Reason Roundup

Everyone Is Getting Joker Wrong

Plus: sex discrimination before SCOTUS today, Warren stands by pregnancy firing claim, and more...

|

Joker broke box office records in its opening weekend, almost certainly thanks to panic about the movie's potential to spawn violence. Fears that the film—the latest reimagining of the classic DC Comics villain and Batman nemesis, this time played by Joaquin Phoenix—would lead to a shooting rampage stem in large part from comments made by a sheriff in Aurora, Colorado, where a gunman opened fire at a movie theater during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises in 2012.

The Dark Knight Rises, from Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, does not feature the Joker. And initial reports claiming that the Aurora shooter was dressed as the Joker turned out to be wrong (he just had dyed red hair).

Nonetheless, a lot of media ran with the narrative that screening the new Joker film would be dangerous and inspire "copycat" gun violence. Meanwhile, other critiques of the film have shown similar disregard for reality.

The New Yorker's Richard Brody suggested the film was racially problematic in a truly tortured mess of projected intentions and logic. Some back story: In the beginning of the film, Arthur Fleck—the mentally ill man who becomes Joker over the course of the film but starts out as a street sign-twirling clown—is beaten up in an alley by a group of non-white teenagers who stole his sign.

Brody decides this must be an allusion to "the attack wrongly attributed to five young men mislabelled as the Central Park Five—an attack on an isolated and vulnerable white person by a group of young people of color" (even though, aside from that detail, the stories bear no resemblance to one another). He then complains that Joker "says, in effect, that it may not have been those five, but there was another group out there wreaking havoc; they're not figments of a demagogue's hate-filled imagination—here they are."

Brody also blasts another scene, one where Fleck shoots three white men who attacked him on a subway train:

It's an evocation of the shooting, in 1984, by Bernhard Goetz, of four teen-agers in a subway who, Goetz believed, were about to rob him. They were four black teen-agers, and Goetz, after his arrest, made racist remarks. In "Joker," the director, Todd Phillips (who wrote the script with Scott Silver), whitewashes Goetz's attack, eliminating any racial motive and turning it into an act of self-defense gone out of control.

In both cases, the film is faulted for not living up to some imagined racial allegories Brody would like to see.

So it goes, too, with another common strain of Joke critique: that the film represents and glorifies a Trumpian, incel fantasy of violence. For example: "The true appeal of the new 'Joker' movie lies in its invidious validation of the white-male resentment that helped bring President Trump to power," tweeted CNN Sunday, linking to an op-ed by Jeff Yang.

Here, again, we see a lot of projection based on the flimsiest of connections. Yes, Phoenix's Fleck/Joker is male, white, and not one to have much luck with women. But there's nothing conservative about him, nor does he lash out at women per se, nor is he portrayed as someone on a hero's journey. He's a man with myriad problems—including a condition in which he laughs loudly and uncontrollably at inopportune times—who suffers a series blows and then snaps.

"Joker might be a work of fiction, but it is very much rooted in real-world mental health care, which is seldom represented on screen in such a raw manner," writes Mel Evans at Metro UK.

If anything, the film presents a rather left-wing rationale for Fleck's break from struggling sign-holder and aspiring comedian to dancing, dandified killer, positioning cuts to social services (which meant no more medication and counseling for Fleck) as one of its proximate causes. He is portrayed as a product of a broken system, male violence (his mom's boyfriend abused him as a young child), and uncaring elites. And the riots spawned by Joker's shooting of the rich bros on the subway winds up spawning not a murder movement or a gang of villain thugs but an Occupy Wall Street-style revolt against a city where trash is literally piling up on the streets, politics is a show, and big business pulls the strings.

This is not a movie that comes down lightly on people who mistreat children. And yet here's CNN—after no movie theater shooters materialized this weekend—calling out the movie for a scene in which Joker dances to a song by a "convicted child sex offender":

The critiques of this movie just keep getting weirder and weirder. And they're made especially so when you compare this movie to The Dark Knight, the 2008 film featuring Heath Ledger as the Joker. That movie was brimming with dramatic gun fights and gratuitous and cartoonish violence of all sorts, while shots fired in Joker are far between and much more realistic.

Ledger's version of the character was sadistic, twitching, nihilistic, doing it all for the lulz, out to spread chaos for its own sake—a comic book-style portrayal of madness, with a touch of punk rock. Ledger's Joker was also vaguely cool—something Phoenix's Joker is decidedly not.

Phoenix's version of the character is portrayed as a broken, self-loathing man in desperate want of a normal life ("the worst part about having a mental illness illness is people expect you to behave as if you don't," he writes in his journal at one point). His mental health issues are played for pathos rather than theatrics. And his descent into psychotic violence is not random, nor are the targets of that violence.

Gotham has always been a crime panic kind of town, and the Joker of Dark Knight—imbued with an inexplicable maniacal madness, the kind that could strike at any time, against anyone, for no reason—was still a crime panic kind of villain. The Joker of the new movie is not. If only our cultural critics could keep up.


FOLLOW UP

Trump-Ukraine call "frightening" and "crazy" said whistleblower in private memo:

In the two-page, single-spaced memo on July 26, the day after the Trump-Zelensky phone call, the whistleblower wrote: "The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky."

In contrast to a publicly released transcript of the July 25 phone call, the two-page memo used dramatic language. According to the memo, the White House official "described the (July 25th) call as 'crazy,' 'frightening,' and 'completely lacking in substance related to national security.'"

More here.


FREE MINDS

Alyssa Milano joins in on calls to destroy Section 230, this time in service of somehow ending "deepfake porn."


FREE MARKETS

Scott Shackford has more details on the employment discrimination cases before the Supreme Court today:

[The Supreme Court will] be hearing two hours of argument over three different lawsuits involving federal protections against sex discrimination in the workplace. At issue: Do those laws also protect against discrimination on the basis of whether somebody is gay or transgender?

A ruling in favor of the employees in these three cases would mean a massive realignment of the classifications protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which for most of its existence was not interpreted to include those protections, and most certainly was not intended to do so when Congress originally passed it. But subsequent rulings and Supreme Court precedents have expanded the view of what counts as discrimination on the basis of sex, and there now is disagreement between differing federal courts and even different agencies about the issue.

More here.


QUICK HITS

  • Presidential contender and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is standing by claims that she was dismissed from her forming teaching job when six months pregnant, after the The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that this was untrue.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union was in federal court yesterday on behalf of Tofurky.
  • More evidence of the stupidity of current anti-vaping efforts:

  • Washington state has joined in on the nonsensical flavored vaping bans:

  • Charging kids as adults is counterproductive.
  • "We think of it as more 'beyond Trump' than 'anti-Trump.' But no one will have any doubt what we think": The Dispatch, from Steve Hayes, former Weekly Standard editor in chief, and former National Review writer Jonah Goldberg, launches today.

NEXT: Criminal Coercion Statute Struck Down in Minnesota

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. The best and the brightest

      1. Don’t forget honorable and ethical.

      1. I’ve been hellod… I feel dirty.

    2. Google pay 390$ reliably my last pay check was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web.My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.I can’t trust in howdirect it was once I attempted it out.This is my essential concern…:) for more info visit any tab this site ☛ http://earny.xyz/KfKLXSiYq

    3. In this thread Jeff has…

      Linked the incorrect controlling whistleblower law (obviously he never read it or he would have noticed)

      Used an ad hominem attack despite the story having attributed sources and being backed by a wapo in a story today.

      Claimed there is no federal regulatory state, that all federal actions only rely on the explicit law passed.

      Declared once again he doesn’t understand or even know the delegation doctrine of congress deferring to executive rule making.

      Claimed he doesnt use biased sources despite in the recent past using justsecurity.org, ratical.org, and other liberal sites.

      And in general continued to double down on ignorance.

      1. Jeff is unintelligent and psychotic.

      2. Is “ChemJeff” Suderman’s sockpuppet, because the shear dishonesty is remarkably similar.

    4. Too #DeepState to jail.

      Rules are for the ruled, not their rulers.

  1. Joker broke box office records in its opening weekend, almost certainly thanks to panic about the movie’s potential to spawn violence.

    THEY NEVER CAUGHT THOSE CLOWNS FROM A FEW YEARS AGO. LET’S NOT FORGET THAT.

    1. probably didn’t check all the storm drains

    2. and juggalos are still running amok!

  2. Trump-Ukraine call “frightening” and “crazy” said whistleblower in private memo…

    If you’re going to blow a whistle, market it as the greatest whistle of all times.

    1. News is slowly leaking out that not only is the leaker a Democrat, but that hes worked on democratic campaigns. Likewise the law firm hes been working with has been offering discounted and free rates to all leakers who disagree with trump. Basically this is about a disagreement on policy given makeup to look like a crime.

      1. And the Dems intend to have the whistleblower testify with voice distortion and their image obscured so nobody knows who they are? That isn’t how this works.

        1. Seeing as how the democrats are issuing subpoenas under the statement that the impeachment inquiry is operating as a judicial process (so they can get privileged and confidential documents), you would think Trump has the right to all evidence as well. But its Democrats, they make shit up as they go.

          1. They actually are not issuing subpoenas. They are just giving invitations to testify and pretending they are subpoenas. You can’t issue a subpoena without having a vote by a full committee.

            1. John, I’m starting to think you being consistently factually incorrect is not an accident or oversight.

              https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-subpoenas-defense-secretary-trump-budget-chief-ukraine-documents-n1063331

              1. That sound is the point going over your head. They are calling them subpoenas but it is questionable if they legally are. That was his point.

                1. I’m sorry I don’t read bizzaro world news. Such a bold claim should require a citation, please.

                  They are most certainly subpoenas. Here is a pretty good article on the matter which examines several precedent establishing cases.

                  https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/05-congressional-investigations.html

                  1. Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. The power of investigation may properly be employed only “in aid of the legislative function.”190 Its outermost boundaries are marked, then, by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, clear “that neither house of Congress possesses a ‘general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen’; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house ‘has jurisdiction’ and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to ‘a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding’ it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made.”
                    It would appear that if Congress hasn’t taken appropriate action, i.e. a vote to hold formal impeachment inquiries then their subpoena powers are severely limited. From your own citation.

                    1. Yeah but, Orange Man Bad!

                    2. Do you have a cite with precedents or at least some legal expert opinion that supports your assertion? The house most certainly has oversight jurisdiction.

                    3. I’m gonna need a cite that says the House has subpoena power outside an official impeachment proceeding first jeffo.

                    4. Thanks for slapping down the resident troll. God what a fucking moron.

                    5. Lol John. Slapdown? Where’s the citation? Still waiting.

                  2. Is dumbfuck jeff denying that subpoenas aren’t necessarily legal and are often struck down by courts?

                    1. Yes he is. He is literally saying that if the Democrats call something a subpoena it is and that courts will enforce it no matter what.

                    2. Then show me a subpoena issued by congress in response to a whistleblower complaint that was denied by the courts. Go on then. Congress has the constitutional authority and duty of oversight.

                    3. Show me a subpoena issued to a second hand whistleblower who has already, through their lawyer no less, admitted to committing a felony unrelated to the matter they are whistleblowing about.

                    4. That should read “in response to a second hand whistleblower”

      2. Does not matter.
        Trump is guilty of being Trump and being POTUS instead of the hag; both impeachable offenses.

        1. There have been very specific accusations and evidence of laws broken by Trump. But sure, it does feel good to simultaneously be the victim and in totally control of the situation.

          1. That evidence and the laws broken are what?

            1. Which law? There are so many. Several campaign finance violations. He broke them to the letter of the law. There is no real debate there.
              Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case. He will be charged when leaves office if he is not pardoned.
              https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

              1. So, asking for a criminal investigation, of someone who isn’t even officially the nominee, but is still subject to the jurisdiction of US laws is a campaign donation? Try again. BTW, no court had yet ruled that getting campaign dirt is a campaign contribution, this is purely speculative as to the interpretation of the law.

                1. Is Trump asking for anyone else to be investigated? Or is he targeting the Bidens for some strange reason other than his reelection campaign? Has anyone gotten a straight answer on why the aid was frozen by Trump? Be more skeptical.

                  1. None of those are the very uncomfortable for you answer to his question. You’re obfuscating and distracting again.

                    1. I’m not obfuscating. The argument for Trump, on all matters, is always “well, this might not technically be illegal if we squint our eyes real hard and decide that common words have totally different meanings.”

                      He withheld aid from Ukraine to get them to investigate his political rival. This is fucking obvious. And illegal.

                      Can you even think far enough ahead to when a dem president has the power to use the full force of the US state department for his re election campaign?

                  2. Here jeff denies the Democrats have openly asked for legal investigations into trump since april of 2016, before the election even occurred. This includes one rep, Green, who explicitly stated they needed to impeach trump because he would win in 2020.

                    Also jeff has to show even one example of someone being convicted for obtaining campaign dirt on someone.

                    Also jeff has yet to cite even one instance of a prosecutor breaking the law by asking for an investigation into someone.

                    Jeff is dumb.

              2. There are so many laws Jeff didnt actually link to one that has been tested in court.

          2. And I accuse you, de oppresso liber, of fraudulently claiming US veteran status.
            That is a specific crime

            1. Go ahead, present you evidence, nutbag.

                1. Present you e v i d e n c e . Always conjecture with you conspiratarians.

          3. What law baby jeffrey? So far the only one preferred is the campaign donation theory which no court has ever upheld under the version of the theory liberals are pushing.

            1. Head of FEC disagrees.

              1. The FEC is still subject to the courts rulings. So, if the courts haven’t ruled, the matter is still debatable.

                1. Top Man says Orange Man Bad!

                2. I guess I just find foreign influence in our elections to be something a president should discourage. But if you want to go on the “technically it’s not fully illegal” argument, then more power to you.

                  The founders all felt that way, but I guess you Trumpian libertarians are different.

                  “When the newly minted Constitution was awaiting ratification by the states, some of its advocates produced a series of written arguments for it that were published as The Federalist.

                  No. 68 in this series (usually attributed to the prolific Alexander Hamilton) said, “The desire [of] foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our counsels” was a source of corruption and “one of the most deadly adversaries of republican government.””
                  https://www.npr.org/2019/06/14/732571895/fear-of-foreign-interference-in-u-s-elections-dates-from-nations-founding

                  1. “I guess I just find”

                    We get it you were wrong and can’t admit it.

                    1. You just like foreign interference in our elections, when it supports your guy. Brave stance, going against all the founders.

                    2. More nonsense from Little Jeffy.

                  2. Legal and illegal has nothing to do with morality. Let me know when you are calling for equal prosecution of Hillary for having her campaign meet with the Ukrainians in 2016 and for prosecution of Obama for getting foreign powers to spy on Trump.

                    1. Ok? If those things happened then, great lock them all up.

                    2. If they happened, they basically admitted it.

                  3. You literally cheered on the Mueller investigation which included cooperation of 13 foreign countries you dumbshit.

                    1. You don’t understand the difference of an agent of the us government who is tasked with investigating crimes, and the president using public funds to coerce a country into “investigating” his political rival?

                      Is Trump heading up any other corruption investigations? He might want to look into Kushner and his 900 redo’s on his sf86.

                    2. Who is the head of the executive branch, and therefore the head of the DoJ?

    2. “The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.”

      New plastic flute blower is also pushing second hand rumors.

      1. I don’t think you know what a second hand rumor is. The level of closeness to the source of the misdeed trumpies require makes it so that nothing short of a signed confession by the president would work. And even then, they claim he’s “joking”.

        This whistleblower has firsthand information. Not that that matters, since whistle blower protections are actual law, not regulation, and there is no requirement for firsthand information in that law.
        https://www.npr.org/2019/10/06/767675638/second-whistleblower-with-direct-knowledge-of-ukraine-call-steps-forward-lawyer-

        Honestly, guys. I know you want to live in your comfortable little breitbart sphere, then come to reason to rail against these commie libertarian reason writers, but you have to stay so embarrassingly ignorant to do that. You might not be a libertarian if your first instinct is to rally behind a strong leader, as long as he says the right things about the people you hate.

        1. The whistleblower does not have first hand information, by their own admissions.

        2. What the fuck jeffrey. You still dont understand delegation doctrine? The rules and regulations around the whistleblower enforcement were changed by the ICIG. Just because a law doesnt explicitly require something foesnt mean a regulation cant. What the fuck do you think the federal regulations are?

          Likewise the law you explicitly reference explicitly states it only covers actions inside the individual divisions of the executive government, not actions or policies of the president. You continue due to ignore basic tenets like the dumbfuck you are.

          1. You cannot make regulation which alters existing legislation outside of specific delegation, which requires it’s own legislation. This never happened. There was an IG rule that they would not find a complaint credible if it was made solely on the basis of secondhand info and no corroboration could be established by the IG’s investigation. The IG was able to corroborate and thus ruled the complaint “credible and urgent”.

            https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whistleblowers-firsthand-knowledge/

            1. What did they corroborate though? That Trump spoke to the Ukrainian prime minister or that there was a quid pro quo? The complain was arguably ruled credible because the call occurred not because the alluded to charges were confirmed.

              1. The events in the call were confirmed. Even the whitehouse “transcript” shows that. The IG thus ruled the complaint credible.

                I can’t explain to you why it is so obvious to everyone who isn’t carrying water for Trump that there is quid pro quo going evidenced in the call and the events leading up to it, and that soliciting foreign interference in our elections is illegal.

                1. ” The IG thus ruled the complaint credible.”

                  This is wrong. The complain is BY LAW not credible because it is not first hand information, which is required.
                  We e been over this before Jeff. When you tried that move where you pretend people were talking about” filed” even though that was never the claim. It’s why Snopes ruled it false as well. You and Snopes keep trying to pull the same debunked distraction maneuver.

                  1. cite the law.

                2. Credible as in the call occurred and was enough to warrant an investigation by the IG not credible as in the charges were substantiated. Do you see the difference?
                  It isn’t obvious because you are conflating two different things.

                  1. It was ruled “credible and urgent”. That means it is supposed to get elevated to congress. The administration delayed far past the deadline by law. Another Trump crime.

                    1. No, urgent has a very definitive definition by the law. The IG may have labeled it urgent but the DoJ disagreed. So the question is who gets to decide the law doesn’t specify.

                3. Here jeff proves he doesnt understand the legal theory required for pid pro quo.

                  1. cite something.

            2. Lol. Snopes and he complains about Breitbart below.

        3. The second so called whistleblower is actually a witness, someone who was interviewed but didn’t file a complaint. Thus they aren’t a whistleblower. It is stretching the meaning of the word to the breaking point. We also have no idea what their testimony stated. But keep fapping to your hopes that it is the smoking gun.

          1. They are a whistleblower if they apply for and receive whistleblower protections.

            1. No from your own citations their protection from retaliation is because witnesses are protected, it has nothing to do with whistleblower laws, but has to do with witness protection laws. Do you bother to read your citations before posting them?

              1. The answer to that question is always no.

            2. “By law, when a witness is interviewed by the IG, that constitutes a protected disclosure, provides them legal protection from retaliation,” Zaid tells NPR

              1. Distinction without a difference? He is receiving the same protections as a whistleblower.

                1. We can all see that wasn’t your original claim, and when shown to be wrong, you simply ignore it.

                  1. You kooks and your wordplay.

                    “clip”

                    -ahahah you dumb motherfucker. its a “magazine”! I win!

  3. Presidential contender and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is standing by claims that she was dismissed from her forming teaching job when six months pregnant,

    Noooo, there is no way she would misremember something like that.

    1. I think she would remember being dismissed 6 mos. pregnant while taking sniper fire.

    2. Women do not lie about those things.

    3. It’s not a matter of misremembering, it’s a matter of reinterpreting. What appeared at the time to be a consensual act can later be reinterpreted as a non-consensual act if the woman decides that she felt pressured into engaging in the act. Where the hell have you been the last few years that you’ve never heard of #MeToo?

    4. She was 1/1024th pregnant at the time.

    5. Pregnancy does strange things to a woman’s body, maybe even to her memories. Unless you’ve been pregnant, you don’t get to judge #metoo

  4. Alyssa Milano joins in on calls to destroy Section 230, this time in service of somehow ending “deepfake porn.”

    History will look at her as one of the thinkers of our time.

        1. still looks good @7 a.m. in Charmed reruns lol

          1. She peaked halfway through Embrace of the Vampire.

    1. Section 230 can be left in place when it comes to deepfakes. If they’re actual porn just enforce Section 18 2257 laws. If anything, remove the 230 exclusion for 2257 laws and leave 230 in place. Problem solved right there. With that the free porn sites close and porn becomes profitable again.

      If the law is enforced it means anyone that posts porn to their twitter has to verify the ages and have documents available to the authorities to review. Provide location of such records as well and affix them to the video/image/account.
      (2) the term “produces”—
      (iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and

  5. Democrats continue the process of impeachment through secrecy, allowing only partial selected leaks as they attempt to push a narrative over reality.

    Democrats refuse to release the full Volker disposition despite no classification issues, no priviledge claims from the Executive, and the GOP asking for its release. Instead they publish only small parsed pieces.

    Now they are hiding witnesses and testimony related to the whistleblower.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/democrats-keeping-key-impeachment-witness-transcripts-secret/

    When a party is resorting to hiding the evidence, it generally means there is no there there.

    1. “…it generally means there is no there there.”

      I’m sure Gertrude would agree.

    2. *Unironically cites breitbart*

      1. Unironically attacks the messenger rather than refutes the charges.

      2. Jeff, why does it matter the source. We know you dont read anything beyond Vox headlines. Can you actually contradict anything? Guess what dumbfuck, Wapo has a story today about democrats attempting to hide the whistleblower off site for testimony.

        How are you consistently so fucking stupid on everything?

          1. Wikipedia, you bash others for the sources and then quote an open source forum with questionable moderation as your source? Do you understand irony? Because you mentioned irony.

            1. Because you nuts won’t accept the “mainstream” sources. I can cite NY Times, WaPo, and Wall Street Journal and you guys will have a fit.

              https://www.politifact.com/personalities/breitbart/

              Here is a link to a bunch of stories fabricated by Breitbart. It even has quotes and testimonies from people involved in the stories that Breitbart lies about. But you guys will scream about politifact being left biased because they believe scientists and experts.

              1. https://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

                “Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives
                Mitt Romney did not seem to be a particularly egregious liar, nor does Hillary Clinton seem the single most honest politician to run for president in the last 10 years. Yet PolitiFact says it’s true.”

                You use biased sources and belive them. Data motherfucker. Eat it.

                1. the federalist finds that an org that calls them on their bullshit is biased against them. I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

              2. https://www.dailywire.com/news/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler

                1. PolitiFact has tried to claim that President Barack Obama never went on an apology tour.

                2. PolitiFact gave The Federalist’s calculations on how much the Clinton Foundation spends on charity a “Mostly False” — despite admitting it was “technically true.”

                3. PolitiFact didn’t like Romney’s figure on the number of women who lost jobs under the Obama economy even though it was true

                4. PolitiFact gave Hillary Clinton’s claim that she “never received nor sent any material that was marked classified” a “Half-True” rating and then quietly edited it when it was clear they had embarrassed themselves

                5. Jim Webb and Ron Paul made the same claim about the federal income tax, yet PolitiFact gave Webb a better a rating than Paul.

                6. PolitiFact ran an embarrassing “fact-check” on Patricia Smith claiming that Hillary Clinton lied to her about Benghazi

                1. My favorite politifact was Cruzs true but… ruling. Was egregious. They literally admit what he said was true and then chose to use a different set of economists to label him false.

      3. You cited Snopes earlier. Calm down.

    1. You know who else felt they were a victim?

  6. “Trump-Ukraine call ‘frightening’ and ‘crazy’ said whistleblower in private memo”

    #TrumpUkraine is tied with #TrumpRussia as the biggest scandal in world history. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.

    #Impeach

    1. Does that mean your shtick shuts down when Trump is gone? I could support impeachment if for no other reason.

      1. His schtick isn’t that bad — except for his posting the same joke about Koch for about a hundred days in a row now.

        1. You misgendered me.

          And it’s important to monitor the net worth of our billionaire benefactor. People need to realize Drumpf’s disastrous economic policies are causing genuine misery.

          #59BillionIsntEnough

      2. I don’t do “shtick.” And when Drumpf leaves office, I will do what any committed left-libertarian should do — comment in support of his Democratic successor.

        #LibertariansForWarren

        1. >>#LibertariansForWarren

          definitely a Trail of Tears joke in there…

        2. Lizzie will help to grow the Koch fortune? Haha.

          Yeah, tell us again how you don’t do “schtick”.

  7. “We think of it as more ‘beyond Trump’ than ‘anti-Trump.’ But no one will have any doubt what we think”

    So it’s like beyond meat – you want the real thing, but really you are just eating a giant portobello mushroom.

    1. More like “beyond relevance.”

      1. For some reason I misread that as “beyonce relevant”

    2. Beyond Meat.

      Isn’t that a dildo?

  8. The ICIG continues to refuse to answer why he changed the rules and if the changes were politically motivated. This despite his admission that he changed it based on press reports over the inquiry by the press. Most notably the ICIG refuses to answer why he backdated changes, essentially lying about when the changes went into place.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/07/intel-community-ig-stonewalling-congress-on-backdated-whistleblower-rule-changes/

    1. Are they just doing this as boob bait for the faithful? I can’t believe anyone thinks this is going to persuade anyone who doesn’t already hate Trump and is willing to believe anything the Democrats say about him.

    2. and they keep saying there is no deep state. there actions prove otherwise

    3. Because it’s not part of the law? Are you completely unaware of this damage control tactic: kill the messenger? It’s so brazen an obvious, it would only work on a complete rube. Oh, hey…

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2087

      1. Like you do anyone posts citations from anything to the right of Vox?

        1. I cite the most neutral sources I can find. I have never cited vox. I guess you would count NPR as left, but they report factually.

          1. The report factually, how many retractions have they had to put out over the past two years in regard to reporting on the current administration? By the way, my use of Vox was hyperbole, but most would understand that.

          2. “I cite the most neutral sources I can find.”

            Which is his weasely way of saying he only uses left leaning news sites.

            1. When everything outside of http://www.patriotfreedomforwards fromgrandma.net is left leaning to you, then the answer is yes.

      2. Jeff once again too stupid to know what delegation doctrine is. In Jeff’s world there are zero federal regulations. They are all explicitly held solely to the law. But then again baby jeffrey is an ignorant dumbfuck.

        1. I posted several links today about this exact issue. There is a reason every media company other than breitbart and the federalist have dropped that talking point.

          1. And almost all of your posts have actually contradicted your point. Posting citations that undercut your argument may be your strategy, but it’s usefulness is questionable at best.

            1. Jeff does that constantly. He expects that people won’t read his links and call him on his lies.

            2. Jeff doesnt read his citations.

            3. It’s really tough to argue with delusional people who see what they want to see no matter what. I’m still waiting for a single citation from you for your many assertions.

              1. I quoted the sections that contradicted your points, verbatim. Whom is delusional?

          2. Yes jeff. Keep claiming federal regulations dont exist.

      3. By the way baby jeffrey, did you read the law yet and see who the statutes cover? Hint. President is not subservient to the IC.

      4. Lol. Holy fucking shit. Jeffrey has been posting the wrong act. He hasnt fucking read his link. Here is the pertinent act for the IC you raving idiot.

        https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ272/html/PLAW-105publ272.htm

        1. Yes, it was criminal for Barr and Trump to block the IG report from congress. Thanks for pointing that out:

          `(2) If a designee of an Inspector General under this section
          receives a complaint or information of an employee with respect to an
          urgent concern, that designee shall report the complaint or information
          to the Inspector General within 7 calendar days of receipt.
          “(b) <> Not later than the end of the 14-calendar
          day period beginning on the date of receipt of an employee complaint or
          information under subsection (a), the Inspector General shall determine
          whether the complaint or information appears credible. If the Inspector
          General determines that the complaint or information appears credible,
          the Inspector General shall, before the end of such period, transmit the
          complaint or information to the head of the establishment.

          Which part supports your point?

          1. So the IG reports to Barr, as he is the head of the establishment. So the IG didn’t give him the report? Or are you arguing that Congress, not the Executive Branch is head of the DoJ?

            1. Lolol that fucking idiot doesn’t know what he’s arguing other than “ORANGE MAN BAD!!!”

            2. I’m arguing that the Trump admin, using the Justice Department, blocked the IG complaint for much longer than legislation allows. Thus another illegal act by the admin.

              “The letters also made it clear that Maguire consulted with the Justice Department in deciding not to transmit the complaint to Congress in a further departure from standard procedure.”

              https://www.apnews.com/48f63d46490a409ca20aecc1c4fdf573

              1. And your stupid fucking argument has been destroyed Jeff.

              2. “So the IG reports to Barr, as he is the head of the establishment. So the IG didn’t give him the report? Or are you arguing that Congress, not the Executive Branch is head of the DoJ?”

                By the way Jeff, that was what destroyed your argument. That, and your transparent attempt to ignore the questions which destroy your argument.

                1. No point was made by you guys other than pedantic wordplay, as always. The report was withheld by the director of the DNI after consulting with DoJ. The DoJ asserted that the whitehouse had the right to assert executive privilege over the complaint. The problem is that that is not true. All of these are executive agencies. Trump, Barr, and Maguire all had their hand in this.

                  1. Who stated that it isn’t true? Can you quote the pertinent case law?

            3. (5)(A) An employee of the Agency, or of a contractor to the
              Agency, who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information
              with respect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or
              information to the Inspector General.
              “(B) Not <> later than the end of the 14-calendar
              day period beginning on the date of receipt from an employee of a
              complaint or information under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General
              shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible.
              If the Inspector General determines that the complaint or information
              appears credible, the Inspector General shall, before the end of such
              period, transmit the complaint or information to the Director.

              “(C) Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General under
              subparagraph (B), the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such
              receipt, forward such transmittal to the intelligence committees,
              together with any comments the Director considers appropriate.
              In this paragraph:
              “(i) The term `urgent concern’ means any of the following:
              “(I) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse,
              violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency
              relating to the funding, administration, or operations
              of an intelligence activity involving classified
              information, but does not include differences of
              opinions concerning public policy matters.
              “(II) A false statement to Congress, or a willful
              withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact
              relating to the funding, administration, or operation of
              an intelligence activity.
              “(III) An action, including a personnel action
              described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United
              States Code, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal
              prohibited under subsection (e)(3)(B) in response to an
              employee’s reporting an urgent concern in accordance
              with this paragraph.

              1. Barr made a determination that the matter didn’t meet the criteria for urgent, and it is very questionable, since this wasn’t an intelligence matter, that the appropriate law allowed for it to be labeled urgent.

                1. Now the part you quoted is in response to protections for the DIA, the parts I quote are for the CIA. The so called whistleblower was CIA not covered by the portion you quoted.

                2. Barr doesn’t get to make that determination. This isn’t even in dispute any longer, as the whitehouse gave up had the DNI release the complaint. They knew they would get slapped down in court if they continued.

                  1. The law doesn’t state who gets to make the determination. It is up to interpretation.

              2. Additionally, the whistleblower appears to have broken this law when he reported to Congress directly (worked with Schiff’s office) without first notifying and receiving permission from the IG and the Director.

                1. (ii) The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly
                  as described in clause (i) only if the employee–
                  “(I) before making such a contact, furnishes to the
                  Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the
                  employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s
                  intent to contact the intelligence committees directly; and
                  “(II) obtains and follows from the Director, through the
                  Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence
                  committees in accordance with appropriate security practices.

                  1. Hey he’s just asking if someone should be investigated. What’s illegal about that, right guis?

                    1. According to the law, his actions are illegal, whereas the President is head of the executive branch, and thus, according to the Constitution, tasked with enforcing federal law. Thus his asking about an investigation is literally part of his job description. Do you not understand the difference?

                    2. Look at that, Dumbfuck Jeffy doesn’t know the difference between the President and Vice President.

          2. God you’re such a fucking idiot. You dont even get that the citation you’ve been using doesnt support your claims. Just walk away Jeff. You’re an idiot.

  9. “Rock and Roll Part 2,” a song by convicted child sex offender Gary Glitter, plays for about two minutes as Joaquin Phoenix, who plays the Joker, dances down a flight of stairs https://t.co/VOPAJwK7MN

    — CNN (@CNN) October 7, 2019

    The internets has reminded me that CNN and DC are both owned by Warner Brothers. #synergy

    1. they used to play that at all the NBA games too

      1. But do they play it when the pedos are doing drag queen story hour at the library?

  10. Joker is a great move. First one I have seen in a theater in years. I must admit, I laughed out loud at some parts . If you’ve seen it you may or may not know why. It is dark, although , it wasn’t nearly as violent as many flicks. The violence was used as a part of the story, not just to fill time.

    1. Better than The Killing Joke?

    2. Did it warp your brain?

      1. I’m already warped. I wasn’t the only one laughing at times in the audience. And the talk show scene was dark and yet the crowd found it very funny. May have been because of the actor who played the part. Nuf said.

    3. Initially, I wasn’t even going to see it. I’m pretty much done with comic book movies after Endgame, and doing a Joker film just seemed indulgent and pointless.

      Based on what I’ve heard from others, it’s actually not a comic book movie so much as a film that hearkens back to the New Hollywood era in its exploration of darker themes, particularly mental illness and the inability of society to address it with any sort of understanding and compassion. I’m sure that’s a big reason Gotham reflects the New York City of the 70s and 80s, when the city really was a shithole before Guiliani came in and sanitized it for the tourists.

      I suspect a lot of the manic response to the movie by the Blue Checkmark class stems from the fact that the scenes hit way to close to home, and they’d rather project their own neuroses onto the subject matter than face it in an intelligent way. If this had come out in 1979 instead of 2019, it would be Oscar bait.

      1. My wife accidentally bought end game on prime a month or two back. Still havent bothered with it they took one of the greatest storyline arcs in marvel history and made it about an eco terrorist. Can’t be bothered with it

        1. It’s so much better than Infinity War it’s crazy. I thought Infinity War stunk. But Endgame was alright. Not fantastic, but as Marvel movies go, up near the top.

          1. Meh. Had two good bits, the rest was pandering. The only thing missing was more Motley Crue playing “Girls, Girls Girls” at the end as they did their catwalk strut.

            So much potential but in the end a pile of shit.

      2. I’m thinking it’s already Oscar bait. If it doesn’t get nominated for best actor and best director, I’ll be surprised.

        1. They might give Phoenix a Best Actor nom. He seems to be generally well-liked in Hollywood, if a bit of an eccentric. Phillips isn’t getting squat after rightly complaining about the stupidity of cancel culture.

        2. it won’t win though if people think it’s not woke

    4. I saw it at the AFI Silver theater in 70 mm. It had that real film look plus the projectionist kept screwing up the reel changes, so it made it even more fun.

      1. AFI doesn’t do reel changes in 70mm. It’s spliced together and run from one large platter. So…yeah.

        1. Maybe that’s why they screwed up. I thought, hey showing movies on film is your main thing. How are you screwing it up? But for this one there were definitely reel changes.

          1. It’s possible I guess. If the print is going somewhere else immediately after then they wouldn’t prep it.

    5. Is the remake better than the original? Is Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker better than Charles Bronson as Paul Kersey?

      1. I believe it’s more akin to Taxi Driver than Death Wish. DeNiro being in the movie is probably the tell.

        1. I thought the Joker storyline sounded similar to Death Wish, I’ve never seen Taxi Driver. (Never been a DeNiro fan, Duvall is my Robert of choice.)

  11. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch lost $192,000,000 yesterday.

    In fact, of the 10 richest people on the planet, 8 of them lost money yesterday. Koch / Reason libertarianism is fundamentally about creating the economic conditions in which the richest people on the planet can prosper. Under the #DrumpfRecession, however, that just isn’t happening.

    I expect at least 3 Boehm articles today denouncing Drumpf’s tariffs.

    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

  12. I’m getting very sick of our media. They’ve crossed the lines from being childish obvious hacks to being dangerous to society.

    1. It was one thing when the local newspaper was blatantly in the tank for one political party or the other; it’s quite another when nearly the entire Mass Media Industrial Complex takes it upon itself to do so.

      1. Totalitarians gonna totalitarian

  13. Presidential contender and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is standing by claims that she was dismissed from her forming teaching job when six months pregnant, after the The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that this was untrue.

    The DNA test will prove that she was 1/1024th part fired.

    1. And even if she was “dismissed from her forming teaching job when six months pregnant,” what’s the problem? You’re not allowed to fire someone simply because she’s pregnant?

    2. The DNA test will prove that she was 1/1024th part pregnant.

    3. So what is more important, the she self identified that she was underqualified/uncredientialed for the job, out that she was some degree pregnant? #metoo

  14. The American Civil Liberties Union was in federal court yesterday on behalf of Tofurky.

    The 2nd Amendment right of our day.

    1. On behalf of Tofurky? Are you Syrias? I would have thought they’d be on the side of the Curds.

      1. That was a cheesy comment.

      2. Some people don’t eat turkey.
        So what do they do?
        On Thanksgiving they eat turkey but it’s made of tofu.
        Tofurky’s not a turkey.
        It doesn’t run or fly.
        It looks a little mushy
        Doesn’t have a turkey tushy
        but I’ll give it a try

        Tofurky goes wobble, wobble, wobble
        not gobble, gobble gobble
        You don’t need to carve a drumstick it’s really all the same
        wobble, wobble, wobble
        not gobble, gobble gobble
        You’ll save a turkey that way.

        /The “benefit” of nieces and nephews.

  15. suggesting that banning/restricting legal vaping will be worse than useless

    Depends on your goal.

  16. Am I the only one who thought the “clowns” were closer to Antifa than Trump supporters?

    1. Haven’t seen it, but that was Tim Pool’s take. He said they were pretty blatantly leftist

  17. Inslee’s flavoring ban is unusual because the governor himself admitted at a press conference that there was zero evidence flavorings are causing the outbreak. Yet the legal language behind his flavor ban says exactly the opposite.

    Normally they just blink their message in hostage videos.

  18. Charging kids as adults is counterproductive.

    Depends on your goal.

  19. “We think of it as more ‘beyond Trump’ than ‘anti-Trump.’ But no one will have any doubt what we think”

    The bear doesn’t care the shape of the poker.

  20. Remember the media’s summer of rage about Tea Party going to town halls to petition the politicians who voted for ACA?

    Seems like part 2 is starting over the farce of an impeachment.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/freshman-house-democrat-backing-impeachment-inquiry-faces-boos-and-heckling-at-town-hall

    1. Well voting for the ACA worked out so well in the following election for the Democrats in the House. So what is there to worry about? Right?

      1. Well this time they are combining impeachment with Medicare for all, free healthcare for illegals, no borders, no guns, amending free speech, outlawing free practice of religion in public, etc. So no way it could backfire.

        1. Welfare for illegals ought to really win back the middle class vote Hillary lost.

  21. “We think of it as more ‘beyond Trump’ than ‘anti-Trump.’ But no one will have any doubt what we think”

    Like a raging alcoholic ready to look past the problem he doesn’t have.

    Sure the guy is a racist tool who was elected by a bunch of heathen backwater retards, but we need to move beyond such petty divisions.

    1. When people complain about how divisive Trump is, that’s code for “stop pushing back against Democrats, it’s mean! Why can’t you show your belly like good Republicans such as McCain?”

      1. ?? Are you serious? The guy insults Americans daily. That’s why he’s divisive. He’s managed to publicly denigrate: POW’s, gold star families and war widows, pretty much every ethnic group, Puerto Ricans, anyone who is not a Trump supporter. And last but not least, Trump supporters! Seriously, he makes you guys look dumb. If you are mad and defensive about getting called a dumbass every day for supporting Trump, then maybe do a little self examination.

        1. And this is new how? Oh I know clinging to the guns and Bible’s and basket full of deplorables wasn’t insulting Americans.

          1. One comment from each is equal to several insults daily from this president? Great leadership style!

            1. De Oppresso Liber
              October.8.2019 at 1:21 pm

              “Waaaaaaaaah”

              1. Provide a cited argument to refute me, then.

                1. They acted stupidly.
                  For the first time in my life I’m proud to be an American.
                  Shall I continue?

        2. LOL calm down.

    2. More like “Impossible Trump” than “Beyond Trump”

  22. Joker was a great movie and I say that as a massive movie snob who hates most movies, but the gunshot scenes are not realistic like you say. The blood splashes are just a bit over the top.

    1. I think it looks interesting and I really like Joaquine Phoenix. The only criticism I have heard of it that sounds plausibly legitimate is that it takes evil and mental illness and reduces it to a Progressive sob story about how the Joker was just misunderstood and unfairly didn’t get his pony. Someone described it as showing the understanding and world view of a social worker.

      I have not seen the movie. Is that criticism fair or unfair in your view?

      1. I find it interesting that Joaquine Phoenix is reprising the role of River Phoenix who killed himself. Same last name same movie character hope there is not a repeat of the end result.

        1. River Phoenix never played the Joker. Heath Ledger played the Joker. And Joaquine is River’s younger brother.

          1. OD’d outside the Viper in L.A. in like ’89

            1. It is one of the reasons Joaquine was so perfect to play Johnny Cash. They both lost an older brother when they were very young and lived in the shadow of it.

              I think Phoenix is one of the great actors of this or any generation. I wish he could get his act together and that Hollywood could write more parts worthy of his talent.

              1. i do too but he’s beyond Hollywood. they just get lucky once in awhile when he’s around.

                i don’t *goto* movies but i might for Joker.

          2. My bad mistake. I always get actors confused

        2. Are you trolling or just hopped up on cold medicine?

      2. They covered that story in the book, and animated movie, the killing joke. I’ll watch eventually after the initial crowds, but I have a high bar for comic book movies I have a familiarity with.

      3. I didn’t get that impression at all. The social worker he sees at the beginning of the movie just goes through the motions in her government job and doesn’t really seem to give a damn. The funding cut is just a plot device to get him off his meds. I don’t know. Someone can put whatever spin they want to on it, but if you just watch it as a man spiraling into violent insanity, it’s very well done. From the main character’s perspective, all the politics surrounding him is just incidental. For him, it’s more about how people treat others and specifically how they treat him.

        1. Thanks. I generally loath comic book movies, but because Phoenix is in it, I might watch this one.

        2. Someone can put whatever spin they want to on it,

          This is one of the main reasons I think it’s worth a watch. I’ve heard a dozen different reviews and everyone is saying how everyone else got it wrong. Each one also points to a iconic film (Cuckoo’s Nest, The Machinist, Taxi Driver, Fight Club, etc.) and says it draws heavily from it or works strongly from a given theme.

          Seems like it’s good at a fundamental level and no one agrees as to why.

      4. As Lex Luthor said on Smallville: “..and I wanted a ponytail. Disappointment abounds.”

      5. I thought it did a fine job of balancing making him sympathetic without making him into someone you root for. One leaves the movie still thinking him the villain.

    2. I had zero desire to see it at first; I find comic book movies to be increasingly boring and formulaic.

      But after hearing all the hysterical screeching by the secular Church Ladies in the Media, I’m going to see it as a kind of act of rebellion.

      I bet a good portion of those viewers who went this past weekend did it for the same reason.

  23. http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464680-poll-overwhelming-majority-of-black-voters-choose-any-given-2020-democrat-over?fbclid=IwAR1OLmr4u1nMN-6RG0jcWYGa7hXzem-DZGVTjPKzEXzPGAGgOeBgT59NJjc

    This headline is an amazing example of burying the lead. The headline is “overwhelming majority of black voters would vote for generic Democrat over Trump”. That is strictly speaking true and a surprise to no one. The reality of the polling data in the article when put in context is, however, pretty shocking and not in a good way for the Democrats.

    An overwhelming majority of black voters — 85 percent — said in a new Hill-HarrisX poll that they would choose any Democratic presidential candidate over President Trump.

    That means 15% would choose Trump. To put that in context, Trump got 8% in 2016. If he got 15%, that would be nearly double the amount he won in 16. That additional 7% of the black vote would, assuming a 250 million voter turnout in 20 like there was in 16 translate into around two million flipped votes for Trump. If you take two million votes from the Democrat and flip them to Trump, Trump wins the popular vote based on that shift alone.

    No Republican has gotten more than 12% of the black vote since Eisenhower. Another interesting fact in the poll is Trump wins 32% of the black male vote.

    Wow.

    1. You shouldn’t bury the lead. It can leach into groundwater and cause brain damage the leads to things like editors burying the lede.

    2. You don’t need Blacks voting for Trump. You just need Blacks staying home and not voting for whoever the Democrats put up.

      That’s a huge reason Hillary lost despite having the demographics on her side: She couldn’t manage to get enough of her guaranteed voters excited enough to get out to the polls.

      Taking your base for granted will do that to you.

      1. I live in the DC area. It is majority black and nearly entirely Democratic. The difference in reaction of white democrats and black democrats to Trump’s election was remarkable. Every white Democrat I knew was absolutely apoplectic after the election. They were all angry, shocked, sad and most had to some degree or another lost their minds over it. The black people I know and interact with seemed totally unphased. The contrast was startling. I have no doubt the vast majority of the blacks I know and interact with here did not and do not support Trump. But, none of them seem particularly concerned about his winning the election.

        I really don’t see how the Democrats are going to motivate black voters in 2020. The whole “he is a white supremacist” bs seems to only convince white Democrats and be more or less ignored by black voters. I think more blacks are going to vote for Trump than have any Republican in a long time, though it still will be a small minority. More importantly, very few black voters are going to be particularly motivated to vote against him. And that as you point out is just as bad for Democrats as them voting for him.

      2. She had hot sauce in her purse. H O T S A U C E ! That should have been enough. The folks of color should have crawled over broken glass to honor her, just like the Haitians.

    3. I noticed that too. The Media are all acting as if this is a sure sign der Drumpfenfuhrer is finished, and ignoring the part of the poll which shows him with double the 2016 support of black voters more than a year away from the election.

      Once you start to see the obvious signs of bias, you can’t unseen it; it jumps out at you in almost every article. Yet another good thing that Trump has brought about: he has caused the Media to drop their masks.

      1. They are just moving the goal posts. If two years ago someone had said Trump was going to get 15% of the black vote, the media would have said that was impossible. Now there is a poll that says just that and the response is “Trump loses huge majority of black voters”. Where before doubling his share of the black vote was just pipe dreams by his supporters, today anything short of a large plurality is a failure.

    4. If Trump actually got 15 percent of the Black vote, the Dems would be fucked.

    5. There goes John, showing once again that he does not know how to read a poll.

      1. Your evidence supporting this assertion)

        1. Read the article. Nowhere does it state that 15% would vote for Trump. John is mistakenly thinking that because only 85% of black voters said they would vote for any dem candidate, that means that 15% of black voters would vote for Trump. That’s not how polling works. The inverse is not always or even usually true.

      2. The numbers are what they are dumb ass. You might try and just not say anything if all you have to say is something that makes you look stupid.

        1. You can’t just remove the 15% that didn’t agree with the asked question and assert that they support the opposite. It’s like arguing with a toddler.

  24. Rex Reed says it’s the new Clockwork Orange.

    1. that movie war terrible though

      1. that’s between you and Rex Reed.

    2. Orange Clockwork Bad.

  25. In regards to Joker supposedly not playing by social justice warrior rules, I’ve only seen three productions intended for general audiences that failed to play by social justice rules in recent years.

    *Spoiler Alerts!*

    1) Stranger Things Season Three.

    To suggest that a Mormon girl could be smart, beautiful, talented, and happy is bad enough, but it completely breaks social justice warrior rules to show her as both assertive and so very Mormon.

    Smart girls are the victims of fundamentalism, and to create a character that suggests otherwise is social justice blasphemy.

    2) The second season of Goliath

    The bad guy turns out to be a Mexican immigrant woman running on a social justice platform for Mayor of Los Angeles, and one of the things that makes her so evil is that she wins after duping a white, young, idealistic progressive woman to volunteer to work for her campaign.

    By social justice warrior rules, you cannot make a struggling immigrant woman from Mexico, who rises to become the Mayor of Los Angeles on the back of social justice issues, an evil force who preys on the people she’s supposed to be helping and dupes idealistic liberals into volunteering for her social justice campaign.

    3) The Mist Series 1 (2017)

    The bad guy turns out to be a bisexual victim of bullying, and his sexuality appears to be tied directly to his murderous ways.

    I’ve seen social justice warriors go through the roof over nothing, but I’ve never seen them go after any of these shows–all three of which seemed to be tweaking the noses of social justice warriors intentionally. It’s sort of like Hillary Clinton gleaning money from foreign governments that had arms deals pending for her signature of secretary of state–and declaring all those donations on her very public income tax statements and to the Department of State itself. If you’re Hillary Clinton and rob a bank in broad daylight and announce that you’re robbing the bank in a press conference ahead of time, everyone imagines that its isn’t robbing a bank. To get people to notice, they have to think you’re doing it on the sly.

    If you tweak the noses of social justice warriors in broad daylight, they may not even notice. To get the social justice warriors really mad, it helps if they think you’re breaking their rules unintentionally.

    1. i was blown away by the ending of Goliath part deux i kept waiting for the tide to turn but then there were no more episodes

      1. It was disorienting.

        Mysteries are always about playing with our expectations, and making her the bad guy was especially provocative from a social justice warrior perspective for that reason.

        She’s a Mexican immigrant.

        She’s a social justice warrior.

        She’s fighting for the community.

        There’s no way she could be the bad guy.

        NFW.

        Social Justice Warriors have been playing with audience prejudices in mysteries for years and years. How dare you assume that the Mexican immigrant must be related to the cartel!

        To add insult to social justice injury, the hero can’t do anything to stop her in no small part–because she enjoys so much public support. Her former campaign manager is even too scared to move against her.

        1. yeah she was beautifully subtle evil. loved season 1 and 2 was better. likely starting 3 today.

    2. I should correct that.

      Susie in Stranger Things isn’t just assertive.

      She’s demanding.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5HQ1sZseKg

    3. There was a little-seen movie, I can’t quite put my finger on the name at the moment. But the big bad guy kills off half the population of the Universe to conserve resources and the good guys wind up hunting him down to his agrarian hovel and cutting his head off.

      There was also that semi-fictional docudrama that everyone raved about showing how a hapless crew Russian nuclear reactor workers were heroically brave in their doomed efforts to thwart their inept Soviet directors’ efforts to convert the plant and surrounding countryside into an irradiated wasteland.

      Also, the skating female cyborg movie.

      1. Those are about socialism, more than being a social justice warrior, but you’re right–mine aren’t the only examples of cracks in the progressive facade.

        And it is just a facade.

        The image progressives would have us believe about how the world is and what’s acceptable isn’t any more realistic or accurate than the Leave it to Beaver image of the 1950s.

    4. The Kingsman movies are explicitly, and surprisingly, anti-progressive.

    5. “Sometimes PC babies don’t even know what they’re crying about!” South Park.

  26. Connecting all the dots: humans live in fantasy worlds. Some are partially aware, at least that others have weak grasp of reality (the Aurora sheriff) or can be easily influenced (Governor Inslee). Others willingly separated from objective reality (Warren, Brody).

    Nothing really new, but as life has become too easy, and the repercussions for stupid have nearly vanished, we should expect more of this.

  27. “In contrast to a publicly released transcript of the July 25 phone call, the two-page memo used dramatic language. According to the memo, the White House official “described the (July 25th) call as ‘crazy,’ ‘frightening,’ and ‘completely lacking in substance related to national security.'”

    If Shikha Dalmia were a CIA agent on that phone call, she might have legitimately believed the same thing.

    It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome, and the people who have it aren’t necessarily being dishonest about what they see when Trump is standing in the frame of the photo, it’s that their vision is so distorted by their distaste for Trump that they legitimately can’t see what’s really happening.

    People with anxiety have this problem. They aren’t delusional. It’s just that they interpret everything they see as confirming their assumption that everybody is out to get them. That’s an excellent explanation for why the whistleblower’s testimony so completely misses the mark–and has no clear relationship to the content of the transcript of the phone call.

    In order to see a quid pro quo in the transcript, you must already believe that there is a quid pro quo. The fact remains, however, that there is no evidence of a quid pro quo in the transcript itself. Unfortunately for the Democrats and the news media, who went off half-cocked for impeachment, American still needs more than their Trump Derangement Syndrome to justify overturning the results of a presidential election.

    If they don’t produce something substantial by Monday, this impeachment push is likely to die on the vine for lack of evidence.

    1. That’s an excellent explanation for why the whistleblower’s testimony so completely misses the mark–and has no clear relationship to the content of the transcript of the phone call.

      I think this is an interesting characterization for why when we actually get the transcripts or the detail, the reality doesn’t quite match up to the hype. And why so many stories get retracted as of late.

      1. Trump really has driven the media and the Democrats out of their minds. I have never seen anything like it.

      2. And why democrats are hiding the primary evidence and relying on narrative.

    2. Trump said yesterday that when he took office an Army general told him that they didn’t have any ammunition and that he had said he would make sure that didn’t happen anymore.

      Trump was referring to a real problem. The issue of the military running through its stock of ammunition was all over the defense trade press in the spring of 2017. And like he often does, Trump was using hyperbole to make his point. He didn’t mean they had litterally no ammunition. He was just referring to the shortage. Anyone with any sense listening to him would understand that.

      But, the blue check mafia was all over Twitter yesterday giving this as an example of how Trump is a pathological liar and suffers from, and I am not kidding, psychosis.

      I am starting to agree with your assessment. They are not stupid. Had any other President said the same thing, they would have understood and not thought anything of it. For a long time I thought they were just being willfully obtuse and dishonest. But, I don’t think that is true either because if that were true, they would have long realized that they are fooling no one and stopped. I think your explanation is probably the correct one. They have allowed Trump to make them so neurotic and anxious they no longer can listen to him in a rational way.

      1. And if they genuinely believe the horseshit they write, that makes it even harder to deal with because they may genuinely believe that the people who don’t see what they see are the delusional.

        That’s why I keep asking people who tell me there was a quid pro quo to show me in the transcript where that happened. They seem to genuinely believe it’s there, but they can’t find it because it isn’t!

        1. That is what happened in the exchange between Chuck Todd and Ron Johnson last weekend. Johnson made the entirely rational point that the text messages between Storzak and his girlfriend say in so many words the FBI was plotting to overturn the election and Todd just went berserk and started screaming. Todd seems to have convinced himself that the claim that the FBI tried to go after Trump and overturn the election is just something Trump supporters made up. When Johnson confronted him with the actual facts that show it wasn’t, Todd lost his mind.

          1. That’s a big reason I hope Trump wins in 2020. I want these disingenuous, smarmy fucks to finally break and kill themselves so our society is spared of their exceptional self-regard.

          2. Also, what a fucking embarrasent Todd is as a host. He makes David Gregory look mature, objective, and reasonable.

            1. whoever decided Todd got past ugly-ugly and achieved tv-ugly was drunk or the loser of a large poker hand.

    3. Yes, the problem is the hundreds of lifelong public servants who have come out saying essentially the same thing: Trump is a lunatic moron who is running the government as his own reelection campaign. He doesn’t read or listen to anyone, unless they are praising him. The word “toddler” frequently appears in these reports.

      But yeah, its much more likely that it is mass hysteria causing a very specific and consistent shared hallucination, not that Trump is continuing his lifelong habit of being a narcissist.

      1. Lifelong public servants, hundreds? Didn’t progressives used to question the motives and power of the government? Oh BTW, being think skinned isn’t disqualifying or illegal. Suck it up buttercup.

        1. This isn’t about feelings, at least not for the rest of us. It’s about a dangerously unqualified man having the nuclear codes.

          1. It’s about a dangerously unqualified man having the nuclear codes.

            Trump is the first president in recent memory to call off a fully prepared missile strike after Iran downed the drone. But he is unqualified as compared to the socialist hag who would have done it without blinking.

            You really don’t belong on a libertarian site.

            1. Trump is also the first President since Nixon to end more wars than he started. But he is an unstable lunatic not all of the Presidents who did the opposite.

            2. He preps the missile strike, then gets credit when he cancels? Ok then.

              1. ITT, Dumbfuck Jeffy acts assblasted because Trump didn’t launch a drone strike.

          2. Heard that one three years ago, Sunshine. Same thing with Reagan.

            Yet here we are, coming up on the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and breakup of the Warsaw Pact, and Trump getting shit for pulling out of Syria and wanting to pull out of Afghanistan. You’re going to have to try a different tack than something cooked up by one of David Brock’s astroturfing enterprises.

      2. Yes, the problem is the hundreds of lifelong public servants

        If only you could have stopped before going TDS, you would have had a valid point.

      3. hundreds of lifelong public servants

        If it’s one thing that libertarians like to do, it’s lionize government bureaucrats.

    4. Good point. In reading that, my first thought was ‘how is this evidence?’ How someone feels about something isn’t proof of whether that something was wrong. It’s just an escalation to the national level of a student feeling ‘unsafe’ that a conservative is giving a speech on campus.

      I also feel that we are losing our grip as a nation on the difference between things that are dodgy, unethical or an actual abuse of power.

      Actually engaging in bribery or quid-pro-quo behavior using the power of your office = abuse of power

      Making up stuff about a political rival = unethical

      Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden’s son is, at best, kinda dodgy, but well within acceptable bounds of political behavior given that Biden was a member of the previous administration who potentially abused the power of his office. Whether or not he may have become the democratic nominee is beside the point.

      1. Based solely on the transcript, whatever Trump was doing there, it isn’t enough to overturn an election.

        I think that’s also part of what’s driving progressives crazy: They think support for Trump is such that no matter what he does, the default position is that Trump shouldn’t be removed from office.

        The fact is that overturning an election is serious business, and if whatever is in that transcript isn’t enough to overturn the results of the 2016 election, then it is what it is.

        If elections shouldn’t be overturned without evidence of serious wrongdoing, then they shouldn’t be overturned without evidence of serious wrongdoing–even if progressives hate Trump for other reasons.

        1. “Based solely on the transcript, whatever Trump was doing there, it isn’t enough to overturn an election.”

          That’s a nice assertion and all, but A) congress can impeach for whatever reason they want, and B) Most! Americans think that it is time to impeach.

          https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-08/polls-impeachment-inquiry-trump-sondland-testimony-stonewall

  28. ‘Joker’ uses a song by convicted pedophile Gary Glitter

    Once about 10 years ago I was bored and found a newsletter apparently geared to senior citizens. There was a movie review about some R rated movie and the elderly woman who wrote it spent the entire time bemoaning the decline of cinema because of the raunchy language of said movie. Then she announced dramatically at the end that it would be her last review because she couldn’t bear to watch another offensive movie.

    I thought it was very funny at the time, but now when I think back on it it just makes me sad. Because it’s no longer funny now that EVERYONE has turned into a little old lady getting the vapors. Plus, unlike the old lady, no one has the decency to realize hey! maybe I’m in the wrong line of work. Instead they are trying to harangue creators into ruining their art because, for instance, they think the movie about the psychopath villain should have theme music more suitable for a Hallmark special.

    1. It is worse than that. At least the little old lady in your example was complaining about actual smut. Here, there is nothing vulgar or pornographic about the song. They are complaining that a song performed by someone who was a sex criminal is the problem. It is an insult to mild mannered old ladies to compare them to these lunatics.

      1. They need to be extreme in their rejection of the pedophiles who are no longer cool or influential to make up for all of the currently famous pedophiles that they’re OK with.

        1. and yeah, I was probably hard on the old lady. At least she has a point that raunchiness can sometimes detract from art. Whereas woke journalists seem to think that art is only OK when it advances their politics.

        2. That is true of the entire population. The same people who scream the loudest about killing all the evil pedophiles allow their 11 year old daughters to walk around in outfits that would make a street walker blush. Our society is just nuts when it comes to sex.

          1. And clap at preteen drag kids like Lactatia or Desmond is Amazing, the latter of whom is treated like full-blown pedo bait.

          2. “The same people who scream the loudest about killing all the evil pedophiles”

            Those are typically the ones that diddled their younger sister when they were like 10 and she was 8 and everyone but them have moved on from it. It’s projection. Just like the guy that wants to kill all the fags jerks off to gay porn.

      2. and yet Michael Jackson songs keep playing on the radio

    2. a little old lady getting the vapors

      The government has a fix for that vaping problem!

      1. That’s another great band undermined by social justice!

        https://vimeo.com/284449766

        You can’t find the original video on YouTube anymore, and I seriously doubt it’s because of copyright.

        It’s because of cultural appropriation, racism, the lyrics, etc.

        1. Isn’t “turning Japanese” another euphemism for masturbation, derived from “the O face”? Not sure how that’s cultural appropriation, but maybe you know something about the Japanese I don’t.

          1. I am in no way implying that The Vapors “Turning Japanese” is just a cover version of Sam and Dave’s “Hold On, I’m Coming”.

          2. If the lyrics of the song weren’t cultural appropriation enough, conflating jacking it with being Japanese, the video would make that appropriation complete. It’s full of geisha images and the lead singer going to his knees and becoming a samurai with a samurai sword as he jacks himself.

            Freedom of speech is about being able to say awful things–and culturally appropriate. The solution isn’t to deny that it’s cultural appropriation. The solution is to say, “So what if it’s cultural appropriation?”. If YouTube’s tolerance is too sensitive to handle pop punk level cultural appropriation from the 1980s, then fuck YouTube.

            I supposed they’ll be banning Boy George and Culture Club videos next?

            1. In the video, the lead singer is literally pulling his eyes out with his fingers singing about he’s “turning Japanese”.

    3. Gary Glitter’s music is better when Joan Jett covers it, but if the worlds fastest marathon runner were a convicted pedophile, he’d still be the fastest marathon runner in the world.

      Gunther Grass was a good enough writer to win a Nobel prize–before everyone found out he was in the SS. Death on the Installment Plan is hilarious and not about fascism–even if Celine was a Nazi.

      There’s this thing called an ad hominem fallacy, and when it’s perpetrated in the name of social justice, it’s still an ad hominem fallacy.

      1. Pretty much all of Glam rock is better when covered by later artists. The Quiet Riot cover of Cum on Feel the Noise is ten times better than the original. The same is true of The Power Station’s cover of Bang a Gong. The glam bands wrote some great songs and riffs but they didn’t make good records. They were too concerned with their eyeliner or something and ended up with records that sound flat and are easy to cover and improve.

      2. conversely, *nobody* can cover Joan Jett. nobody.

        1. Weird Al did a pretty good job.

  29. Despite being one of the most controversial films of the year, Joker broke box office records over its weekend, earning $96 million and the best October debut ever. But the movie’s sparked another controversy since its release, due to the fact that it features a song by glam rocker Gary Glitter, who in recent decades has received multiple criminal convictions for child pornography and pedophilia.

    “Despite”. Despite the fact that we’ve ordered you to not go see this movie, you disgusting pieces of shit refuse to do as you’re told.

    And the “controversy” seems to be of the “some guy on Twitter said some shit” sort, i.e., wholly media-manufactured click-bait outrage.

    1. Some movies really are “controversial”. Last Temptation of Christ was controversial. The Passion was controversial. Last Tango in Paris and A Clockwork Orange were controversial. Those films were controversial because a significant section of society found them offensive and they broke significant taboos of some sort. And even casual movie goers seemed to have an opinion of them.

      The Joker in contrast seems to be just another movie except that a few woke douche bags with blue checks on Twitter didn’t like it for some reason that few seem to fully understand and no one seems to care about.

      1. I didn’t watch the movie, but from the reviews the plot seems to be routine “resistance” material, where Joker and the minions he inspires are essentially OWS figures. The bad guys are 1% fat cats. So it should have been embraced by the very people who are bashing it.

        Except they’re not. Because at the end of the day it’s about race. The lead is white male, most of the cast is white, and the film’s class warfare storyline wasn’t “intersectional” enough to touch upon grievance mongering on race, LGBTQ and other woke issues.

        Kilmonger basically wanted to turn Wakanda into a terrorist state that weaponizes revolutions around the world. His character was praised to the heavens, even though urban violence kills more black people than white supremacy ever could. The woke crowd simply do not wish to see white people humanized or uplifted in any art form. Joker’s personal struggles could be seen as a first world problem or a white man’s tale that ignores the plight of the voiceless. But none would dare call Kilmonger as a gangster or a thug.

  30. Presidential contender and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is standing by claims that she was dismissed from her forming teaching job when six months pregnant, after the The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that this was untrue.

    Good. When people realize she lies about being a victim to justify her gender demagoguery they can apply that lesson to her economic demagoguery also.

    1. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    2. Yeah, not many seem to be picking up that if the speech therapist the school hired is off having a baby, then the kids who talk funny get no therapy. Schools in 1971 were not the bond-funded, administration-hemorrhaging, union pleasure dens we see today. The principal was probably also a teacher, drawing a meager salary, as well as the others involved in the decision. What if they were, secular afterlife supervisor forbid, actually thinking about how to best provide support for the kids?

      1. You seem to be justifying her being fired for being pregnant. That’s beside the point since she’s admitted publicly she wasn’t fired for being pregnant.

  31. “…initial reports claiming that the Aurora shooter was dressed as the Joker turned out to be wrong (he just had dyed red hair).”

    …and was a genius level PhD student who killed people randomly and threw smoke bombs to create confusion, just like the Joker.

    But the Joker was never an incel, in fact he was the opposite, with hypnotic control over devoted followers like Harley Quinn.

  32. White House official “described the (July 25th) call as ‘crazy,’ ‘frightening,’ and ‘completely lacking in substance related to national security.'”

    Funny thing about this fantasy – – the second hand rumor mongerer claims to have heard the fantasy from four or five “sources” with “first hand knowledge”.
    And yet, for some unknown reason, NONE of those first hand sources thought it was worthy of an actual real life whistle blower complaint.
    So maybe the alleged instigator is actually a fantasy of the democrats, which is why we will never actually see or hear from him; just a computer generated masked voice and a shadow on a screen, if we even get that much.
    So much for constitutional protections that claim to provide for an opportunity to face your accuser.

  33. I loved he movie, “The Joker.”
    He reminded me of Comrade Bernie and his merry, moronic minions.

Please to post comments