Reason Roundup

John Bolton Is Still Mad That Donald Trump Wouldn't Let Him Bomb Iran

Plus: A majority of Americans support policing reforms, say goodbye to Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, and more....

|

Having wrongly claimed that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, former Pentagon official and national security advisor John Bolton knows a thing or two about big mistakes. Had he expressed any regret about advancing the lie that led America to invade Iraq, he might be considered a pretty good judge of when a White House is dangerously out of control—and that's the case Bolton attempts to make in a tell-all book of his time as President Donald Trump's national security advisor, In The Room Where It Happened.

Yet the incident Bolton singles out as "the most irrational thing I ever witnessed any President do," according to The New York Times' review of his book, has nothing to do with Trump asking foreign leaders for political help or cozying up to dictators. No, the worst thing Bolton witnessed Trump do is decide not to start a war with Iran.

"The moment he cites as the real 'turning point' for him in the administration had to do with an attack on Iran that, to Bolton's abject disappointment, didn't happen," writes Jennifer Szalai in the Times' review of the book. "In June 2019, Iran had shot down an unmanned American drone, and Bolton, who has always championed what he proudly calls 'disproportionate response,' pushed Trump to approve a series of military strikes in retaliation. You can sense Bolton's excitement when he describes going home 'at about 5:30' for a change of clothes because he expected to be at the White House 'all night.' It's therefore an awful shock when Trump decided to call off the strikes at the very last minute, after learning they would kill as many as 150 people."

Bolton was plotting to start a war with Iran even before American troops hit the ground in Iraq. Trump may not deserve much praise for his foreign policy, but at least he resisted the urge to slaughter more innocent people in another Bolton-backed war.

Bolton's book will be big news regardless of whether the White House succeeds in stopping its publication due to concerns about classified information—read Reason's Scott Shackford's in-depth take on all of that here. Among the dribs and drabs that have leaked so far, the biggest bombshell seems to be the allegation that Trump's impeachable conduct with Ukraine was not a one-time mistake but part of a pattern. In addition to pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, Trump also directed U.S. policy towards Turkey and China with an eye toward winning reelection.

"Trump commingled the personal and the national not just on trade questions but across the whole field of national security," Bolton writes in an excerpt of the book published by The Wall Street Journal. Much of Trump's trade war with China, Bolton alleges, was conducted with the intent of helping the president win reelection and little more. "I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my White House tenure that wasn't driven by re-election calculations," Bolton writes.

In another anecdote, this one reported by The New York Times, Bolton relates that Trump had no idea the United Kingdom was a nuclear power and that he did not know Finland was not a part of Russia. Elsewhere in the Journal excerpt, Bolton accuses Trump of giving Chinese President Xi Jinping his blessing to build concentration camps in Xinjiang, a province where the Chinese government has brutally repressed the Uighurs, a Muslim minority population.

His WMD fibs aside, there's no reason to doubt that Bolton is telling the truth about all this. After all the ridiculous and insane things Trump has said and done in public—in front of TV cameras, even—it is nearly impossible to be surprised by anything that he's reportedly said or done in private. Remember when the president stood on the driveway in front of the White House and told reporters that China should open a "major investigation into the Bidens" while he was actively being impeached by Congress for allegedly asking Ukraine to open an investigation into the Bidens?Exactly.

Bolton's book might add some specific details that no one previously knew, but it is unlikely to tell us much about Trump that isn't already apparent after watching his first three years in office—or scrolling through his Twitter feed. The man is an open book.

But no one should believe for a second that Bolton wrote this book out of a sincere desire to speak truth to power. If Bolton believed Trump was an imminent danger to the country, he could have told Congress what he knew, without waiting for a subpoena, during the impeachment proceedings. Doing so may not have changed many minds, but it might have changed enough of them to remove from office a man Bolton seems to believe is dangerously incompetent.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer says the idea that Trump sought to leverage trade policy to get Xi to help with Trump's reelection "absolutely untrue," and the Trump campaign issued a statement saying the claim was "absurd." Trump is, of course, using the same lines he uses about everyone who leaves the White House and then speaks frankly about the incompetence they witnessed there. It really makes you wonder who is hiring these people.

Any libertarian—and, for that matter, anyone who possesses an ounce of concern for the wellbeing of other humans—should prefer to see Bolton criticizing the White House from afar instead of advising the president about what countries to bomb next.

But let's not turn Bolton into some sort of straight-shooting hero. No matter what else Bolton might have to say in his new book, his legacy will always be advocating for horrifying, bloody, and counterproductive foreign policies.

Trump's foreign policy might be an inchoate mess operating with the sole purpose of getting the president reelected, but that's at least less evil than Bolton's gleeful warmongering.


FREE MINDS

Have we reached a tipping point in Americans' overall view of the police? A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll finds that a combined 59 percent of Americans say police departments across the country need either a complete overhaul (22 percent) or major reforms (37 percent), even as the majority of Americans (57 percent) say they disagree with the "Defund The Police" slogan popularized during recent protests against police brutality.

That's part of a trend. As Reason's Peter Suderman noted last week:

Washington Post poll released this week found that 69 percent of Americans say Floyd's killing represents a systemic problem with policing, while just 29 percent say it's an isolated incident; six years ago, the Post reports, more than half of Americans saw police killings of unarmed black men as isolated events, with just 43 percent viewing them as part of a wider trend.

What's behind this shift? There are many factors, but the biggest one is probably the fact that almost every American carries a high-definition video camera at all times. Police misconduct can no longer be explained away or hidden. It must be addressed.


FREE MARKETS

Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben could be going the way of Sambo's—and that's just fine. 

The Quaker Oats Company, which is owned by PepsiCo, announced that it will remove the image of Aunt Jemima from its packaging and change the name of the brand later this year. "We recognize Aunt Jemima's origins are based on a racial stereotype," Kristin Kroepfl, chief marketing officer of Quaker Foods North America, said in a statement Wednesday. "While work has been done over the years to update the brand in a manner intended to be appropriate and respectful, we realize those changes are not enough."

Mars Food, which owns the Uncle Ben's brand of rice, also announced that it would "evolve" the brand, though the brand did not offer specifics. While the terms "Aunt" and "Uncle" have unsavory historical connotations—during the Jim Crow era, southern whites would use those terms to refer to older black women and men as a way to avoid addressing them as "Mrs." or "Mr."—the specific character of "Uncle Ben" is reportedly based on a Chicago restaurateur rather than a southern farmer.

But before anyone gets upset about Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima getting canceled—oops, too late—let's be clear about one thing: PepsiCo, the Quaker Oats Company, and Mars Food can put whatever labels they want on their packaging, and you don't have a right to buy a box of five-minute rice or poor quality maple syrup with a black person's image on the front.


QUICK HITS

• Zoom video calls will feature end-to-end encryption by July.

• Does President Donald Trump even want a second term?

• A government audit accuses the Drug Enforcement Agency of having laundered tens of millions of dollars for drug traffickers over the past decade.

• Ten states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas) now have their highest seven-day average of new coronavirus cases.

• The federal government has too much hydroxychloroquine.

• The Tennessee legislature has passed a bill reforming "drug-free school zone" laws that are little more than an excuse to impose harsher sentences.

• If Major League Baseball returns this year, National League teams are reportedly going to use a designated hitter—which means the end of amazing stuff like this:

NEXT: Will Latin American Civil Rights Be a Casualty of Coronavirus?

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. Warning, auto play video on the article:

    Economic fallout from a pandemic hitting UK was never modelled, senior civil servants admit
    Senior MP investigating Covid-19 preparations describes revelation as ‘extraordinary’, adding: ‘I’m quite dumbstruck by that’
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-economy-pandemic-whitehall-civil-servants-a9567051.html

    No planning was done for the enormous economic damage likely to be caused by a pandemic hitting the UK, senior civil servants have admitted.

    The government modelled the impact on the health service and on local government’s ability to cope, but did no detailed work on companies having to shut down and on staff being laid off, MPs were told.

    “That’s extraordinary,” said Meg Hillier, the chairman of the Commons committee investigating preparations ahead of the Covid-19 outbreak, adding: “I’m quite dumbstruck by that.”

    1. The Lockdown Contrarians Were Right
      https://c2cjournal.ca/2020/06/the-lockdown-contrarians-were-right/

      According to Public Health Agency of Canada data, there had been 7,773 Covid-19 deaths in Canada as of June 7. Federal Chief Medical Officer Theresa Tam has confirmed that 81 percent of them were linked to long-term care facilities. Of the remaining 1,482 deaths, most were people over the age of 70. Only 229 of the total deaths were aged under 60 and almost all of those had pre-existing health conditions. Clearly, for a healthy working-age person, the risk of dying from Covid-19 is significantly lower than dying by accident or from other diseases.

      If Canada’s working-age people hadn’t been removed from the workforce plus been subjected to such severe general restrictions – everything from being barred from medical and personal care appointments, to cancelling travel and being unable to go about their daily lives, nearly all of which involves economic activity of one sort or another – Canada’s economy would have continued to function without the job losses, bankruptcies and tragic social impacts including mental health deterioration, suicides and family violence. And without the need for the crippling increases in our national debt. In hindsight, keeping healthy working-age people away from their jobs – the first such quarantine ever undertaken – may be the most damaging decision in Canadian history.

      1. ★My last month paycheck was for 1500 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour.

        See—> Money90

    2. “Bloody fucking ‘ell!”

      Please keep ’em coming, Ra’s. 8-(

      1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week.HBo i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.

        This is what do,…….► Home Profit System

    3. Hello.

      Fuck ESPN.

      Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben should do porn.

      I’m exhausted by the TDS. Imagine Donald Trump himself.

      Insane people have boundless energy and the modern progressive left are pure mental cases.

      1. I’m exhausted by the TDS. Imagine Donald Trump himself.

        Trump loves TDS because they’re talking about Trump. Sad, but things have devolved to the point where only an egotistical megalomaniac can stand up to a culture the GOP ‘leadership’ handed to the far left while getting American kids killed and crippled “building democracy” overseas.

        1. or a troll. You’re probably right with the megalomaniac bit, but I like to imagine that Trump is just a 4chan shitlord who was born too soon and used his weaponized autism to collect liberal tears.

      2. Trump might throw in the towel rather than risk losing to Biden. Or his rallies might totally energize him. The carnival continues.

        1. So he might drop out or he might continue.

          Stunning analysis.

          1. I don’t make predictions, Jesse. The future is not written.

            1. I’m just blown away by your stunning analysis. Take the compliment.

      3. Cannot un”see” Aunt Jemima on a bed of rice, Uncle Ben pouring syrup over her.

        1. If you don’t have a link to a video of this to post right now, I’m going to lose it on you. It’s not okay to tease people like that.

      4. If, as a person who habituates the Reason website, you are supposedly a libertarian or conservative-libertarian, why would you have a bunch of energy invested in worrying about criticism of Donald Trump? Since when are libertarians a bunch of president worshipers?

        1. If only their criticism was solely directed at him, rather than taking out their inferiority complex and mental illnesses on the rest of us.

          1. “They”, again.

  2. …former Pentagon official and national security advisor John Bolton knows a thing or two about big mistakes.

    But that mustache certainly isn’t one of them!

    1. Bomb bomb bomb. Bomb bomb Iran.
      Oh wait! That was McCain!

      1. “It’s therefore an awful shock when Trump decided to call off the strikes at the very last minute, after learning they would kill as many as 150 people.”

        Ouch, that’s gonna hurt the narrative.
        Tony, Jeff, Nuttplug hardest hit.

        1. Would you want to tell Melania that she’s not getting another Persian rug for Christmas?

        2. Except let’s not forget that there were retaliatory strikes. Just not this particular one.

  3. Zoom video calls will feature end-to-end encryption by July.

    The Rona will be memory holed by then.

    1. Where do you live?

      1. Fist lives in Philadelphia.

      2. Politicians still care as they see it as a means to power. The average citizen gives 2 fucks about covid.

        1. Maybe in Arizona.

          1. Actually most everywhere based on the actual pictures in media. Not everyone is a frightened child subservient to their “leaders.”

        2. I still see plenty of “average citizens” wearing masks and limiting their exposure in public places.

          1. What state do you live in, Jeff?

          2. Define plenty. More or less than half? Your word choice is weird.

          3. It’s still mandatory to wear them inside here in the DC area and suburbs. I’ll be working from home all summer and maybe into the fall too. When we return, there’s talk of all this distancing shit and wearing masks at work. Fuck that shit. Wearing them for 20 minutes at the grocery is one thing. Wearing it all day is bullshit. For me, I’m still deep in the rona panic and won’t be out of it for months at best.

            1. Austin’s mayor just issued an order calling for 1K fines on anyone indoors not wearing a mask. City leaders—especially if Democratic Party members—still care about getting the bug. Specifically, getting their sheep back into the corral to be sheared.

              The general public, OTOH? Solid meh, from what I’m seeing. Wear the mask to get into a place, then stick it in your purse, is the new fashion trend for summer.

          4. It’s tribal, like pretty much everything these days. I live in the suburbs between a largish city and a very conservative exburb. My experience is that in the city and suburbs most people (>90%) are wearing masks in public. In my limited trips to the exburb (Home Depot & Farm Supply store) the numbers are lower. Maybe 50%.

            1. Same experience here. You’d think the decision whether to wear a mask or not would be based on science and maybe your personal estimation of whether you are contagious, but, no, it’s been politicized just like everything else in this country.

              So, lots of people are wearing or not wearing masks to telegraph their politics. Partisanship has made us all so amazingly stupid.

          5. Just some advice. Don’t give any personal information like that.

            Nardz has lost his temper here and threatened to come over to my house and do unspecified bad things to me. Which would have been hard, since he doesn’t know where I live.

            1. The fascists are very careful to wish suicide now instead of making threats. Guess that FBI check in taught them manners they failed to learn in kindergarten.

              1. I don’t think that they’re fascists. Just angry and sad people who’ve lost perspective and have formed an intellectual circle-jerk here.

                1. Define fascist.

        3. Perhaps Jesse.

          As a medico I give at least one fuck about it. It is not just a belief pony. It is one more real thing for me to learn about. The fight is not something I fear. There is always one more bug and one more way to fight it.

          So far as restrictions on human interactions. People, bless their hearts, you can only go so far with that. They will do what people do.

          You are correct that politics really has no place in this. Politicians only care about power. They will leverage anything including human suffering to get more. Get out of my way. I have work to do.

  4. Antifa in Portland has occupied the neighborhood where Mayor Ted Wheeler lives and have declared it an autonomous zone. They’ve set up barricades and police are choosing not to respond. You hate to see it.
    https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1273522915623841792

    1. Lol. Ted is a shit head cuck. He’ll be licking feet by the end of the day.

      1. Mwahahahahaha. So bending over backwards to make sure the cops don’t push back at Antifa didn’t work out for him? Who’d have seen that coming.

        You know the old saying, you give a commie mouse a cookie, he’s going to storm the dairy farm, kill the farmer and his family and declare a victory for the people. At least until he realizes that none of his people know the first thing about dairy farming.

        1. Never stopped Stalin or Mao. They just full speed ahead as millions starved.

      2. On a warm Thermidorian afternoon as he was dragged towards the guillotine in the main square of Chaz, Mayor Wheeler pondered if things went too far.

        But then he remembered his Marx, “The present generation resembles the Jews whom Moses led through the wilderness. It must not only conquer a new world, it must also perish in order to make room for the people who are fit for a new world”.

        “Ted” he said to himself with a smile, “Its for the revolution”.

        1. ya know, I could see some of these genetic dead-ends really being that stupid

    2. Why wouldn’t they set up their zone there? Wheeler’s their leader.

      1. +1, they aren’t setting up the zone, just expanding it beyond the Mayor’s home

    3. Is Portlandia still coming back for another season. I don’t know what Mayor Ted looks like but I’m picturing Kyle McLaughlin.

    4. There was all this paranoia expressed yesterday that the left is coming for our homes and women, but, seriously, Seattle and Portland have been like this for decades. You really can’t point to them as the canary that’s warning us that we are all going to be guillotined by antifa.

    5. Portland’s politics are even worse than Seattle’s. Portland just doesn’t have enough economic activity to leach off of like Seattle does to attract so many freeloaders.

      1. Portlandia has addressed Seattle’s envy of Portland’s radical progressivism.

  5. The federal government has too much hydroxychloroquine.

    Buyer’s market!

  6. https://twitter.com/MuradGazdiev/status/1271029318630735872
    A black slave in Libya today costs as little $200 dollars.

    Slave trading was punishable by death under Colonel Gadaffi – until the Libyan government was destroyed by a coalition led by Hillary Clinton/Obama. And now they’re tweeting about #BLM

    1. Progressive Fascists Now Literally Hunting Jews Hiding In Attics and Reporting Them to “The Authorities”
      http://ace.mu.nu/archives/387798.php#387798

      A neighbor tipped off @glennschuck that children were attending United Talmudical Academy in BK, which is supposed to be closed due to @NYCMayor’s orders (coming off buses with no masks). @NYCSHERIFF on the way. Here you can barely make out a child in the window. #1010WINS

      — Samantha Liebman (@SamiLiebman) June 17, 2020

      1. Cripes.
        The progs have really been letting the mask slip lately.

      2. If there is a jew anywhere on NYC acting badly, or even not badly, de blasio will get him.

      3. Haven’t there been any lawsuits there yet for his arbitrary enforcement lockdowns?

        1. If I have to guess, under De Blasio’s rule Jews aren’t allowed to file lawsuits, only people are allowed to do that.

          But in all seriousness, I am really getting scared that before this is done, we’ll have a mini-holocaust in NY City, remember that a large chunk of the black neighborhoods there hate their Jewish neighbors and see them as being responsible for social ills.

    2. I’d buy two slaves and name them “D’Aquarius” and “DaMarkus” and we’d spend all day playing my favorite game, Monopoly.

    3. Are white slaves going for $333.33?

      1. Wait till they’re dead and get them for free. – Chicago Policy

      2. My hat is off to you, sir.

    4. It’s kind of amazing that western civilization is one of the only – if not the only – civilization in the history of the world to voluntarily abolish slavery yet according to progressive shitheads it’s no better than any other civilization and, in fact, is responsible for all the evils that have ever been done in this world and therefore “has got to go.”

      If it’s so bad living in a modern, liberal western society then how about these jackoffs go live in modern day Libya, or sub-Saharan Africa, or any country governed by Shariah law for a couple of years and then come back and tell us all about how evil western civ. is because… we abolished slavery… we gave women equal rights under the law… why exactly is our civilization so bad again?

      1. Historical context and a sense of proportion have never been one of their strong suits.

      2. Many people like the oppressive nature of the countries you describe because it takes away responsibility and replaces it with oppression masked as “for your own good”. In America you have choices and self determination that is to much for so many

    5. OK, there’s plenty to criticize about Hillary Clinton and Libya, but saying that “they” are hypocritical about racism because of a side effect of ousting Gadaffi is a HUGE stretch.

    6. A black slave in Libya today costs as little $200 dollars.
      If this is true, are there any organizations dedicated to just purchasing all their freedom? Seems like the fastest and easiest humanitarian thing to do and very cheap to boot.

      1. Unfortunately that doesnt work I dont have a cite handy but I believe an abolitionist group tried that in the 19th century and they found that it only increases the slave trade

        1. Thanks for the tip i’ll research that. I suspect that the slaves in the 19th century were going for a lot more than the equivalent of $200 though which probably a factor.

  7. PepsiCo, the Quaker Oats Company, and Mars Food can put whatever labels they want on their packaging, ….
    Apparently not.

    1. Sure they can…and the market will decide if they accept it.

      1. Well, the market accepts the crap contents, so…

      2. Sure they can…and the market Twitter mob will decide if they accept it.

    2. People act as if this was a necessarily bad thing. But in a representative republic wouldn’t it be considered at least neutral if not good? If they are thinking about reelection wouldn’t it arguably be that they are thinking about what the people want?

    3. Exactly. Hint to Boehm, no one is claiming that they have a right to buy rice with a black face on it. Moron.

      1. You really told him!

    4. Why do the Reasonistas always limit libertarianism to government?

      Free speech and free minds should be encouraged as cultural beliefs and not just political rules.

      1. Are you familiar with Reason? What the heck are those Free Range Children articles from Lenore Skenazy, for example, if not commentary on culture, not touching much on government.

        There are countless examples. Reason has always covered trends, for and against individual freedom, in the culture. A few years ago, they had an issue of the magazine dedicated to libertarian trends in muslim culture and the powers that be attempts to suppress it, for example.

  8. “I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my White House tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations,” Bolton writes.

    Ha! So Trump *is* a politician!

    1. I dont understand this as an argument. That is how politicians operate. Yet it is being used as a negative against Trump.

      1. Then you understand it perfectly.

      2. When Trump was elected, everyone’s standards went way up.

      3. Yeah, let’s just throw out any expectations that American culture should expect people to have principles. Let’s just give up and choose a side in the devolving Team Read – Team Blue war. Never mind that the entire country is spiraling downward in ever growing divisiveness — Trump really tweaks those liberals, so he’s my man!

    2. People act as if this was a necessarily bad thing. But in a representative republic wouldn’t it be considered at least neutral if not good? If they are thinking about reelection wouldn’t it arguably be that they are thinking about what the people want?

      1. Of course it’s not good. He’s an opportunist! Nothing like the genuine altruists Pelosi and Schumer who would never ever ever exploit tragedies to turn them in to photo ops to use as PR for their next election.

    3. Agreed, Trump should stop doing things that Americans like. Clearly he’s only doing it to get reelected.

  9. https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/06/18/this-leftist-tantrum-is-an-information-operation-and-trump-is-winning-it-n2570782?180
    Understand that the leftist establishment would like nothing better than for Trump to go kinetic. That’s why it is baiting him, and hoping that those of us who are sick of these Lil’ Red Guards will pressure him into dropping in the paratroopers to bust some heads and – oh please, oh please, oh please – get caught on video Kent Stating up a batch of fresh new martyrs. Trump’s too smart for that, and frankly the establishment is too dumb and undisciplined to carry it out. The media shot its wad on the hyperbolic reaction to clearing out the park in front of the White House, demonstrating that even the most gentle and restrained of kinetic actions was going to get transmogrified into Hitler’s blitz across the Low Countries. And those generals screwed-up too, bad. They should have waited to wring their hands over Trump’s violent and dangerous employment of the military until he actually violently and dangerously employed the military. A bunch of allegedly (but not actually) neutral and nonpartisan military figures with heaps of establishment street cred coming down on POTUS in the wake of a bloodbath could have had a devastating political effect, but they pulled the trigger too early. Mattis and Milley and the rest of the medal men we’re supposed to think are superb strategic operators, but who still haven’t won the war against a pack of turbaned banditos after about 20 years, screwed-up yet again. They were supposed to deliver an info op kill shot to define Trump to the masses as a bloody tyrant and instead got just one news cycle of play with the Twitter blue checks. The only casualty was not Trump’s rep, but their own credibility with anyone outside of the Beltway.

    1. So the military is part of the “deep state” now. Got it.

      1. No dumb ass, former generals are part of the military industrial complex. No one said the military as a whole is part of the deep state. Can you just not fucking read?

        1. Can you just not fucking read?

          That’s asking a lot from this bunch – – – – –

        2. Sorry, I forgot which conspiracy the military is supposed to belong to. There are just so many conspiratorial groups to keep up with.

          1. Conspiracy Against The Human Race?

          2. Yeah, like that universal white power institutional racist oppressor thing.

          3. Sorry, I forgot which conspiracy the military is supposed to belong to.

            So did you read a conspiracy rulebook somewhere that says that conspirators can’t be engaged in multiple conspiracies and/or that there can only be one conspiracy at any given time or are you illiterate *and* stupid?

            1. Jeff’s screaming dogwhistles and gaslighting at everyone, until it’s career bureaucrats who are caught plotting for Team (D), and then everyone who points it out are “conspiracy theorists”.

              He may be dishonest, but he’s predictable.

              1. Lol. One Trumpy makes up an outlandish conspiracy fable with 0 evidence. Other Trumpies are outraged that someone points out the lack of evidence. Rinse, repeat, add more deep state.

                1. Eisenhower was a Trumpy?

                  1. Eisenhower or the military-industrial complex were mentioned where in Ra’s rant?

                    Ra’s starts off rant about “the leftist establishment”, and in the same paragraph starts talking about generals criticizing Trump; chemjeff comments on the plain meaning of Ra’s text; John chimes in with some random defense of Ra that talks about the military-industrial complex, even though Ra never mentioned it; John throws in some personal insults about chemjeff not being able to read.

                    1. Eisenhower or the military-industrial complex were mentioned where in Ra’s rant?

                      Fair enough maybe I should’ve said:

                      I admit I have no idea to which conspiracy or conspiracies Ra’s rant is referring, if they’re ‘conspiracies’ of the unfounded type or conspiracies of the ‘overt actions taken by people known to be working together’ type, but I’m sure every one of them is just abstract some Trumpy creation. – De Oppressor Liber

                      He can’t rule out Eisenhower as an original source of any of Ra’s conspiracies but he’s sure all the conspiracies are of the imagined Trumpy variety.

                2. You haven’t checked on the news today, have you.
                  Don’t worry, you’ll find the right response in your talking points email tomorrow.

                  1. That was coy. What happened in the news today?

        3. He can read headlines. But that is about it he is also fully dishonest.

          1. Fuck off Jesse. Why don’t you peddle your non-sequiturs elsewhere.

            1. Awww. Baby Jeffrey is mad. It isnt like you have a history of posting links where the headline you post is semi related to your argument but the body of the article contradicts it.

              1. Jesse, I’ve seen you do that. Several times.

            2. You fuck off, Jeff, you dishonest sack of shit.
              Go fifty-cent your propaganda elsewhere.

            3. don’t you have some paint to huff?

        4. Well, actually, Ra’s posts was a wall of ranting text with no paragraph breaks, odd phrasing, etc. so it’s not that easy to read.

        5. Ra’s just clearly accused the former generals of being mouthpieces for the “leftist establishment”.

          There’s no other way to take your “can you just not fucking read?” other than an attempt to gaslight chemjeff.

          And, let’s not forget to note your gratuitous personal insults.

    2. Pretty much that. And these riots are only hurting Democratic cities and other Democrats.

    3. Mattis and Milley’s comments have completed my opinion of them. Milley should be relieved of duty.

      1. yes, but they’ve also got a bunch of servicemen asking what would they do if ordered to go into a city, and from I’m seeing, quite a few would want to refuse the order. Splintering the military right now isn’t a good thing.

  10. poor quality maple syrup

    It may be a lot of things, but maple it ain’t.

    1. God bless the American corn farmer!

      1. And the artificial flavor chemists!

        If not for them, the only flavors in 95% of American food would be sweet, salt, and greasy. (Hmm, that could be a good name for a musical trio.)

        1. Don’t forget the humble umami flavor!

    2. Ever tried Birch Syrup?

  11. poor quality maple-flavored corn syrup
    It wouldn’t be a loss if they stopped making it.

    1. Unfortunately, I know people who prefer Aunt Jemima to the real thing. I’m trying to help these poor souls but rehabilitation takes time.

      More seriously, I look at the images on these foods, and add land-o-lakes to the list. Is it now forbidden to put non-whites on food cartons? Is Quaker going to be demanded to remove the white Quaker from their packaging? We’ve gone from the demand for diversity and inclusion to the demand for removing minorities and exclusion by the “progressives”. WTF?

      1. We’ve gone from the demand for diversity and inclusion to the demand for removing minorities and exclusion by the “progressives”. WTF?

        What’s gonna be really fun is once all the logos and brand names featuring minorities are gone these same retards will be back shrieking about “MUH REPREZENTAYSHUN!” I see fun times ahead.

      2. The Irish are protesting the removal of the lucky charms leprechaun because it’s offensive…. Just kidding, the Irish don’t care because thy aren’t pussies

        1. Ronald McDonald is racist against clowns of Scottish descent.
          There… I said it.

  12. The Tennessee legislature has passed a bill reforming “drug-free school zone” laws that are little more than an excuse to impose harsher sentences.

    The children it protects today will be the citizens whose lives it destroys tomorrow.

    1. this is one of your best ever, Fist. Bravo.

  13. Does President Donald Trump even want a second term?

    Melania’s forcing him.

    1. Who likes moving?

      1. Nice.

  14. Dr. Fauci Admits That Public Health Experts Initially ‘Downplayed’ Face Masks Over Concerns About Supply
    https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1273356125707005952

    1. But now we have plenty of ineffective masks and you better wear them dammit!

      1. I keep looking for a mask stenciled “ineffective but required”

    2. I guess it is okay for scientists to lie to the American people when it is for our benefit?

      1. Well, yeah. The “experts” know what’s best for you, that’s why they’re your “betters.” Now shut up and eat your 4-5 servings a day of government subsidized wheat, citizen!

        1. What happened to cheese?

        2. I really wish alternative grains, like rye and barley, were more common in the supermarkets of America.

          1. Have you checked the liqueur and beer asile? There are alot of those grains there… And I love every one

  15. Starting with Steven Brault’s 441 ft. shot last August…

    But maybe no more juiced balls this season.

    1. Watching pitchers try to bat is the closest we come to professional special olympics

  16. A government audit accuses the Drug Enforcement Agency of having laundered tens of millions of dollars for drug traffickers over the past decade.

    Certainly they mean just over the past three years.

    1. Perhaps they mean per year.

      1. You missed the joke. Hint: TDS

  17. Left wing crazies are going to get people killed, with no accountability. Remember, pre-riots, when everyone thought the Floyd case was clear police misconduct and there was a glimmer of a consensus for actually doing something to rein in the PoPo?

    Gone.

    The Morning Briefing: Atlanta PD Seems to Suffer Outbreak of ‘Blue Flu’ After Charges Brought in Rayshard Brooks Case
    https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/06/18/the-morning-briefing-atlanta-pd-seems-to-suffer-outbreak-of-blue-flu-after-charges-brought-in-rayshard-brooks-case-n544165

    1. If the police in Atlanta are walking off the job because they are upset one of their coworkers was charged with a crime for killing a citizen in the back for running away from them, then good riddance. Those are the types of officers we don’t want anyway.

      1. The cop is being charged with Murder 1, after the suspect fought cops and grabbed a taser. The point is to overcharge to guarantee an acquittal to get more riots later.

        https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1273409711337947136
        After mass walkouts among members of the Atlanta police department, the mayor began requesting assistance from mutual aid jurisdictions. Officers from these jurisdictions are refusing to respond to any call other than one for an officer down.

        1. The cop is being charged with Murder 1, after the suspect fought cops and grabbed a taser. The point is to overcharge to guarantee an acquittal to get more riots later.

          Actually it sounds like the prosecutor is treating the cop like he would treat any citizen who did the same thing – throw as many charges against him as he can, and then get a plea deal so that the state never has to try to prove the harsher charges in court.

          And if Atlanta cops think that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is acceptable, then go ahead and walk off the job. Those are the cops we don’t want.

          1. Hillary Clinton would not let these super predators run wild in the streets.

          2. Good luck getting a plea deal with the kind of lawyers the union can bring in.

            1. Maybe, maybe not. But the claim that the prosecutor is throwing a bunch of charges against Rolfe because “he wants an acquittal and therefore more riots” is plainly absurd.

              1. Plainly absurd is where these guys live 24/7.

                1. Pot meet kettle???

              2. Plainly absurd is where all ideologues who hang out in an echo chamber of like minds always end up. In our case, the Trump fan club here.

          3. Sure. Maybe you want to shop for police services with Yelp reviews. Of course you might have to wait longer and pay more for 5 star services.

          4. And if Atlanta cops think that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is acceptable, then go ahead and walk off the job. Those are the cops we don’t want.

            Considering the same DA called a taser a “deadly weapon” in attempting to prosecute another cop case, he’s going to have a difficult time arguing that use of force wasn’t necessary when Brooks grabbed the taser and fired it.

          5. There is no citizen equivalent of the Atlanta situation. Unless you want citizens to start pulling other people they suspect of being drunk out of their cars and detaining them. It would seem like killing the guy was going to far, but if there’s a time when there’s at least a good debate to be had about justified force, it would be when a suspect grabs a weapon from an officer’s tool belt and attempts to use it on them. It is not completely unreasonable to think that guy was about to run in to traffic and steal a car to get away. You have no idea what someone who’s basically black out drunk is capable of.

            A premeditated murder charge is unquestionably going to blow up in the prosecutor’s face. It seems so obvious as to make you wonder if an acquittal and more protests really is the aim.

            1. There is zero chance that this is the typical “overcharge and bungle the case to guarantee acquittal” gambit we usually see. He thinks he’s got a winner. Probably because he thinks that it will raise his national profile. But maybe because he thinks the mob will burn his house down if he doesn’t. But wow, did he lie his ass off in that press conference.

              In addition to lying about never showing any signs of being a threat and lying about a taser not being a deadly weapon (he charged an Atlanta officer with assault with a deadly weapon for merely pointing a taser just 2 weeks ago, and explained that under Georgia law a taser is a deadly weapon at the time), and lying about kicking Brooks – a lie he was so passionate about that he prepared a still photo to pretend that he had evidence that this actually happened…. in addition to all of that:

              He lied about “I have never before heard of an officer agreeing to be a witness against a bad cop”. It turns out that this is a double lie. The other cop did not agree to be a state’s witness. And – here’s the whopper – the cop that he charged with murder… that exact same cop … testified for him against another officer in a previous case. The exact same DA and the exact same officer testified for him against a bad cop.

              And he came out in the press conference and lied about all of it. This is clearly intended to taint the jury pool. You don’t show a still photo of the officer’s foot near the prone Brooks and say “he kicked him” with any intent other than inflaming passions. It carries no relevant information – it was part of a video already released that clearly shows he did not kick him by any definition of the word “kick” intended in that press conference.

              You don’t charge a death penalty case when you have an absolute 100% loser in court because you want to plea bargain. This cop has zero chance of losing a fair trial on this one. Absolutely zero. So he’s trying to deny him a fair trial.

              Next step: defense petition for a change of venue.

        2. There is no murder 1 under Georgia law. Only murder and felony murder.

      2. It is amazing how dishonest baby jeffrey is please Jeff. Go up to your nearest officer, steal his taser, fire it at him, and see what happens.

        1. At the moment when Brooks was shot, he was *fleeing* from the officer. The officer was not in mortal danger at the time he shot Brooks.

          1. He was not fleeing when he turned around and pointed a taser at the officer. The taser is considered a deadly weapon, based on the Atlanta DAs own statements 2 weeks ago.

            If someone was fleeing a cop and shooting a different deadly weapon at them would you still be this dishonest?

            1. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/what-we-know-about-the-killing-of-rayshard-brooks.html

              What happens next was captured in a disturbing video recorded by a Wendy’s surveillance camera. Brooks can be seen running across the parking lot with Rolfe close behind. Without stopping running, Brooks half turns around and points the Taser toward Rolfe and fires it.

              Rolfe then drops his Taser and unholsters his handgun, firing three times at Brooks as he runs away. Brooks then falls to the ground.

              He half-turned around while fleeing to try to shoot Rolfe with a SPENT taser. He might as well have thrown the taser itself at Rolfe for all the good it would do.

              But the larger point here, is that the guy was running away. He was no longer a danger to anyone else. The problem for which the police was called – a drunk guy sleeping in the drive-thru lane – had been resolved. There was no need to use any deadly force at all. Just let the guy run away at that point. It would be a better outcome than killing him.

              1. He half-turned around while fleeing to try to shoot Rolfe with a SPENT taser.

                We don’t know the taser was spent. Some have one shot, some have two. Regardless, if you use what’s deemed a “deadly weapon,” on a cop, don’t be surprised if they shoot you. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

                And considering the cops spent 40 minutes trying to accomodate a drunk-ass moron on probation for five counts of theft, it’s going to be even harder trying to prove that they went after Brooks with malice.

                1. It also just came out the guy was on parole and would have lost his freedom for a dui violation. So guy had bug reason to run, it wasnt a normal dui stop due to the violations he was committing.

                  1. Not only was he on parole, but he was also a pretty violent offender, with such class acts as child abuse and assault of a family member. It’s quite possible that the cops would have been him ok getting an uber if he hadn’t been violating parole with that record.

                2. Regardless, if you use what’s deemed a “deadly weapon,” on a cop, don’t be surprised if they shoot you.

                  Oh I’m not surprised, in the current climate. The point here, is that Brooks fired his useless taser, it predictably did nothing, and continued to run away, not endangering Rolfe in the slightest. Rolfe’s life was not in jeopardy when he shot Brooks in the back as he was fleeing.

                  1. So, if somebody tries to shoot me but has the safety on, I’m not allowed to fire back?

              2. There was no need to use any deadly force at all. Just let the guy run away at that point.

                Yeah, and if he runs into traffic and gets hit by car, he either dies that way or ends up in the hospital, and the police department gets sued for not stopping him.

                Maybe try and think these things through before posting.

                1. Jeff never goes beyond a layer deep. He doesnt think of downhill consequences.

                  1. Not to mention, he’s irrational, he’s violent, he has a violent history, particularly against vulnerable people, and he’s potentially still armed. There’s a good argument that he could have gone and carjacked or assaulted some random civy, with the same consequences, the cops getting blamed for not stopping him.

                2. So killing Brooks was better than letting him run away and *maybe* suffer an accident elsewhere? Are you serious?

                  By that standard, Yanez was totally in his rights to shoot Philandro Castile. After all, if Yanez had done nothing, Castile could have suffered some accident with that gun in the future, right? Who knows?

                  1. So killing Brooks was better than letting him run away and *maybe* suffer an accident elsewhere? Are you serious?

                    By that standard, Yanez was totally in his rights to shoot Philandro Castile. After all, if Yanez had done nothing, Castile could have suffered some accident with that gun in the future, right? Who knows?

                    Christ, these strawmen you’re burning are so hot that military satellites are pulling up their heat signature.

                    1. You are the one arguing that the near-certainty of death for Brooks was a better alternative than the *possibility* of death *or injury* to Brooks should he run off, or the risk of a pesky lawsuit.

                      So, shoot fleeing suspects otherwise they might hurt themselves?
                      Shoot fleeing suspects otherwise they might bring a lawsuit against you?

                      These arguments are shameful.

                    2. Stop gaslighting.

              3. The tasers have 2 shots dummy. We have been through this already.

                Now answer the god damn question. Would you claim that a suspect was fleeing if he was shooting a different deadly weapon? Answer the question.

                Reminder. The DA just 2 weeks ago stated tasers were deadly weapons so we wont argue that point. The 2and barber was not yet deployed, the taser had 2 rounds. One round was left. The response to the officer happened within 3 seconds of the first shot from the taser.

                Does your opinion change if it was a different deadly weapon? Yes or no? Come on jeff, let’s try to have an honest convo.

                1. I don’t regard a taser to be a deadly weapon on par with something like a gun, so your entire premise is flawed. And furthermore police officers are supposed to have more restraint than your typical citizen. In my own mind I might feel justified for shooting someone who threw a rock at me, but a police officer should have better training and more presence of mind to refrain from using *deadly* force when his life is not in immediate jeopardy. And, at the moment when Rolfe shot Brooks, Rolfe’s life was not in jeopardy.

                  1. On par? That is goal post moving. So, if a person is using a handgun can the cops not use a long arm since they aren’t on par? Or if the assailant has a knife are the cops only supposed to use knives? God are you naturally this stupid or is it intentional?

                    1. No, chemtard is just gaslighting as usual. He actually argued that the cops should have let Brooks’ dumb drunk ass run off, despite the fact that they’d been engaging him already for 40 minutes and could have been held liable if he ran into traffic and hurt or killed himself that way.

                    2. Or worse, if this violent felon decided that, since he was in a drive-through anyway, why not carjack some other poor bastard just trying to get a Frosty and a Spicy Chicken sandwich? Not like Brooks was going to be able to get far on foot, and Brooks likely knew that.

                    3. Don’t take it from me, I’m not the one who came up with the idea of the Use of Force Continuum.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force#Use_of_force_continuum

                      A taser doesn’t belong in the same category as a handgun.

                      Furthermore, you completely ignored the rest of my point. Should a police officer use deadly force when his life is not in jeopardy?

                    4. Or worse, if this violent felon decided that, since he was in a drive-through anyway, why not carjack some other poor bastard just trying to get a Frosty and a Spicy Chicken sandwich? Not like Brooks was going to be able to get far on foot, and Brooks likely knew that.

                      So, kill the fleeing suspect, because otherwise he *might* do something bad in the future? Are you seriously advancing this line of argumentation?

                    5. A fleeing armed violent felon, who had just taken a shot at two officer with a deadly weapon, and was headed towards the street, where he was going to be near a bunch of unsuspecting people in cars? You don’t think the cops should’ve been concerned enough to stop that threat?

                      I’ve no doubt you actually are that fucking stupid, but the bitter irony here is if the cops had “just let him go” as you’ve advocated for in other posts on this, you’d be the first one to complain had Brooks harmed someone else in his flight. Not that you’d have heard about this instance then, as dog bites man stories aren’t national newsl

                    6. He actually argued that the cops should have let Brooks’ dumb drunk ass run off, despite the fact that they’d been engaging him already for 40 minutes and could have been held liable if he ran into traffic and hurt or killed himself that way.

                      If Rolfe had let Brooks flee, then Brooks very likely would be alive today. Rolfe might still be in trouble for other reasons, but he wouldn’t be charged with murder.

                      Which is the superior outcome here:
                      Rolfe alive and Brooks dead, or both Rolfe and Brooks alive?

                    7. You don’t think the cops should’ve been concerned enough to stop that threat?

                      With *non-lethal force*, yes.
                      But if the only other option is lethal force? Then yes, letting him go would have been the preferable option.

                      Actually, the best option IMO would have been not to arrest him, to just call the guy an Uber and send him home.

                  2. I don’t regard a taser to be a deadly weapon on par with something like a gun, so your entire premise is flawed.

                    Hey dumbfuck, it doesn’t matter what YOU consider to be a deadly weapon when the dumbshit DA himself argued two weeks ago that it was.

                    1. Do you want to have an argument with me, or with the DA? I gave you my opinion on the taser. If you want to know what the DA thinks about the taser, ask the DA.

                    2. You’re parroting everything the DA is saying, you gaslighting sack of shit.

                  3. I don’t consider a Derringer to be on par with a 30.06. So can I stick one in your face and pull the trigger?

                  4. “I don’t regard a taser to be a deadly weapon on par with something like a gun, so your entire premise is flawed.”

                    The DUDE BRINGING THE CHARGES disagrees.

                2. Do we know it was the two shot model? I haven’t seen many of those being carried yet. They’re pretty big.

              4. If it was spent, dumbfuck, how did the officer get hit by the shot?

                This isn’t even a good wrongful death civil case, nevermind a criminal one against the officers. It’s a purely political prosecution, without any indictments against either officer. Hell, GBI isn’t done investigating the case, and claims to be as surprised by the press conference as everyone else was. The DA is a subordinate-harassing, embezzling, sack of shit, who’s in a primary fight, and thinks he can keep his filthy face above the rising tide of shit, if he only stands on the backs of a couple more APD officers.

                I wouldn’t be surprised at all if part of his goal was to have more rioting. His group thinks continued riots are good for them politically. They’re hilariously wrong about that, but November is still some ways away.

                1. The officer hit was the one with Rolfe, who was the one—according to his lawyer’s statement earlier today, that denied any cooperation with the DA—who got his taser taken from him to begin with.

                  Good. I hope it hurt the idiot, and that he learns from that.

                2. “His group thinks continued riots are good for them politically.”

                  Not racist at all.

                  1. Democrats, you racist fuck. Though I’m not surprised you went there.

                    To hell with this idiot; the rest of you can have fun wrestling with a pig in the mud. I’m out. Though Jeff: I hope to hell you don’t tell people you’re a Libertarian. I get enough hassle from people who have the misunderstanding that Libertarianism is only for flighty, Ayn Rand-quoting fanatics, who have both feet planted firmly in the air. If you’re anything in person like you and your sock drawer come off as here, you’re a terrible representative of the philosophy. Which is a shame.

                    1. I would prefer that people view libertarians as Ayn Rand Objectivists instead of cop-sucking Republicans who smoke pot.

                      Libertarianism is fundamentally a respect for the human dignity of ALL PEOPLE. Even the felons.

                    2. Child rapists and their apologists don’t have human dignity.

                    3. You guys know that once you leav ethis comments sections, almost no “libertarians” sound like you guys, right? Every other online libertarian message board is vehemently anti trump, anti cop, anti ICE. This place is the lone weirdo.

                    4. True Scotsman argument DoL? I can guarantee no libertarian sounds like your authority worshipping ass, ever!!!!

      3. The DA is about to go into a runoff election, is under investigation for sexual harrassment, and for taking money from charities. I’m sure none of that figured into this.

      4. I know I’m supposedly the same person as chemjeff, but I don’t agree with him on this. I think the Atlanta police officer’s immediate firing was unfair, and that the whole scenario was not a clean cut situation.

        Still, I get where chemjeff is coming from. I’m not at the other extreme where I am a knee-jerk defender of all cops.

    2. The DA who charged the cop in the Brooks case claimed that Brooks was unarmed. 2 weeks ago he stated on video teasers were deadly weapons. This is move driven justice, not actual justice.

      1. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/da-paul-howard-expected-make-announcement-possible-charges-rayshard-brooks-shooting/EZ5T5RIXTRHO3O5LYBX6W3VN5U/

        “We have also concluded that Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks’ possession. It was fired twice, and once it’s fired twice, it presented no danger to him or to any other persons,” Howard said.

        Try reading something other than wingnut news.

        1. A drunk idiot running into traffic because he doesn’t want to go back to jail for getting a DUI while on probation doesn’t present a danger to anyone?

          1. Better shoot people who are running into traffic!

          2. Also, it should be considered whether it was a good idea to be firing bullets in a parking lot, near a drive-thru line.

            The Brooks family attorney claims that one of the bullets hit a car with children inside it. Don’t know if that’s true, but if the police’s purpose is to protect the public, engaging in gun fights in crowded places may not be a good idea.

        2. Please cite proof of this awareness. You’re using a statement from a political statement as tantamount proof.

          You are using the words of the prosecutor solely as proof of evidence. Show a quote from the officer or the defenseawywr saying they were aware.

          1. Beyond that… the second in the word “twice” was aimed at the officer’s face – missing high by a foot or two. The return fire happens within a second.

            For those of you who are superhuman and could evaluate all of those variables reliably in less than a quarter second… well, good for you.

            But that isn’t the legal standard.

            There’s zero chance the DA wins this based on the facts. They are 100% on the officer’s side.

      2. Furthermore, part of the charges against Rolfe was that, after he shot the guy, he stood around for 2 minutes before calling for medical help. His partner stood on Brooks’ shoulder while he was dying. That is not justifiable.

        1. Yes. we get it. You believe everything every prosecutor has ever said is proof positive.

          Do you even bother thinking through your arguments?

          1. Well OF COURSE Rolfe is going to say “I did everything I could to save his life”.

            Maybe he did wait for 2 minutes, maybe not. I can’t tell clearly from the videos. If he did, that would be wrong.

            1. Or he could be making sure the scene was safe, which is the first thing I was taught as an EMT and soldier. Secure the scene, insure safety and then begin treatment.

              1. You know that the scene being safe rule is for combat or hostile environment, not a wendy’s in America.

                1. Actually it is both. I have also taken civilian EMT training (in fact all Army medics are cross trained as civilian EMT’s and have to take civilian EMT training, and they always emphasize making sure the site is safe to). You don’t know what they fuck you are talking about once again.

            2. Besides 2 minutes really isn’t that long a period. Brain death doesn’t start to occur until after 5 minutes without oxygen. It is called the golden hour not the golden minute. Hell, even in advanced first aid treatment it is the first ten minutes not the first two minutes that are critical. Standing for a minuteband collecting your thoughts is actually something that is taught. Better to delay care a minute or two and act rationally then to act immediately but wrongly. You always take a minute or two to size up the situation.

            3. I can’t tell clearly from the videos. If he did, that would be wrong.

              So shut the fuck up, then, instead of taking the DA’s word as gospel and citing it in other arguments.

            4. Also if they were chasing the guy and had just shot him, their adrenaline was way high. From a medical standpoint it is better for them to collect themselves before starting treatment. Starting treatment while winded and amped up on adrenaline (I’m sure you’ll say something stupid about that) is a good way to cause more harm. This is why we are taught as a medical personal to take a step back, size up the situation and collect ourselves before starting treatment.

        2. 2 minutes is what you’re hanging your hat on? That’s amazingly fast treatment after an OIS.

          (Assuming the officer bothers trying to treat the shot suspect at all. See, e.g., the unlawful shooting by an NYPD officer of a man inside a Housing Authority stairwell. The officer there called his union rep before summoning medical assistance, and AFAIK, did not provide medical assistance to the victim.)

          Returning to Atlanta, after the shots were fired, there’s a bunch of things that have to occur before medical assistance would be provided. Determining if the scene is secure. Determining if the deadly threat the officer was shooting at has been stopped. Seeing if anyone else is hurt. Securing evidence, like witnesses, weapons, contraband. Summoning assistance like EMS, more officers, a supervisor. I know I’m forgetting additional things I’ve been told they need to do.

          1. Huh. So “the officer didn’t give treatment for 2 minutes” is simultaneously (a) a lie from the DA, and (b) even if true, no big deal. Glad to see you all have your bases covered covering up for what the police did.

          2. In the case of Jose Guerrena, they unjustly shot a man in his own home and then withheld the paramedics and ambulance for 2 hours as his wife was on the phone with 911 inside begging for help.

            We have seen what “failure to render aid” looks like. This ain’t it.

            If you watch the extended version of the body cam, you see the officer rendering aid and being extremely sympathetic to Brooks, saying things like “hang in there, man”.

            Depraved indifference looks like the Kelly Thomas case, where officers stepped back and forth over his bleeding and broken body in the gutter, directing EMT’s to treat and photograph their scraped elbows before attending to the dying Thomas.

            1. Oh I agree that this is not the worst example of police indifference.

              The most frustrating part about all this is that there is absolutely no reason any of this had to escalate to the point where it did. Instead of trying to arrest him, the cops could have just sent Brooks home in a cab. The problem for which the police were called (guy sleeping in the drive thru lane) would have been resolved, no scuffling, no tasers being stolen, no deadly force would have been used at all. Everyone would be alive.

              1. Which is a ludicrous level of Monday morning quarterbacking. I’ll be generous and call it wishful thinking…

                But if I showed you the video of the entire interaction right up until 1 frame before he begins resisting, there is absolutely zero chance that you would have said “better not arrest this guy! There’s a chance he might end up dead!!”

                There’s no chance you would even say “This guy might end up resisting arrest”

                I’ve written pages, even tomes on this site critical of policing tactics and advocating for de-escalation techniques. These guys followed all of that. Absent the knowledge that this guy was recently released from prison and was on probation, his actions were positively mystifying. Given that knowledge, one can see how a drunk guy might make the dumb choice he made.

                But proclaiming that the police must be clairvoyant? That’s a stretch.

                These guys don’t determine the standard for a DUI case. That is set at the political level, way above them.

                1. I’m not saying that the cops shouldn’t have arrested Brooks because they would have feared he might resist. I’m saying that the cops shouldn’t have arrested Brooks because it wasn’t at all necessary to solve the problem for which the police were called – i.e., a guy sleeping in the Wendy’s drive thru. At the point that he pulled out of the drive thru lane and into a parking spot, the problem was resolved. The only remaining problem was how Brooks was going to get home. Call him a cab, there you go. No need to arrest anyone for anything.

                  1. Except the cops couldn’t do that without breaking the law themselves. So you are saying they should ignore the law and make it up as they go along… Okay solid argument there.

                  2. Which is a policy question. Not a policing issue. Not a “let’s charge this guy with capital murder” issue, which is the case here. He was unequivocally DUI. That cannot be in dispute.

                    With your “solve this particular outcome” solution, you would have to alter Georgia state DUI laws and APD policy. I am not certain, but I don’t believe “I’m going to let you off with a warning” is officially in their discretion any more on DUI, thanks to decades of lobbying by MADD.

                    So as a going forward solution – don’t arrest people for DUI as a blanket policy – can you think of other consequences that might result from that?

                    As a solution to “Got shot during a traffic stop”, I’d propose removing a gun from that routine patrol, only calling in armed officers when necessary. That more directly addresses the problem without introducing the many problems that “just let the guy go” introduces.

                    (that said, If i’m ever in such a scenario, I’d vote for the “just let me go” solution)

                  3. I’m saying that the cops shouldn’t have arrested Brooks because it wasn’t at all necessary to solve the problem for which the police were called – i.e., a guy sleeping in the Wendy’s drive thru. At the point that he pulled out of the drive thru lane and into a parking spot, the problem was resolved.

                    Hey dumbfuck, I realize you’re just throwing shit against the wall at this point to see what sticks, but there’s years of historical precedent that says you can still be charged for DUI even if you’re pulled over in a parking lot and the engine isn’t even running.

                    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

                2. This is an edge case. This is one of those use of force cases where the cop should not have shot, but the situation was chaotic and hectic enough that it feels unfair to take apart this officer’s actions to hold against him legally.

                  The suspect was fleeing, and yes, he was effectively unarmed when he was shot (although he was armed with a live taser cartridge a moment before).

                  All in all, I don’t want this officer to go to prison for murder 1. I also don’t want “shoot fleeing suspect in the back” to be anywhere within an officer’s course of action consideration in future cases like this. (Shooting an armed, deadly threat suspect while fleeing is permissible.) So, what to do? Make an example of this guy, or wait for better doctrine to filter through the force?

                  1. Because it is so libertarian to throw the book and make an example of someone? Libertarians for human sacrifice to the gods of progressivism. If he was half turned to fire the taser, yes the shots entered the back but he wasn’t exactly running away, either.

    3. Seriously just shut down the fucking police.

      What if officers had never even come to the scene to investigate the guy? Oh no! a drunk guy sleeping in drive thru.

      yes, it’s annoying. yes he shouldnt’ have been drinking. But what really would be the end result of no cops showing up to this scene?

      Maybe an employee would have woke him up and asked him to move the car. Maybe he would have slept it off. Nothing of any consequence would have happened.

      You don’t need fucking armed cops in every life situation. It’s ridiculous.

      1. The employees tried to wake him idiot. The probable end result is he kills someone driving home

        1. you’re speculating. sleeping it off is not dangerous or a threat to anyone. it’s just not worth brin ing armed men trained for hairtrigger violence to the situation. I understand you love cops so much you have to lash out and call people idiots when they dare to suggest they aren’t needed at every possible inconvenient situation in life, but try to be civil. You’ll find it works better.

  18. “We recognize Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype,” Kristin Kroepfl, chief marketing officer of Quaker Foods North America, said in a statement Wednesday. “While work has been done over the years to update the brand in a manner intended to be appropriate and respectful, we realize those changes are not enough.”

    I remember that update. Quaker replaced the “mammy” image with a modern Black “aunt”. If *only* they had also changed the name to, say, “Aisha’s”.

    1. Do Quakers really dress like that?

      1. Good point. Ban *that* shit, too!

    2. Change the name of the company too. Quakers defrauded the Lenni Lenape tribe of their land, and while many were coming early to the abolitionist side, still owned slaves in the 1700s and were kicking out the more radical abolitionists as late as 1850.

      1. Yup, and then they need take a good hard look at the Democratic party’s history.

  19. https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/17/environmentalist-benji-backer-canceled-climate-change-coronavirus-china-racist/

    Environmentalist canceled for even implying the Corona Virus came from China. That is racist to tell the truth like that.

    1. It will never happen, but I’d love to see a published list of who is getting how much CCP under the table $$$.

      1. The list would be long and distinguished.

        1. I see you shortened your name

    2. it’s been eye opening the see the breathe and scope of chinese influence on our media and social commentary.

      1. The best thing that has happened in the last couple of yeas was Bruce Lee getting beat up in once upon a time in Hollywood and China loosing their minds over it

    3. As is to be expected from Daily Caller, the headline is a lie.

      He was not ‘canceled’ because he claimed the virus came to China.

      He was ‘canceled’ because he said this:

      “COVID has taught us that the world is far more interconnected that we originally thought…we can’t always put ourselves first at the expense of others.

      It’s also made us realize that we are far too dependent on—and gracious to—China.”

      Go ahead and question the wisdom of ‘canceling’ someone based on that comment, but it wasn’t because he said the virus came from China.

      1. that should be:
        he claimed the virus came FROM China.

      2. He should take our President as a role model and criticize China for their human rights abuses, like their concentration camps.

        1. You mean like when trump signed the bill yesterday condemning Chinas practices?

          1. He probably didn’t even know that was in the bill. It’s not like he is gonna put out a statement condemning the concentration camps. That would be something.

            1. Argument by bald assertions. Even more stunning analysis.

              Go back to your socks.

            2. Wow, you just can’t stop lying, huh.

  20. “But let’s not turn Bolton into some sort of straight-shooting hero.”

    Actually, that’s exactly what we should do. #TheResistance should welcome anyone who’s useful in our struggle against Orange Hitler. If we’re on the same side as Bill Kristol — who wrote an entire book promoting the Iraq War — there’s no problem being on the same side as Bolton.

    #LibertariansForEmbracingNeocons
    #(AtLeastTheyreProImmigration)

    1. Bolton may not have gotten his wish to send thousands of American goyim to Iran so we can defend Israel but I’ve read that his book deal was worth about $2 million so there is a small consolation prize.

    2. Bolton is an evil warmonger. That does not mean we can’t enjoy his “revelations.” But please, don’t buy the book.

      1. “It’s therefore an awful shock (for Bolton) when Trump decided to call off the strikes at the very last minute, after learning they would kill as many as 150 people.”

        How’d you “enjoy” that one, Chipper?

  21. See also Robert Byrd and J Edgar Hoover

    A Racist’s Name Is on a Senate Office Building. Here’s Why BLM Won’t Want to Change It
    https://pjmedia.com/culture/victoria-taft/2020/06/17/a-racists-name-is-on-a-senate-office-building-heres-why-blm-wont-want-to-change-it-n543358

    But there’s a perfectly understandable reason why the far-left activists in the professional protester class won’t want to rename the building for Revels.

    You guessed it. He was a Republican, as were the first post-Reconstruction black congressional representatives.

  22. Canceled: Joe Biden Once Called Confederate Heritage Group ‘An Organization Made Up of Many Fine People’
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/06/17/canceled-joe-biden-once-called-confederate-heritage-group-an-organization-made-n2570794

    A recently resurfaced video clip shows Joe Biden calling members of a Confederate heritage group “fine people” in 1993 — nearly mirroring President Trump’s 2017 remarks that some protesters opposing the removal of Confederate statues in Charlottesville, Va., were “very fine people.”

    […]

    …speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on July 22, 1993, during the confirmation process for Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Biden himself offered something of a positive endorsement for the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), which has been linked to the Ku Klux Klan.

    “I, too, heard that speech and, for the public listening to this, the senator made a very moving and eloquent speech,” Biden said, referring to remarks by then-Alabama Democratic Sen. Howell Thomas Heflin. “As a son of the Confederacy, acknowledging that it was time to change and yield to a position that Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun raised on the Senate floor, not granting a federal charter to an organization made up of many fine people who continue to display the Confederate flag as a symbol.”

    1. One suspects one can find a Biden quote of just about anything.

      1. Obama made it a point not to stay at any one position long enough to have a track record to use against him.

      2. I have the Cards Against Humanity Biden expansion pack.

      3. Considering he’s been in politics for 40 something years you’re probably right.

    2. What’s hilarious about the Democrat purity-spiraling the last ten years or so is stuff like this which shows Trump isn’t all that different from what they were as late as the mid-1990s, before the Clintons sold out to China.

  23. PepsiCo, the Quaker Oats Company, and Mars Food can put whatever labels they want on their packaging, and you don’t have a right to buy a box of five-minute rice or poor quality maple syrup with a black person’s image on the front.

    (I *think* you mean “you do have a right”.) I had this conversation with Mrs. Rich yesterday. She pointed out that “society” is moving to your “you don’t have a right” because someone may be offended by the label/image.

    1. Boehm and company only ever seem to think of libertarianism in the political sphere, and never why it should be encouraged as a philosophy in business and personal practices.

  24. A government audit accuses the Drug Enforcement Agency of having laundered tens of millions of dollars for drug traffickers over the past decade.

    Oh, FFS! And that’s just the *government* audit!

  25. Push a 14 year old to suicide, which is inevitable if this continues, in the name of ‘compassion’.

    https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1273332314534219781
    Teen Vogue celebrates a celebrity doxxing teenagers without verifying their supposed offenses — this is increasingly what people think of when they hear “progressive,” which should worry us

    1. Apparently she just wades through social media all day looking for white people using the n word in some form. She only seems to find kids acting like kids and then doxxes them. She doesn’t care about the context or the intentions of these kids. They’re white and typed the word that is forbidden to them, which is the definition of racism these days.

      1. Apparently she just wades through social media all day looking for white people using the n word in some form.

        She sounds like a very happy and well adjusted individual.

        1. and a lot of fun at parties i bet!

      2. If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace, nigger.

  26. https://twitter.com/adamcarolla/status/1272982765106081795
    Lady Antebellum changed their name to Lady A. I find “Lady” to be problematic. It’s binary. It should be “They A”.

    1. Ah. I was wondering what the new name would be. Given the Quaker Foods kerfuffle, I figured it would not be “Lady Auntybellum”.

      Anyway, the ball is now in Lady Gaga’s court.

    2. Using the English alphabet is problematic. They should be “ᐊ”.

    3. Lady doesn’t matter anymore; no difference at all according to the supremes.

  27. No, Socialism isn’t Communism, you hater:

    “To Halt Climate Change, We Need an Ecological Leninism”
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/06/andreas-malm-coronavirus-covid-climate-change

    The obvious choice when looking for a tradition that has a concept of using state power in a situation of chronic emergency is the anti-Stalinist Leninist tradition. Built into this tradition is also an insight into the dangers and contradictions of state power that arises from the lessons of the Bolshevik Revolution. The whole strategic direction of Lenin after 1914 was to turn World War I into a fatal blow against capitalism. This is precisely the same strategic orientation we must embrace today — and this is what I mean by ecological Leninism. We must find a way of turning the environmental crisis into a crisis for fossil capital itself.

    1. Let’s do that. Doesn’t sound the least bit dangerous.

    2. It’s Jacobin, so it’s not a surprise that they’re pushing this. But it is reflective of the intellectual framework influencing modern Democrats.

      1. Those idiots never realize that after they’re done with the Vendeans and Kulaks, the Committee will turn on them.

        In Revolutionary France 16,594 Revolutionaries were executed by their own Committee of Public Safety..

        Out of six members of the original Politburo of the 1917 October Revolution who lived until the Great Purge, only Stalin wasn’t executed by the others.

        The only thing that calms me about the impending terror the clerisy are bringing in, is that the last drops of blood they shed will be their own.

  28. John Bolton Is Still Mad That Donald Trump Wouldn’t Let Him Bomb Iran

    I have it on good authority that his iPod is filled with hours and hours of John McCain singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of The Beach Boys song Barbara Ann.

    1. Well thanks. Now I have that song in my head.

  29. “I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my White House tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations,” Bolton writes.

    I strongly suspect you could say the same thing about any president during their first term.

    1. And Obama during the second term – – – – – – – –

  30. SCOTUS blocks Dotard cancellation of DACA.

    Peanut wingnut lamentations to ensue.

    Which one of the fake conservative justices betrayed you?

    1. Roberts of course. Mr Penaltax strikes again.

    2. I’m not shocked you support a court who can now overturn decisions on a standard of arbitrary and capricious in violation of separation of powers.

      The court has now made it that future presidents cant override current executive orders unless the courts agree with their reasoning. It is a standard most sane people wouldnt support.

      1. Trump needs to put out some truly batshit executive orders as he leaves office in 2024. Just to fuck with the next guy.

    3. “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts said. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”

      So basically… every rule change has to consider any hardship they impose on a citizen.. a standard I’m sure will be upheld in future decisions not regarding favored political entities.

      1. If people rely on, arrange their affairs around, a rule an agency has adopted and then the agency decides to change it, they sure better take such hardships into account! Like say they required wheelchair elevators, and you spent a lot to install them, and then later they decided elevators were too dangerous and mandated ramps.

    4. And Thomas once again destroys the logic of Roberts.

      “The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope,” Thomas said. “The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.”

      1. Does that square with the vehicle passive restraint litigation in the 1980s?

    5. Thomas reminds Roberts that the original DACA rule did not go through rule making asking why the mixed standards on the dissent.

      Today the majority makes the mystifying determination that this rescission of DACA was unlawful. In reaching that conclusion, the majority acts as though it is engaging in the routine application of standard principles of administrative law. On the contrary, this is anything but a standard administrative law case.

      DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.

      1. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.

        I don’t think he goes far enough or states it clearly enough. Effectively, an agency that countermands an unlawful action must jump through the proper hoops to end such action, otherwise the court is compelled to allow/reinstate such action.

        The decision would’ve nullified the Emancipation Proclamation until the 13th A passed.

        1. More than that… Roberts writes that the reasons they gave were not strong enough and they didn’t evaluate the effect on people who were counting on the law not being enforced.

          I wonder where a Roberts court would come down on a case brought by a homeowner who began a renovation project only to have the city make permitting demands that were not present at the project’s inception? Because that is an “every single day in america” situation, and the courts uniformly say “tough titty”. So you can be stuck with thousands or even hundreds of thousands in extra expenses at the whim of a single bureaucrat.

          1. Do you have to wonder? Looks like he’s inviting just such a case, and about time, too.

      2. Thomas breaks through the sophistry.

    6. The courts comply with the Democrat’s strategy to try to run out the clock on having this policy that was illegally implemented in the first place, rescinded. This further disgraces SCOTUS as a fair umpire.

    7. If Buttplug was able to actually understand what he was reading, he would have realized the court just gave Trump the ability to rule by decree.

  31. The only reason John Bolton was in the Trump administration was because he was one of only a few establishment Republicans who would have anything to do with President Trump during his campaign in 2016. It obviously had nothing to do with them sharing any kind of ideology. The same thing happened in other positions in the Trump administration. Jeff Sessions wasn’t made Attorney General because President Trump shared Sessions’ views on recreational marijuana. Larry Kudlow is a fanatical free trader–President Trump brought him into his administration, too, but it had nothing to do with Trump sharing Kudlow’s views on trade. Trump just needed someone he could trust not to sell him out to the people who were trying to impeach him, and Kudlow was one of the few establishment Republicans who stood by Trump during his campaign in 2016.

    The only difference with Bolton was that Bolton, as a neocon, is a strong believer in not only using force to spread American democracy as an end in itself but also telling the American people whatever “noble lie” they need to hear in order to gain their support for wars of liberation. I’m not exaggerating on that last point by calling it an essential part of neocon ideology. Analyzing noble lies and their importance to leadership was a central part of Leo Strauss’ work. The reason a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11 a good six months after we invaded Iraq is a function of that, and John Bolton was right in the middle of fooling the American people.

    That’s the main reason why a Republican controlled Senate refused to confirm Bolton as UN ambassador–largely because of his abuse towards intelligence analysts that refused to come to the conclusions he wanted in their reports about WMD programs. Bolton is also known to have blocked access to critical information about WMD programs to Colin Powell, which is why Colin Powell refused to endorse him for UN ambassador. The reason Colin Powell went in front of the world and sold us that garbage about Saddam Hussein’s Al Qaeda ties and Iraq’s mobile WMD labs was almost certainly a function of the work of John Bolton.

    No one should ever believe anything just because John Bolton said it.

    1. So Trump’s ability to hire people who are competent and will “go with the program” are lacking. That seemed pretty obvious with the folks he fired and hired on “The Apprentice.” While we knew Apprentice was just entertainment, Trump apparently thought that was how the presidency should be conducted. Biden, of course, will do whatever he is told to do.

      1. Biden will be the epitome of a figurehead President–he’ll basically just read whatever speech BLM and Goldman Sachs put in front of him at that particular moment.

        1. The real president will likely be whoever he picks as his VP since he’ll be far to brain-dead by then. If he can even get through the swearing in ceremony without drooling and soiling himself it’ll be a minor miracle.

      2. Um . . . no. The issue is that the Republican party itself was rife with Never Trumpers.

        When you go down the list of establishment Republicans who backed Trump during his campaign, almost all of them are Republicans who had no political future to throw away by associating themselves with Trump.

        John Bolton had no political future in the Republican party.
        Rudy Giuliani had no political future in the Republican party.
        Chris Christie had no political future in the Republican party.
        Larry Kudlow had no political future in the Republican party.
        Sarah Palin had no political future in the Republican party.
        John Bolton had no political future in the Republican party.

        Associating yourself with President Trump was considered political suicide during Trump’s campaign of 2016, and the only people who were willing to commit political suicide were the people who had no political future to destroy.

        The exception was Jeff Sessions, who was a Senator.

        Before President Trump was even inaugurated, the impeachment drums were already beating, with John McCain giving the FBI the Piss-Gate Memo being just the start of it. Under those circumstances, President Trump wanted people around him he could trust not to throw him under the bus if and when he was impeached, and the people who stood by him during his campaign–when no one else in the Republican party would–were pretty much the only candidates available.

        . . . meanwhile, even two of them threw him under the bus–with Sessions failing to protect him from an impeachment probe and now Bolton doing this–because Trump is such an anti-neocon pragmatist. For goodness’ sake, Trump’s own FBI was out to get him. What do you expect a president to do under those circumstances, hire a bunch of Never-Trumpers as advisors and cabinet members who are out to get him?

        1. You act like Bolton and Sessions are odd cases when they are the norm. Nearly every person who has left the Trump admin has commented on what a steaming pile of garbage the Trump executive is. Whether it’s illegal or just imbecilic, no one seems impressed with the organization or Trump himself.

  32. Maduro has officially used his powers to seat loyalists at the head of the opposition parties…

    https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/06/17/venezuelas-supreme-court-hands-control-two-opposition-parties-pro-maduro-figures/

  33. Whether or not one has the right to buy a brand with a black person on it is not the damned point Boehm. The Aunt Jemima branding is the legacy of one of the first black millionaires and, as you reference Uncle Ben’s was the personal brand of successful black restaurateur. It erasing the history of black entrepreneurship due the ignorance and prejudices of the allegedly “woke” people in the current year. It is cultural vandalism.

    1. The entire progressive/BLM narrative is a psyop aimed at black people.
      Munchausen by proxy

  34. My current fantasy is replacing uncle ben with something very similar to Colonel Saunders.

    1. Racist capitalization.

    2. They’ll probably go with Uncle Joe. They mob likes him.

    3. How about just Uncle Tom?

    4. just line up the bait and switch clusterfuck. Offer Colonel Sanders and when they turn that down because of the obvious reasons come back with Jean-Bédel Bokassa or Mugabe, then when they turn that down for obvious reasons, throw up your hands and say, “Fuck it, let’s just stick with Uncle Ben”.

  35. John Bolton is the epitome of the “Chicken Hawk”. A man who chose not go to war himself, but would be happy to start one others would fight. A man who will write a book on President Trump, but would give testimony about the President. If your looking for some one to back you up, Bolton is not the guy. If your looking for a guy to help set national policy, Bolton is not the guy. If you looking for a Fox News contributor, Bolton is your man. He is out for now, but I will bet he is back on Fox after Biden is elected.

    1. Dickless Cheney and Dumbya were damn good examples of chickenhawks too.

      1. Rehashing early 2000s antiwar talking points really is not helpful at this time, Mr. Buttplug. Remember — Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War. Are you going to obsess about that?

        1. You;re correct. I forgot that was on a Bratfart Jr comment section.

          The Iraq War was totally Biden and Hil-Dog’s fault. They made Dick and George do it. Just like the current $4 trillion deficit is Nancy Pelosi’s fault. She forced The Con Man into signing his Trump Welfare Plan of 2020.

          1. The relevant point in 2020 is not to compare Biden to Bush. It’s to compare Biden to Drumpf. And Biden is more responsible for the Iraq invasion than Drumpf is. Therefore focusing on that war is counterproductive to #TheResistance.

            Plus we don’t want to alienate our new allies like David Frum, Max Boot, and Bill Kristol.

            1. Can we find out what happened to the guy drafted in Trump’s place? Did he make it?

              And while Trump was no politician back then, he did (hesitantly) support the Iraq invasion. https://youtu.be/IIQPGGn164k?t=15

              Nearly everyone in politics did. Not excusing it, and definitely not defending Joe from his well deserved criticism.

              1. Can we find out what happened to the guy drafted in Trump’s place? Did he make it?

                Why? Will you feel better if he made it out with a million dollar wound but Bubba died in his arms?

                What fiction will make you OK with Vietnam *and* Trump?

                1. Can we find out what happened to the guy drafted in Trump’s place? Did he make it?

                  What fiction will make you OK with Vietnam *and* Trump?

                  I’m seriously having trouble coming up with any answer to the ‘What happened to the other guy?’ question that doesn’t make you one of the most despicable pieces of human trash ever to walk the Earth. Maybe if you’re the guy or the son of the guy who got drafted in his place, but even then it’s pretty underhandedly self-aggrandizing and unnecessarily so.

    2. A man who will write a book on President Trump, but would give testimony about the President.

      Maybe if the congressional Dems had offered to pay him $2 million dollars he would have testified?

  36. While the terms “Aunt” and “Uncle” have unsavory historical connotations—during the Jim Crow era, southern whites would use those terms to refer to older black women and men as a way to avoid addressing them as “Mrs.” or “Mr.”

    Never heard that before. You’d think growing up in east Texas I would have known that, but then again, some of the biggest racists I’ve ever met were from Northern states. I always just figured the only thing that was racist about Aunt Jamima was the stereotypical “black sounding” name and Uncle Ben’s was always just a box of rice with a picture of some black dude on it. Never gave it a second thought, but whatever.

    If companies want to change their names and get rid of their logos in order to pander to the woke Twitter brigade that’s their business. I’ll just be over here with a bag of popcorn when in a few months those same woketards start bitching and moaning about the lack of representation once there’s no longer any logos featuring black people or any other racial minority for fear of running afoul of the Twitter mob.

    1. You’d think growing up in east Texas I would have known that, but then again, some of the biggest racists I’ve ever met were from Northern states.

      It’s not an accident that the most militant black activists tended to originate in northern states, while the ones in the south tended to be more accomodationist, incremental, and pacifist in their activism.

      I suspect a great deal of that rage stems from a perception that people in the North should have been more tolerant because they fought a war that freed the slaves, and being disillusioned by finding out that, while Northerners may have despised slavery, that didn’t mean they actually liked black people.

      White liberals have always supported diversity at a distance.

    2. Same thing with Uncle Remus. I had a bunch of the stories in a few books that I read as a kid. I watched the movie and loved it. Race relations and all that never once entered my mind. It’s a damned shame Disney memory holed it.

      1. You can still get it, for now, outside the US. I got a copy. Suck it Disney.

        1. Oh no Bre’r Bear! Don’t throw me into that biar patch!

      2. Still sold everywhere outside of North America.

    3. Never heard that before.

      Because it’s bullshit all the way around. Abject, one-sided historical revisionism.

      The ‘one-drop’ white supremacists hated them so much that rather than refer to them by a connotationless title, they would use one that implied blood relation? The same ‘one-drop’ white supremacists that, for the next 100 yrs. and even today aren’t legally forbidden from referring to them as ‘nigger’ or ‘shorty’ or ‘youngster’, or ‘Junior’, or ‘slick’, or ‘lickspittle’, or ‘bag boy’, or ‘servant’, or by name? Fucking garbage.

      We do it today the way they did it then. It’s the title that infers and extends kinship beyond blood relation. None of us are related to Uncle Sam, who’s white and predates Uncle Remus and Aunt Jemima but fuck if you can’t perpetuate a racial stereotype under the color of Uncle Sam’s name.

      1. Black people calling each other ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ through the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s was just the white oppressors preventing them from addressing each other with the proper titles. It wasn’t until MLK Jr. and Malcolm X died in the 80s that black performance artists, notably rappers, were free to refer to each other as ‘sir’ and black women were finally able to supplant derrogatory terms like ‘sister’ with more entrepreneurial and diverse terms like ‘hoes’ and ‘bitches’.

    4. Because it is complete and utter bullshit. Aunt and Uncle are terms of endearment, not insults. If you want to avoid calling someone !r or Mars, you just use their first name, or a nickname, like “Chicken George”, which is what was done.

      1. Q: Why do they call him Fat Albert?
        A: Systemic racism, duh.

  37. “We recognize Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype,” Kristin Kroepfl, chief marketing officer of Quaker Foods North America, said in a statement Wednesday.

    Debatable, but they’re also based on a real person with an interesting story:

    “Nancy Green (November 17, 1834 – August 30, 1923[1][2]) was a storyteller, cook, activist, and the first of several African-American models hired to promote a corporate trademark as “Aunt Jemima.”

    Green was born into slavery on November 17, 1834, near Mount Sterling in Montgomery County, Kentucky.[4] She was hired in 1890[5] by the R.T. Davis Milling Company in St. Joseph, Missouri, to represent “Aunt Jemima”, an advertising character named after a song from a minstrel show.[3] Davis Milling had recently acquired the formula to a ready-mixed, self-rising pancake flour from St. Joseph Gazette editor Chris L. Rutt and Charles Underwood and were looking to employ an African-American woman as a Mammy archetype to promote their new product.[6] In 1893, Green was introduced as Aunt Jemima at the World’s Columbian Exposition held in Chicago, where it was her job to operate a pancake-cooking display. Her amicable personality and talent as a cook for the Walker family, whose children grew up to become Chicago Circuit Judge Charles M. Walker and Dr. Samuel Walker,[7] helped establish a successful showing of the product, for which she received a medal and certificate from the Expo officials.[3] After the Expo, Green was offered a lifetime contract to adopt the Aunt Jemima moniker and promote the pancake mix. This marked the beginning of a major promotional push by the company that included thousands of personal appearances and Aunt Jemima merchandising. Nancy Green maintained her job with Davis Milling (which was renamed “Aunt Jemima Mills Company” in 1914)[8] until her death in 1923; she was still working as Aunt Jemima at the time.

    Green was one of the organizers of the Olivet Baptist Church.[9] Her career allowed Green the financial freedom to become an activist and engage in antipoverty programs.[10] She was one of the first African-American missionary workers. She used her stature as a spokesperson to become a leading advocate against poverty and in favor of equal rights for individuals in Chicago.”

    Seems like instead of canceling Aunt Jemima, keeping the name and putting a historical blurb about Nancy Green on the products would have been a better educational choice.

    1. no you can’t do that because it shows a succesfull Black woman can make it in America when we know no black people were ever able to accomplish anything in this country due to its racis.

    2. Seems like instead of canceling Aunt Jemima, keeping the name and putting a historical blurb about Nancy Green on the products would have been a better educational choice.

      Or if they still insist on changing the name maybe change it to “Nancy Green’s” maple syrup/ pancake mix/ whatever and put the historical blurb on the packaging.

  38. https://twitter.com/ThorDeplorable/status/1273461894481879041
    Democrats screwed up the order of operation. They were supposed to get our guns before getting rid of police.

    A real faux pas on their part. That’s gonna cost them.

  39. The Supreme Court knocking down President Trump’s rescinding of DACA appears to be procedural.

    There’s a law saying that in order to rescind President Obama’s executive order, the president needs to explain his reasons for doing so–and they’re saying that President Trump failed to do that adequately.

    That’s a long way from saying that DACA is constitutional itself or that President Trump can’t rescind DACA. It’s just saying that he needs to explain his reasoning.

    If there’s a great reason to rescind DACA, it’s probably its role in exacerbating the migrant crises we’ve seen in recent years at the border. More than 80% of the migrants that flowed to the U.S. border from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in recent years have been either families traveling with children or children travelling alone. When Obama initiated DACA, there were about 1,500 asylum claims per year–and few of them were children.

    The fact that Barack Obama, with DACA, told the world that he wouldn’t deport you so long as you were a child simply must be part of the reason by millions of children and families with children started flooding to the United States border. By rescinding DACA, President Trump was put an end to a whole lot of that misery. Who would argue that the United States was equipped to deal with an influx of more than a million asylum seeking children and their family members a year?

    1. We just have the absurdity of the court protecting a policy because the revocation did not follow the proper procedure, when the original policy was not constitutionally implemented in the first place. This is banana republic nonsense here.

      1. They seem to have avoided making a decision based on the merits of DACA or its revocation.

        I wouldn’t expect President Trump to try again until after he’s reelected, but if he gives a better explanation, there’s no reason why he can’t try again.

        1. There’s more depth of thought to making minimal decisions than the Supreme Court simply wanting to avoid making decisions:

          https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43706.html

    2. The fact that Barack Obama, with DACA, told the world that he wouldn’t deport you so long as you were a child simply must be part of the reason by millions of children and families with children started flooding to the United States border. By rescinding DACA, President Trump was put an end to a whole lot of that misery.

      No, he just made sure that the misery stayed “over there”, instead of being “here”.

      1. “No, he just made sure that the misery stayed “over there”, instead of being “here”.

        Maybe you consider children being piled into overcrowded jail cells better for them.

        Misery being outside or within the borders of the United States may not make any difference to you either way, but as the President of the United States, plenty of other people think that keeping misery outside our borders is both a good thing and the President’s job.

        1. Children are better off in overcrowded jail cells than being raped or dead.

          plenty of other people think that keeping misery outside our borders is both a good thing and the President’s job.

          So, no to all refugees anywhere? Isn’t that the definition of “misery”?

          Keeping suffering people outside does not reduce or end the suffering, it just makes it less visible. You know how people around here complain that Chinese companies pay their people shit wages, and we as consumers of Chinese products benefit from that exploitation, and it’s not right and therefore Trump’s tariffs are justified? Well, it’s kind of like that, but with more fundamental human rights.

          1. Not only do I care more about myself and my money than I do about people in other countries, I also care more about myself than I do about you.

            1. With all seriousness, that is honest of you to say that.

              Now, why do you think letting immigrants enter the country is costing you money?

      2. “He just made sure that the misery stayed “over there”

        And to think that just the other day you were beside yourself because Trump called them “Shitholes”, and now here you are, implying.

    3. its pretty easy under any condition to claim someone failed to adequately explain. that can be used for almost any argument a person is not in favor of. so it remains a political choice and not a legal choice

      1. They just looked for a way to avoid making a ruling on the merits of DACA itself.

        They could have ruled it unconstitutional on the merits of DACA itself–saying that those kids have a right to be in the USA despite not being citizens.

        They didn’t do that.

    4. The best reasoning is simply that DACA was illegally implemented. Fuck trying to explain the rest, go with “its illegal”.

  40. Professional baseball is dead. It is all beer league rules now because the players union wants another starting spot.

    The designated hitter delenda est.

    1. haec!

  41. let’s be clear about one thing: PepsiCo, the Quaker Oats Company, and Mars Food can put whatever labels they want on their packaging, and you don’t have a right to buy a box of five-minute rice or poor quality maple syrup with a black person’s image on the front.

    This ‘too be sure’ shit misses the point by a country mile. If a violent mob of plant activists makes Apple remove its corporate symbol, of course Apple has a right to remove that symbol. The discussion is about how small, violent mobs are causing the culture to bend to its will using tactics of intimidation and fear.

    1. Did they used to argue against the heckler’s veto around here?

      In related news, the football season will start in a few months, and the Redskins could use all the fans they can get.

    2. Nobody cares about corporate symbols or statues. The end game is Jefferson, Washington, et al, as an interim step toward the real goal, which is getting rid of the Constitution as yet another monument to racist white slaveholding males.

      Replace it with rule by “the people”, aka the mob. Everything else is theater.

      1. Good to see that you’re against the dangerous impulses of populism.

        1. Voting for someone who opposes globalism to some degree = rule by howling mobs. Got it.

        2. You really don’t understand the meaning of the words you find on your Media Matters talking points sheet, do you.

          1. chemjeff’s posts are pretty much solidly in the libertarian zone.

    3. Well, here is the problem though.

      What is the libertarian argument against the Civil Rights Act? “That the state should not dictate with whom an individual may or may not associate.” Okay, fair enough. So then the question naturally arises, if the Civil Rights Act had not passed, how would desegregation have occurred in the South? And again, the libertarian answer is, “by voluntary means”. So, more Freedom Riders, more antiracist demonstrators staging protests, calling for boycotts, and campaigning to end discrimination. If social media had been around in the 1960’s, what would those voluntary campaigns have looked like? I submit that the answer is, A lot like what it is looking like today. In other words, what we are seeing now, with outside groups pressuring corporations to change their logos, etc., is precisely an implementation of the libertarian method for enacting social change. So while I am not keen on some of their goals, i.e., wanting to get rid of “Uncle Ben” even though the actual Uncle Ben was a successful Chicago businessman and not just some stereotype, I have a hard time faulting the methods, because those methods are precisely the voluntaryist methods that libertarians would normally endorse for pursuing social change.

      1. “What is the libertarian argument against the Civil Rights Act?”
        There’s this thing called “freedom of association”.

        It’s a lot like freedom of speech.

        Because I don’t think it should be illegal for people to say stupid and hurtful things doesn’t mean I support saying stupid and hurtful things.

        If you think the Church of Scientology is a force for evil in the world, that doesn’t mean you’re also required to violate their freedom of religion, their freedom of speech, or their freedom of assocation.

        Because some people use hurtful and stupid criteria when they decide with whom to associate doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be free to decide with whom to associate.

        That you need these things explained to you is amazing.

        1. Why it’s almost as if you stopped reading at my first few sentences and didn’t bother reading the rest of my argument.

          1. Yeah, there’s almost no correlation between what you wrote and Ken’s reply. He kinda went off on a rant about the Civil Rights Act, when you were talking about what would have happened in an alternative libertarian timeline with no Civil Rights Act.

      2. If you believe that people losing their jobs for saying they don’t want to wear a Black LIves Matter tee-shirt, or people having their careers eviscerated because a twitter mob of millennial twinks came after them– or reporter who conducted an interview, then hacked it to pieces and turned it into a lying hit piece are just the broken eggs of the libertarian freedom omelette, then I’m not sure I want to be a libertarian any more.

        Or maybe I do want to be a libertarian, but I’m one of those libertarian creeps who believes in honor, calling out lies, and maintains a shred of morality in the wake of simply “winning a political point”.

        Sure, if your goal is simply “to win” (and this point has been discussed by the subject of the interview below) then sure, these are the tactics we employ. If your goal is to inform, discuss and learn, then we’re fucked sideways.

        1. Okay, so what ought to be the libertarian way to enact social change? If a libertarian who strongly believes in the Black Lives Matter cause uses purely voluntary means to convince an employer to fire employees who don’t wear BLM t-shirts, what libertarian principle has this person violated *with his methods*?

          I don’t agree with employers firing employees for refusing to support specific causes, but I acknowledge their right to do so if the employer chooses.

          I think the uncomfortable truth is that the methods being used by the so-called SJW’s to create social change are the same voluntaryist methods that libertarians would normally approve of in other circumstances.

          1. to create social change are the same voluntaryist methods that libertarians would normally approve of in other circumstances.

            Again, I think we’re suffering from massive context collapse.

            As a libertarian, I’ve been talking about police reform for *looks at calendar* fifteen years? But now I’m listening to speeches from the city-sanctioned protest zone (a zone in which the city has explicitly told business and property owners within that zone that their rights will no longer be protected) that if I’m not on board with the revolution that’s occurring within that zone, that I will be executed.

            By the way, this isn’t the first time a ‘revolutionary protest group’ goes off the rails and alienates people who might nominally support them. I remember a documentary about the 60 protest era– where as the 60s became the 70s, more radical groups started taking hold of the counter-culture movement, and some of what we might call ‘peace and love hippies’ found themselves in rooms where there were serious debates about whether or not killing all newborn white babies might be good policy. We’ve jumped right into the middle of that discussion. It used to be about eliminating race as a consideration of your character, now it’s demanded we consider it. And in fact, we’re told if we don’t consider it, we’re racist.

            I don’t want to be part of this ‘voluntary social movement’, but if you’re good with it, god speed to you.

  42. A. EVERY thing EVERY politician does is to get re-elected.

    B. The number of coronavirus cases is dependent entirely on testing. It tells nothing useful about infection rates or death rates unless testing is considered in all its biases.

    1. “A. EVERY thing EVERY politician does is to get re-elected.”

      This is a point of legitimate contention.

      This used to be true of honest liberals, and it may still be true of a lot of liberals, but, no, the purpose of political power in progressive ideology is not to do things to get reelected. The purpose of political power in progressive ideology is to use the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good (as they see it).

      For instance, the purpose of political power is to force people to make sacrifices to combat global warming. When Trump does things because they’re popular or goes against other things because they’re unpopular, he really is committing a sin against progressive ideology. Another purpose of political power in progressive ideology is to force whites to sacrificed their privileges in order to make things better for African-Americans–and if doing that is unpopular with voters, that’s even more of a reason to do it.

      This extends to China, as well. There is no better barometer of whether the American public supports trade with China despite their human rights abuses than the willingness of the American consumer to buy things manufactured in China despite their human rights record, Progressives have been strangely more or less silent on their criticism of President Trump’s trade war with China for that reason–they believe that using the coercive power of government to force American consumers to sacrifice their standard of living in order to hurt China is a legitimate exercise of progressive political power.

      And if Trump is actually catering to the interest of voters–rather than using his power to force American consumers to make sacrifices–then they are legitimately criticizing Trump from their perspective.

      The purpose of the media is to get progressives reelected.

      Everything progressive politicians do is to force us to make sacrifices for the benefit of others–and if making that sacrifice is widely unpopular, that just makes it all the more imperative for the government to force them to make those sacrifices.

  43. re: coronavirus

    Highest number of confirmed cases yet per-capita deaths are flat or continuing downward everywhere except in Florida. That suggests something other than increased infection is happening. I’d like to see if that report shows the same trend after correcting for the changing rates of testing.

    1. By the way, I’d also like to know why Florida’s per-capita death rate is going up again. Their changes to the lock-down rule don’t appear materially different from states where deaths continue to fall. Nor were their protests extravagantly different from other jurisdictions. Weather? Population demographics? Statistically insignificant variances in the data?

      1. sharks!

        1. Particularly the ones with lasers.

          1. “Every creature deserves a hot meal.”

      2. Population demographics?

        That would be my guess – more old people in FL – but it’s only a guess.

    2. What we are witnessing is a miracle. First, the riots cured the Coronavirus (temporarily), then they figured out a way to live in harmony and bliss with no more police around.

    3. Maybe it’s this, Rossami: the weather in the South absolutely sucks in the summertime. People who would normally be outside in the Winter, Fall, or Spring, are now huddling around an air conditioner outlet. Increased indoor proximity equals more spread. More spread equals more cases.

      I don’t know if that dynamic is true for other respiratory bugs in Florida in the summer though.

  44. and that’s the case Bolton attempts to make in a tell-all book of his time as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, In The Room Where It Happened.

    I hear Christine Blasey Ford helped him with the title.

  45. he did not know Finland was not a part of Russia.

    Putin told him it was going to be, and he was just thinking ahead. You know, on those secret communiques they had with each other when the Russians stole the election.

    1. he forgot who won Red Storm Rising

  46. >> the lie that led America to invade Iraq

    deep state alpha test

  47. also, pitchers should bat in both leagues.

      1. making gay joke or suggesting catchers can’t hit?

        1. Most of them can’t. Guys like Bench, Fisk, Piazza aside.

          1. half a stereotype but you’re half correct. i was at a September game in I guess ’92 @Wrigley and Piazza had recently been called up and hit a couple of bombs across Waveland

  48. In other news about Trump, he only wanted the economy to do well so that he could win re-election!

    1. I may be developing a case of TDS, but I blame Trump for that.

      1. I gave the guy a chance when he was first elected, even though I had a poor opinion of him from what I’d read about the Vera Coking incident (right here in Reason, decades ago), his Obama birth certificate pandering, and his petty attacks on minor libertarian celebrities, Penn & Teller. I think the Trump University story had come out before he was elected, too, although I’m not sure about that — it might have been after he was elected.

        But then he kept reinforcing, over and over and over again, that he’s a cretinous asshole who is furthering the downward spiral of partisan divisiveness that is ruining this country. And when I speak out against this, I get accused of “TDS”.

        Sorry, but Orange Man is bad.

        1. your take is valid. the only thing I wonder is, being a cretinous asshole is one thing but what about the executive orders, bills signed, and foreign policies? those are the actual things that affect reality not tweets.

          you may ALSO despise all those but then I respect your opinion more.

          1. There’s probably some executive orders, bills signed, and foreign policies where I’d give him credit.

            Of the two executive orders that are fresh in my mind, one is awful (social media), and one does some good (nudging police toward better behavior). The police problem isn’t really one that can be solved by executive order, so to be fair Trump can’t do too much except work with Congress to pass legislation (which, as far as I know, he isn’t doing).

            All the foreign policy fresh in my mind are awful. Goading China and tariffs, abandoning the Kurds to Turkey with no warning, locking illegal immigrants up like cattle.

            Do you have a specific example of a good one? I might agree with some of them.

            1. Strangely enough I’m like you in that I didn’t care for him much, had no favorite over him vs. hillary. but now i’m MORE inclined to like him (despite his tweets which obviously are embarassing and divisive and yes, cretinous).

              So my specific examples of what I like about Trump that pleasantly surprised me:
              1. GORSUCH! (best thing Trump has done by a large margin)
              2. First step act
              3. troop withdrawals
              4. initiating process to leave Afghanistan
              5. tax cuts
              6. Total silence on the typical Christian Republican issues like abortion and gay marriage. If anything he’s the most pro-gay president of all time
              7. He gave some lip service on gun control after the vegas shooting but no real action whatoever other than the bump stock ban which was clearly a sop.
              8. Executive order requiring the retirement of two regulations for every new one passed (yes this is symbolic more than anything but i like it)
              9. Pardoning Alice Marie Johnson (and a couple others I believe) for silly drug crimes. No president has ever taken a stronger move against the drug war than Trump. Crazy I know.
              10. Witheld retaliation for iranians shooting down a drone, AT THE LAST MINUTE, when military advisors admitted it would kill about 150 people.

              That’s just off the top of my head. Now, doesn’t mean i like everything he’s done (tariffs, overspending, various executive orders, etc) but i’m pleased with several things and expected MUCH worse.

              1. That’s a pretty good list. Might have time to comment later, but real quick on #6 it wasn’t that long ago he made a big point of being the first President to attend an anti-abortion rally.

                1. That’s a pretty good list. Might have time to comment later, but real quick on #6 it wasn’t that long ago he made a big point of being the first President to attend an anti-abortion rally.
                  And…nothing happened afterwards. So moot.

                  IW forgot Devos btw. And the recent tweaking of Merkel’s nose. Also: GORSUCH! should occupy the top 3 spots on the list.

                  Another missing item from IW’s list: he kept a contemptuous, thoroughly corrupt, and murderous (remember “We came, we saw, he died”?) hag from becoming the most powerful person on the planet. (At least for four years.) An accomplishment likely impossible for any other 2016 “Republican” presidential candidate.

                  1. I’m sorry, as soon as you start celebrating how he tweaked someone’s nose or talking about how awful Team Blue is, you’ve strayed from any serious discussion of Trump’s accomplishments.

                    I don’t want to hear about how Trump is great because he pisses off Democrats. That’s not an accomplishment. That’s further deterioration of American society.

        2. that he’s a cretinous asshole who is furthering the downward spiral of partisan divisiveness that is ruining this country

          Also, honestly you have to have TDS to think it’s his fault and not the left’s. The entire media establishment is in the tank for the opposition and apoplectic with outrage over every little tweet, every move, every word. I’m not a giant fan either of his cretinous asshole demeanor but come on, he’s not the one fomenting insane partisan divide.

          1. Both the left and right are fomenting an insane partisan divide. And there are big media companies on both sides — the right has Fox, Rush Limbaugh and other AM talk radio, Sean Hannity.

            I mean, hell, Trump pinned a medal on Limbaugh right in the middle of the State of the Union address — how is that not fanning the flames of partisan divide.

            1. It’s the left who are reacting crazy to what he does. Giving Limbaugh a medal so what? it’s the partisan reaction to it that is overwrought. Same for everything he does.

              1. Giving Limbaugh was tacky as hell, and divisive. So, not, “So what?”

  49. A president making political decisions with thoughts on reelection? Oh no!

    1. I remember when the US press spent 18 months in total obsession over strong-arming Israel into compromising their security and integrity for the sole purpose of Bill Clinton achieving a LEGACY.

      So, being flexible with dictators after an election is OK, forcing poison pills on our allies for a Legacy is OK, but doing what the people want is not

      1. You do realize that Reason criticized Bill Clinton at the time, don’t you?

        1. No, but what does that have to do with what I said? I wasn’t criticizing Reason

          1. My bad then. Brian was, but you weren’t. Got it.

  50. So, you’re saying that Bolton wrote a book for his own personal gain?

    If he had an office, I would say we should impeach him.

  51. Holy shit, he got his book title from a line in Hamilton? At this point, his book is just a transparent attempt to get TDS-addled liberals and NeverTrumpers to give him money. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump wasn’t actually working with him: “Hey John, I’ll have my DoJ sue to stop publication of your book after it’s already gone out to booksellers. That’ll probably double your numbers!”

    And we’re supposed to be upset because Trump wanted China to buy American farm products, which would help Trump get votes in farm states? So it’s an impeachable offense now for Presidents to take any action that might convince voters to reelect them?

  52. So it’s an impeachable offense now for Presidents to take any action that might convince voters to reelect them?

    Yeah, there’s a good faith argument with no straw men thrown in.

  53. Cue all the liberals fawning over John Bolton now…
    we live in bizarroworld

  54. “Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben could be going the way of Sambo’s—and that’s just fine…”

    Yep. All spokespersons must now be white, or gender free animated characters.

    1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week.HBo i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.

      This is what do,…….► Home Profit System

  55. When Trump leaves, the FBI that lied to obtain surveillance visas and went after a former general on a cockamamie Logan Act charges will still be there. But a coup is ok, because Orange man bad.

    Meanwhile Jacobins are toppling statues, stifling expression, ramping up cancel culture and on their way to guilt the ruling class into massive spending programs, and Reason says nothing. People are losing their jobs over Halloween costumes and OAN shirts. China and BLM either killed or destroyed more non white lives than Trump ever could have. Oh but Trump.

    Is Reason still funded by Koch industry? Yeah, they might be cancelled, deplatformed or lose ads within a year. And when Trump says “Those BLM SOBs should leave Koch alone, he’s a great American” Reason can gnash their teeth and accuse Trump of being a white supremacist. It’s like clockwork.

    Trump was more friendly to libertarian causes than Bush or Obama were for 16 years. People were happy and content in an economic rebound and minority unemployment rate was achieving impressive new highs. Reason joined in on the hyperventilating on partisan issues like migrant separation and anything related to immigration, when 99% of the world already has restrictive / merit based immigration system.

    I always thought certain agenda were blind spots for well meaning libertarians, and now it’s revealed as dogma, a singular and all consuming obsessions. I see now that in some instances of activism, they’re no better than Breitbart. Explain to me how massive immigration makes sense in an increasingly contactless economy where brick and mortral will continue to decline. Explain to me why when I search “David Dorn” here I can’t find one article about him.

  56. That’s cool about Bolton I just wish he would have spoken up when they were impeaching Trump. At least he got some of the tid bits out there of Trump’s treason with China, Ukraine, and Turkey in time for people’s consideration before November.

    1. oh yeah, almost forgot Russia

    2. Just to let you know, Tulpa is spoofing your handle by substituting capital letter I everywhere you have a lower case l. They look the same in the font Reason uses.

      Best hit to use either lower case l or upper case I in your handle.

  57. Bolton wants to war with every country in the world until the USA has complete world domination. How anyone ever put this guy in a position of power is beyond me. Hopefully after this no one will ever give him another opportunity. As far as his “I think” book, I think the guy is totally worthless.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.