Reason Roundup

With Boris Johnson's Election, Britain Gets Its Own Trump

Plus: a crackdown on "hot wife" billboards, a ban on cat declawing, and more...

|

The conservative, controversial, and buffoonish Boris Johnson has just been elected prime minister of the U.K. A triumphant Johnson promised supporters he would "deliver Brexit, unite the country and defeat Jeremy Corbyn" (leader of the U.K.'s center-left Labor Party).

Like President Donald Trump, Johnson "gained his country's top political office by deploying celebrity, clowning, provocation and a loose relationship with the truth," says the Associated Press.

Johnson's ascension from mayor of London to highest non-monarch position in the country comes not after winning a nationwide general election—the next of which isn't scheduled until May 2022—but courtesy of Conservatives votes only.

The party was asked to pick between Johnson and rival Jeremy Hunt to replace the current Tory prime minister, Theresa May. After what many considered a mismanagement of Brexit, May announced her resignation in May and will step down on Wednesday.

"We are going to get Brexit done on 31 October and take advantage of all the opportunities it will bring with a new spirit of can do," said Johnson in a victory speech.

Johnson got 92,153 votes, according to the BBC, while Hunt received 46,656. "Almost 160,000 Conservative members were eligible to vote and turnout was 87.4" percent, the BBC reports.

Whether one finds Johnson's election thrilling or horrifying, it's something "that 12 months ago even his most die hard fans would have found hard to believe," writes the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. Johnson "is a politician who is hard to ignore," with "a personality, and perhaps an ego, of a scale that few of his colleagues can match. This is a man who even as a child wanted to be 'world king'."

Trump is a fan. On Tuesday morning, he tweeted:

Like Trump, Johnson—a one-time novelist and an editor of The Spectator magazine—has a history of writing and comments that are…not woke, to put it mildly. In 2008, he famously referred to black people as "pickaninnies," later saying he didn't realize the term was offensive. In a 2002 op-ed, he said any problem in Africa "is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more…the best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty."


FREE MINDS

Hot wife billboards banned. In keeping with this Roundup's U.K. theme, here's an amusing and disturbing look at how U.K. regulations against sexist advertising are playing out. An air-conditioner repair company ran an add that said "Your wife is hot! Better get the air conditioning fixed." This "was ruled inappropriate and banned from a city's buses," notes the BBC:

It was meant to appear on seven buses in Nottingham but Adverta, which places adverts on buses and trams in the city, blocked it and said it could cause offence.

Lee Davies, who designed the ad, said it was "a little bit of harmless fun".

Prof Carrie Paechter, director of the Nottingham Centre for Children, Young People and Families, said the advert was "like something out of the 1950s" and called for it to be removed. "If I had young children, I wouldn't want them passing that on the way to school, because of the messages it gives them about society," she said.


FREE MARKETS

PayPal dumps child protection group. Federal pressure on payment processors to refuse service to sex workers—even legal ones—is often framed as a measure to stop human trafficking and child sexual exploitation. (Don't ask how, it just is, OK?) Now even groups that work with sexually exploited minors may be getting caught up in the dragnet.


QUICK HITS

NEXT: The Affordable Care Act Imposes A Mandate. Not a Choice.

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. With Boris Johnson’s Election, Britain Gets Its Own Trump

    Everyone wants their own Trump.

    1. Some people, I wouldn’t say, but some people would say we have the greatest most beautiful trump.

      1. But you can’t call him “Big Johnson”.

        1. Yuge Johnson

    2. Hello.

      And the story you post right below Johnson is an example of WHY people like him and Trump are getting elected.

      And to be frank, it’s a breath of fresh air. Maybe not ‘fresh’. More like air from a fan on a hot day but it still offers some wind if only to offer some comfort.

      Give me Trump over Douche Dauphin Justin ANY DAY Elizabeth.

      1. Even though the politicians might not be ideal “Statesmen”, they are pushing back against Socialism and the MSM Propagandists which is YUGE.

        1. That’s how I see it.

          Doesn’t mean I like these guys but damn we need some resetting of the buttons.

          1. “…but damn we need some resetting of the buttons”

            Agree

          2. Nothing really happens until you all make the journey to what I accepted some years ago. Progressives must be shown the door if America is to survive. Elections clearly don’t work, and even if they are driven out of civil service and the courts, there are still millions of them raging and working ceaselessly to destroy our freedoms

            Progressives have to go.

            1. Well then we are fucked. Pack it in. America can’t survive an ideological purge either.

              1. No, it’s the ONLY way we survive. The cancer that is progressivism must be cut out.

      2. “Like President Donald Trump, Johnson “gained his country’s top political office by deploying celebrity, clowning, provocation and a loose relationship with the truth,” says the Associated Press.”

        But according to the article this is how he gained his country’s top political office:

        “Johnson got 92,153 votes, according to the BBC, while Hunt received 46,656.”

    3. But can he fight off a coup attempt with such aplomb, like Trump?

      1. I’m not sure that’s quite the right way to describe the situation. Aren’t coups supposed to end up with the people doing the coup in charge? And be done by extra-constitutional means?

        1. “coup attempt”

        2. “And be done by extra-constitutional means?”

          … You really need to get caught up on this. You look pretty fucking stupid right now Zeb.

          1. Dude, you can say a lot of things, but “coup” isn’t accurate in this situation.

            1. Meh … What do you imagine when people say “resistance”?

              1. A bunch of pathetic whiners with no sense of proportion.

            2. Attempted coup certainly is

              1. How? The investigation was bullshit, but it was an investigation. Congress talking about impeachment is within their constitutional role. It may be a dumb idea and make them look desperate and foolish, but it’s not illegal.

                1. So just ignore all the illegalities committed to set up and pursue the “investigation” – which was NEVER anything other than a set up.

                  Please keep up the equivocation. Team State Supremacy applauds you

    4. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find Boris quite a bit more likable than Trump. I think he could do alright.

      1. Salvini in Italy is doing fine as well.

        1. I find Boris very amusing and he seems pretty sharp. And an interesting conservative could do the UK some good.

          1. I’ve watched the “cuppa tea” video 3 or 4 times. It is most amusing.

      2. British accent?

        1. That probably helps. He has the dithering British charm that everyone likes. But he seems smarter and less of an asshole than Trump too.

          1. That would be the New Yorker in Trump. Also for me, not being inundated with Johnson everyday like the media here does with Trump helps.

      3. Zeb wins the racist, transphobic comment of the day.

    5. Everyone wants their own Trump.

      No one should have two Trumps until everyone has one Trump.

    6. Speaking of Trump wannabees…

      Anyone else notice that in the above picture, someone else has their hand around the chick on the left, just under her breast?

      It’s like Twister, trying to figure out whose hand is where in the image.

      1. I’m thinking it’s the guy with the dead monkey face.

        1. Possibly. Maybe Boris’ left hand?

      2. It’s the Benny Hill false arm trick.

    7. I suppose this means I won’t urinate on the UK consulate in Tel Aviv tonight.

    8. So Reason deeply dislikes Boris.

      I don’t suspect they will give us an answer besides unpopular views in writing. His view on Africa does have some legitimacy to it.

      1. I hope he can find a way to deal with their Muslim problem. London is a slaughterhouse anymore.

    9. Makes $130 to $160 per day online work and i received $16894 in one month online acting from home.I am a daily student and online work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time.Everybody will do that job and makes extra cash by simply open this link… http://www.online-3.com

  2. The AP would know a ton about loose relationships with the truth.

  3. Now that Boris Johnson is likely to be Britain’s next prime minister I don’t have to be as embarrassed this summer when I’m in London as I was last summer. Now they have their own Trump!

    — Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) July 23, 2019

    You are now free to be embarrassed for a whole host of other, non-Trump reasons.

    1. I really really really hate people who claim international embarrassment for their rulers. It’s basically shooting a flare gun in the air signaling how little they pay attention to foreign affairs. Plus so some pride for the clown your people elected to represent you.

      1. Calling Johnson “buffoonish” is just an example of how the media will fabricate a narrative that their colleagues will parrot to the point that it becomes conventional wisdom.

        Johnson is far from a buffoon. He’s a cagey, ruthless politician with few scruples and no principles at all. It flatters the egos of diahrretics like Chuck Blow to think they’re smarter than Johnson or Trump, but they clearly wouldn’t have achieved the things they did if they were stupid. And Trump/Johnson know it, which is why they act like walking non-sequiturs. They know by doing so, it drives their enemies bonkers.

        With that said, Britian is a total joke as a country now and Johnson leading them is no less than what they deserve.

        1. “buffoonish”
          i.e.,
          “My contempt for my enemies is part of the news”

      2. Natalie Maines, what a cunt.

        1. To be fair, she and her bandmates were more than happy to appeal to Lost Cause nostalgia via their band name in an effort to sell records.

      3. And they NEVER seem to feel shame about leftie leaders.

        How many Canadians feel “ashamed” that they elected noted imbecile Trudeau?

        1. I do.
          Most men hate him here, he came to power on the horny housewife, legal weed and welfare user vote.

        2. Trudeau is an embarrassment every time he opens his mouth. He is like an amateur actor pretending to be a leader. I used to admit the Canadians for their generosity, but now I only see them as pathetic and stupid for having elected such a moron to the highest office in the land.

  4. A Dallas resident and U.S. citizen has been detained by immigration authorities for three weeks without explanation.

    HUH. I NEVER THOUGHT OF THIS ASPECT OF INCREASED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

    Who knew that ICE would be as incompetent and unaccountable as every other law enforcement agency.

    1. Update: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/23/francisco-erwin-galicia-ice-cpb-us-citizen-detained-texas/

      Summary: His mom took out U.S. tourist visa in his name while he was a minor, falsely saying he was born in Mexico so he could easily visit family there. Hence CBP/ICE may be suspicious of U.S. birth ID documents being forgeries.

      1. Congratulations, federal bureaucracy, you’ve done what bureaucracies do. You fucked up a guy’s life based on paperwork, in this case apparently paperwork filed by a third party from outside the country.

        1. Based on lies this guy’s mother told to a federal agency…

          1. So if your mom commits a crime, you should be thrown in jail? That kind of thinking goes against liberal jurisprudence.

            1. Your mom fucks up government records which are used to verify certain pertinent citizenship details.

              Same as if a mom lies on your birth certificate and the government uncovers the fraud after you apply for some government benefit. That can also be a crime.

              mens rea is not an element of most crimes anymore.

              1. Are you saying you can be criminally liable for fraud your mother committed when you were an infant?

                1. Are you saying you can be criminally liable for fraud your mother committed when you were an infant?

                  If you knowingly perpetuate the fraud when you’re an adult, yeah.

                  1. Zeb’s a little slow today after falling for propaganda again.

                    1. Right, that’s the only reason anyone could see things differently than you do.

                    2. He’s right this time Zebbo.

                    3. What propaganda have I fallen for?

                    4. Zeb, you claimed the “illegals working at Trump golf course” was a joke.

                      Following that to its logical end.

                  2. Who was committing fraud?

                    1. That’s what the investigation was for dumbfuck.

                2. He isn’t being held “criminally liable for fraud”, he was detained for DHS to determine his immigration status.

                  Yes, even US citizens can be detained under many circumstances.

            2. So if your mom commits a crime, you should be thrown in jail?

              If he knew that she committed fraud/perjury when he was a kid, and he didn’t work to correct it when he had the capability to do so, that’s going to look like conspiracy and will probably get you charged. Doesn’t make the bureaucratic process any less stupid, but there’s an element of personal responsibility here that should be expected, too.

              1. Bureaucracies are famous for making mistakes because quality assurance is not what they get paid for.

                With that being said, open border people are trying to break the immigration system as a strategy. More paperwork mistakes are made when the government is overwhelmed.

                Then the open border people can say “See, ICE is detaining Americans”. Then advocate shutting down ICE and opening the border to anyone.

                Shikha and other reason hack writers advocate this bullshit all the time.

              2. Do they have any evidence that he knew about it?
                How about presumption of innocence? And reasonable bail?
                They might have good reason to suspect the documents, but he had them and they weren’t obviously fake, so it seems like the presumption should be that he is a citizen and can’t be detained indefinitely as an illegal immigrant without due process.

                1. “Do they have any evidence that he knew about it?”

                  That’s what INVESTIGATIONS ARE FOR YOU COLOSSALLY STUPID FUCK.

                  Jesus Christ, why do you insist on making a fool of yourself over this.

                  “How about presumption of innocence? And reasonable bail?”

                  ICE isn’t a court dummy.

                  “They might have good reason to suspect the documents, but he had them and they weren’t obviously fake, so it seems like the presumption should be”

                  No one cares what you think the presumption should be, especially in light of how stupidly you’re dying on this hill.

                  1. “That’s what INVESTIGATIONS ARE FOR YOU COLOSSALLY STUPID FUCK.”

                    Generally we put people in jail after an investigation, not before.

                    1. Generally we put people in jail after an investigation, not before.

                      That’s not true “generally”. Government has the power to detain people during investigations when the nature of the investigation warrants it. For example, they can detain both Americans and non-Americans in order to determine identity and immigration status.

                      It’s just that for many investigations of low-level offenses and people with a fixed abode and ties to the community, people are not detained because the assumption is that they will show up voluntarily in court.

            3. “So if your mom commits a crime, you should be thrown in jail?”

              No. If your mom fucks up your immigration status by sending in falsified paperwork, you may have a problem with immigration in the future.

              What the fuck is with you idiots who HAVE TO make fools of yourselves over this shit?

            4. Look I don’t know the full details of this, but yes, as a minor, if your parents forge your identity documents, it’s probably going to cause some trouble for you in the future. Just like that girl in the college admission scandal. Her parents falsified her application, and she lost her sponsorships.

              I’m not trying to argue this is a nice, warm and fuzzy situation for the kid, but the idea that they just randomly detained someone just to watch him drink water from a toilet is turning out to be more complicated than the headline.

            5. You aren’t very bright

            6. So if your mom commits a crime, you should be thrown in jail?

              He isn’t being “thrown in jail”, he was “detained” until his citizenship status could be verified.

              And, yes, a kid’s legal guardian has lots of ways of screwing up their kid’s life, current and future. It’s not the job of society or the federal bureaucracy to prevent that from happening.

        2. Speaking of documents, immigrating, and moms, my mom finally wrote that my birth certificate is in the mail after learning about last night’s situation at the UK consulate.

        3. A legal guardian is not a “third party”. For legal purposes, if your mother says you’re not a US citizen it’s the same thing as you do it as an adult.

          And, yes, this sort of thing is something an immigration system ought to catch. That’s why we have biometrics at the border.

    2. “HUH. I NEVER THOUGHT OF THIS ASPECT OF INCREASED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT”

      Wait until they actually do increase immigration enforcement.

      1. Wait until they actually do increase immigration enforcement.

    3. Remember when Democrats demanded that every American have a drivers license and then it turned into a national ID?

      Driver’s licenses in the United States

      1. Yeah, fuck Real ID. Drivers licenses should be for driving.
        NH resisted for a while, but seems to have caved.

        1. The deadline for Real ID is October 1, 2020. Unless the feds move it again. You will not be able to fly domestically, or enter a federal building unless you have a passport.

          It’s basically a federal ID issued by states with drivers privileges attached.

          Papers please.

          I remember when something like this was considered unacceptable. As was government tracking your location. But now we run out and buy the latest and greatest tracking devices.

          1. The National ID failed again and again, so the Deep State lovers switched to this tactic, since most American adults have drivers licenses.

            Look how many Democrats vote for this tactic. RINOs also vote heavily for this.

            1. You can have a big government welfare state with a strong ID, or you can have a libertarian state without a strong ID. Both are fairly consistent political positions. Having a welfare state without a national ID, however, just doesn’t work. That’s why both Democrats and Republicans voted for this.

              As it turns out, policy positions are not a Chinese menu where you pick and choose according to individual likes and dislikes.

          2. Why should ID even be required for domestic flights? Unless the airline wants to require it, in which case they can decide what forms of ID are acceptable. And now you need an ID to take a fucking bus.

            1. Large helpless groupings of people are targets now.

              Used to be that as long as you had a plane ticket, you can fly. Didn’t matter whose name was on the ticket unless there was some issue of theft or misuse.

            2. Because we are a OC country and unwilling to deal with our Muslim problem.

              1. ‘PC country’.

            3. Why should ID even be required for domestic flights?

              Because the US government has taken responsibility for airline security. They did that because terrorists kept crashing planes into things. The ID is used to pre-screen passengers based on national security and police records, and then to verify that the person showing up at the airport is the same person who bought the ticket.

              Unless the airline wants to require it, in which case they can decide what forms of ID are acceptable. And now you need an ID to take a fucking bus.

              I’m all for privatizing transportation security in a libertarian way. But you have to realize that the consequence would likely be more identification requirements, more privacy invasion, more data sharing, and more out of pocket costs for most Americans (in return for lower taxes).

              Again, I think the libertarian solution is the better one. But if you think that that would make flying less intrusive, think again.

          3. WA State isn’t complying. Guess I need to go renew my passport.

            1. They are according to https://id2020wa.com/.

              It’s not a requirement per se. You have an option to get a non-real ID license. Same is true here in NYS.

              It’s basically requires more documentation for ID proofing.

            2. They are according to https://id2020wa.com/.

              It’s not a requirement per se. You have an option to get a non-real ID license. Same is true here in NYS.

              It’s basically requires more documentation for ID proofing.

            3. The feds are so invested in Real ID, they made it post twice.

            4. My license expired this year so I just went through the process of getting mine in NYS.

              The idea of not being allowed into a federal building has some appeal though.

              1. Yeah, I can see it now….

                “What? You want me to come down to the federal building and talk to the FBI? Sorry, my ID won’t let me get in the door. Too bad, so sad.”

          4. It’s basically a federal ID issued by states with drivers privileges attached. Papers please. I remember when something like this was considered unacceptable.

            Americans have voted themselves a social welfare state; you can’t have that without strong means of identification.

        2. Yup. I agree.

          You knows its a national ID when a driver’s license is used to fly on an airplane.

          Driver’s licenses used to have no picture on them. It was more of a government license to drive on public roads.

          1. Why should we need licenses to drive on public roads?

            1. So authority knows who to arrest if that ticket isn’t paid.

              1. I’m waiting for NYC to start issuing bicycle licenses for the same reason.

            2. It does make it easier to keep some people who should not be driving off the road.

  5. New York just became the first state to ban the declawing of cats.

    Birds and upholstered furniture need better lobbyists.

    1. I’m sick and tired of Big Nail Clipper lobbying

    2. Next: NY to grant cats the vote and/or social welfare benefits.

      Said Gov. Cuomo, “Cats are much more progressive than dogs, and deserve their proper place in society.” Cuomo later denied his toxoplasmosis has any affect on his decision.

    3. No more “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything”?

    4. And now how many cats will die from botched back-alley declawings? Did anyone stop to consider that? Eh?

      1. Declawings should be a right right up until the moment the feline pops the claw out.

    5. I’m not a fan of declawing, but for a completely indoor cat it’s probably not such a big deal.

      1. Also, some people who would give a shelter cat a good home will do so only if they can have the cat declawed. As a small-animal veterinarian told me some years ago, “What’s worse, having your claws removed or being euthanized?”

        1. I do find it funny that “animal rights” people are fine with cutting out claws at the feline knuckles, cutting out feline uteruses, and cutting off cat testicles.

          I personally would consider cutting off human balls, human cruelty.

          1. Israeli dogs bark a lot, because they are not castrated. Sprinkling some of your urine around the local dog park helps them understand that you are a neighbor not a tourist.

        2. Without your claws, how are you going to slash the face of the person euthanizing you?

      2. Would you consider it to be no big deal if you had all your fingertips amputated? Because that’s what declawing is.

        1. Oh God shut the fuck up.

          1. Get a life, guy. All you do all day is sit in the Reason comments and say stupid shit like this. All day. Every day. Sad.

        2. You are right. Declawing is awful.

  6. New York just became the first state to ban the declawing of cats.

    At least New York recognizes something’s right to self defense.

  7. New York just became the first state to ban the declawing of cats.

    Feline nail salon certification agents get a big win.

    1. Are you done Austin Powers?

    2. Aaaaaacccckkkk Thpttttt!

      1. Is that a “Cathy” reference?

        1. Bloom County.

          Bill the Cat.

          1. Yes, that was an obvious direct quote; glad you decided to cite it.

            1. Fist’s not a fan of Bloom County, I guess.

              I would so post an image of Bill the Cat on a litter box with newspaper headline about Newt, if reason allowed such things.

        2. dude?

  8. Just 35 out of 2,105 people with final deportation orders were picked up by ICE last week after the president announced the raids would be coming.

    ARE WE COMPLAINING?

    1. It’s all a show. Trump loves illegals. Who do you think tends his golf courses?

      1. Oh Zeb you are falling for the propaganda today?

        I looked up one of those Lefty stories claiming what you’re claiming. The attorney representing illegals who worked Trump’s golf course.

        They all had fake identities! Hahaha. The media has been covering that gem of information. The immigration law does not require employers go above the rules to verify ability to work inside the USA. The “illegal” employees passed the basic standard for employment with fake documents.

        1. That was entirely a joke. I have no idea who works on Trump’s golf courses and haven’t read any stories about it.

          1. Sure Zeb. Joke. Sure bud. Good one.

            1. I didn’t think it was particularly good, really.

  9. Being a Democrat in the Trump era means never saying die on Russian collusion, apparently.

    Trump had his own foreign election meddling claims, but he seems to know enough to move on from pursuing proof of illegals voting Hillary.

    1. Apparently Comey started his own investigation into Trump.

      An unelected official started an investigation into an elected official, because he felt like it. As someone who still believes in democracy (it’s the best we’ve got) I’ve got a huge problem with this. Some libertarians might also be bothered by it, but who am I to suggest Reason write about bureaucrats attempting to overthrow elections?

      1. Meh. As a private citizen he can cast about all he wants. However, if he still enjoys any hooks in federal law enforcement, then it gets dicey.

      2. This may be too picky, but I don’t think “attempting to overthrow elections” is the right way to describe it. Removing someone from office by constitutional means does not undo or change the election.

        1. The only constitutional removal method of a president from office is impeachment, elections, and the 25th Amendment. The Declaration of Independence mentions altering and abolishing certain governments, and instituting a new government based on their Safety and Happiness.

        2. Not “too picky” Zeb, just wrong.

        3. The FBI was opening an investigation on the President because the head of the FBI didn’t like him.

          They certainly had no actual evidence of a crime.

          You really don’t find this a bit troubling?

          Comey is a less competent Hoover.

          1. Of course I find it troubling. Do I really have to announce that every time I make any comment relating to it?
            Trying to remove a president from office for bullshit reasons is bad and troubling. OK? But it doesn’t undo elections. He would still have been president for over 2 years if he were removed from office today. That’s all I’m saying.

            1. Would you prefer coup d’etat? This would certainly qualify.

  10. “Negative” racial appeals decrease support across a racially diverse audience.

    Labeling one’s rivals racist isn’t the automatic win many think it is?

    1. Racist!

    2. Only a racist would say something like that.

      1. Only a racist would go after another racist!

        1. Damn you and your fast fingers!

          1. Only a racist would have such fast fingers!

      1. Where will Homer Simpson get his weight-gain formula now?

      2. “GNC plans to close up to 900 stores with a focus on mall locations.”

        Shit!
        Now where will I get my crystal meth?

    1. HD has become the Grandaddy’s Lincoln of motorcycles. The yutes don’t want to be seen on one and probably can’t afford them anyway. Unless HD becomes…not HD, the company’s future is bleak as their current customer base dies off.
      It has nothing to do with Trump.

      1. I’m telling you son, you’re going to drive me to drinkin’ if you don’t stop drivin’ that hot… rod… Lincoln…

        1. Good point, maybe they’re the Oldsmobile of motorcycles. Bet you can’t think of a song about a bitchin’ Oldsmobile.

          1. No, you were dead on. Lincoln hasn’t been related to hot rods for 50 years. Some old ass fucking song is your proof. Fuck that song is old.

          2. If the Dead Kennedys didn’t write one no one will.

            1. Milkmen. Dead Milkmen. Bitchin’ Camaro.

              1. The only good camaro is a bitchin’ camaro.

            2. Wow. Bloom County and Dead Kennedys references in the same thread. Where else can you get that? Haha

      2. That is true. And the problem is that HDs are pretty difficult bikes to ride. They weigh a ton and are a total pain in the ass to maneuver in traffic or to avoid anything in an emergency. It takes a lot of skill to ride one of those beasts.

        So all these old men who haven’t ridden a bike since they rode dirt bikes as kids, go out and buy a Harley. Worse, they have a bad habit of not riding them regularly and just looking at them and talking about them more than anything. Then they get out on the roads occasionally and wind up killing themselves because they really have no business riding the bike they bought.

    2. Most Harley riders are Trumps age and to old to keep their balance anymore so they are selling barley used bikes creating a slump in the market. Maybe Harley shouldn’t allow people to sell their bikes.

      1. It is true of almost any brand of motorcycle. The best way to buy a motorcycle is to get a late model used one that someone bought but never really rode. Then you get basically a new bike for the price of a used one.

        1. That’s how I buy cars, 2-3 years old with 20-30k miles for half the price of a new car. Well, I’ve only done it 3 times in 20 years because I drive a car until it won’t go anymore or like the last one gets totaled while parked on the street by some asshole who fell asleep at the wheel and did a monster truck maneuver on it.

          1. That is what I do as well. Buying a new car is a waste of money. Back in the day when cars didn’t last that long, it made sense to buy a new one. But now that cars will last well over a hundred and sometimes over two hundred thousand miles, the money you save on a late model used one makes buying a new one pointless.

            This is especially true with sports cars. You can get amazing deals on barely used sports cars. Grandpa finally gets his dream and buys that Porsche or that Corvette, looks at it in the garage for a few years and then sells it on at half the price he paid for it.

        2. Estate sales are a great way to buy things like that.

      2. “Maybe Harley shouldn’t allow people to sell their bikes.”

        In the mid 90’s, Garth Brooks was trying to lobby for a similar ban or at least a surtax on selling used CDs when that practice was cutting into his revenues. Claiming he was entitled to a cut of revenue any time his CDs were resold. Fortunately the greedy fuck didn’t get his way.

        Artists love to talk about sharing until it comes to their earnings. Then they’re the greediest people alive.

  11. “If I had young children, I wouldn’t want them passing that on the way to school, because of the messages it gives them about society,”

    Don’t those fuckers still have porn in the back of all their newspapers? Or is that just Germany?

    1. Sharia laws will take care of that.

      1. “Sharia laws will take care of that.”

        That’s good.
        I love watching people fucking goats and camels.

    2. Porn is ok. Anything that even remotely hints at the existence of, much less support for, typical western nuclear family units composed of a pair of hetero parents and kids and maybe even some traditional roles being played out… on that’s a no no.

      1. I predict that the laughable censorship of the mid-20th century is about to look positively libertine compared to the era of censorship that’s coming down the pike.

        1. Lefties know that their causes are falling apart at the seams.

          Controlling the Narrative is what the newspapers and tv used to do, so it makes sense to step up the insanity on all forms of communications.

          1. They are still trying to control the narrative, but their narrative has been reduced to Orange Man bad, hate Orange Man.

        2. Again, just make the progressives leave. If we all stood up and said GTFO, or else, what are they going to do about it?

    3. Presumably “your spouse is hot” would be OK. “Your husband is hot”?

      1. “Your catamite is hot” might work.

      2. Spouse still implies marriage. Even though everybody can do it, now, it’s still too traditional to be really welcomed now that the “screw the man!” shine has worn off gay marriages. “Your partner is hot.”

  12. “Being a Democrat in the Trump era means never saying die on Russian collusion, apparently.”

    Of course not. Mueller’s investigation proved that Drumpf is a Russian intelligence asset who colluded and obstructed. All patriotic Americans should demand impeachment.

    #TrumpRussia
    #Impeach
    #Resist

    1. Don’t stop there.
      Trump is also responsible for cancer, the death of the dinosaurs, the Lincoln assassination, Jesus being crucified, the 100 years war and bunch of other shit your forgot to mention.
      You’re slipping OBL.
      You got to limit your drinking to twelve bottles of scotch a day if you want anyone to take you seriously.

  13. Boris huh? So the Russians have elected another stooge for their own nefarious purposes ?

    1. + (backwards) N

  14. “New York just became the first state to ban the declawing of cats.”

    Jersey and Connecticut vets rejoice?

    1. Why would military veterans rejoice cat declaw bans?

  15. “If I had young children, I wouldn’t want them passing that on the way to school, because of the messages it gives them about society,” she said.

    MILF’s hardest hit?

    1. Does this mean Americans are nooget the prudes of the Western World?

  16. “Like President Donald Trump, Johnson “gained his country’s top political office by deploying celebrity, clowning, provocation and a loose relationship with the truth,” says the Associated Press.”

    In other words, standard campaign strategy in a system with universal suffrage and typically dumb people.

    1. On policy I recall the guy as very good.

    2. Having a loose relationship with the truth only matters when a politician is on the right.

    3. The US had a Johnson exactly like that, also, but he was a democrat.

      1. We should have know that some guy with a middle name of “Bane” would be trouble.

        I know. Its actually Banes but it works better.

    4. Celebrity? The only celebrities that helped Trump were the ones promising to move to Canada.

  17. “A triumphant Johnson promised supporters he would “deliver Brexit, unite the country and defeat Jeremy Corbyn” (leader of the U.K.’s center-left Labor Party).”

    So are Remainers now going to suggest redoing this vote too?

    1. “Triumphant Johnson” was my nickname in college.

      1. Isn’t “Triumphant Johnson” a record by “These Incredible Lesbians”?

  18. Trump did collude with Russia and Russia committed crimes on behalf of Trump with the expectation of being rewarded by a Trump administration. Trump’s campaign manager was passing internal campaign data to a Russian spy. Trump’s son was attempting to trade relief from sanctions in return for dirt on Hillary. Trump’s top foreign policy advisor just so happened to be a guy who was described by Russian spies as a useful idiot – useful for Putin’s regime. My expectation is that there is even more incriminating information out there that we won’t have access to until we have a new administration.

    1. Haha. Good laugh.

      It would even be better if the MSM did a thorough story on all the political and election meddling that the USSR/Russia has done over the years. Add in what kind the USA has done.

      Its more of a priority to keep illegals from voting in US elections.

      1. “It would even be better if the MSM did a thorough story on all the political and election meddling that the USSR/Russia has done over the years.”

        Refer to any truthful account of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    2. My expectation is that the FBI will some day finally nail you for your child porn habit shreek. I will take my prediction over yours.

      1. You’re projecting you sick fuck. You bring up child porn everyday.

        1. That is because the board is infested with a sicko like you who was banned for putting up instructions of how to access it. If you would go away, no one would ever mention child porn.

          You are just a disgusting degenerate. Your presence forces us to talk about things we would rather ignore.

        2. He brings up the reason you got banned every day you post, Shreek. Why are you whining like a bitch? You posted the kiddie porn.

        3. Kiddie Raper, do the world a favor, and kill yourself before you rape another child.

    3. “” My expectation is that there is even more incriminating information out there that we won’t have access to until we have a new administration.””

      Your expectations have been wrong about this since day one.

      1. No, I’ve been spot fucking on from day one. If you recall when these questions first surfaced fuckers like John believed and were arguing that Trump’s campaign had not even had contacts with Russians. Forget collusion the claim argued by John and his ilk was that there was not even contact between the campaign and Russians. We were arguing about it because that was Trump’s story in the beginning and many of you here believed Trump when he said it and defended him from that position. As time wore on and that belief became untenable the defense of Trump from the ilk became there was no Russian interference and some Russian contact but nothing nefarious. As more time passed the defense became the Russians interfered but it was inconsequential but still there was no collusion. And then when it became evident that Manafort was working for Russian spies and Trump had attempted to deliver sanctions relief via Michael Flynn the defense became collusion with Russia isn’t a crime and is a good thing to avoid ratcheting up tensions with a nuclear power.

        1. You have never gotten anything right except how to get yourself banned for being a pervert.

          the defense became collusion with Russia isn’t a crime and is a good thing to avoid ratcheting up tensions with a nuclear power.

          Which is fucking true you half wit. Just go back into your hole.

        2. “No, I’ve been”

          banned for posting kiddie porn, so you use the lame ass obvious sock puppet “OG” Shreek.

        3. Forget collusion

          LOL. That’s the whole fucking argument you exceptional individuals have been making since 2016, and what did Mueller find? Jack and shit. In fact, the results of the investigation were so poor, his team had to go after people for unrelated process crimes to justify their existence.

          These Top Men couldn’t even find someone to actually charge with collusion, and you’re still beating this dead horse? Stick to doing what you do best, which is act like a concern troll and surf for kiddie porn while huffing a meth pipe, you stupid hicklib.

        4. “”No, I’ve been spot fucking on from day one””

          Bullshit.

          Mueller is going to indict Trump any day now.

    4. Fuck off Shreek.

  19. http://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/canadas-ball-waxing-horror-show-peak-transgen-activism/

    Canadian man who likes to pretend he is a woman, sues to make women wax his balls. Bake that cake and wax those balls while you are at it.

    1. Haha. Thanks John. I can’t wait for reason to do a story on this “libertarian” accommodation.

      1. Exactly. And if you don’t want to butter my balls and put them between two slices of bread, don’t work in a sandwich shop.

        Awesome.

        1. If a white guy in black face is considered offensive to blacks, how is it that a guy in a dress and makeup isn’t offensive to women?

          1. It is offensive to a number of women, there’s a TERF war brewing…

      2. “Surely real feminism also covers a woman’s right not to have to wax someone’s knob & bollocks if they don’t want to. ”

        Ricky Gervais is 100% right. I disagree with feminists on a lot. It is largely a privileged, first world, socialist viewpoint. But a man trying to force a woman to groom his privates is legit sexist.

        1. Claiming that putting on a dress and pretending makes him a woman is pretty sexist too. Short of radical Islam, I can’t think of a more rank form of sexism than the transgender movement. Even Radical Islam, though it considers women inferior, at least grants that they are unique.

          1. Weird how cultural appropriation is a problem unless it is trannies doing it…

        2. nobody’s stopping her from getting a job elsewhere.

          1. Yes they are. She can’t work at her job if she isn’t willing to handle this perverts balls. She can’t work anywhere.

            1. “HI I’m Dillinger, I’ll fire off a libertarian mantra, only to later realize it doesn’t apply and makes me look fucking retarded”

          2. They work for themselves from their house.

            1. so? i’m fucking retarded but i can figure out how to do something else for money if the stupid government is going to tell me i have to do something i don’t want to do if i want to do what i want to do for money.

      3. As far as I can see, Gervais is the only one showing any consideration for the women being threatened by force of law to engage male genitalia at their place of employment. The feminists battling him don’t appear to be.

      4. This is the brave woman taking multiple female beauticians to court in British Columbia for refusing to wax her scrotum.
        — Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) July 20, 2019

        I can’t even.

        1. Me either.

        2. i love it. it’s like “they’re not eating their own *quite yet*, but stay tuned …”

        3. Titania McGrath’s a parody account. Seriously. That’s how far the SJW left has gone around the bend, that a Britbong who’s making fun of them can so effectively mirror their rhetoric.

      5. Not a group. One person.

        Would it change anything if it were a group?

        1. Yes.

    2. The National Review article is spot on – a novel with a scenario like this would have been rejected as silly, not so long ago.

      The same goes with many modern progressive policies. It would be useful to trace the path which leads, time after time, from “you’re paranoid to suggest we’d ever do that” to “you’re evil if you’re against us doing it.”

      1. The path is as follows. Leftism after World War II and Stalin could no longer claim to be the path to material wealth and Utopia. Even Marxists couldn’t convince themselves that communist countries could ever provide the material wealth that capitalism did. So, in the words of Ayn Rand, Marxists decided that if the party could not provide everyone with shoes, then everyone would forgo having shoes in the name of equality.

        Deprived of any kind of commitment to material prosperity or improvement in people’s lives, leftism embraced eliminating other evils like “racism” and “sexism” and so forth. The problem was that it made their entire identity based on their belief in things that their opponents did not. So, once they won on an issue, they had to find a new one or else they lost their reason for existing. So, once everyone agreed that forced segregation is bad, then everyone had to agree that forced desegregation was necessity or they were racists. And then after that agree with affirmative action and after that reperations and so forth.

        Gay rights is the textbook example of this. It starts with “gays should not be criminals and allowed to live in peace”. Then it became everyone must accept gays. Then it was “everyone must accept gay marriage”. Then it was “everyone must recognize a gay marriage just like a straight one.”

        Now that the Supreme Court has shoved gay marriage down the country’s throat, they have moved on to transgender. Leftism is like a shark. It must swim to live. The point of its existence is the struggle and the assertion of its power over others for its own sake. So once you submit to one thing, they must find something else. This is why the left is always the aggressor in the culture wars and why it is impossible to compromise with them.

        1. Inevitably they’re going to come across actual abuses, and to the extent they point out these abuses they get credibility. Then they ignore any examples of (a) non-leftists denouncing these abuses or (b) leftists going along with the abuses (“no true Scotsman” come in useful here).

          Then they have, at least in their own minds, made themselves the sole opponents of every evil thing, versus the supporters of evil things.

          Ambrose Bierce was generous when he contrasted conservatives, who support existing evils, with liberals who want to replace them with new ones. (Conservatives don’t always *support* existing evils, they might just be cautious about the proposed remedy, and rightly so).

          1. They are absolutely going to move onto demanding the acceptance of pedophiles. They made this inevitable when instead of arguing that homosexuality was a harmless choice that should be accepted claimed it is how people are born and is like race. All of the arguments that can be made for that apply equally well to pedophiles. Pedophiles can’t help what they desire just like gays can’t help it. They were “born that way” just like gays were “born that way”.

            1. The groundwork is already being laid.

              Note that the comments section of stories reporting sex between teachers and underage students are often filled with comments on how lucky the stident us, how the only injury to the student is all the high-fives.

              This will start by lowering the age of consent for porn. First to 16, then once that is achieved, the age will be pushed down to 13.

        2. +1000000

          Perfectly put John.

        3. “The point of its existence is the struggle and the assertion of its power over others for its own sake.”

          They have to maintain that high ground of moral superiority. It just can’t be questioned lest you be deemed cruel, crazy, ignorant, or greedy.

          I do believe they are reaching a tipping point, and that the next election will demonstrate just how much.

          1. I tend to agree with you but you never know. These people are like zombies. They never give up. You can’t underestimate them.

            1. As you say John, their entire life is their Lefty dogma. They cannot stop or their existence means nothing.

          2. I think the last election demonstrated that.

        4. Haha. Yeah, where would the left be without guilt, grievance and victims? Fatigue of this nonsense is something that they are, apparently, not progressive enough to see happening. Good. I hope they don’t change a thing.

    3. So where does “Yaniv should just kill him/her/itself” fall on the prohibited speech spectrum?

      1. What’s with the encouragement of suicide? You can think someone’s bad or misguided or trollish without saying he should off himself.

        And pre-emptively covering yourself with “hurr durr, I know this isn’t politically correct but…” doesn’t mean that whatever you say after that is *morally* correct.

        1. Your favorite tranny is now seeking a permit for a topless pool party with children. Can I request this person end his/her/whatever’s life yet?

          1. If he’s committed a crime, punish him according to the gravity of the crime – depending on the specifics of Canadian law, such a “party” may be a crime, but I’m sure it’s not a capital one.

            1. “If he’s committed a crime”

              This isn’t about crime. He’s a trash person and encouraging his end is not a problem, except to fucking ninnies like you who pretend we are talking about crimes.

              “punish him according to the gravity of the crime”

              You mean like socaily shaming them into suicide?

              Oh. You look stupid now.

        2. “What’s with the encouragement of suicide?”

          What’s your actual problem with it? That people think this guy is awful and the world would be better off without him?

          That’s a stupid fucking thing to be upset about.

          1. There seems to be a lot which upsets you. Is marijuana legal in your area? If so you’re obviously neglecting to use it.

    4. Well according to Nick’s article yesterday, one day you’ll laugh and laugh at the quaint notion of women objecting to waxing another woman’s balls. BTW was that the Fonz in the photo at the top of his article? Did he trade in his jacket for that outfit?

    5. “Canadian man who likes to pretend he is a woman, sues to make women wax his balls.”

      …just when you thought the Canucks couldn’t get any more crazy…

    6. Even BETTER…the “brave” tub of goo in a dress ALSO had a habit of harassing young girls (14 or 15 year olds).

      How brave…

    7. If the aestheticians are Muslim, this will certainly set up a good old fashioned intersectionality roulette spin.

  20. Time for some Boris Johnson T-shirts.

    Britain came fully into Europe, but now it will pull out thanks to big Johnson.

    You don’t need a haircut when you’ve got an awesome Johnson.

    1. Boris making those Big Johnson t-shirts from the mid-90s trendy again would be a worse crime than anything else he might concoct on his own.

    2. “You don’t need a haircut when you’ve got an awesome Johnson.”

      This is true.
      Ask any woman, especially if she’s really horny.

  21. http://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-22/fbi-searches-dwp-headquarters-in-downtown-l-a?hootPostID=8ecdd3670a043bafb784a60af52f787e&fbclid=IwAR1x-g6OD91CSCDft0al2VxfFpyczSIVsJ9eZsDCwuIXXkbrnNlt_x3rzhk

    “It looks bad,” said Jaime Regalado, professor emeritus of political science at Cal State Los Angeles. “Nobody wants to believe that their city is going down a dark path. There is a point where the voting public will start to wonder, ‘What else will these investigations turn up?’”

    No arrests have been made, a law enforcement source said.

    Mayor Eric Garcetti, who selects the DWP’s top executive and chooses the panel that oversees the utility, said in a statement that he has “zero tolerance for any behavior that violates the public trust.”

    “My message to city employees is that if you are asked to assist with the investigation, be prepared to help,” Garcetti said. “And if you’ve done anything to cross the line, be prepared to pay the price.”

    Looks like those damned crooked Republicans are at it again. The Republicans run LA, right?

    1. The problem is that the idiots living there will just think they have to prog harder to fix things, not that LA is now effectively a 3rd-world shithole, with all the associated dysfunction and eventual social collapse that comes with it.

      This wouldn’t be a big deal if it was some isolated hamlet, but it’s one of the biggest cities in the world, and their residents are a fucking political plague that spread their filth to formerly livable areas.

      1. Those fuckers turned paradise into a third world shit hole in the span of a generation. LA would have been better off if the Russians had nuked it during the cold war than being infested with leftists. You can at least rebuild after a nuke.

        1. Those fuckers turned paradise into a third world shit hole in the span of a generation.

          That’s no exaggeration. Prop 187 was literally 25 years ago, although I’d argue that it started to go downhill before then due to the MIC companies closing down and moving out due to the end of the Cold War. A lot of people don’t realize that SoCal remained largely Republican due almost solely to the military industries there. When those white middle-class industries moved out, immigrants moved in and even began ethnically cleansing a lot of blacks out of areas like South Central LA thanks to gang turf battles.

          Same thing’s happened in Aurora, Colorado–this was a city that was largely Republican for decades, and supported four military installations on its northern tier in Lowry AFB and Buckley ANGB, Fitzsimons Army Medical Center and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Three of those places are closed now, the white middle class moved to south Aurora, Centennial, Parker, and Castle Rock, and pretty much everything north of Hampden Avenue is a third-world country. Guess which party dominates the city’s politics now?

  22. Just for the record: Looked up buffoon –
    “In the UK the term is used more broadly, to describe such people who are held in popular regard but who nevertheless engender amusement with their pronouncements and acts.”

    A little amusement with politics is not necessarily a bad thing.

  23. http://www.thedailybeast.com/center-for-american-progress-warns-dems-trump-is-winning-the-immigration-messaging-war?ref=author

    Democratic think tank warns the Democrats are losing the messaging war on immigration. You mean going batshit crazy and claiming we owe welfare and free healthcare to anyone who comes to the country is a bad message? Big if true.

    1. The Rev hit hardest.

    2. What’s notable in that article is the implicit admission that there is no way to appease the batshit crazy leftist wing that anything other than open borders will be acceptable.

      Castro’s calling for those measures because he’s a La Raza piece of shit looking out for his own in-group, while Bobbie O’Rourke is working the “Ellis Island” angle, but the candidates with real, actual poll support know that crap’s not going to fly outside the Rio Grande Valley, the Mexican Reconquista areas or college campuses.

      Ben Rhodes was crying the other day that Trump could get beaten by 4% in the popular vote and still win the Electoral College, and that’s in large part due to the Dems not having any appeal to average working class whites who couldn’t give two shits about Jose and Consuela claiming asylum, or which bathroom a bunch of mentally ill people say they have a right to use.

    3. There’s free shit for everyone if they want it.
      Just visit your local sewer sometime.

  24. Boris is NOT Trump. While he is crass and uncultured, he also worked his way up into that office with prior experience and working within the party. While his politics are not those of the Left, he is still educated and can write and communicate. He can’t play seven dimensional chess but he does have a brain on his shoulder.

    1. I know Trump went to an Ivy League school, but he did go to Fordham and some pretty good boarding schools before that. So, while normally I would agree with your assessment that anyone who went to an Ivy is uneducated, Trump is an exception to that rule.

      1. New York City is a crass cesspool of Democrat corruption and tough guy wannabees.

        Trump did business in that town, which explains him learning to fit in.

        1. Yo, ya got a problem with that?

          1. Fo get about it!

    2. Yeah, the comparison falls apart quickly if you look beneath the superficial personality stuff. Boris is a professional politician and seems to be pretty good at it.

      1. Maybe. Maybe not. Britain only has some 55 million people.

        Trump convinced almost 63 million Americans to vote for him.

        1. Well, so far Boris hasn’t convinced any voters except the ones who elected him as an MP.
          But I’m just saying that as people and politicians, they are’t all that similar.

          1. You’re probably right that he is good at being a British politician, since as you mentioned, their system for picking Prime Minister is different than our system for picking President.

            I was thinking of something a bit different when I replied.

    3. “but he does have a brain on his shoulder.”

      Never assume you can discuss intelligence ever again.

  25. We want to abolish capitalism, nothing less than that,” organizer Anna Bonomo recently told Young Democratic Socialists of America members during an online conference call training.

    But to do that, she continued, sort of convince people they need socialism without using the word. It’s more about connecting over “shared struggles and shared interests,” she said in a video conference training observed by The College Fix.

    The aim is to build relationships in businesses, on campuses, and in communities, the eventual backbone of a “mass organization someday,” she added.

    The online training included a breakout session in which members were asked to practice recruiting peers without using the words “socialism,” “capitalism” or “Marx.”

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/young-democratic-socialists-trained-to-recruit-without-using-word-socialism/

    It is not socialism, it is a “sharing economy”. These people need to read Nick Gillespie to learn how to do this.

    1. I have noticed the Narrative pushing Socialists away from using “Socialism”.

      I don’t think the whole Nazis were Socialists fact gets enough attention to cause this shift.

      It would appear that Bernie is gonna get targeted to lose by the DNC again. Which ever Democrat left standing needs to get above 10% of the national vote and Americans just will not vote for a “Socialist”.

      I predict the term “Liberal” will likely be used for the Democrat candidates. Progressive is also getting too much bad publicity.

      1. They keep ruining the brand and then wondering why the word they used to describe themselves has become so toxic.

        1. They think that their hasn’t been true Socialism yet?

          Force YOU harder is the goal.

    2. It is not socialism, it is a “sharing economy”.

      Socialism, hell, that’s straight-up communism.

    3. It’s not even a sharing economy, it’s coercion.

      People engaging together voluntarily is NOT socialism. It’s not even close.

      Which suggests our tactic shouldn’t be dry AnCap economics or dry defenses of corporatism or shit like that. Our tactic should be to emphasis voluntary interactions between people. Freedom in our personal lives, including our personal economic lives like selling lemonade without a license (socialists hate that) or selling pot without asking gub’ment permission, including employer and employee voluntarily agreeing on a wage, etc. The key is voluntary. The socialists can’t fight that.

  26. “If I had young children, I wouldn’t want them passing that on the way to school, because of the messages it gives them about society,”
    Greens hate air conditioning.

    1. And deodorant.

  27. “Like President Donald Trump, Johnson “gained his country’s top political office by deploying celebrity, clowning, provocation and a loose relationship with the truth,” says the Associated Press.”

    Like AP, Reason writers are among those afflicted with TDS.

    1. Look Sevo, if it doesn’t agree with the narrative, it is a lie. Didn’t you know that?

      1. And for 8 years before we were blessed with a POTUS who never told a lie, never took advantage of his ‘celebrity’ status, never used provocative language, and (according to AP and reason) was never clownish!
        How can we ever recapture those golden years?

        1. He was a uniter Sevo. He never did anything like call his opponents bitter clingers or tell business owners “you didn’t build that”. Or claim Trevon Martin could be his son and make a local murder case into a source of national division. Those are things Trump would do.

  28. “Candidate Harris sponsors bill that would invest billions in drinking water”
    […]
    “Sen. Kamala Harris has introduced legislation designed to ensure all Americans, particularly those in at-risk communities, have access to safe, affordable drinking water, the latest response to burgeoning water crises across the country.”
    https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Candidate-Harris-sponsors-bill-that-would-invest-14114501.php

    Did you know there are “water crises” across the country? I didn’t know that.

    1. She is pushing the Colorado wonder of redistribution of energy and water, sewer assistance to renters by raising FIXED rates and fixed fees on the evil, evil top 50% or anyone who makes one dollar more than median income. Since democrats don’t believe in logistical planning for immigration, the federal government has to pay to expand the growing legal, judicial system overload. The local governments have to ration and somehow pay for energy, water, sewer, education and affordable housing. Government is like the energizer bunny, they keep going and going– raising rates, fees until we end up full on Venezuela. Everything is a crisis when (mostly) the top 30%, with emphasis on the top 10% of the population have to pay for all the living, judicial, energy, water, sewer, food, education and housing expenses of the bottom 50%.

    2. Well, based on Flint, the biggest emergency is Democrats running cities in the first place. I love that they cancelled the contract to give it to a politically connected firm just recently.

      Clearly…lessons were learned.

      1. A much bigger scandal -the New York City Housing Authority, oops— mainstream media didn’t see fit to put a real crisis of competence on the front pages or top news most don’t know about it.

  29. Interesting stats regarding Google:

    “[Google’s] shares are down 12% since its last earnings report, which showed a surprising slowdown in Google’s core advertising business.

    . . . .

    Google remains the dominant name in online advertising, expected to account for 31% of the global market this year, according to eMarketer. That is still a healthy lead over runner-up Facebook , which captures about 20% of the market.

    . . . .

    With 85% of its revenue still depending on ads, investors won’t click with Alphabet until advertisers do.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/bracing-for-a-new-normal-at-google-11563879600?

    I know we shouldn’t let ourselves get distracted by facts and logic when it comes to something important like hating Google, but a 31% market share isn’t exactly cornering the market–and that’s the source of 85% of their revenue. If they were using their monopoly power to juice revenue, that might be one thing, but, as it stands, I just don’t see why legislators or the antitrust division of the Justice Department need to get involved.

    I appreciate and understand complaints about not abiding by their own terms of service, changing their terms unilaterally and arbitrarily after content providers have invested their time and resources in establishing a brand online, and I appreciate charges of collusion with Patreon, PayPal, Facebook, Twitter and others against various content providers. It seems to me that addressing those issues properly belong with the courts. Courts enforcing contracts that people enter into willingly is a legitimately libertarian function of government.

    I should also confess that I’ve been actively colluding against Google myself. I’ve been encouraging everyone who will listen (and some that won’t) to stop using Google’s products just because I don’t like them. The difference between me colluding against Google and Google colluding against content providers is that I don’t have any contractual ties to Google like Google does to their content providers. If there’s a best reason to hate Google, maybe it’s because their misbehavior has made average people hate Google so much that they’re willing to give assholes like Elizabeth Warren the means to regulate content in the future.

    1. Controlling a share of online advertising is not the same as controlling content. The two things are different. Yes, they only control 31% of online advertising. That is because there are tons of big platforms and powerful companies out there who sell advertising. But how many of those platforms are available to the average user? That is a different question. ESPN makes a ton of money on online advertising I am sure. But just because that money doesn’t go to Google doesn’t mean that I am not screwed if Google kicks me off Youtube.

      The better question is what percentage of publicly available platforms does Google control and what percent of online searches does Google control? I don’t know the answer to that but that is those are the relevant questions not percent of online ad revenue.

      1. They’re not charging the average user anything. Is that even a market? To talk about how they’re abusing their market position to charge the average user nothing is absurd.

        I suppose we might argue that they’re abusing their “market” share to keep prices artificially low–to keep competitors from entering the market, but how do you plan to remedy that situation? Are you going to start forcing people to pay for things they used to get for free–to save them from predatory pricing?

        The abuse is not antitrust.

        The remedy is not to break up the company.

        This should not be an antitrust case brought by the Justice Department.

        1. No, the abuse is absolutely anti trust. If they control a large enough percentage of online searches that they can effectively kick anyone out of the market they choose, they are a trust. It is no different than someone 50 years ago owning all of the newspapers and TV stations in one town. “Hey, you want to do business in Smallville, you better stay on my good side because you can’t advertise without my blessing”. DOJ would never allow someone to own a majority of the TV stations and newspapers in a single market.

          Well, today the internet is the primary way people advertise and showing up top on the list for a internet search is how you do that. One company controlling who comes up number one or at all on a majority of internet searches is absolutely an anti trust issue.

          You are looking at the internet as something special and different from other forms of communication and advertising and tech companies as somehow above the law. It isn’t and they are not.

          1. There is a lot more that can be done with anti-trust too.

            These crooks think that by forming a corporation, they can avoid personal liability and get their cake.

            If they want a better claim to government staying out of their business dealings, keep with the single proprietorships and partnerships.

            By forming a corporation, you agree to making it a Public Trust. That should not mean that government can do whatever it wants but trying to use a limited liability business entity to destroy free market opportunities for others is NOT OKAY.

            1. I know the idea that corporate structures protect executives from criminal and civil penalties is a strong meme, but it doesn’t have much of a basis in reality. I can list dozens of people who’ve been thrown in jail and sued for what they did while they executives in a corporation.

              1. Sure the “Corporashuns are evil” meme is overused.

                The reality is that there are serious abuses of the Public Trust by more than just a few corporations.

                private prisons; corporate mercenaries used by US gov in Iraq and Afghanistan; banks taking TARP money and then continuing to do business without moral hazard….

          2. “No, the abuse is absolutely anti trust. If they control a large enough percentage of online searches that they can effectively kick anyone out of the market they choose, they are a trust”

            How much are they charging consumers for these searches?

            How will breaking up the company lead to more competition in searches?

            One of the articles I linked last week was about how Amazon is eating into Google’s search advertising.

            “Several big ad agencies more than doubled their spending on Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) last year as the company ramped up its advertising business. The banners atop search results and sponsored listings within search results grew increasingly common. Amazon doesn’t break out its ad revenue, but its “other” revenue line item, which consists mostly of advertising, more than doubled in 2018, to $10.1 billion.

            Most of Amazon’s revenue growth is coming at the expense of another digital advertising giant: Google, the Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) company. The majority of the increase in Amazon ad budgets came from Google search ad budgets at some of the biggest ad agencies, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.

            https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/04/08/amazons-ad-revenue-growth-comes-at-the-expense-of.aspx

            Consumers aren’t using Google’s search engine to find the best deals on products as much anymore. They’re going straight to retailers they know, like Amazon, to do their price searches.

            Again, the story is that Google’s growth rates is slumping because competitors for their advertising, which makes up 85% of its revenue, are coming in and eating their lunch. That’s why Google’s share price has declined–because investors aren’t willing to pay such a high multiple for Google’s stock when their advertising revenue isn’t growing the way it was anymore. Google doesn’t break out their advertising for YouTube separately, but there’s no reason to think YouTube advertising is diminishing. Meanwhile, we keep reading reports about large advertising groups taking money away from Google’s search business and going with Amazon and other competitors instead. Google still has a search advertising business, but it is not without viable competitors–who are beating them.

            1. How much are they charging consumers for these searches?

              That doesn’t matter. How much do TV stations charge viewers to watch? Nothing if they are a broadcast local station. That doesn’t mean that owning all the stations in one market is not an anti trust violation.

              Consumers aren’t using Google’s search engine to find the best deals on products as much anymore. They’re going straight to retailers they know, like Amazon, to do their price searches.

              That is an argument against their being a monopoly. The problem is that doesn’t address the issue of these companies acting as a cartel to suppress views and businesses they don’t like.

              1. Using the government to force a media company to publish views they don’t like goes way beyond anything antitrust or the government should do. What you want the government to do clearly violates the First Amendment.

              2. “That doesn’t mean that owning all the stations in one market is not an anti trust violation.”

                You were saying there wasn’t any competition for Google’s search engine, but there is. Amazon has a lucrative search engine that competes directly with Google.

                1. Ken, if you mean Amazon’s A9, It’s not a “direct” competitor. I had to look it up, since I had never heard of it.

                  DuckDuckGo maybe.

                  1. I don’t even care if there are no products and services that directly compete with other products because the market does not have any alternatives.

                    It’s the anti-competitive behavior that is the problem. Corporations actively working to prevent new companies from even starting. Especially crony capitalism. This is NOT in the Public Interest.

  30. I like paypal’s cancellation notice – you can’t use us anymore, but we’re going to keep your money for 180 days.

    WTF?

    1. If some bank-type institution ever tried that bullshit, I would drop a lawsuit, so fast that their legal department would call within the week.

      Its theft and calling these companies thieves and threatening legal actions gets them hopping.

    2. “I like paypal’s cancellation notice – you can’t use us anymore, but we’re going to keep your money for 180 days.”

      Who says crimes doesn’t pay?

  31. Three years and counting of a widespread attempted coup of the POTUS. Seems like it would interest a libertarian journalist.

    1. But this coup is different because Orange Man Bad.

      This literally is the reason party line on the issue.

  32. Prof Carrie Paechter, director of the Nottingham Centre for Children, Young People and Families, said the advert was “like something out of the 1950s” and called for it to be removed. “If I had young children, I wouldn’t want them passing that on the way to school, because of the messages it gives them about society,” she said.

    Probably thinks “Your daughter is hot! Better make sure you didn’t leave her locked in the car.” signs would be a good idea.

  33. I don’t get it. How could this happen?

  34. Technically, Boris Johnson may have been elected to be the Prime Minister, but it’s not like he was elected by the people of the UK. He was elected to be the Prime Minister the same way that Nancy Pelosi was elected to be the Speaker of the House. He was elected by other politicians.

    Seem like a nitpick? I don’t think so.

    I keep seeing phrases like “Crisis of National Identity”, “populism”, and “authoritarianism” being bandied about by elitists who can’t seem to fathom that what the western world is experiencing is a reaction to their own contempt for democracy in its proper place. When you ignore democracy–in its proper place–you create the very stuff of which populism and authoritarianism are made.

    The only thing that’s been elected on a national basis in the UK is Boris Jonnson’s party and Brexit. Teresa May’s downfall was because of her failure to accomplish what the people of the UK mandated. When you convince people that their wishes can never be accomplished through democratic means, you will see them move further and further to the authoritarian side of the spectrum. If you’re someone who’s advocating that democracy be ignored in its proper purview, then you are the reason society is moving further and further towards authoritarianism. That isn’t just the way it is in the UK. That’s the way it is in the France, Germany, Italy, the United States, and all over the world.

    Democracy is the alternative to that cycle. If Boris Johnson fails to follow the people’s mandate on Brexit, the alternative will not be going back to the way things used to be. The alternative will be a public with an even greater appetite for authoritarianism in the future. Boris Johnson was not elected by the people. Boris Johnson’s will is not the will of the people. His will is only the will of the people to the extent that he follows the people’s mandate.

  35. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/07/23/kyoto-anime-mass-killing-highlights-media-preference-gun-violence-column/1795785001/

    Dude burned down a Japanese anime studio killing 34 people. Damn. But remember, if we just banned guns there would be no more mass murders. Or maybe we should feel better that these people burned to death rather than dying from an evil gun or something.

    1. That’s so awful I can’t even think of a good anime joke. What a wicked guy if it was deliberate. Perhaps he will get what’s coming to him.

      1. It was deliberate and evil is the word you are looking for.

  36. One of the oddest aspects of this story is the deafening silence on the parts of the LGBT community and Canadian media who have invested so much in celebrating and promoting gender identity legislation and transgender ideology. The CBC, Canada’s public broadcaster and the organization with the most resources available to cover important stories, has acted as a cheerleader for ‘trans rights,’ refusing to engage with the concerns women have attempted to bring into the conversation. They have reported on gender identity endlessly, yet have remained mysteriously silent on the Yaniv scandal. Why?

    http://spectator.us/yaniv-scandal-end-product-trans-activism/

    The same could be said of reason. Lord knows Shackford has done his share of cheer leading for transgenderism. Yet, he seems not to have an opinion on this issue. Funny that.

      1. Why is it that Spiked is a more Libertarian publication than reason? Isn’t that kind of a problem?

        1. I admit I like to needle Reason (not a person!!1!!) about Brendan O’Neill. I don’t agree with O’Neill on everything, but I definitely enjoy listening to him, and I agree strongly enough with him on some primary issues that I consider him a political fellow traveler.

          I was thinking about something the other day– like how Dave Rubin has come under criticism because he only interviews people he agrees with which I think is a pretty weak-tea point. A lot of people do that– including (from my experience thus far) Brendan O’Neill. Rubin has also been criticized for not researching his interview subjects and challenging them on things that Rubin ostensibly wouldn’t agree.

          Gillespie has chatted with O’Neill on multiple occasions, and I’ve never heard Gillespie challenge O’Neill on his vocal opposition to Gay Marriage… to name one thing.

          1. The Dave Rubin criticisms are because he’s successful and making a ton of money doing something anyone could do. He’s not following the traditional media mold and isn’t all that bright and it drives a ton of people in traditional media insane that they did things the “right way” and he stumbled into a niche market they didn’t see coming. It kills them and is driven by envy more than anything else imho.

            1. I say this as someone who finds Dave Rubin dull, not very bright and totally uninteresting. But the criticisms of him are pretty dumb he’s basically gives a platform to some interesting(therefore controversial and sometimes icky)thinkers that otherwise would have gone unknown, the fact that places like reason and other forms of “traditional media” were unable to capitalize on this is an indictment on them not him.

            2. Additionally the fact that they don’t conduct their own interviews with the type of people that drives Dave’s audience and interest in his show is missed opportunity to push back against the people who they find the most heinous. Seems to me most are just happy to have a platform to get more exposure and would be more than happy to show up anywhere though I could be wrong.

            3. he stumbled into a niche market they didn’t see coming.

              It’s not really a niche market when Joe Rogan is bigger than Johnny Carson ever was. I think it drives them crazy because it’s NOT a niche market and they can feel themselves becoming one.

              1. yeah I’m totally in agreement.

              2. “”when Joe Rogan is bigger than Johnny Carson ever was.”‘

                Hi ooooooo

    1. They have reported on gender identity endlessly, yet have remained mysteriously silent on the Yaniv scandal. Why?

      Why? Because the CBC is a straight-up propaganda outlet for left-wing ideology.

  37. I don’t know a lot about Boris Johnson, but I’ve been following a fair amount of European and British politics as of late, and I know people are quick to make comparisons between politicians on both sides of the pond. Having said that, a lot of those comparisons end up being spurious due to the subtle complexities of the political culture that say, people from the US just don’t get about British politics, and vise versa. I’ll withhold judgement on the “British Trump” in regards to Johnson.

    1. Shorter “The British Trump” just feels like a hot take to me.

  38. >>>New York just became the first state to ban the declawing of cats.

    jfc New York did something right.

  39. Oh, and…

    Supporting “affirmative action” isn’t a positive racial appeal. It’s racial preferences for the “right” groups and, necessarily, racial discrimination for politically-incorrect racial groups.

    1. Let’s see the stats for Trump saying
      “White unemployment is a top priority for me”

  40. In Shika Dalmia threads, last week, I made a number of predictions about what would happen as a result of the canceled visit by Morales, the President of Guatemala. One of those predictions is coming true:

    “Guatemala, which has been forming Caravans and sending large numbers of people, some with criminal records, to the United States, has decided to break the deal they had with us on signing a necessary Safe Third Agreement. We were ready to go. Now we are looking at the “BAN”, Tariffs, Remittance Fees, or all of the above. Guatemala has not been good. Big U.S. taxpayer dollars going to them was cut off by me 9 months ago.”

    —-@realDonaldTrump

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1153641906699681795?

    1. Remittances to Guatemala were about $9.3 billion in 2018.

      https://tradingeconomics.com/guatemala/remittances

      Click on the GDP button, there, and it will show you that GDP in Guatemala for 2018 was about 78.5 billion.

      That means remittances represent about 12% of Guatemala’s GDP. If Trump were to go after those remittances, it would be devastating to the Guatemalan economy.

      Trump might be able to get away with that with a justification of money laundering and human trafficking, but I think he just wants the Guatemalan legislature to free Morales up to sign off on the Safe Third Country agreement. I don’t believe Trump cares about remittances apart from that at all.

      1. I love that Trump is using the foreign aid to get these nations to take personal responsibility for their residents.

        Congress wont cut those remittances, so Trump is playing “n”th D chess again.

        1. To be clear, I don’t support the U.S. making it difficult to send money abroad. Convincing the world that getting their profits out of the United States is difficult if they invest here would be devastating to our economy.

          1. Sorry Ken, I was mixing foreign aid and remittances from people inside the USA sending money back to Guatemala.

          2. Los Angeles and San Francisco teaming up for assembly bill AB857, could take care of that (if it passes).

        2. California government run banks will take care of that. Bill AB857, what could go wrong:)

    2. Illegal immigration is a crime. Aiding illegal immigration is a crime.

      To the extent Guatemala does so, they violate US law and sovereignty.

      Serious diplomatic economic sanctions should be in play, not just withholding our usual stacks of money.

  41. Too bad for the hoity toity that none of their top men have any interest in what the majority wants.

  42. Social science says:

    ENB, “Political Science say” might be more accurate.

    Study:
    Christopher Stout
    Assistant Professor
    Political Science Program
    School of Public Policy

    1. And further, Jeffrey Sachs, the person retweeting Christopher Stouts study is essentially agitating for more intersectional and racialist politics– because he claims “it works”.

    2. Sachs does a 20,000+ tweet stream on racialist politics and their positive impact. Here’s one randomly chosen:

      First of all, identity politics (or whatever you want to call it) can be a winning strategy for Democrats. See for instance Stout (2015), which examines the impact of racial appeals by black candidates on voter turnout and partisan support.

      Racialism was something the left (the old left) fought against. But I know we’re in the New Wokeness, and all the hep cats are doing it now. I’m sticking to principle on this… I don’t like it, and I think it makes things worse.

      1. He’s not wrong, considering that white liberals are the only collective that doesn’t show in-group bias towards their own ethnic group. In fact, that particular group of people tends to go out of its way to remark on how evil white people are, in an effort to not get Mau-Mau’ed by their pet minorities.

        1. I wonder why white liberals do not show in-group bias towards their own ethnic group.

          Do they feel alienated from white people?

        2. But white leftists *do* show relentless in group preference and out group attack as *leftists*.

  43. The Uk’s Trump. Please post a correction to this on Corbyn as the leader of the “CENTER LEFT”. Corbyn and Labor in Britain is on record (all over YouTube) of supporting Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela. There is nothing “Center Left” about that party, they are full blown communists.

    1. Well they’re center left NOW. They weren’t three years ago.

      Chairman Mao is now “right wing”.

      1. TDS is like the brain numbing ear larva in the Wrath of Khan.

  44. the best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction

    The painful truth. It will be amusing watch the reaction of the Open Borders For Brown People crowd when millions of white Africans start clamoring for asylum in the US.

    1. Global investors don’t seem to care (whoever farms the land farms the land). One economist who is helping Warren, advocated for land reform in South Africa immediately. Killing white farmers and seizing land is a big global shrug.

    2. Notice that ENB doesn’t argue the issue, she doesn’t even *say* that’s it’s false, she just points and clutches her pearls.

      The Left is entirely intellectually bankrupt, and relies entirely on their feelings for persuasion.

      More and more of the Right simply doesn’t care about the feelings of the Left, whether it’s their tears or their hatred.

  45. This is a tweet.

    How Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind” helped perpetuate inequality—on Earth and beyond.

  46. One of the first things Mr. Johnson should do is accelerate Britain’s leaving of the EU’s plantation.
    That will not only piss off a lot of the bureaucratic slave masters in Brussels, but make them much poorer as well.
    I wonder if the Brits will ask the EU for reparations since they were on the EU’s plantation?

    1. +1

      No progress will be made on any trade issue until the Brits are out. Until then, the EU’s focus will be on scuttling BREXIT.

      They should start from a baseline of WTO rules *tomorrow*, and work their way up.

  47. [Prof Carrie Paechter, director of the Nottingham Centre for Children, Young People and Families, said the advert was “like something out of the 1950s” and called for it to be removed. “If I had young children, I wouldn’t want them passing that on the way to school, because of the messages it gives them about society,” she said.]

    Meh, we will always have Paris:

    https://intercourseandconception.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/warning-not-safe-for-work/

  48. “In a 2002 op-ed, he said any problem in Africa “is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more…the best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.”

    This is undoubtedly true. The world sucks when the truth is controversial.

  49. The selection of Prime Minister Johnson should be heartening to those who wish to see a hard border at Northern Ireland.

    Good luck with that, clingers.

  50. The conservative, controversial, and buffoonish Boris Johnson has just been elected prime minister of the U.K.

    Says the progressive, conformist, and nasty Elizabeth Nolan Brown, who sometimes pretends to be a libertarian.

    1. ENB is not fooling anyone about her claims to being a libertarian.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.