Reason Roundup

Trump Says Mental Illness 'Pulls the Trigger' in Mass Shootings

Plus: Monday market swings spark freakout, Hong Kong "now a revolution," and more...

|

We've moved on to the phase of a post-shooting news cycle where folks come together to agree that mental illness is the real problem. "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun," said President Donald Trump on Monday. Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) set to work on re-introducing a bill concerning mental illness and law enforcement.

On one level, addressing mental health in the wake of mass shootings is better than blaming video games, internet forums, or immigration policy for violence. But because this is government we're talking about, the idea that random people can snap and do crazy, terrible things isn't enough. If mental illness is the problem, we need to do! something! big! about mental illness.

Of course, what we do is never remove the regulatory barriers to better, more widespread mental health care. Instead, we subject any and all people with "mental illness"—a category that can range from complete psychosis and other extreme conditions to conditions like depression and anxiety that are shared by tons of Americans—to increased monitoring, restrictions, and stigmatizing presumptions. Frequently, it also involves subjecting everyone to increased surveillance in order to allegedly spot signs of dangerous mental illness.

AdAge notes that "President Donald Trump said he ordered federal officials to work with the companies to try and identify people whose social-media postings indicate they may commit mass murder before they act. While Trump did not call for any specific regulations, the companies have been facing increasing scrutiny over how they police the content users post online and their power to influence public discourse."

When Trump was talking about recent mass shootings, he kept coming back to mental illness, noted Jonathan Chait, suggesting that "mental illness is the concept Republicans have grasped onto to absolve Trump and his allies of any ideological kinship with white nationalist terrorists. 'Crazy' is a kind of metaphysical demarcation between conservatism and terrorism."

Graham and Blumenthal's bill would give more money to police departments to "hire and consult with mental health professionals," Graham said in a statement. It would also strengthen red flag laws, which allow police and courts to temporarily suspend people's ability to purchase guns. Graham and Blumenthal previously introduced a similar bill in March 2018.


FREE MINDS

Flights in and out of Hong Kong are being stalled and canceled as protests continue to roil the city. How are things going? A short selection of recent headlines should give you the picture:


FREE MARKETS

Monday market swings spark freakout. In the past week, President Trump announced more major tariffs on Chinese goods, the Chinese government elected to let its currency value relative to the dollar drop, and the U.S. responded by officially designating China as a currency manipulator. And just like that, stock and bond markets both dropped enough to cause alarm.

"The swings in financial markets Monday are hard to justify in narrow terms," writes Neil Irwin at The New York Times. "A slightly cheaper Chinese currency shouldn't have huge consequences for the global economy. Rather, investors are coming to grips with the reality that the trade war is escalating and spreading into the global currency market." Irwin suggests that this may be the start of a feared point of no return in the U.S.-China trade war that could "create dangerous ripple effects for the world economy."

Meanwhile, in Trumpland:


QUICK HITS

  • Rethinking paper straws? McDonald's in the U.K. shifted to paper straws as part of the popular tilt away from their plastic counterparts. The company called it part of its plans to help "protect the environment." The plastic straws were recyclable. The paper ones are not.
  • Awkward…

  • A San Diego police sergeant facing arrest for soliciting sex from a minor has apparently committed suicide.
  • Singer R. Kelly, who was recently arrested on federal criminal charges, was also just charged in Minnesota with soliciting sex from a minor.
  • Who could have predicted?

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: What a Rush

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 to visit El Paso mass shooting site, in spite of Dems’ warning to stay away

    Wait…I thought El Paso was a Sanctuary City. I guess only illegals are welcome.

    1. They told him to stay away because going there will be bad for him politically and they are just trying to look out for him. They are kind like that.

      1. What’s interesting is that Antifa operatives were talking a lot of shit recently about conducting an operation against the ICE facility in El Paso. Looks like this autist decided to steal their thunder.

        1. Funny how the Antifa operatives never seem to come around to Trump events. It is like they are cowards and bullies or something.

          1. It wouldn’t go well for them. Personally I would love for some of the,mto try their shit with me. Then I can say I was, provoked.

            1. ITT Chemleff is so stupid that he simultaneously attempts to argue two sides of a position, and proves he’s so fucking dumb that he can’t do an internet search properly.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist
                August.6.2019 at 12:56 pm
                Here is the Oxford definition of torture.

                https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/torture_1

                That is not what you presented earlier.

                Evidently you don’t know how to use the Internet either.

                Ahaahahahaj Jeff is such a stupid fucking moron, that ISN’T THE OED ahahahah he posted the wrong link, and thinks it’s ME who can’t use the Internet ahahahahahha

                1. https://languages.oup.com/oed

                  Read it and weep Jeff you stupid fuck ahahja

                  1. Ahahahahah Jeff thinks the OED is the same as the Oxford learners dictionary, he’s so fucking stupid he tried to ding me for my search skills when HE GOT THAT COMPLETELY WRONG AHAHAHAHAH

          1. Maybe it wasn’t his.

          2. It’s critical that the conventional wisdom that this guy is a Trump supporting white nationalist be widely disseminated and accepted by a majority of the population. This goal has already been accomplished. Your facts are irrelevant.

    2. Hello.

      People should read ‘Popular Crimes’ by Bill James.

      1. Rufus, we don’t have time to read.

        The shooting that already took place in El Paso is the most important thing…EVER.

        At this rate, there will be Lefties shooting up innocents every year until we die in 12 years from Climate Change.

        No.fucking.time.to.read!

        1. Eleven years and two months. Not that I’m counting, or anything.

    3. I hope he takes the podium and says, “I can see Juãrez from here!” and walks off. Any President who wasn’t truly cucked would picked up the microphone, said “Juãrez”, and dropped the mic.

      This single shooting will double El Paso’s historically low murder rate. Meanwhile, Juãrez *on the other side of the fucking wall* averages 100 shooting deaths a month, year-over-year for nearly a decade.

      I keep hearing Mexicans, as in Mexican citizens living in Mexico, on places like NPR saying the US needs to do more to control guns and terrorism and/or that the Mexican government should sue over this event. That noise needs to be absolutely and thoroughly fucked with.

      1. +100

        Alright, good one. You Juãrez(ed) the shit out of this.

      2. Let’s see, so we have shooters randomly shooting people in public, which is, you know, a real problem. And that problem is pretty much unrelated to drug war violence in Mexico, like apples and oranges. And your takeaway is that the President should make snarky comments to some people in Mexico who are annoying you with their free speech which is not going to result in Mexico doing anything they ask.

        1. Hell yeah, snarky comments are our #1 export! MAGA!

        2. So you’re saying that Juarez’s gun violence right across the river isn’t an issue, despite Mexico’s wonderful gun control laws?

          Sure, just because Mexico is basically run by drug cartels now, they should totally lecture us on how to run things here.

          1. Wow, I didn’t say any of the words you just put in my mouth.

            1. I read your post. You deserve all the shit you get for whining about the desire of Americans to tell the idiot Mexicans screeching about gun crime to get their fucking houses in order first.

            2. No Mexican has a right to criticize the US. They are the worst neighbors.

              1. Some, I assume, are good people.

          2. What he’s overtly saying is that he doesn’t care about 100, 500, or even 1,000 dead Mexicans on the other side of the border as much as he cares about 7 on this side. You can’t compare 1,000 apples isn’t a real problem that doesn’t at all compare with 7 oranges.

            1. Wow, didn’t say that, either. I actually care about both. Which was the point of my comment — gun violence in Mexico related to drugs and cartels is a separate problem from random mass shootings in the U.S.

              1. Just a thought…if you’re prone to random acts of violence, wouldn’t joining a drug cartel that lets you act out your desires be a good career move?

                1. Not sure. Being part of a drug cartel would present lots of opportunity for violence, but you would also have people telling you whom you can and cannot target. You’d have to take orders and be loyal to your gang leader and all that. Oddly, there’s a social element to being in a gang. That might not appeal to the type of person who becomes a lone, random killer.

                  Not to mention, when you are in a drug cartel, there are people trying to kill you. It takes a while other kind of crazy / financial desperation / greed to be OK with that occupational hazard.

                  1. Valid points. I’m just thinking of that “Frontier Escape Valve” theory. The frontier is gone, so homicidal malcontents don’t have anywhere to go. But in a somewhat anarchic environment, they would still have options besides “random” (they know why they did it, it’s just the rest of us who don’t understand) violence.

                  2. Humans have an innate need for meaning, a sense of self-worth, belonging to something important. This guy didn’t seem to have that, so he created his own. If he’d been incorporated into a gang with “enemies” and social respect (even if only through fear), he might have found a sense of purpose. Twisted and depraved, sure, but there’s a lot of that in our history. Alexander the “Great” wasn’t great for, y’know, infrastructure and getting the buses to run on time, he killed a shitload of folks.

              2. — gun violence in Mexico related to drugs and cartels is a separate problem from random mass shootings in the U.S.

                The shooting wasn’t random and exactly what is the criteria by which it is a separate problem? Would it be the wall that separates them? The border? Whimsy? Because, unless you spend a majority of your time posting from Juarez, it seems like an arbitrary and convenient separation.

                I actually care about both.

                I’m pretty sure you like to signal that you do.

                1. No, not just signaling. Some good friends of mine were at the Gilroy Garlic Festival. The random shootings are starting to intersect with my personal world.

        3. Drug war and not random violence… like shooting journalists in mexico?

          1. I love it when ‘libertarians’, completely subjectively, decide that relatively insignificant violations of the NAP will supersede massive violations of the NAP.

            It’s almost like, to them, the border is just an excuse to write off thousands upon thousands of dead bodies.

            1. What relatively insignificant act are you referring to?

              1. Maintaining national boundaries

        4. my takeaway is never start posts with “Let’s see, so we have …”

      3. “I keep hearing Mexicans, as in Mexican citizens living in Mexico, on places like NPR saying the US needs to do more to control guns and terrorism and/or that the Mexican government should sue over this event. That noise needs to be absolutely and thoroughly fucked with.”

        “Uhh, your honor, we didn’t ask them to come nor request them to come.”

    1. That’s just ridiculous… Of course Arizona and Oregon also got some sales.

      1. Anywho… I would suspect that all 100 denied ammo sales resulted in that person(s) driving to surrounding states and buying ammo.

        Ineffective and unconstitutional Arms control law.

      2. They are just trying to spread the wealth around.

      3. Usually that means driving to Yuma for southern Calif. Nobody wants to do that.

        1. Vegas too. Make a weekend of it and bring back cases of ammo.

        2. Or take the 3:10.

    2. Nevada got 100 new ammo sales that month.

      Were the 100 illegal purchasers arrested? Or could an ambitious political aid throw a couple hundred bucks at a felon and tell him to go try to buy ammunition 100X?

    3. How many false positives? And I’m guessing zero arrests. Oh, I get it, it’s the buying that’s illegal, not the attempt. Got to love these newer reform style laws.

      So where can I buy stock in Dillon Precision?

  2. Dayton shooter appeared to tweet extreme left views and had an abiding interest in violence

    Haha. Propaganda just does not work well anymore, now that more and more Americans demand facts.

    1. What Dayton shooter?

      1. If a leftist pulls the trigger, it is not murder murder.

      2. Something happened in Dayton?

        1. Someone did something.

          1. In Ohio? Are you sure?

            1. Isn’t that one of those flyover states?

      3. He went the same place the Vegas shooter went.

        1. Burma?

      4. Next you’re gonna tell me a maddow watcher shot up a GOP softball practice. Nobody believes in these fairy tales. And let me guess, someone tried shooting up an illegal immigrant holding facility. Yeah right.

        1. Wait…wait…WAIT. You’re telling me that there was some shooting in the last 50 years besides an El Paso Walmart?

          BULLSHIT!

          Beto and the Lefty Propagandists have assured us that only shooting Hispanics at an El Paso Walmart is important.

  3. Who was digging through McDonald’s trash to recycle straws?

    1. It’s more lucrative than you would guess.

      1. And free fries.

  4. North Korea fires two missiles into sea to keep pressure on Washington

    Lefties always throw temper tantrums when the adults don’t listen to them and let them get their way.

    1. Alternate headline:

      Kim Jong Un declares war on plastic straws

      1. Lol, thanks.

      2. If North Korea can’t have plastic straws, nobody can!

    2. Fuck you dolphin. Fuck you whale.

      1. +1000000

      2. Cheekehn and-o couw?

  5. Why is Trump responsible for El Paso nuts but not Beto?

    The “news” headlines last night were awful. Fox was going hysterical about “the media” being hysterical.

    1. Oh, Trump’s responsible for Beto too.

      1. Underrated response

    2. The manifesto was climate alarmist and anti corporation. 2 democrat talking points to one anti illegal immigrant talking point. How do we score this stuff?

      1. More importantly, the reason why he was anti immigration was because he thought it was bad for the environment. It was all part of his “there are too damn many people” philosophy.

        So, his opposition to immigration was for left wing reasons.

        1. And Lefties used to be anti-immigrant anyway.

          Lefties in the USA are just super desperate and need illegals to vote Democrat or it’s over nationally for the Party of slavery. So now Lefties are just open border, not pro-immigrant.

          Lefties still want to use immigrants. They really don’t give two shits about them.

          1. A lot of environmentalists still are.

        2. So, his opposition to immigration was for left wing reasons.

          From his manifesto:

          “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and
          his manifesto. This attack is a response to the
          Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigator
          s, not me. I am simply defending my country from
          cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an in
          vasion.”

          Doesn’t sound like “left wing reasons” to me.

          1. Try reading the rest of it you blithering idiot. We agree vox is snipping out only small parts.

            1. I read the whole thing. Did you?
              Here it is: https://drudgereport.com/flashtx.htm

              What I quoted is literally the very first paragraph. Not some Vox summary.

              It is just dishonest to say that his opposition to immigration was for “left wing reasons”. MOST of the arguments he presented against immigration for his positions could have been taken from numerous comments right here at Reason. Here is more from his manifesto:

              “Due to the death of the baby
              boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of
              the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party-state. The
              Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by
              pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic Debate. They intend to use open
              borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship
              and more to enact a political coup by importing and then
              legalizing millions of new voters. With policies li
              ke these, the Hispanic support for Democrats will likely
              become nearly unanimous in the future. The heavy Hispanic population in Texas will make us a
              Democrat stronghold. Losing Texas and a few other states with heavy Hispanic population to the
              Democrats is all it would take for them to win near
              ly every presidential election.”

              This is literally the type of crap that commenters like buybuydandavis writes here on a daily basis.

              1. The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is
                destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive
                burden for future generations. Corporations are heaing the destruction of our environment by
                shamelessly over harvesting resources. This has been
                a problem for decades. For example, this
                phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades
                old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the
                country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming
                and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste
                and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl create
                s inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how
                many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water of
                f our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my
                short life has led me to believe that the average A
                merican isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if
                the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The
                government is unwilling to tackle these issues
                beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration
                because more people means a bigger market for their
                products. I just want to say that I love the people
                of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next
                logical step is to decrease the number of people in
                America using resources. If we can get rid of enough
                people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.
                Gear

                And that sounds just like you and Tony. you want to be honest and just admit this guy was a nut and his actions no one’s fault of his own, or do you want to accept responsibility for him because of your Ghia worship?

                1. Everyone else is wrong and can’t read.

                  Literally Jeff’s excuse for everything.

  6. California sued over law blocking Trump from ballot unless he releases tax returns

    Uh-oh. Looks like Commifornia is having trouble keeping its residents on Narrative.

    1. That will never stand up in court. It is a state adding a qualification to the Presidency. The Constitution says anyone who is a natural born citizen and over 36 years old can be President. California cannot add on the requirement that the person must also release their tax returns. They don’t have the power to do that.

      1. I think Taxifornia is hoping that CA federal judges will support the law just long enough to get to Commifornia’s earlier Primary (March 3, 2020 from June).

    2. Maybe we can get a voter initiative on the ballot that requires tax returns and mental health records for anyone running for a state office in Cali.

  7. Stocks rebound from worst day of the year after China stabilizes currency, Dow climbs 200 points

    Expect a YUGE article by Boehm about the DOW Jones climbing back to its all time high.

    1. You mean the boehm hysterics are already old?

  8. Study Shows Leading Cause Of Gun Violence Is Those You Disagree With Politically

    An exhaustive new study from the CDC reveals that the leading cause of gun violence in America is your political opponents. Researchers looked at a number of potential causes of gun violence such as mental health, family situation, cultural shifts, gun laws, rap music, videogames, sugar consumption, and the actual gunman, but by and large, the most prominent cause of gun violence was what most already suspected. The fault lies with those who you disagree with politically.

    Other findings include:

    –99% of gun violence will end the moment your political opponents are wiped from existence
    –A large amount of gun violence is prevented every year by vulgar tirades against your political opponents online

      1. psychos in denial

        1. Shut up Hihn.

    1. One of their better pieces. Thanks for sharing.

      1. Beto, Because America Needs a Trust Fund Baby.

        1. Well, we are running out of Kennedys…

          1. Finally.

  9. Fist of Etiquette takes day off!

    1. Inconceivable!

      1. Hello.

    2. These headlines and ENB aren’t going to Fist themselves. Thanks for offering your Fist, LC.

      1. My pleasure.

        Now someone make me a sandwich. We know ENB wont do it.

    3. He’s giving a ‘drugs are bad m’kay’ speech in the auditorium.

    4. Poor Mrs. Fist

    5. Another Day Without Fist of Etiquette to make you appreciate me.

  10. Galveston officers on horseback seen leading handcuffed BLACK man with rope

    (At :19) is the image in question. I just need the Narrative Mill to tell us which political party these cops are, so we can be outraged if they are Republicans or Libertarians… or #MemoryHole if the cops are Democrats.

    1. Meh. Call us when they have 4 or 5 brothers chained together, and the riders are holding whips.

      1. Maybe they were filming a new Quentin Tarantino movie.

      2. Call me when Lucille shows up to wash her car.

    2. Was there enough room on the saddle for that guy to ride with the cops? What’s the problem?

    3. Galveston Mayor Yarborough is a Democrat but probably one of those secret Libertarian fifth columnists that seemed to have infiltrated and ruined all our glorious major cities.

    1. Who will save the outdated diners? Damn it, I want my 1980s food back!!

      1. Not if you ate there, you don’t.

        1. You get it back whether you want it or not.

    2. Perkins needs to be put out of its misery … again.

      1. I didn’t know they still existed.

        1. I don’t even know who they are. Marie Callenders was some crappy frozen dinner shit, right?

        2. Perkins had the little well you could pick a toy out of

    3. If Marie Callanders hadn’t started selling their pies in grocery stores people would maybe go to their diner

      1. They’d only go once. Unless bad diner food is their thing.

  11. Graham and Blumenthal’s bill would give more money to police departments to “hire and consult with mental health professionals,” Graham said in a statement. It would also strengthen red flag laws, which allow police and courts to temporarily suspend people’s ability to purchase guns.

    Yeah, no way that could go wrong, eh? And I don’t just mean for gun owners. If someone claims that you’re a crazy person with a bunch of guns, the cops won’t know it’s a lie until they’ve swatted you.

    1. Yeah man, I fear giving more powers to the shrinks!!! Here’s why!

      Yes, I am an asshole… I have bribed some shrinks to explain that I have a “personality disorder” instead. So whenever I act like an asshole, I can whine and moan to the courts, and they will let me off!!! Then the taxpayer will pony up, and I will go and see my fave shrink-therapist-recipient-of-my-rivers-of-tears-of-self-pity… And I will steer the taxpayer monies to my fave uncle-shrink!!! He’ll therapueutricize my assholeishness, ooops, I mean, my “personality disorder”!!! He’ll give me a kickback, and we’ll laugh all of the way to the bank!

      Also, for all of you who believe everyone who acts like an asshole has a “mental problem” that can be properly treated by a shrink or therapist, that they should be forced to get Obama-care-mandated, taxpayer-funded drug addiction (or other) “therapy” from the likes of “Chris Bathum”, see http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_62b16ee4-2246-11e8-b456-1f240b332af0.html ,
      Malibu ‘Rehab Mogul’ Guilty on 31 Criminal Counts
      Christopher Bathum’s rap sheet includes a long list of charges, from fraud to forcible rape.
      Your tax and health-insurance money at work!!!

  12. work with the companies to try and identify people whose social-media postings indicate they may commit mass murder before they act

    If you see something in these comments, say something…

      1. Snort.

      2. Dumb-dumb= Hihn

      3. Damn! I didn’t make the list! I need to try harder I guess…

  13. How to turn a mental health issue into a law enforcement issue. Brought to you by everyone. There can be only one solution to all problems: Make things illegal and throw people in cages for non-compliance.

  14. About the google engineer and Richard spenser…

    The request wasnt to fund Richard spenser, it was to put a bounty on the person who assaulted him. The request was on a free speech listserve. Apparently reason is unable to actually parse the request.

    1. Surely you have been here long enough to know to avoid truth and logic – – – –

    2. Why cover the substance of his claim when you can shallowly smear him?

      I look forward to Reason’s future article: Google Can Manipulate Elections if They Want

      1. Full analysis: private company!!!!

  15. Tulsi toasted that MSNBC hack. Lol.

  16. “Rep. Tulsi Gabbard continues to hit at Harris about her criminal justice record”

    Don’t let Tulsi Gabbard fool you. There might be a tendency to think she’s an acceptable candidate from a libertarian POV because of her criticism of so-called endless war and prosecutorial overreach. But the reality is she’s Putin’s favorite Democrat. She’s in the race mainly to hurt the candidates (like Harris) who have the best chance of beating Drumpf.

    #GabbardRussia

    1. Those Russians are so smart, no wonder their country is #1.

      1. +100

      2. Nothing says Machiavellian brilliance like throwing your support behind a politician who polls at 1% but makes the other democrats look like mindless, hypocritical, economically illiterate, war-mongering buffoons.
        Occam’s razor might apply here…

    2. Meh, Harris is just a Xi Jinping sock puppet.
      #HarrisChina

    1. They had signs that said “stab the motherfucker”. But the left isn’t violent.

      Oh and Ron Paul had part of his lung removed this week thanks to the injuries he received after being assaulted by his leftist neighbor.

      1. I saw that.

        It really is coming to a point where non-Lefties have to preemptively defend ourselves from Lefties.

      2. I think you mean Rand Paul

  17. The blame for mass shootings falls on everything I don’t like. Surprisingly not an Onion article.

    http://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/ohio-lawmaker-blames-gay-marriage-video-games-and-obama-for-dayton-tragedy

    1. Gay marriage is a new one.

  18. “Rethinking paper straws?”

    Won’t someone think of the plastic trees?

  19. As many call for tighter gun laws, Texas’ set to loosen up

    I will translate the Lefty propaganda for y’all:
    As many call for tighter gun laws, As Useful Idiots on the Left threaten politicians to violate the 2nd Amendment

    …Texas’ set to loosen up We Lefties hate Texas and its conservative desire to enforce it’s resident’s rights to keep and bear Arms…but we need Texas and its illegals if we are to ever win in National politics again.

    1. According to the Chron this morning, calls for ‘sensible gun laws’ are ‘gaining momentum’….
      Among those who have always been proponents of ‘sensible gun laws’.

      1. Nothing makes you want to give up your guns than the knowledge that an increasing number of lunatics are conducting mass shootings.

        The logic that the country being dangerous should make me want to give up my guns rather than buy more and keep them closer at hand always puzzled me.

        1. To be honest, John, I would never give up my guns even if the Lefties could magically get a majority to change repeal the 2nd Amendment.

          The evidence is pretty clear that Lefties want to put dissenters in gulags, destroy my way of life, destroy my desire to live free, and kill me for successfully fighting back.

          I will never let them kill me without taking some Left tyrants with me.

          1. Neither would I, but that is besides the point. Whatever might change my mind about that, it certainly isn’t the claim that the country is getting more dangerous.

            1. +100

  20. I can guarantee that any bill allowing damn near everyone to just point and go “j’accuse” will have an exemption for those whose form of crazy is gender dysphoria, or the socialists will not support it.

  21. “Of course, what we do is never remove the regulatory barriers to better, more widespread mental health care.”

    Lots of free clinics in major metro areas…. hard to make it any easier.

    1. The Soviet Union was quite well known for their easy access to psychiatric facilities. And you’re crazy if you don’t think this is where the Left is headed. Not literally crazy, of course, but sure as fuck legally crazy and therefore subject to involuntary commitment if you don’t learn to keep your crazy-ass political opinions to yourself, comrade.

      1. ” involuntary commitment”

        Therein lies the rub. People who need it, don’t want it. Therefore, something something for their own good

  22. Unironically, the whole ruse is being pushed by the same people who foisted the Russian collusion hoax on the American people for three years in the hopes of prompting President Trump’s impeachment and removal. The political agenda behind this manufactured white supremacy crisis is equally sinister because its specific purpose is to influence and undermine the 2020 elections.

    The “white supremacy” canard is intended to further demonize Trump; falsely defame his supporters as white supremacists; and pressure nervous voters into defeating Trump and Republican candidates next year. The strategy is as cynical as it is pernicious.

    Let’s clear one thing up before I get into the details: There is no systemic threat posed by white supremacy. Domestic white terrorists are not the same as, let alone worse than ISIS Jihadis. There has been no massive “surge” in white supremacy activity, as I wrote in November. These groups remain fringe, disorganized, and unrespected.

    http://amgreatness.com/2019/08/05/whats-really-behind-the-white-supremacy-terrorism-scare/

    I don’t think the new “white supremacy” boogieman rising just after Mueller looked like an escapee from an assisted living facility before Congress is a coincidence.

    1. Ding!

    2. I don’t think the new “white supremacy” boogieman rising just after Mueller looked like an escapee from an assisted living facility before Congress is a coincidence.

      Imagine for a minute that a serial killer or mass murder wrote a screed saying, “All people of this Earth; Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, S. Asians, Brazilians, Russians, etc. who don’t buy into my particular political ideology need to die.” and the media runs with “Mass shooter issues anti-Mexican/white-Supremacist manifesto.”

      They would rather deliberately be imperiling the public at large, passively reinforcing the killer’s political ideology, in an effort to willfully misinform people. They would effectively be enemies of free speech and enemies of America(ns, Canadians, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, S. Asians, Brazilians, Russians, etc.)

      An NPR host this morning passively asserted that there are only two kinds of terrorism; right-wing and Muslim. Antifa members are firebombing ICE detention centers but Antifa’s not a terrorist organization and eco-terrorism has never been a thing. It’s getting to be appalling.

      1. It really is. And the idiot center leftists at NPR and other places honestly belief Antifa and ELF and the other left wing terrorists will only target deplorables. It never fails. They always think being leftists will save them from the radical fringe and it never does.

    3. Strictly speaking, I don’t think the shooter can be classified as a “white supremacist”, no.

      However, he wrote at length about his opposition to miscegenation, and he favored breaking up the US into a confederation of racially pure states.

      He’s a racial nationalist, I think of that there is little doubt.

      1. He is also a radical environmentalist. So what? And the Dayton guy was a straight up socialist.

        The narrative isn’t holding up very well here.

        1. John, did you actually read the manifesto?
          Here it is: https://drudgereport.com/flashtx.htm
          Yes, he had three major complaints – the “Hispanic invasion”, corporate power, and environmental degradation.
          But the MAJOR THEME of the entire document was about immigration. He started with it, ended with it, and he devoted maybe two paragraphs to the other two concerns.
          It is just dishonest to suggest that all three concerns received equal weight in his manifesto.

          1. Why did he hate immigration? Because there are too many people and that is killing the environment. So, he was against immigration because of the environment.

            Again, what is your point? YOU DON’T HAVE ONE. The guy in Dayton was a socialist. Somehow that doesn’t matter but this guy’s crazy motivations do?

            If you want to blame someone for either, how about blaming the people who are running around claiming that Trump is Hitler and they are in the “resistance” and directly calling for violence against their political opponents every single day for what happened in Dayton. It looks to me like one guy at least actually took them seriously.

            1. Why did he hate immigration? Because there are too many people and that is killing the environment.

              That was one reason he presented, but it was not the MAJOR reason. The MAJOR reason was because he believed immigration would lead to a permanent Democratic majority, and because he also favored racial purity and was opposed to miscegenation.

              Just like with the death penalty discussion earlier, you are minimizing the facts that make your tribe look bad, and maximizing the facts that make your tribe look good and/or the other tribe look bad, in order to present a biased narrative of what actually happened. Anyone who READS THE DAMN THING themselves can plainly see that environmental concerns were NOT a major theme of the document itself. It was one part, but not the major part. He didn’t propose breaking up the US into separate racial ethnostates for environmental reasons.

              1. That was one reason he presented, but it was not the MAJOR reason.

                How do you know what reason he considered more important? Did you read his mind? Talk to him? He never says what the major reason was. They are both reasons. Stop fucking lying. God damn, can’t you tell the truth about anything?

                And again, if you want to blame this on the right, why then is the left not responsible for Dayton? The word Dayton have never appeared in one of your posts. Why is that? Do those deaths not count? Do you support what happened in Dayton?

                You are just a lying sack of shit.

                1. How do you know what reason he considered more important?

                  From the depth of the discussion in his manifesto that he devoted to his opposition to immigration. It was two paragraphs at most devoted to environmental concerns or corporate power. The entire rest of the screed was about his opposition to immigration, because he thought it would create a permanent Democratic majority, and because he was opposed to race mixing. One doesn’t have to be a mind reader to understand the relative importance he placed on those topics.

                  And again, if you want to blame this on the right,

                  I’m not blaming this on “the right”. I’m placing the blame squarely where it belongs, on the shooter himself.

                  why then is the left not responsible for Dayton?

                  I’m not blaming this on “the left”. I’m placing the blame squarely where it belongs, on the shooter himself.

                  And besides, in the case of the Dayton shooter, it is plainly obvious that he was a much more demented individual, with his “rape lists” and “kill lists” from highschool, that had nothing to do with ideology.

                  1. From the depth of the discussion in his manifesto that he devoted to his opposition to immigration.

                    If environmentalism isn’t just as important, why was it in there at all? Moreover, you can’t judge which motivation is more important or even say so in a meaningful way. Motivation is motivation.

                    I’m not blaming this on “the left”. I’m placing the blame squarely where it belongs, on the shooter himself.

                    Then why do you think it is so important to claim he had all of these nationalist views and play down his leftist environmental views? Once again, stop lying. What you are doing here is obvious.

                    I’m not blaming this on “the left”. I’m placing the blame squarely where it belongs, on the shooter himself.

                    Yes we know. You would never blame the left for anything. That is the point you fucking half wit.

                    And besides, in the case of the Dayton shooter, it is plainly obvious that he was a much more demented individual, with his “rape lists” and “kill lists” from highschool, that had nothing to do with ideology.

                    Oh okay, the guy in Dayton wasn’t a leftist, he was just demented. But the guy in El Paso who walked into a wall mart and murdered 20 people isn’t and his political beliefs are important. But you are not trying to blame this on the right.

                    God you are a lying piece of garbage.

                    1. If environmentalism isn’t just as important, why was it in there at all?

                      Please understand that there are more than just two options available, other than “all equally important” and “only one thing is important and nothing else is”.

                      Moreover, you can’t judge which motivation is more important or even say so in a meaningful way.

                      Sure I can, and I did. Here is a clue: Moby Dick really isn’t a story that is just about a whale.

                      Then why do you think it is so important to claim he had all of these nationalist views and play down his leftist environmental views?

                      I’m not “playing down” anything, I am putting his words into the context that HE HIMSELF placed them in. He didn’t start his manifesto with “I agree with the Earth Liberation Front”. He started his manifesto with “I agree with the Christchurch shooter”. He didn’t advocate for racial ethnostates because he thought they would be better for the environment. Pull your head out of your ass, John.

                      Yes we know. You would never blame the left for anything.

                      Translation: I don’t follow John’s double standard, no.

                      Oh okay, the guy in Dayton wasn’t a leftist, he was just demented. But the guy in El Paso who walked into a wall mart and murdered 20 people isn’t and his political beliefs are important.

                      Sure, he was a leftist, I never denied that. But, did the Dayton shooter leave a manifesto behind detailing his political reasons for his attack? No? Oh, okay then. Sure he MIGHT have been motivated by militant left-wing ideology, but I think a fairer reading of the evidence is that he was more profoundly demented based on his history in highschool. But please, do make the case that he was motivated by leftwing ideology, and not because of his predilection to construct “rape lists” and “kill lists”.

                    2. I’m not “playing down” anything, I am putting his words into the context that HE HIMSELF placed them in. He didn’t start his manifesto with “I agree with the Earth Liberation Front”. He started his manifesto with “I agree with the Christchurch shooter”. He didn’t advocate for racial ethnostates because he thought they would be better for the environment. Pull your head out of your ass, John.

                      You just spent the entire thread claiming the environmentalism was his MAJOR MOTIVATION. That is playing down the other motivations you lying half wit. Do you think people don’t read your posts?

                      You are spending endless effort to play up the political motivations on one and downplay the other. But you are not trying to blame the right and excuse the left.

                      God you are pathetic.

                    3. You just spent the entire thread claiming the environmentalism was his MAJOR MOTIVATION.

                      Umm no I didn’t. I think that’s your position, actually. His major motivation appears to be his hostility to immigration. This is because that is what he devotes most of his manifesto to discussing. It isn’t out of slander to the right. It isn’t out of some TDS obsession to blame Trump. It is because that is how he himself wrote his own manifesto.

                    4. Umm no I didn’t. I think that’s your position, actually. His major motivation appears to be his hostility to immigration

                      and

                      I’m not “playing down” anything,

                      You are such a liar you can’t even tell the truth or be consistent in a single thread.

                      Of course you are playing down the environmentalism. That is the entire point of you claiming immigration is the MAJOR MOTIVATION, whatever that means.

                    5. You are spending endless effort to play up the political motivations on one and downplay the other. But you are not trying to blame the right and excuse the left.

                      And there you go with the inevitable smear job. Look, John, the Dayton shooter didn’t leave behind a detailed political manifesto claiming that he was shooting up a night club because he loves Bernie, or something. If he did, then I think it’s fair to discuss his political motivation. He did, however, have a disturbing history of constructing “rape lists” and “kill lists” in highschool. A fair reading of the evidence would seem to suggest that the Dayton shooter was more deranged than ideologically motivated. By contrast, the El Paso shooter DID leave behind a detailed manifesto outlining his POLITICAL motivations for shooting up a Walmart.

                      What would you have me do, John? Continually play up the Dayton shooter’s three tweets praising Kamala Harris and Liz Warren, and ignore the El Paso’s entire manifesto?

                      Oh I know! Let’s come up with a creative argument that tries to blame both shootings on “the left”. That appears to be your schtick though.

                    6. Of course you are playing down the environmentalism. That is the entire point of you claiming immigration is the MAJOR MOTIVATION, whatever that means.

                      You are deliberately and dishonestly inflating environmentalism as the reason behind his shooting spree, so as to try to assign blame for this shooting on the left. The shooter’s own manifesto doesn’t support the inflated importance that you are giving to it. That is my point.

                    7. You are deliberately and dishonestly inflating environmentalism as the reason behind his shooting spree,

                      I am saying it was all equal. You are claiming that it wasn’t “major”, which doesn’t even mean anything. But somehow you are not trying to downplay anything. You are just saying one is really important and the other not. Do you even know what the word downplay means?

                      Again, you are such a liar you can’t even make a consistent argument in a single thread.

                    8. I am saying it was all equal.

                      His own manifesto doesn’t support that contention!

                    9. His own manifesto doesn’t support that contention!

                      Yes it does. He lists his reasons and they both play prominently. You only deny that because you are desperate to play down his leftist political views. If he is a leftist, then you can’t slander the right.

                      The guy in Dayton is a leftist but he was just mean or something. You are pathetic Jeff.

                    10. Yes it does. He lists his reasons and they both play prominently.

                      His entire manifesto is 2,388 words.
                      He devotes 275 of those words to environmental concerns.

                      Sure, John, “they’re all equal”

                    11. “His entire manifesto is 2,388 words.
                      He devotes 275 of those words to environmental concerns.”

                      It’s hilarious that when you finally pin him down, Jeff looks even more stupid than you thought possible.

                2. “That was one reason he presented, but it was not the MAJOR reason.”

                  chemjeff – “I know WHAT CRAZY PEOPLE REALY THINK!!!”

                  Now that I think about it, he’s actually not far from the shooters mentality so maybe Jeff IS better able to get inside the heads of crazy violent psychopaths, being on that road himself.

                  1. And immigration was the MAJOR REASON, but he is not trying to downplay the leftist politics or anything.

                    He actually thinks people don’t see through that.

                    1. John, to be honest I have no idea what Jeff thinks. He seems to be inscrutable because the moment he’s wrong or thinks he’s taken a losing position, he falls apart and the fallacies fly.

                      I DO know he seems to think he is the one true reader of minds and motives. It is, along with putting words in people’s mouths, his prary argument technique.

                    2. And immigration was the MAJOR REASON, but he is not trying to downplay the leftist politics or anything.

                      Truthful answer, John:
                      How does the manifesto begin? Does it begin with a recitation of environmental concerns? Or does it begin with a recitation of immigration concerns?

                      Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE he shot up a Walmart because he was MAINLY motivated by environmentalism?

                    3. HE’S STILL DOING IT!!!

              2. You realize nobody trusts a single word you say – that you have approximately 0% credibility, jeff?

                But of course not.
                You’re psychotic.
                “Fantasy is reality!” -chemjeff

          2. Jeff, you’re a fucking idiot. You’re so fucking stupid that just yesterday you tried to make the case that all the people Stalin had shot weren’t excuted because their official sentence was the Gulag.

            So, maybe get smarter before you pipe up in the future.

            1. Once again, because you cannot read, and are a dishonest troll:
              Dying of old age is not equivalent to execution by the state.
              Only a dishonest troll like yourself would try to make that claim.
              It is idiotic that you compare Stalin’s gulags to dying of old age. Gulags were FORCED LABOR CAMPS. Life in prison without parole is not a “forced labor camp”.

              You’re a troll playing semantic gotcha games who doesn’t belong on this site, or within five miles of any site labeled “Reason”.

              1. The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is
                destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive
                burden for future generations. Corporations are heaing the destruction of our environment by
                shamelessly over harvesting resources. This has been
                a problem for decades. For example, this
                phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades
                old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the
                country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming
                and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste
                and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl create
                s inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how
                many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water of
                f our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my
                short life has led me to believe that the average A
                merican isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if
                the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The
                government is unwilling to tackle these issues
                beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration
                because more people means a bigger market for their
                products. I just want to say that I love the people
                of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next
                logical step is to decrease the number of people in
                America using resources. If we can get rid of enough
                people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.
                Gear

                Can you read that Jeff? Can you explain to us what this means?

                1. I am not denying that environmental concerns were one of his three concerns.

                  What I am objecting to, is the framing taking place here, that they were treated more or less equally in the manifesto. They clearly weren’t.

                  1. What I am objecting to, is the framing taking place here, that they were treated more or less equally in the manifesto. They clearly weren’t.

                    They clearly were. And again, why is it so important to you to claim his real motivations are nationalists if it isn’t to slander everyone on the right?

                    1. They clearly were.

                      If you really believe that, then I think you have a case of “motivated reasoning” going on here.

                      And again, why is it so important to you to claim his real motivations are nationalists if it isn’t to slander everyone on the right?

                      I am pushing back against a false narrative. THE TRUTH is not a slander. If it makes you uncomfortable that this guy shot up a Walmart for reasons that could have been stated right here on these comment boards, then that says more about you than it does about him.

                      And once again, John: THE SHOOTER ALONE is responsible for his actions. Not Trump, not you, not “the right”, him and him alone.

                    2. “If you really believe that, then I think you have a case of “motivated reasoning” going on here.”

                      Yeah yeah, you say whatever you have to in order to avoid being wrong.

                      Sure bud, it’s always everyone else with suspicious motives.

                    3. “THE TRUTH is not a slander.”

                      Ladies and gentlemen, he REALLY DOES THINK HE ALONE can discern the true motives of a crazy person.

                2. He never espouses the white race as superior and his description and justification of a racially segregated confederacy is/can be plainly read as ‘safe spaces as political doctrine’.

                  1. He specifically identifies diversity as the motivation for segregation.

                3. “”Can you explain to us what this means?”‘

                  Ecoterrorism.

                  But I don’t expect the media to get that right.

                  1. Or Chemlef

              2. “Once again, because you cannot read, and are a dishonest troll:”

                In other words, you’re an idiot who chose a poor argument and now has to blame me for pointing it out.

                Why not quote yourself?

                “If the incarcerated prisoner was given the death penalty, with the mode of death chosen to be old age, then you would be correct.”

                That’s YOUR POST. Where you clearly say it isn’t an execution if the prisoner weren’t given the penalty of death by gunshot. Which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID about the people senendlced to the Gulag but that got shot instead.

                Why is it so hard for you to not be a a retard? You tried to make a point, and were completely wrong and now look stupid because you have to defend what you actually said.

                1. I’m not going to continue this discussion here, because it was already hashed out yesterday. Needless to say, Tulpa is not being honest. I never said execution by gunshot wasn’t really an “execution”, that is a fantasy he just now made up.

                  The definition of execution:
                  ” a putting to death especially as a legal penalty”

                  Dying of old age is not the state “putting to death” anyone.
                  Shooting a prisoner is “putting to death” that prisoner.
                  Sentencing a prisoner to a forced labor camp is, very likely “putting to death” that prisoner.

                  But if Tulpa really wants to argue that any time anyone dies in state custody, that the state “executed” that person, then by his reasoning the state has a lot to atone for when migrants die in state-run refugee shelters. Would Tulpa consider this to be a “wrongful execution”? If so, should the state pay compensatory damages in any way? I don’t expect Tulpa to actually answer those questions, because they would require more reflection than he is capable of exhibiting.

                  1. “But if Tulpa really wants to argue that any time anyone dies in state custody, that the state “executed” that person”

                    He doesn’t and never did. Why do you insist on lying.

                    1. No of course not, you don’t actually have a coherent argument, just trolling.

                    2. You lied. I never aid that and you can’t find a quote where I did. You are “chemjeffing”. AGAIN.

                2. “I’m not going to continue this discussion here,”

                  Of course you aren’t, you lost. To your own words.

                  And you’re a fucking coward to boot.

                3. You can’t even keep your points stragith they’re so fuckimg dumb.

                  First you say
                  “If the incarcerated prisoner was given the death penalty, with the mode of death chosen to be old age, then you would be correct.”

                  And then when that makes you look very wrong and dumb, you begin the inevitable chemjeff goalposts moving and backpedaling.

                  “Shooting a prisoner is “putting to death” that prisoner”

                  But isn’t exection BY YOUR WORDS THAT I QUOTED.

                  I have you. And you lost.

                  1. Oh look, it’s Tulpa being a semantic idiot.

                    Stating ONE example of what would constitute an “execution” is not the same as stating it as THE ONLY example of what constitutes an “execution”.

                    Stating that execution by firing squad is one type of execution, does not eliminate the possibility that execution by hanging is another type of execution.

                    You are being stupidly semantical in order to try to continue a trolling session that you lost yesterday.

                    1. “Oh look, it’s Tulpa being a semantic idiot.”

                      Says the asshole who relies on ONLY THE DEFINTIONS that agree with him, and whines when his own words prove him wrong.

                      Why do you get to parse words to the atmoic level, but other people are semantic idiots? You think we don’t SEE YOU DOING THAT?

                      “Stating ONE example of what would constitute an “execution” is not the same as stating it as THE ONLY example of what constitutes an “execution”.”

                      Ah you finally admit I’m right and you were wrong. That took you long enough.

                    2. “You are being stupidly semantical”

                      He doesn’t like it, but you can see here he admits I am correct, and he just doesn’t like the tactics.

                    3. “Stating ONE example of what would constitute an “execution” is not the same as stating it as THE ONLY example of what constitutes an “execution”.”

                      Ah you finally admit I’m right and you were wrong. That took you long enough.

                      I was never “wrong”. I never claimed that there was one and only one exclusive way to conduct an “execution”. That was an invention that you completely fabricated.

                    4. “I was never “wrong”. I never claimed that there was one and only one exclusive way to conduct an “execution””

                      And I never said you did dumbass.

                      Jesus Christ you don’t even understand what you’re wrong about.

        2. I like how baby Jeffrey comes in spouting only what’s being said on Vox and ignoring the rest of the manifesto. he constantly proves he is a headline reader and that is the depth of his inspection.

          1. I read the entire document. Did you?

            If you read the entire document and can conclude with a straight face that he shot up a Walmart because he was a “radical environmentalist” then either your reading comprehension is way off, or you’re lying to yourself.

            1. Read the entire document. Sure
              Does this part not count?
              The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is
              destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive
              burden for future generations. Corporations are heaing the destruction of our environment by
              shamelessly over harvesting resources. This has been
              a problem for decades. For example, this
              phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades
              old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the
              country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming
              and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste
              and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl create
              s inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how
              many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water of
              f our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my
              short life has led me to believe that the average A
              merican isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if
              the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The
              government is unwilling to tackle these issues
              beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration
              because more people means a bigger market for their
              products. I just want to say that I love the people
              of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next
              logical step is to decrease the number of people in
              America using resources. If we can get rid of enough
              people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.
              Gear

              1. See my comment above. How did he START his manifesto? What did he spend the most time discussing?

                I understand you want to desperately put this guy on the side of “the left” based on his environmental concerns, because you are too invested in the tribalism of the day. But step back for a moment, and realize that this guy didn’t shoot up a Walmart because he was concerned for the environment.

                1. So you read his mind and have determined that this stuff isn’t important and has nothing to do with what he did. He just put it in there to throw us off the trail or something.

                  Do you realize how stupid you sound? No of course you don’t. But everyone else does.

                  1. +100

          2. Well Jeff like to find sources that agree with him and utterly ignore those that don’t.

            He did it yesterday when he was completely wrong about a definition, using a source that even a child would recognize as incomplete at best.

            1. You mean, like the dictionary?

              1. Yes, you used a dictionary definition that was laughably incomplete then when I provided a more complete dictionary source, you shit all over yourself and lost your mind.

                You pick your sour es if they agree with you, and find whatever method you need to dismiss it

                You, YESTERDAY

                chemjeff radical individualist
                August.5.2019 at 4:34 pm
                Oh so now you’re going to argue about which definition is correct.

                Your definition (what is your source, by the way?) would imply that any incarceration whatsoever is “torture”,

                That is YOU arguing with a dictionary because you don’t like the totality of the definition and it makes you wrong.

                Why the fuck would anyone care what you say when your response to a DICTIONARY is “Nah, my definition is right?”

                What kind of fucking idiot ARE YOU?

                1. You provided a ridiculous definition of torture that defined even spending a night in county lockup as “torture”. Is that really what you mean when you want to discuss “torture”?

                  (Hint: Now Tulpa is going to refuse to discuss the substance of the issue – what is or is not torture – and will instead hurl invective at me about arguing about dictionary definitions.)

                  (Or, perhaps, Tulpa will read the hint, and then declare “no I’m not, you’re such a liar” and will again refuse to discuss the substance of the issue of what is or is not torture.)

                  Either way, he’s not actually going to discuss the issue.

                  1. “You provided a ridiculous definition of torture”

                    Shorter Jeff – “FUCK DEFINTIONS I don’t like!!!”

                    CAMBRIDGE provided that definition you jackass.

                    1. CAMBRIDGE provided that definition you jackass.

                      No they didn’t. The definition you provided yesterday was:

                      “the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something”

                      This definition does not appear anywhere here:

                      https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/torture

                      That definition DOES appear elsewhere, however. Not Cambridge.

                      You picked a poor definition from a random Internet site, and you were called out on it. NOW, you give more reliable definitions which are more consistent with what I initially posted yesterday. Good for you. You saw the error of your ways. Change is possible for you after all.

                    2. “Define
                      torture
                      [ˈtôrCHər]
                      NOUN
                      tortures (plural noun)
                      the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.
                      “the torture of political prisoners” · ”confessions extracted under torture” · ”a torture chamber”
                      synonyms:
                      infliction of pain · abuse · torment · ill treatment · maltreatment · harsh treatment · punishment · persecution
                      great physical or mental suffering or anxiety.
                      “the torture I’ve gone through because of loving you so”
                      synonyms:
                      torment · agony · suffering · pain · anguish · misery · distress · heartbreak · affliction · trauma · wretchedness · woe · hell · purgatory · excruciation
                      antonyms:
                      pleasure
                      a cause of great suffering or anxiety.
                      “dances were absolute torture because I was so small”
                      synonyms:
                      ordeal · horror · torment · trial · burden · curse · bane · bogey · pet hate · dread · phobia · hell · purgatory · misery · agony · murder · bête noire
                      VERB
                      tortures (third person present) · tortured (past tense) · tortured (past participle) · torturing (present participle)
                      inflict severe pain or suffering on.
                      “most of the victims had been brutally tortured”
                      synonyms:
                      inflict pain on · inflict suffering on · torment · ill-treat · abuse · mistreat · maltreat · molest · scourge · wound · put someone on the rack · persecute · punish · work over · give someone the works
                      antonyms:
                      relieve · comfort
                      cause great mental suffering or anxiety to.
                      “he was tortured by grief” · ”his tortured mind”
                      synonyms:
                      torment · afflict · harrow · plague · distress · agonize · cause agony to · cause suffering to · inflict anguish on · crucify · rack · pain · mortify · worry · trouble · beset
                      ORIGIN
                      late Middle English (in the sense ‘distortion, twisting’, or a physical disorder characterized by this): via French from late Latintortura‘twisting, torment’, from Latintorquere‘to twist’.
                      Translate torture to

                      Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

                      Go to Bing.com. Put in torture. Then cread to the bottom, come back, and apologize for being an imbecile.

                    3. “No they didn’t”

                      Yes stupid liar, they did. Go to bing.com and then come back and apologize.

                      You won’t. You’re a coward and a piece of shit who can’t admit he’s wrong.

                      “You picked a poor definition from a random Internet site, and you were called out on it.”

                      No actually, I went to Bing.com.

                      And now you look stupid. But you will NEVER admit you were wrong.

                    4. Here is the Oxford definition of torture.

                      https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/torture_1

                      That is not what you presented earlier.

                      Evidently you don’t know how to use the Internet either.

                    5. Yes Jeff Bing is lying. That’s it. Anyone can put it in a search and see I am right, but you simply cannot admit you made a fool of yourself.

                    6. Ahahahahaha Jeff you dumb motherfucker THAT ISN’T THE OED ahahahha

                      https://languages.oup.com/oed

                      That is hajahaj
                      Run now bitch, it says what I posted Ahahahahahahah you look so fucking stupid now.

                  2. “Tulpa is going to refuse to discuss the substance of the issue”

                    The issue is that you lie and handpick sources that agree with you.

                    No one is surprised you’re doing it now, and trying to change the subject because you’re wrong.

                    Is this where I call you a semantical idiot?

                    1. The issue is that you lie and handpick sources that agree with you.

                      That is exactly what you did with your poor definition of torture, which defined as “torture” simply any time someone “suffers” as a form of punishment. It is hopelessly too broad.

                      This is where you got your original definition of torture:

                      https://useenglishwords.com/torturen/

                      Not exactly Oxford or Cambridge or Merriam-Webster.

                    2. “This is where you got your original definition of torture:”

                      No actually you impossibly stupid fuck, I went to bing.com.

                      Go look. I’ll wait.

                    3. Then that is where Bing pulled it from and you didn’t realize that it wasn’t actually the Oxford definition.

                      Either way, it is not consistent with the actual Oxford definition, or the Cambridge one, or the Merriam-Webster one, or the ones that you now cite.

                    4. “Then that is where Bing pulled it from”

                      So you finally admit you were wrong.

                      “Either way, it is not consistent”

                      It’s perfectly consistent. You just don’t like being wrong.

                2. Don’t like THAT Oxford definition that proves you wrong?

                  How about this Cambridge one

                  torture
                  noun UK ​ /ˈtɔː.tʃər/ US ​ /ˈtɔːr.tʃɚ/

                  C2 [ U ] the act of causing great physical or mental pain in order to persuade someone to do something or to give information, or to be cruel to a person or animal:

                  Or, how the UN defines it

                  Under the United Nations Torture Convention of 1984, torture involves intentional infliction of pain, by a public official, to obtain information.

                  The full definition of torture in the convention is: “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

                  1. And my definition of torture, which I presented from Merriam-Webster dictionary, is:

                    “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”

                    So it appears we are all in agreement here.

                    1. No actually you defintions both truncated and incomplete.

                      Your definition makes no mention of mental suffering.

                      You are literally doing EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, claiming primacy for your laughably incomplete, intentionally truncated definition, over THREE sources which say you’re wrong.

                    2. The ENTIRE definition Jeff doesn’t want to post because it makes him wrong

                      “torture noun
                      tor·​ture | \ ˈtȯr-chər \
                      Definition of torture (Entry 1 of 2)
                      1 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
                      2a : something that causes agony or pain
                      b : anguish of body or mind : AGONY
                      3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING”

                      Why do you truncate it Jeff? Because it makes you wrong obviously.

                    3. Yeah I wanted to deliberately hide the full definition of torture, that is why I cited the source where I got it from. /sarc

                      Why don’t you discuss why you chose a poorly sourced definition of torture, cherry picked for rhetorical purposes alone, and then tried to lie about where it came from?

                    4. “Yeah I wanted to deliberately hide the full definition of torture,”

                      Clearly, that’s why you left the part off that proves you’re wrong. Still haven’t explained THAT just waved it away.

                      “Why don’t you discuss why you chose a poorly sourced definition of torture”

                      Because I didn’t, you just stupidly assumed I did because it was the first place it came up in your search, because you’re stupid and don’t realize the website you found USES THE SAEM SOURCE I DID, BING.COM

                      Why don’t YOU discuss the OTHER TWO SOURCES I GAVE that make you look like an idiot?

                    5. Gee what a surprise. You are going to continue this game of arguing over which dictionary gives which definition of torture without ever getting to the heart of the matter – what types of punishment should be considered torture and what types should not be. You’ll argue for HOURS over definitions but you won’t talk about the actual meat of the issue.

                      I’m done here. This is ridiculous and counter-productive.

                    6. “Gee what a surprise. You are going to continue this game of arguing over which dictionary gives which definition”

                      That’s ALL YOU HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE YESTERDAY YOU ASPIE RETARD.

                      How do you not realize you’re proving my point, EXACTLY.

                    7. “I’m done here. This is ridiculous and counter-productive.”

                      No you’re done here because you were wrong, realize it, and know you can’t distract or gaslight me.

      2. He’s a racial nationalist, I think of that there is little doubt.

        He specifically used the word ‘confederacy of territories’. It’s only nationalism if federalism is nationalism, which it’s not.

        1. The most atrocious thing you could call him is a segregationist, but not even really a white segregationist as he passively asserts the ability to create/enforce (e.g.) black-from-brown segregation.

        2. What I meant was, and I should have been more clear, is that he wanted racially pure ethnostates. He wanted a nationalism within each ethnostate based on race, tied together in a loose confederacy.

          1. What I meant was, and I should have been more clear, is that he wanted racially pure ethnostates. He wanted a nationalism within each ethnostate based on race, tied together in a loose confederacy.

            And he wanted people to stop living unsustainable lifestyles and to control the population in the US. Stop lying you worthless piece of garbage.

            1. “What I meant was, and I should have been more clear”

              Nah, you should just realize you’re impossibly stupid and stop posting because you constantly embarrass yourself.

          2. You realize that both of you are arguing about the finer points of the manifesto of an insane person, right? You will find no rationale that will make sense to a sane individual. Pick through his brain at your own peril.

            1. I agree. But Jeff is the one who is convinced that we know what his motivations were and it was that evil Trump Nationalism.

              1. I’d say it’s worse than that. Jeff is literally saying HE can discern a crazy person’s true motives, independent of what they actually say.

                He is claiming he has the ability to read minds.

          3. What I meant was, and I should have been more clear, is that he wanted racially pure ethnostates. He wanted a nationalism within each ethnostate based on race, tied together in a loose confederacy.

            You’re projecting.

            He clearly states, “But the idea of deporting or murdering
            all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been
            here at least as long as the whites, and have done
            as much to build our country. The best solution to
            this for now would be to divide America into a confederacy of territories with at least 1 territory for each
            race. This physical separation would nearly eliminate race mixing and improve social unity by granting
            each race self-determination within their respective territory(s).”

            He’s not cleansing the US and isn’t against miscegenation socially. He’s pretty prototypically trying to establish various safe spaces for each of the races to generate harmonious diversity.

            1. He’s pretty prototypically trying to establish various safe spaces for each of the races to generate harmonious diversity.

              So what do you view is the difference between this statement, and my statement where I said that he wanted race-based nationalism?

              isn’t against miscegenation socially

              Yes he is.

              “I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems.”

              1. So, Jeff whines about “semantical” arguments then engages in one.

                Just like he argued about defintions, was wrong, and resorted to lying and leaving out information because he knew he was wrong.

                1. And don’t forget, he INSISTED he knew where I got my defintions from, then when shown to be wrong, dismissed them because he didn’t like them.

  23. The National Interest apparently never learned that it’s only a revolution if it’s successful. At best it’s a revolt currently, and one that unfortunately could be smashed whenever China decides the loss of face of murdering half a city is less than continuing to let this resistance fester.

    1. It is more than a loss of face, it is the loss of a lot of money. This is much more serious than Tienanmen Square. At Tienanmen square, it was a bunch of upper class college students that China could easily murder or lock up without missing a beat. In Hong Kong, it is literally the golden goose that drives the economy. Murdering half that city does more than cause westerners to say bad things about China. It would cause the Chinese economy to crash as every multinational pulled out of Hong Kong. No one wants to do business in a war zone or the smoldering ruins of Hong Kong.

      1. The communists won’t be able to hold power forever.
        The walls are closing in.

        1. I think you might be right. No one ever expected the USSR to fall when it did. I imagine the same thing will happen to the Chinese Communists at some point, though I wouldn’t pretend to know when.

        2. This is also a grave reminder to any Taiwanese who think that the Commies of mainland China will be kind to them and they should re-unite Taiwan with China.

          1. yeah. Although at this point I’m surprised the Taiwanese don’t want to just be recognized as the independent country they actually are. I don’t think there’s too many Taiwanese who don’t think China won’t crush them if they see a chance

            1. No Chinese government lasts forever. I think the Taiwanese might be waiting for the Commies to fall and then rejoined China.

  24. Clearly we need some common sense restrictions on mental illness.

  25. Kamala Harris has the right idea.

    Assault weapons are weapons of war. They are designed to kill a lot of people quickly. There is no reason they should exist on the streets of a civil society. As president, I’ll take executive action to ban imports of AR-15-style assault weapons.

    As longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn has explained, supporting common sense gun safety laws actually is the libertarian position. Because it protects the right not to get shot.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. Banning imports to bolster our domestic gun making industry.
      Sounds like a Trump policy .

  26. “We’ve moved on to the phase of a post-shooting news cycle where folks come together to agree that mental illness is the real problem.”

    The market of ideas is like other markets in various ways. For instance, you can try to create demand with advertising, but, ultimately, you can’t sell something to the market if the market doesn’t want to buy it.

    The market is divided on what they want to buy in the aftermath of a mass shooting. Plenty of them want to violate our Second Amendment rights by banning and confiscating “assault weapons”. Others would love to use this “crisis” to justify violating our First Amendment rights by monitoring social media and restricting sales based on what people say.

    If those are the other options, I’m glad to see distractions about mental health. I’d love to live in a libertarian world where the market of ideas demands that we do nothing when nothing is the appropriate response. Until we get there, distractions may be the best we can reasonable hope for in these situations.

    1. Mental health professionals have been working for decades to remove the stigma associated with mental illness, including the fear that you will be punished in some form for your illness. When people talk about requiring a psych eval to exercise a constitutional right, they are destroying the gains mental health providers have made with reducing stigma.

      1. That is a great point vic.

        1. Should someone who has served in the military have to decide between getting MH treatment or keeping their 2A right?
          Or anyone else for that matter.

      2. I worked in a hospital that transitioned into a full lock down mental health ward. They put people on 72 hour holds on the basis that they’re a danger to themselves or others. After 72 hours, they can keep these people locked up for 30 days if they can prove to the satisfaction of a representative of the court that the person is a danger to themselves or others. They can keep you locked up–without an arrest, an indictment, a jury, or a trial–on that basis, almost indefinitely.

        If they can lock you up on the basis that they believe you to be a danger to yourself or others, putting your name on a list of people who are no longer allowed to purchase a gun should be relatively easy.

        1. Ken….a question for you. In your view, is there a minimally disruptive to civil liberties way to separate emotionally/mentally disturbed people from guns? I’m curious to hear what you have to say about that.

          To me, the problem is not guns. The problem is mentally and/or emotionally disturbed people acquiring and then using guns on others.

          1. It’s so much easier to get things done when people’s rights aren’t in the way, isn’t it?

            “No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

            —–Fifth Amendment

            “No State shall . . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

            —-Fourteenth Amendment

            The problem, here, isn’t only that you’re trying to deprive people of their liberty without due process of law. It’s also that you’re trying to deprive people of their liberty without them having even committed a crime.

            If someone is behaving violently or making violent threats, they should be prosecuted. If the defendant is convicted or pleads guilty, the judge might add the name of the person to a list of people who have been sentenced to a registry for such offenders. The person so sentenced should have the right to appeal both his conviction and his sentence.

            1. Ken…I chucked at your first comment….yes, so true. 🙂

              Would a regular process of judicial review (meaning a Federal judge reviews, not some court officer) change your opinion on the utility of separating the mentally/emotionally disturbed from guns? Say, every 60 days until the person dies or until they are recovered (a problem in itself, as how would this be defined)?

              1. What happened to Alfred, Alfred? I mean, Hihn?

      3. Nice take. One guy in fellowship group this morning was proposing that shrinks, school principals, neighbors, etc. etc. be required to “report” young males’ behavior that wasn’t normal. I asked if he thought they should be taken into “protective custody.” Yada yada, bottom line, “no, we shouldn’t reopen mental hospitals with involuntary incarceration, and no, we shouldn’t stop and frisk young males in neighborhoods where shootings are rife, but we need caring professionals to talk these folks out of their hate and take away any guns they may have.” I asked if mentally disturbed folks might shy away from voluntarily seeking mental help – thus leaving their issues untreated – but he seemed to think that was o.k. if even one shooter was stopped. In the long run, leftists better think about what they are advocating if the mental health gestapo comes to be organized and run by people who think socialists are loons. Robespierre must have been pretty shocked when the guillotine dropped on him.

        1. If we go down that path, then I want a Federal Judge periodically reviewing the case. To take away an individual liberty is a very serious matter, and should not be done without a lot of safeguards.

          Yes, I’d want mental health professionals and families to do the ‘alerting’, but I want a Judge making the determination to take away an individual’s liberties. And a regular review to see if those liberties can be restored.

          1. How long do you think someone could be held in protective custody before a judge can rule? How many more judges do we need to hire? Which political party gets to appoint the judges?

            1. What’s the odds Judges will start rubber stamping?

              Behind every police raid gone wrong is a judge that approved it.

            2. creech….To me, anything beyond 72 hours would be an unacceptable encroachment on our liberty. I do not care if it is inconvenient for a Federal Judge to have to do the review within a short time frame. Too bad.

              Your other question about how many Federal judges we would need is a good one. I just do not know. More than 1, and less than 10,000? Since Federal judges are confirmed by the Senate, I am thinking the political part washes out.

              1. Real quick Hihn, what happened to Alfred and why are you so stupid and crazy all the time?

    2. Anybody, including Trump, who says that the weakening of China’s currency, yesterday, was because of manipulation by the Chinese government is wrong.

      China’s government usually intervenes when that currency falls below a certain level. Failing to intervene is not manipulation of the currency. It’s the opposite of manipulation.

      Over the past several weeks, it has become increasingly clear that China intends to try to weather the trade war with the U.S. until November of 2020 in the hope that the U.S. elects someone else who is easier to negotiation with, i.e., someone who won’t hold up negotiations over forced technology transfers.

      The rhetoric from both sides made that painfully clear yesterday–there probably won’t be a resolution to the trade war before November of 2020. Yesterday’s move was a response to the fact that if there won’t be as much trade with China in the between now and then, then the demand for China’s currency will be less than it has been.

      To some extent, China’s reaction to the unrest in Hong Kong may be instructive here. Emperor Xi could have ended the unrest in Hong Kong weeks ago by quietly making it clear to Carrie Lam that China wouldn’t support her and she should step down. Apparently, Emperor Xi would prefer to suffer all the unrest that’s currently happening in Hong Kong rather than let people think that he gave in to pressure. The mandate of heaven comes with pressure all its own, but, given the kind of reactions we see to what’s happening in Hong Kong, how likely are we to see the Emperor give in to Trump’s demands? My read, at the present moment, is that Xi isn’t likely to give in until things are much worse in China’s economy than they are now.

      If there’s a miscalculation on China’s part, it may be the idea that if a Democrat replaced Trump, it would be someone who is more reasonable, less demanding, and more rational. I see plenty of people near the top of the Democratic field who are a lot less rational on trade than Donald Trump. I’m trying to picture what it would look like if Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren cared about preserving our trade relationship with China, and it just seems ridiculous.

      1. Yes. China’s plan is to use information ops and to buy influence in the US to ensure Trump is not re-elected and is replaced by someone more to their liking.

        But remember, reason and the rest of the hack media are totally concerned about evil foreigners influencing US elections, unless it is China. Then it is different.

      2. That’s an interesting take on what is happening. But you failed to explain how Russia is benefiting from their White House agent causing all this trade turmoil with China. I’m pretty certain it is a ploy to get U.S. consumers to start upping their purchases of nesting dolls instead of Chinese electronics.

      3. China isn’t just waiting until 2020, they can afford to wait until 2024. Or 2028, 2032, 2036….as long as it takes. These people invented the Long March, they’re willing to wait a generation or two for the culture to change, a few years worth of political opinion means nothing.

        1. China’s economy is hurting from this.

          The Mandate of Heaven has a downside. You can’t become the emperor without the Mandate of Heaven, but popular revolts against emperors are evidence that the emperor has lost the Mandate of Heaven.

          Just because Emperor Xi isn’t subject to elections, that doesn’t mean his head can’t end up on a pike. Former CCP officials and PLA were getting rich off trade with the US. When the money stops rolling in like it used to, the old sword o’ Damocles hangs ever heavier. Xi may not need to worry about an election, but he has plenty to worry about.

          Maybe think of this way: China hasn’t experienced a recession since before they joined the WTO in 2001. When all the power rests with one individual, guess who the people blame goes when things go wrong?

  27. “In Hong Kong, It’s Now a Revolution”

    And they ain’t carrying pictures of Chairman Mao.

    1. The question will be how far Western media Propagandists will go to cover for the Communists.

      Will there be outrage in the MSM when Chinese tanks run over Hong Kongers?
      CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN PRESS COVERAGE ON THE OUTBREAK OF THE 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

      Read the preview. It describes the US media focusing on the US elections of 1956. Both Eisenhower and Stevenson accused the Communists of the USSR with interfering in the US election.

  28. The city of SF is now improving the sidewalks at every intersection with sloped ramps for those in chairs; I got no problem with that at all.
    Every new corner also gets the street names molded into the fresh concrete, and some of you already know where this is going:
    I live near the intersection of “1st St.” and “Main St.”.
    Yep, right along the new curb on “1st St.”, cast in concrete is “Main St.”, and you know what’s on the other curb.

    1. and you know what’s on the other curb.

      .tS niaM?

    2. Human waste?

  29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

    For anyone who thinks what is going on in Hong Kong is not a big deal and is sure to be dealt with eventually by the Chinese authorities, I would remind you of Chinese history and specifically the Taiping Rebellion. There a guy living in the middle of nowhere decided he was the younger brother of Jesus and was sent by God to rid China of the foreign devil Manchus who ruled the country.

    The Rebellion did not succeed. It did, however, last 15 years with the rebels holding large areas under their control and result in the death of between 25 and 30 million people. It was only quelled because western powers worried that their trading rights would be infringed assisted the Manchu government. Without western military assistance, it almost certainly would have succeeded.

    China is a volatile place and never as far from falling into chaos as you think it is.

    1. China is a complex place. Before the Commies took control in 1949, China was ruled by Warlords for decades.

      Technically, China is still not united since Taiwan exists as the Nationalist version of China.

      China had a major shift following the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Chinese are demanding more and more reforms to gain wealth and freedoms. Maybe its time for another Chinese shift 30 years later. The USSR collapsed under the weight of demands for reforms and more freedoms.

  30. Hey guess what. The NSA really didn’t delete all that data it hoovered up about everyone.
    Shocking, isn’t it?
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190803/21575342712/oversight-report-shows-nsa-did-not-delete-all-inadvertently-collected-phone-records-it-claimed-it-had-deleted.shtml

    Maybe Trump could spend a little less time tweeting from his throne and a little more time doing something about the lawlessness at the NSA.

    1. Since the NSA and FBI bureaucracy are in league with his opponents and tried to overturn his election, I suspect he will get around to doing that, but I doubt you are going to like it very much if he does.

      1. If Trump closed down the NSA and fired everyone within, I would like it very much.

        1. LOLOLL Sure you would.

          1. Jeffey thinks that would be the end of his Pedo record.

        2. If you learned to tell the difference between the OED and the learners do tuonary, you wouldn’t look wrong and stupid lololol

      2. Trump is more likely to win re-election by not flushing all the Deep State turds immediately.

        Wait until he is sworn in again in 2021 and then clean house.

  31. New Zealand moves to legalize abortion.

    NZ makes killing babies legal…but guns being legal- NO WAY!

  32. Trump of course is right: mental illness IS the big problem. The proof is Switzerland, which has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in the world, but they do a WAY better job of screening out the dangerous and mentally unstable and keeping firearms out of their hands.

    This is a big part of the reason why violent crime in general and mass shootings in particular are almost nonexistent there. I believe Switzerland’s last mass shooting incident was nearly 20 years ago.

    1. Perhaps the Swiss just have a better respect for life than people in the US.

    2. I wonder how many in Switzerland use the thugs version of respect.

      None?

  33. Toni Morrison died, and I’m not sure if America can or should find a way to keep going.

    1. Where will we find another bad writer to celebrate?

      1. If we don’t have a national week of mourning, it’s because we’re all a bunch of racists.

  34. just your daily reminder that NYT writers have no shame

    If you look at the Google results for news on Rand Paul’s lung surgery, the first thing that jumps out at you is that the Times headline is the only one that A. doesn’t mention the surgery is due to the attack and B. mentions McConnell in the same article

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-injury.html

    The gist is that a couple of old, frail Republicans got medical treatment recently and, meanwhile, the nation has much more important concerns with the two mass shootings that happened so close together. Seriously, they spend at least a paragraph on McConnell getting a fracture because he tripped. Then they shoehorn in the mass shooting. Then, four paragraphs down, they finally get to Rand Paul…who SAID that his lung surgery was due to his neighbor attacking him while he did yardwork. (but it was probably just due to him being old while he did yardwork, because ew gross, who does yardwork?)

    1. See Jeff above forgetting that there were two shootings this weekend. The people killed in Dayton have been sent down the memory hole just like Rand Paul being attacked and nearly killed by a crazed leftist

      1. See Jeff above forgetting that there were two shootings this weekend.

        Umm, no I didn’t. I mentioned both shootings multiple times. Why do you feel the need to continually lie about me and slander me?

        1. No. You never mentioned the Dayton shootings until I shamed you into it.

          Stop lying.

        2. Why do you feel the need to lie about me and what I said, then stupidly confuse the OED with the learners dictionary?

    2. They’re such complete lowlifes I really am surprised that they haven’t made Welchie Boy the Editor-in-Chief by now.

  35. “mental illness is the concept Republicans have grasped onto to absolve Trump and his allies of any ideological kinship with white nationalist terrorists. ‘Crazy’ is a kind of metaphysical demarcation between conservatism and terrorism.”

    I thought when a white nationalist shot up the joint, we were supposed to enter a mode of cautious, measured journalistic principles where we refuse to engage in hot-takes on shooter motivation.

    1. But when the guy in Orlando shoots 50 people in a gay club and calls a TV station to tell them he is doing it for ISIS while in the act, we will never know his true motivation.

      How do these people sleep at night? How do you live a life being that dishonest?

      1. You lie to yourself.

        You see how these Lefties talk and write. They lie and many times, they dont even realize it. It’s second nature to them now.

  36. The day after this becomes law, I am going to ‘red flag’ every armed guard of a democratic politician.

    1. #metoo

    2. +100

  37. Indeed, it’s time we focus on the importance of mental health.
    Until we get that psychopath out of the White House.
    And institutionalize his obedient puppets

    1. We hope your case of TDS is painfully fatal.

    2. Fuck off Hihn.

      1. Yeah, has the same stench.

  38. Uruguay issues travel warning for U.S. after weekend mass shootings

    Haha. Uruguay and Venezuela have warned of travel to the USA.

    HAHAHA.

    1. Does that mean we do not qualify for a safe country for asylum seekers? Keep it moving until you get to Canada.

  39. Joe Biden compares Donald Trump to the Ku Klux Klan

    Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed Monday that Donald Trump’s use of a ‘dog whistle’ to subtly support racists makes him an heir to the Ku Klux Klan, the infamous white supremacist hate group.

    Biden is the Democratic Party’s front-runner to challenge Trump for the White House next year;

    Haha. Joe Biden is literally in the Democrat Party which members started the KKK. Biden happily worked with members of the KKK in Congress decades ago.

  40. Far-Left Protesters Descend on Mitch McConnell’s Home, Threaten to “Stab the Motherf**ker in the Heart”

    Keep in mind, McConnell, 77, is at home recovering from a broken shoulder he sustained after he fell because he has problems with his leg. He has problems with his leg because he had Polio

    It would be funny if the elder abuse laws were used against these violent Lefties.

    No support group for polio survivors, I guess.

  41. We’ve moved on to the phase of a post-shooting news cycle where folks come together to agree that mental illness is the real problem.

    Well, it kind of is. The trick here is not making the solution to that problem a huger problem.

  42. Monday market swings spark freakout.

    “Trump causes freakout.”
    -Evergreen comment.

  43. Rethinking paper straws?

    Everyone just needed to wait a while. The fad was going to fade eventually.

  44. “More than six months after the $15 minimum wage went into effect in New York City, business leaders and owners say the increased labor costs have forced them to cut staff, eliminate work shifts and raise prices.”

    Turn over ownership to the workers and problem solved!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.