Most Republican Voters Aren't Loyal Trumpists, Suggests Survey
Plus: Kansans fight over driver's license gender markers, chain restaurants bridge social divides, and more...

A new poll attempts to suss out the contours of the Republican Party in 2023. The results suggest it is an ideologically diverse coalition, if also a weird one.
"After eight years of Republican fealty to Donald J. Trump, few would argue that the party is still defined by Ronald Reagan's famous three-legged stool of the religious right, fiscal conservatives and neoconservative hawks," comments The New York Times. "But if the Republican Party is no longer in Reagan's image, it's not necessarily a populist-conservative MAGA monolith, either."
The poll, conducted by the Times and Siena College, found that "majorities of Republicans side with Mr. Trump on almost every issue" but "those majorities are often quite slim."
To tease out more who makes up the modern conservative electorate, the Times divided Republican and Republican-leaning voters into six categories, defined by their feelings about the former and would-be-future president as well as their policy positions:
The Moderate Establishment (14%). Highly educated, affluent, socially moderate or even liberal and often outright Never Trump.
The Traditional Conservatives (26%). Old-fashioned economic and social conservatives who oppose abortion and prefer corporate tax cuts to new tariffs. They don't love Mr. Trump, but they do support him.
The Right Wing (26%). They watch Fox News and Newsmax. They're "very conservative." They're disproportionately evangelical. They believe America is on the brink of catastrophe. And they love Mr. Trump more than any other group.
The Blue Collar Populists (12%). They're mostly Northern, socially moderate, economic populists who hold deeply conservative views on race and immigration. Not only do they back Mr. Trump, but he himself probably counted as one a decade ago.
The Libertarian Conservatives (14%). These disproportionately Western and Midwestern conservatives value small government. They're relatively socially moderate and isolationist, and they're on the lower end of Trump support compared with other groups.
The Newcomers (8%). They don't look like Republicans. They're young, diverse and moderate. But these disaffected voters like Democrats and the "woke" left even less.
The "right wing" and the "blue collar populists"—which make up a combined 37 percent—are loyal Trump supporters. The others in the coalition have more mixed or even negative views of Trump.
Libertarian conservatives still exist, the Times reports. They were the least supportive of Mr. Trump, the paper says, but they're "not a great group for Mr. DeSantis either—a telling indication of the troubles facing a candidate who once built his national reputation on freedom from coronavirus restrictions."
Libertarian conservatives can still find some common cause with other factions of Republican voters—including the populists.
"A majority of [the populist] group supports abortion rights and same-sex marriage," points out New York magazine:
This aversion to bible-thumping moralism helped tie a segment of these voters to the Democratic Party before Trump's emergence. To the extent that the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade increases the salience of reproductive rights, and Trump's eventual exit from GOP politics weakens blue-collar populists' emotional identification with the party, Republicans could lose ground with them. Indeed, in last year's midterm elections, Democrats performed better in heavily blue-collar Midwest states like Michigan and Pennsylvania than they did nationally.
The "newcomers" group is an interesting one, seeming to be comprised of people whose main reason for voting Republican is feeling alienated from progressives and Democrats. Some of these voters would perhaps be ripe for picking off by the Libertarian Party, if that party were actually functional and not a giant constellation of internal fighting and identity crisis. Then again, maybe not—they also express more interest in sticking it to the left than in a principled defense of freedom. Here's the Times again:
This is the youngest and most diverse group of Republicans. Just 59 percent are white, and 18 percent are Hispanic. More than a quarter are 18 to 29.
Nearly three-quarters identify as moderates or liberals. They overwhelmingly support immigration reform and say society should accept the identity of transgender people.
With these characteristics, it can be hard to see why these voters are Republican-leaners at all. But unlike the similarly moderate establishment, this is an unequivocally Republican group. They back Mr. Trump against President Biden and they're deeply unhappy with the state of the country: Nearly 90 percent said the economy was poor, placing them just behind the Right Wing in their economic pessimism. A similar number said the country was heading in the wrong direction.
So while they may not be conservatives in any traditional sense, they're certainly not happy with Democrats. They were the likeliest group to say they would rather back a candidate who focused on fighting the radical "woke" left than one focused on protecting law and order. By a two-to-one margin, they said they would rather vote for a candidate who promised to stop "woke" business, rather than a candidate who said businesses should have the freedom to decide what to support.
This group should give "Democrats some cause for anxiety," suggests New York magazine:
The survey suggests that nonwhite, working-class Americans are starting to vote more like their light-skinned peers. In 2020, nonwhite, non-college-educated voters backed Joe Biden over Trump by a 48-point margin. Today, this group backs by Biden by merely 16 points, according to the survey. This erosion in the Democrats' support among nonwhite voters leaves Biden and Trump tied at 43 percent nationally….
Now, we're looking at one small subset of voters from a single poll. The margin of error here is so high that the existence of this voter group could be illusory. But it does seem possible that, among a sliver of America's youngest voters, the most overbearing forms of progressive discourse have acquired more political salience than concrete questions of public policy.
But perhaps we shouldn't ascribe too much power to these categories, which are a bit…fuzzy. For instance, only 34 percent of those categorized as libertarian conservatives said they favor cutting taxes on corporations over raising tariffs on imports.*
FREE MINDS
Kansans fight over driver's license gender markers. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kansas is getting involved in a lawsuit over gender markets on driver's licenses in Kansas. The suit—filed by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach—"seeks to force the state to list the sex that people were assigned at birth on their driver's licenses," explains the Associated Press. The Kansas ACLU sought to intervene in the case (Kansas v. Harper) on behalf of five transgender Kansans.
Kansas currently lets transgender people change the gender marker on their licenses. But Kobach claims that a law that took effect in July not only bans future changes but requires the state to reverse any previous changes. "That new law defines a person's sex as male or female, based on the 'biological reproductive system' identified at birth, applying that definition to any state law or regulation," reports the AP. "It also says that 'important governmental objectives' of protecting people's privacy, health and safety justify single-sex spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms."
"We are gratified that the court has seen that our clients have a vested interest in the outcome of this case, and should be entitled to make their arguments," said Sharon Brett, Legal Director of the ACLU of Kansas, in a statement. "For our clients and the entire community they represent, this case is about the privacy, dignity, and autonomy that comes from having accurate gender markers on their license, and about their right to be safe from the harassment they would face if forced to present inaccurate IDs that would essentially out them against their will in daily life."
FREE MARKETS
Chili's: the great equalizer?
"the rich and poor rub shoulders at Olive Garden and Applebee's. Indeed, the most socio-economically diverse places in America are not public institutions, like schools and parks, but affordable, chain restaurants" pic.twitter.com/WDt6jJzuCQ
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) August 20, 2023
QUICK HITS
• An earthquake hit California yesterday as the state was also pummeled by a tropical storm.
• Former President Donald Trump saya he won't be at this week's GOP debate—or any other Republican primary debates. It's still unclear who else will be on the Republican debate stage Wednesday.
Trump confirms he won't be doing any debates. (Plural.) pic.twitter.com/buTDl3fCni
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) August 20, 2023
• More people are realizing that the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is "a first amendment nightmare," reports Techdirt.
• The American Booksellers Association and the Authors Guild demanding the FTC investigate Amazon's dominance of the book market "is a perfect example for why abandoning the consumer welfare standard results in the FTC being used to protect select competitors rather than consumers," write the American Consumer Institute's Steve Pociask and Trey Price.
• Witnesses to last year's mass shooting at a Tops grocery store in Buffalo, New York, are suing Reddit and YouTube for allegedly radicalizing the shooter.
• At Unherd, Olympia Campbell pushes back against people using evolutionary theory to say women should stay chaste until marriage and stop using birth control.
• "A federal judge in Georgia on Sunday issued a ruling that blocks the state from enforcing its new ban on hormone therapy for transgender minors while the case proceeds," reports Chris Geidner in his LawDork newsletter.
• New York licenses for retail cannabis establishments are in limbo due to a lawsuit filed by four military veterans, who say the state hasn't upheld its promise to give veterans special licensing consideration.
• The town without zoning.
* UPDATE: This post has been updated to add more information about the Times and Siena College poll.
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
The results suggest it is an ideologically diverse coalition, if also a weird one.
Sounds like a description of either party.
Ya, the modern left cant decide if pedophilia is something that should be accepted, or fully promoted.
Well, the MAGA right has line up behind an adjudicated sexual abuser.
The Dem candidate is a sexual abuser who hasn't been adjudicated yet. But we can see his creepy pervy behavior any time he's around children.
I get paid over $220 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over $35k a month doing this and she convinced me to try.For Details
.
.
For Details►————————————————————➤ https://Www.Coins71.Com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Look how Mendacious4ever sticks "adjudicated" in as an evasion of the fact that Trump was never actually charged and the accusation was never proven in court.
Biden is a known rapist. He also molested his own preteen daughter, according to her own FBI authenticated journal.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Cool, Joe Biden forced his way into his shower with his daughter on the regular, sniffs kids on camera daily, and sexually assaulted Tara Reid.
Which candidate has pedo issues again?
Both?
You seem to be forgetting all those photos of Trump’s little girl sitting on his lap, and his saying he’d date her.
And which one sniffs the hair of underage females often and on camera?
Which one grabs their pussies?
You have photographic and/or video evidence?
Saying he would date her based on her looks IF SHE WASN’T HIS DAUGHTER. Funny how context matters.
You’re such a pathetic, desperate liar.
You heard him say he'd date her in the photos?
How remarkable!
Because Pedo Pete didn't constantly try to shower with his teenage daughter or finger bang an unwilling secretary... oh wait.
Now enjoy this C-SPAN footage of Robert L. Peters (totes not Joe) being very inappropriate with young girls.
Utterly disgusting.
This doesn't even make sense. First it was a civil trial where NY had to create a new law to go after Trump, which the dems in NY admitted to. Then the jury actually ruled trump did not rape her but still found he defamed her for saying he didnt rape her.
But I guess good job with the leftist narrative Jeff?
Proof that propaganda works. To headline readers that do no further investigation, Trump raped some lady, that's all they need to hear.
Also Kavanaugh, did you know where is an alcoholic rapist on the SCOTUS?!
The jury found that Trump sexually abused Jean Carroll and that he touched her in inappropriately. The Adult Survivors Act of 2022 was not filed to go after Trump and over 100 lawsuits have been filed under the Act.
The writer of the law admitted that one of the primary motivations of the law was to go after Trump Jeff.
On top of that, define sexual assault. Because schools have deemed taking selfies with someone as being a sexual assault.
Youre also ignoring the criminal vs civil aspect, likely intentionally.
What exact evidence was presented that was firm? Just because 50% of a jury in an 80% dem area approves a vague accusation, it doesn’t mean the event occurred.
So I’m challenging you on the specific evidence Jeff.
in fact, they specifically rejected the alleged assault, then found him liable for the assault. It was clearly a split the baby verdict. That, in a cherry picked jurisdiction with a cherry picked judge. There is zero chance you could prove "by a preponderance of the evidence" that an assault occurred when you can't even prove you were ever at the same location at the same time by a preponderance of the evidence.
"The writer of the law admitted that one of the primary motivations of the law was to go after Trump Jeff."
Got a citation for this? I saw no such admission. The fact is Ms. Carroll already had a lawsuit against Trump. The Adult Survivor Act merely provided a second route to sue Trump.
There is no firm evidence, this was a "she said, he said" case and in the end the jury believed Ms. Carroll. What it might tell you and others is that while Trump can spin a good story in public where he doesn't have to answer questions, he not good in a court room where stricter rules apply.
You are free to educate yourself jeff. I’ve posted it prior and you commented on it prior.
Hint. Carrols lawyer even stated as much on CNN.
No. Nice attempt at dodging but you have not posted it before nor have I replied.
He didn't dodge, Jeff. You're the one dodging.
Fun fact, one piece of evidence used in that case was the infamous "grab them by the pussy" tape. I repeat, a hot mic moment that was little more than locker room talk was used I a court case.
Any touching without permission is inappropriate.
Like grabbing a flute player by their shoulders.
A trainer for a NYC mandatory anti-sexual harassment training I had to attend said Biden grabbing the girl's shoulders was sexual assault. Not that Trump should get a pass. But if we are concerned with such behaviors, neither should Biden.
Gee, I wonder why they only went after him civilly instead of criminally? Couldn’t possibly be because her case was as flimsy as Blaise-Fords and the point was for morons like you to conflate the fraud liability verdict to everything you’ve said here. Good job, lemming.
Statute of limitations, dumbass.
EdG is, you guessed it, another of the socks.
""Well, the MAGA right has line up behind an adjudicated sexual abuser."'
Bill Clinton would probably win again if he could run.
If you support Biden the grabby hair sniffer, you are supporting a sexual abuser.
If his daughter's diary is to be deemed reliable... well....
All victims are to be believed, according to democrats. And the diary was authenticated by the FBI. So we know for a fact that it’s real.
Only 56% of Republican voters will vote for the party’s nominee if it’s not Trump…
28% will write in.
7% will vote 3rd party
4% won't vote at all
4% will vote dem
https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1693377136705331372?t=rcJek6G-UeiaigRg0cjgcg&s=19
Normally, I don’t like to do this on any platform but @OnLocals because they’re savvy enough to understand unweighted raw results.
But I wanted all of you to see what we see. Total annihilation.
Many are INDs who hate the Republican Party, not cultists.
[Link]
There'd be some loss but not nearly that much:
1. People are much less likely to support "an unspecified candidate to be named later". Even many of the Republican primary candidates are unwilling to sign such a pledge. Trump himself is not willing to sign.
2. People are way more willing to play the edgy hard ass in a meaningless poll than in the actual voting booth. Any long-term LP activist can tell you that actual 3rd party votes end up being half of the polls. People chicken out, just like they don't really fulfill their threats to move to Canada or go off grid if their candidate doesn't win.
3. And finally, some people are gaming the poll. Prior to a making a deal, it's to your advantage to make the other side think you'll blow up the whole thing if you don't get your way.
To sum it up: it's like your teenage daughter getting pregnant. If she's just thinking about it you give all kinds of harsh speeches about the serious consequences, and say she better not expect you to help raise the baby. If she actually goes and does it anyway you give her all the support you can.
The numbers tend to go down when a potus brands people that don’t vote for him as white supremacists and has kept political prisoners in prison without trial for 2.5 years, and labels parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists.
"has kept political prisoners in prison without trial for 2.5 years"
Cite please?
This good enough for the White Knight?
https://nypost.com/2023/03/08/an-egregious-denial-of-due-process-for-jan-6-protesters/
“It is egregious the way these people have been treated, for as much as two years pretrial, before any finding of fact. When people find out what has been going on in the DC gulag, it is going to shock the American conscience forever,” the lawyer said.
A new book about the J6 prisoners, “Due Process Denied,” tells a tale of hell in the Washington, DC, “gulag,” the Central Detention Facility in southeast Washington where most have been housed.
The defendants have been kept in a separate unit with mold on the walls, brown water and generally unsanitary conditions, are subjected to 23 hours a day of solitary confinement, denied adequate food, medical treatment and religious services.
""are subjected to 23 hours a day of solitary confinement, denied adequate food, medical treatment""
Liberals would usually cry foul at such treatment. The absence of their voice says they don't care about the conditions if applied to people that don't like.
They no longer support equal rights. Perhaps never did.
Reason would ALSO normally gripe about it.
Eggs, as in something necessary for omelets, never had any rights.
In actual fact the last thing in the world you actually wanted was a citation, you mendacious sealion, but you're getting one anyway.
Here's NPR gloating about it.
" Judges decided a smaller group — often those facing the most serious charges or those who prosecutors worried might flee the country — should be locked up while they awaited trial. That decision presented authorities with a challenge: Where exactly should the government hold them?
Some ended up scattered in jails close to their homes. But a few dozen (the precise number has fluctuated) were incarcerated in the city where the Jan. 6 attack took place, in Washington, D.C.'s Correctional Treatment Facility. The District's Department of Corrections decided for the inmates' "own safety and security" to detain all of the Jan. 6 defendants in just one part of the facility, a section known as C2B.
The combination of a court backlogged with COVID-19-related delays, plus the lumbering nature of a massive federal criminal investigation, has stretched the "pretrial" period to as long as a year or more for some detainees.
Due to COVID-19 protocols, Fellows and other inmates in C2B spent long stretches of the last year alone in their cells for 22 or 23 hours a day. Many of the inmates declined to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and were restricted from going to the barbershop or getting in-person visits."
Denying prisoners visitors because they refuse a medical procedure.....sounds great to me!
Are you this fucking stupid?
It's revealing he had no comment after the cite was provided. A good propagandist knows to simply abandon a failed attack rather than admit failure.
Laursen has us muted so he can stick his fingers in his ears and sing "la la la, I can't hear you" all day long.
You don't understand that Trump voters hate the GOP establishment as much as they hate the left.
What the fuck is the point of voting for Bush/McCain/Romney 2.0?
People are fucking done with controlled opposition bullshit.
"hate the GOP establishment as much as they hate the left."
Hating and voting are two different things. Suppose Trump has a one-and-done heart attack and is off the table. Things get even worse and your 2024 choices end up being Joe Biden (D), Mitt Romney (R), and Elizabeth Nolan Brown (L). Of course you could also not vote, or spoil your ballot, or do a write-in that might not even be counted, much less noticed.
You might say, and even mean it sincerely today, that you'll be a refusenik. But I'm predicting when the time comes you'll change your mind, vote for Romney, and you'll probably even defend him when the lefties here claim (and we can be sure they will) that Romney's literally the most fascist Republican ever - "even Trump wasn't this bad".
This isn't personal and maybe you're a rare exception. If so good for you. It's just that I've been through more than a dozen elections and that's how it pans out every single time.
I probably wouldn't vote.
TBF - I live in a state where the dems could resurrect literal Hitler to run against a resurrected FDR on the republican ticket and it would still go overwhelmingly blue.
But seriously, folks, this can hardly help but be the case in the USA, where several factors (but chiefly tradition/momentum) combine to squeeze all partisanship into two parties. It's even true in New York and some other countries where hitherto independent parties have been cemented into increasingly stable blocs.
I don't know about you, but I totally trust the NYT to have its finger on the pulse of the Republican / conservative political spectrum.
It's not like they have a long and damning history of completely misunderstanding that side of the aisle or their motivations, or anything like that.
Well the left works on 'King' of the [WE] mob RULES principle so of course from their own warped perspective will make it all about a 'person' and not about policy. Because that's what they do.
Most Republicans don't even like Trump as a person or his personal characteristics (something the left can't see past); but if you look at the categories without the non-BS narrative it clearly shows what Republicans want is SMALL GOVERNMENT and that's one thing Trump DID do a decent job at.
This is the part that jumped out at me:
This is the youngest and most diverse group of Republicans. Just 59 percent are white, and 18 percent are Hispanic. More than a quarter are 18 to 29.Nearly three-quarters identify as moderates or liberals. They overwhelmingly support immigration reform and say society should accept the identity of transgender people.…Nearly 90 percent said the economy was poor, placing them just behind the Right Wing in their economic pessimism. A similar number said the country was heading in the wrong direction. So while they may not be conservatives in any traditional sense, they’re certainly not happy with Democrats. They were the likeliest group to say they would rather back a candidate who focused on fighting the radical “woke” left than one focused on protecting law and order. By a two-to-one margin, they said they would rather vote for a candidate who promised to stop “woke” business, rather than a candidate who said businesses should have the freedom to decide what to support.
I’m sorry, but these are completely conflicting narratives that either show 1) the Times study is worth jack shit, 2) the respondents didn’t understand what they were being asked, 3) Zennials/Zoomers are confused idiots, or 4) a combination of all three. “Immigration reform” (which is just a euphemism for open borders) and support of transgenderism is part of the very essence of wokeness since Obama took office. Maybe they’re thinking that wokeness only consists of worshipping black people as the Unassailable Race, a la Tim Wise or Robin DeAngelo, or they’ve seen what happened in their cities since the Fentanyl Floyd riots, but any non-leftist who’s been through college in the last 35 years knows it’s a lot broader than that.
Part of me suspects some of this supposed animus to wokeness, which I don't actually buy for a micro-second, stems from people in this group perceiving that black people have a hell of a lot of political stroke for a demographic that makes up only 13% of the population, and think they're being advantaged over people who aren't accorded the same special social treatment by the Democrats and the national culture at large.
To the extent that they are "Republican," it appears that it solely comes down to anxiety over the perception that there won't be a place in the new economy for them no matter how hard they try, while Hingle McCringleberry and Swirvithan L’Goodling-Splatt get all the good jobs regardless of their qualifications.
Necons..1% of actual Republicans but pour in a ton of money via wealthy wall street, AIPAC and Hollywood types who never much cared for American traditional values but had some globalist, old world grievances and obsession with Trotsky. Dave Stockman was right; Reagan should have never let these degenerates and bigots into any positions of power. I can see the NYT loving those folks...and WaPo as well...
As for transgender, ask the right question NYT..is transgenderism a mental illness? Should children be sterilized if they have this illness? I would bet the "independent" young who accept travesties would in a majority say "live and let live" if you are an adult..you can live in self-denial of reality BUT leave the kids alone.
Elevate Your Academic Work with Editing Help UK. Our Expert Editing and Proofreading Services Enhance Your Content for Excellence. Partner with Us to Achieve Scholarly Success Through Refined, SEO-Optimized Writing.
Yes Reason only printed about Trump because every single Democrat in the US is so solidly behind Biden. (sarc)
More TDS propaganda.
You should be voting on policy, not party or personality. Head to head, Trump policies beat Biden's policies. And even if Trump is not the GOP candidate, all the other candidate are Trump 2.0 or Trump light.
After eight years of Republican fealty to Donald J. Trump, few would argue that the party is still defined by Ronald Reagan's famous three-legged stool of the religious right, fiscal conservatives and neoconservative hawks...
Those legs have been rotting from swamp water and buckling under the weight of well-fed cronies.
Libertarian conservatives still exist...
If only there was an LP for them to jump ship to.
Which version LP? Bake the Cake and be anti racist libirtinism? Or MC LP?
Before or after the Political Police round them up and send them to camps?
If only even one of them was a columnist for Reason.
"An earthquake hit California yesterday as the state was also pummeled by a tropical storm."
Further proof that there is a God, and he has a sense of humor.
The earthquake is further proof global warming is totally out of control and going to kill us all!
Gaia is angered by the dirty EV industry. They can hide the facts from their flock but Gaia is omipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
Also omnivorous?
GAIA gave us radioactive element like Uranium so we can use them to generate electricity. Nuclear fision was given to us by the great earth mother..why are we not using it?
"Further proof that there is a God, and he has a sense of humor."
Obviously, meteorologists have also got a sense of humor, and a good dose of irony, given that the name of the former-hurricane and now tropical-storm beating up on CA is "Hillary."
It’s actually “Hilary” with one L. But that said, the GIFs that have been going around have been Hilary-ous.
????
I haven't been online much lately, so I must have missed them.
Here's a copy of the one that is getting posted the most. Are you able to see it?
https://www.tiktok.com/@silverfren1/video/7269296503947152686
Why should we watch a TikTok video? I thought you didn't like videos as citations, Laursen.
Technically that's not a "citation" it's an "example."
We don't have time to watch videos. Geeeeez.
Got it. LOL. That's pretty good.
I got a laugh out of it.
Can I file that under faces she never made with Bill?
No, just that techtonic plates can shift and it can come up a cloud* at the same time and that Californians don't have the sense to get away from them.
* "Come up a cloud" is Southern for: "It's fixing to rain."
🙂
😉
For even further lulz, the tropical storm was named Hillary.
Kansans fight over driver's license gender markers.
Why does it have a gender listed at all? It's a license to fucking drive.
In the real world, skin color and sex are the two most obvious identification markers, used to confirm the person holding out the license is the person it was given to.
Of course, if the "state" license hadn't been co-opted as a national identification card and internal travel passport, this wouldn't be an issue.
Ackshuyally, color is not on North Carolina licenses, so here, it is not, as members of The Commentariat says, "the most important thing."
No photo ID in NC?
Photo, yes, just no blank for "Race."
Because even Kansas isn't Saudi Arabia?
It’s a license to fucking drive.
If only that were the case.
It's a license for a specific person to drive. The document needs some way to demonstrate that the person holding it is, in fact the person driving.
Otherwise, why issue drivers' licenses? That is another question, of course. But we're talking about current reality here.
Uh, yeah, current reality is it's not just a driver's license. It's a form of national ID. Not only does it get you the privilege of driving, it validates your ability to purchase tobacco, alcohol, firearms, cough medicine, rent a car, establish a line of credit, etc., etc.
Again maybe it should/shouldn't do all of those things but, current reality, all the places that rely on driver's licenses, by mandate or custom, are going to find the ability to (more) whimsically change that information to be between (more) burdensome and (more) selectively preferential. Especially considering that's, rather overtly, the motivation.
It tries to be all those things, and pretty much fails to have an value as a license, given the crap skills most drivers display.
"Not only does it get you the privilege of driving, it validates your ability to purchase tobacco, alcohol, firearms, cough medicine, rent a car, establish a line of credit, etc., etc."
None of those things are restricted by gender. Or biological sex, either. Do you have an example in which a driver's license would need a gender or sex identification to validate ... well, anything?
Suppose if the girls and women at a gym or spa complained that a person who appeared to be a man was in their locker room. If the correct sex is on the person's ID card, that would show whether the complaint was valid.
"Do you have an example in which a driver’s license would need a gender or sex identification to validate … well, anything?"
Identity.
Actual identity, not some bullshit fantasy vision of who you wish you were, but actually what and who you actually are.
You know, the whole point behind having identification in the first place.
"The DNA test says the culprit in a blonde Caucasian male"
"Oh, well it can't be Crystal Butterfly here. Xim's driver's license says xe identifies as a demigirl unicorn."
"The document needs some way to demonstrate that the person holding it is, in fact the person driving."
That way is commonly referred to as a "picture".
Yes, because people never look different from their license photo.
Why does it have a gender listed at all?
Until recently, it wasn't terribly important, but today, we have tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people masquerading as the opposite sex, so we need some way of easily determining if someone is actually male or female.
Why? If the person pictured on the licence is the one driving, why would their gender identity change anything?
As you know, driver's licenses and state ID cards are used for far more purposes than just proof of permission to drive.
The polls never ask "Do you vote republican just to oppose fascism?".
...the rich and poor rub shoulders at Olive Garden and Applebee's.
More now that Epstein's Island is shuttered.
Actually the common trait there is lack of taste buds
And childish appetites.
(Auto-spell thought I was typing "appetizers", and I was tempted to leave it.)
New paper finds that big chain restaurants (Applebee's, Olive Garden, Chili's, IHOP etc) and big chain stores have the largest positive impact on cross-class encounters and thus best bridge our current social divides
"the rich and poor rub shoulders at Olive Garden and Applebee’s. Indeed, the most socio-economically diverse places in America are not public institutions, like schools and parks, but affordable, chain restaurants"
Well, at least we know where we can avoid Rev. Artie! His flourishing cape won't be on the coat rack in these riff-raff-y places!
🙂
😉
Libertarian conservatives still exist, the Times reports. They were the least supportive of Mr. Trump, the paper says
How many are there? Like a dozen left? No one has seen one in years.
You sure as hell aren't one.
“Mises Caucus libertarians aren’t rEaL liBeRtaRiAnS.”
This is rich coming from a corporatist.
Ahem. He is an Italian fascist. Although they have heavy cross over.
Like FDR's heart throb?
Muy Benito.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
An earthquake hit California yesterday as the state was also pummeled by a tropical storm.
It might sound harsh, but God does not want California to live.
God is just trying to give them the post-term abortions they desire.
Does any state deserve fires, floods, and earthquakes as much as California? I mean, their entire existence is based on catastrophism and doom.
Former President Donald Trump saya he won't be at this week's GOP debate...
That's fine, but why did he say it in an Italian accent?
Because all the future proofreaders took out $100,000 in student debt and switched to gender studies.
Have you ever seen Trump and Mario in the same room?
Yes, and they'll both be indicted soon.
Not THAT "Mario" ... *smack*
Problem is that the proofreader’s dictionary knew what a scabbard for a katana is called via transliteration.
Is "transliteration" the "T" in LGTBQ?
Trump confirms he won't be doing any debates. (Plural.)
But he's the best part of any of them.
I disagree, he will not be missed. It will be nice to see what real candidates have to say.
By real candidates, you mean the ones who don't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination?
Mod pines for the likes of Jeb! and Kasich. You know, real RINO’s ready to be the doormat for his beloved democrats.
He's one of five other people in the nation who think that Pence and Nikki Haley will have anything interesting to say.
Jeff's only concern at a GOP debate is which one will kneel quickest to dem narratives by the moderator.
Pence will be debating in Ukrainian with English subtitles.
He means "anyone but Trump". His TDS is showing.
Same with Laursen below.
Uh huh. To criticize Trump, a person who has many things about him worthy of criticism, is to have TDS.
You obviously misunderstand what TDS is. TDS is to be offended, take umbrage, and go into a rage just because Trump said, did, or was claimed to have said or did something. The mere thought of Trump is enough for a TDS sufferer.
Being racist is to be offended, take umbrage, and go into a rage just because a black man in the White House said, did, or was claimed to have said or did something. The mere thought of Obama is enough for a racist.
According to the left, there is no reason to criticize Obama besides racism. And Trump's very existence is a threat to humanity.
Now, what's your point?
According to the right, there is no reason to criticize Trump besides TDS. And Biden's very existence is a threat to humanity.
Now, what’s your point?
Actually, Sarc, what's your point? You and Laursen are the ones who decided to bring this up. You're the only one pushing on it (because White Mike has muted 95% of the commentariat). So, Sarc, what's your point?
My point is that your accusations of TDS are no different than Obama supporters' accusations of racism.
It's a means of deflecting legitimate criticism by impugning the character of the critic.
So when we see Sullum make an off-hand remark denigrating Trump in a story that has nothing to do with Trump one way or another, that's not TDS, Sarc?
No more than conservatives denigrating Obama is rooted in racism.
Got some recent citations, Sarc?
When I see “cite” I read “I’m intellectually lazy and completely lacking in imagination.”
"When I see “cite” I read “I’m intellectually lazy and completely lacking in imagination.”
You know folks, I really think the little sumamabitch does.
But how will this affect his relationship with the sealion? Will they still date?
Maine, Oregon? It's a long-distance relationship, but I'm not sure Dee wants him in her pants.
Let's see, one side thinks critical people are irrationally against one specific person--and are probably correct. And the other side thinks any criticism stems from hatred for an entire race. Can you see a difference?
Let’s see, one side thinks critical people are irrationally against one specific person–and are probably correct. And the other side thinks any criticism stems from hatred for an entire race. Can you see a difference?
The haters aren’t that deep. They just want someone to hate.
Racists hate people of other races, right. How do they know? They see the person. True conservatives hate everyone left of Trump. How do they know? They see the Prius or the COEXIST sticker.
Hate is hate.
What do you think of this?
https://reason.com/2023/08/21/most-republican-voters-arent-loyal-trumpists-suggests-survey/?comments=true#comment-10207136
Take reactions to most criticism of Trump, swap “Obama” or “black man” for Trump, “racist” for TDS, and it reads just like a reaction to criticism of the his predecessor.
I'm sure you'll admit there was a cult of personality around Obama.
Cite? Because most of those you accused of being cultists have criticized Trump plenty. But you and Mike refuse to admit to his policies. Like below where you call it incidental then run 2 weeks back to say Biden respects the constitution. Lol.
Just like anyone who criticized Obama was called racist.
Something Obama supporters and Trump supporters have in common is responding to criticism of their leader with name-calling and personal attacks.
Yes, boaf sidez.
Sounds like you an any criticism of Biden.
Agree!
OK, TDS and racism both exist. Which one actually explains more animosity to a former president?
Had Janeane Garofalo been a Trump supporter she’d have said “This is TDS straight up.”
Exact same mentality. Defend Dear Leader by attacking the personal integrity of the critic.
You mean like you and Mike do?
Biden has many of the same traits but oddly you and Sarc never criticize him for the same behaviors. Weird.
You confuse "criticism" with derangement.
Trump has plenty issues worthy of endless criticism. You leftists lose your fucking minds when Trump is simply mentioned.
You confuse “criticism” with racism.
Obama has plenty issues worthy of endless criticism. You racists lose your fucking minds when Obama is simply mentioned.
No one has lost his or her "fucking mind" because you simply mentioned Obama here. So, obviously, your assertion is a fallacy.
Where were you when he was president?
Obama has been mentioned today, and there's no signs of ODS or "racism". But you guys brought it up upon the mere mention of Trump. Why?
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
Hardly.
Here's the start:
Moderation4ever (aka Jeffy)
I disagree, he will not be missed. It will be nice to see what real candidates have to say.
Yet, Trump is a real candidate since he's announced he's running.
Then,
Mike Laursen (aka White Knight)
Uh huh. To criticize Trump, a person who has many things about him worthy of criticism, is to have TDS.
However, Jeffy's M4e comment had nothing to do with worthy or legitimate criticism.
Then you got involved with "boaf sidez".
If Obama was in the news and conservatives said something about him that wasn’t nice, you know for a fact that they’d be accused of being racist. That was the default response to anything uncomplimentary of the man.
Screaming “You’re mentally ill!” at anyone who says anything uncomplimentary of Trump is no different. It’s a deflection and a personal attack. It's lazy, weak, and intellectually dishonest.
Whatever, Bob.
"Trump has plenty issues worthy of endless criticism. "
Yeah, like getting two scoops of ice cream, eating fast food or having bigger salt and pepper shakers than everyone else at the table.
Well, the well-done steak with ketchup thing is pretty awful.
No mention of EO's outlawing gun accessories?
That's one of those "issues worthy of criticism" you mentioned before. I was mentioning the stupid shit people thought was important to report on because OMB.
"a person who has many things about him worthy of criticism"
Like What? Laursen, Moderation4ever, sarcasmic and a few others constantly ditch on Trump with pure hatred but none of you ever actually ditch on any of his policies...
That is the difference between TDS and hating Biden and lefts policies. Course the leftards dominant mentality is [WE] mob chicken-pecking bird-brained power-mad disease so what would anyone else expect.
Show one example of me hating on Trump.
Just one.
I'm serious. Show an example of me hating on Trump. You can't because no such comment exists.
So... are you going to be a man and take it back, or are you going to be a lying sack of shit?
(That was a rhetorical question. I know you aren't going to take it back.)
Are you really going to pretend that your ton of 'Trumpanize' people mocking isn't a hate on Trump?
Not pretending. Those comments are about his followers, not him.
Mostly my point in those comments is that Trump supporters are no better than the people they hate. That he has a cult of personality similar to that of Obama. That his followers take criticism of him personally, just like Obama's. That they respond to criticism of the man with personal attacks like “You’ve got TDS!” just like Obama’s followers responded with “You’re racist!”
No hate. Though I can see how I'm hated for pointing this out.
"the people they hate" -- UR projecting again. It's not the people it's the policy. And that's why people say you have TDS. There is no 'cult of personality' around Trump and your constant expression of such *is* the 'cult of personality'.
You place no discovery or interest on why people support Trump you just start calling names, unfounded assumptions and mocking it. SQRLSY at least makes up blatant lies about Trump before going off on name-calling.
It’s not the people it’s the policy.
Then why not a positive peep about Biden escalating the trade war with China? If it's about policy then give credit where credit is due, like libertarians did when Trump did libertarian things like cut regulation and not start any new wars.
There is no ‘cult of personality’ around Trump and your constant expression of such *is* the ‘cult of personality’.
I am simply comparing him and his followers with Obama and his followers. Did Obama not have a cult of personality? I think he did. So does Trump.
You place no discovery or interest on why people support Trump
Alright. Why do you support Trump?
SQRLSY at least makes up blatant lies about Trump before going off on name-calling.
I'm not a liar. To be an effective liar you need to remember your own lies. And I'm not good at that. So I don't bother. I do overuse irony and hyperbole, but that's not lying. Just lame attempts at humor.
We don't know that yet. It close to a year to the nominating at the convention. How many candidates have gone in the Iowa leading only to fade quickly.
Or talk about issues we're actually facing, instead of name-calling, interrupting, braggadocio, and complaining about 2020 and how everybody is unfair to him.
this is true for those who watch. but, it also means much fewer people will watch and ignorance will continue to lead the electorate, in general.
From the Biden supporters who still pushes Russia and fine good people. Lol.
three strikes, you're out. never been for any of those.
OK, Jeffy.
Although I'm not sure the typical modern presidential debate does much to dispel ignorance.
that is true. it has become more of a sporting event where they root for their "guy." but at least there is a chance of somebody learning something.
Probably not. Learning something requires an open mind.
I like how Trump said he’d be doing an interview with Tucker Carlson, instead, and Carlson’s people replied, “Nobody told us.”
This was supposed to be the day of Trump’s big election fraud report. That announced plan didn’t last long.
"I like how Trump said he’d be doing an interview with Tucker Carlson"
Do you really like that? Normally Trump and Carlson make you shit yourself with rage.
Sarc and Mike seem to pay attention to Tucker more than anyone. Oddly they still lie about him too.
My guess is leftist media is telling Mike this.
C'mon, man.
More people are realizing that the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is "a first amendment nightmare..."
...for the kids!
Ms lovejoy "won't someone think of the children!?"
The Biden family "we always think of the children, bow chicka bow bow... Wait was that second part out loud?"
How lovely their hair smells. How firm their shoulders.
Of course, the "debates" don't actually debate anything, is it more accurately called a joint press conference.
I would prefer to see each candidate be required to describe his views on a single subject.
Say "Social security policy is unsustainable, here are the changes I propose to fix it." (and "leave it alone" is not an acceptable answer)
Or "What level of national debt do you consider acceptable?".
Or "Should executive agencies be allowed to issue regulations that have the force of law without legislative validation?"
A further, but impractical, option would be prohibiting mention of any other politician by name; just state YOUR policies.
To bring it back to anything that resembles a debate we would need to have trap doors that lead to a pool of sharks that open when a question is not answered in 10 seconds. Sharks with lasers.
I don’t think the shark thing would work.
Most candidates are also lawyers, and the sharks would just escort them to the side of the tank as a professional courtesy.
Good point.
Now I'm having a hard time coming up with anything that wouldn't escort them to the side.
Witnesses to last year's mass shooting at a Tops grocery store in Buffalo, New York, are suing Reddit and YouTube for allegedly radicalizing the shooter.
Sounds like all kinds of standing.
How where "witnesses" harmed?
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. ___, (May 18, 2023) of course controls on the merits, but if they were only witnesses, they would not have standing.
some of them were probably ducking behind things.
So I am either a Libertarian Conservative or a fiscal conservative. I will have to think about that a bit. As far a being fiscal conservate, (what I always believed I was) there is no fiscal responsible side in this dogfight of a two party system.
Cutting taxes and increasing spending isn't fiscally conservative?
as opposed to raising taxes and raising spending even more
... you forgot to mention that to achieve 'both sidez'
If you want to be intellectually honest here, which I doubt since I figure you're just trying to score points with the girls, there is a "both sidez" but they are different.
Conservatives misinterpret the Laffer Curve to mean any and all tax cuts stimulate the economy and bring in more tax revenue. Take that to its logical conclusion and 0% taxes would bring in the most revenue. That's obviously false.
Progressives call government spending "investment" and believe it stimulates the economy and brings in more tax revenue. Take that to its logical conclusion and communism would be ideal. That too is obviously false.
So yes there is a "both sidez" here. They're both deluded.
Sarc, no one interprets the Laffer Curve that way. It's a nice strawman, but that's all it is.
And it's always about the "mean girls" to you, isn't it?
It's an article of faith amongst conservatives that all tax cuts stimulate the economy and raise revenue, just as it's an article of faith amongst progressives that government spending stimulates the economy and raises revenue.
It's pretty obvious to any unbiased observer. The only people who say that's not true are conservatives and progressives.
Sarc, did you get black out drunk and fall down a flight of stairs on your head? Just when we think sarc can't get any stupider... he cranks it up to 11.
I'd say conservatives correctly interpreted the Laffer curve and judged that taxes were too high.
This is borne out by the fact that revenues increased after the Trump tax cuts.
The Left openly proclaims that they want higher taxes in order to punish the rich, even if it results in lower revenues.
They don't think taking 90% of something is greedy.
nope – not trying to score points. just thought i noticed an oversight that betrayed your preferences … dare i say – biases ?
was it my use of the 'z' that triggered you?
*snort*
The only triggering I saw was you taking offense to criticism of conservatives.
deviated septum?
Suppressed laughter.
I find the idea that a majority of Republicans agree with Trump on most issue a bit absurd, because I don't really think Trump has real platform. His campaign seems to largely center on grievance. In 2020 he had no official platform. I think that Trump as a confidence man makes people think that he supports their ideas, whether that is true or not.
From what I’ve seen the people who support Trump support him, whatever his policies are. If they supported policies first and the man second, they’d be praising, or at least crediting, Biden for continuing Trump’s trade war.
A realignment has happened, and its pretty much big corporations, big tech, big pharma, and elite whites who pander to minorities and shit on poor whites (but also dont actually help anyone below the wealthy elite, despite their rhetoric to do so)...vs a large portion of whites that are fed up with the elites but also other minorities who aren't buying into the globohomo space commune.
The left has become the establishment, and Trump is a middle finger to them. There is no element of populism and actual concern for lower and middle class in the left other than the fig leaf they have left about the democrats being for "workers". That's as basic as it gets for most. I dont care for Trump but despise the left, and would pull the lever for him as I am completely fed up with the outright authoritarianism and gaslighting the lefts has fully supported since 2016.
I can't tell. Are you agreeing with me?
I am not, most everyone I know that voted Trump in the past dont give a shit about the man at all and especially the evangelicals I know think he is an odious human. They just find the democrats to be diametrically opposed to almost every view they have, so they will take the guy calling Nancy Pelosi a horseface or cheating on his wife to keep politicians that are actively hostile to their worldview out of office.
Most dont care for the man at all, they just want the left to get hit in the face with a pie.
It actually sounds like you are agreeing with me in that people are voting for him, not the policies he supports.
Less that they are voting for him regardless of his policies, more that they are voting against the people who oppose him and specifically their policies.
And if they get egg on their faces, thrown by Trump, then its bonus points.
But once they vote for the man they reflexively defend everything he does by attacking his critics with accusations of mental illness. Then when Biden does the exact same things there’s nothing but crickets. That’s what’s called a cult of personality.
Trump's presidency was a reply of his predecessor's as far as that goes. The only difference was that his supporters shouted "TDS!" while the previous president's supporters shouted "Racist!"
Ummm… you and Mike constantly attack anyone critical of dems. You both ignore when Biden does similar but worse things throwing a but Trump out. Youre projecting again.
replay, not reply
If they are merely voting against the Democrats, it doesn't explain the MAGA hats and the bros driving aroudn with giant Trump 2024 flags flying from the beds of their pickup trucks. There is a very obvious cult of personality around Trump.
this is a very limited number of people.
Really? Where do you live?
it doesn't matter where I live it is a limited number of people vs. 332 million Americans or even by x million Registered Voters
FYI, Mike's from San Francisco and now lives in or near Portland, so when he claims "bros driving aroudn with giant Trump 2024 flags flying from the beds of their pickup trucks", he has no real world experience of this.
1. It's not happening.
2. It is happening, but it's not that bad.
Mike if your terrifying pickup army was 100,000 strong it would only be 2000 per state. it's happening and it's not that bad.
OK, but I don't want to see any of the conservative commenters here who are now claiming there are only a few, insignificant MAGA cult members repeating the "#. It's happening, but it's not that bad" meme anymore.
Are there more truck driving Trumpers with red hats, or more Prius driving Bernie bots who wear socks with their sandals?
Outliers on both sides.
Are you drunk already? He was clear in both responses.
Just like you guys claim nobody voted for Biden but against Trump.
Be honest here: you don’t see anything childish and self-defeating in choosing as one’s champion a guy whose super power is boorishness?
Mike. Why is your sole focus on presentation and not substance?
Boorishness? Bombastic bloviating buffoon for sure, but boorish? No. I don't think so.
🙂
What about supporting a guy whose super power is forgetting where the hell he is?
You’ll have to pose that question to a Biden supporter. SPB is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
So, all these disenfranchised peoples’ move to stick it to the establishment was to line up behind a buffoon.
They just find the democrats to be diametrically opposed to almost every view they have,
You TDS sufferers need to understand why Trump gets the support he does.
The Democrats do absolutely nothing that aligns with conservative or libertarian ideals. It's not hard to understand.
The Democrats do absolutely nothing that aligns with conservative or libertarian ideals.
And Trump does? He managed to turn conservatives away from free markets which was where they overlapped with libertarians. Now conservatives and libertarians have very little in common. Any alignment between Trump and libertarians is incidental, like when a stopped clock happens to tell the correct time.
You keep pushing this ridiculous lie based on pure ignorance. We have never had free global trade markets retard. Even Reagan established tariffs in response to bad acts from other countries.
I get you never finished the econ 101 book, but when other countries are manipulating markets and condoning theft, the market isn’t free.
Your entire thesis is one based on utter ignorance. Even NAFTA wasn’t a free market. No trade agreement is. How are you so retarded?
Where is the incidental overlap with the dems you now defend? Trump got tax cuts and lower regulatory burden. He campaigned on those things and got them. It wasn't incidental retard. He also pushed and got prison reform.
Yes, and it worked.
You guys exploded with rage when the next anointed lost and your whole corrupt mechanism and true power structure exposed itself fully for the first time.
^absolutely THIS^
Trumps election was like someone switching the lights on in a room at the Roach motel but the roaches rather than trying to hide, just attacked the "light bringer"
...yeah - I know the light bringer wording is awkward when obliquely referring to Trump - but you work with what you got. His election cast the light on the roaches.
It’s amazing that he will make completely empty boasts, such as “I would have handled Putin perfectly” with not one iota of supporting detail of what he would have done differently — and MAGAs lap it up.
Funny how Putin didn't invade Ukraine until Biden was in office. I'm guessing that was just a coincidence.
"They had an agreement! Putin wouldn't do things America didn't like when Trump was in power because... umm..."
Yes, it is just coincidence unless you can point to something Trump actually did to deter Putin.
Man. You guys are really struggling.
Well, Trump kissed up to Putin and basically tried to break up any anti-Putin alliances.
Oh, like how?
I expected him to say Putin got Trump elected. The left still believes it.
Yes, there's that.
Got any citations for that, Laursen? And no, the Steele Dossier doesn't count.
Giant red reset button mean anything to you?
Cite, Jeffy?
Bankrupting him with record low oil and gas prices was one concrete thing. Putin couldn’t afford to invade a Dollar General when we were exporting energy
^ This.
I mean Putin took Crimea under O, did nothing under Trump, then invaded Ukraine fully under Biden....so....
Yes, complete the thought. What did Trump actually do to make Putin delay his invasion plans?
Not use Ukraine for money laundering and biolabs?
In honesty? He is an erratic appearing, ego driven, asshole.
If I am going to invade a country and dont want the US to intervene, do I do it on the watch of the above described person, or a pussy/pushover who is going to draw a red line then erase it as soon as its stepped over?
a pussy/pushover who is going to draw a red line then erase it as soon as its stepped over
That doesn't seem to be Biden's response so far. Biden seems to be more trying to cultivate an image of being tough on Russia and China. In my opinion, to the point he is putting our country at great security risk.
I don't think it's what Trump actually did, but what he convinced Putin he would have done. And unfortunately for us in this discussion now, that was probably communicated secretly. But people have put forward various things a POTUS could do if unconstrained by such details as having to kiss up to the Germans, French, or British...or certain factions in Ukraine.
but what he convinced Putin he would have done. And unfortunately for us in this discussion now, that was probably communicated secretly
That comes across as a hermetically-sealed belief: he took a hard line with Putin, but it was secret.
Is there any non-secret evidence?
Again, energy policy is all that matters to a country where it’s 45% of their GDP
Dude. We were all there when it happened.
Remember how Trump was starting world war 3 by not attacking Russia in Syria? Remember how Trump was going to war with Russia because of Turkey? And then not going to war in Turkey because Russia? And then starting WWIII in Iran because he was holding a hard line? And then starting WWIII in Iran because he refused to attack them because of a drone strike? And then he was starting WWIII because he took out a terrorist and the top Iranian general who was controlling him?
Yeah.... all of that. The working together in Syria. The negotiations over Turkey. The sanctions. The trade tariffs.
Trump's negotiations are super-simple. Carrot and stick. Old fashioned horse trading. He tells everyone Putin is great and offers him a deal.... then Putin is a little baby when he declines. Then he is great again when he puts forward an altered deal.
Tit for tat. Very simple game theory.
That is how he handled Putin. Hit me, and I hit back 10 times harder. Play nice, and I play nice.
It is one of the oldest tactics in international relations. Probably as old as marrying off your kids to seal alliances.
If Putin had decided to invade Ukraine a little earlier, during Trump's administration, Trump would have been in the same mess as Biden is currently in. Trump would have no magical ability to stop Putin or any special capability to counter the invasion that Biden doesn't have.
It's tough to invade another country when you've got no money for it, dweeb.
Except that didn't happen dumbass. Live in reality instead of using make beliefs to defend Biden.
Trump may never have had an official platform, but compare what he did as president to what you might imagine a Mitchell Romney would've done. Isn't actual performance a more reliable indicator than any promised platform?
So what if a politician does not endorse a platform? In the modern paradigm a platform seems to require a comprehensive vision for society, especially with proactive agenda to impose that vision. Sounds like the opposite of basic libertarianism.
The most characteristic activity of the Trump White House was Trump's abandoning paying any attention to national matters or exhibiting any leadership, to instead spend his time nursing grievances and spreading distrust in advance of the upcoming presidential election.
You can't support that at all. He did way more than Obama did in 8 years.
The democrats spent the entire time obsessed with the politics of personal destruction, but Trump aggressively used trade policy to support US domestic interests. He attacked the regulatory state and the abuses of the Obama administration - much of which Biden has undone (see Operation Chokepoint 2.0, for example). He did criminal justice reform, undoing some of the damage done by Senator Biden. He brought home a few trillion in foreign holdings due to tax reforms. He pushed through the most aggressive response to a pandemic in the history of the US, with Operation Warp Speed.
You can be for it or against it, but pretending that he was all about grievances and mistrust is just an outright lie. If those are your big complaint, you have only one place to look, and it certainly isn't in the Trump camp. (Remember, members of the HRC campaign promised to impeach Trump the morning after the election. People who were on the inside of the Obama White House and knew about the CIA and F
Not to mention the Abraham Accords and the USMCA which further put paid to Laursen's claim.
If it were any other president just those two achievements would define their presidencies.
and garner them Nobel prizes
"... if you dont get a nobel prize for those things - then you ain't black!"
???
Whether you like Obamacare or not, Obama pushed it through. That was major.
And his response to a pandemic? What is your baseline for comparing Trump’s response to another president’s response. We’ve never had a similar crisis. You honestly think Trump was more on top of managing COVID-19 than another President with fewer attention span challenges would have been?
I’m not “pretending” at all about the last, say, year and a half of Trump’s presidency being about nothing more than grievences and mistrust.
What the actual fuck? We have literally 2 responses to the pandemic between trump and Biden. One was authoritarian at the federal level while the other took a federalist approach leaving it to the states.
Not a leftist guys.
Trump's administration allowing a pause in rents during the pandemic wasn't paying attention to national matters?
“ spend his time nursing grievances and spreading distrust in advance of the upcoming presidential election”
You are an utter self-parody. After years of malfeasance being slowly revealed within various agencies starting with things like the falsified Carter Page FISA warrant, the Flynn prosecution, impeachment for investigating the Biden/Ukraine connections, culminating in the “51 former (cough) intelligence agents” spike in the Biden bagman story, it is utterly hilarious to characterize what follows as “nursing grievances”.
As for spreading distrust, knowledge of the bad behavior by State actors is what sows distrust, but I certainly can understand why you might hate that whole “knowledge” thing. It is uncomfortable to be known as a Statist motherfucker on an allegedly libertarian blog.
So, you heavily bought into Trump's nursing of grievances and spreading of distrust. Got it.
You fail to acknowledge the known grievances that are a threat to liberty. But you applaud those actions because of who you hate.
Let's see
Control illegal immigration
Force Europe to pay their NATO commitments
Confront China and others taking advantage of bad trade agreements
Repatriate American manufacturing
No new wars and end the mess of the old ones.
What say you Magoo?
Are those Trump's policies or just what you think are his policies? Because that what I am talking about Trump a confidence man has you thinking your issues are his issues when there is no real connection.
USMCA
Abraham Accords
DPRK rapproachment
Serbia Kosovo Agreement
First Step Act
Any two of these would be huge for any other presidents first term.
I am very glad you started out your list with Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), because I think it illustrates my point. Agreed to in 2018 the USMCA supersedes the 1994 NAFTA agreement. Trump had been highly critical of NAFTA, but the agreement reached during his administration, the USMCA, is essentially the same agreement with small updates for the current time. Trump believers think he negotiated an agreement when all he did was renew an existing agreement.
Huh? There are huge differences, and Canada got slightly fucked over (Thanks Justin).
For example Rules of Origin for Automobile. The Trump administration repeatedly raised concerns that NAFTA encouraged the outsourcing of automobile production, at a detriment to U.S. manufacturing and jobs. NAFTA required automobiles to have 62.5% of components manufactured in Mexico, the U.S., or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs. Under the USMCA, this will increase to 75%.
The USMCA protects internet companies to ensure they’re not liable for the content their users produce and the prohibition of duties on eBooks and music.
The de minimis (duty-free) threshold has been increased from $20 to $150 for imports into Canada and from $50 to $100 for imports into Mexico. This adversely impacts retailers in Canada and Mexico, who will be harder hit financially when importing low-value goods, but is good for American border retailers.
Reforms to Canada’s dairy pricing system give U.S. farmers access to the Canadian dairy market. Under USMCA, U.S. dairy exports increased by more than $314 million a year.
NAFTA did not include an Update Deadline or a Sunset Clause. USMCA’s Sunset Clause requires the participating parties to revisit and renegotiate their terms — or withdraw from the agreement entirely — on or before its 16th year post-implementation.
Da fuck! Those are reputedly Republican issues. Did Trump pursue those issues or did he not? Did Trump move the embassy to Jerusalem or did he not? Did Trump try to eliminate Obamacare or did he not?
"I find the idea that a majority of Republicans agree with Trump on most issue a bit absurd, because I don’t really think Trump has real platform. His campaign seems to largely center on grievance."
Did Trump have to license grievance politics from the DNC?
Pretty obvious which categories are represented in these comments.
So which one would Sqrlsy fit under, Sarc?
A hat maker who has inhaled too much mercury.
Not a sock maker?
The sock master is the guy accusing others of running socks. Someday you'll figure that out.
Then name my socks, if you're so cocksure of it.
You're not the accuser, you're parroting the accuser. Thought you were smarter than that.
I've said "I thought you were smarter than that" to you way too many times.
I do think "Don't cite me bro" is probably you, or someone I have on mute, trying to bait me by pretending to be honest.
You're funny, Sqrlsy. He's not me, and I am not him. Believe it or not, but some of us here don't have sockpuppets running around.
Says the guy who accuses anyone who says anything remotely libertarian of being the same person. You’re like the Canadian Cunt was a couple years ago, swearing that I was Squirrely, jeff, and everyone else. Then when he found proof that I was being impersonated rather than being the impersonator, he lost is fucking mind.
I’m going to stop saying that I thought you were smarter than that.
I was mistaken. My fault. Gave you too much credit. Shame on me.
Got a link to the comment?
Well you're definitely SQRLSY One.
And SQRLSY One is definitely sarcasmic.
Nope. I'm not a loser with hundreds of bookmarked Reason comments. I'm sure Mother's Lament does. Ask him.
I call the nuttiest "Sarcasmic Gold" and I'm going to curate them and sell subscriptions.
Who all do you have on mute?
Ask him to post the list.
Which category is represented by me, the guy primarily responsible for getting Howard Stern to run for the LP nomination for governor, and who thinks eventual governor Stanley Dworkin would’ve been great in office despite neither of them being doctrinaire libertarians?
That was you?! I have to thank you.
I was a young Libertarian who took myself way too seriously, when I started listening to Howard Stern just as he was running as a Libertarian. It was Howard Stern eventually got me to lighten up and realize all extreme political idealogy is laughable.
"It was Howard Stern eventually got me to lighten up and realize all extreme political idealogy is laughable."
His liberal use of N*****, combined with his extremely paranoid, delusional, authoritarian COVID response, has properly sorted him out to the political party he was always meant to find.
Same for you brother Mike?
Nope.
I haven't even heard Howard Stern since he moved to satellite radio.
The irony of Laursen singing Stern's praises as a supposed moderate is that he's the biggest Democratic establishment kiss-ass in the media these days.
Just like Mike.
I should have put a qualifier in there like "most", because you're way too sane to be most of the commentariat.
Saner than this guy?
sarcasmic
Screw being humane. Whip out a machete and swipe off the head, then laugh as it runs around with blood squirting up into the air before landing on the heads of screaming children. I’d register to vote for that guy.
sarcasmic
I had CPS called on me because I said sometimes dragged my kid’s feet off the bed to get her to get up. CPS said it was reported that I was “Laying hands on my child in a concerning way.”
sarcasmic
LET JESSEAZ AND FRIENDS CUT AND PASTE TO SHOW IM A LIAR ABOUT COCAINE AND CAN’T BE TRUSTED ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE
QUOTE IT BITCHES!!!!
sarcasmic
Nothing says liberty like sucking down a scorpion bowl or two while driving home from getting takeout.
sarcasmic
September.9.2021 at 11:59 am
I’M EVERYONE AND EVERYWHERE!!!!!!! I DONT EAT OR SHIT OR PISS OR FUCK OR NOTHING!!!!! ALL I DO IS POST UNDER MULTIPLE NAMES 24/7!!! I HAVEN’T BEEN TO THE BATHROOM IN WEEKS!!!!
Sounds like a perfectly sane guy who is just a bit sqrlsy.
Post actual links you motherless sack of shit.
You won’t. Want to know why? Because if you did people would see that muting that guy doesn’t mute me. It’s proof that I’m not the impersonator. Rather it’s proof that I’m being impersonated.
SHOW THE ACTUAL LINKS YOU LYING FUCK!
Here's one:
https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/?comments=true#comment-9091932
sarcasmic 2 years ago
I’M EVERYONE AND EVERYWHERE!!!!!!! I DONT EAT OR SHIT OR PISS OR FUCK OR NOTHING!!!!! ALL I DO IS POST UNDER MULTIPLE NAMES 24/7!!! I HAVEN’T BEEN TO THE BATHROOM IN WEEKS!!!!
*this is what Mother’s Lament really< believes about me*
so?
You asked for the link. The link has been provided. It's actually a funny thread.
Here's the links, crazypants:
sarcasmic
Screw being humane. Whip out a machete and swipe off the head, then laugh as it runs around with blood squirting up into the air before landing on the heads of screaming children. I’d register to vote for that guy.
https://reason.com/2022/11/21/sam-bankman-fried-journalism-funding-crypto-fraud-media/?comments=true#comment-9803861
sarcasmic 1 year ago
Flag Comment Mute User
LET JESSEAZ AND FRIENDS CUT AND PASTE TO SHOW IM A LIAR ABOUT COCAINE AND CAN’T BE TRUSTED ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE
QUOTE IT BITCHES!!!!
https://reason.com/2021/09/13/house-democrats-tax-bill-lavishes-subsidies-on-local-news/?comments=true#comment-9100935
sarcasmic
January.22.2022 at 9:05 am
Nothing says liberty like sucking down a scorpion bowl or two while driving home from getting takeout.
<a href="https://reason.com/2022/01/22/new-yorks-liquor-store-lobby-fights-against-to-go-drink-sales-by-bars-restaurants/?comments=true#comment-9318314
This is a funny one though.
https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/?comments=true#comment-9091790
Sheree Deslatte 2 years ago
He could just as easily link to the time you accidentally posted the exact same copypasta less than a minute apart on your Sqrlsy sock and your sarcasmic handle. It’s not like there’s any shortage of material if we want to make you look stupid.
Not sure what that's all about. Sheree Deslatte was Tulpa. Meaning liar.
Tulpa is the all-purpose scapegoat from what I can tell.
Terms you don't know:
https://reason.com/2021/02/07/the-mushroom-moment-manifesto/?comments=true#comment-8747992
sarcasmic 3 years ago
So there’s a difference between law (what society deems to be wrong) and legislation (rules backed with government force)?
No way!
Law is from legislation.
How is that a gotcha? I'm confused. I thought your game was to post me saying awful things. Not pick some comment out of a conversation. This is lame.
Point is, one can find these posts with a little effort, if one wants to. Your posting history (as well as mine and anyone else's) is searchable.
My point is that much of what ML has posted about me when I didn’t mute him was from someone else (Tulpa) using my handle. It was a big problem for a while. They fix it then Tulpa figures out how to hack it. Wash, rinse repeat.
I have one link.
https://reason.com/video/2023/06/14/should-trump-go-to-prison/?comments=true#comment-10110152
This is interesting. The post was muted so I first chose ‘Show Username’. It said “Don’t Cite Me Bro”.
Check it out. Find a post by that guy and then open the link. Mute ‘sarcasmic’ and see it mute him on refresh.
There’s proof I (as well as others, mute that guy and many of jeff’s post disappear) am being impersonated, and the sock-king is the guy saying that I’m running socks.
It’s probably too much work for you so you wont’ bother. If you did then you’d be faced with a choice of confirming what I say and losing face with the trolls, or going along with them.
You will not bother, go along with them, or lie. I am 100% certain. You lack the character to do anything else.
Here we go.
https://reason.com/2023/08/20/the-town-without-zoning/?comments=true#comment-10205009
https://reason.com/video/2023/06/14/should-trump-go-to-prison/?comments=true#comment-10110125
One post by ‘sarcasmic’ the other by ‘Don’t Cite Me Bro’.
Mute one, refresh. Mutes both. Neither mutes me.
Not only that, but if you click 'Show Username' it will show the name of the one you last muted.
Is that not proof?
Tulpa isn't the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot. He's real.
Question is, what will you do with this information? Ignore it? Lie about it? Pretend it doesn’t exist?
I know for certain what you won't do.
I know. You'll say it doesn't matter because I must have done this that or the other thing. Same rationalization cops use when they put innocent people behind bars. Cops figure he's guilty of something.
All those links I just posted mute you when you mute them.
Fucking Tulpa, right?
The poll conducted by nyt also found that Republicans find Biden dreamy, and don't think he committed any crimes.
ENB you need to vet your sources better
As has been discussed, she continues to prove she is just another NPC in the leftist media bubble. Most of her takes as well as her sources are left wing.
Let's see what else the NYT has to say...
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1693628651256909939?t=YWCUeavnoqha7cwK4e2qcQ&s=19
You can call for racial consolidation and black nationalism in the premier state propaganda organ and no one bats an eye
No Christian leaders will complain about this, there will be no breathless pearl clutching about racial identitarianism, Charles Blow will not end up on a list from the ADL or SPLC, the FBI will not pay him a visit
[Link]
That's because the lily-white "liberal" establishment power brokers at the NYT don't think that blacks are capable of being a threat to them, but they do think poor, disaffected whites are. So they use and encourage black racism and grievances in order to attack the true enemy to their power.
I would suggest relocation to California for the big jackpot the state's going to hand out.
On a state level, when they consolidate political boundaries into 'black-majority' areas, they call it 'gerrymandering'.
Also, when they DON'T consolidate areas to allow for some minority-majority representation on the committee, they call it 'gerrymandering'.
...Olympia Campbell pushes back against people using evolutionary theory to say women should stay chaste until marriage and stop using birth control.
Darwinism and Creationism intersectionality.
Personally, nothing says "Liberty" to me like clapping back against people using theories incorrectly.
Did I say "Liberty"? I meant, "insecure, oppressive, domineering bitch". I can't imagine the abject waste of life that went into getting a Ph.D. to argue this shit.
Except that Darwinism is a descriptive Theory on the development of life from less complex to more complex over time and doesn't deal with the origin of Life, the Universe, and Everything and Darwinian Evolution does not prescribe any kind of normative conduct.
Creationism is a faith-based account of the creation of Life, the Universe, and Everything with no basis in the larger context of what we know about these from science and what new things we learn about by science every day. Also, Creationism carries with it the normative prescription for human to grovel to a non-existent God named JHVH-1.
In any event, both the Professor and those she is addressing are evidently manufacturing Straw Persons.
Calling them "gender markers" is trying to steal a base. Under the Kansas law, they're biological sex markers, not social gender role markers.
The question then is, can Kansas require that the driver's license mark the driver's biological sex, even if the driver would prefer, for social reasons to keep their biological sex secret?
And whatever the libertarian impulse is, it's hard to imagine there's any actual constitutional issue here (either Federal or state), absent the kind of ass-pull that characterized the "jurisprudence" of the Warren Court or Anthony Kennedy.
It also shows how leftists shamelessly lie and interchange sex and gender to suit their needs while proclaiming them to be different for cover.
Jeffy will be along to humpty dumpty sex/gender in a bit.
“Humpty dumpty” meaning having different opinions than you?
Mike truly is that dumb.
Words mean what I say they mean. Jeff/Humpty.
Maybe read a book Mike?
But all the books got banned!
""The question then is, can Kansas require that the driver’s license mark the driver’s biological sex, even if the driver would prefer, for social reasons to keep their biological sex secret?""
Can I change mine to TBD?
Q. Sir, do you know you are in the woman's bathroom? Are you a woman?
A. I could be.
New rule: DLs must have a photo of your face and your crotch, both uncovered.
The purpose of the driver license is to identify the person holding the card. It seems silly to not have the sex match the description. Image the confusion of looking at the picture and not having it match the sex. The person is dressed as a male, short hair, maybe facial hair and the DL say female. The Kanas legislature is pushing conservative woke past the practical need of the document.
"Image the confusion of looking at the picture and not having it match the sex. The person is dressed as a male, short hair, maybe facial hair and the DL say female."
Ill concede this as an issue the second I see a convincing tranny. And no, screaming "IT'S MA'AM!!!" also isnt helping their case
https://womenintheworld.org/most-beautiful-transgender-women/
No such thing. They're still men.
Perfect example. This is the top 10 in the world, and the majority are clear giveaways.
If I make a list of ten smartest people in the world and the majority cant spell their name correctly, I would say something is very wrong
Define "dressed as a male". Males have a certain look due to different body build and facial features. They may have beards or stubble due to not shaving, broader shoulders, narrower hips, more muscular build (even if he's sitting in front of the computer eating Cheetos all day), squarer face, more prominent brow ridges. Females have wider hips, rounder faces, less muscular build (even if in the gym all day), narrower shoulders, little to no brow ridges, and lack facial hair (other than a waxed upper lip).
You really cannot change any of those by changing your "gender".
have you really never heard of testosterone therapy?
Have you ever seen it work?
yes.
I haven't. I've seen half-poisoned guys with tits and an adam's apple but they still didn't turn into girls.
the question was TESTOSTERONE treatment. they don't do that for men transitioning to women.
It still won't change the eyes, their pelvic bones, their muscles, or their chromosomes.
Estrogen treatments still won't make men have any wider pelvic bones, smaller muscles, or remove that Y-chromosome.
keep trying to move those goal posts. you are still trying to dig in on things that have nothing to do with outward appearance.
I haven't moved one goalpost here, twit. Arguing with you, Jeffy, is like arguing with a young-earth creationist. No matter what evidence I bring to the table, you still wallow in your faith-based ignorance.
As I replied to the above, the "top 10 most beautiful trannies" above...the majority are not even convincing.
So the rest of them will not even come close. Most that I have seen look like failed science experiments.
"I haven’t moved one goalpost here, twit."
you started with a premise about outward appearance, and now all you can talk about is something you need an X-ray to see. sorry if you are too stupid to know that is moving the goalposts.
Your YEC-style logic isn't even worth my time or energy, Jeffy.
Biology and millions of years of hominid evolution isn't moving the goalposts on you, you twit.
you started with a premise about outward appearance, and now all you can talk about is something you need an X-ray to see.
LOL, you don't need a fucking x-ray to see that even Britney "Manvoice" Griner is obviously built like a woman, especially compared to just about any man over 5 feet tall.
"Biology and millions of years of hominid evolution isn’t moving the goalposts on you, you twit."
when you start with "outward appearance" and end with "millions of years of hominid evolution," you have moved the goalposts. the original argument fell flat, and you dishonest dip-shits can't admit it.
when you start with “outward appearance” and end with “millions of years of hominid evolution,” you have moved the goalposts.
Foo_dumbass actually believes that outward appearance isn't part of hominid evolution.
Does testosterone therapy change the pelvis from wide to narrow?
Plenty of fat dudes with wide pelvises.
Yet to see a fat man with birthing hips.
Do they have pelvises wide enough to birth a child, Jeffy?
is there anything you know anything about? the pelvis expands during pregnancy. it is not an off the shelf standard option.
one day you might meet a girl willing to talk to you, and she can tell you all about this stuff.
Dude, no the pelvis doesn't expand like that. You do realize that one of the major ways anthropologists can tell male from female in skeletons are the ways I mentioned above, including the pelvis, Jeffy.
Here's a primer in simple terms for you, Jeffy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology
It even has pictures.
so..... you are saying that you are talking about the internal features you can only see with an x-ray and NOT the externally visible differences? (and has nothing to do with the whole premise you started with.)
https://www.laurajawad.com/post/how-pregnancy-changes-your-pelvis/
Are you still sane, Jeff? Everything from your posture, to the way you walk, to your appearance is affected by your skeletal structure.
No amount of mascara and skirts can change that.
WTF are you talking about?
You really are retarded, Jeffy. Even a woman who never has had kids will have a wider pelvis (in addition to the other aforementioned things) than any man. Read up on forensic anthropology and get back to us.
"Read up on forensic anthropology and get back to us."
so clear you can only tell when looking at the bones.......
your original premise was outward appearance. now you want to dig in on something you need an X-ray to see.
Jeffy, you really are retarded. Dipshit, those same bones cause outward appearances. Hell, they even create differences in gait.
" Dipshit, those same bones cause outward appearances."
yet, somehow..... the only place you can find to describe the difference is on the study of skeletal remains....
LOL, your own fucking link mentions not a single solitary thing about "expansion" of the pelvis. It literally says that the bone structure changes.
Anyway, Greg can call himself Greta all he wants, without radical reconstructive surgery no one is going to mistake him for the latter, and often not even then because puberty has very specific effects on male and female biological development that don't even require an x-ray to notice.
"Anyway, Greg can call himself Greta all he wants, without radical reconstructive surgery no one is going to mistake him for the latter, and often not even then because puberty has very specific effects on male and female biological development that don’t even require an x-ray to notice."
first - the specific question posed by troll was concerning some specific traits, such as facial hair and muscle mass. those can absolutely be created with hormone therapy.
second - the troll decided to dig in one one item that absolutely can only be determined with x-rays. i thought at first the dip-shit was confusing this with something that can be seen outwardly, in the way women's hips sometimes stay widened after childbirth..... but no, that stupid fuck actually thinks he can see something that you can't see while there is still meat on those bones.
third - even as you jump in and try to white knight for the stupid fuck, you admit that the basic premise is false. you might have missed the point that the question was if someone could read your ID and identify you by it. you might have tried to minimize what you were acknowledging by using the word "radical." but you fundamentally know that it is possible for a biological woman to look like a biological man.... even if an effeminate one.
which is, of course, why there are so many cases of it actually happening in history before transgenders were even a thing.... before there even was hormone therapy...
https://historycollection.com/20-women-who-posed-as-men-and-made-history-into-herstory/
first – the specific question posed by troll was concerning some specific traits, such as facial hair and muscle mass. those can absolutely be created with hormone therapy.
LOL, if that's "therapy," then Barry Bonds got a raw deal.
second – the troll decided to dig in one one item that absolutely can only be determined with x-rays.
Which doesn't change all the external biological changes that happen with puberty.
(Oh, FYI, puberty can't be turned off or on like a switch--kids that take puberty blockers, even for purposes that aren't strictly cosmetic, end up having significant medical problems because puberty provides the body with the development it needs to function as an adult)
but you fundamentally know that it is possible for a biological woman to look like a biological man…. even if an effeminate one.
Not biologically, no. Claiming a biological woman can look like a biological man is like claiming the Kardashians are all-natural.
which is, of course, why there are so many cases of it actually happening in history before transgenders were even a thing…. before there even was hormone therapy…
No, those are a few cherry-picked cases by left-wing ideologues.
"Not biologically, no. Claiming a biological woman can look like a biological man is like claiming the Kardashians are all-natural."
first we have this nonsense pretending the word "biological" has some magical power. as if our sex organs are on display on our foreheads or some other ridiculous place that could never be concealed.
"No, those are a few cherry-picked cases by left-wing ideologues."
and then this admission that you are wrong. before there even were hormone treatments there have been women who passed as men..... these are no more cherry picked than the unconvincing transgenders you dip-shits try to pretend represent all cases. (because you are all too stupid to understand that the convincing ones are.... convincing enough that you never know they are there.)
first we have this nonsense pretending the word “biological” has some magical power. as if our sex organs are on display on our foreheads or some other ridiculous place that could never be concealed.
It’s an actual scientific term that you even used above. Sorry it’s in opposition to your dumb narrative. You're the one who stupidly tried to claim that these characteristics could only be discerned with an x-ray. And the fact that such efforts typically require massive reconstructive surgery to even come close to achieving such a state (your allies wouldn't be trying to convince kids to cut their genitals off otherwise) tends to refute this dumb effort of yours.
and then this admission that you are wrong.
LOL, a few cherry-picked instances is not “many.” It’s a glittering generality.
these are no more cherry picked than the unconvincing transgenders you dip-shits try to pretend represent all cases.
It’s not like it’s difficult. Just visit an average troon reddit board to see desperate attempts to get validation that they “pass.”
You must be one of those types that think a vagina is just a hole to stick a dick in or piss out of, as opposed to a functioning part of the female body. Stop being a coomer and maybe you'll understand that being a woman and LARPing as one are two different things.
“You must be one of those types that think a vagina is just a hole to stick a dick in or piss out of, as opposed to a functioning part of the female body.”
no, i am just not stupid enough to try and insist that you can see it on a fully clothed person, like you are.
my argument was never that the person taking hormone supplements and sporting a beard was a man. the question was what they look like. not what forensic x-rays might show. not what a DNA test would show. not what genitalia they have. not any of the fucking straw men you are reaching for. if you run into a person dressed like a man with a big bushy beard….. they LOOK like a man.
no, i am just not stupid enough to try and insist that you can see it on a fully clothed person, like you are.
Too bad no one is making that argument, you disingenuous twerp.
the question was what they look like. not what forensic x-rays might show. not what a DNA test would show. not what genitalia they have. not any of the fucking straw men you are reaching for. if you run into a person dressed like a man with a big bushy beard….. they LOOK like a man.
LOL, yeah, bearded ladies in freak shows never existed. And again, you slack-jawed moron, human biology is not a strawman, which is lot more than what isn't immediately visible to the human eye. But you'd know that if you weren't desperately trying to defend this narrative that troons aren't mentally ill.
Really stupid post. Not a fan of science here I see. Not very smart but I knew that.
is there anything you know anything about? the pelvis expands during pregnancy. it is not an off the shelf standard option.
LOL, no, the pelvis doesn't "expand"--the woman's body starts producing hormones that loosen her joints, especially her hip joints, in preparation for passing a 5-10 pound child out of her cooter.
closest thing to what the troll is claiming that exists in reality.
Thanks for conceding that you were wrong.
not having any kids will help with that.
Bullshit, Jeffy.
The purpose of a drivers license is to identify someone's birth genitalia. Showing people's faces or pronouns or preferred text is quite irrelevant to that purpose.
Imagine a drivers license with preferred pronouns and text on it instead of M or F.
What purpose would that possibly serve?
^this. And frankly also highlights the arbitrary nature of all this gender identity stuff.
OK, so you can be male or female, and it can change, at any time, at your whim, whenever you say....so its meaningless then.
Which would make the decision either include it and match biological sex, which actually means something concrete, or dont include it at all since its completely meaningless
Dogs have much better methods of determining each other's sex. But humans are so squeamish about smelling each others' butts, so we have to have ID cards.
Maybe scratch and sniff licenses
Yes!
That is why there is a picture.
See my new rule above.
The poll, conducted by the Times and Siena College,
The New York Times is conducting a study about who R's are? Will David Brooks show up on NPR to explain what they are?
Reason - you lose all credibility by citing the NYT on this.
ENB has lost credibility by citing the NYT 100 other times, she doesn't really have anything left to lose at this point, so there's that...
Does this article lose all credibility because it appeared in the NYT?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/magazine/gender-therapy.html
if the NYT penned an article that said "Everything Mike Parson's believes is correct and true" I would suspect they have ulterior motives and not give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
Why? Because they daily prove they are a hack partisan propaganda outlet for the establishment political party. Its pretty simple.
That ENB continues to cite it all the time proves she is taken in with the left wing bubble.
I partially agree with you. I do think she cites the New York Times too much.
I know it. Anyone who cites news in the NYT necessarily agrees with every opinion piece published by the paper. After all, news and opinion are the same thing.
NYT is no more a news source than is the DNC Press Office when it comes to R’s It views R’s – and for that matter the entirety of flyover country – as lab mice.
Citing them as a source says more about the one doing the citing than it does about any info cited. Not to mention that everything cited will be behind some paywall so what is being ‘cited’ is absolutely nothing at all except to some in-crowd that already subscribes. It truly is virtue signaling to some coastie cocktail party crowd living in a bubble.
I take this about as seriously as people should take Fox News defining what Democrats are.
Actually, scratch that, Fox could probably do a much more reasonable job of that.
I don't care to look it up, but there was a poll/study/something (maybe it was Haidt?) that showed that conservatives were more capable of describing what liberals believe than vice versa.
It was Haidt. And the two slides weren't even close.
Holy shit. I agree with JFree.
But using the NYT seems to have worked on Mike and sarc.
After the great sock outing of '23, are we sure it is Jfree?
The others in the coalition have more mixed or even negative views of Trump.
But have you considered that Republicans are a cult? Checkmate!
Libertarian conservatives still exist, the Times reports.
Why is this phrased in that way? Surely this doesn't come as a revelation, and I can't think of any reason people would have believed that libertarian conservatives stopped existing.
… I can’t think of any reason people would have believed that libertarian conservatives stopped existing.
The overlap between conservatives and libertarians was mostly over economic issues. Since Trump, conservatives have abandoned support for free markets and embraces trade wars and protectionism. Without that overlap conservatives and libertarians have little left in common.
Yeah, pretty much. But there's also a yuuuge section of conservatives who take on the affectation of being "libertarian". And it's giving libertarians are bad name. This is where we find the populist libertarians, the pro-war libertarians, and the kulturwar libertarians.
Because "libertarian" no longer means NAP and free minds / free markets, it now means anti-mainstream contrarian.
it now means anti-mainstream contrarian.
Anti-mainstream? I think you mean "not caving to the hysterical demands of leftists".
"Don't tread on me" is an appropriate libertarian response.
thanks for the demonstration.
It isn't?
And stop sockpuppeting, Chemjeff. It's not like your chief nick got stolen and you can't use it any more.
I notice that chemjeff is conspicuously absent to claim that his handle is being spoofed and it is definitely not that he was socking and it got swiped.
It's Monday, all his other socks are in the wash.
fuck off with your stupid sock-puppet BS. (as you are sock-puppetting.)
Stop your sock farm, Jeffy.
Fuck off and die, asshole
That is not an example of sockpuppeting. It is adopting another personae to force the appearance of support for your argument. Like it has been demonstrated that you do continually.
so, not a lying piece of shit using fake names to play some kind of stupid game just a.......... lying piece of shit using fake names to play some kind of stupid game???
no real distinction, unless you consider the extra pathetic nature of having to commit fraud to pretend people agree with you.
There is a massive distinction, not that you could grasp it. Interesting that you call creating a screen name that someone else has temporarily abandoned "fraud". It is not fraud by any stretch of the imagination. It may feel like fraud to you considering how much time you invested in that personae.
"Interesting that you call creating a screen name that someone else has temporarily abandoned “fraud”. It is not fraud by any stretch of the imagination. "
it is deliberately posting as someone else to "force the appearance of support for your argument." your words..... the intent is to deceive.... that is fraud. and it is pathetic. how big of a loser do you have to be to give two fucks whether other people think a random fuck on the internet agrees with you?
"It may feel like fraud to you considering how much time you invested in that personae."
at this point I'm not entirely sure if this is part of the pathetic game you are playing..... trying to convince others that those who disagree with you are all really just one person.... or if you are just really that fucking stupid.
"Because “libertarian” no longer means NAP and free minds / free markets, it now means anti-mainstream contrarian"
pretty close, except I'm not sure it is the mainstream they are reflexing against. many seem more invested in the tribalism and it is more anti-"anything any liberal has ever expressed the slightest support for." i am almost surprised we don't see more saying they hate dogs because biden has a couple of them.
Trying for turd-level bullshit? Not bad.
Fuck off and die, asshole
fuck off and die, fuck off and die.... SQUAWK!!!
Fuck off and die, asshole
To be frank, Foo_dd is from the same sock farm as SPB2. It's a Turdsock.
Considering liberals are supporting marxists ideas, of course libertarians would be against it.
too bad that isn't what we are actually talking about. why do you really hate puppies?
Changing the subject to save face, Jeffy?
You were talking about not supporting things liberals support weren't you?
just because some liberal at some point expressed some level of support...... not because of what any of those things actually are.
the only principle at play is tribalism.
It is in their party platform dumdum.
GND
Loan forgiveness
DEI
Trans victimhood
Etc.
you guys are trying extra hard today to miss the point.
Project much, Jeffy?
The only? Highly doubtful.
"...And it’s giving libertarians are bad name..."
Not nearly as bad as TDS-addled shits like you claiming to be libertarian.
TDS TDS SQUAWK!!!!!
Poor TDS-addled shits like you and brandy really don't like having your disability mentioned, right shit?
Did the sock stop working, Jeffy?
it now means anti-mainstream contrarian.
Uh, that's pretty much how it was established.
"The overlap between conservatives and libertarians was mostly over economic issues."
Pretty much. I am tempted to add "limited government," but it isn't as good a fit.
Limited government went out the door when Nixon came in.
It was well before that. We could start at Jackson, or Lincoln, or Roosevelt (T), or Wilson, or Hoover (yes, he was not lassez faire toward the Depression - his intervention may have made it worse), or Roosevelt (F), or Johnson prior to that.
I was referring specifically to the "party of limited government"
Most of the Republican opposition to “big government” was rooted in the initial pretense that progressivism, and later New Deal liberalism, was going to usher in a socialistic society that would set up the transition to full-blown communism. The cultural overlap between the socialists and the IWW, and later the CPUSA, in particular from the Russian Revolution through World War II certainly didn’t do anything to mitigate this perception. It’s a big reason why Reagan went from being a New Deal Democrat to a Goldwater disciple as the 1950s progressed, because he saw firsthand during his time in Hollywood how much communism as an ideology had insinuated itself in the industry.
"Limited government went out the door when Nixon came in."
Well, okay. But there are different levels of "limitation."
One COULD argue that it started with Lincoln, but I wouldn't.
True. I note Nixon however as an expander of big government. I don't think he ever
mentioned paring down of any part of the huge federal government.
"But except for his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson, Nixon oversaw the greatest expansion of the federal government since 1945."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-06-09-0206080271-story.html
"I don’t think he ever mentioned paring down of any part of the huge federal government."
It probably never even occurred to him. But, I like to think that, if he were around today, he might be shouting "TOO BIG!!"
From the guy who thinks after covid, censorship, and lawfare that liberals have more on common with libertarians. Lol.
But international trade is not the only economic issue that exists. Couldn't someone's positions on regulatory and fiscal matters put hir in the libertarian category regardless of international trade positions?
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into public...
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/real-reason-eris-cases-are-spiking
Eris – the most recent “Covid variant” – is supposedly causing spikes in cases all over the world. The story goes that England, Ireland and US are all being hit hard, it’s reached Australia too.
“Scientists” are even clamoring for the return of masks.
We’ve already been over everything you need to know about “Eris” here. Long story short, “Covid” is just another made up name for the flu, and the “variants” are coats of paint they slap on the narrative to try and keep it looking fresh.
In that same article I theorised Eris’ existence was a need to keep Covid alive, and that is part of it…but I also missed something obvious: The next round of Covid “vaccines” hits the shelves next month.
Moderna had the brass neck to claim that they did a “trial” showing their updated vaccine protects against Eris. Considering Eris first hit the headlines just a few weeks ago it looks like Moderna may have broken their own record in terms of speedy “trials”.
And just in time for the 2024 election. BTW, fuck no, I'm never masking ever the fuck again.
I pity the mal-informed who will continue to destroy themselves with these vaccines.
A bit dramatic.
show me the lab-created vaccine that stops the lab-created spike protein causing heart attacks and I'll stop being dramatic.
As soon as I can parse your sentence.
You might be saying that SARS-CoV-2 itselfs causes many more heart attacks than the anti-SARA-CoV-2 vaccines do, which is true.
Or you might be trying to say that the lab-created vaccine (there's some other kind of vaccine?) causes heart attacks, which is a half truth since it hides the important mitigating facts that the vaccines don't cause many heart attacks and the virus itself causes many more.
the important mitigating facts that the vaccines don’t cause many heart attacks and the virus itself causes many more.
I see you are still pushing the narrative™ even after we we've seen data dismissing almost every covid claim.
I'm surprised you aren't claiming climate change is driving the Eris strain.
we’ve seen data dismissing almost every covid claim
Your comment was somehwat incoherent, but I'm guessing you were trying to say that my claim that the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself has caused many more myocarditis cases than any anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has has been disproven by new data.
Please share this new data you have with a cite.
And I didn’t say a word on the subject of climate change. I don't believe I ever have. So, why are you bring that up?
It's a crack at your expense, Mr. Obtuse.
'“Scientists” are even clamoring for the return of masks.'
Would they be the scientists in madly liberal academia, in thrall to the Biden state and riddled with woke anxiety about life, or the scientists who work for Big Pharma (or hope to), or the scientists in government agencies who get promoted based on propaganda volume and impact?
“Covid” is just another made up name for the flu
Anyone who writes this is either lying or ignorant, ditto for anyone who reposts such egregious rubbish.
Hey, it’s Diet Jeffy to join the fray. You’re right, Covid is now just a common cold – different virus type from influenza.
To be fair, though, I also cringed when I read that sentence. Influenza and corona viruses are different subfamilies, and unrelated, other than both being viruses.
I do think it's possible that a bunch of different corona viruses are just being labeled "COVID," because that's a money maker. These pharma companies are liability-proof at this point and it's just pushing them toward dishonest marketing.
Are people not taking covid seriously giving you depression, anxiety, stress and/or diarrhea? Well we have a pill for you, from the people who saved you from covid, comes mindoffamine. It will keep a smile on your face and big bucks in our accounts!
May cause heart disease, cancer, ebola...
How hard can it be to create a Twitter competitor?
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/metas-threads-user-hemorrhage-continues
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted in leaked audio last month that Threads, a Twitter clone, was failing after it experienced a massive influx of users, upwards of 100 million downloads in five days after lunch but has since hemorrhaged a large percentage of those users.
At Thread's peak, just days after the July 5 launch, the microblogging app had 50 million daily active users worldwide.
Now the total number of daily active users is less than ten million, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing new data from analytics firm SimilarWeb.
Elon Musk tweeted in late July that X, formerly known as Twitter, hit a new record high of 541.5 million monthly users.
"Elon Musk tweeted in late July that X, formerly known as Twitter, hit a new record high of 541.5 million monthly users."
Yet the establishment media narrative is that somehow Musk is failing.
What, you doubt that Musk has failed the ideological test?
I'd love to get on Threads but ENB hasn't published a how to guide yet.
Most Republican Voters Aren't Loyal Trumpists, Suggests Survey
Many of them aren't Republicans, either.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1693613435970359688?t=3-eqzzY5j3ao56BSqLxBVg&s=19
The general strategy is to show you something terrible that no one wants and threaten you with being labeled backward and low class if you reject it
[Link]
It looks like a compact, from the neck up, Suicide Booth.
And like a horrible choice for method too.
That thing isn't getting anywhere near me.
An old barber with shaky hands once accidentally clipped my earlobe with scissors. I'd hate to think what would happen if this thing "slipped". BTW, I never went back to that barber.
No more Covid crappola, not now, not ever again!
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/21/enough-of-the-covid-fear-mongering/
Back at the start of 2023, the media warned of a new and scarily named strain of Covid called ‘Kraken’ or XBB.1.5. The World Health Organisation (WHO) informed us that this was the ‘most transmissible variant yet’. Yet since Kraken had already been proliferating in Singapore since the preceding October without catastrophe, it was a fair bet that it wouldn’t cause disaster in the UK, where the population has already developed considerable immunity to Covid-19.
But it seems the fear-mongers in the media, aided and abetted by the WHO, never learn. Right now, the newspapers are full of warnings about another new SARS-CoV-2 variant, ‘Eris’, monikered after the Greek goddess of chaos and discord.
Indeed, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail are already highlighting Omicron BA.6, which has an as-yet-undetermined origin. It has an unusually large number of mutations and might even be awarded a new Greek letter to itself. Ryan Hisner, a former rural schoolteacher from Indiana ‘lauded’ for his ‘uncanny ability to spot concerning mutants’, tweeted last week that this one is ‘the real deal’. Trisha Greenhalgh, Independent SAGE member and a professor of primary healthcare at Oxford, has called on us all to ‘mask up’, despite there being no good evidence that masks are effective. There is no data on BA.6’s transmissibility yet, either, let alone on its virulence.
But, from a public-health perspective, there is little cause for concern. There is certainly no evidence nor likelihood that the variants now emerging will cause the death spikes we endured in 2020 and early 2021. Those occurred in populations that had never been exposed to Covid before. Nowadays, almost all of us have been infected at least once, which provides a foundation of immunity. We develop a similar form of immunity to common-cold viruses that we’ve experienced from childhood. At worst, we’ll have a bad cold, but that’ll be the end of it. Other respiratory viruses no doubt change as steadily as SARS-CoV-2, but we sequence them less, meaning that we don’t notice or care about them.
But it seems the fear-mongers in the media, aided and abetted by the WHO, never learn.
The public health experts are desperately praying for the return of a lethal strain. Otherwise there could be actual investigations into the COVID science like why they kept advising front line doctors to put people on respirators after it became obvious it was killing people or how they could recommend the vaccine for children to whom the virus has never been dangerous.
It's now all voodoo, witch doctors, and Lysenko policy, in support of the state. Abetted by eager official media.
This aversion to bible-thumping moralism
the Fundie-Nuts have taken over the GOP and their savior king is Fatass Donnie.
You can't make this shit up.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Remember last month when you claimed the Supreme court had been taken over by born-again evangelicals despite the fact that there are no born-again evangelicals on the court.
You want to explain that again?
You'll just get more lies. Lying is all turd ever does.
Well, they did introduce people to working remotely.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/20/the-death-of-the-great-american-city/
The King of Wall Street has spoken, but the peasants are not listening. Ever since the end of the lockdowns, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, like many of his elite counterparts in cities from New York to Seattle, has been calling for the workers to return to their cubicles and daily commutes. The business elites have been cheered on by big-city corporate media, like The Economist. Even the White House, despite its green posturing, is pushing to get most Americans back on the road, often for long, mind-numbing, energy-consuming commutes.
Yet American workers – particularly more seasoned employees – are refusing to kowtow. The shift to companies offering some remote work seems to be on the increase. As Stanford researcher Nicholas Bloom notes, the number of job postings for remote-friendly roles is hitting record levels.
North America’s largest central business districts are all in distress. Overall, office buildings in the 10 leading metro areas remain roughly 50 per cent occupied. And when workers do turn up at the office, it is usually midweek. On Mondays and Fridays office visits fall by around half.
The decline of the office represents a threat to the very economic function of cities. The so-called transactional city, a phrase coined by Jean Gottmann in 1983, was built around high-rise office buildings. From those perches, elite professionals were to occupy ‘the commanding heights’ of the economy.
Surveys suggest that the rise of remote working has fuelled much of this movement out of the city. This lockdown-induced trend intensified further in the wake of the riots and crime wave that followed the murder of George Floyd, which diminished the appeal of certain urban areas. Indeed, in some parts of Chicago and Philadelphia, young men now have a greater chance of being killed by firearms than American soldiers did when serving in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There is clearly a difference in how the elites and the lesser ranks experience offices. It’s one thing for Jamie Dimon, who can afford a luxurious apartment, country homes and access to private air transport, to cheer for five-days-a-week office attendance. It’s a different story for the young parent powering in on the subway in Queens, or the middle-aged man coming in on the long ride from Ronkonkoma on the Long Island Railroad.
The majority of workers with children favour continuing to work mostly or entirely at home, and increasingly further out from the urban core. For those who choose to work in an office, there is now a growing market for remote suburban offices.
More pertinently, one clear consequence of working from home will be the gradual decline of the core cities – which are almost all run by progressive Democrats – and the continued rise of the more politically mixed periphery.
Every year that remote work becomes more baked into the system, as more people move ever further from urban cores, attempts to frog-march people back into the downtown office seem likely to falter. The implications for politics, society and urban demographics could be profound. We could be seeing power and influence switching from the masters of the high rise to the households of the hinterlands.
If you want to work from home, or the beach, or your van down by the river, become a free-lancer or contract worker. Also choose a career where nobody knows what you produce and how to value it.
It's really quite the life! Not for the feint of heart.
"one clear consequence of working from home will be the gradual decline of the core cities"
One point here: the core cities were already declining long before the pandemic lockdowns and the BLM riots. Although some cities managed to roll back perceptions of rampant crime temporarily a few decades ago, the seismic shifts were being caused by improved communication and transportation technologies, not temporary events. The formative social pressures that caused the rise of high population density urban areas have almost completely gone the way of the dinosaurs. Nothing can prevent the depressurization of the core cities, not even Blue Team corruption and union actions.
Republicans are like Democrats in one key aspect: It's a team sport and they will follow their team no matter what. They don't care who the quarterback is, they care about the color of the team.
The standard campaign slogan during GOP primaries, internally, is "no matter who gets the nomination we will all support them". And they do. No matter who becomes the nominee, all the party bigwigs get behind him, and all the rank and file will fall in line. Except for a tiny handful who complain (ei. nevertrumpers).
This is why both parties seem so wishy washy. Because they are. All the GOP became diehard Trumpistas when Trump won. Bernie was the wild card for the Democrats, but if he had won everyone would have been diehard Berniebro. And Sleepy Joe has his entire party (except RFKJr) eating out of his hands, despite being the milquetoast candidate. No challengers (except nutbag RFKJr) are coming forward.
So if Trump gets the nomination, it will be a populist party all over again. If it's DeSantos then it will be non-stop Kulturwar. No neocon in sight, but if a neocon does get the nod then it will be the "bomb them all" party.
I remember the day I stopped listening to talk radio. The guy was in the middle of saying something critical about Trump when news same in that he'd won the party nomination. All of a sudden the man could do no wrong. It was a "We have always been at war with Eastasia" moment, and at that point I realized there was zero objectivity in talk radio.
I'll take "Anecdotes That Never Actually Happened" for a thousand, Alex.
Nah, I could see that happening. I think Mark Levin was one of those guys.
And then everyone on the radio clapped.
“Trump is out of touch with.. wait what’s that? He won the nomination? Trump is perfectly in touch with…”
Yeah, they all clapped with he won the nomination. Like sea lions.
Yeah, they all clapped with he won the nomination. Like sea lions.
LOL! Is that what you think sealioning means?
You want so badly to throw back the language of those that criticize you in their face, yet you constantly fail to identify logical fallacies correctly along with gaslighting, and now sealioning.
Your buddy, White Mike tried to argue last week that using the word "indefensible" in the context of actions that were most certainly legally defensible and arguably morally defensible was not equivocation, by simply stating "that is not the meaning of equivocation." A perfect example of actual sealioning.
You guys are not very smart and your tactics are obvious. Dissemble, deflect, distract.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/and-then-the-whole-bus-clapped
"The line is often considered a giveaway sign of a fabricated story, or used sarcastically to express doubt or disbelief." I only included it because I guess you forgot it in your post.
You know what I meant.
And I’m fairly sure you knew what I meant too, but a little education can go a long way if you weren’t aware of the meme I referenced.
I didn't, and even after reading the examples I'm not sure if I do.
I'll keep it simple next time and just say: "I don't believe your story."
Why would I make up something like that?
Sounds like Rush Limbaugh. Was very critical of Trump before the nomination, was very supportive afterward. Night and day within the space of a week.
Week? Try minute.
Brandybuck knows because he regularly listened to Rush Limbaugh, so this totally isn't some anecdote he picked up from a lefty blog.
Interesting claim.
No, this isn't true. I listened to Rush at the time and his support of Trump in the primaries was enough to mostly make me turn him off.
Don't make claims that are completely outside of what you are exposed to. It's advice Reason, NYT, and the left should take as well because they don't remotely understand conservatives
Lol. Trump winning the nomination musta really snuck up on radio guy and caught him off guard. It’s not like it’s a months long process that wasn’t pretty clear which way it was going.
Fuckin please. Seems you should stay away from the personal anecdotes.
No neocon in sight, but if a neocon does get the nod then it will be the “bomb them all” party.
Uh, Joe/Kammy are the Pro-War(-Profiteering)/Tough-On-Crime Neocon party.
There's already a neocon running. He's the Democrat.
No neocon in sight
Joe was the biggest neocon on the hill in 2001. It's like you guys can't remember past the last news cycle.
Messes with the narrative.
Also not true, for Christsakes, John McCain easily tops Joe.
That's not to say Joe is dovish, he voted for Iraq. Just not the biggest neocon on the Hill in 2001, let alone his party - Hillary probably takes that honor.
Don't misrepresent and minimize.
Not only did Joe vote for Iraq, As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he declared that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security and there was no other option than to “eliminate” that threat.
In fact he was far more involved than anyone else outside the administration including McCain.
Joe Biden Didn’t Just Vote for the Iraq Invasion—He Helped Lead the March to War
Joe Biden championed the Iraq war. Will that come back to haunt him now?
Sorry, not true. Pollsters characterize many voters as "leaning" one way or another. These could be counted as Democrats or Republicans, but they're not reliable voters for their nominees all the way up and down the ticket.
And yet both parties lack the good kind of "wishy washiness". Namely, they could both use some humility, including listening to other's opinions and considering that they might be wrong about something.
Politics will become better when parties spend more time cleaning up their own yards instead of pointing at their neighbors.
That will never happen in a us vs them mentality.
The suit—filed by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach—"seeks to force the state to list the sex that people were assigned at birth on their driver's licenses," explains the Associated Press.
Did the Attorney General use the term "sex assigned at birth" or did the Associated Press? Because if it's the associated press, that means we've lost the establishment media completely to this retarded ideology.
If trannies can change the "gender marker" on their driver's license to match the representation, shouldn't ENB be forced to push her "age marker" up into the 48-52 range?
Your age is totally... and oppressively defined as your birthdate-assigned-at-birth.
During Newsom's lock-down, a grocery store was admitting people in small batches to keep the 'social distance' narrative in force.
They had a line for seniors but the security agent mentioned it was also open to 'those who identify as a senior'.
There are already people that "identify" as different ages. Typically it's a much younger age, but who is to say it can't work the other way?
don't be a dead-ager!
To the back of the proverbial bus.
https://johnkassnews.com/years-after-jim-crow-democrat-party-bosses-kick-loyal-black-voters-to-back-of-the-bus/
For the past two election cycles Democrats in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and other urban centers had worked hard to elect do-nothing George Soros funded prosecutors who don’t want to put criminal offenders in jail.
Instead, Soros Democratic prosecutors became identified with opposing traditional law enforcement. They want to let the criminals out to prove that they were not racists. And in city after city, they did just that, as those supportive of law enforcement were identified as beholden to some racist scheme that involved “mass incarceration.”
The results have been painfully predictable and devastating for the black middle class, most of whom bear the brunt of urban violent crime. The people being murdered by black and brown street gangs are themselves black and brown. The media doesn’t care, lest they themselves be identified as race haters.
As crime rates spike by more than 30 percent from last year, the Soros Democrats seek to consolidate their hold on the local criminal justice systems. They are now entertaining a gang cease-fire. That borders on the ridiculous.
For example, the Democrat boss of Cook County, Toni Preckwinkle, has found a political replacement for incumbent prosecutor Kim Foxx, a Preckwinkle stooge and Soros favorite who did not try and put criminals in jail, and who was roundly and publicly ridiculed for shielding influential black and gay actor Jussie Smollett from legitimate charges of manufacturing a hate crime hoax.
Democrats moved to replace her with another Boss Toni suck-up, Clayton Harris. He’ll take orders. And he won’t push to increase convictions.
You’d think Democrats might want to curry favor with black Democrats by protecting them from gang slaughter, or helping their children learn to read at grade level.
But nationally, in New York and Chicago and everywhere else, black public school students lag far behind their classmates, who lag far behind others in reading and math.
But Mayor Adams and Mayor Johnson and the rest of the Democrats in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, and elsewhere obviously don’t care about black male constituents breaking the cycle of dependency.
"prosecutors who don’t want to put criminal offenders in jail."
Um, that's a mischaracterization, intentionally or unintentionally. Those prosecutors - correctly, in my opinion - did not want to enforce certain no good, very bad, HORRIBLE laws that should not have been on the books in the first place. "Catch and release" is the direct consequence of the "defund law enforcement" narrative, not the "refuse to jail prostitutes and drug abusers" narrative! If you can't get your stories straight maybe you should refrain from commenting. Seattle, for example, recently released a six-time felon (real crimes like armed robbery and assault) after his seventh crime and his subsequent eighth crime was murder. I'm not aware of ANY prosecutor who supports that, regardless of the wastebasket narrative that people of color commit crimes because of social injustice.
1. It's from the article.
2. You've never come across Kim Foxx, have you?
Wikipedia: "Foxx's office announced that prosecutors would no longer request pretrial detention for those charged with low-level nonviolent offenses in court."
Apparently you've never come across Kim Foxx either.
“”Seattle, for example, recently released a six-time felon (real crimes like armed robbery and assault) after his seventh crime and his subsequent eighth crime was murder. “”
Sounds like two people might still be alive if they took his six SIX previous felonies more seriously.
They may not support with respects to the murder, but how did this guy make it to six felonies?
That’s mainly because when the rubber hits the road, a lot of black people are ridiculously easy to wind up by simply telling them that anything bad that happens to them is whitey’s fault. They aren’t all like this, but the intelligentsia panders to it because South Park's “Operation Human Shield/Get Behind the Darkies” is basically their whole strategy for obtaining political power. There’s a reason that black women in particular vote for Democrats at a 95% or higher clip.
One of the scenes I remember from “Foxy Brown,” besides Pam Grier’s amazing rack, was a conversation she had with a “community organizer” type who was supposedly getting drug dealers out of the neighborhoods. The reality is that the community organizer doesn’t give two shits about the social maladaptions of drug dealing or drug addiction, because his whole profession is based off of grifting and grafting money that he gets by complaining about the problem. If those problems were actually solved, he wouldn’t have a job anymore. The whole black political establishment operates like this, and it’s why people continually refuse to understand that crime is what actually drives poverty, not the other way around.
Get the criminals off the street, regardless of race, and society becomes far less dysfunctional because its worst elements aren’t preying on innocent people. That’s a big reason why El Salvador’s current president is so fucking popular–he finally said “enough” and began mass incarcerations of the country’s gang members, and it’s having real results because people aren’t being shaken down or killed, or their relatives including children killed, for no fucking reason other than they wouldn’t or couldn’t pay the bribe for that month.
More meaningless slogans! Getting the criminals off the streets hasn't helped at all despite America's highest incarceration rate in the Western world. Getting prostitutes and drug abusers off the streets would not even be part of your scenario if prostitution and drugs were legalized. Actual criminals - people who rob, steal, assault and murder - should be "gotten off the street" and should be executed if they are found guilty more than once by a non-abusive, non-corrupted criminal justice system. Please let me know when prosecutors and police stop using abusive tactics and we can discuss this further.
• More people are realizing that the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is "a first amendment nightmare," reports Techdirt.
Prediction, in ten years TechDirt (and Reason) will be calling it the *checks notes* fifth Amendment of the Internet.
Why would Reason do that, when currently Reason has clearly taken the position that it is a bad law?
For the same reason that they CLEARLY took the position that the Communications Decency act was a bad law.
And they have never changed their position on the Communications Decency Act in toto. They do like one section of it.
Of course, you know all this.
It's about control, stupid.
https://nypost.com/2023/08/20/what-people-are-getting-wrong-about-rich-men-north-of-richmond/
Oliver Anthony, the songwriter behind the viral hit “Rich Men North of Richmond,” didn’t even finish high school.
But his song is the most intelligent political commentary of the year.
The song isn’t simply a class-war complaint — the trouble with the rich men north of Richmond isn’t that they’re rich, it’s that “they all just wanna have total control / Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do.”
The song’s economic agenda is in fact notably Reaganite, as Anthony directs his ire at inflation (“dollar ain’t s–t”), taxes (“it’s taxed to no end”) and welfare as a substitute for work (“if you’re 5-foot-3 and you’re 300 pounds / Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds”).
The rich men north of Richmond have created conditions in which wealth accrues to the financial sector, the highly educated and the politically connected.
In the context of Virginia, “north of Richmond” is a synonym for the suburbs of Washington, DC, which wield enormous political power and economic sway over the state.
This is the “total control” Anthony sings about.
The problem with the people north of Richmond isn’t only their progressive politics or their self-dealing as insiders in a system they control, it’s also that control itself — the sense that the destiny of men like Oliver Anthony is decided faraway, where they have no voice.
Americans felt that way during the revolution: they had no representation in a Parliament an ocean away, where decisions about taxes, trade and the entire economic life of the colonists — to say nothing of their religious and political lives — were made by strangers.
“Rich Men North of Richmond,” like populism itself, is about control, not wages.
"Americans felt that way during the revolution: they had no representation in a Parliament an ocean away"
Even then it took the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence almost two decades to get even a third of the colonists to get angry enough to fight back. Even after the fighting started more than half of the American colonists did not want to separate from the English Crown.
After eight years of Republican fealty to Donald J. Trump, few would argue that the party is still defined by Ronald Reagan’s famous three-legged stool of the religious right, fiscal conservatives and neoconservative hawks…
They're all writing editorials for the New York Times.
Gotta blame someone other than the wackadoodle with the gun.
The wackadoodle with the gun doesn't have any money.
Team R may not be all in on Trump, but they are all in on not electing someone from team D. If Trump gets the primary, they will vote for him even if they are holding their noses.
Much like team D will hold their nose and vote for someone who is in a condition that the 25th amendment was written for.
> If Trump gets the primary, they will vote for him even if they are holding their noses.
Except they did NOT hold their noses. They were gleefully voting for him.
I fully understand voting against Hillary. Jeepers cripes, it was Hillary on the ballot, I don't blame a single person for voting Trump! But what made me abandon the party was that no one was holding their noses. Evangelical friends of mine were declaring him to be the Chosen of God, fercripesake.
I have some hardcore Trump guys that I know at church. We still make fun of Two Corinthians. I don't think the "Trump is Chosen by God" crowd is all that pervasive.
And I might count as a hold your nose and vote for Trump guy, if I ever get off the fence and vote for a D or an R.
God doesn't just choose the righteous to be useful in a righteous cause...
just sayin'
""Evangelical friends of mine were declaring him to be the Chosen of God, fercripesake.""
I agree with Cyto that the chosen by crowd is not that pervasive.
Also, I find it funny as hell that some evangelicals do that. I'm pretty sure being on your third baby's mama was not popular with that crowd in the 80s.
"Evangelical friends of mine were declaring him to be the Chosen of God"
Then the comparison would be Saul or Nebuchadnezzar? One of the big tropes in the Bible is that God likes to use the unsuitable.
Even Paul was a Christian killer and Rahab was a prostitute.
https://twitter.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1693633866987151648?t=fvEdcFZ9U0x9B9tK8SKFuQ&s=19
Declaring a “climate emergency” means giving one man the power to unilaterally spend mountains of tax dollars and revoke freedoms in the name of an unquantifiable threat.
Realize where we are.
How is that different than Covid, the war on terror, the cold war?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken
Yet people on the left that have been yelling about being pro-democracy never understand how this is not democracy in action.
Most Republican Voters Aren't Loyal Trumpists, Suggests Survey
If the DOJ and several party-friendly State AGs file 4 separate indictments against another candidate within 4 mos. of that guy announcing his bid for The Presidency, I'd probably vote for that guy instead.
Barring that, I don't care if his name is Alexei Navalny, the point isn't to elect *him*.
Cases take time.
And do we just ignore that if he hadn't committed all these crimes (which are on tape mind you) that he'd be fine?
"Party of law and order"....for everyone but us.
>>all these crimes
lolnope.
Pick a sock and stick with it, Shrike/Jeffy.
""“Party of law and order”….for everyone but us."'
But enough about the Bidens.
I have to agree.
While I don't like Trump, I hate the banana republic aspects of these prosecutions even less.
Just like I was ambivalent to Kavanaugh initially. However, after the baseless accusations, we had to nominate him because if that tactic was ever successful, it would be used constantly.
Well it started with Bork and Thomas. Believe me. If a Republican ever again sits in the oval Office, it will happen again.
I know. The only way to stop the random-accusation counterattack from spreading is if it fails every time and undermines the party doing it.
"Golden Gate Audubon Society To Drop 'Audubon' From Name"
[...]
"...John James Audubon's history as an opponent of abolition, owner of slaves and robber of Native American graves prompted the nonprofit's membership to vote last week to select a new name at a future date.
The bird conservation organization, the ninth largest Audubon chapter in the U.S., said 65 percent of voting members decided for the name change..."
https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/golden-gate-audubon-society-to-drop-audubon-17916047.php
Stoopid sumbitch should have known better than to be a man of his time.
I'll admit, I didn't have the Audubon Society on my list of Things That Are Unconscionably Racist In 2023.
IMO, the funniest part is how 'Audubon' has crossed the man vs. brand vs. common parlance rubicon a la band-aid or xerox.
"Golden Gate Audubon Society" sounds like a group of birdwatchers. "Golden Gate Bird Watcher's Society" sounds like a euphemism for a bunch of straight dudes and closeted lesbians who hide in the bushes and spy on unsuspecting women.
Are they on the SPLC racist list?
Ackshuyally, the Showtime series Penn & Teller: Bullshit pointed out that a lot of people in the Nineteenth Century who supported Conservationism and National Parks were White Supremacists and that they often pushed for the Federal Government to acquire Park land at the expense of the land of the Indian tribes.
Some things aren’t right at any time, which is the nub of the jist of Libertarianism.
^+1
"The survey suggests that nonwhite, working-class Americans are starting to vote more like their light-skinned peers."
OMG! What kind of ungrateful peasants have we been coddling on the plantation?
>> suing Reddit and YouTube for allegedly radicalizing the shooter.
just what we need is more restricted speech.
>>The survey suggests that nonwhite, working-class Americans are starting to vote more like their light-skinned peers.
the racist survey does not account for individual thought
>>Trump confirms he won’t be doing any debates. (Plural.)
living in the basement is the winning play.
If auditing is hard and you're going to get the no-standing/moot point 1-2 step anyway, why leave home?
love Mom.
That doesn't matter- what matters is they are Republican party loyalists and they will vote for whoever, including Trump, the primary winner is.
They are convinced somehow that a Dem will mean the end of the world. The one thing I consistently give the Dems is they will just sit it out or leave it blank if someone they don't like is on the ballot.
Bullshit, Jeffy. Democrats have proven time and time again that they'd vote for a dead man or an invalid rather than just sit it out. See: Mel Carnahan, Joe Fetterman, Joe Biden, etc.
Feinstein
Fill in the blanks: Vote _______ no matter _______!
""The one thing I consistently give the Dems is they will just sit it out or leave it blank if someone they don’t like is on the ballot.""
Really? Most of my democrat friends, and I do have a lot of them, believe that not voting, or voting for a third party is equal to voting for the other guy.
“”The one thing I consistently give the Dems is they will just sit it out or leave it blank if someone they don’t like is on the ballot.””
It never ceases to amaze me that someone be so pants-shittingly stupid as to say something that retarded yet still manage to somehow make through the day.
What I find funny is dinners totally ignoring that the Ds think electing a R will be the end of the world. And they mean that in a literal sense. Ignoring climate change for example.
It wrong for the Rs to claim the Ds will do it, but no comment on the Ds doing it to the Rs.
>>The Moderate Establishment
Christ, what assholes.
You know, the moderates. The totes reasonable, trustworthy, get the US neck deep into 20+ year multi trillion dollar war quagmires, and use the ensuing fear to spy on citizens, moderates.
hate those fucking guys.
Yeah but they're the "adults!"
https://twitter.com/JSMilbank/status/1693573787445325836?t=kw89xWp0lomdLAS8_CMRQw&s=19
Spain exhibits like zero post colonial guilt and cheerfully puts on costumed re-enactments of the reconquista, but it’s hand wringing Britain which gets the stick. Lesson? Never say sorry, nobody respects it
If you pour funding into studies about how evil your history is you’re not bravely confronting the past, you’re myopically alienating yourself from your own culture and doing PR for your (totalitarian, corrupt, murderous) geopolitical rivals
Spanish and Portuguese people occupy a weird place where they are kind of considered somewhat 'diverse' by the wokesters (though not super high on the diversity pyramid) even though they are europeans who are right next door to the most evil of evil oppressors....and they just happened to oppress a different region.
I think it truly comes down to "those people speak the same language as oppressed south american people" and they somehow get a pass. I agree that part of it is they just love their own country, are proud of it, and dont spend any time self-flagellating about the past.
Seriously, just never apologize. Its nonsensical, and nonproductive.
I think it truly comes down to “those people speak the same language as oppressed south american people” and they somehow get a pass.
Yes, the woke really are that dumb.
Keep your eye on New Mexico. Once they completely disenfranchise Whitey, the Greasers and the Redskins can really go at it.
"... the Libertarian Party, if that party were actually functional and not a giant constellation of internal fighting and identity crisis."
No third party has any chance of "picking off" anyone as long as there is near zero chance of getting any of their candidates elected to positions of influence and power. The two-party system isn't just a name - it's reality! A rigged political system that results in only a "Democrat" or a "Republican" in office after each election means that third parties will never gain enough influence in the seats of power to defuse some of that power. Replacing the two-party system with a proportional representation system is the only thing that will make the LP effective and functional. People who enjoy going to conventions and making a show of themselves will continue to control the LP until then.
The two-party system isn’t just a name – it’s reality! A rigged political system that results in only a “Democrat” or a “Republican” in office after each election means that third parties will never gain enough influence in the seats of power to defuse some of that power.
Reason's so deeply entrenched they pretty openly advocate that someone shouldn't even be allowed to overtake one of the two parties and that we should be stuck with adult-in-the-room, party-line clones in perpetuity.
Unless the dems are successful in getting the Republican party banned to fight fascism. Then the Reason wing of the libertarian party may be able to step into the void.
There are plenty of countries with plurality (first past the post) elections that have multiple viable parties, and proportional representation doesn't guarantee the latter would develop. American voters usually have been un-partisan enough that they want to vote for an individual, and party-list voting would not fly. It may be that lately Americans have become more partisan, though it remains to be seen how long that trend lasts, in which case they might consider party-list (proportional) elections, but it would take a lot of overcoming of tradition.
I've heard this non-argument before many times. Of course there's no guarantee that proportional representation would relieve the crushing burden of government authority. The only thing guaranteed at this point is that the two-party system WILL continue to increasingly crush liberty in America. I'm willing to try the alternative. If you're NOT willing to try the alternative I would be forced to assume that you don't like liberty, that you like the two-party system and that you want it to continue. Just like all the other cowardly sheep Americans have degenerated into over the generations.
"only 34 percent of those categorized as libertarian conservatives said they favor cutting taxes on corporations over raising tariffs on imports."
The other 66 percent are Mises Caucus.
If I identify as someone of a different name and different age, can I change those charecteristics too?
I wonder how popular Ladytron is in Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui7CSs6hInw
I needed to this repost down here to make sure it didn't get lost. How sad is it that Sarc thinks this is what sealioning is?
I am about done with both him and the Sealion in Chief, White Mike. When there is this much evidence they are sealioning, they fall to pants-shitting level of SQRLSY, deserving of no response whatsoever.
Add sealioning to the list of terms Sarc doesn't understand.
Maybe someday Reason will get real html markup tools like it was 2010 or something?
Yeah, I have given up. I used to bother with typing up tags. Not worth it.
And this coming from a guy who had his team build HTML tools into the notes for our in-house CRM packages back in 2003.
I think he just meant to say that they were "clapping like seals" since that's typically a trick trained seals do. Arf arf arf!
yup
I thought I was muted, shitweasel. Are you ever honest about anything?
I think he just meant to say that they were “clapping like seals” since that’s typically a trick trained seals do. Arf arf arf!
It sure is. And "clapping like seals" and "trained seals" are common expressions. And your observation would make sense if Sarc had mentioned seals.
Instead he mentioned "sea lions". A quick search reveals that "clapping like sea lions" is not a common expression, which I recognized, being from the Pacific NW where that phrase might actually make sense because sea lions are exclusive to the Pacific. Meanwhile, Sarc lives in Maine next to the Atlantic where they have harbor seals and grey seals, but no sea lions.
He even responded to your comment which demonstrates he knows he got called he got called out for being stupid despite claiming just last week that me and ITL are on mute.
I'm sticking with "Sarc is a dipshit that thinks he is throwing an accusation back at his critics." Prove me wrong.
I can’t believe we are 8 years into this and nobody on the left or the libertarian left understands the Trump phenomenon in the least.
Such loyalty as Trump might inspire isn’t really the source of his support. He has the support because he gives voice to the discontent of the populace.
Bernie Sanders was tapping into the exact same source of support. He was well on his way to supplanting Herself and becoming the nominee, but the party rigged the primary so he never really had a chance.
Trump has renewed support exactly because of all of the unfair hit pieces, the ludicrous prosecutions and the shrieking of the talking heads. All of this places him firmly in the “us” camp in the “us against them” fight against the establishment powers.
Anyone could fill that role. But only Trump survived the first cut. And the machine hated it so much that it sent supposedly libertarian writers out to spew vitriol in the direction of policies and actions that they fully support, simply because “orange man bad”.
Just this week we see reports about the Biden administration tossing out the Trump rules about fair access to banking services. They have returned to Operation Choke Point (now dubbed Operation Choke Point 2.0) and most banks are refusing to do business with people and companies in the porn industry. You’d think that things like this would inspire a little bit of that loyalty from the sex-work obsessed libertarian left…. but no. They still line up to propagandize for the guys who are pushing the american version of the “social credit score”.
You guys don’t understand why Trump giving voice to an anti-establishment message and withstanding the slings and arrows that come with it engenders support, but since you’ve allowed all the alternative voices to be stomped out under the hobnailed boots of “shadow bans”, “cancellation” and “unbanking”, he’s the only one left willing to take them on. Well, him and the other demon you hate more than anyone on the planet, DiSantis.
Other than those guys, you basically have some leftist authors who have run off to substack, a couple of former Fox hosts and some random podcasters who are voices against the establishment. Everyone else is singing whatever tune they are told to sing, and praying that the emperor doesn’t alter the deal further.
it sent supposedly libertarian writers out
Which writers are you referring to?
Take a hint, Sealion.
Which writers wasn't he referring to?
It is funny, because they couldn't bring Bernie back for 2020 without it being obvious what they had done in 2016. He had to take one for the left.
Extra weird because they have all gone hardcore communist over the last 7 years - yet they had an actual, no-lie, loud-and-proud communist as the likely nominee. And without Herself weighing them down, he had a good chance of beating out the "grab 'em" guy in the general.
If ya wanted a communist.... why did you rig the election against him?
wrong side of the communism table.
Bernie's a populist; Hillary and Biden are elitists.
Trump is also a populist.
We were discussing the Dems here for the last few comments. Please try to keep up, Sarc.
"Such loyalty as Trump might inspire isn’t really the source of his support. He has the support because he gives voice to the discontent of the populace.
Bernie Sanders was tapping into the exact same source of support."
I believe that was one of the points that Cyto was making.
>>Bernie’s a populist; Hillary and Biden are elitists.
exactly why Bernie didn't matter
It is funny, because they couldn’t bring Bernie back for 2020 without it being obvious what they had done in 2016. He had to take one for the left.
Shit, they did it to him TWICE--first with Her Inevitability, then with Biden after Bernie kicked his ass in Nevada and the debates were talking about superdelegates and the possibility of having to go to multiple roll calls at the convention. And the fact that he laid down in the face of his campaign being undermined by the party both times showed that the man is the world's biggest jobber.
"...Such loyalty as Trump might inspire isn’t really the source of his support. He has the support because he gives voice to the discontent of the populace..."
There's a further point: We have zero chance of *ever* getting a Libertarian POTUS. Not going to happen.
But from time to time, we have a chance to elect a POTUS who at least leans a bit in that direction, as does Trump.
I doubt I'd like the man at all, but his policies and appointments turned out to be the best in the last century.
And the machine hated it so much that it sent supposedly libertarian writers out to spew vitriol in the direction of policies and actions that they fully support, simply because “orange man bad”.
Like what? The libertarian criticism of Trump was mostly over trade and immigration, and the same libertarians are criticizing Biden for doing the same shit.
What does “libertarian left” mean anyway? Libertarians who aren’t socially conservative? Libertarians who oppose laws limiting personal liberty?
Libertarians support liberty. Period. That means both economic and personal liberty, the latter of which conservatives traditionally oppose. Support for liberty doesn't mean "left."
I think this also explains the rise of RFKjr on the other side. I don't like everything he has to say but I'd vote for him over Christie or Pence in a heartbeat. Funny how the Koch libertarians are desperate to stop anybody who dares stray from the status quo.
People are desperate for reasonable voices speaking the truth. That's why Reason is in the shitter but people on Substack are growing by leaps and bounds.
While everything you say is true, Trump "made the cut" because of his huge personal fortune. The "Orange Man Bad" narrative gained traction amongst the Trump Derangement Syndrome peeps because he's a bloviating idiot who can't keep his mouth shut. He welcomes all the attacks on him because it tends to reinforce the blind approval he gets from one sector of the voters. While his mouth put him firmly in the "us" camp in the "us versus them" culture war, it has not gained his supporters even an ounce of satisfaction or turned the tide in the culture wars, and the deep state and professional political class are laughing all the way to the country club. I see no reason to think any of that will change over the next ten years - I see only increasing violence and deteriorating infrastructure and economic conditions while what's left of personal liberty goes down the drain. I will not be supporting either camp when it finally blows up in your faces.
seeming to
becomprisedofpeoplePlease. We're professional writers here.
having
accuratefraudulentgendersex markersFixed it.
>>A federal judge in Georgia on Sunday issued a ruling that blocks the state from enforcing its new ban on hormone therapy for transgender minors while the case proceeds
chop chop.
So, that’s either a joke about Chinese people, which doesn’t make sense in this context, or it’s a joke about chopping off genitals, which doesn’t make sense either when talking about a controversy about hormone therapy.
Laursen, you've got to be the densest, most obtuse motherfucker here.
You use the word "you" almost as much as the motherfuckers I keep on mute.
You do know how the word "you" is used, don't you, Sarc? It's referring to a specific person, typically in the previous comment that is being replied to. Now, what's your issue with it?
My issue is when it is used in replies to comments that are about a topic or idea for the purpose of changing the subject of the conversation to the person. It’s why JesseAz and the Canadian Cunt are muted.
Same idea as calling someone a sock or saying they’ve got TDS. Now the topic is them, not whatever they were talking about.
It derails the conversation. Which of course is the goal. I've got zero respect for people who do that.
Didn't this lying shithead just get exposed as Sqrlsy the other day? It's not the first time he's been caught and their were no "hairspace" excuses. I checked.
Yes.
Show me where muting someone else mutes me.
You can't, other than last week when I made a test post posing as a Juggalo.
OK, I used a one word comment when replying to ML, "Yes." There was no way for Sarc to tell what I was replying to in the least. This means one of two things: a) Sarc unmuted ML briefly; or b) Sarc is lying about muting people and merely chooses to reply/not reply when he wants to; or even, as interesting as this could get, c) Sarc is using a sock that does not mute ML, such as Sqrlsy.
Which is it?
a
Here's your chance to apologize.
https://reason.com/2023/08/21/most-republican-voters-arent-loyal-trumpists-suggests-survey/?comments=true#comment-10207136
Why Sarckles?
You just denied making those quotes I cited today, but the mute button proves it was you every time.
>>>controversy about hormone therapy.
you were almost there. do the hormones make my nephew manlier and my niece girlier?
Those greedy doctors can't wait for all of those life long medical dependents.
The earlier they can get them on puberty blockers the better.
It makes no difference that Trump is a Loser and more than 60% of Republicans dislike his chances as a candidate. He has a strong 37% floor and no primary opponent has a chance against him unless all the contenders coalesce into one opponent to Trump.
Your reasoning seems sound. It feels like it will be a replay of the republican primary before the most recent one.
that is the way the 2 party system has failed us. you start with a third of people being registered republicans, a third of them like trump..... and you get a candidate that (maybe) 15% of the population actually likes. same thing happens on the left. (exception.... they were looking to the general when they nominated Biden.)
and then you get to the general, most people vote for the lesser of two evils..... basically what side can trick the normal people into being afraid of more.
If Trump wins in 2024 the left might regret going after J6ers so hard.
“The Right Wing (26%). They watch Fox News and Newsmax.”
Sorry. Everyone who’s not a 100% Liberal Progressive Democrat only watches Fox News and Newsmax. Just ask a Liberal Progressive Democrat.
not certain FauxNews and Newsmax are comparable either
I think this analysis misses a key point. The Moderate Establishment and their allies in the Traditional Conservatives (Conservatism Inc) have pretty much dominated the party for the roughly thirty years (longer, if you really think about it) prior to Mr. Trump's rise, just as their counterparts have done on the left. That's a minority of the party (40%). And their reign proved terrible. The wishes interests and concerns of the majority have gotten short shrift in the Establishment's and Conservatism Inc's deal-making with the left. And the Establishment and Conservatism Inc have been increasingly obviously contemptuous of the very majority that has given them political power. For a lot of Republican voters in the 60%, wresting power away from what they view, rightly, as a corrupt and venal 40%, whatever their differences with one another, takes a priority over their desire to elevate that 40% to power, relative to their colleagues on Team Blue. Trump just happens to be the guy offering them a means to both.
The path for Libertarians isn't trying to convince the 40% that, "Gosh, we're not like those freaks in the 60% and you should vote for us because we offer the best of both worlds". That 40% has no real reason to abandon the status quo. It's given them power. It's to craft a coherent message that tells the 60% that libertarianism will break the power of the 40%.
I wish that were a "path" but it's not. Libertarians have been struggling to come up with a convincing message for the entire forty-five years that I've been a libertarian. It's likely that in a proportional representation election system Libertarians could gain at least ten percent of the seats in the state legislatures and in Congress. That would be more than enough to derail the spending gravy train, stop new regulations and unconstitutional laws, and prevent a few new wars. Then and ONLY then could our influence grow as the economy languishes from the crushing burden of central authority and people realize that switching to the LP is not only reasonable but successful.
>>(longer, if you really think about it)
GOPe edged-out Reagan in '76 too iirc
To be fair, they really did him a favor even if they didn't realize it at the time. The late 70s malaise really went all the way into 1983, and Reagan had tremendous luck in that the economy started to recover in 1984, thanks to the finance boom that started hiccuping after Black Monday and finally imploded in 1991. That's why the "Morning in America" ad was so successful.
Yep. People tend to forget that the "go-go '80s" that we commonly think of as the 1980s didn't start until 1984.
not until after Rocky beat Clubber Lang and avenged Mickey.
It was so bad in the early 80s that even Boeing was in the shitter and people were fleeing Seattle until Microsoft finally brought it back.
I've always thought that Miami Vice really kicked off the cultural style of what we consider "the 80s." That loud, neon, pastel, frizzy-haired aesthetic lasted all the way until "Smells Like Teen Spirit" broke big.
Regime media has the guppies believeing all republicans are Trumpers, when in fact most aren't.
...because the only thing stronger than their ability to self-project is their groupie mentality. [WE] mob RULES is their bottom line.
lots of political speculation.
That's all they've got! The only certainty about elections in the United States is that a Democrat candidate or a Republican candidate will win.
Republicans like Trump because he initiated a De-Regulation committee, cut taxes, repealed Obama Nazi-Orders, and in general obeyed the Constitution more than most.
Instead of made “big Nazi” plans to socialize this nation even more.
Only Nazi soldiers can’t seem to figure that out or more likely don’t want to because they hate the USA and love their Nazi-Empire and Trump wouldn’t support their Nazi take-over of the USA.
Biden specifically called Trump out on it. That the most horrible thing about Trump was he wouldn't Nazify the USA.
I think your last dose of magic shrooms is wearing off ... your fantasies are even less coherent than usual.
At some point in the coming election cycle claims of,
Trump is ineligible to run because of the 14th amendment.
Biden is ineligible to run because of the 25th amendment.
Hillary to the rescue.
Michelle.
Yeah, you'll hear that.
I don't think Michelle wants it.
“these categories……are a bit…fuzzy. For instance, only 34 percent of those categorized as libertarian conservatives said they favor cutting taxes on corporations over raising tariffs on imports.”
I don’t really get Reason’s one-way take on trade agreements. When a Constitutional system enters into a trade agreement with a totalitarian regime, let’s not pretend Adam Smith should throw a kegger. It’s a totalitarian regime. The market is controlled and the citizens don't have rights.
incorrect.
The democratic system should lets. markets operate freely which usually destroys the totalitarian regime in th elong run while preserving the freedom of your own citizens.
Nothing says "democracy" like washington telling me who I can buy and sell with.
Oh; you probably can shovel just as much of your $ to a foreign nation as you want. But if you expect the US government to insure any justice (ensure a trade agreement) in that transaction it's not the domestic taxpayers responsibility to cover that demand. If you want to donate charity (whether you think its trade or not) to Putin who is trying to conquer the USA (for example) so long as it's the US governments job to ensure *everyone's* Liberty from Russian dictation it is also the US governments job to prevent you and anyone else from subsidizing a US invasion/conquer.
That is the very reason a Union of States was ever even established.
At Unherd, Olympia Campbell pushes back against people using evolutionary theory to say women should stay chaste until marriage and stop using birth control.
Because of course she does
What catastrophic consequences are fraught with any stellar connections that fall under the influence of a super-massive black hole, Scary Barbie black hole? It is a great success for astrophysicists to discover new characteristics of these most influential galactic phenomena.