenda.

        I mostly come here to comment and hope that actual future libertarians are not turned off by Reason, the magazine that is supposed to be our ultimate mouthpiece. Sad. KMW has ruined this magazine.

        1. Same here. People mention Reason not Glibertarians, so this might be the first place newbbies look around.

          I want them to see a few Libertarian counters to Reason’s non-Libertarian nonsense.

          The Lefty trolls are scared of newbbies accepting Libertarianism, which is why Hihn, Tony, and Buttplugger comment here.

          1. Honestly LC, I’ve never really viewed you as a libertarian, but as a Constitutionalist. They have a lot of similarities, but I think they’re distinct from each other.

            1. Luckily, in the USA we have the Constitution as an excellent foundation for Libertarianism.

              The biggest difference between Libertarianism and constituionalism is slavery. Libertarians would never be for slavery. I would never support slavery and dont even for prisoners, eventhough the 13th amendment still allows it.

    5. In truth, she deserves worse than mockery. She deserves scorn. If what she says is true (I recognize that it’s obvious bullshit, but play along) then she has allowed a dangerous predator to rape his way to a lifetime appointment on the second highest court in the country, leaving who knows how many victims in his wake.

      If her story is true, she is an accomplice to horrendous crimes that subsequently supposedly happened to at least two more accusers, and another 9 unknown gang rape victims.

    6. Is this really a libertarian site any more?

      When there is a Republican in the White House, Reason and libertarians in general are accused of being closet leftists because they dare to criticize Dear Leader.

      When there is a Democrat in the White House, Reason and libertarians in general are accused of being closet conservatives because they dare to criticize Dear Leader.

      1. de?gree
        d???r?/Submit
        noun
        1.
        the amount, level, or extent to which something happens or is present.

        The claim that “both sides” are equally bad is usually the go-to defense for those without the intellectual capacity to understand degrees.

        1. See: Robby Soave

        2. I’m just going by what I see.

          When O’Bummer was in the White House, the comments were littered with accusations of Reason and libertarians being conservatives who smoke weed.

          Now that The Donald is in the White House, the comments are littered with accusations of Reason and libertarians being leftist anarchists.

          Am I wrong?

        3. Both sides are not *equally bad* on *all measures*. But, both sides are bad enough.

          I don’t care how many people think that “The Left” is some uniquely evil force akin to Stalinism. It isn’t. And even if you disagree with me, there are plenty of places on the Internet that *do* think Bernie Sanders is just a Stalin in waiting, so why not go there instead of trying to turn Reason into one of those places too?

          1. “I don’t care how many people think that “The Left” is some uniquely evil force akin to Stalinism. It isn’t”

            The Left is uniquely worse on economic rights. And those are the rights that have the most significant real world impact on peoples lives.

  51. “Trump’s real-estate empire was built on tax-dodging”

    Avoiding the payment of high taxes isn’t exactly a libertarian sin.

    I wonder if ENB has ever read the statement that “Taxation is theft”. Accusing someone of avoiding paying high taxes in front of a libertarian audience is like accusing someone of draft-dodging in front of an audience of anti-Vietnam war activists.

    The Trump family fortune was built by President Trump’s grandfather. He made his money in the brothel business.

    [Frederich Trump] made his fortune by operating restaurants and boarding houses (brothels) in Seattle and the mining town Monte Cristo, and brothels in the Klondike Gold Rush.[1][2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump

    Maybe ENB’s a big fan now. If making money by avoiding paying taxes is a good reason to ding the Trump family fortune, does making their money through “sex work” mean they must be saints?

    1. The IRS has been closely and regularly auditing Trump for decades now. They live to nail guys like him to the wall for anything that they can possibly get on him.

      If a few moron JournoLists actually managed to discover proof of tax crimes that the IRS somehow missed for all these years, it would be even bigger than Watergate. I don’t buy the story for a second.

      1. Sometimes they just twist things.

        I remember during the recession, the progressives were screaming about how such and such a company was paying zero taxes through “tax avoidance”.

        It was a recession. They company in questions wasn’t making a profit. They were losing money. Why would they corporate taxes on negative profits?

        Meanwhile, all those company’s shareholders have been getting double taxed on the those profits as a matter of course for years and years.

        The progressive mind thinks anything that furthers their good intentions isn’t only acceptable but commendable. It’s a mind that is unconstrained by intellectual honesty. It only gives them advantage, however, with ignorant people and those who already agree with them. For those who aren’t ignorant or true believers, it just makes them a laughing stock.

        1. I can buy this either way. I’ve never bought Trump as a supposed self-made man. I can bbelieve he weaseled out of paying taxes on something that should have been taxable.

          I can also buy that Trump found a completely-legal tax loophole to avoid paying taxes and the New York Times is treating this as a crime, when it’s really just the way crony capitalism works.

        2. I can buy this either way. I’ve never bought Trump as a supposed self-made man. I can bbelieve he weaseled out of paying taxes on something that should have been taxable.

          I can also buy that Trump found a completely-legal tax loophole to avoid paying taxes and the New York Times is treating this as a crime, when it’s really just the way crony capitalism works.

      2. Rich man (who happens to be Trump’s dad) does what he can to avoid paying taxes and help his son. The sun rises in the East. More news at 11.

        It’s like the retards who write this stuff are oblivious that they live in NYC where there is an army of tax lawyers who do nothing but scheme ways to help the wealthy class in that city hide their money.

        Talk about navel gazing nonsense.

    2. This is how retarded ENB is – is she actually suggesting that we should WANT a president who is too stupid to take advantage of every possible opportunity available to him to not pay taxes? What does the welfare state look like under such a moron? It’s probably worse than Bernie Sanders.

      1. Apparently yes. This started with the Bush is so stupid meme but he is up to all kinds of no good stuff in secret that we can’t prove.

        Both can’t be true.

        1. They said the same about Reagan

          1. Hell, they said the same thing about Eisenhower.

  52. Another point that is glossed over is that Dr. Ford is just as much a blue-blood as Kavanaugh.

  53. Sen Dianne Feinstein
    ?
    Verified account

    @SenFeinstein
    Follow Follow @SenFeinstein
    More
    I’m proud to see California passed a law raising the age to purchase rifles and shotguns to 21. Senator @JeffFlake and I have a similar bill that would do this nationally. It’s a commonsense measure that will help keep us safe.

    The same magazine that tells us Jeff Flake is a libertarian tells us to believe Ford.

    1. Jeff Flake may have been libertarianish–especially on fiscal conservatism.

      But that was before he started running to challenge Trump for the Republican nomination.

      You’d think something like gun rights would sink Flake’s chances for that, and maybe they will.

      But the social justice warriors, environmentalists, etc. who are running the Democratic party these days have driven so many people out of their party and into the arms of the Republicans, the “Republican” base may not be what it used to be.

      Flake can run to the left of Bill Clinton and still be much further to the right than the Democrats these days.

      1. He has near little chance at the R nomination ion 2020. If he votes no on Kavanaughits the proverbial Dean Wormer “0.0” chance.

        I’ll call it a less than Jeb chance

        1. So he will run as a Democrat. After he votes no on Kavanaugh, and his word appear to be a signal that is what he will do, he will have no other choice. But his hero status to the left will have a short shelf life.

          1. >>>So he will run as a Democrat.

            thus fulfilling McCain’s greatest unanswered call.

          2. And still have a 0.0 chance

          3. If he runs as a Democrat, he’s toast. That party will not nominate a white male for President for at least a generation, if not longer.

        2. And there’s always 2024. He can build himself a nice national donor base–the Republican donor base largely gave to Trump’s opponents in 2016.

          I’m not saying Flake will be successful, but I think that’s what he’s doing.

          Flake been making the rounds in New Hampshire since March.

          1. Flake is all over the place.

            He has to know that any more anti-conservative moves will make it so conservatives will never accept him.

            Lefties will never accept Flake because he has already shown that he cannot be loyal to the narrative.

    2. Part of that bi-partisan measure will also raise the draft age to 21, right? Right? Cause if we can’t trust 18 year olds with rifles and shotguns, they certainly shouldn’t be handling machine guns, grenade launchers, grenade launcher machine guns, artillery and tanks.

  54. Yes credible is possible it happened.

    But so is a lot of fiction. To determine fiction/non-fiction we need actual evidence that it happened.

    Trump just cut to the chase and said where is the evidence?

    I guess he would have been better off chastising a guy who has been accused of running a gang rape gang because he protests too vehemently.

  55. >>>Last week, Trump said Ford had been a “very credible” witness.

    nobody who uses “credible” re: this story is serious.

  56. *everything* has been built on tax-dodging. fuck taxes.

  57. If I had been there, I would have laughed and applauded too. Her accusation is such bullshit that it would have never seen the light of day had it been made about a Democrat.

  58. The FBI raided the e-cigarette company Juul and seized documents.

    Actually was the FDA according to the link, unless somehow Kavanaugh was involved in this too-maybe Juul is planning to launch a beer vomit flavor?

  59. So mocking Ford is an outrage but all the mocking of Kavanaugh that’s been going on (like on Saturday Night Live) is perfectly normal and A-OK which is why you won’t here so much as a peep from the media complaining about that.

    1. There are things that I think are acceptable for private citizens to do that I have issues with when they’re coming from a chief executive. Nobody on SNL will dare mock Ford, because they’ve bought into the narrative she’s presenting, and even if they were skeptical, they’re too scared of offending loud feminists to do it. Just like they were scared to openly mock Obama, a man for whom the humor just writes itself, because they were scared of offending people.

      If there’s people in the white house sharing chuckles while mocking her story, I don’t care. The president getting laughs while ridiculing her is something I really don’t want.

  60. “This, of course, set Trump off on the media and how sad it is that he can’t sue us more.”

    Who is “us”, kemosabe? I think this was supposed to be posted to the journolist instead

  61. The question is how it will affect the swing voters, and it seems to alienate them unnecessarily.

    Thus, a bad idea.

    Considered purely in the abstract, sticking up for one’s own nominee and saying he didn’t rape someone in high school isn’t really a bad thing.

    It’s a bad thing because it offends the delicate sensibilities of Flake et. al., who have the power to retaliate by voting No on the nomination.

    The swing votes aren’t rational, they just *are.* If they can be appeased without compromising principle, do it!

  62. You sound incredibly stupid right now, because you clearly are not aware at all with the case. The Times accused her of being the motivation for the shooting in an editorial piece that they published shortly after Steve Scalise was shot. When Palin threatened to sue they quickly printed another editorial saying that they were mistaken and apologized.

    Moschino Foghorn Leghorn Sweater Black
    moschino handbags

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.