Reason Roundup

Trump Makes Baghdadi Death About Humiliation, not Human Rights

Plus: GMO fear is killing people, the suburbs are changing, and more...

|

A U.S. raid in Syria has killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. "U.S. Special Operations forces executed a dangerous and daring nighttime raid into Northwestern Syria to accomplish this mission," according to a statement from the president. "He died like a dog. He died like a coward. The world is now a much safer place."

Baghdadi "had been hunted for more than a decade, and the organization he had built was designed partly on the assumption this day would come," notes The New York Times. ISIS relies on a largely decentralized leadership structure, so "the practical effects of his demise" will be lessened.

Which is to say: Don't go getting up any hopes about this diminishing the imperative for U.S. troops and military action in the area.

President Donald Trump described Baghdadi's death as a "demonstration of America's relentless pursuit of terrorist leaders, and our commitment to the enduring and total defeat of ISIS!" He also said that it should serve as a "reminder that we will continue to pursue the remaining ISIS terrorists to their brutal end."

George W. Bush said something similar upon the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2006, and Barack Obama said much the same about Osama bin Laden's killing in 2011, notes Spencer Ackerman at The Daily Beast. "These three fatal milestones all point to the strategic incoherence within a global war that has now lasted an entire generation," Ackerman writes:

No one, not the Trump administration nor its critics, believes that the so-called Islamic State is finished because Baghdadi is dead. As proficient as U.S. special operators have become at manhunting these past 18 years, and as central as manhunting has been during that time, there is no campaign plan, not even a theory, by which the killings of jihadist leaders knit up into a lasting victory. Asking for one would require reckoning with the catastrophic failure represented by a war that only perpetuates itself.

There would have been no Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had Bush not invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. That war created an opportunity for a mass murderer, Zarqawi, to construct an al Qaeda franchise more bloodthirsty than even the one bin Laden created. Even after Zarqawi's 2006 death, bin Laden could never rein in al Qaeda in Iraq, documents recovered after the 2011 raid on his Abbottabad compound showed, and he grew particularly dyspeptic over the offshoot's clear desire to declare a caliphate….

Bin Laden did not believe the time was right for a caliphate. Baghdadi took advantage of both the Syrian civil war and Obama's 2011 withdrawal from Iraq to make the caliphate a brutal fascist reality, complete with misogynist enslavement and opportunities for men to find meaning through sanctified violence. When al Qaeda and the elder generation of jihadist theorists opposed ISIS, Baghdadi's organization—now an actual state, complete with an army, and a flag—had no problem attacking them. Baghdadi was less visible than bin Laden, rebuking the leadership style of a previous generation and signaling that the caliphate was more important than he was. The caliphate was ISIS' triumph over bin Laden, whose children ate his revolution.

This history matters because it shows that the expansive war the U.S. launched does not fight against a static enemy. It generates enemies—the slain al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki is another example—and provides opportunities for new ones to arise.

Trump, for all his showy proclamations to the contrary, is simply carrying on Bush and Obama policy in the Middle East.

It's really something to look side-by-side at the three presidents' statements, though. After describing Zarqawi's crimes, Bush commended the new Iraqi government and "the men and women of our armed forces" before laying out the next steps. He concluded, "May God bless the Iraqi people and may God continue to bless America." While talking about bin Laden's death, Obama conjured the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. war in Afghanistan before briefly describing the operation that killed bin Laden:

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed.  They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

He went on to talk about efforts to "remain vigilant at home and abroad," to thank U.S. forces involved in bin Laden's capture, and to wax a little bit about American ideals and "liberty and justice for all."

But Trump? After a paragraph of basic information about Baghdadi's death, he offered the following:

No U.S. personnel were lost in the operation, while a large number of Baghdadi's fighters and companions were killed with him. He died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming. The compound had been cleared by this time, with people either surrendering or being shot and killed. Eleven young children were moved out of the house un-injured. The only ones remaining were Baghdadi in the tunnel, who had dragged three children with him to certain death. He reached the end of the tunnel, as our dogs chased him down. He ignited his vest, killing himself and the three children. His body was mutilated by the blast, but test results gave certain and positive identification.

The thug who tried so hard to intimidate others spent his last moments in utter fear, panic and dread—terrified of the American Forces bearing down.

He went on to call the people associated with Baghdadi "losers," to say we will "completely destroy…these savage monsters," and to emphasize again that Baghdadi died like a "coward."

Say what you will about Bush and Obama, but at least they tried to situate their actions in a framework of human rights. Trump described the operation like an action-movie sequence, focusing on lurid details and, especially, the humiliation America (and by extension Trump) supposedly meted out to a powerful terrorist leader. It reads like the kind of statements put out by authoritarian rulers, designed not to provide us with a vision of our highest ideals but about Donald Trump, his might and power, and the retribution enemies will face for crossing him.


FREE MINDS

The suburbs are changing. "The political dividing line in America used to be between cities, which were mostly Democratic, and suburbs, which had long been Republican," write Sabrina Tavernise and 

today it runs through the very center of the suburbs themselves, between a densely populated inner ring that is turning blue and a more spacious outer ring that is becoming ever more red.

Part of this can be explained by more college-educated white people moving or sticking to the suburbs, they write, but it's also a matter or "rising racial diversity" in the suburbs:

Nearly 60 percent of all black people now live in suburbs. African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians together make up nearly one-third of the suburban population.

More here.


FREE MARKETS


QUICK HITS

  • U.S. Rep. Katie Hill (D–Calif.) is resigning:

  • Trump was not treated to a warm reception at the Nationals game last night:

  • Charles Kupperman, deputy to former Trump advisor John Bolton, was supposed to testify before the House impeachment investigators today. After being forbidden by the White House from doing so, Kupperman told investigators as much but also filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to know whether he "should comply with the House's subpoena or with the President's assertion of immunity and instruction that he not appear and testify."
  • Read Cato's Gene Healy on impeachment.
  • Missouri officials this week consider the fate of the state's last abortion clinic.
  • Rudy Giuliani butt-dialed two reporters while talking about Joe Biden and needing money.
  • Protecting and serving:

NEXT: On Spanish people and affirmative action

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. He died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming.

    “He came to me a few years ago in tears begging for an endorsement for president of ISIS. I said no.”

    1. Hello.

      “Say what you will about Bush and Obama, but at least they tried to situate their actions in a framework of human rights. Trump described the operation like an action-movie sequence, focusing on lurid details and, especially, the humiliation America (and by extension Trump) supposedly meted out to a powerful terrorist leader.”

      Is this for real?

      No, serious.

      1. A kinder and gentler killing.

      2. I’ll take whatever framing is likely to have the greatest deterrent effect. And I seriously doubt that “we killed him for his human-rights abuses” will do the trick.

        1. The sort of person who becomes an ISIS leader doesn’t seem to respond very well to that kind of deterrent. How many AlQaeda or ISIS second in commands have we killed so far?

          1. Sure, but that doesn’t mean leaving them alive is the better option.

            1. I’m just talking about how the action is framed in response to Ray. I don’t believe saying that he died like a dog rather than whatever else you might say has any effect on the next leader of ISIS. I take no position here on how good or bad an idea killing the guy is.

              1. No. But it does have an effect on the person considering joining the cause. The point is to discredit the ideology by showing that its leaders are phonies and nothing like what they claim to be.

              2. Not only that. It accurately describes him.

                But ENB wants people to be given a lollipop and spoken to like they have a lobotomy and have their information clean and laundered.

                They call this patronizing.

                ‘Say what you want’….but at least Trump – despite all his faults – gives it to the American public straight. Everyone knows they’re murderous thugs, cowards, and degenerates. Just read about what they do to people and children.

                That retard was a piece of shit so spare me this ‘we go high’ garbage for garbage people.

                1. The difference between Obama and Trump is Trump tells you to your face you’re a loser. Obama says you’re a winner with a smirk even though he thinks you’re a loser.

                  1. Just an added FYI. I’ve used – and been on the receiving end – of both tactics admittedly in my life. Some people need to be told straight off they’re an idiot. Others, in a more subtle way.

                  2. It is pretty rich to hear people who claim Trump is a liar when their primary complaint with him is that he tells the truth in a way that offends their delicate sensibilities.

                    1. Trump is the most casually and consistently dishonest president in living memory. This isn’t even arguable. Luckily, Americans are at least that perceptive.

                      Hey, here’s a great clip showing what happens when he steps out of his Trumpen youth rallies:

                      https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-attends-world-seriesand-gets-booed-11572230049

                    2. Yeah he is the most dishonest President ever. Says things like “if you like your health insurance policy you can keep it” right? And then his speech writers later go on Charlie Rose and laugh their asses off about how they lied to the American people.

                      That was Trump right?

                      Shut up Mary. Just go away.

                    3. Hey everybody, hive mind is here to repeat prog talking points again!

                    4. John, It’s pretty telling that that Obama quote is always trotted out as an example of an Obama lie. It’s because it is rare to catch him in an outright lie, so it was remarkable. Trump, on the other hand, lies about the fucking weather.

                      By the way how’s that Mexico-funded wall coming? I hope Alabama is recovering from that hurricane. How is Tim Apple doing? How did Trump’s sworn oath testimony go?

                    5. Poor troll De Oppresso Liber.

                      John was providing one example from an nearly infinite supply of Obama lies.

                      Its good that you admitted that Obama did lie on keeping your doctor. If more Lefties just admitting Obama was a big liar, we could then move on to how bad his policies were.

                2. She wants a president who talks all presidential.

                  Not sure why that matters so much.

                3. It’s not merely patronizing, it’s not just retarded, it is also counterproductive.

                  You win war not by killing, but by destroying the enemy’s will to fight.

                  And when dealing with an honor/shame based culture demeaning him is a good approach.

                  1. See Caeser and Vercingetorix.

                    It’s good you won and all but did you have to humiliate them?

                    Rome: Did you see us hold our beer? CARTHAGE MUST DIE.

                  2. I’m not convinced that the whole thing isn’t counterproductive, though, tough talk or not. I don’t think Trump talking about it in this way is going to destroy their will to fight any more than the last 20 years or so of military actions have.

                    1. Pretty sure it’ll be more productive than calling Americans bigots in the immediate aftermath of every terrorist attack

                    2. I don’t think Trump talking about it in this way is going to destroy their will to fight any more than the last 20 years or so of military actions have.

                      Agreed. I personally doubt that they care much about our Presidents’ posturing one way or the other. They’re not in this to win, they’re in it to prove their resolve to God.

                    3. Yes, but being more productive than something that is absolutely counterproductive isn’t much to brag about.

              3. In fact, he killed himself by activating his suicide vest. Would he have been taken into custody alive if he had not? I guess so, it sounds like the Americans had time and opportunity to kill him directly if that had been their intention, and there is mention of other people in the compound being taken into custody. It seems like Trump deliberately avoided broaching the subject. And what does Trump have against dogs? He has used canine insults before. “Died like a dog”? I hope the American dog injured in the raid survives. A coward? I’m not sure. Doesn’t willingly pressing that button to blow yourself up take a certain kind of courage, no matter how twisted your cause?

              4. Actually, demeaning the vile bastard has an amazing effect on the type of people who join and lead ISIS–particularly the ‘dog’ line, since dogs are considered unclean in Islam–they live in a world of ‘face’ and treating them like vermin who must be squashed and then scraped from your heel not only drives them nuts–it also undermines their confidence.

                Suddenly, their rage seems a bit like posturing, a bit more like bluster than righteousness.

                Expect them to try something stupid.

                1. Correct, but understanding fundamental human psychology is a bridge way too far for too many libertarians.
                  See above

      3. ENB had appare fly gone full TDS.

        1. “Bloodthirsty Terrorist Killed By US Troops: ENB and Reason Hardest Hit”

        2. She is just following the WaPo lead – thereby declaring her tribal affiliation.

      4. I guess it is, but if so, it’s a cry for help.
        Put this woman out of her misery; keep her away from any keyboard.

        1. No, it’s clear from the context of reason.com she’s carrying out orders as well as she or anyone else could: to think of something bad to say about Trump. What else could she do, criticize his choice of necktie?

          There’s no way the bloggers here are doing it on their own initiative. Occasionally they may make it extra obvious, like their way of blinking Morse code about how they’re being tortured in the back room.

      5. Yeah, have people never heard of Trump before? I don’t know why this is treated as something unexpected. I don’t really care if Trump’s bullshit is more annoying than Bush’s bullshit, or whatever the complaint is supposed to be.

      6. Which is a fucking hilarious complaint, because the Obama administration actually worked with Hollywood to produce Zero Dark Thirty, where the operation was portrayed like an action-movie sequence.

        It ended up leaking a bunch of classified info that created enough of a shitstorm that the IG got involved and produced a report on the incident, and the administration tried to hamstring the investigation to such a degree that whistleblowers ended up complaining about the officials’ activities.

        The Blue Checkmark Brigade is going to create a short-term shortage of sour grapes in the market.

        1. I don’t believe a single thing in Zero Dark Thirty. I don’t think we found Bin Ladin. I think the Pakistanis got tired of having him and told us where he was. Everything else was just misinformation created to allow the Pakistanis to claim they didn’t know about Bin Ladin or the raid.

          I mean come on. The guy was living in the same town as the Pakistani military academy and in the same neighborhood as any number of retired Pakistani generals. It is the equivalent of Bin Ladin retiring to house on the Bay near Annapolis, Maryland and no one noticing.

          And there was an infantry brigade sitting a mile or two down the road from the compound. Had they been alerted and showed up, there would have been nothing but a greasy spot left of that SEAL team. No way in hell did they send that SEAL team in there without knowing for sure the Pakistanis were not going to respond.

          1. Bin Ladin died when his ability to pay baksheesh fell too low.

            Plain and simple.

            1. Think about it from the Pakistani’s perspective. Bin Ladin was very popular among large sections of both their population and military. So, what do you do when he show up at your doorstep in late 2001? You can’t turn him over to the Americans because that might cause a revolt. You can’t let people know you have him because not turning him over would make you a pariah state in the world. So they just stuck him in a nice compound somewhere and left him there pretending not to notice.

              Having him there gave them a lot of leverage over Al Quada and the Taliban since they could always threaten to turn him over if they ever got too far out of line. My guess is that his usefulness as a sword over the head of Al Quada and the Taliban ran out. Eventually new people took over such that they didn’t want the old man around either and were happy to see him ratted out. At that point, the Pakistanis quietly told the US where he was and the US invented the whole Zero Dark Thirty cover story so they could kill him without it looking like the Pakistanis had anything to do with it.

              1. Makes more sense than anything else

          2. I thought this was common knowledge?

            If people would sit and think about the land and terrain and how gigantic it is, they’d be better able to contextualize the near impossibility of finding or pinpointing people who know the area and can stealthily move around from cave to cave and that it can’t be done WITHOUT local support or from countries like, say, Pakistan.

            Of course they knew. Or if they didn’t, they had a pretty good idea.

      7. “ Trump, for all his showy proclamations to the contrary, is simply carrying on Bush and Obama policy in the Middle East.”

        That’s interesting. Because a week ago, Trump was being accused by both sides of the aisle of recklessly abandoning Bush and Obama policy in the Middle East, thereby destabilizing the region, giving our enemies a foothold and abandoning an ally.

    2. I regret that I have only two thumbs to up for this.

  2. Rudy Giuliani butt-dialed two reporters while talking about Joe Biden and needing money.

    That was “strategic leaking” and you know it!

    1. The depths of Giuliani’s incompetence as a lawyer know no limits.

      1. Incompetence.. like not knowing how to do a search on the Atlantic council website?

        1. Go back and look at my reply the first time you said this to me.

          You never did reply, telling me exactly what I’m supposed to be seeing there. The name “Taylor”? Something else?

          You never did reply pointing me to a news article that gives specifics of your claim that impeachment inquiry witnesses have been discredited.

          What about some specifics, instead of just repeating, “Atlantic council”?

  3. Nearly 60 percent of all black people now live in suburbs. African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians together make up nearly one-third of the suburban population.

    Seems kind of racist to assume they’re all blue.

    1. Forget it, Fist. It’s the NYT.

    2. I live in a suburb that is heavily blue. It’s the only place working class folks can afford to live around our insanely liberal city.

  4. What’s the latest that morning links have ever been posted on a workday?

  5. Is ENB trying for a worse take than #WapoDeathNotices?

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-post-changes-obituary-headline-to-describe-baghdadi-as-austere-religious-scholar

    or just taking her talking points from Morrel and Clapper which both insinuated killing the leader was bad?

    For fuck sake.

    1. Some of the parodies have been brilliant.

      1. I laughed quite a lot yesterday at them.

        1. Sauron, noted Maiar and goldsmith, dies in Mordor

          Jeffrey Dahmer, innovative chef and culinary figure, dies at 34

          Adolf Hitler, landscape artist and German nationalist, dies in Berlin.

          The jokes are endless and almost write themselves.

          1. A couple of my favorites:

            Jabba the Hutt, generous businessman and collector of fine art, strangled to death in his home.

            The Devil, noted string musician who famously lost a golden fiddle to Johnny in Georgia in 1979, has died at the age of 2,500.

            1. I think my favorite might be

              John Wayne Gacy, children’s party entertainer, dies in prison.

              1. Well-known musician, spiritual guru Charles Manson dead at 83

                1. Former Beach Boys collaborator.

    2. She’s going to have to try a lot harder to compete with that. At least she’s just stretching to bash Trump and doesn’t seem to be trying to rehabilitate the ISIS guy.

    3. I gotta say that the mainstream news coverage can only be characterized as “begrudging”.

  6. U.S. Rep. Katie Hill (D–Calif.) is resigning…

    At least wait for the official #metoo proceedings to commence.

      1. And by gross, I mean physically.
        Her sexual orientation is cool.
        But she ugly

        1. But she’s a freak in the sack, and as you know that adds at least 1-2 points in the 0-10 Hotness Scale.

          1. Plus we know she is really good at record keeping (German Iron Cross) and hair combing. That is worth a +.05 on the 0-10 hotness scale.

            She can remind you of all the threesomes you’ve had with other chicks, in case you were too drunk to remember all the hot action.

          2. That only gets her up to a 4/5, spock, and is entirely negated by both her evident lack of athletic ability and her progressivism.

            1. Look, I can get up with a Trump-hating vegan who has a planned parenthood bumper sticker and tranny best friend type… but she’s gotta be at least a 7/8 prior to bonus points

              1. Yeah, I’m with you on that one, Nardz. There are after all, some minimum standards to uphold. On the hotness scale, this lady is about a 4. Ain’t no amount of bonus points that will get her to ‘7’. 🙂

      2. The TV-movie version will be much more appealing.

        1. I’ll wait for theater night cinemax version.

          1. The late night*

            Autocomplete going nuts this morning.

  7. Polling in the Heartland and in various swing states shows mad news for Democrats.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/meanwhile-in-the-heartland-impeachment-isnt-very-popular/

    1. This is why Pelosi has not, and will not, put impeachment to a House vote: she knows her moderate Red-district members will get clobbered if they voted for it.

      She’s already down one after Hill literally screwed herself out of a job, she can’t lose many others and still hope to be Speaker.

      1. Hill literally screwed herself out of a job

        She really blew it.

        1. Her resignation was a tough thing for Nancy to swallow.

      2. Breaking news this afternoon is she is going to put it to a vote.

    1. There’s footage of Poptart Lasagne posing as PM of Canada telling his soon to be wife as they were dancing on dope that he felt he was meant to be leader. It was creepy-cringe crap.

      Narcissism unbound and apathetic Canadians gave him another mandate.

      I’m surrounded by deplorables.

    2. I’m pretty sure a Messiah Complex is a prerequisite for running for President in the first place. Anybody who actively campaigns for the job should automatically be disqualified, you can’t trust anybody who believes they can be trusted with the power of the office.

    3. Jesus, her brain really is broken. It’s just pathetic at this point.

    4. Anyone who’d want to run for President has a massive ego, but that’s taking it to new levels of self-regard.

      Bitch, if God wanted you to be President, you’d have beaten Obama 11 years ago, much less Donald Trump. You losing to Trump ought to be a bright neon sign that God doesn’t want you anywhere near the Oval Office except as a tourist.

      1. You losing to Trump ought to be a bright neon sign that God doesn’t want you anywhere near the Oval Office except as a tourist.

        ^ This.

        If she tries to run again, a literal hand is going to reach down from the sky and throw her into the sea.

        1. It will give new meaning to: mene, mene, tekial upsharin.

          New 2019 translation: No Bitch, it really is not your turn. STFU.

    5. God put her on earth to be president, but he just couldn’t get over his male privilege so he elected Trump instead

      1. God put her on earth to be president
        a few years in the future…

        Hillary: “Well, better to reign in hell…”
        Satan: “I swept the electoral college down here.”

    6. I’m just surprised that she is still able to see herself as a being separate from god.

  8. “as long as I am in Congress, we’ll live fearful of what might come next”

    “, but as long as I am out, we’ll live hopeful of who might come next.”

    1. You misspelled cum.

  9. After real journalists start investigating hunter… they keep finding new shit.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-s-legal-work-romania-raises-new-questions-about-n1071031

    This comes off the report last week of Hunter joining law firms and lobbyists shortly before his dad sponsored and pushed for legislation that helped their clients.

    Nothing there though right?

    1. Conspiracy theory.

    2. Well, it wasn’t Trump, so we can ignore it.

    3. What is this “real journalist” you mentioned?

      I suspect more of the same biased media propaganda, now motivated by sucking up to Liz Warren by putting the Biden campaign out of its misery.

    4. Nah….nothing at all, Jesse. Nothing to see here. 🙂

  10. Then came a loud chant: “Lock him up.”

    There’s an analog for everything. Is it to be celebrated now? The calls for imprisoning political rivals? Is it now abhorrent? Something that only a fascist state would do?

    1. I always figured libertarians would embrace the politician hated by the federal bureaucracy. Most everyone in that stadium got rich through our tax dollars. To be booed by them would be an honor.

      1. Why would you figure that? Libertarians shouldn’t embrace any politician. Unless, perhaps, one starts seriously cutting spending and the size of government. But I’m not holding my breath.

        1. Tiny and limited government.

          When Washington D.C politicians and bureaucrats hate Trump like they do, it makes Trump okay in my book.

          1. Even though he continues full bore with massive deficit spending and makes no actual moves to significantly reduce the scope or cost of government.
            He’s done a few things I like in the realm of deregulation and tax policy, but it’s still really just moving around deck chairs on the Titanic.

            1. So you’re saying he’d make a good contributor to Reason then…

              1. Don’t you mean intern?

              2. Does everything have to be an excuse to bitch?

                1. Does everything have to be an excuse to bitch?

                  It’s Skippy. Do you have to ask?

                    1. Oh, you’re just too cute, thinking you have a point and all.

                    2. Oh look, Square is pretending to be principled again.

                  1. Poor Square. It’s just not right to criticize the criticizers.

                    1. ^ See?

                      He just can’t help himself.

            2. I think Trump should have vetoed FY18 & FY19 federal budgets but they were veto proof.

              Omnibus FY2019-
              House: Passed by a vote of 300-128 on 2/14/19; signed into law 2/15/19
              Senate: Passed by a vote of 83-16 on 2/14/19; signed into law 2/15/19

    2. Joe Scarborough denounced the chants and then blamed trump for them in the same breath.

      1. I thought it was Mika that got in that dig at Trump.

          1. All hive mind, so names are irrelevant

        1. Joe fell far. On his first show (Scarborough Country), he made fun of Jeneane Garofalo. Now he’s sleeping with her.

  11. One of the better analysis of the impeachment, shocking it came from MSN.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/this-impeachment-subverts-the-constitution/ar-AAJn6gw

    After Taibbis article last week, maybe there are some real journalists still out there.

    1. “Because the House has not properly begun impeachment proceedings, the president has no obligation to cooperate. The courts also should not enforce any purportedly impeachment-related document requests from the House. ”

      Suck a fat one Suderman

      1. This site lost a shit ton of moral preening by supporting the IC induced Mueller and impeachment proceedings.

        1. What is most sad is how transparently and without any shame people like Suderman and ENB jump from news to news. Besides shilling for the Mueller investigation, when the report was released, Suderman was breathlessly explaining how the report CLEARLY showed illegal and likely impeachable offenses. And yet, no one decided to impeach him for it.

          And now we are to believe that this newest crime is on the up and up, when ENB and Suderman use the same serious voice that they used for the Mueller Report before dropping it like last week’s fish? Uh huh.

          1. Why limit yourself to those two? Shackford refused to accept the report and even advocated for fishing expeditions because they may prove you innocent!

            And what of the white knights who defended them and continue to do so? Were they arguing in good faith? And don’t limit yourself to just Mueller. Take a look at the bang up job Reason did on Kavanaugh.

            1. What is even more damning is not just that they repeated the absurd talking point that “since Trump didn’t prove he wasn’t an agent we don’t know that he was”. The worst part is that they moved right along from that and now act like none of it ever happened. They were all convinced the President is a Russian agent but now don’t think that is worth mentioning because reasons or something.

              1. Nor are they the least bit concerned about abuse of government power or corruption as long as it’s the right people doing it.

                Deep state *chortle chortle*
                FISA court abuse *pshaw*
                DNC working with Australia, Italy, Ukraine, UK, and Russia to interfere with a US election *meh*
                A scion trading off of daddy’s connections *yawn*
                You’re not innocent until proven so!
                The quantity of allegations (no matter how disproved) matters.

                But, but, muh Snowden principulz!

                1. Local cops for a town of 10k population put signs in a child molester’s yard?
                  “OUTRAGEOUS!!!!”

                  Unelected bureaucracy and spy agencies conspire to frame elected President because his voters don’t deserve representation?
                  “Well, the deep state (which is just a crazy conspiracy theory) and us journalists know better than you serfs!”

                  -“Reason” magazine

          2. Here is what I don’t get about these people. I can understand that they don’t like Trump and want him out of office. What I don’t understand is how they never seem to mind being lied to and never seem to learn anything from it.

            For two years the Democrats assured them that Mueller was going to get the goods and bring down Trump. Time and again they were fed leaks that turned out to be complete lies. In the end, Mueller had nothing and all of the people pushing the story that he did looked like complete fools.

            Now the Democrats are having these secret “impeachment hearings” and telling idiots like Suderman that this time they have the goods on Trump and that it is all going to go public soon right after they put everything together. And these idiots seem to believe it.

            If I hated Trump I would be pissed off to no end at the Democrats for wasting their time and efforts on the Russia hoax instead of making an actual case against him. And I sure as hell wouldn’t be willing to believe this “we have the goods and are just keeping it secret” bullshit coming out now.

            Forget politics for a moment. Don’t these people ever get tired of being lied to and made fools of?

            1. Time and again they were fed leaks that turned out to be complete lies.

              And here’s the thing, Mueller’s team was actually pretty good about not leaking stuff. All the “leaks” that came out inevitably ended up being second-, third-, or fourth-hand fan fiction by government officials who weren’t even involved in the investigation. Mueller had to come out repeatedly and tell the press, “No, that shit isn’t true.”

              The press was so desperate for any indication that the Orange Man was going to get indicted, they uncritically swallowed anything that confirmed their biases. They ended up putting Mueller in an impossible situation where he couldn’t find any actual evidence of collusion, and resorted to getting people indicted on unrelated process crimes just to keep the howling lefty/press mob off his back.

              I suspect that’s a big part of why he put on such a passive-aggressive performance in his press conference and Congressional testimony–he was probably pissed as hell that these jackals wouldn’t leave him and his team alone to do their job.

              1. I think he took the job based on a bunch of bullshit promises made to him by Comey and Brennen and the rest of them that he was going to find all of this dirt and be the guy who brought down Trump only to take the job and find out there was nothing there. I imagine he was probably pretty pissed about being left holding the bag over that.

            2. If it were all just a conspiracy to destroy the credibility of Suderman and his ilk what would they be doing differently?

            3. You’re assuming facts not in evidence. Namely that they actually have any principles at all instead of justifying any means to an end. The only thing they seem to subscribe to is a complete lack of any personal responsibility for anything.

              1. Even the most unprincipled person would get tired of being made to look like a fool. So their problem goes deeper than not having any principles, which they don’t. It is more a problem of them not having any self respect or shame.

                1. The Memory Hole works wonders.

  12. …filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to know whether he “should comply with the House’s subpoena or with the President’s assertion of immunity and instruction that he not appear and testify.”

    The courts: “Leave us out of this.”

  13. …impeachment for (at least) the past 4 presidents.

    LOCK. THEM. UP.

  14. “She’s got to wait until Biden drops out because he’s obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there’s an opening for her.”

    At least Morris didn’t say “*when* he goes away”.

    1. Most likely scenario:
      She reluctantly accepts the party draft to run as Joe’s VP.
      Joe has a heart attack the night of his inauguration.
      (suicide is so last decade)

      1. The DNC is in an impossible situation with her. They owe their very solvency to her and her campaign in 2016, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re broke as fuck again because Obama kneecapped their fundraising ability by redirecting everything towards OFA.

        Even with the drop in fundraising ability via the Clinton Foundation, she still has a ton of favors that she can call in after 25-plus years in the national political scene. The problem is that a lot of the younger people in the party hate her guts because they see her as a typical unprincipled centrist, and the time for the Boomer Dems, particularly anyone who’s white, to continue running things is quickly coming to an end.

        Hillary getting involved in the ticket in any way, shape, or form would likely cause a total shit show, especially as a VP candidate because everyone would be waiting for the inevitable Biden “gym accident” if he happened to get elected.

        1. Obama just finished what the Clintons had started. The Clintons devastated the Democratic Party. It was under the Clintons that the Democrats lost the Congress and lost the entire South. The Clintons really were nothing but a crime family out of Arkansas. And putting Bill in as President left the Democrats defending the indefensible. It corrupted the party beyond all repair. Obama was just a continuation of that.

          1. But Obama was supposed to be the culmination, after which elections would simply be a formality

      2. The final DNC debate begins and the remaining candidates take the stage. After opening statements, there’s a sudden series of explosions (which will be attributed to MAGA that wearing white nationalists) that shakes the building and causes it to crumble atop all inside, killing hundreds including all possible D candidates.
        A helicopter appears over the rubble, hovers, and very slowly lowers an exoskeleton-wearing Hillary Clinton atop the pile of steel and concrete.
        As the cameras capture her image, she declares herself the President of the United States

  15. Trump was booed loudly and met with a chant of “lock him up” Sunday night when he was announced as a special guest at Game 5 of the World Series at Nationals Park.

    https://sports.yahoo.com/donald-trump-makes-appearance-at-world-series-game-5-004342379.html

    1. Game 5 marks the tipping point. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.

      #Impeach

      1. Good one OBL.

    2. The tickets to the World Series started at a $1,000 for standing room. So Trump got a photo op where rich Washingtonians, the most loathed group of people in America, booed him on the night his government whacked one of the worst terrorist leaders in history.

      Everyone in that stadium should have to declare an in kind contribution to Trump’s re-election campaign.

      1. Absolutely 100% this.

        If this had happened in Houston I might give some credence to the numerous “Walls are closing in!” stories about Trump.

        But the spectacle of a stadium full of upper-class Swamp Creatures enthusiastically booing Trump? That’s Get-Out-The-Vote Gold for his 2020 campaign.

        1. So much so that I would not be surprised to learn that he arranged to have some attendees initiate the boos if/when they did not appear spontaneously.

          The guy thrives on drama.

          1. It’s plausible, although the short planning time and large scale leads me to believe this was spontaneous.

            People forget that Trump was involved with pro rasslin’ for a while. He knows the value of cardboard villains and how to play an audience.

        2. I was going to make a more modest version of this remark.

          At first I thought this was an ominous sign that Middle America – in a baseball stadium! – was recording its dislike for the President. Then I searched to find out where the booing happened and it was in Washington, D. C., that bellwether of national sentiment /sarc

          1. And not just any baseball game, it was the world series. The tickets started at a $1,000 for standing room and only the rich and the elite were there. Forget the bureaucrats, few if any actual bureaucrats could afford those tickets. That was a crowd of lawyers, lobbyists, and various swamp creatures. It was a beautiful photo op for Trump.

          2. When you’ve lost the deep state…

    3. Way to not read the links dumbfuck.

    4. Lotta Deep Staters at the Nationals game, I’m sure.

      1. You don’t have to be a Deep Stater to be a Swamp Creature, don’t you have the latest Monster Manual to keep it all sorted out?

        1. I’ll never feel like I have Washington, D.C. sorted out.

        2. That’s true, you do not have to be an actual player, but they really wouldn’t survive without a lot of toleration from all the other swamp creatures. the deep state thrives in a go along to get along environment.

  16. Rudy Giuliani butt-dialed two reporters while talking about Joe Biden and needing money.

    AND THEY FELL FOR IT.

    1. Can you really dial with your butt?

      1. Ask Tony what he can do with his butt.

        It would surprise and sicken you.

  17. Trump’s statement about Bahgdadi dying like a coward and a woman is exactly the sort of information warfare that we should have been doing for years but largely haven’t. If you make these animals look in any way noble or brave, you just make them and their cause more appealing.

    One of the most effective means of fighting these ideologies is pointing out the hypocrisy of their leaders. For example, one of the reasons it took a while for ISIS to attract many followers was that Al Baghdadi proclaimed himself Caliph and in the first public photo of him after that was seen wearing a Rolex. So much for the austere religious leader. Muslims saw that and laughed at him. He stopped appearing in public for a long time after that.

    Making a point of him dying like a whimpering little girl and humiliating him, humiliates the entire movement in the eyes of the Muslim world. No one wants to join a movement lead by phonies who cry like babies when it comes time to pay the price for the cause.

    1. You sure those weren’t the crys of those little kids he dragged into that hole?

      1. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

        1. Pod literally thinks human shields are a good thing.

          1. The account says al-Baghdadi dragged three little kids into a hole and they were being chased and attacked by dogs. I assume those poor little kids were terrified and probably crying.

            1. They were his kids. If you actually knew anything you would know these assholes start desensitizing their kids young, see Saddams kids. Al Baghdadi killed them, not special forces.

              It is amazing how ignorant you are. You probably think they were in footsie pajamas tightly holding their Elmo dolls.

            2. He was such a brave man.

            3. “Dying like a dog” is not the same as “by dogs.”

            4. I’m pretty sure those Yazidi girls that al-Baghdadi’s men forced into sham marriages so they could rape them were someone’s daughters too.

              It’s unfortunate that al-Baghdadi chose to use his children as human shields, but that was really a position he put them in because it was a choice he made. As was detonating the suicide vest that likely killed them.

              Not that you care about that, you window-licking fuck.

          1. Then you know Al Baghdadi killed them when he set off his vest you fucking jdiot.

          2. That causes you to think that human shields are okay or that your response is in any way a coherent one to my point?

            Again, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why doesn’t your brain function like a normal human being’s brain? What is your major malfunction Pyle?

            1. I never said anything to suggest human shields are okay. You’re just weird. You need to get some pussy

              1. Then what do the Children have to do with it? Nothing. You are incapable of making a coherent point. So, the question remains, what the fuck is wrong with you?

                1. Man I think children dying is more then “nothing”. I’m sorry if it takes the shine off your Trump boner.

                  1. So you are saying you’re trying to use crying kids to attack trump.

                    1. Any weapon handy for Pod; a bloody shirt will do as well as anything else.

                  2. “”Man I think children dying is more then “nothing”.””

                    Then blame the man that killed them.

          3. “I have a brain.”

            Claiming facts not in evidence

            1. We have evidence of the counterfactual however.

          4. I have a brain.

            Yeah, the other half of it was lobotomized years ago.

      2. I’ve no doubt the kids were terrified. But what the fuck kind of father does that to his children?

        Maybe it’s just because I’m old and was raised in a different time, but I have no respect whatever for such a father. My Dad sacrificed pretty much everything for his kids–he seldom had two dimes to rub together in his pocket but we always were well fed. He would have given his life for us. He would never have done anything as fucked up as what this shitbag terrorist did.

        1. They’re crazy. They think they’re going to heaven.

          1. So they’re Progressives in other words.

            1. Yes.
              Islamism is a form of progressivism.

              1. Lol. You said it so it must be true.

                1. Progressivism is fundamentally the rejection of natural processes, the imposition of an arbitrarily selected hierarchy, and the attempt to create New Man through the central planning of “elite” technocrats.
                  It includes feudal “nobility” dictating morals to carefully segregated serfs, who are expected to live for the purposes of their lords.
                  It is totalitarian and absolutely intolerant of dissent

                  1. Ah yes….The “My Team is made from Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice” argument. If only you could get more than a few groupthinky conservatives to agree with your definition we could have a genuine discussion in this country.

                    1. You’re a moron, Eric.
                      Notice the complete lack of thought that goes into Eric’s posts. Nothing but impotent and desperate rage for that one

          2. All Dogs Go To Heaven?

      3. “You sure those weren’t the crys of those little kids he dragged into that hole?”

        Will someone please think of the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!

    2. John, I happen to think that POTUS Trump’s phraseology, he died like a dog, whimpering and crying, was quite deliberate. In Arab culture, the dog is the lowest of the low. Remember Lynndie Englund and Abu-Graib? Yeah, there was a hue and cry about it….but it served our purposes.

      The finest Arab Fighters were being walked around like dogs by Ms. Englund. The ultimate humiliation. This is no different. The Arab world is going to see that a) this guy ran away from the fight, b) used his children as human shields, and b) was whimpering and crying at the end. There was no honor in that death.

      The world is a materially better place with this Baghdadi asshole dead.

    3. I remember there was quite a bit of detailed gruesomeness in the press about how Gaddafi died.

  18. So we shouldn’t have killed the IS guy?
    Really?

    1. Well, we didn’t have to be so mean about it.

      1. Making him blow himself up and all.

        1. Did we even try asking him nicely to stop doing evil things?!?

    2. We didn’t kill him. He took his own life. In fact the whole situation is quite libertarian, if you think about it.

  19. “Say what you will about Bush and Obama, but at least they tried to situate their actions in a framework of human rights.”

    Precisely. Drumpf is so much worse than Bush, it’s ridiculous.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

    1. Bush was only Hitler lite.

  20. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/was_it_trumps_magic_wand_that_turned_the_washington_post_into_a_laughingstock.html

    He always had religious or other books attached on the back of his bike,” Tariq Hameed, an acquaintance from the same lower-middle-class neighborhood, told a Newsweek interviewer in 2014. The young Ibrahim disdained the Western clothes popular with Samarra’s young men, preferring the traditional prayer cap, beard and white dishdasha robe of the religiously devout, neighbors said.

    He graduated from the University of Baghdad in 1996 and received a master’s degree in Koranic recitation from the Saddam University for Islamic Studies in 1999. Immersing himself in the arcane world of 7th-century religious codes, he grew increasingly conservative. Acquaintances remembered how the college-age Mr. Baghdadi took offense at the sight of men and women dancing in the same room during wedding celebrations.

    That is a direct quote from the Washington Post’s obituary of Al Bahgdadi. This is a man who roasted people alive, locked entire families in cages and burned them alive, kept sex slaves, and engaged in barbarity that made Al Quada and the Taliban seem reasonable by comparison. And that is the obit he gets from the Post. You have to get to THE 40TH PARAGRAPH of the obit before it bothers to mention any of his crimes.

    Now tell me again how the media isn’t the enemy of the American public?

  21. “Argentina elects opposition leader Alberto Fernandez president”
    […]
    “Oct. 28 (UPI) — Argentines voted center-left candidate Alberto Fernandez their next president and in doing so ousted center-right incumbent Mauricio Macri and his austerity moves during the country’s economic recession….”
    https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/10/28/Argentina-elects-opposition-leader-Alberto-Fernandez-president/6641572249651/

    Pretty sure this means that Venezuela is a carrier and the Argentines just got it.

    1. Don’t cry for me Argentina?

    2. Argentina has been a basket case for decades. If you have any exposure I’d recommend selling anything related to Argentine because they’ll most likely default (for the 3rd time? 4th?) within the next decade.

      1. I can’t guess why this would have happened.

      2. Not telling Schiff is actually the smartest thing Trump’s ever done during his time in office.

    1. No. He doesn’t have to tell them shit.

      1. Yeah – I don’t remember anything about Obama notifying congressional Republicans about the Bin Laden raid. Why would he? So they can have a public debate about it before carrying it out?

  22. Say what you will about Bush and Obama, but at least they tried to situate their actions in a framework of human rights.

    I guess you missed part of the speech. Such as,

    “He was the founder and leader of ISIS, the most ruthless and violent terror organization in the World.”

    “Their murder of innocent Americans Jim Foley, Steven Sotloff, Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller were especially heinous. The shocking publicized murder of a Jordanian pilot who was burned alive in a cage for all to see, and the execution of Christians in Libya and Egypt, as well as the genocidal mass murder of Yazidis, rank ISIS among the most depraved organizations in history.
    The forced religious conversions, the orange suits prior to many beheadings, all of which were openly displayed for the world – this was all Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s work.”

    I guess you figure that ridding the world of a depraved mass murderer and rapist doesn’t do anything for human rights.

  23. I like my terrorist-killing announcements to be positive and uplifting so that I can feel good about myself. No post-kill nod toward the humanitarians makes me sad. Because it is all about the feels, especially when we all know that some brown people really do need to be killed. I’m with you Liz!

  24. “Former WH chief of staff says he warned Trump on impeachment”
    […]
    “WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, says he advised the president not to fill the job with someone who wouldn’t be honest with him and provide a check on his impulses because he would end up being impeached…”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-wh-chief-of-staff-says-he-warned-trump-on-impeachment/ar-AAJpMDK

    Narcissist claims importance and AP prints it. Pathetic.

    1. And he hasn’t been impeached yet.

      1. Well, Kelly warned him it’s the tipping point!

  25. Reason, a magazine that claims to affect a pox on both houses stance towards politics and the media doesn’t bother to mention the funniest media fuck up of the year in Washington Post’s Al Bahdgdadi, austere religious scholar headline.

    I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if Fox News or the Daily Caller fucked up that badly, reason would have something to say about it. Moreover, how could anyone deprive themselves of the joy of the Washington Post Death Notices hashtag?

    1. “Reason, a magazine that claims to affect a pox on both houses stance towards politics”

      Wrong. Reason writers are smart enough to realize the LIBERTARIAN MOMENT will only happen when Democrats are in total control.

    2. There would be at least 3 articles about it today if a conservative source did anything even close to similar.
      I don’t know how Reason could make it any more obvious that their priority is carrying water for The Left, but we still have dumbasses in denial bitching about anyone noting it

    3. They’ve also totally ignored Representative Thouple’s resignation to avoid getting busted for schtupping her staff.

      1. That one even had pictures. Let some Republican county commissioner in rural Alabama say something against the sacred gays and Reason will run ten stories about how the evil Republicans must denounce this intolerance. Some Democratic House Member is leaning on her staff for sex and it is just not something worth talking about.

    4. Reason provides a website where commenters are welcome to post links and mention whatever didn’t happen to make it into the daily Roundup or other blog posts, like you just did.

      I cannot understand this “Reason didn’t post what I want them to” criticism. The daily roundup and blog posts have NEVER covered everything that is going on in the news.

      1. You don’t understand Jeff because you are either stupid or just choose to act like you are. How reason covers things and its choice of what to cover is revealing of their biases and attitude. The fact that they love nothing better than to report on stories that reflect poorly on the right wing media but won’t touch things that reflect badly on the left wing media undercuts any claims they make about not being biased left.

        1. There were eight solid years of Reason criticizing the Obama administration, tons of critical reporting on Hillary Clinton, etc. Reason has a long, long history of criticism of both the Democratic and Republican establishment.

          1. Haha. Your citations fell off Mikey.

            If reason was writing articles based on Democrat and Republican failures that require criticisms, every day would be filled with 9/10 articles about Democrats and 1/10 about Republicans.

            The Democrat Party is literally the Party of slavery. Its endless material.

          2. Reason has a long, long history of criticism of both the Democratic and Republican establishment.

            Yeah, and weirdly, they tend to fixate on the people who are in power at the moment.

            1. Except the deep state
              And activist judges
              And corporate media
              And corporate/tech oligarchs
              And the education industrial complex
              And NGOs

              1. Or the IC apparently

              2. You are correct. They have never mentioned any of these things.

            2. Yeah, funny that, right?

        2. I’ll give a specific example. While I was working out this morning, I listened to the first half hour of the Reason podcast episode, “Are we really doing this impeachment thing?”

          The Reason editors started off by talking about how shady Hunter Biden’s employment by a Ukrainian firm was: he had no qualifications whatsoever. Then they went on to characterize the Democrat’s impeachment efforts as somewhat pathetic.

          1. And did they then go in to ask the question about how Hunter Biden also convinced China’s bank to give his “investment firm” a $1.5 billion check while accompanying his dad on a diplomatic mission to China? Or his weird “consulting” and “legal” work in Romania? Or Biden’s history of running this same scam back when he was a Senator from Delaware and Hunter Biden got on the payroll of MBNA as an “executive”?

            That’s the thing…they might pay lip service to the obligatory talking points, but there’s never anything deeper than that for their analysis. But they’ll obsess about anonymous sources making bizarre claims about Trump, even though most of those end up being debunked. Or mock outrageous claims Trump makes, even though a lot of those end up being true (like the wiretapping issue).

            1. It just so happens that a bit after I read your comment, I listened to more of the podcast, and The Jacket mentioned Hunter Biden and China. He also called Joe Biden a “joke”.

      2. I cannot understand your mendacity.

        But I certainly recognize it.

  26. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $61.1 billion

    Still too low. President Hillary Clinton’s economy would have had Mr. Koch at $70 to $80 billion by now.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. Pure greed.

  27. Oh gee. People in D.C. booing Trump. Tickle me silly. What a shocker.

    One more reason to hope Houston finishes them off.

    As an Expos fan, I give them my blessings.

    1. It is hard to think of a better photo op than being booed by rich white people in Washington.

      1. “When these swamp creatures boo me, they’re booing you too. That’s why they don’t want to put their offices anywhere near your homes, because they hate your guts and think your suffering is funny.”

    2. What a great country.

      1. This is my take. People boo the sitting President who doesn’t jail them. And this is seen as a bad thing according to Morning Joe for America, because of the optics. I think it’s a great thing. Now do how this would have played out in the rest of the world. Hell even in Europe there is an even chance people would be jailed on hate speech laws.

    3. When the swamp-critters are pissed, you’re doing something right.

      1. +1000

        When our federal government is so fucked up that bureaucrats cannot be fired easily, you get this skewed situation. It’s not even that bureaucrats should be fired for booing, they should have been fired for being mostly worthless taxpayer drains.

        What CEO wouldn’t fire everyone in the room if the company employees of a company booed their boss?

        1. There is no deep state.

        2. I don’t really give a shit about him being booed, in principle. Every President ought to get that as a check to his ego.

          What’s hilarious is these government employees and upper class honkies thinking they’re actually better than him.

    4. Lock him up for WHAT EXACTLY?

      If Hilary is still roaming around like a drunken conspiratorial hobo ranting like a lunatic for actions she took which were far more likely to be criminal in character, how does one figure Trump should go to jail? For sending Giuliani to Ukraine? For Russia interference?

      This is nuts.

      1. The hilarious FEELZ from the Lefties is that if Trump is locked up he cannot put an unbiased investigative team on Hillary, Comey, Obama, McCabe, etc and get them locked up.

      2. And these are the same people who had a case of the vapors when people chanted that about Hillary.

        1. Yeah, but the only rule of politics these days seems to be “turnaround is fair play”. The chant is clearly a response/echo of “lock her up”. And the main defense of Hillary I heard was that people in the Bush administration did the same shady shit she did. No one has any principle or consistency.

          1. It is a free country. They should be able to chant anything they want about a politician. I didn’t care when Republicans did it and I don’t care that Democrats did it here.

            I do, however, think that their doing it last night likely helped Trump rather than hurt him.

            1. I agree John.

              I would add that if Trump had his way most of those bureaucrats, sitting in that stadium, would be terminated from federal employment and would likely be living and working in some other urban area.

            2. “I didn’t care when Republicans did it and I don’t care that Democrats did it here.”

              Sure you don’t. That’s why you’re here talking about it so much.

              1. Where on here do I say I have a problem with it? Nowhere. I think it is great and was a great photo op for Trump. What part of that do you not understand? Are you just stupid?

            3. Likely. They certainly aren’t convincing anyone who isn’t already a Trump hater.

      3. As we all know, everyone could be locked up for some federal crime if a prosecutor is sufficiently motivated.
        It’s clearly just echoing the chants about Hillary from Trump rallies.

        1. We all break some law per day as it’s been said.

          But the shit they claim Trump should be ‘impeached’ for is not criminal and you can trace back so many similar incidences by other Presidents going back to the 19th century. What the Democrats are doing is nothing short of breathtaking in its myopic stupidity. The precedence they’re setting is not a good one – all for Trump? Nuts.

          The world began in 2016.

          1. I agree it’s ridiculous. I’m just saying it’s not even thought through that much. It’s pure reaction. The bad people chanted about Hillary, so now we’ll chant about Trump.

            1. Well, their team was getting beaten down so I guess they were bored and had to chant something.

              “Nats suck!” would have been too soon.

  28. Just waiting to hear some media outlet reporting that “Trump colludes with Russia to murder austere religious scholar loved by millions around the world.”

    1. Al Sharpton was saying on MSNBC that Trump has to explain Russia’s involvement in this.

      These people are just fucking gone.

      1. Trump said Russia was involved. Why is it crazy to ask for an explanation?

        1. Because maybe Trump conspired with them to effect the election by killing the world’s most notorious terrorist or something.

          Again, you people are just fucking gone.

        2. God you’re an idiot. The compound was in russia/Syria held territory. We needed airspace clearance you stupid fuck.

          1. Well, there’s the explanation.

            1. But it won’t be good enough for Sharpton.

        3. “Trump said Russia was involved. Why is it crazy to ask for an explanation?”

          Fuck off, I explained.

        4. During the Q&A after the speech Trump explained about the involvement of the various actors, including Russia and Turkey.

        5. Trump said Russia was involved. Why is it crazy to ask for an explanation?

          Oh, so now you fuckers aren’t high-knowledge experts on the geo-political landscape of northern Syria?

  29. ISIS relies on a largely decentralized leadership structure…

    THIS IS WHAT LIBERTARIANS WANT FOR AMERICA.

    1. Let’s hire those guys!

  30. Trump was not treated to a warm reception at the Nationals game last night:

    If only the Propagandists at the MSM reported when Trump got cheers at events.

    I guess that never happens because the MSM only reports when Trump gets some hecklers.

    1. Actually, they do report on cheers he gets at his campaign rallies, but then usually go on to paint the crowd as white supremacists.

      1. Well, potato…potatoe then.

  31. Unfounded fears of genetically modified foods have blocked golden rice, resulting in the deaths of millions

    Better dead than unprotected by their betters.

    1. If millions have to die to save just one life, I say it’s worth it.

  32. 7 in 10 millennials say they would vote for a socialist: poll

    Unfortunately for Lefties, 90% of polls that support their claims are 100% made up.

  33. Comey on Trump Winning in 2020: I’ll Be at ‘My New Home in New Zealand’

    Comey clearly is too stupid to understand that New Zealand will extradite Comey to face federal charges.

    1. Does New Zealand have an extradition treaty with the US?

    2. God damn, does anything better encapsulate the Versailles-like nature of Washington DC than this statement? A longtime government bureaucrat that was unceremoniously fired saying he’s going to leave the country if the guy that fired him gets re-elected?

      Tell you what, Jim, take Hollywood with you, too, and you can all renounce your citizenship while you’re at it.

      1. The Fellowship of the Failed Coup.

        Worst Lord of the Rings movie eva!

        1. Lord of the G-string, maybe the best LOTR. And I’m a Tolkein fan.

  34. So much for a cashless society: Currency is popular again, especially the $100 bill

    Boehm will likely write more markets imploding garbage articles this week.

    1. The MJ industry runs on cash.

      1. As does anyone who doesn’t want their card number getting skimmed at the gas station.

        Cash allows you to protect your privacy and your finances. I am always mystified by Reason’s near-constant hard-on for a cashless society; it would be the death of personal privacy.

        1. “I am always mystified by Reason’s near-constant hard-on for a cashless society; it would be the death of personal privacy.”

          I’m mystified at your mystification.

        2. I am always mystified by Reason’s near-constant hard-on for a cashless society

          Not sure where you are getting that from. Reason has reported quite a lot on people having cash confiscated over bullshit reasons and always defends the right of people to anonymously use cash as far as I can see.
          Where do you see this “hardon” for a cashless society?

          1. Primarily in their fascination with Bitcoin, which as experience has demonstrated is neither more secure nor more stable than currency.

          2. Every knob polishing article ever printed about Bitcoin?

            1. Not sure what that has to do with a cashless society. Having bitcoin doesn’t require getting rid of other types of currency.
              When I think of “cashless society”, I think of requirements that all transactions be electronic and traceable. Governments hate cash because they can’t watch every transaction.

              1. Its not the watching of every transaction.

                Its linking transaction with people of interest.

                Cash nearly eliminates this possibility.

                1. It’s the ability to watch every transaction that enables that.

                  1. Some people talk about all their transactions. They post them to social media.

                    The government is interested in linking every transaction with people. This way, if you buy something that can be used against you later, it will be documented.

                    Guns are are great example of this. Anyone who buys weapons or ammo with cards is a fool. The government now knows that YOU likely have some weapon of that caliber, can extrapolate what kind of arsenal you have, and how much ammo you use.

  35. Dave Chappelle gets Mark Twain Prize, says comedy career ‘saved my life’

    “I want everyone in America right now to look at me. Look at me smoking indoors,” the guest of honor bragged. “I didn’t ask anybody… What are they gonna do? Kick me out before I get the prize?”

    He added: “It’s called leverage.”

    He would later thank the Fire Marshal “for having the courage to let me be myself.”

    Chappelle informed the audience “I did not write a speech.” During his impromptu remarks, he defended freedom of speech when talking about comedians he knows who are “very racist.”

    “(I) don’t get mad at ’em, don’t hate on ’em,” he said. “Man, it’s not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn’t work out.”

    1. Chapelle is amazing off the cuff. Started watching him on conan ages ago just for his interview segments.

    2. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn’t work out.””

      I’m stealing that.

      1. Which is why the fascists went for the second first – – – – – –

    3. Today’s morale boost brought to you by LC1789.

      1. I try.

        I will come down on the reason trolls like the hammer of Thor, the thunder of my vengeance will echo through these tubes and pipes like the gust of a thousand winds!!!!

        1. And you haven’t peaked
          But when you do peak, you’re going to peak all over Philadelphia

  36. Former White House official won’t testify, lawyer says

    Executive Branch officials can use the courts to delay stuff too!

  37. How fitting that ENB quotes Spencer Ackerman, propagandist with self-confessed lies to achieve his political agenda:

    “Spencer Ackerman, then with the Washington Independent and now at Wired.com, wrote: “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?””

    That’s your go to guy for foreign policy.

    Welcome to the new wokatarianism.

    1. But remember, these losers are supposed to be our intellectual betters.

      1. I just don’t understand why the public has zero confidence in the media these days. It’s a mystery.

    2. Ackerman was also the guy who said that right-wingers should be thrown through a plate-glass window several years ago. And he has the gall to write a book about how GWOT led to the deepening political divide in America.

      People like him deserve a woodchipper, not legitimization by a supposedly libertarian publication.

  38. “The organization he had built was designed partly on the assumption this day would come,” notes The New York Times. ISIS relies on a largely decentralized leadership structure, so “the practical effects of his demise” will be lessened.

    Which is to say: Don’t go getting up any hopes about this diminishing the imperative for U.S. troops and military action in the area.”

    That’s my read of what the New York Times is saying, as well. In some ways, it’s even worse than I expected.

    The best take might be to argue in favor of sun-setting the AUMF at this point. Hell, I’m still in favor of sun-setting the AUMF–even though that’s what made this operation constitutional. Even if it hadn’t been constitutional because there were no AUMF, I’d argue that this is one of those situations where the president really should ask for forgiveness rather than permission. With or without the Constitution behind him, if the president has a legitimate shot to take out the head of a terrorist organization that poses a serious security threat to the American people–and elects not to take that shot? Then that might be legitimate grounds for impeachment.

    The very worst take is the one that tries to justify eternal foreign adventures on the part of the United States on the basis that we need to be everywhere in order to strike at threats anywhere. The laws of economy, diminishing returns, and the negative impact of occupation, however, still apply everywhere. Ask the people of Idaho how much they like it when southern Californians come flooding into their state with new ideas about how to change things for the better before you believe that the good people of Syrian Kurdistan really want our input.

    Add to that the fact that progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren can’t stand letting their own fellow countrymen make choices about things as trivial as plastic straws. You think either one of them would tolerate Kurds making choices for themselves in areas under our operational control?

    If dissolving the Iraqi military was a mistake, the neocons didn’t just make it because they didn’t consider the costs along with the benefits. They did it on purpose because their prudish ideology won’t let them work with anyone who isn’t pure of heart and free of blame. The same reason they disbanded the Iraqi military is the same reason neocons in both major parties refused to even consider working with Putin to destroy ISIS in Syria. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and ISIS was swarming all over Syria, Hillary Clinton was openly condemning Putin for his stance on gay marriage–as if her prudish concerns for Moscow’s LGBT community were more important than American security against a terrorist threat? She was the fucking SoS for Christ sakes!

    And it’s amazing that after all this, the New York Times editorial board still hasn’t learned a thing. They still think Trump is evil–because he associates and coordinates with people like Putin. And if that means the NYT needs to support a neocon policy, then that’s what they’ll do. Who cares if associating with Putin keeps us out of Syria? Trump pulling out of Syria means we need to stay. And if we’re able to take out the head of ISIS despite pulling most of our troops out of the fighting, well that also means we need to be in Syria?

    During the Bush Administration, I never thought I’d live to see the New York Times go neocon. We used to point out that the neocons were still secretly Marxists, but for a long time, Christopher Hitchens was the only Marxist who was openly neocon. It was supposed to be a disgrace. Turns out he was ahead of the curve on the left.

    For those of you who imagine, however falsely, that politics is a fight between left wing globalists and their enemies on the right, try to at least understand this: there are no adherents of left-wing internationalist foreign policy anymore. Foreign policy is a fight between neocons and realists–and if even the New York Times editorial board is neocon these days, then left wing internationalism is as dead as dead can be.

    1. The Iraqi Army was dissolved because it was a complete wreck and generally worthless. More importantly, it was the main instrument of oppression by Saddam. The problem wasn’t that they were not pure of heart. The problem was putting the Iraqi army back in charge would have caused a full scale Shia insurrection which would have been a hundred times worse than the Suni insurrection they had.

      That decision continues to be completely misunderstood.

      1. I’m not convinced there would have been a full scale Shia insurrection, and I’m not convinced a full scale Shia insurrection wouldn’t have been better than all those unemployed soldiers joining [practically creating] the Iraqi insurgency. Of course, these are the kinds of tough decisions that could have been avoided entirely by not deposing the Iraqi government in the first place. Regardless, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld didn’t dismiss the Iraqi military out of some calculated move to avoid making the Shia rebel.

        They cavalierly dismissed the early insurgency as “dead-enders” and expected the people of Iraq to back the newly elected democratic government because of their neocon ideology, and they refused to work with the deplorables in the Iraq military–also because of their neocon ideology. They believed the Iraqi people would back them for being pure of heart, and they couldn’t be pure of heart if they were working with bad people in the military.

        At every moment during the last 15 years, a local force to keep the peace would have been helpful. The Iraqi army we created and trained was insufficient against the insurgency, significantly enhanced by former troops that we dismissed.

        I don’t know whether shortening the Iraq insurgency with the troops we dismissed–who weren’t entirely unwilling to do what was necessary to put the insurrection down–would be worth the carnage from the local Iraqi perspective, but here we are, 15 years, trillions of American taxpayer dollars, and thousands of American casualties later–and we’re still reluctant to withdraw for fear of what might happen to the locals.

        1. A full scale Shia insurgency would have been a thousand times worse. Beyond that, “all those unemployed soliders” is a misnomer. The Iraqi Army was a joke. They were not trained outside of a few elite units. Armies in a totalitarian state like Iraq are used as prisons to suppress dissent among the young. They don’t train them or give them ammunition for fear they will turn on their officers and the regime. So, those soldiers were not soldiers like you think of them. They were no more dangerous than any other young person.

          Second of all, we tried your approach with the Iraqi police forces. Initially, they reconvened the police forces and tried to get them to police the country. It was a complete failure. The police forces were hated by the population and corrupt to the core. We ended up having to disband the police forces and build them from scratch. The same thing would have happened with the Army.

          One of the things I don’t think people who were not there appreciate about Iraq is how quickly and completely the civil society collapsed once Saddam was removed. The entire government was built on the threat of terror. Once that threat was removed, every member of the government ran for their lives out of fear of retaliation from their victims and every governing institution collapsed into dust. The same was true of the Army. There were for example, very few POWs during the major combat phase. The reason was that unlike the war in Kuwait, the Army was home and its members just dropped their weapons and went home melting into society. There was nothing left to disband. Brenner was just admitting the obvious when he disbanded the army. The people who claim otherwise are people who were either not on the ground or were fed bullshit by former Iraqi officials who were either lying or delusional and claiming they still had all of this power and influence. They didn’t.

        2. Ken….You might want to re-examine your premise(s):
          Regardless, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld didn’t dismiss the Iraqi military out of some calculated move to avoid making the Shia rebel.

          They believed the Iraqi people would back them for being pure of heart, and they couldn’t be pure of heart if they were working with bad people in the military.

          Personally, I think the decisions that were made regarding Iraq and the ME were made with a different premise in mind: These fuckers killed ~3,000 of our people. We will kill so many they’ll never be a significant force to be reckoned with.

          When I think about the post 9/11 world…Arab Spring, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afganistan…one cannot help but wonder if our policy choices were made partly based upon the lethality to the local populations. Meaning, if the goal were to kill as many of the people whose ideology supported the 9/11 murderers, I’d say POTUS Bush (and POTUS Obama) succeeded splendidly. I could be totally wrong about this, but if you sit back and think about it….is it really so far-fetched?

          What hasn’t happened (yet) is an uprising in Iran that kills a lot of their people. The odds of this happening grow with each passing day. I am not exactly going to be sad to see that happen.

          1. That is an interesting way to put it Atlas. I wouldn’t go that far but I would say this. You are absolutely right about the number of dead people in the ME that has resulted largely from 911 and its fallout.

            I think the lesson of that is not that Bush and Obama set out to kill as many people as possible. The lesson is how stupid Bin Ladin was to go and screw with a country as powerful, violent, and unpredictable as the US. If you could go back in time and show Bin Ladin and the rest of the radicals in the ME at the time of 9-11 what the full results of 9-11 would be, I guarantee you all of them would have decided there was a better way of fighting the Jihad than fucking with the US.

            1. I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a war of self-defense, but Iraq was an elective war.

              If someone attacks us, that’s one thing, but we don’t have to go looking for trouble by putting troops on the ground.

              Oh, and just like the progressives here in the U.S. falsely imagine that everyone else in the country wants to be just like them, not everyone else in the world wants to be just like us internationally.

              It’s amazing how many immigrants I’ve known who come here and complain about American culture. People from India. People from the UK. They don’t like the way we do things, and they don’t understand why we don’t do it just like they did it back home.

              We can be smarter than that. Other people don’t necessarily want to be like the United States, and that’s okay. We don’t want to be like them either.

              1. You miss the point Ken. The point is that the US is very violent and unpredictable. It always has been. So, the Jihadists made an enormous mistake provoking it. It is not that the US acted in a rational fashion or didn’t make any mistakes. The point is that it often did the opposite of that. But that fact caused more harm to the ME than a rational actor would have.

                1. FWIW, I’m not sure there’s anywhere left on earth that Anglo-Saxons have either invaded or conquered at one point or another. And we always seem to imagine it’s in self-defense or in defense of someone else. The British invaded Africa to end the slave trade. We invaded Cuba and Russia at Archangel. We fixate on an evil, identify the innocent victims, and go to war. And when it’s all over, we realize that it wasn’t the way we thought, but by then there’s a new threat, a new evil, a new innocent victim. And it always seem to start with righteous indignation–whether it’s well founded, like in 9/11 or Pearl Harbor or not, like in the Gulf of Tonkin or the sinking of the Maine. I think the trick has got to be to get people to think in terms of interests rather than in terms of good and evil, but whenever people do that–like Trump does–the people who think in terms of good and evil see him as part of the evil.

                  1. Everyone talks about how the US “lost” the Vietnam war. I can guarantee you no one in Vietnam wants to ever go to war with the US again. The war didn’t work out well for the US, but it was even worse for them.

                    1. The USA helped stop the spread of Communism around the World and hastened the end of Communism in the USSR. Vietnam is pretty friendly with the USA now.

                      The only remaining Communist nations around today were Communist before Vietnam ended. China, Cuba, North Korea, and Laos.

                      Not sure if the Vietnam War was winnable as the goals were pretty fluid. Bad experiences in Vietnam also helped keep Americans out of major American quagmires from 1973-2001.

                  2. While “Good” and “Evil” in most terms are so base don bias that they are almost meaningless, the USA is not like any large nation in written human history.

                    America does not generally pick fights. We might use some trivial event to “defend ourselves” but we are not like most nations that attack other nations for land or resources.

                    Americans mostly want to be left alone and get rich from trade.

                    Americans does not really have hundred/thousand year old beefs that will never be settled because of ancient territory disputes or religious differences.

                    Osama Bin Laden wanted to be a prime founder in creating the next Muslim Caliphate. He felt like attacking the USA was the way to create a religious war between “Christians” and Muslims. He underestimated how secular America can be. He underestimated how most Islamic factions will never get along.

            2. interesting theory, not sure if it works out though. For the true believers, they might still see this as a net gain, because all the killing ensures a steady supply of pissed off new recruits, and at least they got to hurt us in a way no one has since Pearl Harbor. Hell, they had the run of Syria for a few years, and after the Arab spring, it looked like they were going to take control of parts of N. Africa. I bet that Osama and Al Bukr probably wished they’d done some things differently, but 9/11? Probably not.

    2. It’s a fight between neo-fuedalists and nationalists. Reason, like most of the media, has dropped the mask in favor of the former because they think they will be part of the mandarin class under them.

      1. I still see it, internationally, as populists against elitists–and properly libertarian capitalists against elitists.

        When elitists get together and decide to inflict tariffs on the consumers in their own country because consumers aren’t smart enough to understand what’s in their own best interests, we’re still talking about elitism. The idea that individual consumers should be free to make choices for themselves is the fundamental opposite of elitism. Because someone like Trump thinks that consumers aren’t smart enough to make choices for themselves because it doesn’t help people who work in manufacturing doesn’t make his ideas any more anti-elitist than progressives, who want to do the same thing to fight climate change.

        The fact that Trump has more respect for democracy and progressives are fundamentally hostile to people being free to make choices that aren’t the best interests of the collective may mean that he’s far less elitist than the progressives, but a position that denies the ability of average people to make choices for themselves is still elitist to some extent. Meanwhile, on a position like trade, as a libertarian, I’m not trying to inflict my personal preferences on other people by way of government. I’m trying to persuade my fellow Americans to demand the right to make choices for themselves on an individual basis as a consumer in international markets.

        In other words, trying to persuade my fellow Americans to drop trade barriers–because it’s in the best interests of Americans to do so–is not what most people think of when they see the word “globalist”. If my primary concern is for the United States and my fellow Americans, then the word “globalist” can only apply if people assume that international trade is bad for the United States.

        1. The problem with free trade is that it starts out with all sorts of innaccurate simplifications, i.e. start with a spherical cow on a frictionless surface.

          Yes, trade deficits don’t matter because they have to be balanced by invested capital surpluses. But there are gigantic caveats to that. What if those surpluses are significantly or primarily used to buy instruments of government debt? That enabling behavior makes it seem like we don’t have a fiscal problem but all it does is push it off to the future when it will be much worse.

          There’s also the assumption that all actors are behaving as rational individuals (or the claim that it doesn’t matter as long as your tariffs are low) and are unwilling to sustain losses (really forego more gains) for years and decades to achieve a strategic goal. Sure, the market will eventually respond to a monopoly in say, rare earths, but as we learned in the 70’s oil embargo placing strategic commodities (or technologies) in the hands of external actors with questionable principles can inflict severe pain. We risk exactly the same sorts of problems engaging with regimes like China with its forced tech transfers, capital controls, and Confucius Institutes.

          because it doesn’t help people who work in manufacturing doesn’t make his ideas any more anti-elitist than progressives, who want to do the same thing to fight climate change.

          Actually, I think it does. Those same eco-nuts are perfectly willing to impose that burden only on the US and give China and India a free pass. Trump is at least accountable to the US consumers he’s penalizing. The environmentalists are more than happy to remove any local accountability. In fact they demand it.

          1. “Yes, trade deficits don’t matter because they have to be balanced by invested capital surpluses. But there are gigantic caveats to that. What if those surpluses are significantly or primarily used to buy instruments of government debt? That enabling behavior makes it seem like we don’t have a fiscal problem but all it does is push it off to the future when it will be much worse.”

            Again, you’re engaging in value judgments using perspectives that I don’t share.

            Why should individuals shopping a Wal*Mart for a new fan take the indirect impact of deficit financing into consideration? I can understand why they’d do that when they vote, but why would it be better if consumers were forced to take the impact of deficit financing into consideration when they’re trying to get a good deal on a space heater?

            There’s a term for what happens when consumers stop buying for fear of what’s happening with the economy nationally. It’s called a recession. Economic growth, on the other hand, comes from finding new ways to make things people want to buy for less cost. Productivity gains through the use of computers and automation is one way to accomplish that, and opening foreign markets with lowers costs up to American consumers is another.

            You’re killing the goose that lays the golden eggs out of concern for some indirect threat to the economy!

            1. Why should individuals shopping a Wal*Mart for a new fancollecting SS or Medicare take the indirect impact of deficit financing into consideration?

              FTFY. So you’re saying deficits don’t matter. Makes sense.

              There’s a term for what happens when consumers stop buying for fear of what’s happening with the economy nationally. It’s called a recession.

              Mistaking consumption for production is a common fallacy. Recessions come from misallocation of capital.

              and opening foreign markets with lowers costs up to American consumers is another.

              Wha? You mean foreign suppliers? Does that include foreign suppliers who steal IP, or do you believe that IP isn’t real property? The reality is that productivity growth is what makes us all richer. Cheaper foreign labor is really no substitute for that, even accounting for substituting imports of goods to free up more productive American capital to produce higher valued goods.

              1. “FTFY. So you’re saying deficits don’t matter. Makes sense.”

                I didn’t say deficits don’t matter.

                I asked why people should pay more for space heaters when they could pay less.

              2. “Mistaking consumption for production is a common fallacy. Recessions come from misallocation of capital.”

                The misallocation of capital comes from uncertainty about the future, which has little or nothing to do with the fact that consumers typically stop buying and start saving once they’re realize there’s a recession.

                Because I correctly noticed that fact doesn’t mean I mistook production for consumption–at all.

              3. “The reality is that productivity growth is what makes us all richer. Cheaper foreign labor is really no substitute for that”

                You don’t seem to understand that productivity growth is about being able to use less to produce more.

                Yes, if you can use less costly labor to make even more of something, then productivity increases. Even within the U.S., productivity tends to rise during recessions as companies lay off more people requiring each of the remaining workers to do more than they did before. Increasing productivity by using less expensive workers overseas is just as valid as laying people off. As companies learn to be ever more efficient with less cost, the economy grows. That’s what productivity growth is about.

  39. Say what you will about Bush and Obama, but at least they tried to situate their actions in a framework of human rights. Trump described the operation like an action-movie sequence, focusing on lurid details and, especially, the humiliation America (and by extension Trump) supposedly meted out to a powerful terrorist leader. It reads like the kind of statements put out by authoritarian rulers, designed not to provide us with a vision of our highest ideals but about Donald Trump, his might and power, and the retribution enemies will face for crossing him.

    That SOB Baghdadi is dead, and now rotting away, regardless of how ‘genteel’ Ms. Brown would like to hear it. Nice going, Delta Force. Thanks guys. Kill all the terrorists you want.

    1. The guy roasted people alive. The thought of him running for his life chased by dogs is quite pleasant. The only thing that would have been better is if the dogs had torn him apart rather than him blowing himself up. I still want to know if the dog that was hurt is okay. I value the dog’s life a lot more than I value that scumbag’s life.

      1. Apparently there are some crimes against women that the feminist ENB is willing to ignore.

        1. ENB claims there is not such thing as sex trafficking. So maybe she thinks his sex slaves were really just hard working girls making an honest living.

          1. Well he didn’t sign Kayla Mueller’s yearbook, so there’s really no evidence he did anything wrong.

            1. If ENB was capable of feeling shame that would leave a mark.

          2. No she doesn’t.

            There is plenty of real stuff to criticize without unfairly characterizing the positions she takes.

            1. Are you just bitching again?

              1. I suppose you could call his pointing out your knee-jerk bitching “bitching.” But it kinda misses the point.

      2. Heck, I think they should offer pay per view for those who would watch depraved maniacs get ripped to shreds by service dogs.

        Get it? Service dogs. Killing terrorists. It’s a service.

        YOU GET THE POINT.

        1. Make them shelter dogs. Then you can get “humanitarian” points which apparently are the one and only justification for anything.

  40. Rep. Katie Hill (D–Calif.) is resigning.

    Good riddance to a thoroughly disgusting trashbag hillbilly.

    Also, thank goodness for the British media. For all the U.K.s problems, they at least (remarkably) still have a legitimate independent press, unlike the United States which hasn’t had one for at least a generation.

    1. trampy girls are more fun.

    2. She’s gonna miss Backpage.

  41. The biggest Trump story ENB missed in the roundup is that he is reportedly committed to deploying more troops in Syria to secure oil fields:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/27/trump-wants-to-make-a-deal-with-exxon-or-others-to-tap-syrian-oil.html

    1. The plan would be to build oil fiends that are not already there and protect those. Since I don’t care about Syria, I still think it is a dumb idea but it is not quite the same as protecting ones that are already there.

      But, I would think the people who thought us leaving Syria was the worst thing ever, would like this idea. Oddly, they seem very quiet about it.

      1. I can respect that take.

        People that were trying to paint Trump as a principled non-interventionist, who is just trying to get us out of the Middle East, are going to have a hard time explaining this one away.

        1. No one ever said Trump was a principled non interventionist, whatever that means. What they said was Trump acts in the US ‘s interests and not in the interests of some vaguely defined world order or in the name of humanitarianism.

          Acting in the US interests doesn’t mean you never intervene. You are just giving a straw man here. If you think Trump is wrong to propose this, then explain why. Otherwise you are just burning a strawman.

          1. You haven’t said that he is a principled non-interventionist. Others have.

            1. They are wrong. That is not what Trump is and if you listen to what he says he doesn’t claim to be that.

            2. Now do the ones who have claimed he’s a warmonger.

              1. Um . . . this doesn’t really contradict that?

  42. I suspect that one of the reasons rednecks are so reluctant to embrace global warming is because all they see is the costs associated with that–but not the benefits.

    If you’re a suburban mom in San Diego, running around town in an all electric car is totes rad. But, if you’re a construction worker in Texas–not as rad. If you’re a construction workers in Texas, an F-150 is awesome. It has four wheel drive, you can load it with stuff for work, you can tow your boat or your RV with it.

    In fact, when you see a Tesla, you probably think of it as a threat to your F-150. Some guys might give up their gun before they gave up their truck, so why wouldn’t you be skeptical of global warming as bunch of F-150 grabbers if there’s just nothing good for you in it–it’s all bad?

    https://www.trucks.com/2019/08/21/rivian-closer-to-electric-truck-production/

    I won’t go into the details of why this company is more realistic than Tesla, but their electric truck is likely to come out in 2021. They’re got backing from Amazon and Ford, and instead of building a whole new production facility from scratch, they took over an abandoned factory in Michigan. Their truck is priced a little higher than a Lariat trim F-150, but look what you get!

    Each wheel has an independent motor, which should give you the ability to take this thing anywhere. It can go 400 miles on a full charge, and it takes 15 minutes to charge it 80%. It tows 11,000 lbs, and goes from zero to 60 in three seconds. The whole thing is in the carriage–you can slap any body on it you want, and Ford will presumably slap an F-150 carriage on it. They’re scheduled to deliver their first trucks in 2020.

    When guys want to grow up and want to be football players, they can end up playing a lot of fantasy football. When guys dream of one day building a 32 Ford coupe, they often learn a lot about fixing cars. I don’t know what happens when the average redneck’s dream Truck is an all-electric F-150, but it might be a game changer if the Green New Deal doesn’t seem like it’s all about taking your truck away anymore.

    1. Starts at$69k. Work out the numbers on how many MW are required to charge at that rate. I’ll wait. And now add in the added depreciation from quick charging. And that 400mi claim assumes absolutely ideal driving conditions.

      Electric motors are marginally better than mechanical ICE. Electric batteries are orders of magnitude worse than chemical fuel.

      None of this is a game changer.

      1. $69,000 is reasonable price of a cowboy Cadillac, and because you can quick charge in 15 minutes doesn’t mean it’s necessary. Most people will hook it up and leave it charging overnight. The primary idea of fast charge is . . . people are always thinking about driving their vehicle from one end of the country to the other, subconsciously or otherwise, and they want to know that they’ll be able to do that–even if they never do it in that truck.

        That ability becomes especially persuasive to people who are hauling a fifth wheel or an RV. Yes, because you can fast charge it, you can take it somewhere and charge it up along the way–without having to wait for it to charge for hours–so, yes, you can load up the kids, hook up the RV, and take the whole family to Yellowstone or Yosemite next summer.

        For the most part, people think charging in their garage is great, even if they have to do it overnight. Especially if it means they don’t have to deal with the low lives that hang around gas stations anymore.

        1. Actually you can’t charge in 15min. They claim 30. And you’re rationalizing changing your lifestyle for this car.

          1. This one link isn’t my only source. I just typically give one because if you put more than one, they put your comment in “waiting to be approved” hell.

            “The electric vehicle manufacturer will offer the R1T in with the buyer’s choices of a 105 kW, 135kW or 180kW battery pack which equates to about 230 miles, over 300 miles and over 400 miles of range. Rivian predicts that using a DC fast charger, owners can get 200 miles of range in 30 minutes.”

            —-Link Above

            I’m not sure whether that last stat applies to only one or all of the three models. I’ve read other sources that say you get an 80% charge in 15 minutes.

            “Rivian claims that the R1T can get an 80 percent charge in just 15 minutes when using a DC fast charger and a full charge in eight hours using a Level 2 connection.”

            —-Car and Driver

            https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a25299722/2021-rivian-r1t-electric-pickup-truck-photos-info/

            Regardless, these statistics will improve over time. The preorders are due to arrive at the end of 2020, and they’re be open for sale in 2021. Over time, these models will improve on those statistics. The question isn’t if but when, and, yeah, when the average redneck’s dream truck becomes an electric, it will be a game changer.

            Sometimes people’s expectations don’t live up to billing, and that’s especially true of rednecks. A couple summers ago, I was having breakfast in diner that servers as the entrance to stockyard in Utah. There was one other tourist family there, and there were these four cowboys arguing about various solar implementations like they were baseball geeks–all stats and figures. The hipster couple from out of town were amazed. Rednecks aren’t supposed to know all about solar. Of course, when you think about it, rural people actually use solar because it’s what they’ve got. It isn’t a fashion statement for them.

            I suspect electric trucks may go the same way. Off roading alone might make the deal for them. Four independently drive motors may make the truck the most versatile terrain crossing thing since horses. It may ruin mud derbies forever. What if going through three feet of mud just isn’t that impressive anymore?

            1. They have a name for vehicles that are used for off roading, they are called toys. At best these things are a toy.

              Beyond that, you can’t just assume these will forever get better on a linear curve. Not everything is computing power. Battery power is running up into real limits of physics. It is doubtful they will ever be as efficient or useful as the ICE.

              Will they have a place? Sure provided that the bill for disposing of the batteries never fully comes due. But they are never going to replace the ICE.

              1. “They have a name for vehicles that are used for off roading, they are called toys. At best these things are a toy.”

                The draw of an F-150 is that can be both a work truck and a toy.

                This electric vehicle will be the same thing.

                If you can’t have in independent internal combustion engine on each wheel, then the electric truck has already surpassed the internal combustion engine on that point.

                You know, the problem with those turbo charged eco boost engines is that all that compression is really hard on the parts. Think about all those warranty costs and concerns about engine parts.

                I have some concerns about electronic components holding up down by the wheels when they’re often underwater, but other than that, if you no longer need to worry about all the parts in an internal combustion engine wearing out or breaking, that could be a big plus.

                P.S. Submarines use electronics and spend a lot of time underwater. I’m not sure that’s a problem, with the water exposure underneath the truck, but if it is, they can probably work around it.

                1. If you can’t have in independent internal combustion engine on each wheel, then the electric truck has already surpassed the internal combustion engine on that point.

                  Except that you don’t need that unless you like to climb up the sides of walls. I could build an ICE that will do 250 mph, that doesn’t mean the capability of going that fast is something I need or want or worth the extra cost. There is no marginal advantage to this except that well it is kind of neat. So what?

                  You know, the problem with those turbo charged eco boost engines is that all that compression is really hard on the parts. Think about all those warranty costs and concerns about engine parts.

                  Trucks routinely last over 200,000 before needing a rebuild. Meanwhile, the batteries on electric cars do not lost longer than four or five years and cost more than the residual value of the vehicle to replace in most cases.

            2. Oh, more Moore’s Law faith. They’ll get better because reasons.

              The chemistry is a limiting factor. How many electrons can you reasonably expect to get per atom? Probably 1, maybe 2. What band gap are you going to drop that over? Your not going to get much more than 1eV/atom unless you go to some really nasty formulations. And then there’s the problem that you want these to be secondary batteries, i.e. rechargeable, which also drastically limits the chemistries available to you. Combusting a fuel has a much broader space to work in and that’s why you have much higher specific energies and powers available.

              In short, physics.

              Hand wave all you want, the universe doesn’t care.

              1. I have a hard time believing that this is finally the example that shows Malthusian logic is true!

                The innovations can come from all sorts of directions. It might be about storing energy in different ways and swapping precharged batteries or delivering and conserving energy in different ways. I don’t need to understand that to understand that electric vehicles are selling well, that there will be more innovating ways to charge them in the future, and that those innovations are more likely to be found and financed as more people buy these vehicles.

                I also know that Amazon has invested in this company to turn their carriages into delivery trucks–and they don’t have anything to gain from long charge times. The forces of innovation are driven by such things, and there’s no good reason to believe that innovation won’t come to this space, as well. Private investors have pumped billions into this company, I see them avoiding some of Tesla’s costly mistakes, and if they came to me asking for investment, I’d want to see their financials and structure, but I’d be inclined to invest.

                1. I have a hard time believing that this is finally the example that shows Malthusian logic is true!

                  It doesn’t show Malthusian logic true at all. It simply says there are physical limits to things. Understanding that you can’t build a chemical battery of infinite power or timely recharge is not buying into Malthusian logic anymore than admitting you can’t travel faster than the speed of light or build a perpetual motion machine does.

                  And you can speculate all you want about how it might work, the fact is that it doesn’t work that way now. And your wanting it to work that way doesn’t make it true. If it ever does, get back to me. Until then, you are kidding yourself here.

                  And what is your problem with the ICE? You do understand how efficient it is and what a gift to personal freedom it is don’t you? Moreover, you seem to be in complete denial of the environmental costs of electric cars. You seem incapable of thinking rationally about this or being in any way skeptical of anything called “new” regardless of the facts.

                  Not every invention works. Not every new thing is better than the existing.

                  1. What’s the physical limitation of installing larger batteries with bigger capacities?

                    None, right? It’s an economic limitation. The batteries are expensive. As scale increases, that won’t be such a big problem anymore.

                    What’s the physical limitation of making charging stations more available in more places?

                    The correct answer is that there are none. Again, it’s a function of scale.

                    What’s the physical limitation of services that will swap out charged batteries for you?

                    https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a22573389/batteries-not-included-is-pack-swapping-the-reboot-that-affordable-electric-vehicles-need/

                    Those are three ways to address the problem that don’t require any scientific breakthroughs whatsoever–right off the top of my head.

                    1. What’s the physical limitation of installing larger batteries with bigger capacities?

                      The chemestry and physics that Skippy just explained to you.

                      The batteries are expensive. As scale increases, that won’t be such a big problem anymore.

                      Lithium ion batteries are produced by the billions. Everything we use has a battery in it. The batteries they use in cars are in principle no different than what is used in lap tops. There is no economy of scale that is going to save you.

                      Moreover, these batteries use rare earth metals that really are finite in their supply. There isn’t enough of these metals to even begin to replace every ICE car on earth with a battery powered one. So, before you can even think about doing that, they are going to have to develop a batter that relies on materials that are much more common than the current generation of batteries. That is unlikely to happen any time soon.

                      What’s the physical limitation of services that will swap out charged batteries for you?

                      The limitation is the amount of the rare metals used in these batteries. More importantly, it is the economic limitation of these things being more expensive than the ICE and thus never making economic sense.

        2. That ability becomes especially persuasive to people who are hauling a fifth wheel or an RV. Yes, because you can fast charge it, you can take it somewhere and charge it up along the way–without having to wait for it to charge for hours–so, yes, you can load up the kids, hook up the RV, and take the whole family to Yellowstone or Yosemite next summer.

          Stopping every 100 or so miles for a half hour to charge it? If we didn’t already have gasoline cars, sure. But we do already have gasoline cars. What possible advantage does this provide over a gasoline powered pickup? Nothing as far as I can see. So what if it goes from zero to sixty in three seconds? I don’t buy one of these things to drag race. I would buy it to use. And anything that won’t go over 200 miles without having to be recharged is not very usable.

          1. The one model has a 400 mile range. Even if you had to charge while you were eating lunch in the RV or something, that might not be a big deal–even if it did take an hour to get to 320 miles again.

            Meanwhile, plenty of people will buy one and never use it on a trip to Yosemite. And, again, these stats won’t stay the same forever. The technology will improve over time, and you will want one. Not only that, you’ll probably buy one. And you’ll walk out of the dealership all excited everything because you love it.

            1. The one model has a 400 mile range. Even if you had to charge while you were eating lunch in the RV or something, that might not be a big deal–even if it did take an hour to get to 320 miles again.

              Maybe or maybe not. But why bother with that when I can buy an ICE powered vehicle that doesn’t require that? What advantage is this offering to justify having to stop every few hundred miles and more often when I am towing or running the heater?

              Meanwhile, plenty of people will buy one and never use it on a trip to Yosemite.

              That is just an unsupported assumption. Why buy one? You have yet to give a single advantage over an ICE vehicle. Even if you don’t drive it long distance, you still might someday want to. People pay for capabilities they don’t always use all the time. Better to have it and not need it, you know?

            2. Given how much of an obesity epidemic we already have in this country, I can’t wait to see how much America weighs after all of these “fill up” lunches they’re going to need.

              1. Eating every 320 miles isn’t gonna make you fat.

                This is like what I get from Harley people when I tell them I go long range on a naked bike. “The gas tank is too small”, they say. “You have to stop every few hours for gas!” But when you’re riding the twisties in Sierras for ten hours or more per day, you need to stop every three hours to walk around some anyway. Stopping every few hours isn’t a big deal, and if you’re dealing with a wife and a couple of kids, it’s normal.

                Meanwhile, whether the first model is the one that brings all the rednecks into the electric community isn’t the real issue. The fact is that this is the future, and you’ll live to see it. The stats and the technology will continue to improve. Most RV parks already have 50 amp service, and RV parks are already well suited to handling . . . um . . . RVs. Installing quick charge centers in RV parks will be a no-brainer.

                1. The range isn’t 320 miles. It won’t be anything close to that if you want to run the heater, the AC, turn on the radio, tow something, or drive in any manner other than hypermiling. The more you use the thing in ways that you are likely to be useful, the lower that figure becomes.

    2. 11,000 pound towing capacity is terrible for a full sized truck. Even small SUVs will tow 4,000 pounds and full sized pickups will tow in excess of 30,000 lbs in most cases.

      In addition, the range is not going to be anything like a diesel especially when towing something. So, that isn’t going to answer the mail really.

      That is above and beyond the fact that electric vehicles are terrible for the environment and much worse than gas ones.

      1. Chemical fuel is here to stay. It’s stable over long periods of time. Universally compatible. Functions over a broad range of environmental conditions. Easily transportable by individuals. Packs an incredible specific energy. Even in a world where we no longer extract fossil fuels we’ll probably continue to synthesize them from nukes simply for all of the reasons mentioned above.

        Someday I think we will finally figure out a way to cheaply make fuel cells. Then all of Ken’s drooling over electric drive trains will finally be mated to an energy source that works. Until then, we’re going to be driving combustion-powered vehicles for a long, long time.

        1. A gallon of gasoline carried enough potential energy to propel a 3,000 pound car at over 60 mph for upwards of 30 miles. That is just an enormous amount of energy in a very small package. The people who believe in the electric car consistently fail to appreciate that.

          Also, they totally ignore the environmental damage that occurs from making, using and disposing of batteries. When you think about how abundant oil is and how rare and useful the things that go into a battery are, it is absolute insanity to be using batteries to power our cars instead of gasoline.

          1. 1 gal of gas contains 120MJ of energy. We’ll use 30% efficiency for the ICE plant, so it nets 40MJ of useful work.

            It takes approximately 5 min to fill up your car, 13 gal.

            13*40e6/300 = 1.7 MW of power.

            According to Ken’s link, the 105 kW (sic, presumably kWh) battery pack gives a 230mi range, and a 30 min charge will give you a 200 mi range, so 91 kWh.

            91e3*3600 = 325 MJ

            Time Charging Rate
            5 1092000
            10 546000
            15 364000
            30 182000

            Now you can play with voltages and currents to see just how bulky your cables and connectors need to be, but even 182 kW cables are a big deal let alone 1.1 MW.

            1. Also remember too that the 200 mi range is driving the vehicle with nothing in tow and at its optimal efficiency. Try and tow something or drive it like something other than an old lady on Sunday and that range starts going down very quickly.

              1. Turn the heater on. Or let the car sit for a couple of days in the cold (or heat). See what it’s range is then.

                1. Yup. Or try and run the AC during the summer. I bet it can’t go 70 miles running the AC on a hot day.

                  1. Generally smaller delta T so that helps. But you have to keep the batteries cool or really, really bad things happen, so more parasitic losses. In the winter time you have to generate or pump more heat (hope for the latter because at least you can get a COP greater than 1) into the cabin than you have to extract in the summer, BUT you also have to keep those batteries warm enough too. So, yup, parasitic losses. Heat is free in the winter time from an ICE.

                    Of course if someone lives in, say, California where the climate is always moderate, he might neglect to think about those environmental challenges for most of the other people in the world (or even the country).

      2. “11,000 pound towing capacity is terrible for a full sized truck. Even small SUVs will tow 4,000 pounds and full sized pickups will tow in excess of 30,000 lbs in most cases.”

        The biggest Airstream weighs in at 10,000 lbs.

        The biggest Forest River product I could find has a GVWR of 10,920 lbs.

        https://forestriverinc.com/rvs/fifth-wheels/arctic-wolf/315TBH8/3462

        This is your future. Not only will own one. You will fantasize about it. Thinking about getting an all electric truck will make you horny.

        1. I don’t want to own an airstream. But even if I did, I would want to be able to tow it more than 100 miles without stopping to recharge for hours.

          So, no this isn’t in my future and no I won’t be dreaming about it.

        2. See Skippy’s math above. It doesn’t add up for battery powered vehicles and never will. And that is to say nothing of the environmental costs associated with them.

        3. 3.6 feet long is about as long as most people want to go. Very few people will feel limited by an 11,000 lbs. GVWR. The overwhelming majority of people opt for a much smaller RV than that. Even full time RVers don’t go that large, typically.

          1. Sure, but they are going to want to take it more than 200 miles away from their homes. Remember, the 200 mile range figure is a max. It will be much lower towing something.

            And again, what advantage does this offer over buying a gasoline powered car that will not have the charging issues, cost less to purchase, and do everything this does just as well or better. Why would anyone buy it all things being equal?

            1. Well, one thing it does is let you charge at home rather than having to go to the gas station ever again. That’s cool. Gas stations are full of low lives. Going to gas stations anywhere in this country is like the closest thing to having to rid the subway in New York City. Why wants to do that if you could just charge up at home?

              The truck also has superior 4X4 capabilities. Southern California is the offroad capital of the world–although it doesn’t get much billing for it. There are places with better off road areas, like Moab in Utah, but they’re farther away from major population centers. The biggest offroad race in North America is undoubtedly the Baja 100, which you should do once in your life for fun. But that isn’t the biggest draw–it just gets the most press.

              Approximately 40% of California voters voted for Donald Trump, and sometimes it seems like every one of them is in Glamis for the weekend.

              https://tinyurl.com/y5fwko9c

              The southwest United States is an offroad playground, and every one of those people you see in those photos would love to have a truck that can take those sand dunes with ease.

              The other thing is that there are cost saving associated with electricity. Smart meters, in California, anyway, will let you charge at night, when power demand is the lowest, at reduced rates. while oil shocks aren’t quite what they used to be, taxes on gasoline are high and going higher if you live in California.

              FWIW, because there’s no engine in the car, you get an extra lockable trunk in the front, where the engine would be. Everything about it is in the suspension and the wheels. Whatever body you put on top of the platform is just dumb weight. Won’t need much oil or much in the way of maintenance. It is your dream truck. You want it even more than it wants you, and it wants you bad. Real bad.

              1. Really expensive toy that is inferior for what most cars/trucks are used for – got it

              2. Ken…I am watching Rivian, too. No, not to buy a truck. No, not for investing. But I look at them as an example of capitalism at work. The individual motors intrigue me. I know the Israelis (a start-up) have also done something similar. The Amazon contract that Rivian won is a spectacular win for them.

                EVs are not for everyone, but I would note that almost every major manufacturer in the world is moving to EVs, and phasing out combustion engines.

                Will the range issue(s) and speed of recharge issue(s) ever get resolved? Yes, I think so. Why? Because there is a long track record of private industry solving ‘impossible’ problems when there is a profit motive and a market for it.

                1. Sure there is a long history of the private sector solving problems where there is a demand. It always works that way. That is why we all have flying cars and jetpacks, right?

                  Some problems can’t be solved or at least if they can be solved in a way that is marginally better than its competitors to justify its use.

                2. “Will the range issue(s) and speed of recharge issue(s) ever get resolved? Yes, I think so. Why? Because there is a long track record of private industry solving ‘impossible’ problems when there is a profit motive and a market for it.”

                  Yeah, these problems are mostly about financing the solutions, which is mostly a scale issue. As more electric cars–of all types– get sold, the more of a market reward there will be for people who solve the problems that are common to all those cars.

                  You can buy these at Costco.

                  https://www.costco.com/VersiCharge-LVL-2-Universal-Electric-Vehicle-Charger.product.100295506.html

              3. Kinda off-topic, but what sort of gas stations do you go to? They’ve never seemed all that awful to me.

                And I can see the convenience of not having to stop at a gas station during a typical work week since I could charge at home, although that doesn’t really amount to much since I incorporate refueling into the trips I take anyway.

                1. I go on long distance excursions all over the country on my bike and often stop every few hours for gas. Even in the nicest parts of San Diego, with the nicest gas stations I’ve ever seen, the place attracts degenerates that seem to be sleeping in the bushes behind the place. Gas stations are horrible places full of awful people.

                  1. Maybe get the hell out of California and visit the US

                    1. When I said all over the country, I meant all over the country.

              4. Well, one thing it does is let you charge at home rather than having to go to the gas station ever again. That’s cool.

                I am out anyway. Gas stations are on the way wherever I am going. So, that is a zero advantage. And Gas stations are not full of lowlifes. They are usually connected to convenience stores that have bathrooms and food and other things you want.

                The truck also has superior 4X4 capabilities.

                So does a dune buggy. That doesn’t mean I am going to replace a pickup with one. Moreover, what kind of off road capabilities do you want? A good pickup or jeep will go virtually anywhere. Whatever marginal advantage this offers is unlikely to ever be used. I don’t know a single person who has ever gotten their 4×4 stuck outside of when they were out almost trying to get it stuck seeing what it would do.

        4. I would also point out that people who use these trucks for work, often tow a lot more than an airstream. A trailer full of cattle or horses weighs a lot more than 11,000 pounds.

        5. Thinking about getting an all electric truck will make you horny.

          Talk about value judgements I don’t share.

        6. My F150 will haul over 20,000 lbs. That is ten tons. I require 20 tons of feed for my livestock. That is two trips. With this truck I will have to double the number of trips. So, it will double the amount of time I need to work hauling hay meaning less time repairing fence or winterizing barns or moving livestock. Oh and that is another thing to add in. I can haul 20 head of 1000 lb steers to the auction with my ICE but only 11 with this. Prices go up for larger groups of steers. So I either need to make more trips or take the hit for selling smaller groups of steers. This could be a decent ranch truck maybe. But it isn’t replacing my half ton truck anytime soon (or the diesel 3/4 ton I’m looking at).

          1. Here’s what I’m lookin’ at.

            “The available second-generation 3.5L EcoBoost® twin-turbo V6, at 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft. of torque, has an available conventional tow rating of 13,200 lbs.”

            https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/content/dam/brand_ford/en_us/brand/resources/general/pdf/guides/19Towing_Ford_F150_Oct25.pdf

            They’re talking about the GVWR, and, on that chart, that V6 3.5L EcoBoost is the max GVWR or any current F-150.

            There may be two things going on here:

            1) The GVWR is the rating the government puts on these things, like like the EPA’s mpg, but people can and do use them to haul more than the official GVWR. Insurers may require you to stay within your GVWR and your warranty may require you to stay within your GVWR, but I’m sure plenty of people use their trucks to haul more than the GVWR–and the truck does just fine. If that’s what you’re doing, I’m not about to argue with you, but I will say this: if you can load more than the GVWR on an F-150, you should be able to load more than the GVWR on the electric truck, too.

            2) I suspect some people use “F-150” when they mean Ford truck like they use the word “Kleenex” to mean a tissue. Could it be that you meant you have an F-350 Super Duty?

            The F-350 Super Duty has a GVWR of 21,000 lbs. This electric truck isn’t meant to replace that.

    3. >>>when you see a Tesla, you probably think of it as a threat to your F-150

      Red Barchetta.

    4. This may be the dumbest thing you have ever written.nit touches all the bases, elitist, out of touch, racist, scientifically illiterate….

      1. Hey man, off topic question for ya. Do you live in Nashville?

    5. Maybe rednecks don’t embrace “global warming” or “climate change” (whatever is popular at the moment) because it’s obviously bullshit and they’re not pretentious self-important ideologues?

      Global warming would be a good thing.
      Life thrives in warmth, dies in cold

      1. Actually most I work with accept the climate is changing, a good percentage even accept humans may be at least partially responsible. They dislike the “solutions” because they are infeasible and costly.

      2. I assumed that they only care about the science and not about how the government would use climate change to destroy their economic well-being and their way of life would be insulting.

        Because climate change and the left’s solutions to it would destroy their economic well-being and their way of life is a better reason to be skeptical than any scientific reason possibly could be.

        1. [IF IF IF] I assumed that they only care about the science and not about how the government would use climate change to destroy their economic well-being and their way of life, [that] would be insulting.

          —-FIxed!

    6. I’d say more people are skeptical (at least I am anyway), because they’ve been told multiple times that the world will end by X if we don’t do Y… and then we pass by the arbitrary time line and nothing happens. This has been going on since what, the 50s? With some pretty big names attached as well? And considering that these folks are likely to also be familiar with church scams (the world is going to end in 2012, sell everything you have and give my church your money!), they can probably see the similarities, they’re not stupid. The boy who called wolf also comes to mind.

      The fact that most of the plans involve raising taxes and getting rid of convenient energy in exchange for unreliable sources, and you have folks like AOC discussing stuff like no more planes for the regular folk (politicians are exempt from that of course), and its less about “muh truck” and more about common sense and thinking for yourself.

  43. They should rename “Nationals Park” to “Rice Bowl”, maybe get Uncle Ben as a corporate sponsor.

  44. Bagdouchy brought it all on himself, and if in fact he died like a coward it’s a wonderful idea to broadcast that fact.

    Sure, they may get another “Caliph,” and keep up the firm under new management, especially if they’re as decentralized as advertised, but it’s better than bombing the people who were bombing ISIS.

  45. Katie Hill, we hardly knew ye

    1. I thought she was pretty cute. And even if she is not a raving beauty, cute is good enough when she is that freaky.

      1. You need beer goggles with a lower alcohol content.

        1. You need to learn to like women or just admit you are gay. NTTAWWT

          1. John – she’s gross.
            If you’re into her, that’s cool. I’ll never condemn a man who’s attracted to ugly women.
            In fact, I’m jealous of them

            1. She is not gross. She is not great but she isn’t bad looking. Now, the fact that she is a weirdo who has slept with God knows who or what might make her gross in that regard. But anyone who claims she is unattractive or gross based on her picture is full of shit or thinks most women in the world are ugly and gross.

              1. She is not gross.

                I think people give cute points for things other than beauty. Like the fact this chick likes pussy as much as guys, is a +whatever on hawt scale.

                Girl next door cute? She is not really that.

              2. >>>the fact that she is a weirdo who has slept with God knows who or what might make her gross

                lol otoh might be a +…

              3. She’s dumpy and has an unattractive face.
                She ugly

        2. You can always just turn out the lights. Granted, I’m old and ugly so my standards have to be a little lower. 😉

        3. fun chick is an attitude

  46. And when dealing with an honor/shame based culture demeaning him is a good approach.

    Yup.

  47. Is how Trump is handling this different from the last guys? Yeah. But I would like to point out that part of the reason the KKK declined was because the Superman radio show did a few episodes of him going up against a knockoff brand of KKK and made that group out to be a laughing stock of loonies. This shit works, like it or not.

  48. send word on whether the dogs got out of the tunnel please and thank you.

      1. good dog. gracias.

      2. That dog’s life is more valuable than any Reason writer’s

      3. The three human children, not so much.

        1. Because you cared so much when Obama killed Al Walaki’s son. Right Tony? How many kids did Obama kill in drone strikes against people much less important than this guy? A lot more than three.

          So again, just shut the fuck up. Get better talking points or something.

          1. I’m against the extrajudicial execution of any human being who isn’t a soldier in a declared war, and I’m largely against war too. Thank you for your time.

            1. No you are not. You never once objected to Obama’s drone program. I defy you to come up with a link to a single instance of you doing. They don’t exist.

              So stop fucking lying and claiming you are against these things. You are not. You are “against” whatever you think will help your side politically. You have not a shred of morality or principle or anything. So just shut the fuck up.. Everyone here knows who you are.

              1. I can list 50 things Obama did that I didn’t like. The only difference between you and me is that I’m pragmatic on the side of sane, good people, and you’re pragmatic on the side of the people who set the entire Middle East on fire on false pretenses after exploiting one of the worst traumas the US has ever faced.

                You actually believe that Obama’s managing of the aftermath with robots is worse than the Iraq invasion that caused the shitstorm in the first place. And you believe that because of the difference between an (R) and a (D) and no other reason. Heal thyself, fuckstain.

                1. You can’t name 50 things you didn’t like Obama doing. You can’t name a single thing. Moreover, even though you commented here during Obama’s entire Presidency, you never uttered a single word of criticism of him when it mattered. Now that he is out of office lying and pretending you did convinces no one.

                  Just shut up. You voted for a President and spent 8 years defending a President who ordered hundreds of drone strikes that killed nearly 4,000 people and who bragged about how good he was and how much he enjoyed killing people. Obama said in so many words he enjoyed having people killed. And you thought he was great. So shut up.

                  1. Are you going to move on from “B…bbbbut Obama!” or are we going to discuss something relevant at some point?

                    You would have impeached Obama over a tan suit. You’re the insane one.

                    1. Yes Tony, you can’t attack Trump for things you excused and defended in Obama. You can’t pretend to care about civilian casualties when you didn’t give a shit about them when Obama caused them.

                      I am calling you out for the pathetic hypocrite you are. This is about you not Trump.

                    2. So neither of us cares about foreign dead children, but you’re better because you also don’t care that the current president kills more of them and is also a senile incompetent traitorous blubber monster who’s being impeached for cause?

                      I’m having real trouble following the logic here.

                    3. No Tony, your argument that somehow al Bagdadi being killed is a bad thing because he killed his three kids when we caught him is an absurd argument that you would never make if a Democrat were President and should be ignored.

                    4. Tony blabs about non-Americans all the time.

                      They have a right to enter the USA. Non-Americans have a right to vote in US elections. blah blah.

                2. I can list 50 things Obama did that I didn’t like.

                  Go ahead.

                  List five.

                  You’ve been promising to do this for years, and never have.

                  1. shitty to throw the Ryans’ marriage under the microscope to win

                  2. Didn’t redistribute wealth enough. Didn’t fix the Middle East. Didn’t pass stronger healthcare legislation. Didn’t go strong on gun restrictions. And of course the tan suit.

            2. “”I’m against the extrajudicial execution of any human being who isn’t a soldier in a declared war, “‘

              Then what is your complaint here. The guy blew himself and the kids up with a suicide vest.

  49. He went on to call the people associated with Baghdadi “losers,” to say we will “completely destroy…these savage monsters,” and to emphasize again that Baghdadi died like a “coward.”

    It all quite humble for the President. He didn’t even mention his own personal heroism at Hue City or Khe Sanh.

    1. Or how Celebrity Apprentice got great ratings. Just the best ratings ever. Not like some loser TV show.

  50. “It reads like the kind of statements put out by authoritarian rulers,”

    Not all authoritarian rulers like to revel in the details of the kills they order. Lenin expressed no interest in how his enemies died, their last words etc, Stalin and Hitler both did. It’s supposedly an indication of a sadistic personality. Trump goes a step further, making his statements in public rather than the private musings of Stalin and Hitler.

    1. Would “we came, we saw, he died” have made you feel better?

      1. No. Scum rises to the top. Does that make you feel better?

        1. Yeah because you were on here complaining about that at the time. Sure you were. And you hated it when obama bragged that he was “good at killing people”

          Sure dude. Whatever.

          1. “Yeah because you were on here complaining about that at the time.”

            Enough about Stalin, Hitler and Trump. Let’s talk about me and my feelings.

            1. Stalin and Hitler have nothing to do with Trump. And your being a lying hypocrite pretending to care about something now that you never did before has nothing to do with my feelings.

              Try again and maybe this time give a coherent response rather than emoting. Or better yet just shut the fuck up and slink off and go troll somewhere else.

              1. They all showed a repellent, unseemly interest in the death of a man. Trump manages to outshine Hitler and Stalin in his need to share his sadism with the public. The others had the decency to keep their lurid interests to themselves.

                “Or better yet just shut the fuck up and slink off and go troll somewhere else.”

                Nobody is forcing you to read my comments so I appreciate the attention you pay and the thought you put into responding to my comments. I will consider shutting the fuck up, slinking off, and going troll somewhere else, but I can’t make any promises.

                1. So did Obama. Obama bragged about being good and happy about killing people. Trump has never said anything like that.

                  You are just a fucking moron grasping at straws. Go away.

                  1. “You are just a fucking moron grasping at straws. ”

                    I’m not grasping at straws. I’m pointing out that Stalin, Hitler and Trump share the sadistic pleasure in reveling in the lurid details of the people they have killed. If it makes you happy to include Obama among them, I say go for it. Never give the bastards the benefit of the doubt.

        2. I’m ‘touched’ by your ‘concern’ over my ‘feelings.’

          But, why do you ask?

          1. “But, why do you ask?”

            Parallelism? Believe me, it’s not because I care.

            1. Still can’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, can you?

  51. What could be more embarrassing for this clown, the fact that if he is so out of shape and non-athletic that he was afraid to throw out the first pitch, the fact that when he goes anywhere out for an appearance he gets booed (unless at his own rally) or the fact that he had to embellish and lie about how the scumbag terrorist died.

    Oh ya, he totally begged and cried like a dog? Or it was a massive explosion that blew him to a million pieces such that he is unrecognizable?

    I have never seen any man look so small, inconsequential, and overcompensating then him trying to explain how American warriors killed a terrorist. It was like the gold toilet bowl version

    1. Meanwhile, you are so pathetic and small, one of the great monsters of the last 20 years is finally killed and all you can think about is how butt hurt you are about the guy who ordered it done.

      But Trump is the one who is small and pathetic. Sure. It is always projection with you people.

        1. So the fact that he choose to kill himself and his children means that he shouldn’t have been killed?

          Moreover, Al ALwalaki’s kids died with him due to the US drone strike. I don’t recall you ever giving a fuck about that. So, why don’t you sit this one out and go lie about something else. Maybe find something that can pass the laugh test.

          1. There’s always a judgment to be made when there are children being used as human shields.

            However little this may mean to Islamic extremism, Trump gets a political win, so that’s worth three children’s lives. You just said so.

            1. So you think Trump shoudl have not ordered the raid because children might die? That is why you were so angry when Al Alwaki, a guy who never killed anyone and wasn’t even close to the monster this guy was, son was killed when Obama ordered him killed by a drone strike.

              Oh yeah, you thought it was great and never said shit about it. Again, why don’t you shut the fuck up and go lie about something where the lie is a little less ridiculous than this one.

              1. I just want you to say that you think three children’s lives are worth extinguishing from existing as long as it gives Trump a 4 point bump in his poll numbers for a month.

                You can just say “yes.”

                1. Al Baghdadi was one of the worst monsters of the last 20 years. And you manage to make yourself unhappy about his death because you are so pathetic that you hate anything that might help the other side politically.

                  You don’t give a fuck about those three kids. Obama killed hundreds of kids as collateral damage in drone strikes. And you never once gave a fuck because if killing people is what is necessary for your politics, you are fine with it.

                  You are just disgusting Tony. You really are. You would rather see Bahgdadi alive and murdering and enslaveing people because him doing that would help your side politically. I can’t even fathom how someone could be as depraved as you people are.

                  1. Actually Trump has killed more civilians than Obama ever did (just as he promised during his campaign).

                    I like civilians who don’t die.

                    1. No he hasn’t. Obama ran a drone program that made George W. Bush blush and ran it for 8 years. Trump has barely bombed anyone.

                      Beyond that, even if you were not lying, which you are, it wouldn’t matter since no matter how many people Obama ordered killed you never objected to it. So you have no standing to object to this.

                    2. So you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Hard to concentrate with so much Trump cock in your every orifice?

                    3. http://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

                      Less than two weeks ago, the United States conducted a drone strike over central Yemen, killing one al-Qaeda operative. The strike was the last under Obama (that we know of). The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

                      you never said a fucking word about that Tony. So shut the fuck up and stop trying to tell us you care about the three children that Al Baghdadi blew up himself.

                  2. Doopty do.

                    I did it all for the three point increase in poll numbers for three weeks more than a year before any election.

                    1. Obama killed 3,979 people with drone strikes and you cheering him on. Shut the fuck up and stop acting like you give a shit about people being killed.

                    2. There are plenty of more sources detailing how Trump’s foreign policy kills more civilians than Obama’s. I’m not looking for perfect, I’m just looking for better than goddamn evil stupid Republicans.

                      The last guy you supported, Bush, is directly responsible for needless innocent deaths in the hundreds of thousands, of course, so it’s rather a wonder that you’re even showing your hypocritical fat face, let alone lecturing others on partisanship and morality.

                    3. No there are not. Obama gave us the Syrian civil war. He turned Libya into a giant slave market and failed state. He allowed ISIS to take over half of Iraq. The butchers bill for Obama is enormous.

                      But Obama said he was good at killing people and liked doing it. So, the fact that he did so much of it is no surprise.

                    4. Your logical fallacy is “Democrats have to be perfect, and even then they suck. Republicans can shit all over an entire region of the world, and as long as they jack off to the American flag, it’s mostly OK.”

                    5. Its always fun when Tony is here to advocate for the party of slavery.

                2. Last I checked, Baghdadi was the one who killed the kids, not Trump and not our soldiers. There were other women and children there who lived, we didn’t just go in killing everything like it was Mai Lai. Baghdadi decided to take some human shields, and then decided to blow himself up when the dogs closed in. Those kids are on him, and only him, he could have let them go.

            2. “There’s always a judgment to be made when there are children being used as human shields.”

              And here’s shitbag to lead the cheering!

        2. His children, his bomb, his blame.

          1. You’re a regular Clint Eastwood. Tough, strong, sociopathic hard cock. Big strong man.

            1. What about the kids who died in the drone strikes Obama ordered. Why didn’t you care about them Tony?

                1. You are a hypocrite Tony. Just shut up. Go bitch about something else because Obama fans claiming to be shocked by civilian casualties is just nausea inducing.

                  1. Democrats kill fewer civilians than Republicans. It’s a fact, and it’s the only one I have to go from when I decide whom to vote for, if we’re considering this issue alone.

                    What about you?

                    1. Obama killed more civilians than Trump ever had. Beyond that, even if it were true, you cheered Obama and never once criticized him for the thousands of civilians he did kills. So shut up. You didn’t care when Obama did it and you don’t care now. You are just a pathetic partisan.

                    2. But that’s not true. Trump kills more Civilians than Obama did.

                      That’s but one reason he’s worse than Obama. Want me to name ten million more?

                    3. Poor Tony forgot about all the Americans that died when the Democrats started the Civil War.

                      Then there are those AmerIndians that Andrew Jackson massacred.

                      Then we have the European version of the Democrat Party (German Nazis, Italian Fascists, and Russian Communists) that collectively killed over 60 million people in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

                    4. “Democrats kill fewer civilians than Republicans.”

                      That’s only because the sumbitches couldn’t hit the barn from the inside with the doors closed.

                    5. “That’s only because the sumbitches couldn’t hit the barn from the inside with the doors closed.”

                      Beware the ghost of Jesse James.

                2. “”Nobody’s perfect.””

                  So in the end, you don’t really care about kids.

                  1. Not when they’re killed by Democrats, anyway.

            2. “His children, his bomb, his blame” gave you all that?

              Impressive.

      1. Shotgunsambo is ‘you people.’
        Shotgunjimbo is one of us.

        1. He is a fucking leftist troll on here posting talking points. He is not one of anyone. He is just another member of the leftist hive like you are.

            1. The truth clearly hurts you mtrueman.

              1. “The truth clearly hurts you mtrueman.”

                Far from it. My secret membership in the leftist hive has been such a burden. I’m glad the truth is out.

  52. So can anyone explain what is going on in Syria? First we were going to pull all of the troops out. Then there were getting redeployed to another area. Now there is this talk about protecting the oil fields and bringing Exxon in or something. Sounds more like seizing the oil fields.

    Besides what oil fields, there is hardly any oil in Syria.

    I am glad to hear reports that the dog is going to be OK. Also I hope they captured a boatload of intel as part of the operation.

    1. Give it 30 days and the you might get some factual reporting. The MSM is a rat trap of liars.

      1. Yeah.

        I can give you video proof that the president said this on 10/27

        THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t have a Syria pullout. I just don’t want to guard Turkey and Syria for the rest of our lives. I mean, I don’t want to do it. It’s very expensive. It’s very dangerous. They’ve been fighting for centuries. I don’t want to have my people — 2,000 men and women, or 1,000, or 28. We had 28 guards. And I said, “I don’t want them there anyway. I don’t want them.”

        Now, I will secure the oil that happens to be in a certain part. But that’s tremendous money involved. I would love to — you know, the oil in — I mean, I’ll tell you a story. In Iraq — so they spent — President Bush went in. I strongly disagreed with it, even though it wasn’t my expertise at the time, but I had a — I have a very good instinct about things. They went in and I said, “That’s a tremendous mistake.” And there were no weapons of mass destruction. It turned out I was right. I was right for other reasons, but it turned out, on top of everything else, they had no weapons of mass destruction, because that would be a reason to go in. But they had none.”

        “Now I can secure the oil in a certain part.“

        Then he goes off the rails again about the Bush war. You buy that?

        There is no great oil there. There is no treasure to be had in Syria.

  53. Nick, I fear Reason has jumped the shark. Apparently you’ve begun sharing by-lines with the New Republic, The Atlantic, and The Nation. Was it just too expensive to be a libertarian publication anymore?

    1. Between the print magazine, videos, podcasts, and the blog I’m not sure Nick even reads the morning roundup.

  54. Was thinking it was a great move by the White House to release the picture of the dog and talk about his role. People generally like dogs. Trump does but says he doesn’t have one because he does not have the time.

    So the dog story is a great way to draw attention to something the public will like. These kind of soldiers, including the dog, I believe the dogs have an official rank, are quite a story in themselves.

    It is terrible about the children but a guy in a suicide vest. A desperate homicidal maniac. I don’t think the soldiers had any options there.

    1. ” People generally like dogs. Trump does ”

      Hitler and Stalin both were bigger dog lovers than Trump. They even kept dogs as pets, a Hitler shepherd and a Stalin terrier, respectively.

      I had an acquaintance who was a military dog handler. They got on fine except he resented the dog for outranking him, and getting better food and sleeping quarters.

      1. Yes they were. As were most of our presidents and military leaders.

        It is something about dogs and humans.

        As Marx, the other one said.

        “Outside of a dog a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog it is too dark to read”

Please to post comments