Goodbye to Haley the Hawk
Plus: The most boring write-in campaign, some heat in the Argentine streets, Brooklyn's penchant for vehicular manslaughter, and more...

No, she hasn't dropped out. But it's abundantly clear from the New Hampshire primary results—54.5 percent for Donald Trump, 43.2 percent for Nikki Haley, at the time of publication—that she has no chance, and that Donald Trump is set up to secure the Republican presidential nomination.
"A majority of the Republican Party appears to be consolidating around Trump," writes Reason's Christian Britschgi. "The past couple of days also saw him collect the endorsements of former opponents Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Tim Scott, and Doug Burgum." Haley, meanwhile, couldn't even nab a Chris Christie endorsement, and quite a few of her "campaign surrogates seem disappointed in her performance," argues Britschgi. "Politico captured some awkward moments where New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Haley backer, had to watch his candidate flub interview questions while he whispered alternative answers to himself."
Haley struggled to find her footing even in purple New Hampshire, which should've been an easier lift for her—though Trump repeatedly (and rightfully) attacked her for being a war hawk. It's unclear what her plan for dropping out is, since she has truly no shot at winning Nevada and very little shot at performing well in South Carolina, her home state where she served as governor from 2011 to 2017. In that state, Trump is leading by about 30 points, so it's really not even close.
"If she doesn't drop out, we have to waste money instead of spending it on Biden, which is our focus," Trump said of Haley last night.
Democrats vote for same-old: "President Biden did not submit his name for the New Hampshire ballot, after the state refused to comply with a new Democratic nominating calendar that made South Carolina the first primary contest," reports The New York Times. "Yet a scrappy write-in campaign run by the president's allies delivered a victory for him nonetheless."
Can you really call something scrappy if it's just…a write-in effort for the incumbent? A political shakeup this is not. No underdogs here.
I truly hope Matt Welch's reading of the tea leaves—"the 2024 presidential election just has too much weird anti-rematch energy to NOT get expressed at some point"—is correct. But the boring write-in results in New Hampshire did not lend much credence to it, and we'll probably all be worse off due to the fact that voters keep pulling the levers for the same government-growing geriatric losers that have been in power for the last eight years.
Milei and protesters face off: At least 200,000 unionized workers—of the country's 5 million or so—will be marching in the streets of Buenos Aires today against newly elected libertarian President Javier Milei's policies.
Inflation now exceeds 200 percent and about 40 percent of the country is living below the poverty line. Milei is working to implement massive reforms, which include slashing the number of government employees, deregulating many sectors of the economy, and targeting deeply entrenched unions.
"Lawyers are furious about plans to fast-track divorces through the civil registry without requiring their services. Doctors hate a new requirement for them to preferentially prescribe generic medicines. Arty types are protesting about gutted funds and the closure of the national theatre institute. Fishermen are cross about permit deregulation. Sugar producers are railing against plans to remove import tariffs," reports The Economist. "But no one is more affected by Mr Milei's shock therapy than Argentina's trade unions, or more enraged by it. His labour reforms would kneecap them by requiring employees to opt in to union membership, rather than having dues taken automatically, as they are at present. This would leave the unions out of pocket."
It's the unions who are leading today's strikes, and hoping to hobble Milei's future plans. But the new government does not intend to roll over and take it.
"Milei's administration had said it will allow protests, but threatened to cut off public aid payments to anyone who blocks thoroughfares," reported the Associated Press back in December. "Marchers were also forbidden to carry sticks, cover their faces or bring children to the protest."
People "can demonstrate as many times as they want," said Patricia Bullrich, Milei's security minister (who lost to him in the presidential election). "They can go to the squares .. but the streets are not going to be closed," she added.
The new policy for maintaining public order, which was first tested by mass protests last month, "allows federal forces to clear people blocking streets without a judicial order and authorizes the police to identify … people protesting and obstructing public thoroughfares," reports the Associated Press. The government "can bill [the protesters] for the cost of mobilizing security forces."
"La Patria NO se vende!" ???????????????? This Wednesday, Argentina's workers are striking — and calling for your solidarity. Join the @ProgIntl and trade unions across the world to defend worker rights and defeat @JMilei's illegal decree that threatens them. https://t.co/j3fAmmRHYK
— Progressive International (@ProgIntl) January 22, 2024
Scenes from New York:
"Run over racists," says the "share the road" street sign graffiti in Fort Greene (close to the part of Brooklyn I escaped from). I'm sure the people endorsing vehicular manslaughter encounter tons of racists here among their brownstones.
QUICK HITS
- "Around the world, only two high-speed rail lines (Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka) earn enough money from fares to pay back their infrastructure costs and operating costs, and many can't even cover their operating costs without government assistance," writes Brian Potter at Construction Physics.
- "The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Monday, allowing federal officials to cut or remove parts of a concertina-wire barrier along the Mexican border that Texas erected to keep migrants from crossing into the state," reports The New York Times. "The ruling, by a 5-to-4 vote, was a victory for the administration in the increasingly bitter dispute between the White House and Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, an outspoken critic of President Biden's border policy who has shipped busloads of migrants to northern cities."
- Good thread about sweatshops and organ selling:
A short ????on why we should reject bans on sweatshops, kidney markets, commercial surrogacy, etc.
A standard argument for these bans asserts that no one should be forced to work in a sweatshop (for example) due to economic necessity. 1/
— Chris Freiman (@cafreiman) January 23, 2024
- "There's a common belief that people with past addictions should never take any potentially addictive substances for medical reasons—period," writes Maia Szalavitz in The New York Times. "As a result, some languish in extreme pain because they believe that drug exposure will cause them to lose control and immediately return to active addiction."
- Democrats look like they're gearing up to regulate Zyn nicotine pouches away:
First they came for the Juuls
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Juul userThen they came for the delta 8 pens
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a delta 8 userThen they came for the zyns
And there was no left
To speak out for me— Levi Stode (@ManiacsMidway) January 23, 2024
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
...she has no chance, and that Donald Trump is set up to secure the Republican presidential nomination.
Establishment hardest hit.
Including Reason.
At least Liz is somewhat mocking her. Now that she is losing I guess KMW is letting them do so.
I'm making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me how lots cash they could make online so Q I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life. Get this today by follow...
Instructions Here —>>> https://Www.Smartcareer1.com
The funny part was the line where Britschgi just figured out that POTUS Trump was going to be the Team R nominee. That was funny.
"Letting?" Liz 2 sounds like she speaks her own thoughts without any prompting.
Memo to Charles Koch: the days when the American people (especially the patriotic ones) cared what you, your fellow billionaires, and your creepy-ass pedophile globalist friends think are OVER.
And they're not coming back again either, so get used to it buddy. Your money is no good here inside our hearts, minds, and souls
Hey Mikey, how is the HUNTER BIDEN FAKE SCANDAL going?
You're up to date on all the fake scandals. Fill us in.
Aaand speaking of pedophiles, here's Reason's most infamous, despised child rapist, right on cue.
It’s not nearly as interesting as the real Hunter Biden scandal. You know, the one with all the money laundering backed up by extensive financial records and transfer receipts?
Laundering for whom?
(Do you know what money laundering is?)
Haley, meanwhile, couldn't even nab a Chris Christie endorsement...
Did she even try dressing up as a donut? She was not in it to win it.
IMHO, he's got more of a Hamburglar vibe.
She's Indian you racist.
Dot or feather?
Why not both?
Sikh burn!
In all fairness, Hinduism is a religion not a "race," Darling Nikki isn't Hindu, and even if she was, she could dress up as an Impossible Vegan Burger.
Whether Christie likes those is another story. I guess we'd know if he said: "I liked them so much, I ate the company!"
🙂
😉
Hinduism is actually pretty fun. Thousands of uncountable gods and goddesses. When I lived in Bali (a Hindu enclave in a majority Muslim country) we had our own household god; Dewi Listrik, goddess of electricity. If you prayed to her your power wouldn't go out as often, the blackouts wouldn't last as long, the batteries in your gameboy/phone would last longer, you might get stronger wifi speeds, etc.
This sounds like the standard Dem plan for energy infrastructure to go all electric.
Live in California. Can confirm.
Well, Hinduism is not too fun for beggars needing grains and veggies eaten by "sacred" cows that get first dibs and anyone wanting potable water from the Ganges River, not to mention "Untouchables". And Generac would be a better Non-Supernatural option for continuous Mario Brothers and microwaved Hot Pockets.
I believe her family was of Sikh descent anyhow. Yeah, she's even mentioned her father wearing a turban growing up in interviews.
Listen, is she in it to win it or not?
He'll always be Governor Christie Kreme to me.
With Pritzker, that would make a very heavy ballot.
Governors Christie Kreme and J.B. Packzi?
It must be Fat Tuesday.
Even still, I dare you to take your eye off your burger if he's in the room (and don't even think about a burger with a krispy kreme bun).
True but while your watching your burger; he's pickpocketing your wallet. Not only is he fat, he's a politician to boot.
Krispy Kreme Khristie?
🙂
😉
In all fairness, he may be a fat slob, but I haven't heard anything to suggest he's a racist. (Besides, the Klan would need a circus tent for his robe and hood.)
🙂
😉
the Monster Who Ate New Jersey.
And Then Threw It Up!
🙂
😉
Sumo statists.
But he's a natural for the Grimace suit.
As is Alvin Bragg.
Chicks aren’t cut out for leadership roles.
The VP would have to take over during, you know, that time of the month.
Chicks aren'tNo one is cut out for leadership roles over anyone else’s life unless they are consensual BDSM Masters/Mistresses/MastXes/MistXes.FTFY Libertarian-Style. Hot and Spicy! *CHOMP!*
🙂
😉
Or, apparently, for writing morning roundups.
At least, not right-wing chicks prancing around in garish, unconvincing libertarian costumes.
Rev. Arthur Lackey Kirkland, carrying the water for the far left as usual. So, how's that prediction of Biden being able to pack the USSC working out for you?
Hey, I like her skintight black Pleather pants and boots! They're a lot better than your flourishing cape, Klinger!
Now get back to your rat cage and give us a plan to rule the world that's worth fighting against, because all the rest are laughable!
Hey! She has heels. Turned out they're round.
Abbott should simply defy the Supreme Court. Biden does it without consequence.
Mr. Roberts has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.
Seems like they said the feds could take down the fence...they didn't say Texas can't keep putting up fence.
Pay immigrants to install the used conertina-wire around semi-random places like bus stations and elementary schools in MV, NYC, Chicago, etc.
We're not allowed to use this. Heard it may come in handy for you though. - A
California, Illinois, and New York do it over guns.
Over 70% of Haley voters in last night's primary were not Republicans.
https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1749963732988383361
One of the exit polls said that ~30% of Haley voters would never vote for Trump. That was a pretty big giveaway that a lot of her support was from Democrats. The other exit polls looked pretty brutal for the Big Guy. Almost half of D's said he was too old to be running.
It’s also a good indicator that the parties, both of them, need to shut their primary elections off from non-party members. It’s the equivalent of the Lakers letting the Celtics pick their starting lineup. Political parties are technically private entities, and anyone who isn't a party member should absolutely not have a say in who the party nominates for office.
Fuck the “independents.” Get off the fucking fence and join a party if you want a say in who their nominee is. That goes for any political party, not just the big 2. Otherwise, wait until the general and deal with what you have to pick from.
85% of "independents" just don't want all the junk mail, campaign solicitations, and robo-calls that come with registering for either party. In the voting booth they are republicans or democrats.
I've had fun doing back and forth with the dumb outreach people that work for campaigns. Even had a few end up blocking me for just sending them news articles about their candidates they didn't want to see.
I get robo calls from both parties.
That would make me depressed too, Eeyore.
🙂
😉
There are also those who want to have a say in who the parties nominate but do not want to make a commitment to membership in a specific party. They are immovably convinced that this is a noncontradictory position. It is incredibly frustrating to have a conversation about.
Not surprisingly, their politics indulge in the same circular reasoning as their supposed status of "independence."
There are also those who want to have a say in who the parties nominate but do not want to make a commitment to membership in a specific party.
For some, at least, this is because there is, in practice, no such thing as "independent" candidates.
In the abstract, I agree with RRWP that the parties are private entities and can nominate who they want. This is why I had less of problem than most people I know with the way Bernie was treated by the DNC - he specifically and openly ran as a non-Democrat insurgent candidate. That the party was hostile to him and didn't welcome him with open arms wasn't that shocking, really.
At the same time, both parties have worked really hard, and successfully, to keep anyone they didn't nominate off the ballot, and that's where the line gets crossed.
This is the logic behind open primaries in CA - they've rigged it so that you only get to vote for one of the candidates nominated by one of the only two real parties (and really, in CA, it's only one). In that environment, it's not unreasonable to suggest that I should have some say in who those candidates are, since no one else will have a meaningful opportunity to run.
If we strip the duopoly of its control over ballots and go back to the old rules where anybody who could get a reasonable number of signature could get on the ballot, then yeah, we should go back to closed primaries where parties endorse people but have no power to keep their competition off the ballot.
At the same time, both parties have worked really hard, and successfully, to keep anyone they didn’t nominate off the ballot, and that’s where the line gets crossed.
Sure, but that's why politicians like Murkowski and Lieberman end up doing independent runs if they don't win the primary. And I'm fine with that, even if there's a sore loser connotation to it, because if they have enough support to possibly win the general, they should have a shot.
If Haley and her sponsors aren't happy with not being nominated, she can always try and get a No Labels endorsement and try her luck there.
It's why I'm technically an "independent" myself, as I despise all the junk mail and bullshit that comes with being a party member. But I also don't vote in primary elections, either, for that very same reason.
Virginia doesn’t (currently) ask for party affiliation when you register. Virginia also has some type of primary and election every year. Our recycling bin gets a workout due to the amount of campaign literature that shows up all year, every year.
Except the parties do not have control of who participates in their primaries if the state government decides their election laws otherwise.
The parties cannot gatekeep their voters, just as they cannot gatekeep their primary candidates.
Except the parties do not have control of who participates in their primaries if the state government decides their election laws otherwise.
Which is bullshit in and of itself, because such laws are typically made for the benefit of one specific political party, not because the legislators give a crap about "democracy."
The DNC gatekeeps its primary candidates.
The DNC holds coronations rather than primary elections
JFree makes the case just the other day that primaries are entirely beauty contests in the scope of State Governments Authority. I'm sure he was trying to pretend State's could only kick Trump off the ballot but Trump couldn't claim immunity since State Government has no primary election authority and it threw him silent that if State's had no authority they had no authority to remove Trump from primaries in the first place.
How much State authority is there really to party primaries?
Sure. But if parties are private entities, then let's stop organizing elections and government as if they are federal branches.
As an 'independent' I agree - there's no reason I need or should have a say in a party primary.
At the same time, parties should manage, run, and pay for their own primaries without the state's involvement. There's no reason I need to or should have to pay for, a party sorting itself out.
It’s higher than that, closer to 70%.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/democrats-vote-haley-desperate-attempt-derail-trump
And they admitted it to the news.
End Wokeness
@EndWokeness
Nikki Haley voter in New Hampshire:
.
"It was a strategic vote… I wouldn't vote for her in a general election. A vote for Haley helps diminish Trump's influence."
(Video)
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1749964661640790246
A vote for Haley helps diminish Trump’s influence.
Does it though? These slacktivists are so clever.
Remember when the media lost their shit over Limbaugh's supposed 'Operation Chaos' where he encouraged Republican voters to vote in Democrat primaries?
Yeah, and I remember the Colorado Democratic Party encouraging their members in 2022 to cross over and vote in Republican primaries to support the most Trumpy candidates, with the expectation they would be easier to beat in the general.
Yeah, and it was fucking stupid of him to push that, because 1) both Hillary and Obama were awful, and 2) he'd been in politics long enough to know better that the Dems would coalesce behind whomever was the nominee. Operation Chaos was nothing more than a masturbatory exercise that didn't have an ounce of impact on the election.
It is interesting how the Team D 'stealth' vote pushed Haley from barely double-digit support into the 40's.
Let see how Nikki does in SC. They don't do crossover voting. That will be a true test of Haley support.
To me, the race is over. And has been for a while.
Checking my own memory, USA Today says “South Carolina is an open primary state, which means residents can vote in either the Democratic primary on Saturday, Feb. 3 or the Republican primary three weeks later on Saturday, Feb. 24, regardless of party affiliation. However, voters cannot vote in both primaries.
And further “South Carolina voters do not register as affiliated with a political party. They can vote in one of the two presidential primaries regardless of their past voting record. But they cannot vote in both.
So if Democrats trust themselves to have Biden carry the state already, then they surely can crossover and vote in the Republican primary if they want to.
It won’t matter. It didn’t work in NH, and Trump has even more support in SC. Some polls have him up over 30 points. And that was before Vivek and DeSantis dropped out.
I was wrong about SC.
I still think POTUS Trump wins SC, easily.
And SC is the state where Haley was elected governor. If she cannot eked out a win there, she cannot win anywhere.
If Trump got these massive victories in relatively moderate states like Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina is going to be a fucking bloodbath.
She might drop out after that or Super Tuesday, but I suspect her handlers in the Chamber of Commerce/warboner wing of the GOP have far too much invested in her being the nominee to let her drop out, and will likely force her to run a zombie campaign all the way to the convention in the hopes they can crowbar her into the nomination somehow.
She was the among the first Iconoclasts when statues and flags were removed. I don’t think old timey South Carolinians have forgotten.
Doesn't appear to have worked in this case, anymore than the champagne socialists and academic marxists in Jackson and Laramie had that effect during the Wyoming GOP primary in 2022. In fact, it basically confirmed that Trump's influence among GOP voters hasn't actually diminished, and every time the establishment tries to squash him, it just hardens that support even further.
A “brown lady” who is “past her prime”.
Does it get any more terrible and unfair than that?
Why can't many traditional Republican voters be "never Trumpers"?
A conservative friend of mine last night said that character is important to her, and Trump is a pig, so she can't vote for him.
And then you pointed out to her all of Bidens hair sniffing, accusations against, attacking voters, and his family right? Of course you didn't.
I didn't say that she was therefore going to vote Biden, you cretin. She wasn't and nor was I going to attempt to persuade her to.
She might well vote for the same person I will be voting for.
Ie, Biden.
So you did say Biden.
You'll vote for anyone Soros tells you to vote for.
No I didn't say Biden anywhere, you fuckwits.
Try a write-in candidate, cretins.
Like new Hampshire. Write in Biden?
You continue your fuckwittery. Nope.
He's gonna write-in Dark Brandon, so he can say he didn't vote for Biden.
Nope. Guess again, fuckwit.
I mean, CNN did an exit poll, 73% of the voters who said they voted for Haley are not registered Republicans. What's your issue with that data?
Nothing, except that it probably doesn't mean what CNN tried to make it mean.
Why can’t many traditional Republican voters be “never Trumpers”?
Why are you indulging in hypotheticals? The majority of "traditional Republican voters" are the ones giving him these sweeping victories in relatively moderate states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Bush/Romney faction is an ever-decreasing minority now, and has been since Jeb declared his candidacy.
A conservative friend of mine last night said that character is important to her, and Trump is a pig, so she can’t vote for him.
Tell your conservative friend that "character" doesn't mean shit if her candidate can't actually promote and aggressively defend a conservative agenda, as opposed to putting a governor on progressivism so that it happens at 40 mph rather than 100 mph. The majority of the party's voters got fed up with "show your belly" tactics from GOP politicians right around the time Romney bitched out in the second 2012 debate.
"Many" does not mean "majority". Duh.
Yes, I recognized your deliberately vague generalization, which the center-right loves to indulge in as a self-soothing action to try and convince themselves they aren't an ever-decreasing emprical minority.
In this case, "many" appears to have been 27%. LOL. LMAO, even.
I wonder what percentage of the 27% of her 43.3% are actual 'Never Trumpers' as opposed to people who just picked her first for other reasons, or like the idea of a woman president, or etc.
I’d say it’s upwards of 90% are the Dispatch NeverTrumper types–Bush Republicans who pine for the days of accepting what the Democrats give them, sending Americans off to die or waste their lives in wars of choice, and white working-class Republicans accepted the nominee no matter how much of a wimp he was.
Character is just a "nice to have" for today's Republicans.
How far they have fallen, eh?
Consider it an in-kind contribution.
So she's going to vote for the other pig? The one with a 50 year history of being a pig? The one that spent that last 4 years shitting on everything? That pig?
https://twitter.com/VDAREJamesK/status/1750057443692806647?t=xyy18L3kSq9hNI-LM3wFxw&s=19
This is a compelling argument why immigration must be fanatically opposed at all costs. There’s not even the pretense that it’s good for the country. We just exist to be plundered.
If only we had kept his family out.
"@AdamSchiff
My grandfather immigrated here. My great grandparents immigrated here.
My family came fleeing the Holocaust, in search of the American dream.
So many families come here fleeing violence and seeking a new life today. We must approach them with compassion.
[Video]"
Note the emotionally manipulative language there. Also, Schiff and his political ilk have spent the last 60-odd years undermining and subverting the ideal of the American dream and replaced it with the marxist dream. There's absolutely no reason to take these vipers at face value when they make these kinds of appeals. They're only using these ideals as a shield in the service of destroying them.
Correct.
And he's employing one of their primary weapons- crybullying. This is what happens when you allow the holocaust and slavery to become our country's foundational myths.
If only we had some foundational document that framed the federal government.
Just because Schiff is wrong about socialism and the culture wars doesn't mean he's wrong about immigration. There is NO "compelling" argument against immigration - nada, zip, zero. Anyone who opposes immigration is a xenophobic idiot who relies upon emotionalist narratives with no facts to back him up. The only argument against "illegal" immigration disappears in a puff of smoke if you simply legalize it. If the Republicans had focused on reining in government power and spending instead of frittering away all your credibility on immigration and abortion, I would be a Republican now instead of a disgusted citizen on the sidelines.
You're a tumor
https://twitter.com/yaundadon/status/1749541736618062189?t=kIBgeMfKWo_gF236Ktwiig&s=19
Just bumped into my friend at the fetus deletus clinic
If the Republicans had focused on reining in government power and spending instead of frittering away all your credibility on immigration and abortion, I would be a Republican now instead of a disgusted citizen on the sidelines.
When the fuck has the GOP ever done that in the last generation, even in the years before Trump? Shit, the whole reason Trump became the GOP standard bearer is precisely because the Bush wing kept trying to split the baby between border enforcement and the peon labor the Chamber of Commerce loves.
And this "immigration is always good" argument is just as circular is "immigration is always bad." It's a question of how that immigration, both the type and intensity, impacts a society's fabric and identity, and not just in the economic sense, because man doesn't live by bread, or taco trucks and pho restaurants, alone. "Diverse" societies tend to balkanize without an actual common homogenous identity for them to assimilate into AND choose to perpetuate.
Not doing so is how you get 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants wanting to replace the US with some dumb vision of a communist utopia (no matter how appreciative their parents and grandparents are for living here), having been indoctrinated by leftist teachers and professors into hating this country unless it's reformed in the marxist image.
What an emotional fact free diatribe.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/
There is NO “compelling” argument for illegal immigration in a welfare state. The jobs that would have employed these people were shipped off to China 30 years ago.
But the boring write-in results in New Hampshire
Always reminds me of the high school election scene in Arrested Development, wherein Geroge Michael admits he placed in a three-way tie for 3rd place with “Bart Simpson” and “School Sucks”. I generally write-in School Sucks on my ballots.
I think Eric Cartman won skool president in Community.
I always vote for Pedro.
Do you want to eat chimichangas next year? Not me.
But he'll "Make Your Wildest Dreams Come True!"
So, "I think him and me are gonna be friends!". *GOSH!*
🙂
😉
An abject idiot like you ought to refrain from voting. Fuck off and die, adolescent pile of shit.
https://twitter.com/wanyeburkett/status/1749901196939186654?t=GeaPxbDtB_XSCh7cUSZjAg&s=19
This is maybe my favorite headline of all time. It's the apotheosis of our era. It should be in a museum.
[Link]
Misunderstood youth.
The world Reason wants
Cultural head shooting.
But hardly incompetent. That kid seems to be good at what he does.
Do we know that he was aiming for the head?
He’s just an excitable boy.
Zevon!
Minneapolis is the new Mogadishu.
At least 200,000 unionized workers—of the country's 5 million or so—will be marching in the streets of Buenos Aires...
As bad as U.S. unions can be, I can only imagine South American ones.
Fire them all for unexcused absence.
Public employees by law should be capped at minimum wage.
None of them said anything about a ceasefire in Gaza, so that should tell you all you need to know...
THAT'S MY JOKE. I almost used it here.
Teeing yourself up is a little gauche... let the little people have one now and then.
MOAR PINATAS!
Will there be a plethora of piñatas?
The ruling, by a 5-to-4 vote, was a victory for the administration
Like all victories for this administration, this is a loss for the American people.
It’s actually a narrow victory.
To be fair, it was only regarding the injunction. The trial still has to take place.
But democrats continue to use the slowness of the courts to implement policies detrimental to the average citizen. Just like woth Biden losing at the USSC but still forgiving loans. Or any gun regulation bill despite multiple USSC rulings.
The democrat party can’t be allowed to exist.
Factio Democratica delenda est.
"[Haley] has no chance"
Reason's sugar daddy Charles Koch should throw more money at her anyway.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
You know where else old guys throw money at women?
Davos? Epstein's Island? But I repeat myself...
Not girls, women. The correct answer is "abortion clinics".
"The Emmys" would've also been acceptable.
The old Playboy mansion?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qMuZbxfFpfE
Koch is welcome to pay me several million dollars to be a campaign consultant. My advice for the Haley ca paint would be as follows…..
1. I provide a strategic assessment of Haley’s chances of securing the nomination in one rude word.
2. Provide the number to the RNC and Trump campaign headquarters.
3. Provide her with a short script that essential says ‘I concede’.
Mission accomplished!
Yet a scrappy write-in campaign run by the president's allies delivered a victory for him nonetheless.
He can always count on allies to deliver him a victory.
Just a dry run.
His labour reforms would kneecap them
He's the Dan Campbell of politics.
Gee, I was going to go with the law hanging fruit of Tonya Harding.
https://twitter.com/Partisan_O/status/1750155721365238234?t=yDAc_8KupeVpDGuO-gPTdA&s=19
“The media is always talking about the ‘imperial presidency’… we ought to hear a little bit of discussion of the imperial media and its power. You see, presidential power is limited, by the courts, by the congress… but the media’s power is unlimited.
[Interviewer] ‘Do you think the First Amendment has been misused or abused by reporters?’
[Nixon] ‘Oh, no question about it, it’s used basically as a license… let’s face it, Sullivan versus New York Times is, in effect, a license to lie…’”
[Link]
I'm sure the people endorsing vehicular manslaughter encounter tons of racists here among their brownstones.
I assume Brooklyn has its share of pro-Palestine anti-Semites blocking the road.
Racists can have money too.
The sign didn't even call for a ceasefire, so...
I'm sure when ibrim ten kendi shows up they will run him over
One interrupted Biden's campaign speech yesterday, but Biden called her a "MAGA Republican" as she was escorted out.
I don't think there's a ton over overlap in the Venn diagram of pro-Hamas protesters and MAGA Republicans. But hey, Joe's gonna be Joe.
Nothing says bow much workers love unions more than the claim that unions will be devastated if they cannot force workers to pay dues.
Isn't a group of companies getting together to artificially raise prices called price fixing.? If that's illegal, how is it legal for unions to do the same?
Furthermore, how ethical can it be to walk off your job, then demand that the company not hire replacements?
Government comes down on the union side. In a free country, unions would not exist.
Unions endorse D's.
Unions endorse giving the "D" unconsensually to businesses, consumers, and non-union workers.
Because unions get special treatment.
Around the world, only two high-speed rail lines (Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka) earn enough money from fares to pay back their infrastructure costs and operating costs...
Small price to pay to signal how advanced you are.
Seems like an even less price-effective thing than public financing of sports stadiums.
I'm sure the people endorsing vehicular manslaughter encounter tons of racists here among their brownstones.
Or maybe they were making a joke about how it looks like the bicyclist is running over the pedestrian on the sign?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_zBQjw7Dbw
What if the racist punches first?
It would have been a better joke if it had acknowledged the race of the parties involved...
“I’m sure the people endorsing vehicular manslaughter encounter tons of racists here among their brownstones.”
They see racists everytime they look in the mirror. If you took their arguments around voter ID, education and crime seriously you’d think minorities has no decisionmaking ability or capacity for morality at all.
The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Monday, allowing federal officials to cut or remove parts of a concertina-wire barrier along the Mexican border...
Is any of this on private property? Because there neither government should be putting shit up without some compensation.
Currently courts have maintained that border patrol has access within 90 miles of the border (think it is still 90) and can basically have as much power as Customs to search or take as they want.
Build your own border!
...an outspoken critic of President Biden's border policy who has shipped busloads of migrants to northern cities.
And who has had to deal with many more busloads worth still in his own state.
Is it "abundantly clear ... that she has no chance, and that Donald Trump is set up to secure the Republican presidential nomination"? Maybe not, if Donald Trump is a convicted felon by the time of the convention. Hopefully, in that event the Republican Party leadership will release Trump delegates to vote for others. Otherwise, it will be a sure bet that the Democratic nominee, presumably Biden, will win.
Dream on.
Plenty of time for those walls to close in.
Dan just articulated the establishment's plan. Either fortify for 4 more years of Biden, or imprison Trump and have Haley ride in at the last minute to keep the war machine humming.
These are the options that they've discussed on other center-right blogs as well. Dan's just parroting them in his comment.
There's absolutely no evidence that even convicting the guy at this point would convince Trump voters to drop their support for him, and it assumes that a conviction before November is going to happen anyway, especially with the Bragg case looking more and more like a "find the crime and I'll make the criminal" situation, and Fani Willis obliterating her chances by literally fucking a member of her legal team and providing him with an exorbitant salary in exchange for his spunk loads.
Meanwhile, Colorado and Maine are nullifying the votes of Trump supporters, unless Roberts comes to his senses and tells the states to knock it off, with the full-throated support of the center-right, all of whom are hiding behind the shield of "Our Democracy" while simultaneously attempting to diminish actual democracy.
Any reindeer games by the Bush/Romney wing of the party at the convention, such as what happened in 2012 with Ron Paul--ironically, the same type of complaints the center-right makes about Trump, that Paul wouldn't kiss Romney's ring and show unqualified support and loyalty--isn't going to do anything other than get the last remnants of the GOPe defenstrated. If they know what's good for them, they'll let Trump be the nominee and let the chips fall where they may.
Better a felon Trump than a fascist Biden.
If they know what’s good for them
Any way to make that "if" bigger?
Also, even if they did decide to pull off such a switch, there's absolutely no way in hell that Trump voters--who make up the majority of the GOP electorate, regardless of any wishful thinking by the pixie duster center-right--will support Haley. She'll get absolutely creamed in the election if that happens, because those Trump voters will either stay home, or vote for Biden out of spite, because at least they know what they're getting with him. It would have to be DeSantis if they want even a hope in hell of keeping the Trump voters, while holding on to enough GOPe types who'd rather have Not Trump than another 4 years of Biden. The hardcore NeverTrumper types like Patterico or Krista Kafer, who want to see Trump jailed no matter what, aren't a significant enough percentage of the center-right to sway that direction, and they'll vote for Biden anyway if Haley isn't nominated.
I wouldn't be surprised if a conviction, particularly on the DC or Georgia charges, made more people want to vote for him. I doubt any will even be in the actual trial stages before the election though.
Wouldn't be the first time we had a presidential candidate run a campaign from a jail cell. Eugene Debs (political prisoner of the Wilson Admin) did as well.
...but they won't go to Nikki. That is quite clear.
This is also assuming Trump isn't JFKed by the deep state.
I figured a convenient heart attack is more likely.
Modern tools.
Democrats look like they're gearing up to regulate Zyn nicotine pouches away...
Palms aren't getting adequately greazed.
Zyn is for fags anyway. Be a man, chew real tobacco.
chew real tobacco
At today's prices?!
Up 10¢ a pouch!
Spittin' tobacky prices are out of control.
Real men get mouth cancer?
I was about to say, real men--of any sexual orientation--maintain their spatio-temperal coordinates without malignant tumors on everything from the lips and gums on down to the colon.
And don't get me started on when the tumor hits a gland or a lymph node. That is precisely what Chawin' Terbacky does.
Others can do what they want with their own lives, but I'd like to live to help make and see a Libertarian future.
I thought adding the HPV vaccine to the schedule for boys was supposed to save them from anus cancer?
No, that vaccine works on cervical cancer which apparently can come from a virus carried by both sexes, even though only one sex can get that cancer.
The literature says it protects from anus cancer as well, maybe.
from anus cancer or with anus cancer?
The answer is in between, especially with TikTok videos of Senate staffers contracting HPV from German sausage. HPV is multi-strain, like the flu and associated vaccine except the strains are fairly predictable, stable, and regional. The link to cervical cancer is strong, but not perfect either way and worse for anal and/or throat cancer.
That is, typical Markov fashion, the vaccine is 70% effective strain-wise in vitro. In vivo, if you only ever encounter one of the strains and you're otherwise healthy woman, it's 95+% effective. If you're a dude who contracted monkeypox and COVID at Bear Week from some unknown collection dudes from parts unknown, your results will start lower vary downward.
Once again, if you're looking to avoid cervical or anal cancer from HPV, it's generally a better idea to be selective about your partners and/or not turn yourself into a public receptacle.
Why do you hate freedoms? Most importantly freedom from consequences?
Thanks, I knew you'd know!
🙂
😉
What would be the use of a vaccine to prevent anal cancer if the cancer gets you way before the Chawin' Terbacky juice reaches the anus?
Since the mouth is closest to the saliva glands, thyroid gland, adnoids, pituitary gland, hypothalmus, and BRAIN, I would think cancer could easily get there first.
Lol. Speaking of flourishing capes….
Biology is the ultimate statement of "Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair." (TM) I'd rather have Biology on my side so I can do other things besides bitch.
Hey now, we funded all these programs based on exorbitant sin taxes on tobacco, with the stated aim of getting people to quit. Now that many have quit how else are we going to fund all these programs? We have to make it harder for people to quit.
we'll probably all be worse off due to the fact that voters keep pulling the levers for the same government-growing geriatric losers that have been in power for the last eight years.
LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!
(Don’t fret it will pass quicker than a fart in a fan factory)
Funny, I thought a Libertarian Dutch Oven would be "Passing The Dutchy" hookah under the sheets in an Amsterdam hooker.
🙂
😉
From Barrons - the bible of Capitalism:
AfD Could Be Next After German Court Defunds Neo-Nazi Party
.
Germany's constitutional court on Tuesday approved a request to withdraw public funds from the neo-Nazi Homeland party, potentially opening the way for a similar move against the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).
.
The Homeland, known until last year as the NPD, was "excluded from state funding for a period of six years", the court said in a statement.
.
The AfD is second in national polls, and leading them in several eastern regions, where elections are set to be held later this year.
https://www.barrons.com/news/afd-could-be-next-after-german-court-defunds-neo-nazi-party-04bc9aab
Troubling, no question. The right will emerge somewhere whether called AfD or the Neo-Nazi Party. You can't squash an ideology.
Nothing says "defending democracy" like trying to kick any party you dislike off the ballot.
It's really just further evidence for my assertion that western society needs to break up for its own good, and enter a period of de jure political balkanization, as we already have a de facto state at the moment. Forcing a couple that hates each other to remain in a loveless, dysfunctional marriage isn't any better for the marriage than forcing two political sides in a culture war to stay together "for the kids" is for society.
I think what really terrifies these people is the fact that they know the right-wing areas won't leap to their defense anymore if they're attacked by, say, Russia or hit by terrorist attacks from one of their migrant populations. Western elites are a destabilizing, techno-dystopian force at this stage of history, and they seem to realize that only keeping their right-wing warrior classes handcuffed to their hedonistic, decadent culture is what's really sustaining them.
The problem with a break-up is that it's not so much geographic as it is elite versus everyone else. They live near each other, or even right next door. But, it's not like Western Civilization hasn't been here before, think French Revolution, English Civil War, Spanish Civil War, among others. It won't end in a break-up, it'll end in a revolution or civil war of some kind. It could be a peaceful revolution whereby the populists take power, or it could be much more violent (see examples above). Either way, I doubt you'd see a geographic break-up.
It absolutely would not be a peaceful event, and I have no illusions that the left would simply let these areas go their own way without trying to force them back in, much as an abusive spouse batters their partner to intimidate them to stay in the relationship, or gaslights them into believing "you'd be nothing without us and our money, you're not going anywhere." The minute that conditioning breaks, and the right stops believing it on a mass scale, is the minute western nations start to break apart, and the left tries to use force to keep those nations together. This time, though, it's not going to be like the Civil War, where an ending led to reconciliation because there was a common, homogenous culture that bound the two sides together with a shared national identity. It's going to be a full-on break like the Balkan states, or the Roman empire devolving into a hodge-podge of petty territories controlled by tribal chiefs and warlords.
Yes, it's not completely geographic, but it's pretty damn close at this point, as it's essentially the cities vs. the hinterlands.
One other geographic factor. In the US left-right ideologies largely split along metro-rural boundaries. But I suspect the elites would not be happy running a few dozen blue city-states in a sea of red, if for no other reason that they would not own enough peasants to boss around.
But I suspect the elites would not be happy running a few dozen blue city-states in a sea of red, if for no other reason that they would not own enough peasants to boss around.
That's basically what it boils down to with urban cosmopolitans.
Which is why I suspect that any geographical split wouldn't last. One side would probably have to either completely subjugate or eliminate the other, and there's a lot fewer optimates than the rest of us.
Bear in mind, most of the conflicts you mention took place in an era where there wasn't a techno-elite trying to maintain a hodgepodge of nations under the umbrella of an internationalist co-op, with coercive authority over the co-op and representatives within the halls of those nations. The closest they ever came prior to the end of WW2 was the Congress of Vienna, and that was simply to reaffirm the supremacy of the pre-French Revolution monarchist construct in those nations after Napoleon's defeat, not establish a globalist world order.
It was Napoleon and before him, the French Republic that was trying to implement a global, well at least Continental order (though at one point Napoleon did entertain war against America, but Haiti was such a pain in the ass he gave up and sold Louisiana to America instead to help fund his Continental wars).
There were similar issues with the Hapsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire, and why no one really cried when it fell, or why the Northern German States weren't thrilled to try and include Austria into a new unified Germany. Not that the Hohenzellerns were a lot better, but hey, at least they were Protestant and right next door, so a little harder to avoid.
The big problem with the "elites" is that they are self-certified and very few of them are very exceptional. If there were a true separation, they would fucking starve way before anything happened to all the plebs.
Eh, I don't know about that. They might be short on wisdom and have an overwhelming god complex, but they're intelligent enough to convince the peon classes in the cities to keep working for them by promising them MOAR FREE SHIT, at least for a season.
Their biggest concern would actually be what would happen when the food stamp cards stopped loading, getting food supplies through hostile territory without paying right-wing militias protection money (similar to Rome and the Byzantines paying the Huns to stop raiding, or the Saxon kings paying the Danegeld), and hoping their water supplies weren't cut off with the destruction of their pipelines, to say nothing of getting sufficent energy production just to keep the lights and HVAC on.
Good luck growing enough food to survive in their local community gardens. I'm sure they will be able to generate their own power and produce enough fuel to run their generators as well.
People really have no clue how much fucking food a family of four eats in a year. Now scale that up to cities running into the millions.
There's no way in hell the cities would survive as islands without working out some kind of deal to let food through.
And if there's merely geographical separation, I just don't see such a deal working out, even in the short term. The elites in the cities would still want domination over the rural areas just for the sake of supplies (food, fuel) alone. It wouldn't end until one side is either fully subjugated or eliminated.
People really have no clue how much fucking food a family of four eats in a year.
Less than one week for Jeff?
Hell, food isn't even the first major life threatening issue they run into. Water is far more important, and most urban centers get there water from rural areas. How long would NYC or LA last without Upstate New York and the four corner states? Maybe a week? The Hudson is really to brackish and to build the infrastructure necessary to utilize it by NYC would take to long. No, water will run out long before food. (Also, electricity but water will be th first one that will cause mass problems).
Red, I am not sure I agree with the loveless marriage analogy, especially where children are involved. It doesn't fit.
Regardless of what I think of the uber-libs (they are morons, by and large, who do not understand a damned thing about life and the human condition), they are still Americans and we are duty bound to defend them. It doesn't matter if they would not do the same; we are not them. Does that make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense, but see my response to ITL above. At some point, the "long train of abuses" argument has to be taken into consideration, too, and that goes for western society as a whole.
Yes = at some point, you need to take into account the long train of abuses argument.
Sure, we may be bound to defend them, at least from external threats. But we have to stop coddling them, legally, financially, and emotionally. At this point their retarded behavior is enough to guarantee their self-extinction.
Agree on stop coddling and enabling; let them accept the consequences of their ill-considered policies.
Case in point: busing illegal aliens to sanctuary communities.
Those who want to take our stuff and tell us what to do and not do would never just let us go our own way.
In a truly free society, no political party of any kind should get government funding.
You never responded yesterday when someone pointed out your definition of ‘right wing' would cover DEI, and race based groups. Care to respond today?
I oppose DEI for that reason.
While DEI is an attempt to level the playing field, in practice it is race/sex discrimination.
I oppose all affirmative action and support the recent SCOTUS decision.
So you think DEI is right wing is what you're saying? You think democrats advocating for race based admissions are right wing? You think reparation panels are right wing? You think the squad is right wing?
I knew Shrike was retarded, but this is "bears in trunks" retarded territory for even him.
I oppose all affirmative action and support the recent SCOTUS decision.
Even the icky Clarence Thomas part?
Don't get Shrike started on the man he calls "Lawn Jockey".
How badly does the shit-pile turd lie? Well:
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
April.20.2021 at 10:47 pm
“Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”
Yep, being an unarmed murder victim is exactly like flying a loaded passenger plane into a high rise, according to turd.
THAT's an example of turd's dishonesty and stupidity.
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.
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1750029168006353377?t=d601Lo_CBfuTpY6OB8ZkQw&s=19
Trump has officially gotten the most votes of any New Hampshire primary winner ever, Democrat or Republican
Thanks, democrats!
Biden's final electoral tally in November will be spectacular. Easily topping 500 million.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1749971573845393449?t=0uolVFkrzlKtfg7nepJj_Q&s=19
A far-right influencer who was accused of instigating bomb threats last year against a school library in Tulsa has been named an adviser to a state library committee, the head of the Oklahoma State Department of Education says.
[Link]
NBC is full on Pravda now
The media always uses "far right, alt-right, extreme right, MAGA, etc" but there's NEVER a descriptor of the lunatic left.
Because it's implied
See shrike above.
It's because a majority of the media is so far left that, from their perspective, the center has become the right and the regular right has become the super-duper-mega-SSJ-alt-right.
SSJ? Blonde, pointy hair? Physiologically integrated fusion reactor? Doesn't think too highly of the constraints posed by gravity? Can go ape shit at night? That kind of SSJ?
I learned everything I know about the government from the Prince of all Saiyans, Vegeta.
Government spending is over 9000?
"Well, I guess we do the libertarian thing and vote for Biden again," said the Reason Staff.
Narrator: They were always going to vote for Biden again.
...albeit reluctantly and only to Save Democracy.
https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1750035193061052439?t=EbrZ6S7ehL5n20T8ri2UWw&s=19
Is there any way to read this that does not involve the WSJ saying Nikki Haley should stay in the race because Trump might die & someone might kill him?
[Link]
If Haley is vp trump will be killed.
Let's see
Lincon (R)
Garfield (R)
McKinley (R)
Kennedy(d)
Regan(R)
How do people think Republicans are the violent ones?
Nope, Reagan ended the Curse of Tippecanoe. Also Trump would need to be elected in a year ending in zero.
Edit: also add Teddy R to your list since it includes Reagan (shot but lived).
However, TR wasn't President at the time he was shot. He was running for President at that time.
Thats right, thanks. And I wasn't sure if Andy Jackson was shot as president either, so I left him off my list.
Jackson was shot at while President. The guy misfired with not just one, but two pistols. Jackson then proceeded to beat on him with a cane.
How do people think Republicans are the violent ones?
Because we're forced to shoot them when they don't?
Republicans: Still pissed that there's a primary.
It's not like democracy applies to a party. I recall how conservatives complained that Bernie Sanders got cheated in 2016 (he didn't get cheated).
In the past parties chose candidates in a "smoke-filled room" according to legend.
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.
How so? The republicans held a primary, the democrats didn't.
So exactly who is killing democracy?
Wut?
Brandyshit, still 13 going on 50.
Grow up, asshole.
Biden’s Energy Record Is So Strong It Hurts
The president is criticized for neglecting the fossil fuel industry, but crude oil and gas output have surged under his watch — a fact some in his base will resent.
.
Similarly, while Biden is portrayed as having closed off federal lands to drilling, the data don’t support that view. Approved applications for drilling permits haven’t been notably out of step with prior years; indeed, in 2021 they hit a level last seen in 2008. Combined oil and gas production from federal areas is also up 12%, as of last August, surpassing the peak under Trump, according to figures compiled by EnerWrap, a data visualization specialist.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-19/biden-s-energy-record-should-shut-down-critics-on-both-sides
Biden energy record much stronger than Fatass Donnies.
Crude oil imports now NEGATIVE, energy independence at all time high, federal land production at highs..
Joe Biden = energy guru.
“It hurts” was the only part that was correct.
It is like you're stuck on retard.
Again. Federal energy production is down. The areas Biden can control.
State and private energy is up. The areas he can't control.
You keep claiming to not be a Biden supporter, but you sure push a lot of lies to try and help him.
Combined oil and gas production from federal areas is also up 12%, as of last August, surpassing the peak under Trump
You're a moron. I quoted the federal part just for you.
Read something other than Zerohead, dude.
Bloomberg, WSJ, FT are all good. Get out of the closet.
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.
as of last August.
Lol.
Who signed those leases youre now claiming shrike? Who was forced by courts to honor those signed leases shrike?
An example:
https://thehill.com/newsletters/energy-environment/4190755-biden-cancels-trump-era-arctic-drilling-leases/
And again. Courts are forcing Bidens hand. He is actively going against energy production. Courts are stopping him.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3273535-biden-administration-deflects-blame-to-courts-for-new-oil-lease-sale/
You continue to credit him despite his intended actions. Because you are a Biden supporter pushing false narratives.
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 might want to add meditation to your Prozac routine, Sevo.
Please, for the sake of the commentariat, explain why you have a "2" after your name, Pluggo.
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.
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.
Do you guys wank together, too?
France isn't that different than Germany, it turns out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/7-10-french-citizens-opposed-solving-demographic-decline-immigration
Conversely, on the left of the political spectrum, supporters of all parties are in favor of the proposal. Supporters of La France Insoumise (56 percent), the Greens (58 percent), and the Socialist Party (60 percent) are in favor of using immigration as a solution to the country’s demographic decline.
The anti-natalist and oikophobic instincts of the post-WW2 left remain evergreen.
[Schumer] says the nicotine pouches pose a danger to teens, as they use them as an alternative to e-cigarettes.
He sure doesn't sound very pro-choice. I wonder if he had heard what teens are using as an alternative to abstinence and contraception.
Turning them all gay and/or trans?
Screw you, you unconstitutional dipshit Trudeau!
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trudeaus-orwellian-attack-truckers-declared-unconstitutional
And then nothing happened. No vote of confidence. No arrests. No compensation to the actual victims.
Meanwhile.... did you know Trump is super authoritarian Hitler?
Maybe give it a week? LOL.
Canada moves slow.
The high Court ruled that Peterson has to attend social media training. I have no faith in Canada.
This ruling was a lower court as well.
ZeroHead?
Just stop with that shit.
So, Pluggo, please tell the commentariat just why you have a "2" after your name.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891
Ottawa's use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter, court rules
A federal judge says the Liberal government's use of the Emergencies Act in early 2022 to clear convoy protesters was unreasonable and infringed on protesters' Charter rights.
In what's already turning into a divisive decision, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley wrote that while the protests "reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order," the invocation of the Emergencies Act "does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility."
Ultimately, there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act," he wrote wrote.
Mosley said the situation created by the protests across the country did not meet the legal threshold.
"The potential for serious violence, or being unable to say that there was no potential for serious violence was, of course, a valid reason for concern," he wrote. "But in my view, it did not satisfy the test required to invoke the Act, particularly as there was no evidence of a similar 'hardened cell' elsewhere in the country, only speculation, and the situation at Coutts had been resolved without violence."
Mosley's decision also examined one of the most controversial steps taken by the government in response to the protests — the freezing of participants' bank accounts.
"I agree with the [the government] that the objective was pressing and substantial and that there was a rational connection between freezing the accounts and the objective, to stop funding the blockades. However, the measures were not minimally impairing," he wrote.
The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters' freedom of expression "as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace."
He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters' Charter rights "by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts."
Not true unless AP, Reuters, or Salon.
/chemjeff.
'I truly hope Matt Welch's reading of the tea leaves—"the 2024 presidential election just has too much weird anti-rematch energy to NOT get expressed at some point"—is correct.'
Could we have a pre-election vote? How about a simple ballot:
Do you want to see Joe Biden or Donald Trump run for President again?
Yes
No
Do you want to see Joe Biden or Donald Trump run for President again?
Neither. They are both too old both suck.
#NotACultist
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.
Go take your Droxy, Sevo. You might black out again if you don't.
So, uh, Pluggo, why's there a "2" after your name?
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, and a TDS-addled asshole.
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.
Tbh, Scato is kinda outperforming you now...
We can call out Shrike all we like. Stop defending him.
Literally just pushed false pro Biden narratives above.
Amazing how leftists so freely and openly lie.
LoTT appointed to a committee.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/oklahoma/article_50b94a71-8b7b-5673-87cc-fea0a1888504.html
Jeffy should be along later today to fume about it.
https://twitter.com/Babygravy9/status/1750181664301461566?t=MDkMDNeK95a6b9q9eiEC-w&s=19
The part I find so unsavoury (apart from the trafficking bit and the probability of future abuse) is the way these men pretend they've been through labour themselves. You've just spent the last few hours drinking hospital coffee and eating junk food from a vending machine.
[Link]
Gotta take your shirt off to make skin-to-skin contact with the baby. Otherwise, they won't remember all the Baby Mozart you played to them in the womb and they'll grow up thinking their parents are muppets.
Fucking retards.
'At least 200,000 unionized workers—of the country's 5 million or so—will be marching in the streets of Buenos Aires today against newly elected libertarian President Javier Milei's policies.'
My favorite response to union demands: offer them profit shares, and otherwise STFU.
'"Run over racists," says the "share the road" street sign graffiti in Fort Greene (close to the part of Brooklyn I escaped from). I'm sure the people endorsing vehicular manslaughter encounter tons of racists here among their brownstones.'
Liz, did you forget that in the 21st century, "racist" is anyone that you don't like for any reason. It is the linguistic and intellectual equivalent of doodoo-head.
"New York City driver intentionally plows her car into an NYPD officer, telling authorities she wanted to teach him a "lesson."
Sahara Dula — a 24-year-old Brooklynite whose lawyer said mentors kids to stay off drugs — was driving her black Lexus the wrong way on the Upper East Side while high on marijuana Wednesday when she barreled into the NYPD officer, officials and sources said.
"I told the cop I wanted to go straight, and he wouldn't move, so I hit him. I did it on purpose,'' Dula later told investigators, according to court papers.
https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1748462448078905582
‘”Around the world, only two high-speed rail lines (Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka) earn enough money from fares to pay back their infrastructure costs and operating costs, and many can’t even cover their operating costs without government assistance,” writes Brian Potter at Construction Physics.’
Just wait for (more) bans on cars and planes.
ps. Judging enterprise success by cost recovery is racist.
TDS is not limited to US steaming piles of shit like J Sullum:
"Canada is preparing for a second Trump presidency. Trudeau says Trump 'represents uncertainty'"
[...]
"Canada's government is preparing for the possibility that Donald Trump could reach the White House again and the “uncertainty” that would bring, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Tuesday.
Speaking at a Cabinet retreat, Trudeau said that Trump “represents uncertainty. We don’t know exactly what he is going to do.” He said that his government was able to manage Trump previously by showing that Canada and the U.S. can create economic growth on both sides of the border..."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/canada-is-preparing-for-a-second-trump-presidency-trudeau-says-trump-represents-uncertainty/ar-BB1h8MG0
>>Trudeau says Trump ‘represents uncertainty'”
some Brit was asserting T poses a national security risk to GB lol
'"There's a common belief that people with past addictions should never take any potentially addictive substances for medical reasons—period," writes Maia Szalavitz in The New York Times. "As a result, some languish in extreme pain because they believe that drug exposure will cause them to lose control and immediately return to active addiction."'
Canada MAID on line one!
Teachers unions want dominance over "education", not excellence.
https://www.chicagocontrarian.com/blog/ctus-warpath-to-eliminate-all-choices-for-chicago-families
Not mentioned here is that Trump broke the record for most votes in the primary (of any party). The whole notion of "he's unpopular" has always been stupid, he's much more popular than they say.
he’s much more popular than they say
Yeah, but the walls are closing in.
He's popular with the voters that matter here, and that's the GOP electorate--regardless of whatever cope the center-right might indulge in that they're the actual majority.
The "GOP electorate" is only important for the primaries. The question is how many of them he has lost now, and how many he will lose before the general election. Too early to say.
The “GOP electorate” is only important for the primaries. The question is how many of them he has lost now, and how many he will lose before the general election. Too early to say.
Yeah, ask Romney about that in 2012, who won independents and still got his ass kicked.
There is good news also:
"Union membership falls to record low in 2023 despite headline-grabbing year"
[...]
"The share of workers in the United States who are union members dropped to 10% in 2023, a record low, even as organized labor received outsize attention.
The decline was a subtle drop from the year before, when union membership sat at 10.1%. The total number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions in 2023 was 14.4 million, according to data released on Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics..."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/finance-and-economy/2813469/union-membership-falls-record-low-2023-despite-headlines/
That's not surprising given the loss of so many manufacturing jobs. Those autoworkers may have scored a pyrrhic victory with the auto companies but their jobs may be eliminated by more automation or just moving the jobs to Mexico.
From 2022
https://jalopnik.com/gm-factory-workers-in-mexico-get-a-25-cent-raise-to-3-1848932879
GM Factory Workers in Mexico Get a 25-Cent Raise to $3.25 an Hour
Typical echo chamber interview with ousted former SF DA.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/former-san-francisco-da-chesa-boudin-on-the-city-s-hard-turn-to-the-right/ar-BB1haYfj?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=1a0335c9be0c4874b2cb4f7efddaf0b3&ei=26
But the thing that made me shake my head was this tidbit:
"But the problem is when people start using Trump tactics to say: “I don't care what the facts are, what matters is how I feel. And if I say the sky is green, then the sky is green, and you can't tell me otherwise.” And I think that's the dangerous territory that we've really entered into...
How about: "I don't care what the facts are (DNA/chromosomes), if I say I'm a woman, then I'm a woman and you can't tell me otherwise."
I'm sure the recalled DA would stand a hardline about the lattere being irrefutable, but somehow the former (questioning crime data, in context) is "Trump tactics".
"I don’t care what the facts are, what matters is how I feel."
This is the purest form of projection I have ever seen. The left literally lives through this mindset, but he's attributing it to Trump supporters? Lol.
but he’s attributing it to Trump supporters?
Yes and for good reason. What is Trump's appeal as opposed to the other GOP candidates? The others offer policies that are almost identical to Trump's. Trump's appeal is that he provokes an emotional reaction, like a good demagogue. He 'pwns the libs' and says outrageous things. THAT is why Trump is leading. It is emotion, not policy.
I'm sure the 4 years he spent in office where they didn't feel helpless going to the grocery store every week and getting poorer than they were before has anything to do with it. Life is so good under Joe that it takes lies and bullshit to have a chance against him.
Biden said, "We choose truth over facts."
How about: “I don’t care what the facts are (DNA/chromosomes), if I say I’m a woman, then I’m a woman and you can’t tell me otherwise.”
that would work, if there was no difference between sex and gender
Considering that sex is the term we use for what a being is and gender is for grammar, it doesn't work, Jeffy. You cannot just declare yourself a woman any more than you can declare yourself a bear in a trunk.
But *you* can identify a person to be a woman, who happens to be a biological man.
In social settings, who is a 'man' and a 'woman' is determined by their outward appearance and their conformity to social roles, not by biological DNA testing.
Men can cut their dicks off and wear dresses to their heart's content, but it still won't make them a woman. Women can cut their tits off and inject enough testosterone to give them early-onset osteoporosis, it still won't make them a man.
Then what is the name you would give to a person who, in social settings, looks and behaves instinguishably from the social conventions associated with a woman?
If it's a man, a LARPer. If it's a woman, a woman.
But how do you know if you are in a social setting? It's generally considered rude to go to strangers and do an 'underwear check'.
If you saw a stranger in a public place who appeared and behaved in a manner that was completely consistent with the social conventions associated with a woman, how would you address this person? "Sir" or "Ma'am"?
But how do you know if you are in a social setting? It’s generally considered rude to go to strangers and do an ‘underwear check’.
Because most troons do not have the money to get the kind of never-ending surgeries and massive reconstructions required to actually make their LARP believable. Shit, most of them can't even do their own hair or makeup properly, and end up standing out even more. You know why? Because they aren't women, and never had the the practice. Most of these guys are AGP coomers who think a pussy is just something to piss out of or stick a dick in, not a functioning part of the female body with its own chemistry and biology that's been formed over millions of years of evolution.
And if they manage to do just enough to barely pass on the surface, the Kermit the Frog voice that happens from getting horomone injections that are not a natural part of your biological makeup ends up giving the game away. They're about as "natural" as the Kardashians.
Some biological women naturally have deeper voices. (ex: Bea Arthur). Some biological men naturally have higher-pitched voices. So going by the pitch of one's voice is not a sure thing.
And you are refusing to engage in the question because you know I am right on this. You are pretending that you will always be able to tell from biological cues whether or not a person is a "man" or a "woman" using a biological standard. You along with everyone else CAN be fooled by a person who conforms to the social conventions of a particular gender so well that you cannot tell that the person actually has the biology of the other. And in a public social setting, you and everyone else would be correct to refer to that person according to the social conventions that the person presents as, and not according to that person's underlying genetics. That is because there is a difference between the biological definition of 'man' and 'woman, and the social convention definition of a 'man' and 'woman'.
Some biological women naturally have deeper voices. (ex: Bea Arthur). Some biological men naturally have higher-pitched voices. So going by the pitch of one’s voice is not a sure thing.
It is when the hormones make them sound like Kermit the Frog. You playing this game of hypotheticals and counter-factuals isn't changing reality.
And you are refusing to engage in the question because you know I am right on this.
No, you're wrong on this. I engaged the question, you just don't like that I didn't accept your framing.
You along with everyone else CAN be fooled by a person who conforms to the social conventions of a particular gender so well that you cannot tell that the person actually has the biology of the other.
Maybe you're stupid enough to be fooled by it, but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people.
And in a public social setting, you and everyone else would be correct to refer to that person according to the social conventions that the person presents as
No, that's done so that the tranny doesn't start some screech-fest about being "mis-gendered" (when they already did that to themselves through boutique hormone injections, massive surgical procedures, and LARPing), not because we can't tell.
That is because there is a difference between the biological definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman, and the social convention definition of a ‘man’ and ‘woman’.
That's a post-modern theological pretense, not reality.
Don’t make me break out the 1912 Oxford Dictionary again which clearly demonstrates the multiple definitions of the word ‘woman’ (and ‘man’), one of which refers to biology, and another of which refers to social conventions. So no, it is not just some 'post-modern pretense', it is how the English language has worked for hundreds of years.
You are pretending that you can never be fooled. I don’t believe it. I think this is a lie you tell yourself. Maybe you went out on a date once with a trans individual and you are ashamed to admit that you were fooled.
No, that’s done so that the tranny doesn’t start some screech-fest about being “mis-gendered”
Bullshit. Most people would refer to someone who completely conforms to the social conventions of a woman, as a woman, regardless of biology or genetics, because it agrees with the definition of a woman according to social conventions.
are you saying Kim Kardashian is a man?
Don’t make me break out the 1912 Oxford Dictionary again which clearly demonstrates the multiple definitions of the word ‘woman’ (and ‘man’), one of which refers to biology, and another of which refers to social conventions.
Uh, wait, so you're saying that gender and sex were considered the same thing, even in 1912? But you're claiming that gender is just a social construct.
You are pretending that you can never be fooled. I don’t believe it. I think this is a lie you tell yourself. Maybe you went out on a date once with a trans individual and you are ashamed to admit that you were fooled.
LOL, just because your fat ass has never know the touch of a woman, doesn't mean troons aren't easy as hell to clock.
Most people would refer to someone who completely conforms to the social conventions of a woman, as a woman, regardless of biology or genetics,
No, that's the left-liberal claim. It's not reality.
are you saying Kim Kardashian is a man?
I'm saying that if we mock the Kardashians for all the plastic surgery they get to reflect some fantasy version of what they think they are, there's no reason we can't do the same to troons for doing the same thing.
It is more rude to force others to participate in your mental delusions.
I dont tell anorexic people they are fat.
I dont tell schizos there are people in the room with them when they are not.
"I dont tell anorexic people they are fat. "
why do i have a hard time believing that?
No one is forcing you to do anything.
If, 50 years ago, you saw a stranger who was wearing men's clothes and behaving according to the social conventions of men, you would address that person as "sir", believing that this person was a man. You didn't address that person as "sir" because you first did a genetic test or did an underwear check. You did it because that person successfully followed the social conventions associated with men. That person might very well have been transgender, or a cross-dresser, or "mentally unstable" or whatever. Did it matter? No.
It is the SAME THING NOW, except now, you are perhaps less sure if that person is truly a biological man. But who cares? You wouldn't have cared 50 years ago, why would you care now?
That is what most people who are transgender advocates are asking for now. They aren't FORCING you to call that person a man. Just to apply the usual standards of social behavior that you would ordinarily apply. If a person looks like a man, acts like a man, and otherwise behaves like a man, that person is a "man" for purposes of your social interactions. That person may or may not be biologically a man, but it doesn't really matter, because the word 'man' has never meant EXCLUSIVELY that the person has the biological and genetic characteristics of a man.
Because you leftist idiots always assume your enemies are evil and project your own behaviors onto them.
No one is forcing you to do anything.
Sure they are. They're forcing us to go along with their self-delusion about who they really are, because it advances the left-wing ideology in society. That's reason enough to resist it.
Tranny.
But how would you know if a person is transgender or not unless you did an ‘underwear check’, which is generally considered rude?
And besides, a person who "looks and behaves instinguishably from the social conventions associated with a woman" also includes people who are not transgender, right? Like biological women who conform to the social conventions of a woman?
How do hormone injections conform to social conventions?
What? You mean, if a biological woman gets testosterone injections so as to better pass as a man? That is just the biochemical version of cross-dressing.
You mean, if a biological woman gets testosterone injections so as to better pass as a man?
How does getting a Kermit the Frog voice from test injections make a woman a True and Honest Man?
That is just the biochemical version of cross-dressing.
So you mean the Kermit the Frog voice makes it rather obvious that they aren't actually a man, it's just someone LARPing as one?
Tell us, jeff, does cross-dressing normally result in osteoporosis?
No, Jeffy, you really can't. Are you saying that the clothes and social role make the sex? How about a nude beach, where one's sex is fairly obvious?
Do you even realize how ridiculous your argument sounds?
One's outward appearance does not negate the innate sex of the person involved. It's still a man in a dress, not a woman.
Are you saying that the clothes and social role make the sex?
No, not what I'm saying. Pay attention.
One’s outward appearance does not negate the innate sex of the person involved.
You're right!
It’s still a man in a dress, not a woman.
And if you didn't perform a genetic test or an underwear check on that person, you along with most everyone else would refer to that person as "Ma'am" and not "Sir".
But that's exactly what you said:
In social settings, who is a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’ is determined by their outward appearance and their conformity to social roles, not by biological DNA testing.
You distinctly stated that the social role and clothing makes the sex. It doesn't and never will. Is a woman wearing overalls and working as a mechanic (a traditionally male occupation with traditionally male clothing) a man?
Not sex, but gender. They are different. Sorry not sorry that you can't acknowledge this.
No, I'm sorry you can't figure it out, Jeffy. Maybe you need to spend some time with those bears in your trunk.
The typical collectivist has used this nonsense before. It won't admit that a man tricking people into thinking he's a woman is still a man.
Is this person a man or a woman?
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/224/mcs/media/images/51403000/jpg/_51403378_108344232.jpg
They're what their biology determined at conception, no matter how much they might LARP.
Sports Illustrated can put Tim Petras's massively surgically altered body on the cover of the swimsuit issue, it still doesn't mean he's a woman.
You didn't answer the question. Is that person a man or a woman?
Do you have a genetic test for this...mammal? Then I could tell you.
Most people don't do genetic tests or underwear checks in public before deciding whether or not to refer to that person as "sir" or "ma'am".
Your refusal to answer the question is only proving my point. You along with most everyone else, in a public social setting, would normally refer to that person as a woman, regardless of any genetic test. That is because this person does a very good job at conforming to the social conventions associated with a woman. This person is proof that there is more than one definition of the word 'woman' (and 'man'): one that is based in biology, and one that is based in social conventions.
Dude, it's fairly obvious. As Sharkira said, "the hips don't lie". In addition to the hips, there's the gait (affected by the pelvic structure), the face, the Adam's apple, the voice depth, the chest.
so gender can only be determined with a genetic test? bet you pushed really hard for vaccine passports, too..... medical privacy be damned!!!!! we deserve to know whether we should be an asshole and use pronouns you don't like.
Yes, gender can be only determined by genetics. You either have a Y chromosome or you don't. Science also stated that the COVID vaccines are not as effective as politicians claim they are, and thus vaccine passports are unjustified.
If you're gonna be an asshole, we'll call you out on it.
Of course I did, you just didn't like the answer.
that's funny, your response was neither 'man' nor 'woman', so no, you didn't answer the question.
That is because you along with most everyone else would refer to that person as "woman" in a public social setting.
that’s funny, your response was neither ‘man’ nor ‘woman’, so no, you didn’t answer the question.
Just because I didn't give you the answer you wanted, doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Get over yourself.
That is because you along with most everyone else would refer to that person as “woman” in a public social setting.
Depends on whether they're actually a woman or not. If they're a man pretending to be a woman, they're still a man.
I asked if that person was a man or a woman. You did not give an answer to that question. It is because you along with most people would refer to that person as a woman when in a public social setting, but you know it is a trick question and so you have to maintain this illusion that sex and gender are the same thing and they are completely determined by biology alone in order to get past the dilemma.
I asked if that person was a man or a woman
Yes, I know you love your dumb little gotchas. If gender is a social construct, as you claim, then there would be no need to actually do any medical procedures whatsoever, which renders your either/or fallacy moot.
Notice jeff is demanding you alter your behaviors to someone else's demands. You have to role play with them even if you disagree. And you have to do it to Jeff's definition of societal norms.
Hey Jeff, can you say “in a public social setting” just a few more times?
Does the gender change back when it gets home?
Gaultier called him a 'femiman'. And I'm pretty sure his shlong was visible through the gown.
But your point that there are some trans or trans-adjacent people that completely "pass". Doesn't make them men or women (as the case may be), but counterfeits.
Most people would refer to that person as a woman *in a social setting*. That is one definition of the word 'woman'. Not based on biology, but based on the conformity to the social conventions associated with a woman.
That is what is so wrong about your team's insistence that there is one and only one definition of the word 'woman' and that it is based in biology. That claim is flat wrong, and has been wrong for as long as there have been cross-dressers.
Most people handed a counterfeit $20 bill would call it a $20 bill. Doesn't make it one.
You're right! There is a difference between what a person *appears to be*, and what a person *is* on a biological level.
In English, we use the same word to describe *both*, which makes things confusing.
So in a public social setting, you along with most everyone else would refer to that person as a "woman", based on her appearance.
Just like, if you or anyone else saw a counterfeit bill that looked indistinguishable from a real $20 bill, you would refer to that object as "a $20 bill".
And it's still counterfeit, Jeffy. It's still not the real thing. Never was, never will be.
You're right - a biological woman is still a biological woman.
That doesn't mean the biological woman can't present herself with the outward appearance of a man, to such a degree that everyone else would THINK that she was a man.
Jeffy, she can try all she wants, but her hips, gait, chest structure, shoulders, lack of an Adam's apple, and facial structure will give her away. Likewise for a man pretending to be a woman.
Sure, but that doesn't make it $20 bill. It's counterfeit, not a real bill.
A trans person might very well pass, and I might even call "her" a "woman" if I were to meet "her"--and I might never know that "she" has XY chromosomes. But that doesn't make "her" a woman, any more than an extremely good facsimile of a $20 bill is anything but a counterfeit.
To use some of the words I've heard elsewhere, "she" cannot ever understand what it is like to be a woman and experience a woman's "lived truth". "She" can only pretend, much like Liz Warren pretended to be a Native American.
A trans person might very well pass, and I might even call “her” a “woman” if I were to meet “her”–and I might never know that “she” has XY chromosomes. But that doesn’t make “her” a woman, any more than an extremely good facsimile of a $20 bill is anything but a counterfeit.
It does make "her" a "woman" according to the definition of a woman based on social conventions.
It does not make "her" a "woman" according to the definition of a woman based on biology or genetics.
To use some of the words I’ve heard elsewhere, “she” cannot ever understand what it is like to be a woman and experience a woman’s “lived truth”.
And that is yet another definition of the word "woman" - not based on social convention or genetics, but based on one's past experience.
English is a poor language to try to differentiate between all of these different concepts with only one word. That is why the gotcha questions of "what is a woman?" are gotcha unfair questions.
It does make “her” a “woman” according to the definition of a woman based on social conventions.
Then the surgeries and hormone injections shouldn't be necessary.
Then the surgeries and hormone injections shouldn’t be necessary.
For some they are necessary, for others they are not. I imagine it depends on how well one wants to conform to the social convention, and how much one wants to "feel" like a member of the other gender.
It does make “her” a “woman” according to the definition of a woman based on social conventions.
Not in the social conventions commonly used for thousands of years, and which still predominate. "She" is only a woman in the same way that Rachel Dolezal is black.
For some they are necessary, for others they are not.
Resorting to this kind sophistic generalization demonstrates that you don't actually have an argument.
Tell us how not allowing trannies to convince kids to get hormone replacements and cut their genitals off is trans genocide.
I always thought Ruby Rhod was meant to be a male character with theatrics. It's fairly obvious in the characterization.
Well, Prince was slated to play Ruby Rhod. There's no doubt RR is a male character with over-the-top flamboyance.
Gaultier was also the designer for the iconic costumes in 5th Element, and some of these femiboy elements were clear way back then in the designs for some of Ruby Rhod's outfits.
>>if
Does DNA define "race" or is race a societal construct that can be rejected or embraced, modified surgically and/or chemically?
Yes
Most people who embrace trans-ideology--which rejects whole chromosomes as something that can be pretended away--bristle at the very thought that someone might "identify" as a different race, let alone use medical science to outwit a few genes.
"that would work, if there was no difference between sex and gender"
There is no difference between sex and gender, they're synonyms. One comes to English from Latin and the other from Old French.
In the late 20th century you perverts manufactured a phoney difference that never exited and still doesn't outside of your sex cult.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/224/mcs/media/images/51403000/jpg/_51403378_108344232.jpg
Man or woman?
You hold up a tiny little fuzzy thumbnail and demand an answer based on what can be seen 100 feet away. How dishonest.
You’re bad faith argumentation personified. What a piece of shit you are, Jeff.
And to cut off your little game, I don't know if that's a man in a dress or a girl. It's too fucking fuzzy and small to tell.
And to further the point, if I shaved close, put on make-up, a wig and a false bust, I could probably pass as a matronly older woman.
Does that make me a woman? Fuck no.
That makes me a man wearing a costume based on how western women usually present themselves.
Just like a wolf in a sheep skin isn’t a sheep.
Does that make me a woman? Fuck no.
If you could pass as a woman, then everyone else would refer to you as a woman. In their mind, you would be a woman, because that is how you presented yourself. It does not make you a biological, genetic female, but in a public social setting, it does make you a woman based on outward appearances.
If I dressed up a pig as a woman and gave it shitloads of unnecessary surgery the same fucking thing could potentially occur, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's a fucking pig and not a woman.
Your claims are complete and utter garbage.
Bullshit. If you saw that person in a public social setting, you along with most people would refer to her as "Ma'am" and not "Sir".
LOL, no, we'd avoid them at all costs, because they're clearly mentally ill.
I refer to everyone as it.
Because nobody really deserves respect anymore.
I've never called anyone Ma'am in my life, and if I was feeling polite I would call them by their first name to their face, and "pervert" behind their back.
... if it is a man. I don't know if it is because you purposefully gave us a small shitty thumbnail to work with because you are bad faith argumentation personified.
Yeah, take away the camera filters and caked-on makeup, and it's obvious that Tim Petras is a man, because you can still clock his Adam's apple and square-ass man frame. You'd think his parents would have told the doctors who cut his dick off at 16 to shave that fucker down.
OK, then let's straighten out the language a bit. A woman is a person of the female sex. A trans-woman is a man who adopts feminine gender expression.
As far as I can see, the trans activists have no interest in maintaining a clear separation between the concepts of sex and gender.
That is fine - except sometimes you can't tell, particularly in public social settings, whether a person is a woman or a trans-woman. So how would you refer to this person? In English, most of us would refer to this person simply as "woman" without the prefix. And that's fine, because the word "woman" has multiple meanings, and has had multiple meanings for hundreds of years. There is the meaning based in biology, and there is the meaning based in social convention.
Yeah, sure. If someone can pass, then they can pass. If it's someone who is just trying to live their life and isn't shoving their activism in my face, I'll probably be nice and humor them by using preferred name and pronouns.
As far as I can see, the trans activists have no interest in maintaining a clear separation between the concepts of sex and gender.
They absolutely do not. If gender was a "social construct," they wouldn't need to cut off their sexual organs or inject themselves with opposite sex hormones. They absolutely believe that gender and sex are the same thing, and that they need these measures to become who they supposedly really are.
The ones who aren't completely around the bend are the ones who recognize that their gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and either get it treated, or get the surgeries that will allow them to look themselves in the mirror without freaking out, but never adopt the delusion that they're anything other than what they were born as.
Yeah, and I really have no problem with people who once would have been called "transsexuals" trying to live as the other sex if they think that's how they can be happiest in life. But I'm not going to humor the radical activists or pretend that they really are something that they are not.
Also, the number of times the media has straight up lied about anything close to Trump or Republicans in general is something they will deny or lie about.
>>quite a few of her "campaign surrogates seem disappointed in her performance,"
I don't mind picking on girls when they're warmongers or sociopaths but to beat up on Haley for underperforming a Herculean task seems uncalled for
>>voters keep pulling the levers for the same government-growing geriatric losers that have been in power for the last eight years.
ship kinda needs righting right now. literally and millenialliterally
>>I'm sure the people endorsing vehicular manslaughter encounter tons of racists here among their brownstones.
I'm sure they do. expensive bikes are racist. and that sign tells me Mr. Brownstone Biker is a target
>>The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration on Monday
acb took the purported Kavanaugh hit harder than most?
Councilman in rich suburb asks democrats with large homes to house illegal immigrants.
Next week: nobody signed up.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2815068/councilman-chicago-suburb-asks-residents-house-illegal-immigrants/
Oh THAT'S what caused the panic attack.
This was pretty funny.
Beside every "Biden for President" sign someone should stick that.
Next week: nobody signed up.
This is the Chicago suburbs. They'll get signups and the immigrants will get housed in unused attached warehouse, light industrial/flex buildings in out-of-the-way industrial parks, or unused commercial spaces and nobody will ask any questions.
Like the Obama Presidential Library.
It's Naperville. There's not much more I can say.
End Wokeness
@EndWokeness
Reporter: "Where are you from?"
.
Middle Eastern illegal migrant: "Soon you will know who I am. Believe me. You will see."
Reporter does job and finds their identity.
ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ •
@4Mischief
The “alleged” terrorist warning Americans “Soon you’ll know who I am” appears to be Movsum Samadov, a Muslim who was released in January 2023 after serving 12 years for being a terrorist. Will the democrats voters ever wake up to the invasion at the southern border?
dammit I wanted to never know who he is.
You do know that most Muslim terrorists don't actually cross from the southern border, right?
your newsletter must be fascinating.
LOL
And your citation was left off by accident?
Most murders don't live in Kentucky, so we should ignore murderers at large? Same type of logic.
No - because you were making a specific link between the southern border and Muslim terrorists. Blame yourself for your own crass argument.
SRG2: Is there any number of muslim terrorists crossing the southern border into the US that you think is acceptable?
To me, the acceptable number is zero. That is why I favor sealing the southern border.
To me, the acceptable number is zero.
This is the problem with modern politics. Plausible but stupid.
The correct response is to reduce the number to as few as possible. However, to achieve zero you have to go far beyond any reasonable security measure. This is a variant of the "dropped newborn baby" risk management problem.
No. I was giving a known example why a porous border can lead to security threats. Never do i claim all terrorists cross illegally shrike.
So you're back to the shrike nonsense, you lying POS.
You were making a point that didn't stand up. Of course a porous border can lead to security threats, but the specific threat of Muslim terrorism is not a significant part of border-related threats.
Do you share sarcs drug induced amnesia?
I've told you a dozen times. Youre an NPC. One of shrike. There is no difference between you two. You have the same ignorant belief systems. It is akin to the whole Karen designation.
Arguinf with you is the same as arguing with shrike.
Youre shrike.
Translation: How dare you disagree with my rehearsed arguments against the narrative I've accused you of defending!
I’ve told you a dozen times. Youre an NPC
It doesn't matter how many times, you're still wrong.
As I've also told you, the same arguments you apply would tell us that you, MoLa and R_Mac are likewise the same person.
So it’s looking like Biden v Trump – itself a demonstration of the shittitude that is the modern American political system, that these two superannuated and (verging on) senile clowns are the supposed best candidates available.
SRG: The demonstration of TDS-addled assholery
If that's the best the country's got, then I don't see a point in voting.
Should just let Soros and Wef choose all the global leaders. Then everything would be perfect.
What's the UN and Club of Rome, chopped liver?
Are you aware that there are right-wing billionaire donors and foundations, who are also interested in putting or keeping their people in office? Or are they entitled to, while people like Soros aren't, hence your outrage?
Is it starting to sink into your head yet that most of the people here aren't actually right-wingers (whatever the fuck that means, you guys refuse to define it)?
People here shit on Koch and Conservative Inc. even more than Soros, and yet here you are, pretending that poor little George is being picked on because he's the wrong flavor of fascist. Fuck you. Name one right-wing billionaire donor or foundation you saw any of us support.
This is why people call you Shrike, because like him you try to jam everyone into your trope container whether they fit or not.
And I’m also against those. We make fun of Haley donors often here shrike. Keep up dummy =)
Your religious devotion to Soros remains noted shrike.
Still not shrike, you lying POS.
I have no religious devotion to Soros and I have never implied it. That I think that much of the opposition to Soros, in your case for example, is driven by a form of anti-Semitism is a secondary issue.
Which of the donors mentioned do you mock?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdurot/article/meet-the-billionaires-funding-the-battle-for-control-of-the-house-of-representatives/?sh=1326584324c9
For someone who claims not to be Shrike (and I really don't know if you are or aren't, so I won't claim you are), you did just resort to the same false accusation of antisemitism to discredit Jesse's criticism of Soros. It's such a lazy and dishonest vector to take, as though the only reason someone could not like Soros is because that person hates Jews.
I will say thank you to you, though, for teaching me a new word, "superannuated." I've never encountered it before and half suspected it was some sort of typo, until I looked it up.
There's history here both with JesseAz's specific issue with Soros, and the long-running use of Soros as shorthand for, or incarnation of an old-established anti-Semitic trope - often seen in right-wing media, and in times past, on the left, particularly in places like France. Soros has been accused by JesseAz of all manner of conspiracy-style actions. There's a point at which it becomes clear that JesseAz's being disturbed by Soros is not due to anything Soros specifically has done, but who or what Soros represents in his mind, and it's that trope.
Thank you! A useful word.
As far as the shrike thing - JesseAz said I was shrike almost immediately after I started posting here (originally I just posted on the Volokh Conspiracy pages), simply because my politics were closer to the original shrike, and either he still thinks I'm shrike in which case he's a moron, or he accepts I'm not but still calls me that, in which case he's a lying POS. Any intelligent reader would be able to distinguish between styles, spelling, and vocabulary - particularly as I'm British and TOS is American, and that our knowledge bases and areas of expertise differ.
I started an account to post around six months ago, but have been reading the articles and comments each day since 2020. I don't recall any anti-Semitic comments by Jesse during that time. I have seen many substantive comments, from Jesse and many others, on why Soros is a bad guy with bad plans that have nothing to do with the fact Soros is Jewish. Instead I see Shrike, and now you, use anti-Semitism as an excuse to dismiss criticism against Soros. (This is a form of the ad hominem fallacy--dismiss the argument by accusing the other of being immoral, racist, bigoted, etc.) It's the embodiment of this wave of identity politics that is harming this country and others. The same was true when Obama apologists would dismiss substantive criticisms of him by accusing others of being racist.
I remember the socking epidemic that came to a boil a few months ago in these pages, so it's not absurd to think you or anyone else could possibly be a sock account for another account. I don't think you are Shrike, and don't have evidence you are, so I'm not going to accuse you of that.
Arty types are protesting about gutted funds and the closure of the national theatre institute.
Fainting couches hardest hit.
"Run over racists,"
What's the big deal? Demanding that your political adversaries be injured or killed is not only protected speech, but a normalized and even proper type of political speech. That is the Nardz and Elmer Fudd standard, right?
Besides, racists aren't even real people. More like vermin. Running over a racist is like running over a squirrel. No one sheds a tear over road kill. Right?
You're one to talk, Jeffy? Go blow it out your hypocritical fat ass.
Aww, someone is upset that he is called out for not condemning violent speech on his side.
So, what do you think of Trump's 'vermin' comment? Pro or con?
Ready yet to take a stand on it?
Pretty sure it's been established in these comments that exterminating people for what they believe is fine. It's only bad when people are exterminated for their race.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
In sarc's case, hate sarc. He deserves it.
NAZIS AND COMMUNISTS YOU DISHONEST FUCK. That's what WW2 and the Nuremberg trials were all about.
Quit trying to pretend otherwise.
Do you support giving people political tests, and murdering them if you don't like the answer?
Where the fuck is that coming from, you little weasel, and what does it have to do with anything I've said.
You've killed off way too many of your brain cells over the years to try and trick people with that kind of sophistry.
Seemed like a legitimate question considering how you promote killing people over politics. Oh, I'm sorry. They're not people. You dehumanized them first.
“They gonna put y’all back in chains!”
Haha.
"Ready yet to take a stand on it?"
This has already been addressed many times.
Shh. They have a narrative. Sure it's the dem/corporate narrative not based in reality. But they have their narrative.
All the more reason to pre-emptively clap "anti-racists."
In which Jeffy unironically discovers that politics isn't a noble pursuit.
Here is Victor Davis Hanson.
https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1748419523856986488
What Are “They” Afraid That a "Dictator”/President Trump Might Do?
As Joe Biden’s political viability implodes, the exasperated Left has yet a new narrative: front-runner Trump and his extremist/semi-fascist/Ultra MAGA 160 million are out for “revenge” and “retribution—and that Trump might well become a “dictator” and “trample” the Constitution.
Ok, let’s examine what a supposed dictator Trump might do if he were to be elected this November?
1) Will he hide the fact that in 2024 he attempted to hire a foreign ex-spy to work with Russian sources to create a fake anti-Biden dossier (while sneakily hiding his payments behind three paywalls), seed it with the media, and hatch lies that Biden was a “Putin poodle” and “Russian asset”?
2) Would a Trump president weaponize a vengeful FBI to begin contracting with X and Facebook to suppress stories he feels will hurt MAGA candidates? Would his FBI alter FISA warrants to go after his leftwing opponents? Would he and his FBI henchmen have leftwing newspapers blacklisted from X?
3) Would Trump’s future Secretary of State round up 51 right-wing ex-CIA “authorities” to swear and lie on the eve of the balloting that the Russians created the Stormy Daniels nondisclosure agreement?
4) Maybe Trump will get his DOJ to go easy on any future accusations of tax fraud on behalf of his sons by weaponizing the IRS.
5) Maybe Trump will dictatorially cancel student loan debt on the eve of the 2026 midterms. Or would he dare by fiat drain the strategic petroleum reserve merely for Republican advantage in the midterms?
6) Maybe a dictator Trump might appoint a special counsel to investigate the entire Biden family. Would his legal counsel consult with local and state Republican prosecutors to coordinate 90 or so more indictments against ex-president Joe Biden? Will he order the FBI to sweep down on one of the Biden residences to hunt for more missing classified files that Biden removed as a senator and vice president?
7) Will he postfacto declare the 2020 riots to be an armed “insurrection” and retroactively start trying, convicting, and jailing the some 14,000 who were arrested and released—on charges of rioting, looting, arson, murder, and assault, in addition to “illegal parading” and conspiracy to burn a federal courthouse, a city police precinct, a historic church? Would dictator Trump keep in preventative detention indefinitely those arrested in 2020 for rioting and violent protest?
8) Maybe dictator Trump will refuse to discuss all medical questions concerning his 78-year age.
9) Will Trump minions in the media and military start talking about rooting out “leftwing rage”, or Antifa and BLM “domestic terrorists” from the military ranks? Would Trump order the Pentagon to discharge any soldier who refused to get one of his Operation Warp Speed COVID mRNA boosters?
10) Will dictator Trump protect some 500 “sanctuary cities” from ignoring federal laws—as they nullify the endangered species list or federal gun registrations statutes?
11) Would dictator Trump’s America destroy the southern border deliberately and invite in 10 million illegal aliens from countries he thought would ensure new conservative voters?
12 ) Would dictator Trump's America start seeing red-states removing the names of Democratic candidates from the ballot?
13) Would dictator Trump start jailing ex-Biden officials who refused Republican congressional subpoenas?
14) Would dictator Trump’s America turn over $50 billion in weapons and supplies to terrorists like the Taliban?
15) Would dictator Trump’s America see an epidemic of big-city lawlessness, as conservative prosecutors deliberately let out felons convicted of smash and grab and car-jacking, and exempted theft and shoplifting from punishment?
16) Would dictator Trump start shaking down foreign governments to send $30 million into the Trump family coffers?
17) Would dictator Trump camp out at Mar-a-Lago for 3-4 days a week, and turn the presidency into a pastime job?
So what exactly would a “dictator” Trump do that our "civil libertarian” Joe Biden already has not done?
He said he doesn’t get mad, he gets even. So I imagine all of the above, to the raucous cheering of his followers. Remember folks, two wrongs make a right (winger).
The difference between Biden and Trump? Trump is all talk, Biden acts...
Seriously, the real situation is that Biden's handlers act. Trump talks big but his handlers implement stuff a couple tiers milder than what he said.
Ah, so that is why you refuse to allow a non-deranged Republican to become the nominee...so you can benefit from Trump's "milder" handlers.
Lol. Yeah, that’s it, spam.
What a doosh.
Remember folks, two wrongs make a right (winger).
Pretty hypocritical seeing as you've been perfectly fine with the actual wrong currently being committed right fucking now, while vociferously condemning any future hypothetical as if it already happened.
You're like a human cartoon.
you’ve been perfectly fine with the actual wrong currently being committed right fucking now
You mean I'm not rending my clothing and gnashing my teeth over Trump?
Sorry.
"You mean I’m not rending my clothing and gnashing my teeth over Trump?"
Oh, you certainly have been. You spent four years shitting your pants over everything CNN told you.
But that was then. Now you're not the least bit bothered by the unprecedented criminal harassment of a political opponent and the citizenry by the Biden administration, Mayorkas, Garland and Wray.
That's probably a great retort to something, but not to anything I've ever said or done.
Is CNN still a thing?
"So what exactly would a “dictator” Trump do that our “civil libertarian” Joe Biden already has not done?"
I bet we'll see some even meaner tweets if Trump gets back in. Meaner than before, if you can possibly imagine it.
I wonder if any Trump supporters will be upset when he does the things that made them so incredibly upset when Biden did them. I’ll go out on a limb here and say anything and everything Trump does will be defended and justified with “They did it first!”
Because letting one side run roughshod, doing whatever they want, while laying down on your back is such a winning position.
Just saying that the political right has no moral high ground, and appears to be very proud of that fact.
What is the upside of the moral high ground?
you kind of just made his point for him.
How so?
Wow.
“What is the upside of the moral high ground?”
When it comes to politics? There isn’t one.
When the entire goal is to show how their guy is worse, not how your guy is better, then you're right. There is no point in being better. The lesser of two evils has no use for moral high ground. After all, evil is evil.
The allies should have taken the moral high ground by not stooping to fight the Nazis like they were doing elsewhere in Europe.
How fucking retarded are you?
The Democrats are running a slow coup against the country, but don't hassle them for it, right?
Killing Nazis is good, and Democrats are watered-down Nazis.
Your implications are clear.
Don't put words in my mouth you dishonest piece of shit.
Everything you do is either retarded or hypocritical. You were just bitching about someone doing this to you upthread.
You are desperate to defend dehumanizing people, and you've settled on Nazis and Commies.
You've berated me for not saying such people should be murdered on sight.
Now you're comparing murder targets to Democrats.
I don't know what else to conclude, other than you and Nardz need to get together and come up with a plan.
Almost no one in politics has moral high ground. There's no alternative to Trump that is something good. I think your conclusion that it is not worth voting or taking sides is perfectly reasonable. But I won't fault others who think there is a preferable choice either.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember politicians of yesteryears not stooping to the level of their rivals and being proud of it.
Or maybe it was a movie.
Your alcoholic memory is wrong as usual. The media just picked and chose what to be outraged about. Now there are more sites that discuss the actions of government. You just prefer to remain in the corporate media bubble.
Iran contra, COINTELPRO, etc.
Find one president to justify your bald assertion. Difficulty. Choose actions and not words.
Well, if one side notices that the other sides shitty tactics actually are working, can you really blame them when they adopt the same tactics? Is it really virtuous to let someone you believe to be very wrong win because you won't stoop to their level? I'm not really sure right now. But unless you are really resigned to total cynicism and willing to let things fall as they may, it's something one needs to consider.
I guess. Personally I passed total cynicism a long time ago.
"Is it really virtuous to let someone you believe to be very wrong win because you won’t stoop to their level?"
Um, what do you think "virtuous" means? It means doing the right thing--regardless of the consequences.
In many situations, the "right" thing to do is to let one's tactics hit back at them as a way to teach a lesson.
I will always choose acts over words. People like sarc choose words over acts. But that is no different than allowing a benevolent dictator to rule you.
Biden has acted against the constitution and basic rights implementing the DNC plans for takeover of entire industries. Not sure how an honest person can claim anything Trump did was to the levels we see under Biden. Unless words matter more than actions.
The thing is words don't effect my life. Policies do.
Go fuck a tennis racket. The adults are trying to have a conversation.
Cite you being an adult? Your immediate response here and above says different.
Adults dont fantasize in a world of pablum. Adults look to actions not speech when they trust but verify. They don’t rationalize bad acts by saying “oh well, your shitty acts are justified since you had good faith you were doing correctly.” Adults don’t blindly follow narratives because they are too intellectually lazy to inform themselves of reality.
Adults don’t accuse someone of following a narrative so they can argue against the narrative. Adults respond to what people actually say. You should try it sometime.
"Adults don’t accuse someone of following a narrative so they can argue against the narrative."
You just did that fucking yesterday... and the day before. You have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to your trolling.
Do you sneer when you say "Nya nya you did it first so it's ok nya nya"?
Lol, yeah. Every time I read your idiot hypocrisy I do tend to sneer a little. You got me dead to rights on that one, Sarckles.
I challenge most people to read your bullshit without either sneering or looking appalled.
Sarc, give us a single example of you not blindly following a narrative.
Censorship.
Vaccines.
Masks.
Trump is hitler.
Rittenhouse is a murderer.
BLM was mostly peaceful.
Biden recognizes the Constitution.
Ashley Babbitt deserved to be shot.
J6 was an insurrection and the 1400 indictments are deserved.
Biden gave back classified documents.
Trump is guilty of everything.
That would be a long answer. Instead the question should be name one thing where you've honestly characterized something I've said. The answer is bupkis.
Here is Victor Davis Hanson.
That guy replaced Charles Krauthammer as the resident Fox News Nazi Party leader.
You are the resident child fucker.
And you know this because...you clicked on his infamous link, like all your Alt-right sock buddies did?
I do love a good public admission of a criminal act. (Is that your real name, Michael?)
Well, Reason did nuke the post, which was evidence enough.
But you certainly are an expert on pedophiles, because you see them all the time. It's called a mirror.
Big accusations from a committed racist who shills for the party of violent anti-Semitic attacks like you.
"As a result, some languish in extreme pain because they believe that drug exposure will cause them to lose control and immediately return to active addiction."
If they believe that, then bravo to those who have enough self-awareness to recognize that taking any kind of addictive substances will open the gate to them justifying why they should go off the wagon entirely.
When you can't find any bodies from COVID, so you have to start digging through poop.
high vaccination and immunity rates
And yet they expect 30% of the population to get infected, probably again.
It's just a bad cold now. What the fuck is wrong with people? "Covid fatigue" suggests it's still something special that healthy people have any reason to worry about.
So, put a mask on your butt?
"Yet a scrappy write-in campaign run by the president's allies delivered a victory for him nonetheless."
Not sure I'd describe it as 'scrappy', Bob...
>"If she doesn't drop out, we have to waste money instead of spending it on Biden, which is our focus," Trump said of Haley last night.
Yeah, that's the point. The fix is being put into place for the election. There's really only one party in the US, two wings, and they want Biden because Trump is a threat to their privilege.
>reports The New York Times. "Yet a scrappy write-in campaign run by the president's allies delivered a victory for him nonetheless."
>Can you really call something scrappy if it's just…a write-in effort for the incumbent? A political shakeup this is not. No underdogs here.
I'm interested - who else was on that ballot?
Can you really call something scrappy if it’s just…a write-in effort for the incumbent? A political shakeup this is not. No underdogs here.
This is yet another reason why the NYT and its writers are completely tone-deaf. They still believe they're part of some underground collective of "street artists" #Resisting The Man.
>geriatric losers that have been in power for the last eight years.
8 years? Obama, Bush, Clinton? You forget about those guys? Carter was a piker compared to any one of them.
Agreed they were all losers, but they were not geriatric losers.
>Inflation now exceeds 200 percent and about 40 percent of the country is living below the poverty line.
Isn't . . . isn't the poverty line determined by average income in a country?
If so, then this would indicate that wealth is rapidly concentrating in the hands of the wealthy. OBL's first law at work.
>"Lawyers are furious about plans to fast-track divorces through the civil registry without requiring their services. Doctors hate a new requirement for them to preferentially prescribe generic medicines. Arty types are protesting about gutted funds and the closure of the national theatre institute. Fishermen are cross about permit deregulation. Sugar producers are railing against plans to remove import tariffs," reports The Economist.
An interesting exercise in how to gain and retain power through using 'difuse costs and concentrated benefits'.
Everyone sees that things need to be changed - but don't you fucking dare touch *their* special exemption.
>"Run over racists," says the "share the road" street sign graffiti in Fort Greene (close to the part of Brooklyn I escaped from). I'm sure the people endorsing vehicular manslaughter encounter tons of racists here among their brownstones.
They're correctly pointing out that the racists are the ones who can afford to waste time riding a bike around.
>who has shipped busloads of migrants to northern cities."
No one's ever explained why this is bad - but Biden shipping planeloads of migrants around is ok.
No one can explain why it’s bad. There has never been any clear argument as to why this shouldn’t be allowed, let alone is bad.
And the weak-tea: But, they were misled! doesn’t even wash. If you were a migrant that just landed in the vast landscape that is America, would you rather be stuck in a place that doesn’t want you and provides no public services for you, or be shipped to a place that has repeatedly, vocally, loudly and proudly declared they want you AND has to provide you with housing and public welfare by law?
I choose option B every time.
Starbucks Fires 2 Baristas Who Collared Robbers of South Grand Store
Their lawyer says they felt obligated to fight back or be killed — yet they still lost their jobs
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/starbucks-fires-2-baristas-who-collared-robbers-of-south-grand-store-41718553
loss of the barista jobs likely a net positive in the end.
How dare they defend themselves? Besides, they probably attacked robbers higher on the intersectionality scale than they are.
From Ballot Access News: On January 22, Arizona State Senator Anthony Kern (R-Glendale) introduced SCR 1014, a proposed constitutional amendment. It would provide that voters no longer choose presidential electors in Arizona. Instead, the outgoing legislature would choose the presidential electors.
Kern's immediate motivations probably suck but I can't say the idea is stupid in general.
Nah, that idea is fucking stupid and would have massive negative consequences for presidential elections across the country. What if a blue state, for example, went for Trump, but the legislature is controlled by Democrats who decide to nominate electors for their candidate instead? It's the same dumb reasoning that happened in 2016 when Democrats were trying to convince Republican electors to not vote for Trump.
Also, since it's the outgoing legislature doing the nominating - what if the people of the state decided to sweep a new party into power at the same time as a presidential election? Since they wouldn't be able to vote for the president directly. But the old party they just rushed out does the nominating?
A couple responses:
(a) It's not "nominating".
(b) If a legislature is doing the picking, by definition, at the instant of picking, it must be the current legislature. A legislature that has not been seated yet can't do anything.
(c) I suppose one could move the legislative election back to (say) August so they are seated ahead of time and can pick electors in November.
(d) You seem to be implying that the mood of the public on one particular Tuesday in November is somehow more valid than their opinion when they chose the legislators. I agree in the limited sense that recent opinions outweigh discarded ones; however, this is really no different than regretting your vote for Prez a couple years into the term. In this case you simply regret the legislature you chose to elect previously.
(d) You seem to be implying that the mood of the public on one particular Tuesday in November is somehow more valid than their opinion when they chose the legislators.
In separate elections? Abso-fucking-lutely. Even during the days when state legislators picked the Senators, they wouldn't have dreamed up something this dumb.
Minadin's claim is that voting one party out of control in the legislature means "the people" want the presidential nominee of the party they voted in.
If we follow Minadin's logic, doesn't that mean that when "the people" hand a loss to the incumbent POTUS's party in the midterm elections, the POTUS is no longer legitimate and should be replaced?
People try to spin it like that but of course it's not true because: (a) both legislators and POTUS's are legitimate for their whole terms regardless of elections for other offices that occur mid-term, and (b) people can like one party for representative and another for Prez, astonishing to the rabid partisans here but perfectly normal for the rest of us.
"Even during the days when state legislators picked the Senators, they wouldn’t have dreamed up something this dumb."
The bill is, quite literally, going back to the original method. So some legislators somewhere dreamed up something this dumb.
If we follow Minadin’s logic
We don't even have to do that, you dumb fucking sped. Legislators picking the president on their way out the door is the dumbest idea the Arizona GOP has ever had. And your fallacy of the lonely fact–“HURR THEY ELECTED GEORGE WASHINGTON THIS WAY HERPITY DERPITY DOOOOOOOOO!!”–doesn’t change the fact that they not only haven’t done it through nearly the entire country’s history, doing so is an absolutely stupid move even in a historical vacuum.
I don't follow you, or perhaps you misread the proposal. It is not to have a popular election and then override the result. The proposal is to not have a popular vote at all.
What do you mean by "went for Trump"? How would you define that, in the absence of a popular election?
It’s a terrible idea.
Maybe, it was the system originally envisioned.
In the 1788 election only two states used direct popular vote. The result was George Washington.
Popular voting and primary elections, in their currently evolved form, gave us Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020. For 2024 we are being required to pick between them, despite strong (albeit differently composed) majorities against both of them. I believe if legislators had done the picking, we'd have had different presidents. Maybe not good ones but it's hard to imagine them doing something worse than Trump and Biden.
it’s hard to imagine them doing something worse than Trump and Biden.
Yes. Yes it is.
AOC would be a much worse president than those two.
No one's stopping anyone else from running for POTUS on another party platform.
I don’t follow you, or perhaps you misread the proposal. It is not to have a popular election and then override the result. The proposal is to not have a popular vote at all.
It's still a terrible fucking idea. States are already gerrymandered to hell, and this is just going to make it worse. Legislators picking the President is a horrible fucking idea--the last thing I want is the slack-jawed, drug-addled gorillas in the Colorado state legislature picking the presidential candidate. And Kern's galaxy-brained idea is based on the premise that the legislature will always be Republican. He's fucking daft if he isn't seeing the trend the state of Arizona is going right now. It's going to be Colorado in about 5-10 years.
If I had my way I'd repeal the 17A.