Smoking the Copium
Plus: Lady chief of staff, violence in Amsterdam, and more...

Prominent Democrats appear to be learning all the wrong lessons: Right now, political commentators are a study in contrasts. Consider this:
It is 1933. Hitler is in power. No time for a fucking seminar on Democrats messaging errors
— Jen Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) November 8, 2024
But also, this, from Julie Roginsky on CNN, excerpted at length:
"I'm going to speak some hard truths…We are not be party of common sense, which is the message the voters sent to us…When we address Latino voters…as Latinx, for instance, because that's the politically correct thing to do, it makes them think we don't even live in the same planet as they do. When we are too afraid to say that, hey, college kids, if you're trashing the campus of Columbia University because you're unhappy about some sort of policy and you're taking over a university and you're trashing it and preventing other students from learning, that is unacceptable. But we're so worried about alienating one or another cohort in our coalition that we do not know what to say when normal people look at that and say, wait a second, I send my kids to college so they can learn, not so they can burn buildings and trash lawns, right? And so on and so forth. When we put pronouns after names and say 'she/her' as opposed to saying, 'you know what, if I call you by the wrong pronoun, call me out. I am sorry. I won't do it again.' But stop with the virtue signaling and speak to people like they're normal."
Also:
"We constantly try to parse out different ways of speaking because our focus groups or polling shows that so-and-so appeals to such and such. That's not how normal people think. It is not common sense and we need to start being the part of common sense again. Joe Biden is not responsible for that, neither is Kamala Harris. That is a problem that Democrats have had for years. I've been banging the drum on this for I don't know how—probably ten years on this. We need to get back to being the party of common sense that people look at us and say we understand you. We appreciate what you say because you speak our language. And, until we do that, we should stop blaming other people for our own mistakes."
Pair this, also, with Matthew Yglesias' prescription for, essentially, lefty centrism:
Here's my pitch, one iPhone screenshot's worth of principles for Common Sense Democrats to reform governance in the blue zones and be competitive in the red zones — delivering a coalition that can win on health care, reproductive rights, the safety net, and quality for all. pic.twitter.com/uCXUC4Jr8L
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 7, 2024
But then, you flip back to MSNBC, where they're melting down and choosing the old "Trump voters are racists and sexists" refrain. It all paints a wild portrait of a Democratic Party that's struggling to figure out how much self-reflection is required, the degree to which they ought to reflect on other people's flaws or their own.
For what it's worth, I think this take is roughly correct:
I see a lot of Dems coping with "she didn't run on "X, Y, Z" unpopular leftist position
Yeah it doesn't matter now because she was on tape following the current thing for a decade plus. The Dem party is paying the price for a decade of cultural insanity
— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) November 8, 2024
Harris did not run a particularly far-left campaign, nor did she emphasize foolish policy prescriptions like defunding the police. But her 2019 run, in which she seemed to get swept up in the collective progressive hallucination that ultralefty policies would become enduringly popular, left an indelible mark on her. And the party became associated with these types of policies and ways of thinking for years to come, which did them no favors.
Susie Wiles picked as chief of staff: Yesterday, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he would be picking Susie Wiles, "the only campaign manager to survive an entire campaign working for him," per The New York Times, as his chief of staff for his next term.
During his first term, Trump had a hard time getting a chief of staff to stick. First he had Reince Priebus—"recommended by top Republicans in Washington"—then retired Marine Corps general John F. Kelly, who later described it as the worst job he'd ever had, then Mick Mulvaney, then Mark Meadows "who was inclined to 'let Trump be Trump' and was ultimately indicted in a Georgia case stemming from Mr. Trump's efforts to remain in power," per The New York Times.
Wiles, meanwhile, seems to stay out of the limelight. She's worked on a variety of Florida campaigns before, including helping Ron DeSantis (R) ascend to governor in 2018, and helping Sen. Rick Scott (R) win his seat.
There's something funny about this period, in which we're all just attempting to peer at the tea leaves to try to parse any emerging clues as to what type of president Trump will be this time around. Someone surrounded only by incompetent loyalists? Extreme radicals? Technocrats? Outsiders? His pick of Wiles gives only the tiniest of hints, but a hint nonetheless, that he's interested in competence as well as fealty; her ties to the old guard of the GOP are apparently not too much of a liability.
Antisemitism in Amsterdam: Dutch authorities said today that there have been 62 people arrested in connection with antisemitic attacks that have been building since Wednesday. Five people have been hospitalized. Video footage here. The precipitating events remain unclear, but the clashes appear to have started between supporters of the Israeli and Dutch soccer teams, which were playing each other in a match; some allege that Israelis took down a Palestinian flag. Videos have circulated online of what appear to be violent attacks on Jews by mobs of men. In one video, a man says "I'm not Jewish, I'm not Jewish" before being beaten. Other videos show a man being hit by a car; it is not clear who the victim is or who the attackers are.
"As the attacks went on, Israel warned its citizens in Amsterdam to stay off the streets and remain in their hotel rooms," reports The New York Times. "Maccabi Tel Aviv warned people not to show Israeli or Jewish symbols outside, and to fly back to Israel as soon as they could." The airline EL AL operated free rescue flights for citizens needing to get out of Amsterdam and back to Tel Aviv.
"On the eve of Kristallnacht—when Jews in Nazi Germany faced brutal attacks—it is horrifying to witness antisemitic violence on the streets of Europe once again," said the Israeli embassy in The Hague in a statement.
Scenes from New York: Mayor Eric Adams will be ending the program that gives free EBT cards to illegal immigrants. The city has so far spent $3.6 million taxpayer dollars on this program; this is in addition to the vast sums the city has shelled out for free lodging—hotel rooms—for recent arrivals. For those wondering, no the city isn't going to stop using taxpayer dollars altogether. Instead, "the city will go back to delivering meals to families staying at hotels under an existing contract with a company called Garner Environmental Services," reports The New York Times.
Some 200,000 people have arrived in this city since 2022, many availing themselves of welfare. I believe the city can bear industrious newcomers and I welcome families seeking refuge, but I thought my taxpayer dollars were meant to keep useful city services functioning and take care of the absolute poorest among us. When that mission is drastically extended to encompass literally anyone who enters the five boroughs and wants welfare, the whole social contract becomes compromised.
QUICK HITS
- Zach Weissmueller and I spoke with pollster Patrick Ruffini about what we know so far about Trump's win:
- Speaking of, our show is migrating to a new channel. If we don't get 200 new subscribers to this channel by end of day, we both get axed. And NYC isn't handing out any more EBT cards, so I for one am screwed. Just kidding on all counts, but please do subscribe! We will be posting all new episodes there, instead of on Reason's main YouTube account.
- So far, there are still 25 House races that have not been called. Republicans have 211 seats, with 218 needed for a majority. Democrats have 199.
- "Daniel Lurie has been elected mayor of San Francisco, denying London Breed another term after arguing that her flawed leadership caused the city to struggle since the pandemic devastated its downtown and exacerbated the drug crisis, homelessness and public concerns about crime," reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
- A good point:
Someone tweeted after listening to JD Vance's Rogan interview that he's a Dem from 20 yrs ago. It's a rough comparison, but not totally off-base. This list reads like things a Dem from 20 yrs ago would care about. When faced with a 2004 Dem vs a 2024 D, I choose 2004 Dem all day. https://t.co/NNZ9dJvFzZ
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) November 7, 2024
- My friend Dave Smith on Joe Rogan:
Back with the legend, podcast GOAT, and picker of Presidents, my brother @joerogan https://t.co/adQhmWrvxW
— Dave Smith (@ComicDaveSmith) November 7, 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
A Shred of Truth
TAKE IT TO THE PAPER SHREDDER
From a top source in Brussels, who never failed me:
American officers across NATO centers - especially Poland - are now shredding and deleting EVERY VITAL DOCUMENT they can put their hands on in order to leave no traces ahead of Trump's January inauguration.
- Pepe Escobar channel
They are just making confetti for the Trump inauguration party. Honest.
How much incriminating evidence do they have, and how much has Obama’s name on it?
Don't forget about Hunter (and the Biden Brand, Inc.).
Just in case the missile attack on Mar-a-Lago fails I suppose.
A look at the California map for 2024 election.
https://x.com/DrSuneelDhand/status/1854590133183349005
The inland empire strikes back!
Too much democracy?
It’s redder than four years ago. So is the Illinois map. With some work, perhaps some of these “blue” states can turn “red”. Take note of the hard work by Scott Pressler in Pennsylvania to turn the state red.
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1854662262641815841?s=46&t=qeA47-JjK6vq0pfnxg60dA
IL is begging for it. I didn't think it would ever turn red in my lifetime, but it was within 3% and lardass Pritzker is full steam ahead with the TDS agenda.
How can they vote for that disgusting incompetent tub of shit?
I saw n observation with accompanying map that said something to the effect of, “We no longer have blue states, but blue cities.
With very few exceptions, unless you are a county with a large(r) city, it went red.
This is good news.
I'm not up on state politics for California. I wonder why Orange county is the only coastal county to flip.
Orange County was historically a Republican stronghold. Looks like enough of them got out and voted again.
Military area. Has historically been more red.
But not for long. The military bases have closed down, and it is now becoming a tech hub and college town. If you look at the Orange County votes this year, there is still a lot of democrat support, and Democrats have a large advantage in registration.
However, there is still a large elderly population in OC, and that group is fickle- they voted for Biden in 2020 and many went for Trump this year.
In coastal California, the choices are between socialists and communists, but Orange County has traditionally been Republican, ever since the "white flight" out of LA.
I sort of figured a close proximity to LA had at least something to do with it.
Interesting. I wonder if the much-talked about exodus from CA to places like TX had a role, it seems like TX stayed solidly red despite getting a lot of the CA refugees.
But unfortunately not Colorado. Despite our libertarian cos-play governor, we keep getting more Californians (by geography and by mindset), and keep getting bluer.
Most of them are settling in the Front Range bughives or were COVID refugees in the mountain towns. Pueblo County went red, which is the biggest surprise of that state. Normally, it's a reliably blue area.
Jesse:
How’s it feel to be sarc’s “ambassador”?
Sounds like a bromance may be brewing.
Sarc finds Jesse to be tall, well groomed, and looks like a cop. No mention of whether sarc believes Jesse enjoys long walks on the beach or attending sausage parties at a HALF MILLION DOLLAR house.
Does he like pina colada’s? Walking in the rain?
Pima coladas hold the pineapple and coconut.
Stupid auto correct. Piña.
Hey, you might have discovered a new cocktail fad for Tucson. I hear lots of people in Pima County need help coping this week.
Very true statement.
We should be handing out complementary cups of cyanide laced kool aid to all the depressed democrats.
Jim Jones, is that you?
Jim Jones was a favorite of Democrats.
https://fascinatingpolitics.com/2022/04/02/jim-jones-and-politics/
Yep. It’s something the Dems, particularly San Francisco Dems, try to avoid talking about.
We can call it MAID.
'tain't nuthin'. Simpson thinks its piña colonics.
Too bad Tony is gone, perhaps he would opine on this subject.
Well, I suspect Sarc likes the alcohol in champagne (not so sure about the taste).
He seems to want to make love with Jeffy at midnight in the dunes of a cape.
The dunes? I always suspected Pedo Jeffy was a Hutt. Albeit an extremely bitchy and faggoty Hutt.
LOL, although dlam and I were trying to make an escape.
https://genius.com/Rupert-holmes-escape-the-pina-colada-song-lyrics
Hand sanitizer, Aqua Velva and mouthwash, and sleeping it off in the rain.
Hey ML. Sarc may be moving up to your neck of the woods.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/google-searches-moving-canada-and-other-countries-surged-during-election-night
The states that had residents most interested in fleeing the country include Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Mexico.
Thank goodness I'm on the other side of the continent. He'll have to flee to Quebec or New Brunswick and learn French.
I don't think Sarc will be very happy in La Belle Province.
I’m sure he’ll love the language nazis there.
Does Canadian welfare cover a full month’s worth of binge drinking bottom shelf liquor?
The Canadian liquor tax may stop him from supporting taxes at least.
And that, in a number of them, you have to buy alcohol, even beer, at a provincial-run store.
Coastal regions and souther Maine potentially to get less populated. Ayuh.
New Mexico made the list?! I didn't realize we had that many debilitated people here. Living in a broke-ass state with so many idiots should have hardened them up a bit. Maybe they're all from Santa Fe, or recent transplants in the film industry. Given our major industries are petroleum products and nuclear weapons, I'm surprised they came here in the first place.
I’m glad Washington State is on that list. We really need to shed some of these extreme far left kooks.
Shed or shred?
Tomato, tomahto ...
I will offer financial support to stupid D-bag New Mexicans who want to go to Canada, but given that we've been bitching about it being in the 20's and getting 6 inches of snow this week, I'm guessing not many would last long up there.
I unmuted you again expecting a troll and I wasn't surprised. Back to the grey box.
Lol
Did you picture me as tall and well groomed?
Everyone looks tall and handsome through my beer goggles.
If you have ever consumed a wino’s piss to get drunk because you were a homeless alcoholic bum, you might be a Sarckles.
- ChemJeff Foxworthy
Misoginist Hitler promotes woman as first female chief of staff. Proving his misogyny.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/11/trump-names-susie-wiles-as-chief-of-staff-first-woman-to-hold-title/
She’s just there to make him a sammich.
Can she make a Cuban?
She is from florida, not Maine. All signs point to yes.
I'd prefer a Ruben
Sadly Arizona appears to as well.
Oh, go jump in a Lake.
Will it Kari water?
I wouldn’t mind doing that.
This time the RNC will actually back her up in court should that be necessary. Arizona democrats are notorious for election fraud. This is likely no different.
Really hoping they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar this time.
That's galleta jar, you racist.
I think the Cuban is a little sour this week.
On that subject, ENB better get on the stick and get those sandwiches out here.
Is he going to buy her flowers on secretaries day?
Or just chase her around the desk?
Pussy Grabber in Chief needs one close by. He’s getting up there in years, if you didn’t know.
If I was him the interviews would go something like this:
Put your hands behind your head and walk towards the wall.
If your elbows hit first, the interview is over.
Still fun to think about which presidents actually had their hands on someone's pussy in the White House, besides their wife's. And which party they belonged to.
Also, shall we forget they also had a president who liked to whip out his dick and show it to people out of the blue.
We talking about LBJ?
Bingo, give that man a Kupee doll.
Particularly interns dressed in blue ...
One of them had his cigar in a pussy.
Just like Trump's racist ass to put a WHITE woman in a position of power. I can't even right now.
If he wasn't such a misogynist he would have given her a Planned Parenthood punch card with one punch left to a free abortion, instead.
+1 You can practically see the headlines: Did Donald Trump Betray His Base By Appointing A Woman Who Owns A Cat?
An amusing look at why Gen C went for Trump. The last video is a funny remix of liberal rage video.
https://pjmedia.com/megan-fox/2024/11/07/genx-delivered-for-trump-and-theyre-not-afraid-to-tell-you-why-n4934064
Meh. Whatever.
Thanks for that link, Jesse
"One of the reasons no one notices us is that Millennials take up all the air in the room. For one, they dwarf us in size; secondly, they’re often very loud and whiny. When Millennials entered the workplace, they caused no end of annoyance for everyone around them, demanding special treatment, coffee bars, mental health days, pronouns, and other things GenXers thought were lame. They job-hopped and created article after article about “How to Keep Millenials Happy” while we put our heads down and made our careers, often in the same company for our entire work lives. "
Yup. My career was great until the Millennials started getting into the company. Then the political email lists became the epicenter of cancel-culture, and our company let millennials have "mental health" days whenever a tree-felling trended on twitter, while the Gen-Xers worked all day to make up for them. While we tried to combat flagging revenues, these people were obsessed with banning straws in the break room, and joining Employee Diversity Groups that took up 5 hours a week of their time.
As a Boomer, I guess I was too self-absorbed to notice.
What are we considering Millenials today? Cause us early 80’s kids didn’t do any of that.
Just like our older brothers and sisters to forget that we exist!
Kids born in the 80s are generally referred to as Xillennials, having some of the same characteristics of Gen X and some of the same experiences as millennials (exposure to PC at and early age etc). The amount that you take on the characteristics does seem to be somewhat correlated to if you have older siblings in Gen X. We didn't get PC in our school until I was in 4th grade (I was born in 1976), but my youngest brother, born in 1980 (thus considered a millennial) that would have been his 1st grade year, so he basically went through all of his school years with PC being available, whereas I distinctly remember the first time we got to use computers in school. However, many of his other experiences mirror the same as my experiences as Gen X. However, I vaguely remember Reagan getting shot, Mt St Helens exploding (we were in the ash fall area in North Idaho) and distinctly remember the Challenger exploding, Reagan telling Gorbachev to tear down this wall and then it happening, the World Series bay area earthquake. He only vaguely remembers the last two occuring.
You don’t really start seeing stuff appearing on the Millennials until after Y2K. Most of them were playing N64 or Playstation in the mid-late 90s, playing Diablo or Heroes of Might and Magic, or dorking around on AOL if their parents had an internet connection. But they were highly influenced by the Clinton era and the impeachment drama, and became pretty radicalized after the 2000 election and especially Iraq, and thus got the most attention because they were a boomlet compared to Gen X.
Woodstock 1999 was Gen-X’s last gasp as a youth culture, and they finally had to buckle down and get to work because the oldest already had families, while the Nirvana era Xers were finishing up college and staring their student loans in the face.
Don't blame me because you got a bad batch and shitty managers.
Only the best and finest salt is being mined at the moment. This will be delicious for years.
https://x.com/stephenhilton23/status/1854320812272034154
Why do the mentally ill insist on polluting the internet this way?
I don't mind. I'm having fun.
Mike Laursen likes to refer to it as NaCl2.
I thought it was caccl?
Don't make fun of how Harris speaks.
Going to be a bit geeky here, but calcium is generally 2+ in isotopic form, carbon 4+, and chloride 1+. Carbon almost always forms 4 bonds, so we're missing a bond in that molecule. Should read CaCCl2 maybe. Just trying to help.
And while generally we saw Carbon is 4+, it is just as correct to say it's 4-, as it can either donate 4 e- or accept 4 e-.
Also, how many of you, who took O Chem, just subconsciously drew this molecule in your head and now are slightly pissed off that O Chem still haunts your life?
Yo.
OChemJeff should weigh in.
I'd hate to have to calculate that molecular mass.
Boyle’s Fat Ass Law may help determine the volume:
PV = krispy kreme
Solve for V.
Federal Bureau of Imprisoned?
Trump will have full authority to declassify the FISA warrants used to spy on him and others without the signatures redacted. Ruh-roh!
Washington Times has a related article about potential exodus of top brass at the infamous alphabet agency:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/nov/7/fbi-brass-stunned-shell-shocked-donald-trump-reele/
De-Salinization can be a messy process.
Buy stock in paper shredder manufacturers.
See! He had an enemies list!!! -jeffsarc
That he wanted to release to the public.
Paper shredders go brrrr.
I just flashed on that scene from Boiler Room...
""Trump will have full authority to declassify the FISA warrants used to spy on him and others without the signatures redacted. Ruh-roh!""
Didn't he say he was going to do that in his first term?
The world is on fire after Trumps reelection.
Greg Price
@greg_price11
Donald Trump has been the President-Elect for not even two days:
- Steve Madden is halting manufacturing in China by half in a yr
- Hamas calls for an end to the war in the Middle East
- The Iran backed Houthis announced a ceasefire.
- Putin said he’s ready to work toward peace
Everyone is afraid of orange hitler.
The party is over and the real adults are back in charge.
Well, like switching from staying with crazy cat lady aunt to staying with crazy drunk uncle.
Yeah, but with the crazy drunk uncle you know he won't hesitate to put his foot in your ass if you fuck up.
I saw a clip of Ukraine soldiers shooting at a dummy with Trump merch on it.
Hamas calls for an end to the war in the Middle East.
And for Hamas to be given control of Jerusalem.
The Iran backed Houthis announced a ceasefire.
If USA and Israel cease the genocide of Palestinians and give Hamas everything. Which begs the question how do you stop something that hasn't happened.
Greg Price is wrong and this tweet nonsense.
""– Hamas calls for an end to the war in the Middle East""
Not new. They have been calling for an end since they started it.
Biden moves to limit energy exploration in Alaska Day after election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/11/06/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-drilling/
Salting the earth on the way out.
Prominent Democrats appear to be learning all the wrong lessons: Right now, political commentators are a study in contrasts. Consider this:
Cites WaPo true conservative Jennifer Rubin.
But then, you flip back to MSNBC, where they're melting down and choosing the old "Trump voters are racists and sexists" refrain.
Is this wrong. Should jeffsarc not be doing this?
To give the harpies at MSNBC a break, if you consider anyone not on the left fringe to be racists and sexists then OK.
So, does this make MSNBC a modern-day Copium Den?
Chase probably would have done better if sarc didn’t out him.
Out him for what? Wait?!? Is he gay?!?
I think he woulda got more votes if he was a pitcher instead of a catcher.
Chase the rainbow!
Does he at least switch hit?
They say it’s easy to score off him.
Does he throw a lot of faces on balls?
He like to slide and put his hand on the bag.
That was before the umpire tossed him.
Saagar Enjeti
@esaagar
·
Follow
I see a lot of Dems coping with “she didn’t run on “X, Y, Z” unpopular leftist position
Yeah it doesn’t matter now because she was on tape following the current thing for a decade plus. The Dem party is paying the price for a decade of cultural insanity
6:44 AM · Nov 8, 2024
We can criticize leftist cultural insanity? Or will Britches yell at us for starting the culture wars?
Britches will yell at us for having kultur warz.
"Or will Britches yell at us for starting the culture wars?"
We’re not allowed to do something if someone else did it first.
That’s Srarc’s mantra, isn’t it?
I always forget the one true libertarians primary principle.
Deferring to Democrats?
Being cuckold pacifists.
Wouldn't a pacifist not have to cheer violence against both parties, not just dems?
The challenge with the CUCLLs here is that what they believe about libertarian is far from what it is. This misunderstanding, along wither their individual pathologies, is the cause for much of the disconnect.
Yeah, how's that aging?
"There's a pogrom going on in Amsterdam right now. Hitler is in Amsterdam, not here. Hitler is in Iran, not here. I am sickened by you, Jen. Rachel would despise what you have become, and the fact I had anything to do with your having a career is one of the shames of my life."
https://x.com/jpodhoretz/status/1854744450762694799
Talk about Murdered by Words. Hotdamn.
Wasn't that guy one of the biggest NeverTrumpers in 2016?
I think he still is.
It is 1933. Hitler is in power. No time for a fucking seminar on Democrats messaging errors
“And then, for no particular reason at all, the German People elected Adolph Hitler to a second, non-consecutive term.”
Kat Timpf take on it on Gutfield the other night was LOL funny, paraphrasing here, 'if he really is Hitler coming to get you, the last place you want to be is on TV, you should be hiding and getting your affairs in order. Not on TV where everyone knows where you're at.'
But like all insanely-devout religious zealots, they can't help themselves. It's not bravely standing up for their beliefs; it's fundamental denial of reality.
Well if that were true why did Anne Frank publish a book telling the Nazis where she was hiding?
I can see some of these historically illiterate proggie actually making that counter argument. Hell, you almost got me for a half second there, because I am sure there are some who believe this.
Hell, they think Latinos voted for their own deportation.
I wonder if any of the open borders, white (at least by their definition, since obviously they don't consider Spaniards and Portuguese as white, since they label their descendants in the Americas as non-white) saviors stopped and considered that maybe, possibly, some of the Hispanics are thinking 'we left to get away from this shit, now you're freely allowing it across the border? What the absolute fuck?' Oh no, if you belong to some ethnic group they demand you all suffer from group think.
Be kind of like if Russian Jews in the late 19th century in Brooklyn suddenly saw Cossacks riding down the streets and someone telling them, 'hey, you're both from Russia, you should welcome them and celebrate bringing more of them here.'
Yeah, that was a good one.
Antisemitism in Amsterdam: Dutch authorities said today that there have been 62 people arrested in connection with antisemitic attacks
You know who else....eh...too easy....
Just waiting for JFree or misconstrueman to claim this a genocide or concentration camp of Muslim migrants.
Aww, dang it. I felt like I was going to get the answer right this time.
Liz has left us to wonder who the attackers are, or perhaps where they came from.....
She did: "Other videos show a man being hit by a car; it is not clear who the victim is or who the attackers are."
But it's not unclear:
"The mobs of Middle Eastern migrants hunting Jews in Amsterdam tonight are interrogating people they meet on the streets
If ppl don’t know Dutch or Arabic, they are attacked
This Ukrainian tourist was suspected of being Jewish and was forced to show his ID to be allowed to leave"
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1854749301630472584
Gee, do I get a prize for correctly identifying the ethnicity of the attackers when I first heard the story on the news on my way to work (the country station I listen to, largely because the other one I prefer breaks up in certain areas of my commute, plays CBS news)? Such a surprise! I was assured that allowing in masses of Islamic, Middle Eastern 'Refugees' was only going to help the EU because diversity.
Oh, and the flag removal excuse, was apparently premeditated: An anti-Israel group put up a bunch of Palestinian flags near the stadium where the team was playing, in the hopes that someone might take one down:
Islamist Telegram groups planned the planting of "Palestinian" flags in the areas where Israelis and Jews were staying in Amsterdam, expecting them to remove at least one.
Their plan was to manufacture an excuse to carry out a pogrom.
All premeditated.
https://twitter.com/NiohBerg/status/1854879419640283282
The Crusaders? Oh, we're not playing that game.
Will the defendants be expected to pay their half of the legal costs?
"We need to get back to being the party of common sense"
What is this "common sense" of which you speak?
“Have we tried not being crazy?”
“No.”
“We should try that!”
“Uh… OK, how?”
"Remember everything we said was true and essential for all humans, the planet, and democracy?"
"Yeah?"
"Do the opposite."
Sorry, dems, moving left is a one way ratchet.
Not necessarily, RFK, Elon, Tulsi, Manchin, etc.
I was talking party, not people.
Individuals can come to their senses, mobs not so much.
'you know what, if I call you by the wrong pronoun, call me out. I am sorry. I won't do it again.'
LOL.
"Alright, we learned the lesson. Government funded reorientation to mutilate children's genitals combined with industry-wide HR standards to condition people to not just accept, but support them, was a step too far. We'll only fund the chemical castration of children, that some of us think is completely harmless and reversible."
[glares in the "Libertarian" direction]
There has been a lot of blue Twitter claiming this is why they need to indoctrinate kids harder in public schools.
I expect to see that as a general trend across all progressive issues and areas. The islands of Blue are going to be more extreme, mostly as a psychological coping mechanism.
If I call you by the wrong pronoun call me out on it.
I will the always refer tk you as retarded fag
A "neurodivergent member of the LGBT community".
A turd by any other name....
Yeah. If I call you by the wrong pronoun, you’re free to correct me. If I call you by the wrong pronoun again, you deserve it. They’re my pronouns and you’re a whiny attention whore.
"Mayor Eric Adams will be ending the program that gives free EBT cards to illegal immigrants ... When that mission is drastically extended to encompass literally anyone who enters the five boroughs and wants welfare, the whole social contract becomes compromised."
Remember the mantra of the Koch-funded libertarian: Yeah, fine, I admit an open border with a welfare state is not an ideal arrangement. But the welfare state will never go away so I'm gonna keep shilling for open borders anyway.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
Watch for a Felicia article later condemning Eric Adams.
It’s very hard to be told to your face by millions of voters that you suck and easy to fall back on trashing your critics as racists, misogynists, etc. the progtards will not learn from this election or anything because they are incapable of it, best to buy them plane tickets to whichever country they want to seek asylum in. Or maybe Newsom will secede California and he can have them.
My personal fantasy is the costal cities of California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii seceding to form the new nation of Pacifica; leaving the rest of the west coast to resume a normal life.
If you can wait about 5 million years, the tectonic plates will keep moving along the San Andreas fault and completely rift coastal California from the mainland, like Baja. We will have to encourage the people in Portland and Seattle to join the new island nation (unless earthquakes and volcanoes takes care of them first).
Or we could pray for Lex Luthor to show up.
I don't care. I live in Otisburg.
Hey, you'd even benefit from the increase in property value.
I also hear that it's just a small town.
This has me now thinking about Miss Teschmacher. Nice.
A little bitty place.
Charges of racism will obviously never help win those specific voters back. But it does warn new voters, like immigrants and young voters, how they will be treated if they dare oppose the left. If you look at voting patterns the process seems to work. The more education you have, and therefore the more your life can be disrupted by the far-lefts political animus, the more extreme their support for the far left becomes.
I think it’s clear that there were a good number of voters, especially in blue/purple states, who said they were going to vote D when asked but did not because they feared retaliation.
Well, Julia Roberts did tell them that nobody would know who they actually voted for.
> The more
educationcredentials you have, and therefore the more your life can be disrupted by the far-lefts political animus, the more extreme their support for the far left becomes.FIFY
College credentials, in and of themselves, are no longer a meaningful metric of education.
Why did Rubin quit the way she encouraged LA Times reporters to quit?
Is she a hypocrite in addition to be a lying bore?
Every socialist who actually owns property is a hypocrite.
Collin Rugg
@CollinRugg
Donald Trump’s plan to dismantle the Deep State.
1. “Immediately reissue my 2020 executive order, restoring the President's authority to remove rogue bureaucrats.”
2. “Clean out all of the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.”
3. “Totally reform FISA courts which are so corrupt that the judges seemingly do not care when they're lied to in warrant applications.”
4. “Expose the hoaxes and abuses of power that have been tearing our country apart.”
5. “Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with the fake news to deliberately we false narratives and to subvert our government and our democracy.”
6. “Make every Inspector General's office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee so they do not become the protectors of the deep state.”
7. “Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies to ensure they are not spying on our citizens or running disinformation campaigns against the American people, or that they are not spying on someone's campaign like they spied on my campaign.”
8. “Continue the effort launched by the Trump administration to move parts of the sprawling federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the Washington Swamp.”
9. “Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and that they regulate.”
10. “Push a constitutional amendment to oppose term limits on members of Congress.”
ENEMIES LIST!!!!!!
They should consult with Sarc, he's the been our resident 'enemies list' pro ever since Hihn left us too early.
****SNEER****
This needs to be done in the first twenty-five days. Root the sons of bitches out.
10. “Push a constitutional amendment to oppose term limits on members of Congress.”
Do you mean impose instead of oppose?
Video.
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1854716187512651808
Sounds like impose. But hard to tell. He says to shatter the deep state, so only impose makes sense.
Just for the record:
Term limits prevent you from voting for the candidate you prefer.
It also prevents people for voting for the people I don't like.
Give and take.
Is this like throwing candidates off the ballot because you don't like that other, shall we say, 'deplorable' type people might vote for that candidate?
Ask Obama about that. It’s how he won his first Illinois senate seat. He challenged the signatures of the other primary candidates in a deep blue district and got them knocked off the ballot
I think something similar happened in Colorado and Maine, didn't it?
You need to get out more.
That would probably require the fire department, a large saws all, and a crane or forklift to accomplish.
Think of the road damages.
Just good radical tactics.
What about the opposite, asking to be removed from a ballot, but the state refusing?
No it doesn't.
It just prevents that candidate from taking office again.
And I'll take the 0.000000000000000000001% chance that I lose out on a super-star in Congress to ensure the rest of the chuds in the House and Senate can't make careers out of grifting on their position.
Count me in, too.
^this.
There have been not many times I can recall that I said "DAMN!! Why did X-congress member so-and-so have to go for some other office or retire, they were doing such a great job no one else could possibly do it like them!"
There have been, however, an uncountably high number of times that I have had to sit through Y-congress member grifting and sucking the govt teet dry while coasting to re-election on incumbent status, only to get more corrupt, more inevitable the next election, and more in bed with every possible lobbyist and special interest and the MIC...
So ya, ill take term limits every single day. Granted, itll never ever happen, but still one can dream
Term limits create a balance. Yes, sometimes you lose a good person to the system who has devoted themselves to the service over the terms (whatever the limit is) and done some positive things. They can pursue other offices at that point and would likely have success if they have built a solid reputation in their service.
On the other hand, career politicians who spend most of their time on getting reelected and holding power in the structure are no longer able to do that. Pelosi, Sanders, Biden, Warren, Feinstein, McConnell, Leslie Graham et al. Just to name a few. I could see AOC becoming a permanent fixture in the DC World. Limits would definitely impact this behaviour positively. If a POL wanted to get something done they would know they only have X years/terms to accomplish it.
I believe it would also cost the taxpayers considerably less to pay for.
How about handicapping incumbents? For every term in office, we ding them 5% of their vote count at the next election cycle?
If we’re making wishes:
Every term beyond two reduces their total pay by 25% (this includes benefits). To sweeten the pot: If they only serve two terms, they get their congressional salary and benefits until the next midterm election.
> Every term beyond two reduces their total pay by 25% (this includes benefits)…
I disagree. Regardless of how long they serve, their pay should remain the same. However, there should be a Constitutional Amendment that sets and fixes congressional pay to equal the median income of the district (or State for Senators) the congresscritter represents.
I like it.
Yes. I like it too. I've seen a similar post here in the past. Tying their performance to the median income of the district or state they represent would be a great way to bridge the gap. You would have to mind the corruption or other ways of being rewarded, but we have that today and are still on the hook for much larger pensions when these clowns retire.
Their bread and butter always comes from outside so if we can limit that influence maybe we could save in the long run.
For every term in office they have to survive a round of Russian Roulette.
I'll be nice and not keep adding rounds to the cylinder each term;)
It’s not meant to be a lifelong career..
i think this one is poorly thought out. If anything, long standing members of congress can act as a counterweight to the deep state.
Forcing retirement of executive branch employees would be a more powerful strike against the deep state. 10 year limit on federal government employement or something liek that.
I've actually been thinking that we need 'term limits' for federal employees.
If you're above a certain paygrade you get 10 years, tops, and then its retirement. 20 years max in general for everyone else.
That gives a regular schmoe pushing paper a chance to get a 20 year pension (to be collected at 62+) but forces them out while they're still young enough to start a second career in the private sector.
Its like getting booted out of the military at 20/30 regardless of your actual age.
In practice you'll have people in their 60s retiring from their second government job, and getting two pensions.
Cut the pensions in half. Easy fix.
Eliminate government pensions. Feds already make above the national average wage.
This^
They’d get two smaller pensions – and one would have to at least be from a state since they wouldn’t be allowed to take another federal job.
And we'd be getting rid of defined benefits pensions anyway, similar to how the military is moving from them.
We could implement the rule used in the military. Max 30 years unless you get a congressional approved exception, max age of 65.
That's a laundry list of fascism if I've ever seen one.
Under fascism, the washing machines run on time.
#9 is absolutely game changing
#9 is not enforceable as a practical matter. Even if you ignore the libertarian issues of liberty of contract, it is stupidly easy to get around it - just hire the person as a "freelancer" or "contractor".
Bullshit. We have agreements like that in private industry all the time, not to work for a supplier or client, or a direct competitor.
And it's still easy to get around. Just create a degree of separation of two from the potential employee and the company of interest, so that the company is not technically directly hiring the employee, but the employee's labor still nonetheless goes to the company.
Sure, but that's an enormous pain in the ass that would be difficult to make work.
Well now ML, as we can all see, you agree that this Trump plan should be opposed.
In reality it's quite easy to create a contract with a clawback penalty large enough that a business will not even try to do this. Governments do this in many contexts already so the claim it can't be done is really just people trying to pile up problems because they oppose the practice, not because it's difficult.
Or, you could *try* to interpret an objection in a good-faith manner, that those claiming #9 is problematic have sincere reasons for doing so. What do you think? Want to give it a try?
I doubt he can pass a ban --- but a surcharge for the difference in compensation for 5 years might be doable.
No way courts allow a ban like that.
Pretty sure that already exists but it's limited to a year.
I don't like number 8. You're creating a Dem power base in other states.
#3 is a very good idea. There shouldn't be secret courts for anything.
#3 is probably the best he could do without congress repealing the law that created them.
"Donald Trump’s plan to dismantle the Deep State."
That's a very superficial plan. It focuses entirely on the federal bureaucracy, which is only a part of the deep state. The deep state also includes the massively influential and wealthy corporate world, academia, military, the press and media, unions and NGOs. You want to dismantle the deep state? You need to plumb the depths, not dilly dally on the surface. I doubt Trump has the stomach for it.
I'd ban NGO's if it were me, but it ain't me making that call.
The NGOs are probably the shallowest part of the deep state. The courts and the politicians are far more insidious and influential.
It focuses entirely on the federal bureaucracy, which is only a part of the deep state.
It's the part that matters because it's the part that is backed up with violence. Without it the rest falls apart because it lacks coercive power.
Wait. You're not gonna cry and scream about the word deep state because Jeff used it?
Or demand they not be fired?
sarcasmic 4 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
It was so evil and wrong when the Biden administration removed conservatives from positions in government. Only a Democrat could do something so malicious and blatantly partisan. That should have been grounds for impeachment, it was so awful.
That means it will be so awesome when Trump purges all the dirty leftists from government!
That was just me pointing out your endless hypocrisy and malice. I would like to do away with the bureaucracy and put Congress back in charge of making legislation. You defend using the bureaucracy as a weapon because Democrats did it first.
Yes, but is he tall and well groomed?
Cite me doing it? Oh. You mean you cresting a strawman to defend the dem majority deep state.
You've become a pathetic defender of government abuse against your enemies.
You defend everything Trump and Vance say, which means you want to use the bureaucracy as a weapon.
I just said I would do away with the bureaucracy. Twice. Three times if you count me saying on the Elon Musk comments that I'd support amending the Constitution to prohibit Congress from delegating legislative and judicial powers to the executive. You've never said anything like that and you never will because you exist to defend Trump and your team, both of which see the bureaucracy as a partisan weapon, not an abomination of the Constitution.
Damn, your TDS is off the fucking charts.
You also have a massive case of Jesse Derangement Syndrome.
"It’s the part that matters because it’s the part that is backed up with violence. "
The bureaucracy merely carries out orders of the politicians. The police that maintain order and public compliance are not really federal bureaucrats for the most part. Coercive power is held largely by the private businesses who decide who gets to be employed and enjoy the livelihood that employment entails, and who doesn't. I remember in the spring, when we were all wringing our hands over how to counteract the students and their anti genocide activism, police violence played only a minor role. The big guns focused their attention on compiling lists of students who participated in the activism, so they could be black listed as unfit for employment in the corporate world.
When Trump was first elected, Chuck Schumer told Maddow that Trump should be careful about insulting the intel community because they can screw you six ways to Sunday.
That doesn't sound like they work for politicians.
Interference from the secret services was unnecessary.Trump managed to undermine himself and his agenda by choosing to hire disloyal people who worked to subvert him. Tillerson was just one example. Don't interrupt your enemy when he's committing an error was Napoleon's advice.
Yes it is a superficial plan, because their conception of the Deep State tends to be superficial.
It boils down to this:
Congress passes bills, the President signs bills into laws, but very often, these laws are vague and require interpretation. Someone has to interpret the laws in some coherent way. Even with Chevron Deference gone, the interpretation still has to happen just now with more judicial oversight. Those are the Deep State Bureaucrats doing this. If you don't want as many Deep State Bureaucrats interpreting vague laws, perhaps the remedy here is not to fire the Deep State Bureaucrats, but to clean up vague laws.
The Deep State is only a problem because it's a bunch of Democrats. Removing "rogue bureaucrats" just means replacing them with Republicans loyal to Trump. Once the Deep State is run by the GOP it will cease to be a problem. It's all about who, not what.
Really, so that explains all the establishment GOP neocons in those positions?
Trump himself admitted, in the Joe Rogan interview, that he himself put a lot of those people in those positions, because he didn't know who to hire or appoint when he first got to DC in 2017, and so he accepted the recommendations of people whom he thought he could trust. I guess that it what it means when he 'hires only the best people'.
You're continuing to argue against your (and sarc's) strawman that trumps' supporters think he is jesus and can do no wrong.
Jeffsarc isnt very bright.
All three of them disagree.
Wait, aren't you guys supposed to deny the existence of the Deep State?
I have never denied the existence of government bureaucrats in DC. What I object to, is the nebulous and, very often, non-falsifiable concept of 'Deep State' that many on Team Red tend to use. It winds up not being composed of actual people, but more like an all-purpose bogeyman upon which to blame all of Trump's failures.
Deep State is an evil cabal of Democrats who thwart Republicans. The problem isn't that the Deep State exists. It's that the wrong party controls it. Once Trump roots out the evil Democrats and replaces them with loyal Republicans, then the Deep State will function correctly by thwarting Democrats. The problem is always who, not what.
I'm so happy you and Jeff are continuing the TDS and demanding a political bureaucracy as more important than elections.
I want to do away with the bureaucracy. You defend replacing the people within it with Trump loyalists so it can be used as a weapon against Democrats and Republicans who fail the purity test (Who won in 2020?).
Where did Jesse support replacing one bureaucrat with another? Most of us, including him, tend to be for reducing the number of unelected bureaucrats.
Wait. So the last 2 years of you demanding no retaliation against state abuses including just this morning don’t exist?
You keep calling it revenge and wrong.
Where did Jesse support replacing one bureaucrat with another?
All he has is strawman arguments basically in attempts to hide his own defense of bureaucracy.
Not even Trump is calling for replacement. He is literally saying to cut. But sarc has such raging TDS he still criticizes until he is called out then claims he believes the same. It is amazing.
Me: "I want to do away with the bureaucracy."
Jesse: "All he has is strawman arguments basically in attempts to hide his own defense of bureaucracy."
How many times a day did your parents drop you on your head when you were a baby?
Are these the “ideas” you talk about, Sarc?
Sarc, you’re literally calling Trumps clear statement to cut bureaucracy as a revenge tour. Lol. God damn you’re fucking retarded and ignorant.
Deep State is an evil cabal of Democrats who thwart Republicans
The Deep State refers to a bureaucracy that runs the government primarily for its own benefit which includes increasing its own power and funding. What's most revealing about sarc's comment is that this historically libertarian tenet has to be transformed because libertarian beliefs must come second to his need to attack the right in every moment no matter the circumstances.
Yeah, pretty sure Adam Smith warned that the main function of bureaucracies was to further grow the bureaucracy.
Ahh. There it is. Protect the 90% dem voting deep state who formed The Resistance and abused their powers.
Glad you're consistent on this point.
Nah, the Deep State is a problem period. It just so happens they mostly align with Democrats because they know they’ll never threaten their job security.
Note the underlying principles: that these bureaucratically issued laws are truly interpretations rather than wholly new inventions, and that the laws are in fact vague demanding this be done in the first place.
Let's consider Title IX which says in full:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Is it an "interpretation" to conclude that schools must eliminate due process by:
1. Requiring a preponderance of the evidence standard of judgment,
2. Training adjudicators to believe an accuser contradicting previous statements and known facts is a sign of veracity,
3. Training adjudicators to believe the woman in cases of he-said/she-said because "women don't lie",
4. Refusing the accused outside counsel and not allowing the allowed advocate to speak,
5. Refusing to share the evidence with the accused.
Are these "interpretations"? Or is it closer to say that bureaucrats perverted this legislation and illegitimately issued these demands using Title IX as cover?
Is someone who supports this sort of bureaucratic usurpation any sort of libertarian?
that these bureaucratically issued laws are truly interpretations rather than wholly new inventions,
I never claimed that EVERY bureaucratic interpretation of a law was done in good faith. That is you putting words in my mouth.
and that the laws are in fact vague demanding this be done in the first place.
Yes, quite often - again, not 100%, but often - laws are vague enough such that they require some level of interpretation in order that they be put into practical application.
You even prove the point yourself:
Let’s consider Title IX which says in full:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The law itself, as written and as you quoted above, says nothing about HOW the benefits will be denied, or what is the standard to be used to prove if discrimination exists, or a million other details as to how to put Title IX into practice. Even if you had the most good faith honest bureaucrat in charge of implementing this law, that bureaucrat would still have to make many decisions.
So while it is true that in this case there were not good-faith bureaucrats in charge implementing Title IX, they added a bunch of other stuff in there, the larger point I think is still valid.
And nowhere did I say that I *supported* "bureaucratic usurpation". That is completely an invention of your own making. In fact I even said that if you want to cut down on bureaucrats interpreting laws, Congress should write better laws.
I never claimed that EVERY bureaucratic interpretation of a law was done in good faith. That is you putting words in my mouth.
I never said you did say "EVERY", this is you putting words on my mouth. But as is always the case your assertion was to protect the left and minimize the problem.
Even if you had the most good faith honest bureaucrat in charge of implementing this law, that bureaucrat would still have to make many decisions.
I'm not sure what additional rules you think would be necessary. For example, we don't need a rule stating that not accepting women to in engineering majors or men to nursing majors is not allowed. This is clearly discriminatory, as is having different standards or having a policy of "advising" students into majors grouped around gender. Although I agree this is poorly written that is mostly because additional wording might have prevented the law's corruption. But I suspect the law was written this way on purpose because a material portion of those passing it wanted this outcome.
And nowhere did I say that I *supported* “bureaucratic usurpation”.
Of course you didn't. You merely...directed attention elsewhere. But this is still a tell. Libertarians focus on the abuses they want to stop, people who support the system focus on the innocuous decisions they want others to believe are the subject under discussion.
Reducing the size of the DC federal workforce would be a good thing, not a bad thing. DC needs downsizing.
We call it 'right sizing' in the real world.
"We call it ‘right sizing’ in the real world."
No, JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day) is calling it 'dismantling the deep state.' Which it does not do for reasons I've given. ie that the deep state is much deeper than he imagines.
whatever nitpicks I can find with one or two of these items, it is simply awesome that a president-elect is even talking this way about the fed gov he is about to take charge of. Absolutely fantastic and a huge improvement over Trump 1.0
Abolish the FISA Courts. The founding assumptions behind the FISA courts were erroneous.
Someone tweeted after listening to JD Vance’s Rogan interview that he’s a Dem from 20 yrs ago. It’s a rough comparison, but not totally off-base. This list reads like things a Dem from 20 yrs ago would care about. When faced with a 2004 Dem vs a 2024 D, I choose 2004 Dem all day.
If you can't beat them, try and wear their skin as a suit eh, Hammy Mary? (Depending on the "He") Joe Rogan may be a Dem from 20 yrs. ago, Vance most certainly is not (the listener continues to sound like an insane modern progressive).
Democrats 20 yrs. ago were all in on this exact same political correctness and academics and quangos as temples of virtue, remember Ebonics? Remember conflating homosexuality as both genetic and a choice in order to conflate gay marriage with miscegenation? They just still had a sense of ethics and social cohesion, even if only out of self-interest, that modern Dems and Progressives have replaced with self-and-other-destructive loathing and hatred.
Democrats: [Turns sociopathological craziness up to 11]
Reality: Turn that insanity off!
Democrats: What?! I can't hear you over how insane I am! Turn it down? OK! [Turns sociopathological craziness back to 10]
The woke really took over the donkey party after 2016. And because they are some of its biggest donors, it will be almost impossible for the dems to go back to the center on culture issues
The woke really took over the donkey party after 2016.
Nope. 2008 if not before. This feels like the historical ignorance and ideatory confabulation symptoms of TDS. Remember 2-wars President dronessassination getting a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected? Remember states like *Illinois* creating Civil Unions specifically because men and women aren't/weren't interchangeable sexes/genders in a marriage?
The party has been abjectly, batshit insane since (Bill) Clinton. What changed is, as indicated, the progressively greater level of seething hatred at anyone who refused to bend the knee. Acknowledging that your hatred didn't get you elected doesn't resolve the issues that you can't effectively say 1 man + 1 woman = 2 men without effectively obliterating women and any reprieve the dialing back of said animus buys you from your/their own "We have to support this (gay) child's belief that they are the opposite sex (under the ADA)." policies is only temporary.
The DNC has been dismissing plainly rational and exceedingly libertarian ideas out-of-hand under the guise of bigotry, racism, bitter clingers, and deplorables, and distracting from their own duplicity in the same, for a long, long time.
Trump, et.al. is a reaction to this excess from the Democrats. In many ways, the Democrats have gone overboard and need to go.
Factio Democratica delenda est.
By "need to go", what precisely do you mean here?
Jesus fucking Christ, jeff. Keep telling yourself that he means they need to go to auschwitz…
Are you really asking Jeff to make intelligent arguments instead of emotional strawman arguments?
Nah, just asking him to come up for air from inside his ass at least once in a while.
Unfortunately, I think Jeffy likes the smell too much in there.
Reminds him of his last meal while waiting 30 minutes until his next one.
Into the kitchen and make me a sammitch.
I don't think I've ever seen a woman working behind a deli counter.
Must be all those misogynist deli owners.
The chicks are in the back doing the shitty jobs.
Agreed, but Trump did actually flip many Democrats into clinically insanity. And convinced others that they could stop pretending about democratic norms.
Again, IDK about "flip". As was noted here at the time and was revealed with, e.g., COVID; the friends and neighbors among your peer group that were just waiting to tell everyone which attics the Jews were hiding in had been there all along. Trump (and COVID) just facilitated the outward expression of the clinical insanity that was already pretty well-marinated underneath.
This shit has been simmering for some time. I mean Van Wilder was made in the 1990s and was poking fun at this shit. I think, however, two things really caused it to get out of hand. The first was Bush winning in 2000. The second was that they bought big time into the theory that demographics were the future and thus insured that Democrats, especially the proggies, were assured power due to the demographics. To a degree, their inability to entertain the reason they lost this year was because they've alienated the very demographics they were hoping to cement their hold on power, demonstrates they still believe in the discredited Demographics are the future.
I mean Van Wilder was made in the 1990s and was poking fun at this shit.
PCU. Van Wilder was made in 2002. But that only reinforces your/the point that the lines haven't effectively changed in more than 30 yrs.
I stand corrected. Yes got the two mixed up.
Democrats 20 yrs. ago were all in on this exact same political correctness and academics and quangos as temples of virtue, remember Ebonics?
The "racism includes everything with a disparate impact on races" theorem has been around for many decades. In the 90s the Seattle School System Superintendent published a manifesto which included the assertion that having a "future time orientation (i.e, planning ahead) is racist". Similarly in the 90s Antioch college wrote a sexual assault policy which effectively included every single sexual encounter in its jurisdiction along with numerous encounters which weren't even sexual.
These ideas are now central to left wing governance and enforcement through Critical Race Theory and Title IX corruption despite wide mockery and reversal at the time. The left's bad ideas never go away and are never reformed, they just get pushed back into the shadows until the left can control enough of society to bring them back and openly enforce them.
"Prominent Democrats appear to be learning all the wrong lessons"
Well, they would have to admit they did something wrong and that is anathema to Ds.
Look, if you cut off your dick, dyed your hair blue, rejected a capitalist material life and lived like a monk in a progressive coop for 20 years, and generally went all-in on hysterical progressive dogma, you would have a hard time even imagining you are wrong.
""But then, you flip back to MSNBC, where they're melting down and choosing the old "Trump voters are racists and sexists" refrain. ""
It has no ring to it when you are being taught that all white people are racist and all men are sexist. A lot of people that voted for Biden is just as guilty. It's also another way of saying I don't want the white and/or male vote.
Yeah, but it's even more lame when you count all the women and POCs who voted for Trump. These traitors can't all be self-hating racists, can they?
It's internalized racism and misogyny and Trump tricked them into voting for him (even though Trump is our dumbest president evuh).
Also, the working class always voted against the best interest and just don't realize it.
8. Think that is a bad move, overall. The more diffuse the agencies get, the harder to kill them will be. It's why the Pentagon does it with weapons programs.
Forcing people who love DC to move to Kansas will shatter the deep state. They already use moving employees out of DC to get then to quit.
It’s also a good idea to get these agencies out of DC and closer to those they serve. I had a short list yesterday of them. One was moving the BIA and BIE to Farmington, NM, in the middle of Indian Country to better serve the tribes. They could also more easily employ tribal members from there.
You know a simpler way to shatter the agencies, by repealing them. This just reshuffles them which only potentially solves the hive mind mentality and it will solidify them into these local economies.
I'm with cutting them. But that does require Congress which I'm still not confident in.
The more important result would be breaking up the clique.
Harris did not run a particularly far-left campaign, nor did she emphasize foolish policy prescriptions like defunding the police.
She proposed putting price controls on food, taxing unrealized capital gains, issuing executive order to force mandatory gun buybacks, and never backed off her previous support for funding transgender surgeries for illegal alien prisoners.
How much more far left does one have to go before they are labeled as far left?
Can those opinions be far-left if they're widely held among the mainstream of the left?
"How much more far left does one have to go before they are labeled as far left?"
So far left they start showing up behind the right. Then the media will just call them the New-Alt-Right™.
Apparently the new alt-right was in Amsterdam this week.
She proposed putting price controls on food, taxing unrealized capital gains, issuing executive order to force mandatory gun buybacks, and never backed off her previous support for funding transgender surgeries for illegal alien prisoners.
"As a mother and accomplished woman of color."
Once again, ACB dons a black robe and it's because she's going to pick up a scythe and cut down women everywhere, including her own biological daughters. But Harris, who pre-menopausally married into her husband's ex-wife's adult children is the genuine article, the guardian elite, for the lived experience of all women.
The Chron, digging deep for 'relevance', has a story on 'how to speak with children about the election'!
I imagine children born with penises and who still have them are doing ok-my two sons (14 and 11) were all in for Trump at least.
"Trump won. Goodnight Johnny"
Courtesy of Mike. from SC.
By having them attend a drag queen story hour where the sex offender whose lap they are sitting in transplains it to them.
'But then, you flip back to MSNBC, where they're melting down and choosing the old "Trump voters are racists and sexists" refrain. It all paints a wild portrait of a Democratic Party that's struggling to figure out how much self-reflection is required, the degree to which they ought to reflect on other people's flaws or their own.'
Self-reflection and even criticism? Unpossible! These people have not only drunk the blue Kool-aid for decades, they had brain surgery that excised the segments for objectivity and logic. The foundation for modern liberals is, to use their language, a social construct--and a seriously retarded one. I doubt many of the true Blue are even capable of questioning the holy doctrine, like any rabidly devout believer.
Memo to Jen Rubin- If you want see Hitler, look to Amsterdam. Disgusting events happening on the oh-so-enlightened continent.
Memo to Liz- get some credulity back with this counterfactual thought experiment...Kamala won the election. Will she govern as she ran in 2019 or 2024? PFO it would be 2019 once she wasn't pandering to get elected.
Also, not exactly the poster child for allowing in a huge influx of immigrants that you won't/can't assimilate.
"We constantly try to parse out different ways of speaking because our focus groups or polling shows that so-and-so appeals to such and such. That's not how normal people think.
She's correct this isn't how normals think, but she's wrong to believe that language policing appeals to the target groups.
Language policing exists because we have millions of far left political activists with make-work jobs (mostly in the University and now K-12 systems, but also throughout media, NGOs, and the governments themselves) who aren't capable of producing anything useful. These people have realized the path to success in their world is inventing the new thing which drives cultural conflict advantaging Dems or even better empowering the far left. Whoever becomes associated with these conflicts becomes rich and powerful (see, Anita Sarkeesian). The easiest tactic is developing a new term and claiming anyone not using it is racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-disabled / whatever. Since this group has no work to produce staying on top of these language changes can easily be prioritized (see, People of Color). Regular people though have other things going on and resent being told the language they know is not inherently racist will now be portrayed as such.
Latinx was never intended to appeal to Hispanics, it was created as a tactical political effort. This is under debate now, but in 50 years the term Latinx will be in general use because the education system will enforce it now as part of its political program. When the students who went through the system learning these terms control the outside culture they will use the term and treat all previous terms as presumptively racist just as they were taught.
The point is that Dems aren't going to give this up. It is a key element of their primary electoral tactic of calling everyone who disagrees with them racist.
'Dutch authorities said today that there have been 62 people arrested in connection with antisemitic attacks that have been building since Wednesday.'
All white, MAGA, skin-heads, right? And no way "immigrants" affiliated with liberal parties!
'Mayor Eric Adams will be ending the program that gives free EBT cards to illegal immigrants.'
I guess not enough of them voted.
So I listened to the first part of that Dave Smith/Joe Rogan podcast. I was struck by a few things:
1. Dave did not seem like he "strategically and reluctantly" voted for Trump. Dave seemed instead like an outright cheerleader for him. And at this point I struggle to see what is the substantive difference between the Dave Smith/Mises Caucus wing of the Libertarian Party, and the Trump Republican party. Are they basically one and the same now? And if so, why don't they just call themselves Republicans?
2. I noticed a normalization of language like "cuck" that was considered offensive not that long ago. But they were using it freely. Huh.
3. At one point Dave was talking about RFK and his focus on the supposed autism/vaccine connection, and he said something to the effect of, "well, even if you don't agree with RFK on the culprit, why aren't more candidates talking about the problems of autism?" And the answer is that - they are! It only takes a brief Google search to reveal that Kamamalama's campaign talked about autism, in the context of Obamacare - that with government-run insurance, families can get treatment for autism. Now it wasn't about autism specifically, but it was talking about coverage for autism-related medical expenses. So if a person doesn't like the Team Blue approach - government-run insurance to pay for autism - and doesn't like the Team Red approach either - which is now, evidently, boosting nutty debunked theories about vaccines and autism - what is one to do?
"2. I noticed a normalization of language like “cuck” that was considered offensive not that long ago. But they were using it freely. Huh."
I thought that insult was out of fashion but I guess Trump revived it with his "their wives and wives' boyfriends will vote for me" joke.
Andrew Heaton went to the Libertarian convention and according to him there were more anti-Democrats than libertarians. That would explain the affection for Trump.
You do realize that a lot of typical libertarians don’t like Democrats, right? Unlike, say, you.
Lol. Look at sarc call out libertarians as anti Democrat when his entire persona here is anti trump. Fucking hilarious.
All liberty loving people should be anti-Democrats. Even when they’re tangentially right about something, they want to tax the fuck out of it and regulate it.
(This doesn’t mean you have to be for Republicans btw, but even before the Mises Caucus showed up, the LP drew way more heavily from the Reps than the Dems.)
Did your pearls break from all the clutching?
1. Dave did not seem like he “strategically and reluctantly” voted for Trump. Dave seemed instead like an outright cheerleader for him. And at this point I struggle to see what is the substantive difference between the Dave Smith/Mises Caucus wing of the Libertarian Party, and the Trump Republican party. Are they basically one and the same now? And if so, why don’t they just call themselves Republicans?
Compare this to his assertion that commenters here are awful people for believing there's not a difference between leftists and certain people who present themselves as left libertarians. I guess his perfect record of exempting himself from standards he applies to others remains intact.
I never said that anyone is 'awful' if they thought that so-called 'left libertarians' are no different than leftists. I just said that it was an unfair and incorrect comparison. For that matter I don't think Dave smith is an 'awful' person either. It was you who entirely invented the whole 'awful' epithet here.
In this case, it is you inventing a standard for me that I don't hold, and then trying to impose that standard on me. So yes, I freely admit that I don't subscribe to the standard that you are attempting to impose upon me.
By the way, I note once again that you are trying to derail the actual conversation here by not addressing the points I actually raised, and instead trying to make it all about me. Why is that?
Oh and also, yesterday I asked that if I sincerely wanted to change, what evidence would you accept of that sincere desire? Seems to me, no matter what I say or do, you will call it a lie or twist it into the worst possible interpretation. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. You said I could 'choose to change'. What would you require for evidence of my choice?
Seems to me, no matter what I say or do, you will call it a lie or twist it into the worst possible interpretation.
Arguing in bad faith is how he virtue signals to the rest of his tribe.
Arguing in bad faith is how he virtue signals to the rest of his tribe.
Is that how you bond with Jeffey?
But it's interesting they believe applying standards consistently is "bad faith". It seems they believe they should be able to apply double standards and it's somehow illegitimate to point them out. This goes back to the theorem of Left Wing Privilege. They seem to think the appropriate framework is not freedom to comment and respond on the merits but instead that they can do whatever they want while extremely restrictive rules apply to everyone else. Rules that they adjudicate and which they literally never apply to themselves or their allies.
That right there is another great example of arguing in bad faith while virtue signaling to your team.
Yes, but do you envision Jeff as tall and well groomed?
The "bad faith" here is when you try to decide what those standards are for everyone. You don't actually listen to what I say. You have it in your head what it is that I ought to believe, and then when I say something different, you accuse me of lying. How is it possible then not to fail your supposed 'purity test'? I am not the caricature that lives in your head, I'm a real person. When will you recognize that?
I don't "decide" what the standards are. I take the standards you use in your own criticisms other others and note that you violate them when making your own criticisms. This shows you do not really believe the standards you use to criticize others. If you did you would not make those particular criticisms.
In this case you have argued it is inappropriate to characterize you as a left winger because we should accept how you characterize yourself even when we note that characterization is inconsistent with many specific statements you make.
But you have no problem doing exactly this to Dave Smith. After all he's not you or an ally so he doesn't deserve the benefit of this standard.
I don’t “decide” what the standards are.
Yeah you do actually. You try to extrapolate general standards from specific statements. But when you do that you get it wrong because there are many ways to extrapolate a specific statement into a type of general standard. You demand that I must accept your specific extrapolation of a general standard, and I refuse to do that. If you want to hold me to my ACTUAL standards, then that's fine. But you don't get to dictate to me what my actual standards are.
Is everything fucking relative to you, Jeffy? Do you not believe in any underlying principles whatsoever?
What kind of question is that? Of course I have principles. I just don't have the principles that you want to project onto me.
Underlying principles are unchanging, twit. You seem to have a double standard instead.
You’re free to explain where you think I’m wrong, and we’re free to laugh at your desperate efforts to parse language and claim accusing me of defending someone supporting Apartheid isn't really accusing me of defending someone who supports Apartheid.
You’re free to explain where you think I’m wrong
Sure, but I doubt you will actually read it and accept it. I think instead you're just going to continue projecting your caricature onto me.
In this case you have argued it is inappropriate to characterize you as a left winger because we should accept how you characterize yourself even when we note that characterization is inconsistent with many specific statements you make.
You should accept that I'm a libertarian, IMO, because I advocate for libertarian principles and policies. Not because of a label that I might choose to apply to myself. You should not characterize me as a "left winger" because the principles and policies that I advocate are far removed from what a typical left-winger might advocate. For example, I don't advocate for higher taxes, I don't advocate for Green New Deal, I don't advocate for socialized healthcare. I do advocate for gun rights, I do advocate for privatizing Social Security, I do advocate for privatizing schools, positions that your typical left winger would not endorse.
That is my position.
Now, I do not claim to be able to reach into Dave Smith's mind and read his innermost thoughts, so I will accept at face value that he calls himself a libertarian in good faith. I do note, however, that among Mises Caucus Libertarians *generally* (which may or may not hold true for Dave Smith *specifically*), and among Trump Republicans, there seems to be a very large overlap between what each group advocates. For example, they both advocate for restrictive immigration policies, they both advocate for generally socially conservative positions such as abortion restrictions, and moreover, MC Libertarians spent a great deal of time and effort trying to convince us here that Trump was a superior choice compared to Chase Oliver, the actual Libertarian Party candidate.
Furthermore, I am not even making an affirmative claim that MC Libertarians are no different than Trump Republicans. I don't know if this is true. I am asking about the differences between the two.
So my actual position is beyond something superficial than a mere label that is applied to a person. Moreover I didn't even make a claim specific to Dave Smith w.r.t. Trump Republicanism. You extrapolated all of that yourself.
You should accept that I’m a libertarian, IMO, because I advocate for libertarian principles and policies.
But we know this isn't true. This is like Ford claiming to be a quality brand. As people find that reality doesn't match the branding they reject the branding. The only thing you do here is attack the right using libertarian principles to appeal to your audience. But when people point out the left violates the supposed libertarian principles you claim to be upholding you defend the left instead of criticizing them.
So what do we call someone who attacks and right and defends the left on every subject, every instance? Leftist seems appropriate. You take it as an insult because it allows you to play victim, but it's a generalized non-specific term which is accurate as far as it goes but intentionally doesn't include a defined belief-set which may or may not be accurate.
But we know this isn’t true.
How is it not true? Where do I fail the libertarian purity test? Again, do I advocate for left-wing policies? No. Do I advocate for libertarian policies? Yes. Where is the failure here?
Your judge of "libertarian purity" seems to be based on whom I choose to criticize and not based on the policies or principles that I espouse. Why is it so beyond the pale that a libertarian could take more umbrage with right-wingers than with left-wingers? Why would that make anyone "less libertarian"? I happen to believe that as of this current moment, right-wingers are a bigger threat to liberty. But even if this belief turns out to be false, I still advocate for libertarian policies and principles.
So before we even have a discussion on why you think I am not a libertarian, we have to first have a discussion on why we should use your metric for deciding upon libertarian purity - whom one chooses to criticize - should be the prevailing standard. Why is that?
Oh the irony.
The two princess of bad faith arguments who do nothing but argue in bad faith, ad hominems to dismiss information, call people racists for any subject really, call others liars, deny their own word for word past statements...
Self delusion is jeffsarcs super power. And hypocrisy.
And, at least in 2024, their (and Democrats in general) downfall.
I just said that it was an unfair and incorrect comparison.
One that you are happy to apply to others though.
By the way, I note once again that you are trying to derail the actual conversation here by not addressing the points I actually raised, and instead trying to make it all about me. Why is that?
Because everyone should recognize that your positions can only be supported using double standards.
You said I could ‘choose to change’. What would you require for evidence of my choice?
I answered on that thread but I'll do so again here: you can stop applying double standards and lying about what other people say.
One that you are happy to apply to others though.
I am not *imposing* a standard on Dave Smith or anyone else. I am not claiming that he is lying if he calls himself a libertarian even though he was 'rooting for Trump' (his words). I am asking what is the difference between a Mises Caucus Libertarian and a Trump Republican. It is you who misinterpreted that question and tried to twist it as though I was making some type of personal attack against Dave Smith.
This is similar to what happened the past few days, when I made a comment about racism and Jeremy Kauffmann, you misinterpreted the comment, and then you accused me of bad faith and lying when I stated what the true intent of that comment was.
Because everyone should recognize that your positions can only be supported using double standards.
But this is a logical fallacy then. EVEN IF TRUE (and it's not), it doesn't change the points that I'm making above.
I answered on that thread but I’ll do so again here: you can stop applying double standards and lying about what other people say.
Stop applying double standards? Okay, fine. Whose standards though? My own standards, or the ones you try to impose upon me?
I am not *imposing* a standard on Dave Smith or anyone else.
That's right, you imposed the standard on commenters who characterize you and your allies, that it is inappropriate to consider you the same as left wingers because you identify as libertarians.
But then you turned around and claimed Dave Smith is no different from Trump Republicans even though he identifies as libertarian.
it doesn’t change the points that I’m making above.
What it does show, and it is true, is that you de-legitimize libertarians you disagree with in violation of standards you use to protect yourself and your allies. Dave Smith libertarianism is really just Trumpism.
I made a comment about racism and Jeremy Kauffmann, you misinterpreted the comment, and then you accused me of bad faith and lying when I stated what the true intent of that comment was.
This is a lie. You accused me of defending him when in reality I had never mentioned him or advanced any principle that could possibly have related to him. You created a strawman justifying that outrageous accusation because that's the kind of underhanded, slimy, demagogue you are. And now days later you're still tying to justify your strawman as a reasonable interpretation and hope to frame the misinterpretation as mine rather than yours. As for your own strawman we know with certainty it was not a simple misinterpretation both because your assertion was not a reasonable response to my comment and because you have continued asserting it by claiming the only misinterpretation was mine.
My own standards, or the ones you try to impose upon me?
The ones you base your criticisms of others on. If you criticize someone there is always a standard underlying the criticism. If you criticize someone for engaging in personal insults the standard is that people should not engage in personal insults. If you then violate it, as sarc routinely does this particular standard, and then turns around and engages in it himself he proves he does not apply that standard to himself.
That’s right, you imposed the standard on commenters who characterize you and your allies, that it is inappropriate to consider you the same as left wingers because you identify as libertarians.
That is not true. I never said that I should be considered a libertarian solely because of the label that I use to describe myself. I should be considered a libertarian because of the beliefs and principles that I hold.
But then you turned around and claimed Dave Smith is no different from Trump Republicans even though he identifies as libertarian.
I never claimed Dave Smith is no different from Trump Republicans. I asked what is the difference between "Mises Caucus Libertarians" as a group (not Dave Smith specifically) and Trump Republicans. Asking a question is not the same as declaring a claim to be true.
For a guy who seems very concerned about my level of honesty, you don't seem to be very rigorous in your approach to the truth yourself.
This is a lie. You accused me of defending him
I NEVER ACCUSED YOU OF DEFENDING HIM. Ever. Go ahead and paste the quotes again if you want. I was *mocking you* for your claim that Chase Oliver uses the charge of racism as a slur against the people who disagree with him, when in fact some of the people who disagree with him really are racists. I never said that you agreed with Jeremy Kauffmann's racism. I was pointing out how your claim is false.
So here we are again. It doesn't seem like you are ever going to accept *what I actually say* and instead project the caricature in your head onto what I say. So I can never win with you, because I am never judged for who I am, I am only judged according to the caricature in your head.
If you criticize someone for engaging in personal insults the standard is that people should not engage in personal insults.
Oh I see the problem here. You are trying to extrapolate broad standards from narrow individual instances. That is fraught with peril. If I criticize someone for engaging in personal insults, the standard MIGHT be that people should not engage in personal insults *in general*; OR the standard MIGHT be that people should not use *that particular insult* (for it might be particularly offensive); OR the standard MIGHT be that people should not use personal insults *in that particular context* (for it might be particularly crass or rude to do so); OR the standard MIGHT be that people should not use personal insults *directed against specific people* (for it might be particularly hurtful to that class of people). You don't actually know what the specific standard is, so you just make up your own and pretend that yours IS the actual standard. So once again it boils down to you trying to impose your standard onto me. So no, I do not agree to be bound by the standards that you are trying to decide for me. I do agree to be bound by the standards that I choose to impose on myself, and if you want to know what those standards are, you should begin by actually listening to what I am saying, instead of trying to impose your caricature upon me.
Surely you could think of better ways to waste your time.
It’s Jeffy, so I guess he has a lot of free time between snacks.
Well, I am procrastinating.
I NEVER ACCUSED YOU OF DEFENDING HIM. Ever. Go ahead and paste the quotes again if you want. I was *mocking you* for your claim
This reminds me of the guy, I forget his name offhand, who testified before congress the government's censorship wasn't censorship because they only targeted misinformation. That fact that you have a justification for doing something does not mean the thing you did didn't happen. You explicitly accused me of defending him. Further you re-posted solely this comment in a different thread omitting the context you now claim demonstrates something else. I'm not worried about that because everyone already knows you're not called Lyin' Jeffey for no reason. But you did that intentionally because you're a slimy, underhanded, deceitful, demagogue.
chemjeff radical individualist 2 days ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Jeremy Kauffman: Hey, maybe South African apartheid wasn’t so bad after all.
Normal people: Umm, that sounds kinda racist.
Marshal: STOP CALLING HIM A RACIST FOR NOT BEING AN ABSOLUTIST! IT’S NOT FAIR!
I was *mocking you* for your claim that Chase Oliver uses the charge of racism as a slur against the people who disagree with him, when in fact some of the people who disagree with him really are racists.
In fact my comment was that claiming everyone who opposes your policy does so for racist reasons is not a winning political message. Because that won't be true of everyone in opposition you're calling non-racists racist and creating political enemies when you don't need to. How would the existence of one or even numerous racist/s matter to that position?
This is your strawman, that I criticized him for all circumstances in which he did or could have called someone racist. All the rest of your absurdity comes back to this lie which you are still basing your arguments on as here:
I was pointing out how your claim is false.
I have never made the claim you pretend, as usual you have no fucking clue what is going on. Only bad faith made you willing to claim so. That's why it's so amusing watching you and sarc, the kings of bad faith, whine about others' bad faith.
I am never judged for who I am,
You are judged for exactly who you are. You 're the person who would both lie that I defended someone supporting Apartheid and then lie that you didn't. You're the person who makes the most hateful, outrageous, unsupported accusations about others and also whines about the tone of our politics. You're the person who shows up here every day to shit on other commenters and whines that they don't offer you sufficient respect.
You are trying to extrapolate broad standards from narrow individual instances. That is fraught with peril.
That's why I wait until we have 100,000 data points. But it's revealing that you make assertions about people based on no data points so your concern about "peril" is entirely omitted when you discussing those you hate. As usual your idea of "fairness" only runs one way.
I do not agree to be bound by the standards that you are trying to decide for me.
Nobody cares what you agree to, that's the greatness of freedom. You keep applying double standards and I'll keep pointing them out.
*standing ovation*
Bravo! +1
You just made his local Pizza Hut happy. Very happy. Tubby now need food therapy.
Can he afford Pizza Hut? Or is it only Little Caesars for him?
You explicitly accused me of defending him.
No I did not. This statement:
Marshal: STOP CALLING HIM A RACIST FOR NOT BEING AN ABSOLUTIST! IT’S NOT FAIR!
is mocking you for thinking that it would be unjust for Chase to call Jeremy Kauffmann a racist for criticizing Chase's policies, because - get this - Jeremy Kauffmann really does hold racist beliefs and he really did criticize Chase.
In fact my comment was that claiming everyone who opposes your policy does so for racist reasons is not a winning political message. Because that won’t be true of everyone in opposition you’re calling non-racists racist and creating political enemies when you don’t need to. How would the existence of one or even numerous racist/s matter to that position?
First, to the best of my knowledge, Chase never said everyone who opposed his policies did so for racist reasons. But he did point out that there were some bigoted elements to his opposition. And - guess what - he was right. There are bigoted elements in the LP who criticized Chase. It is incorrect to claim that Chase's claim of a racist element to his opposition is false.
you have no fucking clue what is going on.
If I genuinely "have no fucking clue what is going on", then how can my statements be lies? If your claim here is true, then my statements are based on ignorance, not intentional deception.
You ‘re the person who would both lie that I defended someone supporting Apartheid and then lie that you didn’t.
This is ridiculous. Why would I or anyone else lie about BOTH sides on the SAME issue? But then again the caricature in your head says I am not honest therefore nothing I say is in good faith, is it? The far more reasonable interpretation is that you misinterpreted my initial statement. I'm willing to accept an honest disagreement but you have now so thoroughly poisoned the well it's not possible anymore.
You’re the person who makes the most hateful, outrageous, unsupported accusations about others and also whines about the tone of our politics.
Is that so. Tell me, who around here is routinely accusing others of being pedophiles, or alcoholics, or making crude fat jokes, or wanting to murder political opponents, or making crude anti-Semitic comments, or taking a commenter's personal history and weaponizing it against them, or making outrageous racist and bigoted claims about foreigners or other groups? It's not me. Why is it that only my statements are the ones under the microscope? Can you spare even a little bit of opprobrium directed at commenters who, say, want to start murdering innocent people? Just a tad?
Both you and Jefferson Paul do the same thing to me. You both want to claim that I am not 100% pure in my commenting. Okay fine, I agree, I am not a saint. But for fuck's sake, my commenting standards here are orders of magnitude better than the typical filth that passes for comments around here. I honestly cannot understand why you tolerate comments that are far worse than my own and give me the nth degree for anything that I have written.
You’re the person who shows up here every day to shit on other commenters and whines that they don’t offer you sufficient respect.
I have actually made it very clear that the only commenters here who receive the most scorn from me are the ones who treat me the worst. I have never made blanket denunciations of all right-wingers or all conservatives or all Trump supporters, or even all Reason commenters, and I dare you to find even one instance where I have. So no, I do not "shit on other commenters" as a blanket statement.
That’s why I wait until we have 100,000 data points.
You don't have "100,000 data points". You made that up.
But it’s revealing that you make assertions about people based on no data points
Umm, no. Again this is the caricature in your head, where I am supposedly some wild-eyed leftie who just assumes that everyone else is a racist. I try very hard not to do blanket denunciations of groups, and there is always some rational basis behind any criticism, not "no data points". You would know this if you actually read what I wrote instead of just project your caricature onto me.
As usual your idea of “fairness” only runs one way.
Why is it that your intense scrutiny of comments is very selective?
You keep applying double standards and I’ll keep pointing them out.
I will apply my actual standards. I won't apply the standards that you try to impose upon me. So go ahead and keep pointing out if you wish that I am not operating according to your standards that you assign to me. I don't really care.
And all of this came about recall when I asked what evidence would you accept of my sincere attempt to change. Seems as though there is zero evidence that you would accept, because what you said:
you can stop applying double standards and lying about what other people say.
is impossible for me to achieve because the standards that you want me to apply are not my actual standards, they are the ones in your head; and your claims of lying are based on your projection of your claims of the truth onto a situation, not the actual truth of the matter. So unless and until I can actually read your mind, there is no way for me to demonstrate anything to you because you don't even recognize me as me, you only see me as a caricature. That is too bad.
Marshal: STOP CALLING HIM A RACIST FOR NOT BEING AN ABSOLUTIST! IT’S NOT FAIR!
is mocking you for thinking that it would be unjust for Chase to call Jeremy Kauffmann a racist for criticizing Chase’s policies, because – get this – Jeremy Kauffmann really does hold racist beliefs and he really did criticize Chase.
Except, get this, I never criticized Chase for calling Kaufman anything, nor did I state any principle that could conceivably be interpreted to include this. This is just your typical slimeball shitbaggery, immediately after which you started whining that people are unfair to you and it's a shame those douchebag right wingers aren't nice people. It's not clear to me why you continue to think it acceptable for you to mock me for what I obviously did not say only to turn around and complain about my criticizing you for what you did say. But I do appreciate the continuing application of double standards proving my point again and again even as you try to deny it.
Why would I or anyone else lie about BOTH sides on the SAME issue?
I admit this is a mystery, but it seems your practice of prioritizing attacking the right at all costs has led you into contradictions. It's a little weird you cite your own idiocy as proof I must be wrong, but I guess this is the best you had so you went with it. Next time maybe think before you attack and you won't accidentally fuck up.
It is incorrect to claim that Chase’s claim of a racist element to his opposition is false.
Here we see Jeffey repeat his own strawman yet again. There was no claim that no racists oppose Chase so this is irrelevant. You see how he continues to change my assertion to make it attackable. This is called strawmanning.
The far more reasonable interpretation is that you misinterpreted my initial statement.
Except you've repeated the same error multiple times. Even after I've shown you the mistake you repeat it. The mistake you made is your claim Chase never said this and so I must have said something else. This is simply wrong, I said only what I said. It does not magically turn into something else because you wish it were not true. Even if it were actually wrong, which it is not, my statement would not change as required by your pathetically broken reasoning. Every statement you've made since then is based on that premise and thus continues to assert the error as an underlying principle.
Why is it that only my statements are the ones under the microscope? Can you spare even a little bit of opprobrium directed at commenters who, say, want to start murdering innocent people?
I ignore them the same as I ignore the Rev and Sqrlsy. Those comments are so obviously stupid and self-refuting they need no rebuttal. Propagandists like you are more subtle, but mostly it's because I'm personally offended by people who ruin the board for everyone while preening that they desire better. This characterization includes exactly two commenters.
You don’t have “100,000 data points”. You made that up.
It's an estimate, something normal people use in real life you are apparently surprised to learn. You've been posting here for many years, maybe a decade or more. Dozens of comments a day, sometimes hundreds. What do you think that adds up to? I'm going to say you've been here at least 8 years since I remember the first Trump runup. @ 350 days (surely you take a few days off to see your therapist and sundry) 35 comments / day would be 100,000.
Seems about right.
I never criticized Chase for calling Kaufman anything,
I never claimed that your criticism of Chase was *specifically* about Kaufman, so this is not true.
nor did I state any principle that could conceivably be interpreted to include this.
Not *specifically* about Kaufman, no. But – once again, for the nth time – you said, referring to Chase:
The true takeaway is that calling everyone who disagrees with your absolutism a racist is not winning message.
accusing Chase of carelessly and recklessly throwing around the ‘racist’ accusation as a slur, against people who were not racist but who simply disagreed with Chase. And, once again for the nth time, I pointed out that there were actual racists – like Kaufman – who disagreed with Chase, so it would have been justifiable (if he did so) to use the racist accusation against critics such as him. I don’t know how much plainer I can make it.
I admit this is a mystery
It’s not really a mystery. I’m not lying. I’m sorry that this is too much for you to accept.
Except you’ve repeated the same error multiple times.
What you mean is, I’ve defended myself by appealing to the truth multiple times, which you refuse to admit so you label it as an ‘error’.
I ignore them the same as I ignore the Rev and Sqrlsy.
No, you don’t – not all of them anyway. Just in this page’s discussion alone you are interacting with commenters who are far worse than me in terms of their commenting style. It seems as though you don’t mind commenters who post lies or offensive content as long as they are sympathetic to your cause.
I’m personally offended by people who ruin the board for everyone while preening that they desire better.
You clearly are not personally offended by people who ‘ruin the board for everyone’ as a general rule, since you have no problems interacting in a cordial manner with some of the more offensive commenters here. So your complaint boils down to a supposed claim of hypocrisy when I “desire better”. I will admit that I am not a saint, there are times when I lose my temper and say things that I later regret. But as I noted, I reserve my truly excoriating comments to those who treat me especially poorly, such as Jesse and ML and the rest of the Mean Girl gang. I don’t do blanket condemnations of everyone.
I also find it quite curious that you reserve such harsh treatment towards me who does want a better commenting experience (albeit imperfectly), while you say absolutely nothing at all about commenters who really do make this place far worse than I could ever do. When it comes to commenters who make crude jokes, who say vile anti-Semitic things, who advocate for murdering innocent people, you don’t write 1,000-word comments condemning them, you simply ignore them (well some of them). But me? You spend day after day writing long long comments calling me all sorts of names and taking ‘personal offense’. Curious that me saying mean things to Jesse makes you ‘personally offended’ to the point of launching a multi-day discussion on the matter, but Misek can say outright anti-Semitic bile and the most you do is click the ignore button.
I think there is a simpler explanation: you spend all this time criticizing me because you derive great joy ‘pwning the libs’ (since you think I am a leftist). My hypothesis is that this isn’t about being personally offended, this is about a dopamine rush that you get when you call me out.
It’s an estimate
Oh I see. YOU are entitled to just make shit up and then later claim it was all in good faith as an ‘estimate’.
Marshal, do you think that this comment contributes positively to the commenting experience here?
https://reason.com/2024/11/08/smoking-the-copium/?comments=true#comment-10793127
You are no doubt referring to sarcasmic here and the offensive characterization of him around here as an alcoholic. Do you think this type of comment makes Reason a better place? If I had made a comment like, oh I don't know, "ML is out murdering illegals, that's why he's not here today", or "Jesse is addicted to the taste of Trump's cock, that is the real problem here", do you think you might accuse me of "ruining the place for everyone"? Oh wait - it would only be "ruining the place for everyone" if I then turned around and said "why can't we have more civil discourse here?" Right? So I guess the moral of the story is, what really makes the Reason commenting board a dumpster fire of filth, is not the filthy comments, but the people who want better not being 100% pure saints. Is that it?
accusing Chase of carelessly and recklessly throwing around the ‘racist’ accusation as a slur, against people who were not racist but who simply disagreed with Chase. And, once again for the nth time, I pointed out that there were actual racists – like Kaufman – who disagreed with Chase, so it would have been justifiable (if he did so) to use the racist accusation against critics such as him. I don’t know how much plainer I can make it.
You need to get on point since being plainly wrong over and over does not improve your position. I objected to him referring to everyone who disagreed with his policy as racist, hence the existence of a single person being racist is not relevant. This is a simple logical fact most children have down by about fourth grade. Unfortunately you appear to have missed that year. So you ignore that your assertion is simply wrong and continue to assert it anyway.
What you mean is, I’ve defended myself by appealing to the truth multiple times, which you refuse to admit so you label it as an ‘error’.
As again pointed out your position requires "all" to be equivalent to "any" which we all know is not true. So the question becomes are you the worlds biggest idiot or are you lying? In the spirit of generosity I conclude you are lying.
No, you don’t – not all of them anyway. Just in this page’s discussion alone you are interacting with commenters who are far worse than me in terms of their commenting style.
This is a lie. None of them falsely accused me of defending someone who supports Apartheid, and then lied about doing so after realizing doing so would hurt their credibility. But if you have a record of someone doing worse than this please provide a link.
Misek can say outright anti-Semitic bile and the most you do is click the ignore button.
Misek is on my ignore button, plus others effectively mock him so my participation is not important.
My hypothesis is that this isn’t about being personally offended, this is about a dopamine rush that you get when you call me out.
I consider pointing out your propaganda a public service.
do you think that this comment contributes positively to the commenting experience here?
Is that your new standard? We'll see.
Sarc comes here to try to piss people off and routinely engages in personal insults. Mocking him seems perfectly consistent.
I believe in treating people like they treat others.
I objected to him referring to everyone who disagreed with his policy as racist, hence the existence of a single person being racist is not relevant.
So if you are going to get extremely literal, and claim that Chase Oliver said that literally everyone who disagrees with his policies is a racist, then you're going to have to show where he did that, because I'm pretty sure he didn't do that. Since he didn't do that, and I'm pretty sure you know that he didn't do that, I took your comment to mean that he was using the racist accusation as a dishonest tactic against people who disagreed with him *in a general sense*. And my point is that it wasn't a dishonest move when it was directed at actual racists who disagreed with him, such as people like Jeremy Kaufman.
But hey, if you can provide a quote of Chase Oliver saying "yeah, everyone who disagreed with me is a racist", then I will eat my words.
But this is what you are reduced to, you're reduced to taking your own statements and interpreting them in an idiotically literal manner (that Chase Oliver really meant that literally everyone in the universe who disagreed with him was a racist) in order to try to 'prove' that I am incorrect.
This is not really about 'personal offense' or 'you're ruining the place!', this is you just being a jerk against someone that you think is a leftist.
falsely accused me of defending someone who supports Apartheid, and then lied about doing so after realizing doing so would hurt their credibility.
But see this makes zero sense. Because I don't have any credibility with you to begin with! You have made that abundantly clear. If I truly was accusing you of defending a racist like Kaufman, what would I gain by later trying to deny it? After all, you think I'm just a standard leftist anyway. Why wouldn't I just double down on it later and continue to call you a racist? That's what leftists love to do, right? In fact I would LOSE credibility among my supposed leftist friends if I were to try to deny later that you weren't really a racist. So your whole schtick here is a giant paradox.
And yes, you are chummy with people who bring down the tenor of conversation around here by just engaging in gotchas and zingers and insults. Such as the one that you yourself leveled at sarcasmic.
Misek is on my ignore button, plus others effectively mock him so my participation is not important.
But I see you are not 'personally offended' by his 'propaganda' to the extent that you launch into thousand-word, multi-day diatribes against him. Curious.
Is that your new standard? We’ll see.
No, that is apparently YOUR new standard. You wrote:
I’m personally offended by people who ruin the board for everyone while preening that they desire better.
I'm going to assume that you do, in fact, desire better. After all, that is one reason why you are engaging in this thousand-word, multi-day diatribe with me, isn't it? Because you are, in your words, performing a 'public service' by pointing out my 'propaganda'? That by doing so, you think you are making the board a better place? Well then, what do you think is the impact of offensive comments like the one above, on commenters like sarcasmic? Do you think it contributes to 'ruining the board' for him? Come to think of it, what do you think is the impact on me when you write comments like "you're a slimy, underhanded, deceitful, demagogue", or when you falsely claim that I am motivated by "only bad faith"? I think it might contribute to ruining my experience here.
Do you think the Marshal who wrote "I’m personally offended by people who ruin the board for everyone while preening that they desire better", should be personally offended by the Marshal who wrote "In that case alcohol is probably involved, which means we’ve likely found the core problem" as an offensive comment directed at a specific commenter?
And my point is that it wasn’t a dishonest move when it was directed at actual racists who disagreed with him, such as people like Jeremy Kaufman.
Which was irrelevant to my point since I did not criticize Oliver for criticizing specific people, which is why it is so offensive you accused me of defending racists.
I took your comment to mean that he was using the racist accusation as a dishonest tactic against people who disagreed with him *in a general sense*.
Right. Instead of addressing my actual comment you responded as if my comment were something else. There’s a term for that, snowwoman maybe? I forget exactly.
This is not really about ‘personal offense’ or ‘you’re ruining the place!’, this is you just being a jerk against someone that you think is a leftist.
No, this is me demanding you base your criticisms on my actual statements rather than what you make up. It’s very basic, a perfectly reasonable demand. It’s a measure of how extreme your Left Wing Privilege is that you resist even such a basic tent to such a ridiculous level.
But see this makes zero sense. Because I don’t have any credibility with you to begin with!
Your loss of credibility is not with me, but instead with the audience who sees you demanding others respond to exactly your own comments while explicitly refusing to do exactly that yourself.
In fact I would LOSE credibility among my supposed leftist friends if I were to try to deny later that you weren’t really a racist.
As you well know these people are not the audience at Reason. You’re here to convince libertarians to not support the right, left wingers are not your target.
Right. Instead of addressing my actual comment you responded as if my comment were something else. There’s a term for that, snowwoman maybe? I forget exactly.
Well then, if your actual argument is that Chase Oliver was wrong to literally call everyone in the universe who didn't agree with him a racist, then I completely retract everything that I said on the matter. Instead, I'm going to insist on a quote from Chase Oliver where he said exactly this. I don't think he did, but if you are telling us all that he did, then provide a quote. Otherwise, I retract my retraction.
Your loss of credibility is not with me, but instead with the audience who sees you demanding others respond to exactly your own comments while explicitly refusing to do exactly that yourself.
What audience could that be? The potential audience is between right-wingers, who already loathe me and don't care about my credibility; left-wingers, who would be disappointed if I DIDN'T call you a racist; and libertarians, who would not be persuaded either way - if I called you a racist without evidence, or if I then later lied by trying to claim that you weren't a racist. So you are making even less sense now. By your own assumptions, I stand to gain nothing by first accusing you of supporting a racist, and then later lying by claiming you didn't, regardless of the audience.
That is because you are operating on the basis of caricatures and stereotypes, not reality. In reality, I never accused you of supporting a racist, and I didn't lie later on when you challenged me on it. I was truthful in both cases. That is how I best preserve my credibility, and that is the simplest explanation here. But because you operate from a starting point of caricatures, you cannot see that.
This should be plainly obvious now. It only took about 5,000 words and three days, but I think we finally arrived at the truth.
Oh, and could you please explain to us all why you are most upset at the people here whom you believe are insufficiently pure in demanding civil behavior, instead of the people who go out of their way to be uncivil assholes? What is your real goal here?
Fucking nicely done.
Libertarians support both personal liberty and economic liberty.
"Left-libertarian" is just a slur used to attack libertarians for supporting personal liberty.
Not being a "left-libertarian" would mean opposing personal liberty while supporting economic liberty, and just make the person a conservative.
So it's really an attack by conservatives who want to be called libertarians, but can't stand that icky personal liberty stuff.
How is that personal liberty thing working with the current left-wing agenda, besides using a vacuum on your uterus?
I don't support the left wing, dumbass.
Your comments state otherwise.
Sarc will tell you that what he states is not a reflection of his positions.
Yeah pretty much. If someone is a 'right-libertarian', then in the current climate, that person is basically someone who supports economic conservatism and social conservatism, with maybe one or two caveats thrown in. So that is fine, but then I wonder why this person would choose to call him/herself a libertarian at all, and not just a conservative. And it's not 'awful' or 'bad' per se.
"Right-libertarian" means a conservative who makes libertarian noises every now and then.
What is a libertarian who gets 57% for Hitler on a quiz? A True Libertarian?
HE TOOK A TEST!
More to the point:
I think someone whom the commenters here would describe as 'left-libertarian', is basically just a 'libertarian' from 20 years ago.
Ron Paul would disagree with you.
Ron Paul's presidential run which really started his movement wasn't until 2008. (He ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988 but that predictably went nowhere.) And yes I do think that his movement led to the greater marriage between libertarianism and social conservatism, which is where we are at today. But frankly I think it has gone too far. Libertarians don't have to be clones of Ted Cruz on social issues.
I think the term you are looking for is "libertine". I.e. a person who wants no restrictions on personal behavior, but definitely wants government to provide material and emotional support. In other words, a care-free (and work-free) life.
No, not 'libertine'. Why do you equate greater personal liberty with libertinism? Wanting to legalize, say, sex work, or drugs, is not the same as advocating that everyone should have casual sex, or that everyone should get stoned. It just means that a person shouldn't be thrown in a cage for it.
“Left-libertarian” is just a slur used to attack libertarians for supporting personal liberty.
Revealingly your buddy Chemjeff used it yesterday about himself. Was that a slur? In fact many people use it to describe the obvious divisions with libertarianism.
So it seems the result is that sarc believes any language anyone who disagrees with him is a slur. But as we all know sarc will say anything to justify attacking the right. Reality is simply not a consideration.
Genius.
More bad faith virtue signaling. Do you have any other tricks, or is that it?
I do not think that term means what you think it means.
Chalk up “bad faith argument” as yet another term Sarc fails to comprehend.
It's revealing you're reduced to misusing random talking points.
It’s the Kamala method.
In that case alcohol is probably involved, which means we've likely found the core problem.
Well, it is Sarc, so of course alcohol was involved.
Sarc cries about left libertarians while calling people racists and Trump cultists. It is pretty amazing.
“Revealingly your buddy Chemjeff used it yesterday about himself. Was that a slur? In fact many people use it to describe the obvious divisions with libertarianism.”
Maybe it works like the n-word; they can say it, but you can’t.
You’re still on this idiotic talking point? After supporting masking, forced vaccinations, locking up political opponents, etc?
Nothing in the dem platform except cutting off kids dicks supports personal liberties.
They want to control what vaccines you take, what appliances you buy, what cars you drive, who you have to interact with, who you have to hire, what political positions you have to hold for bar licenses, how you build your house, what energy souece you can use, which countries citizens you have to support financially, etc etc.
Is your mother proud of the lies you tell about people? Do you even have a mother, or do you reproduce by fission like other bacteria?
Telling "your mother" jokes is an indicator of a healthy intellect and a good conversationalist.
Are these the “ideas” you so often speak about, Sarc?
Ideas™ !
What lies?
You see, they contradict and indict Sarc’s claims so therefore they must be lies. Then we’ll get a spiel from Sarc about how he only wants to talk about ideas while tossing insults right and left.
Well. Tossing them right. He doesn't criticize the left.
I would argue that left-libertarians view personal liberty as more important than economic liberty and right-libertarians view economic liberty as more important than personal liberty. All very topic dependent and on a sliding scale.
Well, I would disagree somewhat that so-called "left libertarians" (I don't even really like that term) regard personal liberty as more important than economic liberty. I think it is closer that we consider both to be at least comparable in importance to each other.
Whom are you quoting here? Because whomever it is, it hilariously and obliquely shows that they as libertarians or a person with expectations of libertarians see them as even more insanely ideological than run of the mill liberals or democrats:
Comedian and Entertainer, who makes no claims to being libertarian in any way, Joe Rogan: I support Donald Trump.
Level-headed Analyst: Oh, he’s a 90s-era Democrat.
Comedian and Entertainer, who espouses libertarianism and openly participates in and supports libertarian and LP causes, Dave Smith: I support Donald Trump.
Speaker: What?!?!? How can that guy possibly consider himself or any other part of the (mumbles “rabidly racist Nazis”) in the MC consider themselves to be even *remotely* libertarian!?!?
Who gives a shit that the guy parties with and promotes libertarians? Who gives a shit that he says the exact same thing that some relatively normal liberal minds are saying and thinking? He betrayed “my” libertarian party and is trying to steal it from *me* and that is unforgivable!
Uh, group think and pure dogma is surely what defines libertarianism.
"2. I noticed a normalization of language like “cuck” that was considered offensive not that long ago. But they were using it freely. Huh."
Sort of like calling people "incels". Oh wait, that one is (D)ifferent.
Congratulations, you've shown that all sorts of people on both sides will use insulting and offensive language. Way to go.
Let’s recap your progression of goal-post moving on “dehumanizing language”.
In about a year, you have gone from:
1. “No one but a nazi would use it!”
2. “Me an’ Sarc can use it, 'cuz it only matters if the person using it has political power!”
3. “Sure, everybody does it, who cares!”
Probably some intermediate steps left out.
The thing about Jeffy, is he is very principled, and one of his major principles is that he will take any position and say anything that is convenient to him at he moment in order to boost the Democrats.
He is also interested in boosting his stature with sarc,
Some would say that's his only principle.
"I struggle to see what is the substantive difference between the Dave Smith/Mises Caucus wing of the Libertarian Party, and the Trump Republican party. "
In this election, the one choice for a libertarian was Trump, so it seems Smith/Mises have it right here. Anything to keep the corrupt authoritarian socialists out of office is the correct move
Congrats on you Liz for voting for Trump.
'Some 200,000 people have arrived in this city since 2022, many availing themselves of welfare. I believe the city can bear industrious newcomers and I welcome families seeking refuge, but I thought my taxpayer dollars were meant to keep useful city services functioning and take care of the absolute poorest among us. When that mission is drastically extended to encompass literally anyone who enters the five boroughs and wants welfare, the whole social contract becomes compromised.'
Something no libertarian ever said.
'"Daniel Lurie has been elected mayor of San Francisco, denying London Breed another term after arguing that her flawed leadership caused the city to struggle since the pandemic devastated its downtown and exacerbated the drug crisis, homelessness and public concerns about crime," reports the San Francisco Chronicle.'
Two party politics still lives in SFC! At least if you count liberal Democrats and insanely progressive radical Democrats as two parties.
It’s a start. San Francisco is the only city I’ve seen that oddly calls the GOP communist. Seriously, there are banners on bridges saying “G (hammer & sickle) P”.
It's always baffling that Pelosi is the "conservative" choice out there.
Not really. Nancy is not an avowed communist, plus is white, married to a biological male, and is rich.
Did Jen Rubin resign yet? Or does she have no honor?
Having looked at her posting from last week or so...somebody might need to check on her. Chick lost her damned mind.
>Harris did not run a particularly far-left campaign,
Except for the price controls, the gender-bending, the anti-semitism, the supporting of rioters and murderers, you know, typical centrist positions . . .
>Someone surrounded only by incompetent loyalists? Extreme radicals? Technocrats? Outsiders?
Like Biden and Obama and what Harris intended?
>"As the attacks went on, Israel warned its citizens in Amsterdam to stay off the streets and remain in their hotel rooms," reports The New York Times. "Maccabi Tel Aviv warned people not to show Israeli or Jewish symbols outside, and to fly back to Israel as soon as they could."
Because the government imported these animals and the police won't do anything about them, these innocent people must cower and pray for safety.
Amsterdam used to be such a nice place. What a shame.
I wonder what made it not a nice place anymore.
All the "Dutch" people?
Not so much the government but the unelected bureaucrats that run the EU (literally). Maybe we need to go back to the good old days when the French and German people viewed each other suspiciously. Anyone think we can convince the Alsatian to try and rejoin Germany? Maybe stir up some trouble along the Rhine Valley? To drive a stake into the heart of the EU vampire?
>Some 200,000 people have arrived in this city since 2022, many availing themselves of welfare. I believe the city can bear industrious newcomers and I welcome families seeking refuge, but I thought my taxpayer dollars were meant to keep useful city services functioning and take care of the absolute poorest among us. When that mission is drastically extended to encompass literally anyone who enters the five boroughs and wants welfare, the whole social contract becomes compromised.
1. You thought your tax dollars were to be used to provide *services*? In New York City? Seriously? How long have you lived there?
2. How do you know who are the 'industrious newcomers' and 'families seeking refuge' and how do you tell them from the rest of the freeloaders before they cross the border?
Does the social contract not require you to allow everyone to stream across and sort them out later? Or does it allow for the existence of borders?
Yeah, not a good look for Libertarian Liz.
I have observed, for the last 8 years, a political party acting like the German ultrarightwing circa 1919, complete with their own Stab in the Back®™ conspiracy theory.
My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, made this comparison after the 2016 election on the Cleveland Plain Dealer comments section.
Chris was proven right.
What part of 'socialist workers party' sound right wing to you?
And their own form of blame the Jews.
I believe the city can bear industrious newcomers and I welcome families seeking refuge, but I thought my taxpayer dollars were meant to keep useful city services functioning and take care of the absolute poorest among us.
@LizWolfe....Young lady, you thought wrong.
https://www.azcentral.com/live-story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/07/arizona-election-2024-live-coverage-and-latest-results/76049940007/
Arizona is somehow still counting ballots. Are they counting on their fingers and toes or what?
It's because the ballots never stop. They just keep coming and coming and coming!
Until they reach the correct conclusions.
It’s embarrassing.
Lissen, most of us are on meth and we get distra . . .
Lissen, most of us are on meth an . . .
Lissen . . .
RE: House….I had predicted that Team R would walk away with 227. This is within striking distance.
I know Team R can ‘bank’ on n=220, so they have the unified Congress.
There are a dozen races (after 220) where Team R needs 7 of 12 to break their way. We'll see.
When we address Latino voters…as Latinx, for instance, because that's the politically correct thing to do, it makes them think we don't even live in the same planet as they do.
Remember, Ms. Roginsky, your maid just wants to keep her job when you refer to her as LatinX, but trust me, she hates you.
Nick Gillespie: But… it’s just about pronouns, maaan. Why not just let the Latinx’s have their promethean transformations…
Nothing shows respect for a different culture like being a foreigner and unilaterally rewriting the grammar for a language that has existed for 7 or 8 centuries because you think it's more inclusive in your own made up tongue.
Superior elites just can't help themselves.
The word Latin and the different endings for the two genders dates back far further than that, try almost 3000 years.
Lol. Yglesias lists the most important thing at #4 (and has it backwards, at that). Clearly not someone to be taken seriously.
"We constantly try to parse out different ways of speaking because our focus groups or polling shows that so-and-so appeals to such and such. That's not how normal people think. It is not common sense and we need to start being the part of common sense again. Joe Biden is not responsible for that, neither is Kamala Harris. That is a problem that Democrats have had for years.
By the way, this is so completely telling-- it communicates how far Democrats have to go to get back to normal.
"You see, what we need to do is learn how to walk like Humans do... there's this thing they do, they put their left leg out and then angle the foot like this, then their upper body moves forward and their left heel touches the ground, there's a kind of pivot in the upper body that takes place and more weight is placed upon the left leg and then with forward momentum, the entire body sort of rolls over with the left foot eventually being flat on the ground, but only for a split second. The forward momentum continues and then and the back right leg is lifted off the ground, the knee bends and you begin to swing it forward as thus (see diagram 143.023-a(C)/5 44.21). Let's everyone practice this for the next 10 or 15 minutes and then test it out."
Shorter: How the Democrats admit to me that they're a party of alien lizard people without telling me they're a party of alien lizard people.
What should be terrifying Democrats is the above are the small number that are starting to get it. The rest still think hissing and flicking their tongues at everyone who's not like them is still the path forward.
+1 See above.
"OK, quick show of hands, does anyone here know how to act like they're not batshit insane?" [ducks flung poo]
Shit, Facebook and Reddit are cesspools of batshit crazy from Democrats right now. It’s been a while since I’ve seen anything that totally batshit insane.
8 years maybe?
Watched a video of that clown marxist Mark Lamont Hill debating in the wake of the red wave, and it veered into the tranny stuff with him staunchly supporting the 'anyone who says they are a woman, is a woman, period' schtick.
Ya, the American public just gave you a firm middle finger and a "STFU with this batshit insanity" and the apparent response is doubling down that the gender cult is healthy normal stuff.
They used the combination of the COVID lockdowns and govt power, the crazyness of the riots, and the left swing after the Floyd shit to turbo charge the movement of the overton window so far to the left they actually forgot they left the vast majority of the populace about 1000 football fields back that way, and they spent all the time smelling their farts in their hyper-blue bubble that they forgot how to think/act/talk like anyone that resembles a normal well adjusted person
"doubling down"?
I think we're well past the doubling down phase.
Imagine if the Democrats lost their ability to lie and terrify old boomers into thinking Trump was the devil. Where would the electoral tally have sat then?
Or imagine if the GOP had run someone with Trump's populist program but without his baggage. We could have seen them get at least 60% of the popular vote and an EC rout.
No matter if they ran Mother Theresa, they would still lie to and terrify old boomers into thinking she was the devil.
The problem is that the corporate press is part of the machine, not that the candidate isn't pretty enough.
That might work once but it doesn't project into the future. Dems just lost because their promises of utopia didn't come true. Trump is promising the same and while he's doing less to fuck up the economy it still isn't going to turn into utopia. The same pressures exist - globalization and competition - and people are inevitably going to be unhappy with the results even if things go pretty well. After all you just promised them a new Golden Age of America.
He doesn't have to make a utopia though - he just has to make it better than it is now.
Maybe, but I doubt it. When you set expectations high people remember that. This is one reason most campaigns are negative. There's no limit to how bad things can get in a counterfactual. Actually making things better is very difficult and takes a long time.
Biden set expectations high - and when he failed to meet them the Dems still ran cover for the guy. Pretended he was doing the opposite of what he was doing. And he was making everything worse.
So if things improve, if, in 2027, we're doing better than we were in 2024, then he'll get credit for that.
It just hit me, Democrats are the Laurie Bream of politics.
The difference is that Bream was effective.
My Dem friends are reaching the "Anger Stage."
But it's cold outside, and their fingers are too fat to fit inside a trigger guard.
Yeah, I see the anger and dismay on Facebook from them. It’s stunning what delusions they live under. Deprograming them from the propaganda is going to be a long, hard road.
They are still lecturing and hectoring with no introspection whatsoever. It's actually kind of impressive, the kool-aid is strong.
Deprograming them from the propaganda is going to be a long, hard road.
It really is this, because like some dystopian movie, these people are being lied to about almost everything, constantly. It’s like The Truman Show writ large.
Chances are, sobbing progressive who actually own guns would more likely target themselves.
Harris did not run a particularly far-left campaign, nor did she emphasize foolish policy prescriptions like defunding the police.
But her 2019 run, in which she seemed to get swept up in the collective progressive hallucination that ultralefty policies would become enduringly popular, left an indelible mark on her. And the party became associated with these types of policies and ways of thinking for years to come, which did them no favors.
No, she's someone who everyone knows supports and believes those things, but just hasn't brought it up lately.
And just so you know... for the Broheims and Britches and ENBs and Camps who have vertical IDs, this insanity has been building-- steadily in Dem circles for over 30 years. It kind of began in the late 1980s if one really must know. Sure, after PC 1.0 in the 90s, there was a kind of 'pause' in the media/culture sphere, but they never went away, and they never stopped believing in this crap. They won't stop believing in it now, they will simply study the lesson on how to walk (see my post above), imitate the 'normies' for a while, and then when the moment is right, they'll come back angrier, more vicious and dangerous than the last time.
The thing that really... REALLY scares me about PC2.0 is that it was like a recurring infection- every time it comes back it's more resilient, nasty, vicious and resistant than the last one. I truly fear that PC3.0 will destroy this country.
What put the kibosh on PC 1.0 last time was a combination of the ridicule it got and 9/11. 9/11 probably delayed the push for PC 2.0 by a decade. Will there be a PC 3.0? Only if we let it happen. 2.0 sneaked up on us as we thought it dead from 9/11.
I remember it well. People were more quick to ridicule it (see movies like P.C.U.) and call it out. But what happened is it took about a generation to "figure out" how to craft new arguments and better attack critics. It's a learning process. And again, I few they'll take what they learned from pc1.0 AND pc2.0 and apply those lessons in 2030+ and 3.0 will be even more resilient to pushback and criticism than it was in 2.0- and there fore do more damage and last even longer.
I don't think the arguments are better. Rather the far left has more control over our institutions which means disagreement can be punished in more places. First CRT and now DEI moving into the business culture means expressing opposition to left wing pablum can get you fired, or even more easily not hired, in the business world in addition to academia and media as was true in the 90s.
Dutch authorities said today that there have been 62 people arrested in connection with antisemitic attacks that have been building since Wednesday. Five people have been hospitalized. Video footage here.
Man, that myth about the Dutch people being all peaceful and easy-going...
I did not see all that many Dutch people in the mobs.
Looks like a different group of 'tourists'.
See my post below. This is where the Beltway Cato types come in and sniff that they’re just as Dutch as that kid with his finger in the dike because they hold a Dutch passport and therefore this can’t be blamed on open borders.
Fiona will probably claim that they add to the Dutch cultural fabric and probably have great food trucks.
"As the attacks went on, Israel warned its citizens in Amsterdam to stay off the streets and remain in their hotel rooms," reports The New York Times.
I'm imagining the 1980s, where a particular nationality or group would be warned to "stay off the streets" in Amsterdam because it's 'too dangerous'.
Now give me a 3000 word thinkpiece on how all the attackers were Dutch citizens because they have a Dutch passport and a piece of paper that says so.
The Libertarian Case For: “Without an elected board and membership cards, they’re really more of an idea.” – By Elizabeth Nolan Brown
Scenes from New York: Mayor Eric Adams will be ending the program that gives free EBT cards to illegal immigrants. The city has so far spent $3.6 million taxpayer dollars on this program; this is in addition to the vast sums the city has shelled out for free lodging—hotel rooms—for recent arrivals.
Why would he do this? City coffers must be overflowing with all the revenue that migrants have brought in? Are food trucks not a thing in NYC?
Some 200,000 people have arrived in this city since 2022, many availing themselves of welfare.
Wait, that's it? That's a fucking rounding error!
"Daniel Lurie has been elected mayor of San Francisco, denying London Breed another term after arguing that her flawed leadership caused the city to struggle since the pandemic devastated its downtown and exacerbated the drug crisis, homelessness and public concerns about crime,"
Oh the pandemic devastated its downtown.
That darned virus. There downtown San Francisco was, minding its own business when... ALL OF A SUDDEN!
Oh "public concerns" about crime. Not crime, but "public concerns" about crime. Did Jacob Sullum write his press release?
The government certainly didn’t seem concerned about crime.
>>"I'm not Jewish, I'm not Jewish" before being beaten.
what matters is you're not on the right side of the clubs.
“I’m not Jewish.”
I suspect that’s exactly what a Jewish person being beaten would say. Can Misek confirm?
maybe ... the ones I know would stand up and proclaim it twice as loud.
>>So far, there are still 25 House races that have not been called
mostly peaceful fraud
hey thanks as always for the forum. my friendly criticism is all in love. bon weekend.
.
But y'all keep telling us that illegals don't consume welfare or any other government support...
They don’t, and that’s why we are stopping it, because we can’t afford it anymore.
Please share the logical gymnastics required to assert "[t]hey don't" [I infer that you are saying "illegals don't consume welfare"] with, "ending the program that gives free EBT cards to illegal immigrants."
Satire. Newbe?
That's why they're shutting the program down: lack of use. Since all the migrants came in, it's 'withering on the vine'.
"Some 200,000 people have arrived in this city since 2022, many availing themselves of welfare. I believe the city can bear industrious newcomers and I welcome families seeking refuge, but I thought my taxpayer dollars were meant to keep useful city services functioning and take care of the absolute poorest among us. When that mission is drastically extended to encompass literally anyone who enters the five boroughs and wants welfare, the whole social contract becomes compromised."
Um ... you thought that? Why? It's not as if the Democrats that you voted for there didn't have mouths, saying the exact opposite?