Most Americans Think Government Is Corrupt, a Third Say Armed Revolution 'May Be Necessary' Soon
Plus: Hawley's illiberal nationalism, Santa Monica's housing obstructionism, and more...

Another sign of growing discontent in America? A new poll from the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics finds a majority of Americans think the government is corrupt and stacked against them.
To probably no one's surprise, 73 percent of poll respondents who identify as "strong Republican" respondents agreed with the statement that the government is "corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me." But Republicans are far from alone in this sentiment. Fifty-one percent of "very liberal" voters agreed with the same statement.
Overall, 56 percent of survey respondents said that the government is corrupt. This included 66 percent of all Republican respondents, 63 percent of independents, and 46 percent of Democrats.
The survey of 1,000 registered voters found that a significant number of people expect that extreme measures may be necessary to protect against government overreach. 28 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that "it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government." Thirty-six percent of Republicans, 35 percent of independents, and 20 percent of Democrats agreed.
While some have portrayed this as a sign of increasing polarization or extremism, I think it's the kind of poll question that makes for dramatic results but doesn't really tell us much. Agreeing that armed revolution "may" (or may not!) be necessary at some unspecified point in the future doesn't mean you think it's terribly likely to be necessary.
One interesting finding is that people across the board believed that their political opponents might agree with them if they were better informed. Asked about "people who you disagree with on political issues," half said that "the root of the problem" is that these people "are misinformed because of where they get their information." Fifty-one percent of Republicans, 52 percent of Democrats, and 37 percent of independents believed this.
And despite being a poll about political polarization, the survey actually found a number of areas of agreement.
Asked if "immigration is good for the country," only 34 percent of Republicans agreed, while 57 percent of independents and 73 percent of Democrats did. But asked if "legal immigration is good for the country," these numbers were boosted to 70 percent, 72 percent, and 82 percent, respectively.
Most respondents, regardless of political affiliation, were also in agreement that "it should be illegal for private companies such as Verizon, Google and Facebook to collect information about people's phone and internet usage."
The poll was conducted at the end of May. You can find the full results here.
FREE MINDS
Josh Hawley's illiberal nationalism. Aaron Ross Powell dissects the authoritarian worldview of Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.). Hawley rejects "the principles of individual freedom and autonomy that are at the core of the American experiment," Powell writes. "And it's not because he's a shallow reality TV host or a politician. He's thought deeply about liberty—and he doesn't like it," writes Powell. "Since entering the Senate, Hawley's political project has been to harness Trumpism's infatuation with an imagined 'real America' into the service of a more intellectual and effective authoritarian movement."
FREE MARKETS
Santa Monica might make building new affordable housing in the city impossible:
Santa Monica, ever the innovator, is breaking new ground in the field of blocking new homes by appropriating the language of social justice. This proposed initiative would require developers to pay up to 2.7 times the prevailing wage, which is of course completely infeasible. pic.twitter.com/tRfGaXvNQT
— Shane Phillips (@ShaneDPhillips) July 23, 2022
QUICK HITS
• An off-duty corrections officer killed a New York teenager holding a water gun.
• Some states with legal abortion are already being flooded with patients from states where abortion is illegal, reports The New York Times. "Of all the states, New Mexico has been most affected by interstate abortion travel in making appointments, according to a nationwide survey of clinics by a research team led by Caitlin Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury College."
• A new "post-fascist" party in Italy is gaining steam.
• Happy World IVF Day!
It's #WorldIVFDay! 44 years ago Louise Brown was born, the first 'test tube baby'. I celebrated by taking my injection-fuelled bump for an early-morning dip. Raise a glass to modern medicine making women's dreams come true - here's to human beings meddling with nature! pic.twitter.com/WHqQO0KB9Y
— Ella Whelan (@Ella_M_Whelan) July 25, 2022
• You can't stop pirate libraries.
• More on the Kansas ballot battle over abortion.
• Reason's Stephanie Slade explains the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, "a running list of books deemed heretical, blasphemous, or otherwise morally dangerous by the Roman Catholic Church."
• Inside the Middle East's metal counterculture.
• "A destructive wildfire near Yosemite National Park burned out of control through tinder-dry forest on Sunday and had grown into one of California's biggest blazes of the year, forcing thousands of residents to flee remote mountain communities," CBS reports.
• Before the late 20th century, "journals focused on quickly disseminating letters and communications between scientists, with little to no editing or external reviewing," writes Saloni Dattani in a Works in Progress piece on the promise and problems of peer review.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
...a majority of Americans think the government is corrupt and stacked against them.
Insurrectionist thinking.
Adults in charge.
Corruption is rampant.
The best tool that we have developed to limit corruption, free speech on the internet, has been turned into a tool of censorship.
As we have moved from print to digital corruption has gotten worse.
Recognize that social media platforms are the new town squares and guarantee our inalienable right to free speech.
Weren’t you the one who wants to put people in jail for lying?
Just the Jews.
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
.
Reading this article:>>>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Don't expect consistency from the mentally ill.
Quit calling them mentally ill or stupid - they are all regular humans that are sepfish. Any one of us would likely do the same - it’s a huge human fault.
Saying they are incompetent but you know who isn’t is part of the problem.
He hates Jews and wants to exterminate them, but is a Holocaust denier.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (bdu-11) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> https://smartpays11.pages.dev/
Lying is coercion fuckwit and should be criminalized. Like it already is in court and contracts.
I support gun ownership and use but not criminal use you two dimensional clowns.
You're free to disbelieve a liar. Like we do with you.
Is your point that you can’t refute what you deny or prove what you claim so you believe your delusions?
WATCH OUT FOR THAT JEW!
"Abschaum Judensau!!!"
When you take the holocaust lie out of the picture, Jews and Nazis are very similar. In fact history shows that Jews have behaved worse for a much longer time.
Both part of satanic secret societies, Jews claim ownership of the Freemasons, Nazis the Thule society.
Nazis considered themselves the master race, Jews the chosen people.
In fact Nazism was the result of the behaviour of Jews.
In WW1 Jews betrayed Germany by bringing the US into WW1 in exchange for the Balfour declaration, Britain’s illegitimate promise of Palestine.
This recognition and the German peoples suffering under the treaty of Versailles and the Weimar Republic changed their perception of Jews and they effectively democratically elected the Nazi party.
Then Jews globally declared war and promised to bring a world war to Germany and they succeeded with global boycotts giving Germany only two alternatives, abdicate democracy or war. They chose the latter.
Then after millions of more deaths, Jews stole Palestine beginning the last 76 years of the Middle East conflict, wars terrorism more death and destruction.
Israel is an apartheid state.
The holocaust is a lie. What’s a Jew without the bullshit Nazi narrative?
Only what you can’t refute, above.
Misek- gtfo here dude. Go to night school or something.
You can beg and whine better than that.
I like to feed the trolls what they can’t refute and laugh when you choke.
Everyone sing along!
https://youtu.be/xIGjUf4fppA
So Free Expression Equals Censorship. How perfectly Orwellian of you.
Ask me: "How many fingers, Winston?" and I'll give you two middle ones!
Fuck Off, Nazi!
Canceling, banning, deplatforming and erasing the sitting president of the United States and everyone else identifying election irregularities is censorship, not free expression, fuckwit.
How absolutely obtuse of you.
The bad news: 75% of those people think stronger government will fix it.
Seriously, many polls show just that, a fact that always amazes--and disappoints--me. I guess it's democracy gooder and harder, all the way down.
I ran into some quote from Tocqueville observing that the more individualistic folks were, the more they tended to demand more centralized government to support them.
In this context, "individualistic" was closer to how some folks use isolated or atomized today. The overall thought was that that increased spheres of overlapping institutions (moose lodge, your church, your shooting club) is the most effective defense against centralization. These institutions were rampant in the US when Tocqueville was writing and in the last hundred years or so have been consistently broken down. It's a huge problem and I often wonder what we can do to begin rebuilding these types of connections.
100%. That particular thought by Toqueville is hard to unwrap but once you see his thoughts re civil association it becomes Aha!
More people should read him as the counter to either Bowling Alone or abdicating responsibility to technocrats or atomistic veto by all hermits.
There oughta be a law against people wanting more government.
Or a law against government wanting more power. I read about something like that in an ancient fairy tale.
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. ggh. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
.
Reading this article:>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
The U.S. Constitution of course ( For those so blinded by [WE] mob government theology they'll read that and not even know what's being talked about ).
Indeed. More government makes everything better.(sarc alert)
Idiots in temper tantrum.
Yeah governments corrupt. So the solution is some revolution followed by exactly the same reform that would eliminate corruption.
What could possibly go wrong?
well, it is true. Every time "govt" passes a law to "help" Americans it only enriches the well-connected and does little to address the problem it was ostensibly created for. Student loans, mortgage interest deduction, even parts of the CRA. It all becomes grifter govt..that is how all these mostly democrats in and out of govt and the NGO/Think Tank world become millionaires...govt passing laws creating artificial demand for something that their friends, and tribe provide to enrich themselves. Screw the Fed, Wall Street, and the complexes (education, military, welfare)...its time to shut it all down...all federal agencies created after 1930..period.
What's funny is most Americans think the government is corrupt but as soon as a crisis happens like 9/11 or covid suddenly the corrupt government is gospel.
Fifty-one percent of "very liberal" voters agreed with the same statement.
Joe's handlers are too capitalistic.
The left will come around on corruption, just as soon as the midterms are past; The only thing stopping them from admitting it is that their own guys are running the government at the moment.
Pretty sure we're just a couple months away from the Smaller Government Agency being created
Or maybe Department of Less Government
Whichever one will get the bigger budget and employ more bureaucrats
Dude.... why not "both*???
Shit!
You're right.
We're getting both.
Don't forget that they each get their own law enforcement agency.
Oops, meant that reply to A Thinking Mind above
They already cured corruption, using that favorite tool of leftists (and politicians) new definitions. In case you missed it, if a Republican says or does something, that thing is corrupt. If a Democrat says or does something, that thing is legal and ethical. Don't get confused by trying to use objective logic, and point out that the same exact thing will be judged differently. Deal with it.
...people across the board believed that their political opponents might agree with them if they were better informed.
If only MSNBC, CNN and Fox would stop towing the government lion.
That reads like fingers on a chalkboard sound.
This assumes that most people are reasonable. I doubt this is the case. I also think we have a major issue with the left being completely insulated in their propaganda whereas the right generally is exposed to both sides and thus better informed. I know what the NYT and WaPo are saying because it is shoved in my face and repeated by all sorts of media outlets. Occasionally I'll click through on FOX links posted by friends on FB. I get most of my right-wing news from Daily Wire. While Reason itself is typically garbage when it comes to direct reporting or honest commentary, the comments here expose a very broad spectrum of news and stories that are off the radar of most media
Mises institute and spiked for a libritarian take
fee.org usually has some good reading, as well, but it's not really a news site.
Brownstone Institute depending on how open you are to reading angry Jeffrey Tucker.
I also think we have a major issue with the left being completely insulated in their propaganda whereas the right generally is exposed to both sides and thus better informed.
n=1...
What does research say?
That you should quit socking, Shrike.
That he is correct, and conservatives understand their opponent's positions much better than liberals.
Here's an article about it backed by by an actual study. And the source is hardly anything anyone could call right wing. It's the drawback to your side having a corporate media echo chamber. A conservative is going to be exposed to progressive arguments. He can't help but. They're ubiquitous in the media ecosystem. A progressive, on the other hand, can go through life blissfully unaware that there is any conservative argument beyond a troglodyte "Derp!".
...people across the board believed that their political opponents might be more agreeable if their opponents were better informed.
...or...
...people across the board believed that their political opponents might be more agreeable if they themselves were better informed.
...or...
...people across the board believed that their political opponents might be more agreeable with they/them if they/them were better informed.
People could be better informed as to the proper use of they/them pronouns.
Xer’s don’t believe any of that bullshit.
They may not believe it, but they're sure as hell enabling it, because they're too terrified of losing their jobs to push back against the Millennials or Zoomers who ARE ultra-woke. They just don't have the numbers to drive the cultural train, and have long been among the biggest socio-political bandwagon-hoppers in recent US history.
Transphobe!
"Why are you trying to slur homosexuals as pedophiles?" - Jeff
Any homosexuals against child grooming are on team red. - also jeff.
44 years ago Louise Brown was born, the first ‘test tube baby’.
Only because abortions where hard to get.
Ackshuyally, Roe v. Wade was decided 5 years before Louise Brown was born and the Abortion Act was passed in the United Kingdom in 1967. So plenty of opportunity for abortion during that time period. Yet here she is.
Humorous Pop-Up Video Factoid: Cardinal Albino Luciani a.k.a. Poe John Paul I, was actually concerned that In-Vitro Fertilization would turn women into "baby factories.". Uh, no Big Papa, that's not how that works. Self-awareness isn't a strong suit here. 🙂
Correction: Pope John Paul I, not Poe. Quoth The Encogitationer evermore. 🙂
Ah. We will just ignore all the legal and ethical issues with surrogate mothers and the dubious practices of medical practitioners doing IVF.
Obviously there are legal issues in surrogacy, but I don't see ethical issues.
And you'll have to explain "the dubious practices of medical practitioners doing IVF", since the practices are pretty standard and I can't imagine who else would be better equipped to perform IVF.
They discard unused blastocysts. That makes them baby murderers in the eyes of the fundamentalists.
Ackshully, implanting multiple embryos and then "selectively reducing" them is more baby-murdery.
That's not standard procedure. Normally they're implanted three at a time, and then only one or none implant. Sometimes that results in twins. In rare cases, all three succeed and the patient has triplets. A naturally conceived blastocyst has about the same odds of implanting.
Well said, and I might add that fertilized eggs that don't implant equally do so without aid from humans, often completely without the woman's knowledge.
By the standard of Theistic Anti-Abortionists, wouldn't that make God intk The Ultimate Abortionist?
"12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."—God
Ah, the "potential human equals actual human" fallacy of anti-abortionists.
I should have realized, but I thought he was referring to actual ethical problems with surrogacy. And I thought he had real reasons to be concerned about the practices used in IVF.
Or at least had a valid concern about the people who were doing the procedure.
I should know better by now, but I keep forgetting that anti-abortionists don't understand the difference between fact, opinion, and belief.
Oh, so there are ethical issues of IVF? Like what? Conflict of interest in a human Physician helping birth new humans who could be new patients? That's funny! 🙂
Got 'im.
It wasn't really my intention to lord it over anybody and certainly not to change any mind over abortion,. I was simply pointing out that abortion was legal and easily available when Louise Brown was born, so abortion freedom and IVF are not correlated.
It's telling how ingrained left wing authoritarianism is that only the right wing variety merits alarm here.
How's about some kind of review once in a while of all the Marxist academics and politicians and media? No?
Yeah, even the NYT article says that Italy was ruled by technocrats. That's pretty damned alarming, but it's not really discussed until it gives rise to right-wing reactionaries, I suppose.
And the main reason they get so "reactionary" to begin with is because the left can't help but go way overboard with their entitlement complex; give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
Franco was called a fascist, but only because he was so fucking effective at preventing left-wing subversion during the time he was alive.
Technocratic governments inevitably give rise to reactionaries because people don't like being told that they don't know what's good for them. People dislike experts deciding what's best for the collective good and trying to write laws based on their ideal society. People need to feel they have a voice and significant input and that it's not all predetermined by what the experts think is best for you. Technocrats are evil because they love the power to make you do what is for your own good (as they understand it).
But suddenly, when the inevitable happens and you get a movement that wants to utterly dissolve the government because they need actual liberty, suddenly it's all right-wing reactionaries.
Which current politician in America is a "Marxist"?
LOL
Cue Jeffy insisting on some tortuously over specific definition of ‘Marxist’. Resulting in endless thread shitting by him.
I think Bernie still might be. Would have to ask him.
To be fair, he is a socialist. I don't think he specifically ascribes to Marxist (or Leninist, or any other specific school) of socialism.
He likes to say he's a democratic socialist, but that's just a way to emphasize that he supports democracy. There's no specific theory connected to that phrase.
This proposed initiative would require developers to pay up to 2.7 times the prevailing wage, which is of course completely infeasible.
They've out-unioned the unions.
Makes one wonder where 2.7 came from. e, rounded so politicians can remember it?
They should accommodate all math-challenged idiots, and set the factor to 3. Like with pi.
Indiana sort of tried that, but the bill never became law.
That's irrational.
They'll never figure it out. John Deere had a big strike last summer. The local employees were pumped for their new contract. They just announced that they are shipping 10% of the workforce at that plant to Mexico. Great deal for the ones that don't get fired, I guess.
To be fair, they were going to ship those jobs elsewhere no matter what. All of the incentives for companies are to move factories and other manufacturing to lower cost-of-living companies.
That's why states have to offer such expensive packages to companies to build factories. The cost per job to states is insane, but the companies hold all the cards.
Sorry, lower cost-of-living countries.
Who is going to work for .8x prevailing wages?
Illegal immigrants.
Perhaps 0.8x the prevailing wage in manufacturing pays better than 1.0x the prevailing wage at the local hipster coffee shop.
Who is going to work for .8x prevailing wages?
"Prevailing Wage" is a term of art. It doesn't mean "wage that is prevalent for a certain trade in a certain area," it means "wage that is listed by the Department of Labor Relations as the minimum wage to be paid to a trade classification on a public contract, as determined by the local (i.e. state-level) unions."
For example, in CA right now, "Prevailing Wage" for a basic laborer (not a carpenter, just someone to push a broom) is about $60/hr.
It's not at all hard to find someone to push a broom for 80% of $60/hr.
They've united so hard that they all crashed together.
They've out-unioned the unions.
Not at all. The labor will almost certainly be unionized, so this just means more dues for the unions.
It's win-win.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/delusional-biden-admin-front-runs-recessionary-gdp-print-redefining-recession
The White House Council of Economic Advisers wrote in a blog called “How Do Economists Determine Whether the Economy Is in a Recession?” last week:
“What is a recession? While some maintain that two consecutive quarters of falling real GDP constitute a recession, that is neither the official definition nor the way economists evaluate the state of the business cycle.
Instead, both official determinations of recessions and economists’ assessment of economic activity are based on a holistic look at the data—including the labor market, consumer and business spending, industrial production, and incomes. Based on these data, it is unlikely that the decline in GDP in the first quarter of this year—even if followed by another GDP decline in the second quarter—indicates a recession.”
I'm unsure whether this should be categorized as Calvinball economics or Humpty Dumpty economics. Either way, it's extremely stupid.
If they can change the meaning of “vaccine”, they can change the meaning of anything.
They can change how they define it, but the American people can still feel the the ass fucking we're receiving.
There's already been some undercurrents in news outlets that if we reported on the economy like we did during Carter's time, we would actually be in a recession.
And this, honestly, is why 1/3 of the country thinks that armed conflict is going to end up happening--because the fucking government has become so venal, deceptive, corrupt, and unaccountable, that they don't actually trust anymore that the people in charge have the country's best interests in mind. Carter honestly looks like a political giant compared to these assholes.
I think it's also why we should not get so caught up in "recession" which is a technical term with definitions based on counting that can be changed. They can even be changed for completely banal reasons, no idea if that's what happened here because I didn't follow it, but we get too fixated on jargon.
The more important question is how the economy is doing and how people feel about that. Recession or no.
That's sad, but true. Obama was President during an, objectively, strong economy (especially considering where it started), but in the 2016 election there was a sizable percentage of the electorate who believed that it was terrible.
Granted that was heavily impacted by political messaging, but the fact is that what people feel is true and what is actually true are often very different things. Feelings often trump facts.
That's the issue. People can see that they are being lied to by people in charge, and they can see that as often as not they are being lied to BADLY.
January 6th was absolutely terrible and Trump should have called out the army! But Trump sending federal police to Portland due to rioting there was tyranny.
You need to believe all women, except those women that accused Biden. They need to not only be ignored but actively silenced.
Trump saying mean things about journalists is a horrible attack, but Biden raiding Veritas's office is a-okay.
Calling Project Veritas journalism is like calling a bullhorn a hockey stick. There is no connection between tbe two.
hmmm that statement remains nicely on the redefining point - that being the redefinition of marriage.
It seems the only times words are determined to need meaning fortification is when the cultural leftists need to push their agendas.
The important thing is, no matter the numbers or widespread sentiment, we're not in a recession until the Biden Administration says so.
Either way, Russia is no Free-Market powerhouse, with a GDP the size of Italy, right?
"Vy budete yestʹ zhukov." ("You will eat bugs.")
What a neurotic reply.
You Putineers like psychologizing your enemies away, just like Putin's Commie cohorts like psychologizing away Anti-Communists!
Well a nation of rubber rooms can't hold me back! Fuck Off, Dugin Hooligan!
Our greatest enemy is the democrat party. Followed by China.
Who is allied with Russia.
An off-duty corrections officer killed a New York teenager holding a water gun.
Of course NYC prison guards are allowed to arm themselves whilst it remains a capital offense for the commoners.
Almost like, in NYC, the prison guards are always on duty.
Escape from New York, Phase I
Also, isn't possession of a toy gun a felony in NY? Kid had it coming. It was probably an assault water pistol.
Nobody needs that many liters per second.
It also probably looked scary. Wood grain is the only acceptable material for weapons in the possession of citizens.
It had that shoulder thing that goes up.
Super soakers were already high-capacity, how would one classify the designs that carried the water in backpacks?
Weapons of mass destruction.
Quarts per second, commie.
All the countries with common sense water gun control use the metric system.
You kid, but the NY legislature and PD do not.
They classify water guns that fire water pellets as "air rifles"
Hmmmm, and bees are fishes. Is this yet another aspect of fluid identities?
I think they may be technically correct, because the firing mechanism is a spring powered by compressed air, but they're still confiscating toys
You missed the part where the corrections officer identified as a peace officer as well.
Unofficially identified. Technically by (New York) law the water gun constituted an air rifle, but technically, corrections officers aren't charged with enforcing a/the law against civilians.
Chaluisant's real problem is that he didn't have a historic first black lesbian water gun sponsorship from Nerf.
It was probably an assault water pistol.
If only that were just sarcasm.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NYPD121Pct/status/1550629306686136320
That gun does look super mudery.
"Dion Middleton, 45, was arrested and charged for the murder of Raymond Chaluisant, 18, after the teenager allegedly fired at him from a car on Thursday with an air rifle using Orbeez soft gel balls.
It is the same type of weapon used in the viral 'Orbeez Challenge' videos, The New York Daily News reported, with the challenge depicting unsuspecting strangers being fired at by pranksters. "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11041021/Orbeez-Challenge-ends-MURDER-New-Yorker-18-shot-killed-duty-cop.html
Too soon to know the real story. Middleton could have been in fear for his life thinking it was a real gun or he could have just been raging at this prank with a loaded gun on his hip. We know what his lawyer will say though. But as far as the the kid had it coming? If this story is true...yeah, kinda.. At very least he earned a Darwin award.
And once again, I'm sad and disappointed that we need to go to a British source for actual information on American crimes.
What do you expect when the powers that be have spent many years teaching everyone, including law enforcement, that just seeing a firearm puts you in immediate deadly peril?
When you are shooting at someone from moving car, it's pretty darn difficult for passersby to notice what the weapon looks like between the movement and the shadows inside the car.
A drive-by shooting is by far the most dangerous kind of firearm attack because of the sheer number of innocents that can be harmed. New York has a lot of drive by shootings.
I find it hard to fault the officer on this one.
The story says he drove to work and clocked in without reporting the shooting to anyone. If true, I do find fault with that. If you shoot someone in self-defense (which he probably thought he was doing), you should probably call your lawyer and then call the police ASAP.
Some states with legal abortion are already being flooded with patients from states where abortion is illegal...
CROSSING STATE LINES???
“Flooded”
Trillions.
Someone should do something about these fully automatic assault pussies.
Those don't sound bad at all.
"I'll explain later," whispers Rick to Morty.
Nice business opportunity for those states willing to trade in the mutilation of babies.
A new "post-fascist" party in Italy is gaining steam.
Won't someone please think of the train schedules.
Is Mussolini still hanging around?
too cheap...poor form
Making stupid noises?
https://youtu.be/TA8Uav7EPlQ
+1
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/three-months-wrecked-world
What followed seems inevitable in retrospect. The inflation, the broken lives, the desperation and now the growing hunger and demoralization and educational losses and cultural destruction, all of it came in the wake of these fateful days.
The plotters usually admit it in the end, taking credit, like criminals who cannot resist returning to the scene of the crime.
And what a crime it was.
By the way, this is a really detailed article on the behind the scenes bureaucratic scheming and lying to set up the covid totalitarianism.
It is really good in how it shows just how every single leader was beholden to optics and narratives. Not a single one of these people was doing what was right. Even Trump, when realizing he had been played by Brix, had to play these games because admitting that the CDC had fucked up would mean admitting he was wrong in a campaign year.
"he had been played by Brix"
I'm pretty sure Overt meant BIRX.
Brix. Breaking barrs again.
Sure, Trump failed on covid.
Though, what really could he have done?
"Even" fox News was running their covid counter on screen at all times every day.
Remember when he said everything should reopen on Easter?
Every media outlet in the world threw a collective temper tantrum, dialed to 11.
Nobody with any power/reach had Trump's back on dismissing the severity of covid. They were all in on it.
Very much including professional libertarians and Reason.
But focusing on Trump totally misses the point. These people were well coordinated, at all levels, politically motivated liars.
The same people who "fortified" the election gave us lockdowns.
What they did is, at this point, unforgivable.
I wonder how many people wish there was an actual, successful insurrection on January 6, 2021?
Food for thought
It was already too late. The insurrection should have happened in April 2020 when the Constitution, in proper context as a conclusion to the Declaration of Independence, supported one. When some idiot judge said the Constitution was not a suicide pact and SCOTUS declined to argue, the rest became inevitable.
Raise a glass to modern medicine making women’s dreams come true - here’s to human beings meddling with nature!
Gender traitor.
If only there was a book or two about humans meddling with nature to warn us of the pitfalls.
With a purposeful grimise and a terrible smell
he pulls the spanning high tention wires down
+1 Folly of man
please report to remedial spelling camp
/JFC...look how adults spell but we have time to teach kids they want to be castrated...
I will not report to your slave camp
Smell? Not sound?
With Blue Oyster Cult, the smell was in the room while jamming out to "Godzilla." 😉
And a book that explained how to make babies (for those who want one and those who don't). Plus a book that explained why people can't have everything they want, and that things they can get have costs.
*Raises glass*
To ending the tyrannical cries of "I don't want to be a mother, I just want to be an ovum donor!"... and to getting back to the business of thwarting The Patriarchy with more meaningless sex!
She misspelled birthing person.
Now that they have taken the time to break down Hawley illiberism I am ready for them to have the same treatment for literally any Democrat.
What's aoc, Omar, or pelosies take on illiberalis?
Maybe after the midterms?
Unrelated, I threw some NJ brewery recs at you in the Saturday thread. I doubt the state does much exporting, though I've never had to look.
Hawley should really stop getting destroyed/pwned/embarrassing progressives during hearings if he wants it to stop
You can't stop pirate libraries.
Your library of Marvel movies.
More on the Kansas ballot battle over abortion.
Pass.
Asked if "immigration is good for the country," only 34 percent of Republicans agreed, while 57 percent of independents and 73 percent of Democrats did. But asked if "legal immigration is good for the country," these numbers were boosted to 70 percent, 72 percent, and 82 percent, respectively.
Clear support for open borders there: if there's no immigration laws then there are no illegal immigrants. QED, bitches.
The libertarian moment came so suddenly I barely even noticed.
"Overall, 56 percent of survey respondents said that the government is corrupt. This included 66 percent of all Republican respondents, 63 percent of independents, and 46 percent of Democrats."
And of course, 4 years ago, the R and D numbers would have been switched. Tribal thinking (and manipulation of tribal thinking) will be the end of the Republic.
I'm not sure the R numbers would have changed that much. During the Trump administration, we saw how Congress as well as the DOJ and FBI tried to act as a shadow government to engage in a soft coup against Trump.
They wouldn't have, but we got a "both sidez!" blind faith in the narrative to maintain here
I am thinking of the 10% on the hard ends of a simple-minded political spectrum who will automatically go all-in (or all against) a government they think is dominated by a given party.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/esg-is-a-globalist-scam-meant-to-usher-in-one-world-government-james-lindsay_4617189.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge
“They have the leverage to be able to use this like a … financial gun to the head of any corporation that doesn’t do what it wants them to do,” he said, calling it a “blatant weaponization.”
“In fact, it’s racketeering is what it is, is just criminal racketeering, using what looks like a responsible measurement tool as the mechanism. So nobody’s directly responsible for engaging in what is really a mob shakedown of corporations,” he argued.
Lack of transparency in how ESG scores are determined is an open door for abuse, Lindsay further contended.
Even more troubling is Lindsay’s argument that ESG fits into a “broader global agenda” that he said wants to make the West energy poor—to the benefit of countries like China—and as a way of social control.
“They want to implement the exact same control system because they see that it works to control people in China,” adding that, in his view, the “power elite” in the West “often do want to control people.”
“And so they would be using that as a tool to try to get toward one world government,” Lindsay said.
Insider Intelligence estimates that, in 2022, there was $41 trillion in ESG assets under management worldwide.
By 2025, this figure is expected to climb to $50 trillion.
More of a convenient way to separate known fools from their money than a globalist conspiracy, but whatevs.
Keep that faith in the system!
I have a ton of faith that wealthy and connected people will constantly seek new ways to stay rich and feel important, yes. I've been working with executives long enough to realize that they're not nearly so competent, farsighted, or disciplined to effect a proper globalist takeover; any attempt at one would devolve into petty infighting before it got out past the first turn.
I don't know how you can watch politics for the past two decades without realizing that these people are far more lucky than good.
I've been alive the past 20 years?
But sure, any day now that charge into global totalitarianism will just slow down for some reason
"Gas is rapidly becoming unaffordable, cars are unaffordable, energy and food consume your entire budget, and your retirement is dependent on corporate investment broker managed funds... but ESG is totes nothing to be concerned about!"
A Zoomer. Meh! I knew it!
The thing is, they really don't need to be competent or disciplined if they can just brute force their agenda.
^bingo
That’s good.
Get woke, go broke.
I chuckled through the whole article when I read it. All of my all-so-PC colleagues are so proud to tell everyone how they are saving the world at the same time as they save in their IRA's.
I really loved the one about the manufacturers of nuclear weapons being present in ESG funds, but at lower proportions.
I don't think you understand the danger here.
You are exactly right that bomb makers and other companies are in the ESGs. Because they aren't validating that you are good for the world. ESGs validate that you are toe-ing the globalist elite line.
Oh contrare! I do understand exactly that. It's all a big show, with the endgame being those of us who just want to be left alone are finding that state harder and harder to achieve.
This was a great exchange, as a long time lurker, I have seen overt sniff out any non libertarian philosophy on these boards. The best part is, when he encounters someone who understands the correct philosophy and communicates it back like Ground truth did here, he doesn't keep going on like so many commenters seem to.
As always, virtue--or the appearance of virtue--costs money. Now we have politically-interfering investment groups. Way back when, we had politically-interfering churches.
China, who is an ally of Russia, right?
I think the Ukraine flag mask you wear while driving alone in your car is cutting of your oxygen supply
Ha!
I haven't wore a mask in months if not a year! And even when I did it was only in repect for private property rights in my workplace and in other stores. I never wore it outdoors, in my car, or alone in my apartment.
And unlike your hypochondriac idol Putin, I didn't pre-screen visitors and media interviewers two weeks in advance!
Fuck Off, Dugin Hooligan!
Such polls are useless in the main. Ask "Is the country on the wrong track?" and you get a huge majority saying "yes." Ask them to describe what the "right track" is and you'll get them directing you to ten or twenty different "gates."
Yup. The broad areas of agreement actually only happen with extremely broad, vague questions.
Correct.
Is Gov corrupt?
(Nearly) Everyone: Yes!
How do we fix it?
Team Red: Less Gov!
Team Blue: Gov controlled health care, gov indoctrination in schools, more free shit!
I think you give Team Red too much credit. In general there might be more smaller government types among today's conservatives, but plenty would support more tariffs and populist economic controls, and some would endorse religious or other moral directives in government policy.
Correct. The right is much preferable of the two alternatives right now, but I'm not really happy with either party's vision of our government.
The current populist wave has a lot of technocratic aspects as well. They're just different from the left. There's still the libertarian strain in the Republican party, but it's in the ebb stage currently.
Good morning Peanuts! Are you enjoying this amazing Biden economy as much as I am? BEST ECONOMY EVER!!!!!!!!!
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
The Lincoln Project
@ProjectLincoln
·
Follow
The numbers don't lie. President Biden has created one of the strongest economies in American history.
He built us back better. Thank you @POTUS.
You have competition obl
I barfed a little.
OBL better not be the Lincoln Project. That will ruin my year if I find out one of America's treasures is really the Lincoln Project.
"Since entering the Senate, Hawley's political project has been to harness Trumpism's infatuation with an imagined 'real America' into the service of a more intellectual and effective authoritarian movement."
Did Hawley do some "fact finding" in North Korea?
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/johnstone-our-entire-civilization-structured-around-keeping-us-realizing-we-can-do
Our entire civilization is structured around preventing scenes like the one we’re seeing in Sri Lanka today. Our education systems, our political systems, our media, our online information. Religions that have been around for thousands of years because the powerful endorsed and promulgated them are full of passages extolling the virtues of obedience, poverty, meekness, and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. From the moment we are born our heads are filled with stories about why it’s good and right to consent to the status quo and why it would be wrong to take back what has been stolen from us by a predatory ruling class.
Is something important happening in Sri Lanka? I feel like Reason would have mentioned it.
They'll come along to endorse this move in a few days
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/sri-lanka-introduces-fuel-rationing-qr-code
The UN mission in Sri Lanka has urged senior politicians to ensure a peaceful transfer of power in line with the national Constitution, following weeks of protests that finally saw the resignation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa on Thursday.
"The United Nations in Sri Lanka urges all stakeholders to ensure a peaceful transition of power in full respect for the Constitution," said United Nations (UN) Resident Coordinator Hanaa Singer, in a statement issued on Friday on behalf of the UN in Sri Lanka.
"stakeholders"...
"Stakeholders" really is a dogwhistle for socialists. Or communists, or whatever the proper label is for this collectivist dribble.
please start using the word 'drivel'
..just sayin'
I must have gotten them confused with Biden.
Correct
What’s wrong with someone holding the stake, while you drive it into the vampire’s heart?
Rationing fuel is sure to calm down the situation.
Never give up your guns.
A libritarian moment?
What's happening in Sri lanka may become the new normal here in America.
As more and more Americans become fed up and tired of little tyrants like Fauci and Hawley, sooner or later something's going to give and someone's going to snap.
The lawlessness in the cities is only a precursor to what's coming in the near future. Coming to mainstream America.
I would stay away from D.C.
One of these we can vote out
...a running list of books deemed heretical, blasphemous, or otherwise morally dangerous by the Roman Catholic Church.
The KJB is abridged.
Somethings were lost in translation.
"Santa Monica might make building new affordable housing in the city impossible"
That's one way to keep out the dingers and the wetbacks.
Didn’t say anything about tent cities.
"An off-duty corrections officer killed a New York teenager holding a water gun."
Hey, that water gun might have been spiked with monkey pox!
He was also holding it at 1:50 AM, and it's an airsoft 'bead blaster' water gel pellet rifle.
"Water gun" is a misleading description, suggesting a toy that shoots a harmless stream of water. As far as I can tell from the descriptions and pictures on the internet, the "bead blaster" is a pellet air gun using plastic beads filled with water as ammunition. Unlike a stream of water, these plastic and water pellets hold together all the way to the target. They aren't as deadly as metal pellets, but they are far from harmless.
"Of all the states, New Mexico has been most affected by interstate abortion travel in making appointments, according to a nationwide survey of clinics by a research team led by Caitlin Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury College."
At least until a majority of Catholic Hispanics decides to assert itself.
Yep. and once that happens, all those folks driving 4 hours and spending $150 worth of gas will have to .... fly for one hour and spend $150 on a ticket...
:shrug:
Catholicism has an intellectual strain of anti-abortion that's well defined. The actual consistency of that in the pulpit is much less. Poll Catholics and they have more support for abortion than Evangelicals.
Yeah, the only way Hispanics would really turn against abortion is if the white girls doing their dumb Handmaids Tale LARP decided to interrupt Sunday masses on a broad scale.
With that said, abortion in New Mexico was mostly uncontroversial because the yuppies who represent Santa Fe decided to ram it through, knowing they really weren't going to be punished for it because voting habits in the state are so habitual that it wouldn't matter. There really is a new version of the Santa Fe Ring that runs New Mexico these days, it's just more devoted to social issues than economic ones.
I do think current political trends among Hispanics portend some changes in party allegiance. Abortion might not be a key issue, but most Latinos I know are at least suspicious of the progressive agenda overall.
I grew up Catholic. Pretty much everyone I know in the Church is extremely consistent about their pro-life position. But they are also extremely consistent about supporting a maternalistic government that cares for you from cradle to grave, much as the Pope claimed to do back before enlightenment. So poll them, and they will tell you they are pro-life. But they will never change their vote based on that.
I'm just basing my statement off of polling. I am also in what would be probably considered a conservative parish. Like half of self-described Catholics don't believe in the True Presence either. So, there are some problems in the Church.
Before the late 20th century, "journals focused on quickly disseminating letters and communications between scientists, with little to no editing or external reviewing..."
Before science was weaponized by the commoners.
Unwashed Jacobins revolt against gender sciences their simple brains couldn't tolerate
Opening credits to 'Transformers 2035'
That article on Hawley was pretty good, actually. Good read that had good links attached for citations and makes a good argument.
Is Hawley planning on instituting nationwide lockdowns, forcibly closing small businesses, mandating that everyone wear a mask in public, ruling that the ability to have a job or go to the grocery store requires participation in mass medical experiments, determining individuals' value by superficial traits, dictating what types of fuel/energy will be afforded the common man, pressuring social media to censor wrongthink, or making it a crime to not enthusiastically participate in some peoples' delusions?
Is he going to unleash a mob to burn down cities to cow normal people into compliance with his political goals?
Is he going to nationalize elections, and keep the court from ruling on their legality, to ensure the correct results?
Is he going to unleash intelligence agencies on political rivals to give teeth to stories he's made up about them?
You've probably heard of what-aboutisms. This is exactly what that word means.
Yes, because those whatabouts actually fucking happened, and are still happening
So please tell us why the fuck we should be worried about Reason's favorite senator to hate (when they're not sitting on Rand Paul or Ted Cruz)
Most "both sides" articles are in Reason are "whataboutisms" as well. Sometimes it is a valid criticism, sometimes it is not (such as ENB's 7/21 article on the parties pressuring Google on ads about crisis pregnancy centers where the GOP is reacting to the Dems attempts at censorship by proxy).
This is as blatant a what-aboutism I've ever seen, though. I simply said I found the article to be pretty good and worth a read, and suddenly he's like, "But what about all this stuff that the other side is doing!"
Hawley can be bad on a lot of issues, and saying that is not an immediate endorsement of the Biden administration. It's worth noting Hawley was completely on board with COVID stimulus checks, and wanted even more bail-out money sent out in 2020. He was on board with a lot of the bad policies when it meant he could send a check directly to his constituents, even though bailout money is a huge factor in the inflation we're currently dealing with. He has a lot of other really shitty policy ideas.
I don't have to enter a suicide pact with shitty conservative candidates in order to own the libs.
I simply pointed out all the more important and real authoritarian actions that could've been posted about.
I don't give a shit about Hawley. He's unimportant.
Sorry to hit a nerve.
Next time Reason shits on Paul or Cruz to distract from totalitarian leftist hell, I'll refrain from responding to your praise of it.
If we were to rank the entire US Senate on a Freedom scale, Hawley would rank somewhere around 50 .
It is not Whataboutism in the least to wonder why the focus on the median rather than the 40something-50ish below him
If you don't ignore Republicans and focus only on Democrats then you're a leftist cunt who needs to die in a fire. Don't you know anything?
Shhhh....Don't give the Butthead LARPer any ideas.
It makes more sense when you remember that the majority of Reasonistas voted for Biden.
Or is Hawley actually expecting to live out his term in congress?
Was that before or after:
“And hours after running away from the mob he’d incited, and with the dust barely settled from a siege that had left five dead, Hawley did just that:”
Because that’s when I stopped reading.
Lol. Wow. So much wrong in just that statement.
" siege that had left five dead"
These people are shameless to continue to say this. Attributing suicides that occurred later to the body count is highly disingenuous. Multiple people also died of heart attacks/strokes, but it must be better to just say "5 people died" to imply it was because of violence (since they use the loaded word "seige") or something else and not just fat old people moving around too much and getting worked up.
Yeah, I don't know how you get to five unless you're counting Sicknik, and that's extremely tenuous. Would the stress of a normal workday also have potentially contributed to the stroke he had the next day?
Two heart attacks, plus Roseann Boyland, plus Ashley Babbitt. That's as much as high as I'm willing to go with the Jan. 6 bodycount.
Duh. Just use the new COVID math. Five is probably the most conservative count.
it starts with asserting that he incited the Jan 6 mob.
sigh
Well I skimmed past that stuff. Perhaps I'm so used to that breathless hyperbole that I'm immune to it at this point.
So it was a good article except for the stuff you ignored because you knew it was a blatent lie?
Actually yes. He cites actual words from Hawley and links to where you can read or listen to Hawley's words in their full context, and doesn't add bullshit ellipses that change the meanings (though he extrapolates certain things in bad ways and uses one bullshit survey to further an argumentative point). I can disagree with some of the arguments and the ultimate conclusion and yet still appreciate that it's properly sourced and operating in good faith.
"operating in good faith."
...except for the lies and bad faith interpretations?
“operating in good faith”. Other than all the lies and bullshit propaganda parts.
Kinda like Ted Bundy was a serious suitor for those young women
If you can look past the murder part, he was a nice guy….
'.. i think the worst thing was the raping...'
Hey he didn't rape most of them until after the murder!
It was a good article.
There were times that Hawley's criticism almost sounded like one of those Marxist critiques of capitalism: capitalism creates classes, one class oppresses the other, therefore it's time for a 'worker's revolution' to reset the proper order of things. Except for him, it's not capitalism that's the bogeyman, it's "cosmopolitanism". The "cosmopolitan class" has become an aristocracy that is oppressing the rest of the nation with their terrible ideas on liberty, and so what's needed is not a 'worker's revolution' per se but strong government action to put those icky cosmos in their place in favor of "American values" by which he means not the cosmopolitan values of Americans in cities, but the values you might find in a small Midwestern town.
I get the sense that to him, there really is such a thing as a "real American" and that it refers to the Midwestern types with strong family and religious values. It most certainly doesn't refer to American citizens who live in cities and reject religion.
The "cosmopolitan class" has become an aristocracy that is oppressing the rest of the nation with their terrible ideas on liberty
Yeah, it's called "repressive tolerance" and it hardly resembles liberty at all.
I mean, the pajama class literally took over 2020 to lock us in our homes, force us to wear masks, and inject us with experimental drugs...
Except when the pajamas got hungry. Then someone had to risk death to serve them dinner.
Well he's right then, because the cosmopolitan class absolutely doesn't represent America, either as founded or in it's present form.
They do represent America - their version of it.
There is no single "America" in a cultural sense. There are lots of different Americas.
That's bullshit and you know it.
The founders would be aghast at our current class of rulers.
But there's an easy test to tell if the cosmopolitans are aristocratic.
1: Do they keep their bloodline pure?
Yes; everytime someone in their side goes off script, they are immediately cast out.
2: Do they humble themselves to live with the policies they impose on the rest of us?
No, and the examples are legion.
3: Do they live by the same set of rules as the rest of us?
No, and Hillary is the prime example.
We must conclude that they are indeed not representative of America.
https://consentfactory.org/2022/07/22/the-normalization-of-the-new-normal-reich/
Yes, the Covidian Cult is kaput. The spell has been broken. Only the most insanely fanatical New Normal cultists continue to walk around in public in their plague masks and homemade hazmat suits. But the New Normal Reich is not kaput. The New Normal Reich is being … well, normalized. The masses are being systematically conditioned to accept the biosecurity police state that the global-capitalist ruling classes have been implementing for the last three years. Despite the now irrefutable evidence that the “vaccines” do not prevent transmission of the virus, “the Unvaccinated” are still being segregated, banned from working, attending school, competing in major sporting events, and so on. People are still being forced to wear masks — the symbol of the New Normal Reich — on planes, trains, public transport, in doctors offices, hospitals, et cetera. Here, there, and everywhere, New Normal symbols and social rituals are being permanently integrated into everyday life.
These symbols and rituals are more than just the window dressing of the New Normal Reich. They are how our new “reality” is being created and maintained. The masses are like actors being forced to emotionally invest in the “reality” of an absurdist stage play. The more they repeat the performance, the more convincing the fictional “reality” becomes, regardless of how patently absurd it is … and it is becoming more and more absurd.
For example, at the airports in New Normal Canada, citizens attempting to enter their own country without the so-called “ArriveCAN” app on their smartphones to provide proof of their “vaccination status” (including octogenarians who do not own smartphones) are subjected to extended absurdist harassment by imbecilic New Normal clowns in red vests. Here in New Normal Germany, the government is preparing to force everyone to wear medical-looking masks in public every Autumn and Winter, not just on account of the “Apocalyptic Plague” but also on account of the normal Winter flu. The pretext doesn’t really matter anymore. The point is the display of ideological uniformity.
Josh Hawley is barely on my radar, but the way ENB and Boehm obsessively take petty snipes at him, I'm wondering if he might be worth paying attention to.
He seemed destined to be a top-flight presidential contender since he strongly portrays the new Fusionism required in the post-Trump GOP. But I bet that he completely misplayed 1/6, showing himself to be the spineless climber you should expect from anyone that managed to serve as both a Senator and a state AG before the age of 40 instead of an authentic advocate.
I know nothing of Josh Hawley, so for Reason to have a paragraph of attacks claiming he is authoritarian with citing any specific examples is pretty lazy and just as balanced as the J/6 hearings.
Claiming something is without providing examples of such. Does Reason think I should just go by their words when they themselves have never garnered such trust. Heck even if a close friend says someone is a sumbitch I won't believe until I see for myself.
I honestly found the article they linked to be a very good read. Just give it a few minutes.
I honestly found the article they linked to be a very good read. Just give it a few minutes.
The one with--according to you-- lots of lies and disinformation? The 'breathless htperbole'?
They've had some articles criticizing his positions in the past, this isn't really a new stance for them.
Yeah. He seems like a pretty normal level of Senator I disagree with. I guess he's representative of the current populist surge. J.D. Vance is similar though I'm more aware of him because of his book.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/al-gore-compares-climate-skeptics-uvalde-cops-who-stood-while-children-were-being
How do they compare to abortion providers?
And vaccine skeptics?
To probably no one's surprise, 73 percent of poll respondents who identify as "strong Republican" respondents agreed with the statement that the government is "corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me."
Because it's accurate?
^Exactly this.
Every university, every major media outlet, every public institution all the way down to the DMV and the meter maids, every major corporate HR department and PR department, every public school administration and the teaching staff, all of it is "rigged agasint everyday people like me" if you are a self-proclaimed "strong republican"
It's not even a mystery. The evidence is all around, blatantly.
The only spark of hope in the last several DECADES has been the recent Supreme Court especially with the conceal carry ruling and the anti-EPA ruling. Those are both WAY bigger than Dobbs
The ruling against the EPA was much too narrow to give me hope.
I'm always iffy on what people mean by rigged. I don't like that word much. Same as corruption. A lot of things in place are government run amock, but in ways that were voted for over time and require a hard push back again. Viewing it as corruption can often turn people to helplessness and cynicism.
Why is Reason talking about Republicans?
WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRATS?
Poor sarc.
Working on his attaboy early today.
What about the Democrats, sarcasmic.
yuppers:
https://reason.com/2022/07/25/most-americans-think-government-is-corrupt-a-third-say-armed-revolution-may-be-necessary-soon/?comments=true#comment-9615768
Die, stalinist pedophile
Did chemleft just get red-pill... Oh wait. He's somehow pretending Nardz has gone off-topic even though Hawley is the topic.
Asked about "people who you disagree with on political issues," half said that "the root of the problem" is that these people "are misinformed because of where they get their information."
And low-rent political hacks pretending to be journalists while ignoring or misrepresenting all stories that make their side look bad surely have nothing to do with this.
But enough about ENB.
There is that. I fear that this also represents an increasing belief that there is some obvious answer and solution to everything and it's merely the facts being disagreed upon. I do not believe that is true now, or ever been true. Philosophical disagreement is very, very real.
I fear that this also represents an increasing belief that there is some obvious answer and solution to everything and it's merely the facts being disagreed upon.
^ So, so much this.
This is what's really behind the technocratic impulse that I think is so incredibly misguided. We often tend to frame the debate as "are the people in charge of making every decision on everyone's behalf really the smartest people in the country?"
When the reality is that no one is anyways near smart enough, and never will be, not just because of the knowledge problem but because people legitimately have different perspectives and priorities, and one-size-fits-all programs are always tyranny no matter how smart and well-intended the people designing them may be.
I would say that's a lot of what's wrong with politics. If you think that the only reason people would disagree with you is that they are stupid or ignorant or evil, you will never understand anything.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-moves-criminalize-russian-passport-application
Less than a month after Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a hugely controversial decree ordering that "all citizens of Ukraine" be given "the right to apply for admission to the citizenship of the Russian Federation in a simplified manner," Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Irina Vereschuk revealed on Friday that lawmakers intend to make obtaining Russian citizenship as a Ukrainian a criminal offense.
In a Telegram post, Vereschuk said that the matter had previously been discussed during a closed interdepartmental meeting, RT reported.
"The question is not so much a legal one as a political one.
On the one hand, the occupier's passport helps an ordinary person to survive the temporary occupation.
On the other hand, how to explain it to our citizens who stand to die for us all on the front lines? Including for the fact that there will never be Russian passports on our land.
You can have a long and difficult discussion about legal subtleties, human rights and the need to survive under occupation.
But let's not forget: there is a lot of Ukrainian blood on the red Russian passport - military and civilian, women and children."
So, no open borders talk in the Ukraine?
Apparently not
It's fairly well understood that applying for a Russian passport is a sign of "collaboration." This is putting the go-along-to-get-along types on notice that they will not be welcomed back should their territory be reabsorbed, something hardly novel in these situations.
Imagine a US citizen applying for Erman citizenship in, say, 1944. Won't occur to nardz; ain't on twitter.
Ooops: *German* citizenship
This is more like ittalians apply for German citizenship in 1938
Imagine a Japanese American in an internment camp applying, after being liberated by a Japanese invasion of the west coast
"Both sidez" for me, but not for thee!
You're the nincompoop arguing for equivalence, idiot.
Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Irina Vereschuk revealed on Friday that lawmakers intend to make obtaining Russian citizenship as a Ukrainian a criminal offense.
You think think the Russians will just let you waltz into their newly acquired territory and arrest people for becoming Russian? They just kicked you out of there.
Well that would leave all the Ukrainians whom Putin and the Putineers have kidnapped in no-man's land.
So Nardz, how did that compare with you becoming a Russian citizen while living here in the US?
half said that "the root of the problem" is that these people "are misinformed because of where they get their information."
The root of the problem is that both ends of the left-right spectrum live in echo chambers and not only don't but won't talk to people from the other end (for many reasons that we have discussed to death here).
There used to be a saying "men of good will can disagree" .... we need to get back to that and not just write people off because of one small part of their outlook.
"Just take the blue pill"
men of good will can disagree
I see the problem...
Exactly right. People need to get off Twitter and get away from their self-constructed bubbles and actually have a conversation with real people who are outside of that bubble.
I am reminded of an in-person conversation I had last spring, when the vaccines were just starting to be rolled out to everyone, with a woman who said that she wasn't going to get a vaccine, and I asked her why not. Her answer was not what I expected. I expected some nonsense about microchips or "full of poison" or "it's just for Pfizer to make money" or "because Democrats" or a lot of the garbage you see online from the anti-vaxx crowd. Instead her answer was more blase' - she just didn't want to go through the trouble. Turns out she hasn't been vaccinated for a lot of things, not just with COVID. Which was even worse, I thought. It highlighted a much deeper problem - that there were likely a not-insignificant number of people who didn't get the COVID vaccine not because they were specifically opposed to it, but because they simply did not care, about vaccination *in general*.
Exactly right. People need to get off Twitter and get away from their self-constructed bubbles and actually have a conversation with real people who are outside of that bubble.
Following which jeffy describes such a conversation and proceeds to immediately write off, not just the person in his conversation, but an an imaginary " not-insignificant number of people" for one small part of their outlook.
You don't ever need to wonder if jeffy is engaging in honest discourse. Just give him time and he will always reveal that he is not.
Which was even worse, I thought. It highlighted a much deeper problem - that there were likely a not-insignificant number of people who didn't get the COVID vaccine not because they were specifically opposed to it, but because they simply did not care, about vaccination *in general*.
Maybe, just maybe, she didn't have an echo chamber at all and used self agency and her own sense of bodily health to make a decision on her risk. I wonder if she survived?
I've caught COVID once, and that was after getting the jab. I also came down with a REALLY nasty summer flu bug last month that was a lot worse than COVID (it wasn't the coof, I took two tests that came out negative).
Ultimately, we're at the point now where none of this shit actually works no matter how many injections you've gotten. At least the smallpox vaccine will provide protection against monkeypox (but not the other STDs you picked up at the orgy, of course). The COVID vaccines are effectively useless now, except maybe for Novavax which is more like a traditional vaccine.
A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY.
That's false. As I quoted in a post yesterday, the unvaxxed are 3.1 times more likely to die from omicron and 3 times more likely to end up in the hospital from it. Yes, current vaccines no longer provide immunity but neither does having an earlier strain. Newer versions are expected in the fall which will.
No, that's true. The people showing up in the hospital are going with COVID, not from COVID.
None of your shit has any relevance anymore.
My concern was her own lack of concern for her own health. I don't want to take away her, or anyone else's, agency to make decisions for themselves. But, because I am a moral person, I'd like to urge people to make better decisions rather than worse decisions.
My conversation with her was brief and we didn't get into much detail about her rationale, but the point of the story was that leaving my bubble led me to consider another possibility that I hadn't yet considered.
led me to consider another possibility that I hadn't yet considered
And then summarily dismissed.
Go fuck yourself jeffy. No matter how much you play the victim, you are the dishonest one.
Beyond childhood stuff, why should anyone care about vaccinations unless they have a specific high risk, or are travelling to some exotic place where it's recommended?
Vaccines that have helped eliminate or severely curtail diseases that were once common and dangerous are great. Vaccines for specific risks a person is likely to encounter are great. Flu vaccines are pretty minimally useful and the Covid ones have turned out not to work particularly well.
Completely false Zeb. Over 300k deaths from Covid are attributed to a failure to get vaccinated.
PS And long covid is an unknown outcome.
Long covid is a munchie disease.
And 300k deaths from failure to vaccinate is an outright lie.
“It highlighted a much bigger problem.”
The “problem” is that you have a problem with other people’s personal choices, mr “radical individualist”.
When you ask do you believe in protected free speech 'both' sides (Right and Left) agree 97% and 96% respectively. Asked if merely talking about HCQ on social media should be protected it's 97% and 1% respectively.
Free speech, within correct parameters.
Free to repeat the government sponsored narrative.
Free to let Facebook control the narrative.
"it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government."
Everyone agrees with this statement.
The only disagreement is where the "point" is.
It’s how the country was started.
And the point turned out to be the Canadian border.
I kind of suspect the vast, vast majority of people don't have the will to actually put those words into action either. Not just to die, but to kill another human being is a big deal. Many, many people are just LARPing or expect that someone else will do that.
2% of the US died in the Civil War. 1 in 50 people. Because of the nature of war, that was largely young men. This does not include injuries or disfigurement. I do not have any particular faith that the current people of the US have that willingness for bloodshed.
That will change once everybody knows someone that has been arrested.
People aren't going to fight in large numbers until they really feel that their security and that of their families and loved ones are threatened. I really think that's what it takes. Most people will put up with a lot for the sake of maintaining the peace and relative stability. Only when normal people who don't usually pay attention to this stuff feel threatened will there be any kind of revolution. That seems to be what just happened in Sri Lanka. Normal people felt their livelihoods and security and ability to feed their families threatened, so normal people who usually keep their heads down took to the streets.
'Most Americans REALIZE Government Is Corrupt'
Fixed.
Tell us about the Russian dossier flogged by the FBI.
This replies thread...
https://twitter.com/RepJeffries/status/1551193084268105728?t=1lJBqn6WzzEJY5-AzwxR6A&s=19
House Dems fight for lower costs and safer communities.
The cult continues to lie about COVID and the 2020 election.
Big difference.
https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1551294216537419776?t=nMSUj-Uc83iszZliejp8YQ&s=19
1: The myth that sexual activity is the cause of monkeypox & that reducing it is a valid strategy for managing a disease does not, on its face, make any sense.
If this isn’t clear, imagine this being said about you.
[Thread]
3: While it is prominent in MSM communities, it is already not exclusively there.
...
5: We (all of us) have been lackadaisical and slow to react for all the reasons above. Instead we should be using the tools we have: vaccines & effective therapies to AGGRESSIVELY prevent spread.
So, uh, we (all of us) need to impose AGGRESSIVE therapies to prevent the spread in the most prominent communities then? OK...
You'd figure they could order enough Smallpox vaccines to get them into the arms of as many younger gays as possible and otherwise ring the close contacts of the infected in relatively short order, but they decided to prioritize getting COVID booster doses to children for totally unknowable reasons.
Unknowable reasons? Have you looked at pelosies recent stock purchases?
And here I thought I was laying the sarcasm on pretty thick.
What makes you think many younger gays want to get the injection in the arm, bigot?
tell them it's the prelude to fisting
Now let's see what the left thinks of quarantine camps.
"When Biden implemented it was done with a council of thought leaders with equity and inclusion as the primary tenet. Then when Trump stole the '24 election overnight they were perverted into Orange Man Death Camps."
https://mobile.twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1551239663532347395?cxt=HHwWhsC8paqQjocrAAAA
"One of the directors for George Soros' Open Society Foundations who specializes in public health, Sebastian Köhn, shares in the Guardian how he had sex with multiple men in a weekend for NYC Pride & contracted both #monkeypox & gonorrhea. He blames the system for failing him."
"No way that's real. Way too on-point." /checks
Well, damn.
But let's keep pretending that "stigmatization" is the real problem, Mr. Slavitt.
This shit is really going to be the new AIDS, except instead of a slow death over several years, promiscuous gays end up with a painful pox that could have been mitigated by just wrapping up their willy or even not being massive sluts.
or even not being massive sluts.
"Justice Kennedy said you can't discriminate against intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs!"
"Of all the states, New Mexico has been most affected by interstate abortion travel in making appointments, according to a nationwide survey of clinics by a research team led by Caitlin Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury College."
It doesn't take a 'professor of economics' to see that.
All you have to do is look at a map.
New Mexico is a long way from most population centers in Texas.
Looking at a map I see that the other surrounding states have restrictive abortion laws while New Mexico does not...
Colorado has some of the least restrictive abortion laws in the world. The population centers of Arizona are closer to CA than NM. (Tucson is probably closer to NM, but Maricopa county Phoenix is 80% of the state's population)
But, if it's true it's true. I have no idea what the data is. Might just be NM is getting flooded hard because it's a poorly run, small state that can't deal with any amount of extra demand.
But, if it's true it's true. I have no idea what the data is. Might just be NM is getting flooded hard because it's a poorly run, small state that can't deal with any amount of extra demand.
I've mentioned before that if New Mexico wasn't propped up by oil, the DoD, and Bureau of Land Management, it would go back to what it was prior to World War II, which was basically a giant collection of sheep and cattle ranches. It really is one of the worst-run states in the US, and I'm positive the only reason it hasn't become a full-blown colony of California like Colorado is because the schools, for the most part, are absolute dogshit, and the tech goons have a hard time finding anywhere palatable to settle other than Santa Fe and Rio Rancho.
Your average Californian from San Jose and your average resident of Socorro might vote the same, but they couldn't be more different in temperament and sensibility if they tried.
I always feels so bad about that, too. Because I really like New Mexico as a state. I like the people, and the landscape is one of my favorites. Good food too.
It's just this weird depressed state though. It's so bizarre.
It really takes a certain type of person to settle there permanently, and it's not really even based on politics; the state's always been a Democrat-leaning one, but it's also reflected that trend of white college graduates increasingly driving the party's agenda, particularly in Albuquerque because of Sandia and Kirtland Air Force Base.
It's a relatively friendly state if you're just visiting and won't stick around, but it's also incredibly conservative from a cultural standpoint (people there just don't like change, and that actually drives a lot of left-wing policies like environmentalism), and anyone coming in thinking they're going to Big-City the residents is in for a pretty rude awakening. It's generally a good idea to actually be FROM New Mexico if you're going to go in to politics there, because outsiders just aren't trusted all that much.
How about the off-shore cruise option?
That article on Hawley makes him sound like a liberal.
But Hawley’s antipathy toward liberty runs deeper than his view of national interest. As far as he is concerned, your freedom to choose your own happiness “denigrates the common affections and common loves that make our way of life possible.”
Community before individual, every damn time with these liberals.
Hawley rejects the idea that “liberty is all about choosing your own ends,”
Is he getting his talking points from Elizabeth Warren. Because thsi sounds like Elizabeth Warren.
Now let's look at the voting record....
ok spotty for a so-called right winger but certainly within the acceptable bounds. He's no Cornyn... and that's why they hate him.
Hey there Josh, Liberty is me living my life as I see fit as long as I don't hurt anyone else or take their stuff.
Keep doing that and you will violate the morality of plenty on the left and right.
The question is, and always has been, how you go about achieving said goals. Because in the abstract I can agree with both their quotes, it depends on what they mean and how he intends to act on them.
It is definitely collectivist. He is viewing liberty in a utilitarian manner - if it produces results he approves of then he's in favor, but when it doesn't he's opposed.
so like i said, a liberal
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1550941330007810052
"I’m Ted Cruz, and my pronoun is kiss my ass.”"
I'm starting to like this guy more and more. We need more of this.
Sigh. I think we need more of this on late night TV but I wish for national politics that is less about shocking people (and getting on TV).
Look, I'm not a Josh Hawley supporter, but Jesus, reason, show me on the doll where Josh Hawley touched you.
"The UnPopulist
Defending open liberal societies from populist authoritarian attacks
Launched 10 months ago"
Ahaaaaaa.
Oh yeah, read the main page of this pitiful rag.
Nope. No thank you.
Good to know that she's not dead, I guess. Bad to know that people are still letting her write.
This rag takes TDS to a new level. I keep asking myself why journalists are so worked up about trump, so they're willing to spill barrels of ink on an ex president two years hence. Then I realize... It's because they're terrified of 2024.
Trump haters are the real cult of personality, and have always been
In some cases, but I think you underestimate Trump's ability to drive clicks. Huffpost was hanging by a thread at AOL, until Trump came power. From that point on, I could tell that Trump had made a speech based on their capacity alerts. One stupid tweet from TOM would result in an article at Huffpost that received 10,000x traffic. Just reporting on his tweet, and saying "Mon deux!"
These guys have to talk about Trump because otherwise, literally no one cares what they have to say.
This and what Overt says below. Writing anything about Trump will cause the 'Triggered Meme Reaction' and drive many, many, thousands of clicks.
Progs get triggered so easily and so violently the brewery that makes Trumer Pils changed their name to Buttijizz
David French, a Bullwank author and Shikha all in the same place has to be a horseman of the apocalypse.
Or some kind of political short bus.
Too Libertarian for Reason!
Probably didn't even need to get out of the waterbed they bought from The Jacket to do the zoom meeting
Well, Hawleyhas a distorted notion of Freedom of the Individual and, as a result, no good words about it, for one:
The Age of Pelagius by Josh Hawley
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/june-web-only/age-of-pelagius-joshua-hawley.html
Also, on the balance, many of his political and economic stances are Statist and Authoritarian:
Josh Hawley--Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley
So, I'd rather keep him away from the reins of power before it comes down to using dolls.
If I were to take the totality of US Senators and weigh them in the balance (and I won't even dip into the cesspit of Congress) I'm not sure of Hawley would float to the top of anti-freedom authoritarians. He might not even be in the top half.
Sometimes I get the feeling that Reason fixates on the Republican party because it's historically been okay, and sort of a consistent rock in our politics. They're not perfect, but sort of vaguely pro-freedom, vaguely professional, vaguely anti-government in a way that provided comfort to Reason. So, they could just trust that the party would be pretty good regardless of how much Reason shit-talked them and told them they hated them. Now, that there is some shift towards a sort of populist-technocratic wing bubbling up in the Republicans they're scared and so fixate on that.
I don't know though. I really have no idea on that one. Sarcasmic made a point the other day that they focus on the Republicans because they expect them to be good on things like Free Speech. So, seeing them falter is more newsworthy. I think there is some validity to that statement, though I'm not entirely sold on it.
I also think there's just a bubble aspect to a lot of journalism. My two favorite opinion journalists are guys who live in Dallas and Jacksonville and even if I often disagree are just distinctly different in tenor and fixation from a lot of other folks I read. It's a huge country, and the national conversation is too dominated by a couple of consolidated regions.
So, what I'm saying is send Gillespie to live in Missoula a while and watch him grow into the human I know he can be.
Of course he wouldn't be in the top half. There are 48 democrats ahead of him, and 2 independents, and probably some republicans.
Oh, by the by, I did actually bother to read your linked article to Hawley. I'm not really in a place to debate how a 4th century Monk's idle musings are echoing in the culture today, and I suspect that Hawley's interpretation of his writings (in the context of the article) is probably pretty thin, I do admit I got a bit of a "new soviet man" vibe about Pelagius, but again, not some hill I'm going to die on because the world was quite a different place in the 4th century and as such, I'm not sure I'm prepared to make hard connections between the base narcissism of a pink-haired Tik Toker and the 'liberating individualism' of Pelagius religious writings.
I do kind of see what [maybe] Hawley is complaining about-- the unfettered free choice of individuals as Pelagius seemed to see it, vs how Augistine (an ex-nightclubber-- as one historian quipped about old St. August...). And I think any connection to today's narcissism is tenuous at best.
As an aside, take for instance, Sam Harris. No one would argue Sam Harris is an "illiberal authoritarian". I like Sam Harris. I think he's a very interesting thinker and worth listening to. But Harris has suggested that because there is no god, and we live in a physical world with scientific rules and systems which can be measured to exactitude (if we become advanced enough to interpret enough variables about our universe, etc.), that humans have no free choice, that life is predetermined. He then goes on to suggest that because there is no free choice, that we can identify behaviors (criminal, in his example) that diverge outside of a normative band of acceptability, and then medically or scientifically treat these individuals to bring them back within the bounds of normative behavior, and this would be a compassionate, humanistic response to our awful criminal justice system.
Again, I don't consider Harris to be an illiberal authoritarian, but that as an idea is one of the most terrifying things I've ever heard in my lifetime.
I'm not sure I'm prepared to make hard connections between the base narcissism of a pink-haired Tik Toker and the 'liberating individualism' of Pelagius religious writings.
That's because Hawley doesn't actually understand Pelagius and/or is using him as a sort of dog whistle (as much as I hate that term).
Pelagius himself is not super important, and Hawley isn't really concerned about fourth-century theological controversies.
But "Pelagianism" is one those capital-H Heresies that has a particular definition in the history of Catholic thinking, and Catholic authoritarianism specifically (also carrying some currency among Presbyterians, which is where Hawley is coming to us from).
In the era that you might call the earliest stirrings of the Scientific Revolution, i.e. the fourteenth century, William of Ockham, for example, was condemned by Thomas Bradwardine as a "Pelagiano Moderno," a group Bradwardine saw as a tremendous threat to the authority structures of the time (Ockham was eventually excommunicated for adhering to the doctrine of apostolic poverty), and in just the same terms that Hawley is using - "oh, here come those old, discredited ideas of Pelagius again!"
It's a way of presenting a set of ideas as 'pre-refuted.'
But the big "problem" with Pelagius, which Hawley is really gaslighting on here, is not his elitism - it's the exact opposite. The great sin of the Pelagians is suggesting that you can be a good person and earn salvation without engaging with the Church.
The anti-Pelagian stance, traditionally packaged as "Augustinian" (as Hawley does) is that your works don't matter - you suck and can never know what is good, and therefore you need the grace that can only be conferred by the Church through an ordained priest (whose own moral character, later theologians found, does not matter, only his having been ordained by the properly endowed authorities).
Contrary to Hawley's assertion, like 180 degrees contrary, Pelagius and "Pelagianism" were anti-authoritarian and anti-elitist, which is why the Church couldn't tolerate them, and what Hawley is presenting as the antidote to this dangerous Pelagianism is literally and directly the set of ideas that underpinned the formation of the Inquisition.
The fact that he's presenting this as some sort of anti-elitist stance is either deeply confused or deeply dishonest. Maybe both.
It's exactly stuff like what he lays out in this article that I strongly dislike about Hawley, even if there are other ways in which he's okay.
But "Pelagianism" is one those capital-H Heresies that has a particular definition in the history of Catholic thinking, and Catholic authoritarianism specifically (also carrying some currency among Presbyterians, which is where Hawley is coming to us from).
You see you're already way ahead of me here, as I don't have this depth of knowledge about Catholic thinking vs. Presbytarianism etc. I'm simply not versed in all the nuanced world-views of the varying sects...
Contrary to Hawley's assertion, like 180 degrees contrary, Pelagius and "Pelagianism" were anti-authoritarian and anti-elitist, which is why the Church couldn't tolerate them, and what Hawley is presenting as the antidote to this dangerous Pelagianism is literally and directly the set of ideas that underpinned the formation of the Inquisition.
This is kind of what I was getting a whiff of in Hawley's own article. That Hawley may be picking the wrong antagonist for the right reason. Hawley is-- as best I can tell, one of the modern populist anti-elitist, anti-technocratic rule conservatives, but Pelagius might be interpreted to be warning against these things. But I've really got my hands full with the Dialectic of Queer Theory right now, so I'm going to take a pass on 4th century religious mystics.
It's exactly stuff like what he lays out in this article that I strongly dislike about Hawley, even if there are other ways in which he's okay.
Right... if someone thinks I'm "all in" on Hawley simply because he dismantled transgenderism in ten seconds is sorely mistaken. "Dismantling" the Queer theories is low-hanging fruit, and as I have posited, the easiest ideology to refute in the solar system-- precisely because like Post Modernism (it's root) it collapses in on itself via its own contradictions. But going back to the reason for my original one line comment, if I weigh the balance of Hawley's "authoritarianism" against the totality of elected officials in the US Senate, I'm not sure why Reason keeps making him the go-to example of what not to do in politics.
I'm going to take a pass on 4th century religious mystics
And I don't blame you - it happens to be one of my areas of expertise. My doctoral thesis was centrally concerned with the problem of grace as framed by the 'Pelagianos Modernos' and the political uses to which it was put, and I slogged through Bradwardine's treatise on it, so if I can save other people that labor it makes it all a little more worthwhile. Bradwardine was strikingly brilliant, btw - probably smarter and certainly more knowledgeable than Ockham.
Hawley is-- as best I can tell, one of the modern populist anti-elitist, anti-technocratic rule conservatives
And that's why I say either deeply confused or deeply dishonest, because he's actually staking out an elitist, technocratic position but trying to tell you that he's doing so for anti-elitist, anti-technocratic reasons. The Church did the exact same thing as it wiped out the Cathars, who succumbed to the same heresy - "what right do these elitists have to declare themselves saints?"
He's literally arguing against your right to live your life as a free individual and determine your own values.
"Dismantling" the Queer theories is low-hanging fruit
Yes - and I did appreciate his recent exchange with the UCB professor. What I like about Hawley is that he's very good at being even-keeled and avoiding the sort of fire-and-brimstone posturing that tends to alienate people from religious conservatives. He was being a tad disingenuous, I think, but nevertheless did a good job of playing the part of 'normal person asking normal questions and getting shut down by arrogant, condescending professor.' He's been pretty good during Senate hearings, as well.
if I weigh the balance of Hawley's "authoritarianism" against the totality of elected officials in the US Senate, I'm not sure why Reason keeps making him the go-to example of what not to do in politics
I think BUCS hit the nail on the head above when he observed that reason's senior editorial staff have soured on Republicans, from whom they expected better. This is combined with their (to me clear) pivot towards trying to address Democrats on issues and in terms that Democrats will be receptive to.
This seems to involve a fair amount virtue-signaling distaste for those elements of the Republican Party that are most seen by Democrats as scarily authoritarian, and Hawley really epitomizes everything the average Democrat dislikes about Republicans.
tl;dr I think you and I agree that Hawley is the wrong guy with the right message in the right place at the right time in certain moments, and that reason seems to have a disproportionate fixation on him in particular when there are definitely worse people in the Senate from both parties.
And I don't blame you - it happens to be one of my areas of expertise. My doctoral thesis was centrally concerned with the problem of grace as framed by the 'Pelagianos Modernos' and the political uses to which it was put, and I slogged through Bradwardine's treatise on it, so if I can save other people that labor it makes it all a little more worthwhile. Bradwardine was strikingly brilliant, btw - probably smarter and certainly more knowledgeable than Ockham.
I went to the school of hard knocks... got a PhD is in the streets.
This seems to involve a fair amount virtue-signaling distaste for those elements of the Republican Party that are most seen by Democrats as scarily authoritarian, and Hawley really epitomizes everything the average Democrat dislikes about Republicans.
In this day and age, that means defining what a woman is... or even daring to ask the question.
tl;dr I think you and I agree that Hawley is the wrong guy with the right message in the right place at the right time in certain moments, and that reason seems to have a disproportionate fixation on him in particular when there are definitely worse people in the Senate from both parties.
Hawley is someone I probably would pay little to no attention, but I keep getting Hawley news in the morning links, so then I gotta go see what crazy-pants thing he actually said (as Reason has a bit of a history of re-re-re-repeating what they heard some blue checkmark said about another politician to uttered something in a speech which in no way represented what they actually said... ellipses and dot-dot-dots where context matters and all that...) which then makes me think... well... ok, is he really The Worst?
I went to the school of hard knocks... got a PhD is in the streets.
I don't personally put much stock in degrees. Some people are learners, some aren't. I'd have done the same research, probably, if I had pursued my original career as a security guard and just gotten a UC library card. I just wouldn't have gotten a title out of it. I've met carpenters who could discuss late medieval politics and theology at least as coherently as some professors I've known.
Hawley is someone I probably would pay little to no attention, but I keep getting Hawley news in the morning links, so then I gotta go see what crazy-pants thing he actually said
Same here. I've been doing that more and more with Green and Boebert as well. I can't stand Green (she reminds me very much of an aunt of mine, although much younger obviously), but it's gotten to the point where I say "okay, did she really say that she wants the Church to control the government?" Because usually the answer is "no, not really."
Hawley is an interesting case, though, because he's intelligent and well-read and he argues well, and the "gotcha" moments that tend to get thrown around aren't really all that impressive, but I find when I've read these more long form pieces by him is when I'm most turned off. I think maybe for me particularly because I can speak this language, I know this history, and what he's saying about it is pretty much anathema to my own understanding of it.
But I'll still take him over Lindsay Graham.
So "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" like Simon and Garfunkel said. Gotcha!
"Santa Monica might make building new affordable housing in the city impossible:"
They're just well meaning Progressives...
And in no way authoritarian.
I guess you have to keep commenting on California doing things wrong, but at some point it becomes white noise.
That said, I'm still really not sure about this push against local control. I really, really waver on that. If California has shitty regulations (it does) at the state level then those are great to improve. I question the wisdom of actively overriding local regulation though. Even if I do agree those local regulations are onerous.
So who are the mouth-breathing window-lickers who don't think government (or any other power-wielding entity) is inherently corrupt?
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/23/donald-trump-news-schedule-f-executive-order
Trump wanted a weapon to aim at these civil servants — to threaten them with their jobs if they stepped out of line. He wanted to be able to fire and replace them if they were disloyal or obstructed his agenda
That's literally the president's job as the chief executive.
It's almost like some people don't understand the campaign push to "drain the swamp." Or why it was very effective with his supporters.
After the two most recent administrations, I'm fully on board with bringing back the spoils system.
It's pretty much the spoils system now, just exclusively leftist/DNC/establishment.
All the downsides (+ more), none of the turnover.
Or the chain of command. Or the role of a commander in chief. Or the separation of powers. Or the concept of a federated republic. Or the concept of heresay and confronting your accusers. Or the concept of non-contractual/at will employment... Regardless of who your employer is, if you're going to participate in a highly publicized mock trial of them, either consult them first or prepare your safety net. Especially if the mock trial is being conducted by their competitors/opposition. Even Pepsi employees wouldn't just set up a high-profile Pepsi vs. Coke challenge on a whim and expect no consequences.
I've seen some people basically openly state this Independent Administration theory lately. Which is such a bad idea, but is at the heart of Progressivism in the truest, most classical, Wilsonian sense of the word.
It would effectively upend the modern civil service, triggering a shock wave across the bureaucracy.
Oh .... no. That sounds terrible. When can we start?
Honestly, this needs to be a required plank for any republican candidate who wants to run.
>>Hawley's political project has been ... an ... effective authoritarian movement.
people on ludes should not drive.
Compared to what?
Absolutely false compared to US history when patronage and nepotism where the order of the day.
Polling on matters of facts says something about those being polled but nothing about the facts. The fact that cynicism is supposed to show you are cool belts the fact that never have living humans had better circumstances and more fair systems of governance.
Are we better off than people 300 years ago? Certainly.
Are we better off, especially regarding the structures of government, compared to 30 years ago? People can debate this. Imagine harkening back to a pre-Patriot Act world.
We're not even better off than 2019, let alone the 90s (when I was a kid, so don't have great frame of reference, but seems like it was much better then)
Rights have been extended to previously excluded groups and there has been no noteworthy loosening of laws meant to curb corruption by those in office. There are still problems - perfection is a goal - but we largely get the government we deserve though democracy has been stymied recently by unplanned dysfunction. But all in plain sight within our view. Democracy depends on its voters to be informed. We have the tools.
rights already in existence were finally recognized.
The rebuttal to "You could board a plane as easily as you could board a bus." being "You mean, without a mask?" is terribly tragic in light of Reagan's "spend[ing] our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free".
And terribly humorous in light of them telling their children's children, "We can't bust heads like we used to. But we have our ways. One trick is to tell stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I took a flight to Shelbyville. I needed a new wheel for my hoverboard. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I put a mask on my chin, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the plane cost a $50, and in those days, 50 dollar bills had pictures of fishbees on 'em. "Gimme two fishbees for a hundred," you'd say. Now where were we... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had a mask on my chin, which was the style at the time. I didn't have any N95 masks, because of the Russians. The only thing you could get was those loose surgical masks..."
paint my chicken coop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWuEniepGhk
You forgot that Fauci had stolen our word for "vaccine".
I think it's more mixed. 30 years ago, I don't know. The PATRIOT Act is bad, but I still think the fundemental transformations predate that a bit and are more sins of The Great Society, Nixon, and The New Deal.
I increasingly have concerns about the Civil Rights Act, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to even begin to wade into that viper's nest.
And to be clear, because it's such a sensitive topic, this is a concern over the means of the Civil Rights Act and not the stated ends.
Too late, you're a racist,
Speaking of illiberal authoritarianism, Posie Parker got a visit from the police because of a complaint that she had been "untoward about pedophiles".
Think about that... "untoward about pedophiles". That gets you a visit by the police.
Trigger warning: strong uppity woman.
OK, not realizing the full cultural depth of the subject, I assumed this was some exceptionally civil discussion about some American being 'untoward about pedophiles'. Of course, the situation is even more absurd because A) the culture in question is British and B) apparently, in Britain, the crime of being "untoward about pedophiles" doesn't require the investigative depth of *watching a YouTube video*.
I mean, uh, cheers to The Bobbies for honestly admitting they hadn't watched the video in question I guess.
Look, on the global scale of "illiberal authoritarians", I'm just trying to figure out where Josh Hawley sits.
Shit, in that case he's just a grandstander. I will also argue that what Hawley says, is what JD Vance actually believes. Agree or disagree I think Vance is more of the real deal than Hawley who I think has a bit more snake oil salesman to him.
You see my weakness is I don't really follow politics. Which is why, even though I roll my eyes when Reason has the eleventy thousandth shit fit over something Hawley said, I don't counter with The Ten Worst Things AOC said This Week. I really just don't care.
I have a similar reason for not wading into the debates on the Congressional hearings right now. The arguments are super fact based, and all nitty-gritty and I just don't know enough to have an opinion. I have my little philosophy I read, and I try to have high-level opinions on right and wrong and stuff, but when it gets more wonky I just straight up don't know.
I know about video games. I know about infrastructure for encoding video streams. I hope to know more about farming and goats. One only has so much time though, and the day-to-day politics tends to be too tiring for me.
I guess this ironic to say considering how much I ramble on here.
You may not care what Hawley says, but Hawley cares about what you say if it doesn't comport with his "America was founded as a Christian nation" bullshit. And you won't score any more poon with his help than you will with Putin's.
"a visit from the police because of a complaint that she had been "untoward about pedophiles"."
This explains chemjeff's attitude for the last three months.
I just presumed we were talking about the Best In Show actress and was confused for awhile before I remember she was Parker Posey. You have to admit, it's close.
She sure was good as that Yuppie wife in Best In Show though. And the cult victim in A Mighty Wind.
I listened to an interview with the makers of Best in Show and they said they did research by traveling with actual dog show people. They said they had to tone it down for the movie, otherwise audiences might have thought it was too far fetched.
Always a problem with very specific, elite groups of people. They tend to be weirdos where fact is stranger than fiction.
The greatest example of this I know of, in all of literature, is still Radical Chic by Tom Wolfe which is maybe more relevant to day than when written. I recommend everyone read it, it's a short piece, and keep it in your heart that this is still how high society functions:
https://nymag.com/news/features/46170/
</iShe sure was good as that Yuppie wife in Best In Show though. And the cult victim in A Mighty Wind.
Hey, let's not forget her best role:
"What are you looking at? Wipe that face off your head, bitch."
"AAAAIIIIRRR RAAAAIIIDDD!"
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1551577574463225859?t=R2jwGhGvWRZapDvi_qukTQ&s=19
With Nord Stream 1 flowing at just 20% of capacity from July 27, Germany will NOT have enough natural gas to make it throughout the whole winter **unless big demand reductions are implemented**. Berlin will need to activate stage 3 of its gas emergency program #ONGT #EnergyCrisis
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha(pause for breath) hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
+1
the pause for breath is the calling card of any respectable satirist
all part of the plan...
But what will they do about the Jewish Problem?
I saw Misek floating around up top. He'll offer to help.
Like a turd.
You know who else made some Germans freeze?
Erich von Manstein?
Ausgezeichnet
Otto Preminger as Mr. Freeze on Batman?
WONDERING WHY THE OPEN BORDER. NOW IT’S CLEAR THEY THINK THEY’RE IMPORTING MEAT: New York Times writes that cannibalism ‘has a time and a place,’ and that time is now, thanks to climate change.
Don't Let Them Reset Society to Make You Into a Bug-Eating Serf
After the New York Times recent cannibalism advocacy, bug-eating serf might be best case scenario.
For or five years ago I used to say that the establishment left wanted to figuratively farm people. I don't think that the "figuratively" bit applies anymore.
I think that's consistent with a lot of the animal rights movement's tactics. I think that eroding any distinction between human and animal will more likely lead to savagery against humans than better treatment towards pigs.
True of the battle against racism and sexism. Blacks and women treated better? Nah, just treat whites and men worse. Equality!
As I have pointed out to Hards to no avail, since Russia with it's vast lane mass and population has a GDP of Italy, Putin has reduced them to bug-eating status already.
And you know who reduced the Ukrainian people to cannibalism in the Holodolmor and has a revived cult of personality under Putin?
In 3 years that will be written off as a satirical article that wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
As much as I detest what the NYT has become (or more accurately, has been for decades now) I also detest blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of the sort you and the twitchy link you're citing are engaging in. The statements about cannibalism, climate change, etc were not made by NTY staff itself, but by others (via TV/movies/books) and discussed in the tweet and article you're referencing. It's perfectly valid (and common) to write that "So-and-so is advocating 'X'" and exploring the topic without advocating 'X' yourself.
You know damn well what the purpose of presenting currently controversial ideas in a neutral voice is for when performed by the Times. They've done this whenever they're advancing ideas currently outside the Overton Window.
Don't pull your phony opprobrium on me, socky.
Don't pull your phony opprobrium on me, socky.
Socky? That alone pegs you as a spouter of ill-informed bullshit.
Quit socking, shrike, and stand behind your bullshit for a change
We're not gonna take it.
Tour de France fans take justice into their own hands and tackle militant eco-protesters before dragging them off the road to stop them blocking the race.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11043613/Hero-Tour-France-fans-justice-hands-tackle-Derni-R-novation.html
Eco-Wackos even block bicyclists? Damn these humans really do hate humans!
Usually, Eco-Wackos like mtruman love bicycles and want to make them mandatory. Bicyclists like those in Critical Mass like to try and bully motorists with bike locks and chains.
Those kinds of bicyclists need stop-sticks and, if they get violent with motorists, boom-sticks.
From pro-choice to pro-abortion to anti-baby:
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/25/in-show-of-pro-abortion-brutality-gov-gretchen-whitmer-just-slashed-care-for-pregnant-women-from-michigans-budget/
I'm fine with services cutting, but motives matter.
"We can't afford any more children for sustainability reasons, better abort them, citizen!"
Unironically, this was the whole point of China's "one child policy." Nice to se the Wicked Witch of the Midwest adopting the same idea as her fellow commies across the Pacific.
the abortion crowd has transformed into a bunch of ghouls. It's amazing to watch.
It's pretty gross, but Dobbs has forced them to expose themselves for what they really are. Probably the best thing to come out of that ruling will be the clarity on how ghoulish they actually are, and how out of touch they are with mainstream America.
That has been the legacy of Trump- the leftists have fully exposed themselves for who they really are and it's getting a whole lot tougher for regular people to believe their bullshit anymore.
Kamala Harris goes full-groomer and wants alphabet sex-cult teachers to love openly in the classroom.
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1551239055257526274
Mandatory Ass Eating is coming to elementary schools to help nudge the gender confused kids free from the cocoon of our biological imperative to fuck chicks.
Science!...actually that is science....
I find it amazing that people in this country think the government is corrupt. They really have no idea what a corrupt country is really like. Many people think a more authoritarian government would be better. But with authoritarian government comes corruption. It might be annoying that that you need a government permit for something like a home addition. It will be worse when you need that permit and you have to bribe the official giving it to you. You can find some comfort knowing that the official has to kick some of the bribe up to the person that hired him and so forth till we get to the top.
I find it amazing that people in this country think the government is corrupt. They really have no idea what a corrupt country is really like.
I find it even more amazing that there are people who manage to make it to alleged adulthood while still being so stupid that they don't understand the difference between "not corrupt" and "not as corrupt as X".
Moderation4ever isn't people, it's literally cancer
But too many people think that an authoritarian would solve corruption, when in fact it increases corruption. Most authoritarians start with a purge of corruption. This usually means replacing anyone who opposes the leader. The leader brings in his own people who usually demonstrate loyalty by sending money the way of the leader. The chosen get that money by squeezing it out of the system.
Hmm. I actually do agree here. I think we use corruption too freely and really this is more an issue of unexpected outcomes from the systems we voted for.
It's going to be hard to roll a lot of it back too, since there was so much bad stuff in the early-to-mid 20th century both in the legislature and in the courts.
I think we use corruption too freely and really this is more an issue of unexpected outcomes from the systems we voted for.
Yes, because we definitely haven't seen political power abused for personal gain and to retain that power/acquire more power.
Disagree. Quiet corruption- like insider stock trading, lucrative government contracts, and revolving doors between government and industry- is still corruption. Just because it's not blatant doesn't make it any less an abuse of power and position, to the detriment of the citizens.
"They really have no idea what a corrupt country is really like."
Apparently you have no idea what a corrupt country is really like if you think the US isn't.
Every article on cops, judges, prosecutors, bureaucrats and politicians here should've long dissuaded of the notion. And if that didn't do it the 2008 bailouts and Covid graftfest should have. Then the there's the fact that half of congress and all of the senate are insider trading and don't give a shit that you know it.
Instance after instance after instance.
Sure, maybe the US isn't Zimbabwe or Venezuela yet, but that doesn't mean it's not absolutely corrupt.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
--Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe.
Most Americans are right. The government is corrupt. But...electing a con man who is the icon of corruption is a curious response. And insurrection on his behalf?
It makes you wonder if people understand how corruption works. The left has been pointing out corruption on a massive scale for decades. The prison-industrial complex? The military-industrial complex? How about campaign finance laws? The drug war giving a massive injection of money to our corrupt cops. We could on and on.
But Clinton's emails...amIright? If we are going to talk about people believing in corruption why not broaden it to include the left. Somehow the narrative is that government is corrupt and thus we should turn to the right as our saviors when they have been the pro-corruption party. Most laws and regulations designed to impede corruption have been blocked by the right. They use small-government rhetoric as a tool to pry open the government coffers for their businesses to harvest. What a sad joke.
It makes you wonder if people understand how corruption works. The left has been pointing out corruption on a massive scale for decades. The prison-industrial complex? The military-industrial complex? How about campaign finance laws? The drug war giving a massive injection of money to our corrupt cops. We could on and on.
You might wanna check out this journalist named Glenn Greenwald. He's been on this beat for years.
The left has been pointing out corruption on a massive scale for decades. The prison-industrial complex? The military-industrial complex? How about campaign finance laws? The drug war giving a massive injection of money to our corrupt cops. We could on and on.
Except for how the left was happy to exploit all those when they held power.
It's just the observation that government rent-seeking is bad. Which is true. Same applies to other public-sector union type things like Teacher's Unions or the vast bureaucracy of the US. Insulation from competition inherently breeds this type of issue.
Their businesses? It's like you haven't paid attention to politics in the past 15 years. Opening campaign finance floodgates ended up being a giant self-own by GOP-aligned groups - the people and organizations reliant on small businesses, those that actually form the bulk of the GOP's voter base and have since its inception, can't keep up with the Gates and Zuckerbergs of the world.
Well, since Josh Hawley has been declared the most unlibertarian thing since Shika Dalmia had to leave for greener pastures... I thought I'd give the group some headlines from an actual libertarian rag:
I'm guessing the Reason Contributor is Veronique De Rugy and this is... from Spiked?
Damn. Right on Spiked, wrong on Ms. De Rugy.
Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself
Tekle Sundberg and the anti-racism of ghouls
The Black Lives Matter set will exploit any tragedy to further its divisive agenda.
So I read this article, and sorry, it is such a horrible take. Their argument is: If you believe the police uncritically, then yes BLM is a bunch of ghouls for protesting Sundberg's murder. But why should we take the police's account at face value?
Are those bolded claims actually true? Isn't it important to know? Don't you think people who DON'T take the police's word for it automatically might be upset? While I agree that the police aren't hunting black men for sport, it is also the case that not every police shooting is justified, and each one deserves scrutiny.
This is not a libertarian article, this is an anti-BLM article. Fine they hate BLM. But they shouldn't go around uncritically accepting the law enforcement narrative in the service of feeding their hate.
Any anti-BLM article is a libertarian article because BLM is a Marxist organization, created by Marxists and run by Marxists.
BLM is also a grift. They raked in millions over the summer of 2020, and distributed almost none of it to their local chapters. They've resisted any attempts to account for all the money.
BLM will exploit any tragedy to continue their grift.
There's a bit more to being libertarian than opposing Marxism.
There is. But you can't be a libertarian and NOT be opposed to Marxism. They're fundamentally opposed to each other.
And the reply was mostly because Jeff's a raging idiot. There are plenty of cases of cops shooting first and asking questions later, but based on the available evidence, this isn't one of them. There was a 6-hour stand-off during which the cops made enormous efforts NOT to shoot the guy.
So you are actually defending the police's actions here. How do you know Sundberg was unarmed in that moment? Does it matter?
If it doesn't matter, then you're saying it's okay for the police to shoot and kill someone just for the purposes of ending a standoff, armed or not. Is that really the standard you want to endorse?
Dipshit. If the cops were itching to shoot this guy, they had ample opportunity in the 6 hours stretch of deliberately trying NOT to kill him, negotiating with him, letting his parents negotiate with him, not shooting him when he dangled out his window....
There are more than ample examples of times when cops have used excessive force, shown depraved indifference, been trigger happy, or just plain incompetent. This does not appear to be one of them. I say "appear to be" because, of course, information could come out in the future that changes that. That's what smart people do- use available evidence to make a judgement, and then remain flexible in case the information changes. Write that down for the future.
Reflexively assuming the cops were evil is just as stupid as reflexively defending them as righteous.
See, this is the tribalistic nonsense that is rotting public discourse.
I don't care how much you hate Marxists. But if the Marxist says something right, have the integrity to say so.
In this case, the "Marxists" (they aren't really Marxists, but whatevs) were right to be skeptical of the police point of view. Because we don't have all the facts yet. Even in the article, the authors admit that there is no police bodycam footage of Sundberg's final moments. So we don't even know for certain if he was brandishing a gun at that moment. The police shooting an unarmed guy is different than the police shooting an armed guy.
In fact if you go back and look at the Reason article on the subject, you'll see a great deal of skepticism expressed on the police narrative.
So please try to separate the issue from the person, or the tribe.
A mob of blmantifa insects harassed the woman and children who were shot at.
Die, stalinist pedophile
newsletter subscribe link is missing
There is little doubt that an armed 2nd American Revolution is coming. I read much by the Founders. They would not tolerate anything even close to what we have today. A lawless presidency, a Congress that excels at NAZI-like show-trials, and a federal judiciary, primarily the DC circuit that has acted more like Torquemada in its adjudications of many cases and punishments of conservative defendants. As a patriot, I've just about had it. Time to armor up. And I mean it.
1. No polls are reliable anymore because data gatherers are more routinely "hung-up on" than ever before, making margins of error too wide for any good analysis. Only incels answer unrecognized phone numbers or open political spam emails. Thus, incels are overrepresented in any poll.
2. Even if this poll was able to get an accurate demographic sampling, people tend to answer more ridiculously to hyperbolic/esoteric questions. Thus, more skewing of results.
3. The people who are going to fight the revolution (more of a war of secession) are NOT dumb enough to expose themselves to pollsters, who make most of their money selling detailed personal data to NGOs (which serious secessionists assume to be fronts for Big Brother).
4. Serious secessionists represent between 5-10% of the adult male population, which these "pollsters" (incriminators) already know from their preliminary statistical modeling. They just don't know the names and addresses, which is the reason run polls on "seditious attitudes." But 5 to 10-ish million men with military prowess who are itching to kick some Fabian Vampire arse? Yeah, that vexes our NWO masters a great deal.
Lines form at the taco stands
Lines form for the blacks and browns
I'm remarkably surprised it's only a third of Americans who think an Armed Revolution is Required. There is a Reason why our Founders included the Clause in the Declaration... Tree of Liberty needing nourishment and all!
The Uni-party is in charge in DC and the Uni-party is corrupt. Don't let the family infighting distract you from the truth.
American politics has degenerated into a raise money and lie to get elected game. Problems are not solved because that eliminates fund raising issues. Politicians do not look for solutions in their mail. Citizen mail is just a fund raising opportunity. Campaign money can legally be diverted to personal wealth. The country has serious but solvable problems and the richest counties surround Washington DC. It is past time for reform.
"Thirty-six percent of Republicans, 35 percent of independents, and 20 percent of Democrats agreed... It may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government."
According to Pew the breakdown of (admitted) gun ownership is:
57% Republicans
48% Independents
25% Democrats
To me that means that no matter how you try to adjust for those who don't admit to being armed, and/or those who don't believe that taking up arms against the Gov't will be necessary; Dems are not prepared for the future.
Most Americans realize our politicians are Liars, Thieves and Whores. So yes, we recognize they are all corrupt.
^Well said; Needless to say they swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then vote by whim without a care in the world on whether or not their legislation conforms with "The People's" law over them.