Mitt Romney, Like So Many NeverTrumpers, Was Hobbled by His Own Grubby Political Ambitions
The Mormon wing of the conservative #Resistance turned out to be just as fallible as the hawks and libertarians.

When former president Donald Trump reacted last week to the publication of McKay Coppins' Romney: A Reckoning by calling both book and subject "boring, horrible, and totally predictable," the GOP presidential front-runner brought up the single best illustration of why Romney as a would-be Trump-slayer was fatally flawed.
"Does he mention his late night dinner with me at Trump International Hotel when he begged to be Secretary of State, then giving GLOWING COMMENTS about DJT at a follow up News Conference?" the 45th president Truth-Socialed. "I didn't give him the job, NOR DID I EVER INTEND TO. I JUST WANTED TO PROVE A POINT, THAT MITT ROMNEY IS, & ALWAYS HAS BEEN, A LIGHTWEIGHT JOKE!"
Like so many Trump insults, this Mitt-slap was gratuitously cruel, cartoonishly self-aggrandizing, and not a small amount true. Romney, who is retiring from elected office on the same day Trump may yet regain the presidency, is the latest in a long line of political actors whose attempts to come at the king were derailed by their own grubby and exploitable ambitions. Less than eight months after noisily denouncing Trump as a "phony" and a "fraud," here was the 2012 GOP standard-bearer dutifully gushing about his "wonderful evening" with the guy: the price to pay for a potential Cabinet slot.
"It's like, you know, I wanted to be president," Romney explained to Coppins in one of his 45 interviews with the author between March 2021 and May 2023. "If you can't be president, being secretary of state's not a bad spot to come thereafter." It's like, we know.
After Trump sealed the presidential nomination in early May of 2016, most of the GOP quickly fell in line. The holdouts tended to emanate from three camps: Foreign policy hawks (like John McCain and Lindsey Graham), libertarian-leaners (Mark Sanford and Justin Amash), and Romney's co-religionists in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) was the noisiest rebel at the 2016 Republican National Convention, and when the Access Hollywood "grab 'em by the pussy" tape came out in October 2016, Mormons such as Sen. Mike Crapo (R–Idaho) led the stampede of withdrawn endorsements. "Americans deserve far better than @RealDonaldTrump," tweeted then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.).
Flake and Lee, similarly to McCain and Graham, embody the basic do-or-die choice for elected-Republican Trump skeptics in the contemporary GOP: fight and leave, or accommodate and stay. Flake tangled with Trump for a year and a half, saw his popularity plummet, then announced his early retirement from the Senate. Lee, who Trump twice short-listed for Supreme Court nominations, became chummy enough with the president that after Joe Biden's November 2020 electoral victory, the constitutional conservative "spent a month encouraging the idea of having State legislatures endorse competing electors for Trump," according to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. (Lee did, however, vote to certify the election, unlike seven of his Senate Republican colleagues.)
Romney, to his credit, chose to rush headlong into the building where conservative political reputations go to burn, deciding right around the time of Flake's retreat that he would seek to fill the shoes of a retiring Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch. (Trump, ever vindictive, almost talked Hatch out of it.) Romney hadn't even been sworn in before declaring ostentatiously in The Washington Post that the Trump presidency was in "deep descent" due to issues of low character, dodgy personnel, and insufficiently interventionist foreign policy.
"I will act as I would with any president, in or out of my party," he solemnly swore. "I will support policies that I believe are in the best interest of the country and my state, and oppose those that are not. I do not intend to comment on every tweet or fault. But I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions."
National political journalists and commentators, ever-alert for fresh anti-Trump meat, welcomed this new face of the Resistance. (Romney had already buttered their bread with a pre-election essay titled "The Free Press, a Pillar of Democracy.") But by nodding along with the senator-elect's critique that Trump was "anti-immigrant," they missed one helluva man-bites-dog story. The real estate mogul and television star indeed used immigration restrictionism to catapult himself over the crowded 2016 GOP field. But it was a political innovation that he lifted directly from his predecessor.
Romney, as an impossibly rich ex-blue-state governor with malleable views on abortion and gun rights, did not have his finger on the pulse of the conservative grassroots, to put it mildly. Voters detected in him an empty if expensive suit, a skylarking super-capitalist with a daddy complex, an ideological cipher with spreadsheets where his heart should be. Pounding the table loudest on illegal immigration was his way to build those bonds and separate himself from the 2008 GOP pack.
Romney brutalized and eventually dislodged longtime front-runner Rudy Giuliani over the former New York mayor's support for "sanctuary cities," then nearly blasted John McCain out of the race for his longtime advocacy (soon to be renounced) for the same comprehensive immigration reform that Romney had supported as recently as 2005.
Anytime some competitor for the 2012 GOP nomination would inch ahead of him, Romney would ratchet up the border rhetoric. He accused Texas Gov. Rick Perry of creating a "magnet for illegal immigration" via in-state tuition for the undocumented, then when Newt Gingrich took a brief lead, Romney tapped the brain trust of noted restrictionist (and future Trump collaborator) Kris Kobach to craft a policy called "self-deportation."
It has largely been forgotten in the insanity of subsequent events, but there was something near a consensus in professional Republican circles that Romney's defeat against Barack Obama was at least partly attributable to his immigration politics. "We weren't inclusive," then–party chair Reince Priebus said while unveiling the official GOP 2012 "autopsy," which recommended putting comprehensive immigration reform back in the party platform. "We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too," the report concluded.
One key figure who agreed with that critique—at least initially—was none other than Donald Trump. "He had a crazy policy of self-deportation which was maniacal," Trump complained to Newsmax. "It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote….He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country."
The fact that these two men would within six years essentially switch sides on such an important, complicated, and emotional issue suggests a fertile ground for journalistic exploration and self-examination. And yet Romney: A Reckoning, which is cast as a portrait of a man grappling with his own role in creating the politics he came to oppose, is remarkably mute on the topic.
We learn only in passing, through the prism of Obama's attack lines, that Romney in 2012 endorsed the well-known nativist Rep. Steve King (R–Iowa) and called Kris Kobach a "true leader." And even then that latter snippet of a quote does not begin to convey how much Romney was knowingly plunging himself into the fever swamps of the conspiratorial, anti-immigration right. Here's a broader chunk of that Kobach/Romney press release:
"I'm so proud to earn Kris's support," said Mitt Romney. "Kris has been a true leader on securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into this country. We need more conservative leaders like Kris willing to stand up for the rule of law. With Kris on the team, I look forward to working with him to take forceful steps to curtail illegal immigration and to support states like South Carolina and Arizona that are stepping forward to address this problem."
"We need a president who will finally put a stop to a problem that has plagued our country for a generation: millions of illegal aliens coming into the country and taking jobs from United States citizens and legal aliens, while consuming hundreds of billions of dollars in public benefits at taxpayer expense," said Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. "Illegal immigration is a nightmare for America's economy and America's national security. Mitt Romney is the candidate who will finally secure the borders and put a stop to the magnets, like in-state tuition, that encourage illegal aliens to remain in our country unlawfully. He is also the candidate who will stand shoulder to shoulder with the states that are fighting to restore the rule of law. I am pleased to stand with this true conservative."
Romney called for Steve King to resign within his first two weeks in the Senate.
The central antagonist in Romney: A Reckoning is the still-undisputed main player character of American politics from 2015 onward: Donald Trump. The one-term senator will mostly be remembered on Capitol Hill for being the lone Republican vote to impeach Trump in 2020, and one of seven in 2021. He also deserves note for his stirring speech on the Senate floor after the January 6, 2021, riot by Trump supporters hoping to overturn the results of the election.
"We gather [today] due to a selfish man's injured pride and the outrage of his supporters whom he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months and stirred to action this very morning," Romney said, pointing a rhetorical finger at his Republican colleagues who refused to certify the election. "Those who choose to continue to support his dangerous gambit by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy. Fairly or not, they will be remembered for their role in this shameful episode in American history. That will be their legacy."
But as Coppins amply documents, Romney's relationship with Trump over the years has been anything but principled. In February 2012, having won just two of the first four primary/caucus states, and looking to head off a surging Gingrich, the former Massachusetts governor trekked out to the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas two days before the Nevada Caucus and happily accepted a televised endorsement from Donald Trump, whom he praised for his "extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works" and for being "one of the few who has stood up to say China is cheating."
Trump at that point was nearly one year into his high-profile campaign to suggest (as he phrased it to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly) that Barack Obama "doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim." After sailing to a Nevada caucus victory, and even after sewing up the GOP nomination, Romney continued deploying Trump as one of his key campaign surrogates, waving off the businessman's incessant conspiracy theorizing about the president. "You know, I don't agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don't agree with everything I believe in," he said on the trail. "But I need to get to 50.1 percent or more."
The tawdry necessities of politics, of doing gross things to win elections, turn out to tempt Mormons just as much as their heavier-drinking counterparts. And if Romney is any guide, they can be catty as hell, too. Some of the most eyebrow-raising bits in Romney: A Reckoning detail vicious and utterly trivial intra-Mormon feuds—between Romney and Jon Huntsman, Romney and Mike Lee, Romney and a Utah GOP increasingly given over to MAGA. (One of the underexplored relationships in the book, mentioned only on page 301, is Romney's relationship with Ronna McDaniel, Trump's handpicked chair of the Republican National Committee, who awkwardly is Romney's niece.)
The retiring senator's failure to thwart Trump's ambitions is not just attributable to his own compromised history. In strategy, too, Romney fell far short. Coppins details several short-lived flirtations in 2016 with Hail Mary electoral schemes—an independent presidential run himself, an anti-Trump unity ticket with Sens. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R–Texas), an independent bid by the defeated John Kasich, who he otherwise loathed. He spent "a few fruitless weeks after the primaries hunting around for a credible third-party candidate."
Left unmentioned were the two third-party candidates who would have received enormous boosts from a Romney endorsement: Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and independent Utahn Evan McMullin. Romney claimed that if the Libertarian ticket was flipped, with his friend and Massachusetts predecessor Bill Weld at the top, "it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld," but ultimately he balked at Johnson's advocacy for legalizing pot: "Marijuana makes people stupid."
McMullin, a 2012 Romney volunteer, did not receive any meaningful help beyond rented access to Romney's mailing list. While it's doubtful that a Romney endorsement would have pushed McMullin from the 21.5 percent of the vote he received in Utah all the way up to Trump's 45.5 percent, an early, vocal, and energetic endorsement in the Beehive State could have scrambled the Republican's campaign calculations. And Lord knows having a May 2016 endorsement for the Libertarian ticket by the 2012 GOP nominee would have given a lot of fence-sitting Republicans permission to vote for a ticket with two former blue-state Republican governors. Instead of being brave in public, Mitt privately wrote in the name of his wife, Ann.
"I have come to recognize," the subject declares late in Romney: A Reckoning, "that the overwhelming consideration in how people vote is whether it will help or hurt their reelection prospects," adding: "Amazing that a democracy can function like this."
Let this be our lesson, then, from the example of our departing senator. Politics is a low-down racket, with perverse incentives fueled by the public's irritable tempers. Maybe instead of pretending that the cause is noble, if only we had the right champion, let us seek to give the bastards less power to hurt us when they invariably fall short. I'm glad Mitt Romney was in the Senate during Donald Trump's presidency, but I'll be gladder still if we started getting politicians less ideologically opportunistic than either.
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
For all his faults (many), Senator Romney was (is) a pragmatist; others say opportunist. There is truth in both descriptions.
I have appreciated the Senator's comments vis a vis UKR.
Regarding his race in 2012, I walked away with the conclusion that a Team R 'choir boy' can (and will) never get elected. Just won't happen.
Enjoy your retirement, is what I would tell the Senator.
Mitt never learned that you cannot be a pragmatist while negotiating with a zealot. He further craved positive press over any principle or position and given what populates the media space he was doomed to failure from any conservative, rational or Western values perspective.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.
This Website➤---------------➤ https://www.dailypro7.com
Romney was always far more willing and vicious in attacking Republicans than Democrats.
Indeed. Fuck Romney. He did a lot of damage to this country. As did McCain, Murkowski, and all the other RINO trash.
Romney was a RINO, and for big government, like his dad. Totally untrustworthy, unless you trust him to play the RINO game: talking like a conservative, and voting/acting like a Democrat.
I think Welch misreads Trump's rhetoric. His alleged anti-immigration stand was, IMHO, a negotiating position to get some action on the issue in Congress. When you negotiate, it's better to start by asking for everything you want plus some more, then you have something to give up. Remember Pelosi storming out of a meeting about immigration reform: they like the mess because it excuses their not following the messed up immigration laws, and letting in whoever comes. Trump would rather letin law abiding citizens who want to contribute to the economy, rather than criminals escaping justice and or looking for more opportunities to steal, or people looking for free welfare.
Democrats are using immigration to change demographics and increase the number of voters who want more government welfare (they always vote for more taxes, as they falsely believe it costs them nothing and increases welfare, while it leads to a lowering tide that lowers all boats).
Mitt shot his load using slimy tactics in the primary against Ron Paul. When Romney was govnah of Massachusetts, he signed into law legislation that banned some firearms that other Americans then and now could legally own. Mitt is to liberty as say squirrel is to sane, sarc is to sober, and pluggo is to unpedophilic.
Thank you for pointing out Romney the gun grabber. What's worse is that the NRA endorsed him over Ron Paul.
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.Payathome9.com
Fuck Ukraine, and fuck Romney.
Cheering on that war is some evil shit.
You are cheering on the bad guys. Nothing new for you here.
It must be hard seeing the US and the EU back away and give Putin the W.
Never leave NYC.
“The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.”
Your pro-Nazi stance is noted.
Nazis aren’t Nazis if you don’t call them that.
See also: "Palestinian"
“You are cheering on the bad guys. Nothing new for you here.”
Why are you not advocating military assistance for every war out there? Surely, some good guys need help and all and, apparently, it is the responsibility of the US to be the world’s policeman or something.
Russia ia bad. Ukraine’s support for civil rights is pretty low. There is not a good guy here worth the untold billions we’ve wasted.
Mitt should have been hobbled by something a little higher caliber.
Romney was a churlish little cunt before Trump ever decided to run. I remember the dirty tricks his minions pulled on Ron Paul like the fake delegate slates and bullshit claims that Ron is a racist.
Fuck Romney, and fuck anyone who ever supported him in any way, shape or form.
-jcr
Romney was a churlish little cunt before Trump ever decided to run. I remember the dirty tricks his minions pulled on Ron Paul like the fake delegate slates and bullshit claims that Ron is a racist.
That was one of multiple instances of the GOPe pissing on the more populist and libertarian sections of their coalition that eventually led to Trump snatching the party out of their hands.
Romney's candidacy was the last time the GOPe was able to tell these people to shut up and color. When Romney rolled over like a bitch in the second debate, that was the final straw that broke the camel's back.
Indeed. I was willing to do it. Then I saw CNN's Crowley make him her bitch in the second debate, following McCain running a campaign that was WAY nicer to Obama than the Republicans he defeated, and decided to fuck them. The GOP is an incompetent pack of geldings.
Romney has always viewed the GOP Nomination as his entitlement, and I don't think it is much of a conspiracy theory to note that his Church was willing to burn up the party to get their man in office.
Romney didn't lose because of his Immigration stances. He lost because he was an awful foil against Obama. Romney couldn't credibly criticize ACA, and he couldn't credibly criticize Obama's Elitist central planning. Against other candidates he might have been a decent opponent, but the match up against Obama was terrible.
Romney should not have run in '12, but for 8 years he had been laying the groundwork until it seemed like he was inevitable. Behind the scenes he chased many serious candidates out of the running, such that the field of potential nominees was extremely weak.
When any of the '12 nominees gained traction, he sent the many paid shills in the Conservative media to not just counter, but destroy those alternatives. It was incredibly frustrating to see pundits like Hugh Hewitt and rags like National Review engage in shameless, obvious character assassinations of these alternatives to get "Their Guy" in the seat. They painted Herman Cain- a successful businessman, ex-director of the Fed, with a Masters in Computer Science, over a decade of economic political advising- as a crazy crank who was just starting the public sphere. It was utter bullshit- even their backhanded compliments as "Former CEO of (the totally defunct and caput) Godfathers Pizza" were attempts to destroy him. Not to mention how they treated Ron Paul.
This is why the party is as fractured as it is today and is a major reason I view the GOP as a lost cause.
Excellent. Thank you.
Ctl-f Romney = 45
Ctl-f Trump = 36
Who was this about again?
IT’S ALWAYS ABOUT TRUMP!
At least until the TDS generation dies out.
A few more rounds of covid boosters might take care of that.
Republicans are dying from COVID at s far higher rate than Democrats because they refuse vaccines. Arizona has a Democratic Attorney General today because of that. Killing off your voters is bad campaign strategy.
What are the current covid death rates broken down by political affiliation?
More democrat fan fiction and bullshit democrat fever dreams……..
You’re such a lying shitweasel.
No one is dying from/with covid.
The deranged ones are Trump and his stooges. Trump isn't connected to reality, as anyone who reads his TruthSocial rants knows.
Such low energy. D-
Welch hates Trump. Case closed.
He can hate anyone he wants.
I just wish he was honest.
Exactly. He should be honest about being. Piece of shit leftist. He’s certainly no libertarian.
How dare Trump expose the hypocrisy of other politicians and expose their unprincipled political ambitions. Just disgusting behavior by Trump. (Essentially first half of the article)
Well, "Red Wedding" Welch has made orangemanbad a central tenet of most of his other articles, so we shouldn't expect a sudden change here.
For those not aware of the red wedding reference:
https://twitter.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12
That reads a lot like the WoodchipperGate posts.
Welch really is a slimy leftist piece of shit.
The worst part is that he doesn't even want to Red Wedding the actual Bad Conservatives, just the people who write about them......
I bet the idiot doesn’t even know about the real event that was based on.
Guess what, it doesn’t end after the massacre.
I work for a supplier to a major corporation that Mitt Romney ran when he was with Bain. I watched as all my product stopped going to Massachusetts and started going to Mexico. Mexicans did not steal those jobs. Mitt Romney stole those jobs and gave them to Mexicans.
Just shows that Republicans have been huge liars long before Trump came along.
It's called comparative advantage. If Mexico can make the same stuff cheaper, the company is mismanaged if it continues to buy American.
Yup. Minimum wage laws are just price controls on labor, designed to make American labor less competitive.
I also worked for a company liquidated by Bain during Romney's time. I'm sure there's millions of us.
But that's okay because Americans are nothing but abstract units of an economic zone (see above).
When you have millions of voting countrymen who demand ever more money, time-off and perks for the same or less actual work that tends to be what you get.
Get to work, work unit!
Pierre Delecto was always a big government corporatist and one of the furthest Republicans away from holding any laissez-faire libertarian ideals.
"We gather [today] due to a selfish man's injured pride and the outrage of his supporters whom he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months and stirred to action this very morning,"
That could have also described any of the attendees campaign stops too, including the speaker's.
In a bit if odd news as the GOP was largely against campaign reform, the House is opening investigations into Act Blur and its lax verification standards that allow foreigners to donate to campaigns and PACs.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/11/02/house-republicans-dig-into-democrat-fundraising-platforms-shady-donor-verification-process/
This seems a bit tardy given this was already known as we saw the numerous donations from foreigners to the Clinton's and Obama. It has been a long practice of the left.
Sounds like a politically motivated investigation into a campaign rival.
Only if foreigners have the right to donate to US candidates.
Incidentally, if they do, Mueller was a colossal waste of time.
I'm talking about a bunch of Republicans investigating a Democratic fundraising organization. How does this not look like a politically motivated investigation into a campaign rival?
Because foreign money is illegal to give to US campaigns?
Do I need to spell everything out for you?
You are assuming the conclusion.
And besides, if the goal is to investigate foreign money being donated to US campaigns, why focus just on Act Blue? Are we supposed to assume that they are the only ones who allegedly accept foreign donations?
Give it up, this is just a case of you being okay with Republicans doing politically motivated investigations when they are in power
Are we supposed to assume that they are the only ones who allegedly accept foreign donations?
Well, since they come from the camp that believes in globalism, the answer is no. We should definitely expand it to the Chamber of Commerce.
And it's a safe conclusion that people who treat borders as social constructs would view the movement of money the same way. Conversely, if you accept that Trump was playing to nativists, foreign money charges make zero sense.
Oh. So then you agree with me that Republicans investigating Act Blue (but not Chamber of Commerce) under a pretense of "foreign contributions to campaigns" represents a politically motivated investigation of a campaign rival. Thanks!
As always, democratically aligned groups are more lawless than the GOP ones are. CoC is just smarter than Acorn was. Incidentally, that does mean they haven't been shown to violate the law.
Oh, I see.
When Democrats investigate Republicans, that's a politically motivated investigation and a corruption of the process.
When Republicans investigate Democrats, that's a legitimate inquiry because Democrats are just inherently worse.
Got it.
What's sad is that you actually believe that nonsense.
Conversely, if you accept that Trump was playing to nativists, foreign money charges make zero sense.
Or, if you view Trump as an amoral unprincipled demagogue who played to nativists in order to obtain power, and didn't really care where the money came from, then foreign money charges make as much sense for him as it does for anyone else.
Good old paranoia, those damn Russians, trying to install somebody who stalled their second (victorious) invasion of Ukraine.
Stick to black/white political analysis.
The Russians are under his bed, the Russians are in his head!
Cumjeff doesn’t get to talk
"You are assuming the conclusion"
Typical chemjeff. You can't investigate allegations against Democrats because you haven't provided concrete evidence which an investigation might find, but it was totally okay to do it with Trump because reasons.
Typical ML - it's okay to investigate Democrats for any pretext whatsoever because they're evil Nazis who deserve it. But it's totally unfair to investigate Republicans even if they really are caught red-handed because that would be 'political persecution'.
So pathetic.
Also if I take 10 mil from Xi, and make a bunch of $100 donations to trump in but plugs name, would but plug be okay with that?
Act blue was falsifying records to hide money
They also have a history of straw donations to hide the donations of big donors.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-data-shows-that-half-of-2019-donations-to-actblue-came-from-untraceable-unemployed-donors
Pluggo prefers to make tiny donations directly to the people. It is for the children.
Yes you do. Fatfuck Jeffy is an obtuse leftist idiot.
not obtuse - mendacious
Seems like just desserts.
At least you're honest in admitting you favor politically motivated investigations of your opponents.
Have people been punished for doing politically motivated investigations?
Punished legally? I doubt it. Punished by losing an election? Probably.
Are you in favor of all the politically motivated investigations against Trump, Jeff?
Do you deny that the Trump-Russia investigation was politically motivated?
Well yes it was politically motivated. But like every investigation, there was a small kernel of truth to it. The Trump campaign really did have some connection with Russia. But it wasn't the outrageous sedition that Team Blue made it out to be.
Like with this case here, there is a kernel of truth - there are some problems with foreign actors influencing US elections through donations. But to listen to Republicans speak, only Act Blue is guilty of it, which is obviously false.
What makes the politically motivated investigations problematic is not that political partisans are doing the investigating, but that they tend to direct the investigations not towards a search for truth or a desire to seek justice, but towards a pursuit of political power. THAT is the problem here.
So, I am absolutely willing to admit that Team Blue took the Trump-Russia narrative way too far, took the tenuous connections between the Trump campaign and Russia and tried to elaborate it into something to take down Trump.
Are you willing to admit that Republicans are trying to do something similar here? Take a legitimate issue, and turn it into something to try to take Democrats down, instead of trying to pursue actual justice?
Democrats (like you) are utterly corrupt Marxists. The entire party should cease to exist. Or at least be completely destroyed.
Weimar has its own reward.
Obviously you have no clue what Marxism actually is.
I over through the tail end of the Cold War, and I’ve read Marx. Both Karl AND Groucho. So don’t try and play that game with me.
"Like with this case here, there is a kernel of truth"
What was the "kernel of truth", Jeff?
Because every investigation since showed that it was invented by the Hillary campaign using Soros money, and everyone involved from Schiff to McCain to Steele knew it wasn't true but plowed ahead anyway.
Stop crushing his partisan leftist dreams. It is his truth.
Soros is a US Citizen and can contribute to political campaigns. Nothing illegal about that.
Russia clearly intervened to get Trump into the White House and Trump campaign operatives played a role in that.
George Soros is a global Marxist and an inhuman piece of shit. He is one of the single most malignant influences on this country. It would be wonderful if some clandestine services agency liquidated him, and his Marxist children.
The kernel of truth, ML, was that Don Jr. really did meet with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower in June 2016, with the explicit purpose of getting opposition research on Hillary Clinton. He lied about it and said it was about 'adoption policy' or somesuch, but the lie was exposed. That happened, and it had nothing to do with Steele or Obama or McCain or Hillary.
And, let's not forget Paul Manafort's connections to Russia, or Carter Page's. Again, nothing to do with Steele or Obama or McCain or Hillary.
One reason the Trump-Russia narrative was so successful was because there was actually some factual information behind it, you know.
"And, let’s not forget Paul Manafort’s connections to Russia, or Carter Page’s. Again, nothing to do with Steele or Obama or McCain or Hillary."
Carter Page worked for the fucking CIA involving Russia. The FBI covered that up to get a fucking FISA warrant. And the lawyer who did it got jackshit for fucking that man over royally.
Paul Manafort had zero connections that Podesta did not have, yet one was punished. That is, of course, a political prosecution.
Fuck 'em. The Democrats decided that political prosecutions are a valid strategy. Let them live by it.
I said that you will not like the rules you are championing when used against your boos.
Sounds like a
politically motivatedcriminal investigation into a campaign rival.It's the House of Representatives doing the investigating, not a law enforcement agency. So no it's not a criminal investigation.
You invent the stupidest rules.
Agencies outside law enforcement investigate criminal accusations all the time. They may not have the power to press formal charges but they certainly can recommend them.
The dems have whole law firms dedicated to it. It is also why Soros has such an interest in DA races. Jeff is intentionally ignorant or doing his usual lying.
Lying. Every time.
It is hilarious especially today as Hunter Bidens lawyers are demanding the DoJ to go after Bobulinski for lies regarding Biden foreign deals.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-bidens-ex-associate-bobulinski-calls-bidens-join-him-joint-testimony-claim-lied
I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.
Remember that time when you lied in your accusation of me as a liar?
That’s a lie.
No.
Oh, here it is:
https://reason.com/2023/10/24/ideological-screening/?comments=true#comment-10288736
You accused me of lying here when I didn't lie.
I'll accept your apology now.
You just lied that he was lying.
Wow, Jeff.
Nope.
No Fatfuck. You’re the liar. Always you. Now you’re not just a morbidly obese, Marxist, pedophile adjacent piece of shit. Your a bitter, angry, morbidly obese, Marxist pedophilic adjacent piece of shit.
Haha, thanks for pointing out a time you lied.
Fine, then under your stupid rules, every investigation by the House of Representatives is a "criminal investigation" even the ones that you object to as "politically motivated", since they are all related at least on some tangential level to some accusation of criminal activity.
Are those really the stupid rules you want to operate under? The Democrats' investigation of Trump was legit because there was some criminal accusation somewhere?
It’s time to hit back against your democrat masters, you fat bitch. The difference is that they’re actually guilty of a myriad of crimes. You likely are too.
"Fine, then under your stupid rules, every investigation by the House of Representatives is a “criminal investigation”"
Affirming a disjunct, Jeffy? Are you being retarded on purpose?
Toddler sophistry and fallacious arguments that wouldn't trick a monkey aren't rhetorical wins, Jeff.
LOL that is you being caught by your stupid rules.
If this investigation may fairly be described as a "criminal investigation", and not politically motivated, because criminal investigations are not limited to LEOs, then what is to stop ANY investigation by the House of Representative as being labeled a "criminal investigation" and not politically motivated?
This from the same fat fuck that whined about Oberlin getting rightfully spanked in the Gibson's Bakery case.
And here jeff shows his ignorance yet again as the House can in fact petition the DoJ for charges.
See all the obstruction charges against Republicans Jeff supported.
Sure, they *can*. ARE they, though?
But we know that you are just so intent in defending any investigation into Democrats even if it is politically motivated.
Another Strawman from the lying Fatfuck.
He's not ignorant here, he's a dishonest lying leftist cunt as he's proven from about his second post here.
You have to remember, as jeff conveniently forgets, the left leaning DoJ loves to use FARA to go after political rivals. But jeff applauds those actions. Despite it being the same concern.
Remember all the times Lying Jeffy has spoken out against politically motivated investigations? Because I sure as fuck don’t.
He has cheered them all on. Just like sarc.
Is there any Republican investigation against Democrats that you haven't cheered on?
You first, fifty-center. Did you support the Trump-Russia investigations here?
Answered above.
Is there any Republican investigation against Democrats that you haven't cheered on?
The answer is yes. You were enthusiastic that they went after a trump that way.
"Is there any Republican investigation against Democrats that you haven’t cheered on?"
Can't think of any, probably because they were all legitimate. I'm sure you remember that I think that the Democrats are only behind the NSDAP for most evil political party in Western history, beating out the Falangists and Mussolini's Fascists.
The real problem is the Republicans are too cowardly and the GOPe too corrupt to instigate the massive amount of investigations needed on the Democrats. We need a Nuremberg style court.
Can’t think of any, probably because they were all legitimate.
Well that figures. You’re just a tribalist moron.
OF COURSE you think they are evil. That is what their tribe thinks about your tribe too.
People with functioning brains that have not rotted away from cult-like devotion to one tribe or another understand that reality is not a comic book story with black and white heroes and villains. But that's not you.
Remember all those times I cheered them all on? Because I didn't do that.
Are you going to speak out against this politically motivated investigation?
Way to conflate not speaking out against and cheering on. If everyone didn’t know what you’re about you might trick someone.
Way to avoid my question. Are you going to speak out against this politically motivated investigation?
You’re actually avoiding his question, but I’ll answer.
Yes! There are absolutely political motivations involved here, there always are. But unlike your psychotic Trump-Russia bullshit, this investigation is based on real actions not cooked up by their political opponents election campaign.
Here’s another obvious statement. Your sole motivation in screeching about it is a political motivation to defend the Democratic Party right or wrong.
I am not interested in defending the Democratic Party. I don't give a shit what they do. It is entirely believable to me that Act Blue takes foreign donations, perhaps even knowingly. It strains all credulity however to think that they are the only political organization in the nation that does so. My main interest here is calling out your obvious hypocrisy. You'll bitch and moan about "political investigations" when it's your team being investigated, yet you'll find rationalizations to defend it, as you are doing here, when it's your team doing the investigating. Either pick a clear standard, or admit that you are just an unprincipled tribalist.
Lying Fatfuck! You are absolutely trying to protect your democrat masters. It’s all you ever do. If you were honest about that I might have some shred of respect for you.
That's an awful lot of equivocation and horseshit to continue to avoid answering his question, Jeff.
Tubby blobs of slime like him excel at that.
He supports big brother…while ogling little brother.
Might include little sister too. Not sure.
Pathetic.
Tell us again about age of consent laws, Jeffy.
You should talk to Vernon. He is the one who thinks that distribution of child porn should be legal.
Please copy and paste from where I said that distribution of child porn should be legal.
This was months ago. No I'm not going to search through months of posts to find it.
If you've changed your mind, then fine.
Fatfuck, you are a champion of pedophile rights and privileges. So ready to allow an endless stream of convicted pedophile illegals into America to rape our children.
This is why we call you Lying Jeffy.
"This was months ago. No I’m not going to search through months of posts to find it."
Natch, you made it up.
I didn't make it up. Vernon is lying about his prior position.
Again if he changed his mind, fine.
LOL, this from the same guy who claimed that denying child molesters aslyum was "limiting their liberty."
You have to remember, Jesse loves to assign positions to people that they don't hold and then argue against those positions instead of the positions that they actually hold.
Jesse's taking a page out of your book? I haven't seen him adopt the chemleft modus operandi.
Jeff still relies on children's books. No page taken here.
Bicurious George?
CG has too much hair for his preference.
Pedophile erotic fiction maybe.
The Fat in the Matt by Dr Cabeuss
Is Dr, Cabeuss Pluggo’ pen name?
I posted yesterday about the 72 page notice to Erogons court about how his clerk, dude has a crush on her apparently or she runs the court, donated in violation of NY ethics rules for court officials. Apparently the judge became apoplectic when Trump's defense team brought it up and the judge then gagged the lawyers from discussing it. In court the judge tried to dismiss it as the originator of the story was Breitbart, however the story solely relied on public databases and websites from NY.
But it seems the judge is using judicial power to try to hide political acts in his court. One of those acts seems to be constant notes from the clerk in question to the judge which led to Trumps lawyers making the objections.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/judge-hits-trump-another-gag-order-new-york-civil-fraud-case
She's a public official. Her actions are therefore an issue of public debate. Someone has to hold this judge accountable for trying to silence legitimate public discourse and illegally gagging the defense team.
Who is that someone? In politically dominant states for the left there is nobody. For states like Texas the left has enough power such as in Austin to go after the dominant party, but this isn’t true in states like California and New York. And we know the fed is also already corrupted. Even the nominally independent boards like ethics board or the bar are basically corrupted.
Well it comes down to needing to retake legal institutions away from the propagandists and the power-brokers. People who are liberty-minded, small government, or at least conservatives willing to fight, to start retaking the law schools and teaching up the next generation. Getting more libertarian lawfare to push back. Supporting institutions like FIRE and making the ACLU irrelevant (since they're all idealogues and not principled).
The left, the institutionalists, have been waging lawfare for quite a while. So they need something to push back against them.
Hahahahahahahah
I am of the impression all institutions become corrupt. Would rather rely on individualism. Stop relying on institutions to be gatekeepers. This includes the bar and ALA.
sarc wanted to become a lawyer but he couldn’t pass the bar.
You cannot have a functioning society that has individuals who refuse to cooperate.
That is all an institution fundamentally is - a structure to facilitate cooperation between individuals to permit them to achieve a shared goal.
This is where your team has a lot in common with Marxism - you have a lot of criticism of the status quo, but your solution to 'fix' the status quo is unworkable and ridiculous. Like getting rid of institutions.
Getting rid of Marxists, like you, would do wonders for our institutions.
I mean, I tend to agree, and yet any society I'd build would still have a court system. The problem is the lawfare being waged by the left is winning because 80% of lawyers are left leaning, some of them extremely left leaning. You need more liberty-loving lawyers to fight back against the constant lawfare.
But think of the backgrounds foe those judges. Rarely on merit. More based on recommendations of institutions, laws schools, etc. Not working out great.
Congress should be forced to analyze all judges every few years as well outside the USSC. Get the bad ones out early.
but Congress is an institution...
Congress should be forced to analyze all judges every few years as well outside the USSC.
"outside the USSC"? Why shouldn't Congress analyze the USSC justices too? Don't they suffer from the exact same problems that Jesse diagnoses from the judges on the inferior courts - they get their positions based on recommendations of institutions, law schools, having superior backgrounds, etc., not based on merit?
What a curious omission! Why on earth would Jesse want to exempt USSC from his proposed judicial scrutiny? Could it be because.... he LIKES the conservative majority that it currently has, and all he really wants to do is to have a pretext to get rid of all the librul judges and replace them with conservatives regardless of whatever backgrounds or pedigrees that they may have?
"Why shouldn’t Congress analyze the USSC justices too?"
Constitutionally, the ONLY role Congress in regards to oversight of SCOTUS is to approve/deny justice appointments.
SCOTUS is a co-equal branch. The Justices do not answer to Congress.
I posted yesterday about the 72 page notice to Erogons court about how his clerk, dude has a crush on her apparently or she runs the court, donated in violation of NY ethics rules for court officials.
LOL this is a direct quote from the 72 page document itself:
"New York State has failed to enact or publish formal ethical rules for law clerks."
https://attorneyallisongreenfield.com/
Oh, I see. I suppose the complaint here is that this law clerk donated money to Democratic organizations in excess of this $500 limitation that judge's employees are supposed to be bound to according to the judge's code of ethics. Well whatever. Seems like a flimsy basis to declare a mistrial.
Political bias is real and is quite extensive in this case.
I want to see the judge brought up on fraud for his laughable appraisal of Mar a Lago's value.
If Trump declared that was the value to the government, he'd have been in jail.
Florida tax offices even came out and stated clearly their tax valuations do not consider market rates for properties. And the judge refused to change his ruling. Letitia James and the judge have committed a bigger fraud than Trump is accused of. No bank petitioned they were wronged. But jeff likes lawfare for political reasons. He wants government to determine market valuations instead of two people engaging in contracts with their own estimates.
Jeff remains a far leftist.
You have no idea what a "far leftist" is, if you think that is what I am. Instead, you just continue with your usual schtick of assigning fake labels to people.
True or false, Jesse: do you think Trump & co. correctly and legally valued his own property in strict compliance with all applicable laws? This is a yes or no question. And please provide a justification for your answer.
It doesn’t matter. In any loan, the financial institution performs its own due diligence. Borrower’s claims of market value mean nothing.
And please feel free to debate me on this subject. But be warmed, I have 28 years experience in real estate lending. I have read hundreds of appraisals of commercial proprietary and over two thousand home appraisals. So I look forward to slapping you around on this subject.
Or just run and hide like the fat bitch you are.
Watch out. Jeff has argued with his mother on basement rent prices multiple times.
You are not worth the effort. You are just another blowhard asshole with violent rhetoric who isn't even very good at it. Nardz has you beat by a country mile in that category.
Oh gee, you think Democrats should be murdered and I should kill myself. Around here that isn't even original anymore, sad to say.
Like a lot of losers with violent rhetoric, likely the only reason you are here is because you were kicked out of everywhere else that actually has standards of decorum.
So I don't really give your comments a lot of thought. They aren't worth it.
You can’t refute what I say, because what I say isn’t refutable. Commercial real estate lending is my wheelhouse. So I will crush you in any discussion on that subject. That’s why you’re too scared to engage me.
Not a surprise, as you’ve always been a little bitch.
"Oh gee, you think Democrats should be murdered and I should kill myself. Around here that isn’t even original anymore, sad to say."
People lying about you is a cause celebre of yours...but you seem less concerned about doing it to others.
Don't be silly, he can't run. "Waddle swiftly", perhaps. Hopefully he'll do the world a favor and choke to death on a horse cock. Perhaps while filming something with props from Bad Dragon for his OnlyFlab subscribers.
"True or false, Jesse: do you think Trump & co. correctly and legally valued his own property in strict compliance with all applicable laws? This is a yes or no question. And please provide a justification for your answer."
I'm not Jesse...but yes, he did. Valuation is subjective so there will be disagreements until the moment it is sold, but even the banks said his valuations were fair, even if they did not fully agree with them.
"I want to see the judge brought up on fraud for his laughable appraisal of Mar a Lago’s value."
If Trump's valuation of Mar a Lago constitutes fraud, the joke figure put up by the judge certainly is too.
When the 20 acre estate and club is valued at a fraction of the value of the 0.9 acre properties that surround it you know somebody's lying.
Not only dos sit not constitute fraud, it isn’t relevant in any way. The tax assessor does their own valuation for tax purposes, and financial institutions do the same for theirs. Everyone does their own due diligence. This case is absurd. Even Fatfuck Jeff couldn’t come up with anything to justify their case. Not even his lying bullshit.
I’m very confused about your opinion on politically motivated prosecutions Lying Jeffy. And that’s just from your posts today.
Imagine if I remembered all your posts on the topic for years. Then your hypocrisy wouldn’t be just confusing, it’d be laughable.
Liberaltarian guide to argumentation.
1) find the opinions of leftists or government
2) ignore all prior rationalizations you've made in the past
3) find edge cases of libertarianism to defend 1
4) claim you never made arguments found in 2
5) bring up racism, xenophobia, snow white, or any other common unrelated attacks the left uses
6) never acknowledge counter arguments, go back to 5
Conservatarian guide to argumentation:
1. look up what Republicans are saying
2. change one or two things, maybe about drugs or welfare
3. do that
Try harder, Jeffy.
You're right - the modern MAGA conservative and the modern Mises Caucus libertarian are almost identical nowadays.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Well, I guess it would be for a Nazi in an establishment liberal skin suit.
Yeah it is a bad thing when the libertarian movement is hijacked by the MAGA cult.
"Hijacked" by getting a large herd of cats to vote for them in an internal election.
Is this like Trump "hijacking:" the GOP?
Oh you're right. I should adopt the right-wing definition of a "politically motivated prosecution":
When it's a Republican being prosecuted, then it's a "politically motivated prosecution".
When it's a Democrat being prosecuted, then it's because the Democrat is obviously guilty.
For a fascist you sure like pretending to be a victim.
You are the one who wants to throw Disney execs in jail for airing a video clip of a boy dressing up in girl's clothes on TV.
You’re the one who furiously masturbated to that video while fantasizing about raping that boy.
Well, you and Shreek.
"a video clip of a boy dressing up in girl’s clothes on TV"
Are you trying to claim that video of a young boy in a hooker outfit doing a strip tease for adult men, was "Disney execs... airing a video clip of a boy dressing up in girl’s clothes"?
No, there were two video clips.
The video clip that was broadcast on TV had no striptease.
There was a video clip that did have a strip tease, but that was not broadcast. That video clip wasn't even produced by ABC or Disney or anyone associated with the studio.
But because it was the same boy in both video clips, you wanted the Disney execs fired away. Because you are a little fascist who wants to create a socially homogeneous society of 'good morals'.
I want Disney management fired because under their aegis the share price has dropped nearly 40% in 18 months.
Yes, to marxists, anyone who resists their ideology is a fascist.
"You are the one who wants to throw Disney execs in jail for airing a video clip of a boy dressing up in girl’s clothes on TV."
Can you link to that? Or give any evidence of that being written here?
Man I love when jeff shows everyone what a fucking clown he is.
LOL we all know what your argument would be if the shoe was on the other foot.
If this were a trial against a Democratic politician and the law clerk was caught being a candidate for a Republican position, and some rando Twitter guy complained to the court about it, you would complain that some far-left progressive activist was trying to shut down and silence a Republican for her political activism, that gag orders have a long history and no principled person should complain about them, and that campaign finance laws are bullshit anyway.
Who is ‘we’ Fatfuck? You and Pluggo?
Seriously, GTFO of here and never come back. You don’t belong. Salon, WaPo, or Rolling Stone are much better fits for a Marxist sack of shit like you.
Or better yet, just kill yourself.
True or false, Jesse: do you think Trump & co. correctly and legally valued his own property in strict compliance with all applicable laws? This is a yes or no question. And please provide a justification for your answer.
Of what ‘applicable laws’ do you speak of? Are you even aware that financial institutions perform their own valuations of real property?
Probably not. Ignorant, retarded pile of goo that you are.
It is amusing Jeff was claiming he wasn't cheering on these prosecutions yet continues to defend them even against normative applications of the law.
He won’t dare argue this one with me. There isn’t even a bullshit argument to justify this case. Let alone a real argument.
The Jobs report for October was bad. Very bad. But it also contained the normal revisions downward of prior months, whose projections dems like shrike love to tour to defend Bidenomics.
The October jobs report confirmed what many expected: both the August and September jobs reports were far too high when initially reported (in large part because of similarly ridiculous Birth-Death adjustments in prior months). To wit, the jobs change for August was revised down by 62,000, from +227,000 to +165,000, and the change for September was revised down by 39,000, from +336,000 to +297,000.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/record-number-multiple-jobholders-closer-looks-inside-horrific-october-jobs-report
Wonder why shrike is staying away from this post....
I’d rather not know what he’s doing.
He caught a slow one yesterday and is lying low until the search is called off.
I wonder how many children he’s raped?
They also seem to not publicize how many of the new jobs are government. Seems to be a pretty decent percentage every single month.
Nobody loves the corrupt liberal establishment and the Deep State like Park Slope Welchie Boy. Sure, he got really pissed for a while when they kept his (probably adopted) kids out of school for a long stretch, but that doesn't appear to have had a lasting impact.
Let's get that ball rolling on impeaching Mayorkas, Garland, and Robert L. Peters before the arrival of the holidays gives everyone an excuse to not do anything.
Politics is a low-down racket, with perverse incentives fueled by the public's irritable tempers.
I'm only somewhat shocked to see this be printed here.
Of course, if politics isn't a noble pursuit, the why doesn't Welch see it as a tool to impose will? Even libertarians have agendas.
A hit piece like this would have been nice when it mattered.
Welcome to New Reason. Where principles only matter after someone has been harmed but the purpose of the harm is completed. See SV and government censorship.
I mean, if you think about it Romney is the perfect candidate for a good chunk of Reason writers.
He's ostensibly Republican, but is more or less a Democrat in every way that matters.
And his 'principles' amount to 'whatever gets me elected is my opinion' and that's been his MO for basically his entire career. Which is fine, I suppose, but put him up against someone with clear opinions like Trump and it reveals him as the empty suit he always was.
That's exactly why Obama kicked his ass, too. People forget that Romney actually won independents in 2012, but he'd alienated just enough Republican voters that they decided not to turn out for him, and the working-class whites that Trump won in 2020 didn't trust him at all.
The anti-Biden hit pieces were reluctantly and strategically delayed until after Trump was defeated.
To be sure.
Often with a heavy sprinkle of “but Trump” boaf sidez.
It's not like Biden is a traitorous pedofile
Fatfuck Jeffy is jealous.
https://twitter.com/DolioJ/status/1720805496842527142?t=v4YpSB4GeVWxtTlkIQNz_w&s=19
What do you suppose would happen to me and the boys if we tried to breach a port?
The Coastie Port Security Unit would mow us down with 240s.
They were allowed to do this by politicians who told security to stand down.
[Link]
Why is it "grubby"? All politics is a battle for power. Some people you'd trust with that power more than others, but really we should be trying to reduce the amount of power politicians have.
https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1720450243399934348?t=EXghbzOlST97CIib2GJFUQ&s=19
National Security official: Open borders have allowed sleeper cells of unassimilable low-skilled third worlders who will put a strain on social services and social cohesion
https://twitter.com/BIPOCracism/status/1720630796078231926?t=j04ATFuLnGzRg_eqrXaXzw&s=19
Just a reminder that White people are the only race that is “colorblind”
[Link]
It is positively weird that in the US, “Hispanic”, "Turkish", and “MIddle Eastern” have become non-white; these two groups are about as prototypically white as you can possibly get, not to mention that both groups ran gigantic colonial and imperial empires and enslaved people by the millions.
Back in the good ol' racist days, groups fought to be considered white. Now groups (or their advocates) work hard to be branded POC. I wonder what incentives have changed.
There was actually a pretty deliberate effort in the 90s, as part of the PC movement in the universities, to make "whiteness" the new boogeyman for the cultural marxist movement. Noel Ignatiev was one of the main people leading the charge, but it was throughout the whole institution of academia.
"Abolish whiteness" and "abolish colonialism" are just the cultural marxist version of "abolish property" that the classical marxists promoted.
As progressives are pointing out: colorblindness = racism!
Hence, whites are the most racist people, QED!
/sarc
I've been told any criticism whatsoever of a black Republican is racist. Right here on H&R by the Trump cult.
Only when done in your particular racist fashion.
Minstrelism isn't an actual criticism.
"I’ve been told any criticism whatsoever of a black Republican is racist"
Except you don't "criticize". You pretend to quote black politicians and judges saying racist stereotypical things in a minstrel accent.
For example:
-Uncle Clarence has had his hand out for over 20 years. "GIMME DAT WHITIE MONEY!"
-Sandy, I had a genuine fear that a Senator Walker would be shucking and jiving us good liberty-loving Georgians every day.
-Pharma Bro Vivek Ramaswamy was already millionaire when he accepted Soros award he said he needed to pay for law school. Trouble in Bollywood!
-Tim Scott 400-1 Whuffo Bro? Whuffo is you in dis race fo, bro?
-Do you remember Spermin’ Herman Cain? He sounded like a slave extra from Song of the South.
-No, you’re a fucking snowflake who only gets offended when one of your Lawn Jockeys is criticized.
If anyone wants the links to those quotes just ask.
If Obama had a son that looked like a lawn jockey, he’d look a lot like Pluggo’s lawn jockey.
Just give them all good trucks or mopeds to deliver food and everyone will be billionaires.
The USA is NOT a "democracy" it's a *Constitutional* Union of Republican States.
I get so tired of politicians spouting that leftard propaganda trying to re-define this nation. "Democracy" doesn't ensure a free press. "Democracy" doesn't ensure Individual Rights. It might be an amazing step in the right direction if our politicians could speak about what the USA really is.
So please list the exact features that define a ‘republican form of government’.
Not what it isn’t. Everyone knows what it isn’t. eg it isn't a pterodactyl.
I’m so fucking sick of you DeRp’s who want to pretend that the Constitution and the range of forms of government is limited to your moronic partisan blinkers.
Youre asking for a 5th grade civics lesson JFree? Sounds about right. I'll find a picture book version for you.
NOT A DEMOCRACY!
You and JFree should both retake 5th grade. Votes aren't only held in democracies.
Wouldn’t he love to be sitting in a 5th grade classroom. Thinking about how the teacher might be called to the office at any time.
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.
A pop up book. One designed for retarded 1st graders would be about his speed.
Representatives who are required to operate/represent ONLY within the specific authority the people’s Supreme LAW (US Constitution) over them granted them.
The difference between playing any board game around with or without RULES!!! The majority MOB doesn’t get to make/change the rules just because they want to STEAL/CHEAT and commit crimes against their fellow players. (And therein you have the “democracy” champions fully described)
No… What you’re sick of is having it pointed out that your utopian “Democratic” Nazi-Empire is treasonous politics that is conquering the USA by “democratically” installing a new outside/foreign regime.
You like to call your conquering of the USA progress (i.e. Progressives) when actually it’s just repeating the horrors of history and crimes against humanity.
^ Red Hank ^
Is that like Red Hulk?
turd, the TDS-addled 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.
Representatives who are required to operate/represent ONLY within the specific authority the people’s Supreme LAW (US Constitution) over them granted them.
Any constitution can do that - and should. The only Constitution R's give a damn about is the original one from 200 years ago. They oppose most of the substantive amendments that have passed since then. They oppose any amendments that might enhance/expand individual rights and protections against a majority in the present or future. So they view governance as purely a matter of the correct judges reading the entrails of the founders. That's not a republic. It's haruspexocracy.
Well this was a long winded retard statement.
No Republican has any problems with any Amendments passed.
It's the whole inventing "rights" out of thin air that is a problem.
We have to play by the same rules.
I’m afraid when you have Democrats…
– censoring the media
– insisting there is no right to bear arms
– mandating woke religion in a commie-school system gone nationally
– is the party of slavery that fought a civil war to keep it
– entirely ignoring the enumerated powers as well as any federalism between national versus state.
And literally setup a [Na]tional So[zi]alist (SS, Welfare, Fiat-$, Healthcare CDC,FDA,etc,etc) empire of agencies thanks to FDR and a Democratic Trifecta…….
Republicans have an entire fall off a cliff scenario to catch up with that BS.
But hey ... why just use specific examples. Get right to the very roots of it and read the R versus D platforms. The entire Democrats platform can be summarized as turning the nation Communist (i.e. [WE],[WE],[WE]) instead of being a nation of Individualism with rights.
Like what?
Oh, you don't know. You're just making shit up.
A constitutional republic is a form of goverment that demands you double mask and take deadly poison
The USA is NOT a “democracy”
Don't vote then.
You don't vote I hope.
NOT A DEMOCRACY! (I just discovered another wingnut meaningless platitude)
I do vote to offset you treasonous Nazi’s who think you can do mob RULES voting for treasonous Nazi’s who want to destroy the USA for their Nazi-Empire.
I vote for representatives who OBEY and HONOR their SWORN oath of office and the very people’s LAW over them as the USA was founded upon and is defined by ... If I can even find one anymore.
It’s traitors who think the USA is a Nazi-Democracy that is destroying this nation and turning it into another sh*thole Germany.
What is it called when voters make those decisions again?
What was it called when Germany voted to get Hitler in charge?
Do you think the USA is the same as Pre-Hitler Germany?
The US Constitution (the very definition of the USA) utilizes a democratic process for electing *Constitutional* representatives. It was never written just ignore the very definition of the USA and elect wanna-be Hitlers (i.e. [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s]) who lawlessly destroy the USA for their Nazi-Empire.
What is it called when voters make those decisions again?
What is it called when a simple majority gets what it wants, regardless of Constitutional and other laws? (Lynch) mob rule.
What is it called when you fuck the rectums of little boys?
California passed an Amendment to bar gay marriage.
Since it was done DEMOCRATICALLY, I bet it is still in force.
Republics have votes too dumbass.
NOT A DEMOCRACY!
It’s a *Constitutional* Union of Republican States in which that Constitution !!!!!!! >>>>> uses very specific and purposefully targeted and defined democratic processes. Most obviously for electing *Constitutional* Representatives.
You just as well be pretending a bolt is a car. You’re but describing a very small part of a much larger system. Course ignoring what the USA is by focusing on little twits is what treasonous “democracy” fans do.
EXACTLY the same way they chop little phrases out of the Constitutional preamble and pretend their chopped words VOIDS the whole d*mn thing. Criminal Manipulation and Deception is the playing cards of the left.
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.
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 TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
https://twitter.com/akafacehots/status/1720808076654375386?t=gMXqwl9qoO1RrUQVQ8Zumw&s=19
This woman goes to stuff the ballot box in GA on November 2, 2020 but then she realizes the ballots weren’t signed so she goes back to her car and signs them all.
[Video]
Who know that it was well-fed penguins who were stuffing the ballot boxes in Georgia!
Cleanest election ever.
The election was as clean as Biden’s diapers.
No widespread fraud.
Mostly peaceful fraud.
Pro Palestinian protestors trespass into ship yard stopping government merchant marine ship from leaving. Nobody apparently arrested.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/pro-palestinian-protesters-california-block-u-s-government-ship-joe-biden-you-cant-hide
Reason writers, however, were just hobbled by their ambitions to keep getting invited to DC cocktail parties.
Dude, have you ever had real bad FOMO?
I'm glad Mitt Romney was in the Senate during Donald Trump's presidency, but I'll be gladder still if we started getting politicians less ideologically opportunistic than either.
IOW - sortition (election by lottery aka jury pool) works.
https://twitter.com/TPointUK/status/1720778936420913207?t=ek4cXKjnboEkQZSklZWXGA&s=19
The authorities have removed the flags off of the Cenotaph in order to “keep the peace” with the Palestinian march today.
If they are offended by the flag of our nation why are they here?
Money
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1720857498922430802?t=oQnqoe0JdIAeoojW4c1flg&s=19
Officer: "There's way more of them than there are of us."
Mob rule more powerful than the law.
Obvious, but interesting to hear him admit it.
[Link]
Even funnier given that the UK government intentionally did this. The Labour Party admitted it years ago.
Noticing the same thing is happening here, though, is racist.
Looking forward to my energy costs to skyrocket.
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/michigan-house-oks-wind-solar-site-override-2040-carbon-neutral-plan
Slava Ukraine! Wait, what?
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1720607177180688865
They could have made this deal before the Russians ever invaded Ukraine, but the US and BoJo decided that they needed money laundering opportunities and put the kibosh on it.
https://twitter.com/RandoLand_us/status/1720843796655542604?t=8gIbYodo517U9aCL-L7rJA&s=19
Department of State grant (2022)
Amount: $17,034,957
Recipient: Lutheran Immigration And Refugee Service Inc
Purpose: To ensure that all refugees approved for admission to the United States are provided with reception and placement services appropriate to their personal circumstances
[Link]
Regugees and illegal immigrants are cost free profit who bring their own jobs with them - one true libertarian
Who was the asswipe who promised to build a border wall but didn't?
Couldn’t?
The anti constitutional authoritarian who never acted as one?
Not Joe Biden, he's building it! Hooray for walls... and...*checks administration* hooray for Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken and... hooray for Bill Kristol!
Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken and… hooray for Bill Kristol!
Worthless Neocons can't get us into a soul-sapping war like Dubya and Dick did. All they have done is a SLOPPY PULLOUT! from a prior war.
The TDS-addled 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.
You mean undermined and blocked by people like you and your Marxist masters?
You’re is a bullshit premise, typical of far leftists like you. Obstruct someone for. Doing something they’re actively working towards, then claim that person didn’t keep their promise to do that.
So really Pluggo, fuck you.
See, here is a clue for you.
The United States is a party to a treaty, called the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which has certain provisions relating to how refugees are to be treated. Some of those provisions state that when refugees show up, they are entitled to a certain standard of care.
This treaty was signed in 1951, and the associated Protocol was signed in 1967. This is not some Biden open borders thing. This is literally a treaty obligation that has been on the books for decades.
The State Department here is giving a grant to a private charitable organization to meet these obligations as spelled out in the treaty.
IF the US is going to abide by the terms of this treaty, then this is a fairly libertarian way to approach it - outsource it to the private sector, in this case private charitable organizations. And it's a religious one to boot! What is to complain about? They are being converted into good Lutherans, right?
If you think the US should just withdraw from the treaty (which I'm pretty sure you do), then perhaps you might want to spell out how you think refugees should be treated. Shot on sight at the border, perhaps?
Congress should define a refugee as someone who is fleeing political persecution. Finding a job doesn't qualify for refugee status.
I tend to agree.
I have no idea who are the intended beneficiaries from this particular grant. Maybe they are refugees from Ukraine or Israel or some other war-torn place, I don't know.
The nativist demagogues like Nardz and Trump though will tend to lump all of the foreigners together, whether they are refugees or asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, and denigrate them as foreigners who are bespoiling the precious bodily fluids of America and want to kick them out.
That is literally the opposite of true.
The following is a six minute speech given by Douglas Murray about the immigration crisis, and the failure of the open borders cohort to separate "refugee" from "economic migrant".
"competing virtues of justice-- not just justice for those fleeing countries, but justice for people in those countries"
Chicago and New York have just begun to discuss these questions. Thank god for "stunts" to get people talking.
Yes indeed - thank god for "stunts" to persuade Chicagoans and New Yorkers that the filthy dirty migrants are coming to take away their precious bodily fluids.
The purpose of the stunt is to help these sanctuary cities participate in the real cost and process of dealing with large groups of people showing up and asking for help. They have revealed their true feelings about the idea - it should be someone else's problem as soon as possible. You are the one labeling the people as sub-human.
Chemleft knows subhuman. Like the back of his hand, one might say.
LOL even according to your own link, Douglas Murray admits that yes, there are occasional nativist xenophobes who believe as I claim, they simply don't want the foreigners there at all no matter how worthy their refugee claim might be.
And he engages in a pretty common debate trick - he simply assumes an unstated premise and constructs an elaborate argument from there, without examining that premise. His unstated assumption, of course, is that there is going to be some sort of permission slip system created by governments to regulate who can migrate where. And you'd think that folks at a libertarian forum should question this unstated premise and not accept it blindly.
So you do have half a point - in my libertarian soul, sure I am not terribly interested in forming a distinction between refugees and illegal immigrants and whatnot. I really don't give a shit who migrates where for what reason as long as no one violates the NAP. But then again I am not the one who constructed, nor defends, all of these rules and classification systems upon migrants. That would be your team. If you want a government to classify migrants according to different rules, then maybe you should abide by those classifications. You wouldn't be one of those people who classified the migrants shipped to Martha's Vineyard as "illegal immigrants", would you?
You aren’t even slightly libertarian. You’re just another Sorositic open borders global Marxist. And you champion pedophilia.
You’re afraid to engage me. And you should be. I would destroy you, like always. So continue to fear me, just like that drunken push Sarcasmic.
Best that go off and kill yourself you fatfuck pice of shit. Best thing for you really. Your comments are going nowhere.
Man. Sucks for Jeff when even shrike understands this.
And it is already defined as such.
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.
The millions of illegal aliens, many military age men as well as some human traffickers, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, that have entered the US unvetted aren’t doing anything like say peacefully protesting at a government building that they paid for. So no, deadly force should not be used. And people at the border have not crossed the border so it is a bit of a syntax error argument anyhow.
And even then that latter snippet of a quote does not begin to convey how much Romney was knowingly plunging himself into the fever swamps of the conspiratorial, anti-immigration right.
Is anyone at Liberteen Magazine even capable of not being a completely disingenuous cuntsack on this topic?
"Anti-Illegal Immigration" is not the same as "Anti-Immigration".
And for Jeff as most of his thoughts are based on ignorance. The US spends 8.8B yearly on refugee costs. They aren't cost free. Sponsors aren't required to financially responsible for them. But Jeff's form of liberty as usual is to take from one to give to another.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/refugee-costs-88-billion-80-000-per-immigrant-free-welfare-medicaid
I have never disputed that migration comes with associated costs.
When are you ever going to admit that migration also comes with associated benefits? Hmm?
Feel free to list the benefits of the massive illegal migration we've had the last few years.
the Trump presidency was in "deep descent" due to issues of...dodgy personnel...
That part is certainly true.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.
This Website➤---------------➤ https://www.dailypro7.com
Anti-MAGA lies. Trump always picks the very best people. Like Omarosa Managault.
Don't question his divine wisdom.
Um... Trump and Mittens are joined at the hip.
Mitt's not #NT. He's pure MAGA.
Gotta love it when a plan comes together.
This is Reason's goal. Federal policing local.
https://twitter.com/CrimeWatchMpls/status/1720647827628392779?t=7cunfL4dnyB2dATFnW4vsg&s=19
New press release from MPD:
"Minneapolis named as National Public Safety Partnership site"
Let's all read between the lines here on the real meaning of this:
WE'RE SCREWED.
Feds are converging in Minneapolis because we are literally one major incident away from complete disaster, if not sooner.
We don't have enough cops to even respond to everyday incidents, even some critical incidents. It's a continued tinderbox ready to blow. And we can't get cops to even apply for the open positions. We needed double the MPD police force way back when we actually had so called minimum staffing of ~800 (pre Covid, pre Floyd). We're well under 300 cops available for 911 calls right now.
Our major city prosecutors, @MNCourts, and @MinnCorrections administration are a complete joke, and everyone knows it, including the feds who've had to continually come in and mop up their mess of catch and release feelgoodery.
And there's an election coming up next year with critical seats up for election. It's time for CYA for the regime in Minnesota (and the major city that controls it), and this is part of the CYA.
Minneapolis is a complete disaster of failed "leadership" in public safety (and other critical areas) that goes all the way to the top levels in the state. And that disaster is rapidly oozing into the suburbs and beyond.
And those failures need a dog and pony show for cover. Here you have it
[Link]
Reading between the lines, I'd say the purpose of the program is to protect criminals from the police and citizens attempting self-defense.
Tim Scott wants to deport you if you endorse the wrong side in a foreign war.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2023/11/03/presidential-candidate-tim-scott-iowa-caucuses-says-deport-foreign-students-who-want-jewish-genocide/71428949007/
#RepublicanWaronFreeSpeech
Are you aware that Tim Scott basically never comes up until you bring him up? What's that about?
We all hear about what a great candidate he is. Qualified - the right message, gets all the issues right , devout, great story, etc.
There is just something about him that turns Republican voters off so much he barely gets any support - maybe 2% tops.
Just trying to figure out what is "wrong" with him....
You dont want to call him a lawn jockey for not being on the dem plantation? Less than 25 hours ago you did.
He's running 5th or even 6th, consistently behind Chris Christie. And Christie is a fucking joke even in GOP circles. So he's clearly not that great a candidate if he can't outpoll that loser.
I never hear about how strong a candidate he is. Who is this "we all" you're referring when you say we all hear this?
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 TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Who the hell is Tim Scott?
Someone pluggo hates .
Runaway slave?
Runaway slave.
"You" meaning "international college students attending U.S. schools who are encouraging "mass murders"".
I'm not one of those, and you probably aren't either, nor is anyone else here. So, who cares.
Aren't you the person who wants to make drug addiction a de facto crime? Yeah you are. I don't think you should be one speaking on behalf of civil liberties.
What is the proportion of drug addicts vs non-drug addicts that allows for a healthy, functioning society.
Or, if you prefer, how much dead weight should a vessel be forced to carry until it cuts it loose to maintain stability?
What is it about this:
https://assets.rbl.ms/13996581/980x.jpg
and this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c0/ff/c1/c0ffc19c6c649cdee76ab084c12b0e0f.jpg
and this:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/08/31/nyregion/01HARLEM1/01HARLEM1-master1050-v2.jpg
that you find so redeeming?
I'd say about 3% addicts. We need artists.
So, at minimum, can I take that to mean you'd agree with rounding up 3% of drug users and forcibly removing them from the streets?
If the artists to which VD refers includes Nickelback and Creed, then maybe.
How can Creed be arrested in handcuffs with their arms wide open?
Typical conservative - you value social order and stability over individual liberty.
I wasn't aware that there was some rule that every action of a member of society had to be 'socially redeeming'. I guess then it's time to ban porn, TV, video games, social media, and Internet message boards. There is very little, if anything, that is 'socially redeeming' about any of that, is there?
You don't have a right to dictate that everyone around you behave in a manner that is pleasing to you. Sorry not sorry.
Like forcing people to wear virtue signaling face diapers? Or to use pathology enabling incorrect pronouns?
Again, you didn't answer the question. What IS it with you?
You keep trying to change the subject - to porn, social media, something else, anything else, whatever you can desperately throw out there - to avoid answering the actual question asked of you.
I'm not dictating anything. I'm asking you to explain the net positive - in any regard - of drug addiction. I showed you three random photos that popped when I googled "drug addiction" and asked you to identify anything redeeming about them.
Why can't you do that?
It's not about "social order" or "individual liberty" or anything else you're trying to pivot toward. It's about drug addicts. What IS it about drug addiction specifically that should be regarded as a positive, in any capacity?
"Typical conservative – you value social order and stability over individual liberty."
Without order, you have no liberty.
"I wasn’t aware that there was some rule that every action of a member of society had to be ‘socially redeeming’."
Dudes shitting on public streets or lying around strung out of their minds is beyond "not socially redeeming".
Do people on visas agree on terms for getting a visa? Yes or no. Does supporting terrorism count as one of the conditions?
They aren't being criminalized for their speech. Their violating a contract they agreed to.
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 TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Like so many Trump insults, this Mitt-slap was gratuitously cruel, cartoonishly self-aggrandizing, and not a small amount true.
Is this another one of those situations where a politician hits the nail, square on the head, but we refer to the act as "a stunt"?
the latest in a long line of political actors whose attempts to come at the king
See, this is the problem with Fatass Donnie and his cult. They and he see him as our "king".
Like way above Dubya who called himself the "decider". Donnie thinks he is the King - beyond the law, above the people and representatives, the Royal Dear Leader and Inspiration to the surfs.
#NotMyKing
He was only copying Obama.
I'm frankly surprised so many people hate Trump when they loved Obama. They were basically the same president. Just wearing a different color hat.
You would have a point if Obama had plotted to overthrow the 2016 election and make himself King for Life.
Isn't that kinda what he effectively did? What he's still doing?
Get real. Obama respects the Constitutional tradition. In many ways Obama is the real conservative.
If he were on a ballot again as a lifer he would wipe the floor with any of the candidates.
Democrats are sick of Joe. Donnie is despised. Obama would trounce either by 20 points.
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
You probably still jerk off every night to the Shepherd Fairy poster, though it has to be pretty tattered and worn out by now.
Shepherd Fairy's Obama is over 10.
Hardly. I'm sick to death of this Obama/Trump/Biden dynasty and the Digital Dark Ages it's brought.
Our American culture needs a new Enlightenment. And it's not going to be found among donkeys, elephants, rainbow flags, drug users, dead babies, Islam, social media, its "influencers," or with a porous border that brings in an equal or greater amount of rot than it does decency.
All that garbage - and all its enablers - has to go.
Not sure how you can include a party outsider as part of a dynasty....
lol, "party outsider."
OK, whatever you say. 😉 😉 😉
Trump was hated and is hated by both sets of establishment parties. But do go on with your own imaginative world.
Trump is a lifelong liberal Democrat who helped preserve the status quo for four years, leaving no lasting legacy or accomplishment that couldn’t be (and subsequently was) immediately undone following his one-term presidency. And even when he was IN power, all he did was follow straight out of the Democrat playbook: reckless borrowing/spending, fomenting hatred across identity politics, “ends justify the means” approaches to what nobody can call “governance” with a straight face, and an absolute commitment to meeting the Left on their own terms of “they go low, we go lower.”
He diffused the roiling anger we had after eight miserable years of Barack Obama, and then incensed at the likely possibility of Hillary Clinton (or the impossibility of Jeb “please clap” Bush). That was his entire purpose of running. So that sheep and lemmings would follow him, and keep them from voting for a REAL outside candidate.
And just like his predecessor, he was smug, he was petty, he was thin-skinned, he was vindictive, he fomented partisan hatred, he constantly played this “us vs them” game (and played the victim every time), he made it clear that he was only representing the half of America that liked him while the rest could go to hell, and he believed himself (or at least acted like) a benevolent dictator that would just ignore the Legislature – the branch closest to We The People – and do whatever the heck he wanted with a phone and a pen.
Trump WAS Obama. You're just blinded because all you see is the hat color.
"Obama respects the Constitutional tradition."
Chuck Colson of Watergate fame was sentenced to prison for possessing a single FBI file on a political rival.
Say Pluggo, what's the penalty for a President employing the Director of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the FBI, the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on members of the opposition political party in an effort to ensure his former Secretary of State wins the Presidency?
Lol. Never fail to have these gems if ignorance and lying. Pen and a phone. Mao Christmas ornaments. Lawfare to throw opponents off ballots. Exjudicial killing of American citizens.
Good times.
Oh boy do I have a good article on Obama latest statements for you tomorrow morning.
Rely on it: 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.
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 TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
Let us not forget this about Mitt Romney.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/10/21/kaboom-i-have-to-take-back-every-positive-thing-i-ever-said-about-mitt-romney/
.Romney admits to Hannity that even though he’s been signaling his support of the Democrat impeachment efforts, he actually has no idea what Burisma is. “How do you not know what Burisma is?” Hannity reportedly asks.
The subject never came into his facebook feed. I mean, duh.
Soros-backed reform prosecutor pushes for "no jail time" for gangbangers who murdered a baby.
Pushes for "non-carceral" forms of accountability.
Something tells me the main reason you're upset here is because it's a Soros-backed reform prosecutor pushing this.
Isn't it always?
Who else would push something like that?
You are right, who was I kidding.
Every death of a baby should require that someone goes to jail.
Right?
“Just a clump of cells”.
Well, Jeff is a clump of blubber and shit. So that’s a clump of cells……..
Murder of a baby, yes. I know that's hard for you to swallow, though.
Interesting how you don't even bother considering the particulars of the case at hand.
Doesn't justice require considering the individual circumstances of the individual situation?
"The bullet came from a rival gang shootout between two vehicles exchanging fire. Trevor Green, 22, Ivory Bivins, 24, and Johnny Jackson, 34, were arrested in December 2022 and charged with murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle and possession of a firearm by a felon. "
There. That is what happened. Yeah, this deserves zero prison time.
Fucking hell, Jeffy.
What you're doing is no different than how many of the Jan. 6 rioters were treated in their court cases.
"They broke into Congress and tried to overturn the election, they should get 10 years in prison!!!" was the broad-brush generalization of what some of them did. But if you look at what many of them ACTUALLY did, it didn't fit.
Yet another reason you're just another fascist - lumping your enemies together into one generalization and meting out the worst possible punishment on them without regard to any standards of justice
You’re such a lying propagandist. You need to go away forever. Hopefully, you will die soon. Given your gross morbid obesity, this is a strong possibility. Also, I’m certain that anyone in your presence for more than a few minutes likely feels an overpowering urge to end your life.
Face it, you’re a fat pile of shit that everyone hates. No one could ever love a bloated, loathsome, soulless, malignant waste of life like you.
The Jan 6 protesters ARE being sent to jail for years.
Murdering a baby, though, Jeff thinks prison time for that is a step too far and criticizing the prosecutor or the person who paid for them to be there is unfair.
Murder of infants tends to be a heinous crime.
Heinous crimes deserve harsh punishment.
"You are right, who was I kidding.
Every death of a baby should require that someone goes to jail.
Right?"
When they shoot them...yeah. They should.
He cannot be upset that somebody who MURDERED A BABY is being considered for ZERO prison time?
Fuck, you cannot criticize the decisions of anybody associated with Soros, can you?
Reason favorite
https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/1720767671598281152?t=NZ19rlTo2XuOp2hHDQ3L-w&s=19
My (Jewish) paternal grandparents were also cousins, you racist shit.
Cripes!
Sure, I guess that wins the argument, but...
I get that this is the sort of thing Welch is good at writing about, but...why should we care about this has-been? What possible effect on our lives could he have now?
LOL
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1720912826573656358?t=zhPvG85srog4rbjqH4k2bg&s=19
Breaking: An America or Canadian militant Antifa activist who attended the London Palestine protest called @BillboardChris a fascist for opposing transitioning children. The Antifa man tries to rally Muslim women to his cause but they tell him they disagree with him too.
[Video]
Thanks for sharing, Nardz. That was epic.
"Yea, they're not."
lmao.
https://twitter.com/akafacehots/status/1720981152922796256?t=So-70qt40NARC_u2lfQgMw&s=19
BREAKING:
Anti-Israel protesters attack the fence of the White House.
Some are even climbing it and fighting with the Secret Service
[Video]
Insurrection? Any fire extinguishers?
The good news is that since the Left supports it, this is NOT an insurrection and nobody will be punished.
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1720984215095832653?t=T8aefbkUiXZ1m-8cjkdiTQ&s=19
Historic monuments in Washington DC were vandalized and desecrated by pro-Palestine protestors today
[Videos]
Grand. My son is going on a school trip there tomorrow. Thanks, fuckers.
https://muzaan.com/
"It has largely been forgotten in the insanity of subsequent events, but there was something near a consensus in professional Republican circles that Romney's defeat against Barack Obama was at least partly attributable to his immigration politics."
There's something near a consensus among Republican voters that "professional Republicans" are the main reason the GOP never accomplishes anything while in power. I may hate much of what the Democratic party tries to do, but they do at least realize that the purpose of gaining office is to enact your policies, not the other way around.
I suppose groups organized around an agenda will usually prevail over those that wish for a more laissez faire future.
... organizing around the biggest 'gun-force' establishment with an agenda.
And lets face it; With the 'agenda' the left lobbies for (armed-theft); if it wasn't code-named the almighty "government" it would be the biggest horror of gun-toting armed-theft gangsters the nation has ever seen.
But they don't even set up the conditions for that laissez faire future.
A more laissez faire future IS an agenda. The only agenda professional politicians have is being paid to hold office, and I'm not talking about their salaries.
A more laissez faire future IS an agenda.
That’s not an agenda; its a term for a principle or ideal for government, and a vague one at that. Like “social justice” it can mean all kinds of things to people roughly aligned with it. A political agenda includes more than just aphorisms, slogans, and the like. It includes at least some policy proposals that carry enough specifics to evaluate what effects they might have.
Of course it's an agenda.
"I'm going to be in your face." begs for details. "I'm going to leave you alone."? How much detail does that require?
Seriously, not liking the agenda doesn't make it not an agenda. But perhaps we can agree that, for professional Republicans, the only agenda was holding office and reaping the benefits thereof?
“I’m going to be in your face.” begs for details. “I’m going to leave you alone.”? How much detail does that require?
"I'm going to leave you alone. Unless you do X." That requires details of what X is going to be. A government that always leaves you alone, regardless of what you do to other people isn't a government at all. It is anarchy.
Anyone that considers themselves a moderate Republican needs to recognize that they have no place in the current GOP. Even though "moderate Republican" really means conservative with enough pragmatism to be willing to compromise, they will be labeled RINOs or otherwise marginalized when it comes down to it. The MAGA base runs the show, and we saw that clearly in the fight over House Speaker. Those moderate Republicans in purple districts didn't want Jim Jordan as speaker a handful of MAGA true believers blew up McCarthy's Speakership with absolutely no plan on what to do afterwards. They were able to keep him from the job, but a veto from Trump on Esser sank him almost immediately, and they ended up getting someone just as Trump-loving and far to the right as Jim Jordan, but without the public profile.
It is typical of libertarians to conclude that less government is the solution to the dysfunction in American politics. Well, it is typical of anyone with strong ideological views to conclude that their ideology is the solution to all political problems. But the one thing that such partisans and ideologically rigid people won't recognize is that the problem with American politics is how it rewards politicians that play to voters that have that kind of belief system.
It wasn't always like this, but the explosion of media outlets that could be successful catering to smaller factions took the inherent weakness of our electoral system and turbo-charged it. Take voters that are free to encase themselves in echo chambers and combine that with single-party primaries and districts and states that are more evenly split between the major two parties end up with two candidates that don't truly represent more than 30-40% of their constituents. The general elections then become a matter of which candidate is more successful at fooling the middle into thinking that they will represent them at the same time they please their party's base to avoid being primaried. Even when the candidate really is center-left or center-right, they are overwhelmed by members of Congress all the way to one side or the other in 'safe' seats.
I think that the only solution to political dysfunction in the U.S. is to do away with single-member, plurality districts, as it bakes in this kind of result. People that like the way it works now are the voters at the far ends that get their way in the districts and states where they dominate and the politicians that they elect. I can't think that anyone actually near the middle, or people that don't fit into the 1-dimensional left-right political spectrum at all, for that matter, is happy with how we elect our governments.
Proportional representation would make the people at the extremes that can muster ~1/3rd of the seats on their own would finally be forced to realize that they can't govern without compromising. They would be forced to realize that they don't have majority support for their ideas in their pure forms and thus don't deserve to implement them exactly how they want them. They would have to actually do the hard work of either convincing a real majority that their ideas are best or compromise with voting blocs nearer to the middle to get enough votes to implement something close to their preferences.
Or, they can dispense with any pretense of believing in government that represents a majority and impose their will through brute force. If tyranny of the majority is wrong, then what does that make tyranny of the minority?
Of course, any Republican is going to condense that down to, "I'm not winning under the current rules, so let's change the rules!" Even if that isn't entirely fair. (I favor some form of PR myself.) It's not entirely unfair, either.
"It wasn’t always like this, but the explosion of media outlets that could be successful catering to smaller factions took the inherent weakness of our electoral system and turbo-charged it."
Said profusion, and more importantly, the ability to communicate outside of those media outlets, didn't create the real problem, it just exposed it.
The dominant political establishment never did have the support of more than half the people. It just had the ability to make half the people think they were tiny minorities, by keeping them from talking to each other.
So, the initial effect of the end of communications scarcity was that people who had thought they held extreme outlier viewpoints discovered that, no, actually a lot of people agreed with them. However, this generation had grown up under the imposed illusion of consensus, and the initial internet wasn't very sorted, so this didn't create the contrary illusion, that they WERE the majority. They just figured out they were a big enough minority that they didn't have to STFU and hide. THIS resulted in robust debate, I think.
The second wave was when people grew up outside the illusion of consensus, but using an internet that was getting much better at sorting people out, mainly due to algorithms intended to monetize people. These people DID end up with the illusion that THEY were the majority, when there actually wasn't any majority.
So you got competing pseudo-majorities, each with their hind-brains telling them the other guy was supposed to be rolling over and giving up, like a good little bottom-of-the-pecking-order minority. THAT was a recipe for social unrest. Each thinking they were entitled to sanction the other, each outraged at being sanctioned BY the other.
It's not the end to communications scarcity that is the problem, and attempting to recreate that scarcity is no solution. It's the filter bubbles. People desperately NEED exposure to contrary viewpoints, and often enough that they don't develop that "I'm the majority, bow down before me!" mentality.
It's like a vital nutrient in your intellectual diet, without it your mind grows up warped.
The dominant political establishment never did have the support of more than half the people. It just had the ability to make half the people think they were tiny minorities, by keeping them from talking to each other.
How did they keep a majority of people from talking to each other? You mean that there were gatekeepers for mass media, but there is no way for a political establishment to prevent people from talking to each other in person at their workplaces, churches, homes, or other social gatherings. (Short of massive repression of authoritarian regimes, at least.)
Those mass media gatekeepers were in the business of, well, mass media. What was their incentive to try and appeal only to a minority of the population? Sure, there were publications that aimed at 'liberals' or 'conservatives', but any that aimed exclusively at those groups were not trying to appeal to a majority and certainly didn't reach a majority or control what the majority heard. Network television had to appeal to a broad audience or it would lose viewers to the other two networks.
So, the initial effect of the end of communications scarcity was that people who had thought they held extreme outlier viewpoints discovered that, no, actually a lot of people agreed with them.
Extreme outlier viewpoints in a country of 300 million people is going to be a lot of people. Sure, the initial effect may have been for some to realize that they weren't as rare as they thought, just because they didn't know many other people personally that shared their beliefs. But that's a long way from what you are suggesting.
How many people read Reason regularly? How many of those people comment regularly? I see the same couple of dozen names posting comments on a daily basis and actually carrying on conversations. If a large majority of those people tend to agree with each other, does that mean that there are a lot of people in the whole country that agree with them?
The second wave was when people grew up outside the illusion of consensus, but using an internet that was getting much better at sorting people out, mainly due to algorithms intended to monetize people. These people DID end up with the illusion that THEY were the majority, when there actually wasn’t any majority.
This is largely correct. It is the way that echo chambers aka media bubbles work. They give people in them the illusion that their views are a larger fraction of the population than they really are, in addition to the critical thinking failures of those views not being challenged.
It’s not the end to communications scarcity that is the problem, and attempting to recreate that scarcity is no solution. It’s the filter bubbles. People desperately NEED exposure to contrary viewpoints...
I wouldn't want there to be a return to the way information was communicated in my youth, if that is what you thought I was saying. I agree that people need a lot more exposure to contrary viewpoints. The other thing beyond exposure, though, is that people need to actually engage with those opposing viewpoints in a way that causes self-reflection. The really difficult task is to get people to want to examine and challenge their own views. It's easy to be skeptical of opposing views and to recognize cognitive bias in other people. It is a lot harder to see that in the mirror.
..., and often enough that they don’t develop that “I’m the majority, bow down before me!” mentality.
Of course. I do recognize that the "tyranny of the majority" is a real thing and something to be guarded against. That said, when an election is over and a majority has been established, that governing majority needs to be able to implement what the majority of voters wanted. Checks and balances that prevent a majority from going too far is the goal, not a level of obstruction that allows a minority to prevent the majority from doing much of anything. (The idea that a single Senator can hold up hundreds of military promotions is ludicrous, for instance.) Nor should a minority of voters be able to actually put their preferred candidates in control of government as if it was a majority, through gerrymandering or the Electoral College or equal state representation in the Senate.