Rand Paul

Did Trump Absorb Any Libertarian Lessons on Foreign Policy? Q&A With Sen. Rand Paul

The Kentucky Republican on Bolton, Tillerson, and the fantasy that America can topple governments and replace them with something better.

|

John Bolton is "an unrepentant advocate of the Iraq War" says Sen. Rand Paul, who's failed to learn that when America topples governments, invariably we end up with something "worse than what we had."

In our latest podcast interview, the Kentucky Republican talks about why Bolton—the rumored nominee for deputy secretary of state—is unfit for office, his thoughts on the nomination of Rex Tillerson for secretary of state ("he's not part of the furniture of Washington"), whether the U.S. should allow in more refugees (probably), the budget crisis, his recent reelection, and whether Trump has absorbed any aspects of "a libertarian foreign policy" (yes, though the talk of Bolton joining the administration gives Paul pause).

Click below to listen to that conversation—or subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Don't miss a single Reason podcast or video! Subscribe, rate, and review!

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

287 responses to “Did Trump Absorb Any Libertarian Lessons on Foreign Policy? Q&A With Sen. Rand Paul

  1. Rand Mutha’ Fuckin’ Paul!

    1. Ah, what might’ve been had folks listened to him. At least he’s still in Washington.

      1. He’s going to return like Moses to lead us to the promise land in…. 2040? Whenever the height of the Water Wars is supposed to be.

        1. All he needs is the Sword of Destiny

          1. I meant Spear of Destiny of course

  2. So I guess Japan is just a fantasy?

    The reality is that we aren’t willing to put the amount of effort and killing in needed to drastically change a culture that would allow a saner form of government.

    1. 1. The Japanese are not the Iraqis.
      2. The Iraqis weren’t pounded for four years and then nuked twice (to your point).
      3. Warfare has changed drastically in the last 70 years. (Meaning techniques for resisting an overwhelming conventional force have evolved and they work.)

      Japan was likely the oddity.

      1. Or Germany and South Korea.

        1. The Japanese and Koreans had honor. The Germans had shame.

          Islamic countries have neither.

          1. Panama and Grenada both were toppled by the US, is their replacement really worse than what was before? The score seems more like 50/50.

            I agree the Islamic Arab culture is rotten to the core. There are non-malicious, non-hostile Muslims, but they just aren’t applying the scriptures. Really there is hardly any way to say the Islamic fascists are not following the pattern of Mohammed.

      2. techniques for resisting an overwhelming conventional force have evolved and they work

        What do you mean by this?

        1. I assume he means guerrilla warfare and having a decentralized network, i.e. terrorist cells ?

        2. I want to say something like suicide bombers but the reality is all that’s changed is our less severe treatment of citizens in these foreign countries; that is what makes resistance easier.

          1. Kamikaze attacks in WWII were so foreign to western sensibilities that the military was concerned they may not be able to fight it.

            Luckily, the Kamikaze attacks by the Japanese were based mainly around desperation and required an industrial output and manpower to maintain– two things they were running out of.

            1. Modern suicide bombers are waaay more effective than Kamikaze.

              I’m think more along the lines of in ‘Nam they were burning down villages because they knew the civies were supporting the troops. We still lost that war, and we don’t even come close to those tactics anymore. Remember this is all getting back to this notion:

              techniques for resisting an overwhelming conventional force have evolved and they work

              I don’t think I buy it.

              1. Modern suicide bombers are waaay more effective than Kamikaze.

                That’s going to depend how you define “effective”.

                The Kamikaze were being used strictly in a military stetting against armed ships. Modern suicide bombers are specifically designed to go against unarmed soft targets. In fact, they depend on their targets being unarmed and un-engaged in the conflict.

                1. For sure, I thought about that counter point; a suicidal plane can take out a battleship at the cost of a plane and a pilot. Yet most of those Kamikaze planes were shot down before they landed any crushing blows.

                  Now a deadbeat loser blowing himself up, that’s basically cost free, and there is almost always collateral damage i.e., an effective strike is made, as intended.

            2. “Kamikaze attacks in WWII were so foreign to western sensibilities that the military was concerned they may not be able to fight it.”

              that is not true. The issue was one of attrition. How do you destroy a cheap flying bomb before it destroys and expensive ship. It had nothing to do with western sensibilities ffs

        3. Guerrilla warfare and insurgency have evolved to where they understand that you aren’t fighting your enemy’s conventional military force, you’re waging a psychological war on your enemy’s civilian population.

          If you make a conflict bloody and interminable eventually public support in the US for war will erode away. We kicked the shit out of the Viet Cong and NVA in Vietnam but they made it painful enough to where the US couldn’t justify staying to prop up South Vietnam.

          This is all fundamentally different than a conventional war where one side unambiguously loses and has its nation reduced to ruins like Germany and Japan.

          1. I agree with that. Thanks.

          2. Ok this I agree with, but it’s still only working because we as aggressor’s, invaders, whatever, aren’t willing to go full throttle anymore.

            It’s not their tactics of psychological warfare that are winning, it’s our lack of heart to see the thing done. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing; except for all the dead US soldiers fighting a war with one fist tied behind their backs.

            1. It’s not their tactics of psychological warfare that are winning, it’s our lack of heart to see the thing done.

              Hmm. I’d argue our goals have changed. The goal in WWII was to destroy The Axis powers’ ability to wage war. You do that by killing lots of soldiers and destroying lots of industrial capacity.

              That was never the goal in Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn’t even make sense to talk that way because Iraq and the Taliban/al Qaeda never had the ability to really wage war against the US. The goal was to remove an unfriendly regime and install and support a friendly one.

              1. The goal was to remove an unfriendly regime and install and support a friendly one

                Not exactly. The goal was to install and support democratic regimes. Nobody bothered to consider that a democratic regime and a friendly regime were not the same thing. Or that deep-seated factionalism would make a democratic government impotent even if it was nominally friendly (to the U.S./the West).

                1. No one in the Bush administration was like “eh, if they end up being closer to Iran, that’s the way the democratic cookie crumbles”

                  Speaking of, what’s Iran up to these days? You think he’s pissed that Russia is getting all the attention now? Well, that’s what happens when you don’t put out.

                2. kbolino,

                  The goal [of invading Afghanistan and Iraq] was to install and support democratic regimes.

                  Are you sure?

                  Afghanistan (removing the terrorist group identified as being responsible for the attack on September 11th 2001 and other atrocities and removing the government that they lived under – and liberating the people of Afghanistan).

                  Iraq (preventing weapons of mass destruction from being used and – liberating the people of Iraq). See “President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours ” if my link does not function correctly.

                  1. Charles, I was only really commenting on the “and install and support a friendly [regime]” part of the LynchPin1477’s comment. I would agree that the invasions had the goals you list but I would say that the occupations that followed the invasions had different goals.

                    1. kbolino,

                      I think I understand.

                      It seems to me that the stated goals could well have been used to gain public support* whilst the occupation was an unstated goal.

                      *In both of my references the president mentions the terrible lives that the citizens of both countries are forced to endure under the regimes ruling over them.

                      I recommend that you and anyone else who was not old enough at the time to hear these two speeches, make use of the video and transcript for which I provided links when you generate sufficient interest (or save the links for the future when you could use some part of either to debate me or another individual).

                    2. …who was not old enough…

                      Poor proofreading on my part: “who was not old enough at the time or who, in the intervening span of more than a decade, do not recall much of the president’s speeches” would have been a superior effort on my part.

                      Distractions are reasons, yet they are not excuses.

                      I’ll attempt to look here tomorrow to read any responses. Have a good night.

          3. Eh, Germany learned the same lesson in WW2 in the Balkans, Poland and USSR. Resistance there was far more involved than couple assassinations and cutting phone lines now and then.
            They also learned that just getting up bloodier and bloodier reprisals doesn’t win, either.

          4. “Guerrilla warfare and insurgency have evolved to where they understand that you aren’t fighting your enemy’s conventional military force, you’re waging a psychological war on your enemy’s civilian population.”

            Our civilian population wasn’t exposed to guerrilla warfare in Iraq to any extent. They were huddled in the Green Zone.

            Every war since Korea the US has only fought a limited engagement. Not all out war. For a lonf time in Iraq the soldiers had stricter rules of engagement than cops in an American city do.

            That tends to make insurgency much more easy to accomplish.

        4. I mean war has gone asymmetric since WWII. In the 1940s no one ever considered that a non-nation state could wage war against a nation state. It just wasn’t done. When the state you were fighting for surrendered, it was over and you went home (I’m sure there are a few exceptions).

          Terrorism (guerilla warfare to a lesser extent) is an ingenious way for a weak force to take on a vastly superior force, and win. It focuses on uniting the local population against the invader and pecking away at him until he just can’t take the losses anymore, while never (seldom?) actually engaging the enemy.

          Sun Tzu would be proud.

          Every war we’ve fought since WWII (hell one could argue since the Revolution) has moved more and more asymmetric.

          1. I’m not disagreeing with your general thesis, and I’m not going to nitpick and cite exceptions (which don’t obliterate the pattern) but there’s evidence it’s possible to turn an asymmetric war in to a symmetric one, if the nation-state has the will to do so– meaning inflicting large numbers of collateral casualties while literally not giving a shit: Syria.

            Terrorists and shin kickers hiding amongst the civilian population? Artillery and barrel bombs will straighten that neighborhood out.

            1. Only works if you have actual numerical superiority. Serbs tried the same strategy against Croats in ’91, as did Russians in Grozny. Serbs lost, and Russians only won when they got some nasty guerilla assholes to switch sides – one of them is still in power to this day.
              Without Iran and Hezbollah sending thousands of men to Assad, he’d have lost years ago.

            2. it’s possible to turn an asymmetric war in to a symmetric one,

              I agree, Paul. But doing that, requires the will of the people (nation). We haven’t had that will since the big one.

              I know I don’t have the will to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children to avenge 3000 Americans. “Innocent” being the key word.

              In WWII we weren’t just killing for revenge, although that was part of it. There were some very serious global ramifications to an axis victory. Not so much with al qaeda.

              So here’s my take-away since 9/11. If the circumstances are such that you don’t have the national will to wage total war against your enemy…you’ve got no business going to war. That’s not to say you cannot extract justice for the guilty, but to attempt regime/culture change via armed conflict for what essentially amounts to revenge ain’t likely to pan out.

              1. “If the circumstances are such that you don’t have the national will to wage total war against your enemy…you’ve got no business going to war.”

                I’ve found myself moving towards this position since around 2003.

          2. I’d argue WW2 proved guerilla warfare works, if you knew where to look at. Japanese had shit-ton of trouble in China behind the front lines, and quite a bit in Vietnam as well (PAVN didn’t develop its strategies for fighting US ab-nihilo). Germans had to deal with real resistance in Balkans, Poland and USSR, as I mentioned above. Bloody reprisals didn’t help in any case and were counter-productive.

            If I remember Mao’s rules, activelly engaging the enemy is final phase, when they are boxed in, weakened, and you have numerical superiority. Vietnam war wasn’t finished through guerilla attrition, after all. It was done by a conventional armored blitz by PAVN once US Congress chose to abrogate its obligations to the South.

          3. Bah, I shouldn’t talk war. I have one of Sun Tzu’s 5 fatal flaws for a general (leader):

            A delicacy of honor sensitive to shame.

            I’d be in my tent weeping and howling like US Grant after he sent in the third wave at (I wanna say) Cold Harbor. Except he got up the next day and doubled down on hounding Lee at every turn. I’d be like, burying my dead, still weeping and 4 bottles deep.

          4. The notion that guerilla warfare/insurgencies only became a problem post-WW2 is nonsense. Whether it was in Europe’s colonies, Arab forces in WW1, the Nazis in the Balkans, or resistance against the Japs in across Southeast Asia. Even going back further, there were scattered examples of similar tactics throughout history.

            They are messy and often don’t have the clean resolutions, but the retarded notion adopted by many libertarians, and which mainly comes from leftwing intellectuals in the wake of Vietnam, that these wars are unwinnable, is rubbish. They have and will be won in the future.

            It’s also important to note that Iraq was not Vietnam, and its fate will be different. It is not at all clear that we ‘lost.’ If military planners can be arrogant and underestimate the threat of a resistant populace, the same is most definitely true for the other side of that coin.

            1. Dude of course we haven’t lost in Iraq; we’ve won that fucker like 4x over now by my rough estimate.

            2. It is true that people have conflated “unwilling to continue fighting” with “unable to win decisively”. The problem is that, practically speaking, either one ends the war without a victory.

            3. The notion that guerilla warfare/insurgencies only became a problem post-WW2 is nonsense.

              I believe I said they’ve evolved since WWII.

              3. Warfare has changed drastically in the last 70 years. (Meaning techniques for resisting an overwhelming conventional force have evolved and they work.)

              the retarded notion adopted by many libertarians, and which mainly comes from leftwing intellectuals in the wake of Vietnam, that these wars are unwinnable, is rubbish. They have and will be won in the future.

              Oh, they are certainly winnable. Hell we could nuke them into the stone age (or even farther forward). They are just not winnable within the current confines of the will of the people.

              1. They are just not winnable within the current confines of the will of the people.

                And that is what I’m calling bullshit on. It is very easy for armchair generals to sit here and call Iraq a defeat. It does not look as we envisioned it at the moment. Then again, neither did South Korea after we fought for it. How long until the South was in any position to defend itself against the better equipped and trained North?

                People smugly point to tightening relations with Iran, but when push came to shove it was America they depended on. Maybe that will mean nothing in the long run. My guess is there are Iraqi leaders who are smart enough to know where their bread is buttered.

                How long until South Korea was actually a functional democracy?

                Iraq is still standing. It is still a democracy, albeit with huge flaws. There are obvious cultural differences between South Korea and Iraq. But there are a number of American allies today that had slow transitions to functioning democracies and in the mean time mixed/awful human rights records.

                1. So, to be clear, your putting Iraq down in the win column?

                  1. Well, Saudi Arabia sure isn’t.

                  2. I’m putting myself down in the “I am not Nostradamus” column, and the answer to that question is still dependent upon the Iraqis. It’s just incredibly shortsighted to assume that because they aren’t some wonderful democracy and regional power now that it means we lost.

                    If the goal is a relatively free and prosperous democratic Iraq, then that shit is going to take time and it’s far from clear where it will be within a generation. But many of the doom and gloom predictions issued since 2004 and on HAVE NOT come true.

                    1. And South Korea is used as an example to show just how long that transition can take place as opposed to Japan and Germany. Left to their own, the South fumbled along for a generation after Korea slowly becoming what it is today. It was gradual and very shaky at times, and dependent upon American defense. But sure as shit better than the alternative for the people of South Korea.

                    2. How far removed from the end of the war and occupation does it have to get before you can’t reliably attribute it to the war and occupation?

                    3. You can attribute it to what you want, but it’s very doubtful that without our intervention any future democracy would have formed in Iraq. Just like if we didn’t intervene there wouldn’t be a South Korea today.

                    4. How far removed from the end of the war and occupation does it have to get before you can’t reliably attribute it to the war and occupation?

                  3. absolutely a win. Saddam was a friggin nightmare and in any rational sense, the world is better off with him gone. Yes, we could have done far better. Yes, it should have been cheaper in lives and money.
                    But, yes, history will chalk this up as a win.

                2. I spent a year there in 05-06. It was the bloodiest year up to that time for the Iraqis, the Iranian backed madi were killing people left and right. The locals I dealt with were glad we were there and were looking foreword to us staying as their lives were getting a lot better. I said we wouldn’t win unless we stayed 50 years and the symbol of that victory would be walmart setting up shop outside of the green zone. We didn’t stay after we won the war.

                  1. Staying was never an option. That was made clear early on. And the reason was there was no will to stay.

          5. I think your knowledge of history is too narrow. War has always had asymmetric aspects. The Geneva conventions were agreed to, to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, because prior to that all sides would readily eradicate anything even remotely related to insurgency or civilian support of armed forces. Saboteurs were shot on sight. Insurgents were shot on sight. Soldier out of uniform….shot as spies. The Geneva conventions were set up to give a legal framework where honest mistakes didn’t result in immediate execution in the field.

            The only thing that has changed is that the US government does not have the fortitude to see things through to the bitter end. Decades of propaganda has convinced the US population that it is inherently evil and any collateral damage must be avoided at all costs. Blame the KGB for this farce.

            In WWII, there was no holding back. Imagine trying to explain to almost any American in 1944 that it is wrong to bomb a Mosque that the enemy is using as a safe house. They laugh in your face.

    2. After Pearl Harbour and 1601,000 American casualties in the Pacific Theatre, we definitely had the will to pacify Japan. That’s one of the differences about a war fought after being attacked, as opposed to optional wars where the politicians are scared to death of heavy casualties.
      Perhaps war should be reserved for defense. Get did of most of the standing army, restore the right to declare war to Congress, and stop using the military as part of the diplomatic tool kit.

        1. No, it’s not.

      1. stop using the military as part of the diplomatic tool kit.

        The Navy will always be important because of globalization, and to some degree we will continue to be the world’s policeman, but we have to work to scale back on a lot of it.

        1. Some sort of civilian review board is in order!

    3. Yes, it is possible to evolve a peaceful, tolerant, democratic society in a formerly totalitarian state.

      If you’re willing to utterly and totally destroy the pre-existing political and social order and occupy the country for sixty years. At a cost of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

      That only very, very, very, rarely makes sense from the view of a rational cost-benefit analysis.

      1. It also helps to have a singular authority whose surrender and call for peace strongly resonates with the population. There is no equivalent in modern-day Islam to the Emperor of Japan.

        1. Moreover, a lot of these “countries” in the Middle East come from arbitrarily drawn lines in the sand. Between the U.N., the British before them, and the Ottomans before them, the whole place is basically a giant experiment in “can you call two people who hate each other and will war at the slighest provocation members of the same nation?”

      2. It helped that Imperial Japan’s brand of totalitarianism was specific to them. No neighbours still promoting it while you’re trying to get rid of it.

    4. Japan willingly westernized during the Meiji Restoration, decades before the Gaijin Shogun took power. Look at the Meiji constitution. Look at their government and Diet breakdown. I mean, they obviously were influenced more by the Prussians than the English or Americans(which may explain a few things…) but Japanese culture was already fundamentally changing way before the end of the Second World War. That’s not to say that they didn’t have a clear problem with ultranationalists and military leaders, but ‘the amount of effort and killing’ has far less to do with it than you think.

      1. Both Afghanistan and Iraq underwent “willing westernization” but ultimately those elements lost out to Arab socialism and dictatorship (Iraq) or communism and Islamic theocracy (Afghanistan).

        1. Afghanistan- not really outside of the cities, where it counts. Churchill’s quote about the only thing the tribesmen love about the modern world is the long range rifle applies. Iraq moreso, but through British oversight and they’ve got the whole ‘three different groups that hate each other’ thing going on. Japan being moderately monocultural and voluntarily westernizing helps a lot.

          1. True enough. I think it takes a combination of factors to explain the difference between Japan and Iraq/Afghanistan, quasi-national terrorist organizations, or other potential “War on Terror” opponents. I also don’t think there’s a will in the West to carry out a war to the extent there was then, and the enemy knows it.

      2. This is a point that I’ve often made over the last 14 years — Germany, Italy, and Japan all had far more of a track record of domestically-produced liberalization prior to their fascist interregnums (e.g., they all had universal male suffrage and elected parliaments) than most nations in the Islamic world.

    5. There’s not much equivalence between a mono culture, ordered society on the losing side of total war and a religiously fractured tribal society in a low intensity conflict.

    6. And I’m the one here accused of having genocidal thoughts. Oh (/sarc) how much of Iraq should we turn into a parking lot before they learn(sarc)

    7. You can’t have freedom unless you are first willing to give it to others.

      How many people in the Middle East aren’t willing? I’d say a whole lot of them, especially their political leaders. Even most of our political leaders aren’t willing. The power they get in government is quite valuable, as the wealth they get from holding office shows. Look at Clinton and her $2 billion slush fund masquerading as a charity.

      If you kill the head of the snake, a bunch of other snakes start biting.

      I personally am not willing to to spend my money to “change a culture that would allow a saner form of government.” And taking over their government, including taking over their tax collections, is a great way to create enemies. You don’t change people’s culture via the use of force, and fighting an ideology with guns doesn’t work.

  3. “John Bolton…failed to learn”

    That’s the problem with people who think they know everything. They’re too stupid to learn.

    1. So John Bolton and everyone on the left? And John McCain, and Lindsy Grahams, and …

      1. But you repeat yourself.

  4. I contrast this message with the current bleeding heart outpouring across the world in regards to the latest atrocities in Syria. And then I listen to Samantha Power blast Syria and its allies over Aleppo as if calling them names is somehow going to change anything.

    The more things change, etc….

  5. says Sen. Rand Paul, who’s failed to learn that ….

    Unfortunate wording.

    1. Exactly. Who failed to learn, Bolton or Paul? Missing some more quotation marks.

  6. Great answer on immigration. He’s really a stud.

    I’m actually fine with him not being president – he’s far more valuable keeping tabs on the day to day shenanigans.

    1. Right now he should be figuring out one thing. How to get rid of Sessions, period.

      1. I don’t know about that. It sounds like he should be figuring out how to get two more nutless GOP senators to vote no on the abortion of budget coming up in January.

        The GOP is really, truly awful. Predictably, they aren’t learning the Trump lesson any better than the Dems.

    2. Imagine a libertarian Ted Kennedy in the Senate (minus the letting a woman suffocate and being an asshole).

    3. I don’t think he has the cult of personality that is apparently needed to become president, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

      1. I recall a lot of vapid lefties couldn’t get over the hair.

        1. Or the turtlenecks he continues to sell at his store. You aren’t Frank Bullitt; you’re a thin chain away from a Lonely Planet song. STOP IT!

          1. I’m gonna buy one. I’ll look like a goddamn libertarian Archer.

            1. It definitely looks like a tactical garment.

              1. A tactalneck?

            2. You will look like you are selling used stereos.

              1. Dude, I have this sweet Blaupunkt.

                Interested?

                  1. You don’t need a Blaupunkt, you need a curve ball.

              2. You will look like you are selling used stereos.

                the perfect libertarian candidate?

          2. I don’t wear turtlenecks, but if I did, it would be that one.

    4. I tried listening to a Reason podcast once and it was just Gillespie — everyone else’s sound just wasn’t there. Quality control?

      Which is my way of asking you to relay what he said about immigration.

      Regarding where I’d rather have him – president. Hands down, no questions asked. The president has the pulpit, the president sets the agenda. If we are going to have someone wielding that kind of power, I want it to be someone like Paul.

      1. The sound was actually fine this time. His main point is that immigration to the US has never been a free-for-all. Sick, no sponsor, or being unwilling to work got you booted out. He is not a fan of bringing in refugees, putting them in government housing and giving them government welfare. He said it’s not the right way to teach the awesomeness of this country.

        He also touched on the danger of bringing in assholes (he referenced the two jihadi fuckos they nabbed in Bowling Green).

        All in all, a good, sound answer that is guaranteed to piss of both the open border dreamers and the wall builders.

        1. Don’t care, the Reason podcast is dead to me. Long live The Fifth Column!!!

          Thanks for the run down, though.

        2. What about the open dream builders?

          1. Oh, I don’t know…

            Do we have any Trump steaks left? We could send them a case.

      2. He basically said, America has always been receptive to immigrants, but, every new arrival either had a sponsor or was expected to get a job and support themselves. We did not put refugees on government assistance when they arrived in the past. And at Ellis Island if you were sick, you were deported. Not given free health care.

        1. oops

      3. If we are going to have someone wielding that kind of power, I want it to be someone like Paul.

        Thank you, but I’m occupied with my current day job.

  7. I’m sure you will all be shocked to discover that the Muslim teen who was the victim of mean drunk people on the subway made it all up.

  8. file under: things that make Derpy sigh like Kiff

    ISIS math

    But in the ISIS schools, lessons were about guns and warplanes. Mathematics courses couldn’t use a plus symbol because it resembled a Christian cross. Mosul’s biggest libraries were ransacked over a number of weeks, beginning in late 2014, and the extremists set up bonfires to torch books on science and culture, according to accounts at the time.

    1. But in the ISIS schools, lessons were about guns and warplanes. Mathematics courses couldn’t use a plus symbol because it resembled a Christian cross You know who else rejects mundane symbols because they offend their ideological sensibilities?

      1. You know who else rejects mundane symbols because they offend their ideological sensibilities?

        The yokels who whine that Starbucks’ Holiday cup isn’t gaudy and/or Christian-y enough for their tastes?

        1. To be fair, Halloween is worshiping the occult.

          1. If you haven’t already seen this, you owe it to yourself to do so.

    1. God willing, this means we get our Objectivist underwater paradise.

      Fun stuff starts at 2:15.

      1. Yeah, that went SO WELL. Just like the Manifest Destiny Balloon City and modifying SHODAN’s morality coding.

        1. Millions may have died, but we got to hear Andrew Ryan say “but The Parasites say NO!” repeatedly.

          Totally worth.

      2. Wasn’t Bioshock 2 a critique of Randian ideas? Ie, regulating, controlling and surrendering discovery was the preferable outcome?

        1. Bioshock 1 was a critique of Objectivism, with a bunch of holes in it. Bioshock 2 is an attempt at a critique of collectivism, with a bunch of holes in it.

          1. Bioshock Infinite is an attempt at a critique of American exceptionalism, with a bunch of a-holes in it.

        2. Not as such, no.

          Bioshock 1 was a critique of Objectivism. 2 was more critiquing collectivism. In either case, there’s no remedy suggested – the ostensible “resistance hero” in BioShock 1 is revealed to be a self-serving criminal and con-man, exactly of the type Ryan rails against at the start.

          In fact, regulating, controlling and surrendering rights is what Ryan ends up doing to Rapture anyway. It’s one of the reasons I’ve seen Objectivists not consider BioShock a critique, so much as a warning of “yeah, if you make some compromises, you will end up a dictator”.

          The museum was mostly a way to bring back Andrew Ryan, but I think it gave a fair (if caricatured) overview of Randian ideals as expounded upon by Ryan. Having his personal notes of disquiet about it at the end was a nice touch.

          1. In fact, regulating, controlling and surrendering rights is what Ryan ends up doing to Rapture anyway. It’s one of the reasons I’ve seen Objectivists not consider BioShock a critique, so much as a warning of “yeah, if you make some compromises, you will end up a dictator”.

            The other argument I see from Objectivists is that Ryan specifically doesn’t import Objectivists into his Objectivist utopia, he just imports people who excel in their fields, or are manual labourers. “Of course an Objectivist society fails if you pump it full of non-Objectivists.”

            1. I think the more cynical take is that a society filled with Objectivists is still going to have a top and a bottom, and a certain amount of crooks and grifters. The latter will be effective at portraying any attempts to curtail their success as hypocrisy motivated by envy, but if they aren’t curtailed, hardworking people at the bottom will lose faith in the system. Given that there’s already ample reason for disliking a system when you’re on the bottom, they’ll just grow into an anti-Objectivist faction.

    2. Sounds like Fake Newz to me

    3. I think it’s nice that the mentally challenged can make a living in the internet economy.

  9. Male bonding: the gateway drug to Trumpism

    Many of these radical white men were raised by single feminist mothers. Internet groups radicalized their sexual frustration into bigotry.

    These online groups found young white men at their most vulnerable & convinced them liberals were colluding to destroy white Western manhood

    So. much. derp.

    1. What’s the equivalent of “Allahu Akbar”/”Deus Vult” for these radicalized white young men?

      “Hold my beer and watch this”?

      1. Who says, “Deus Vult” / what does it mean?

        1. It means “god will it” and was a cry of Crusaders in 1099 as they stormed Jerusalem (and Antioch), murdering everything in their path.

          These days – mostly people who play Crusader Kings 2, because a few in-game option have “Deus Vult” instead of “OK” in them (Pope calling a crusade, your ruler throwing a heretic into jail, few others).

          Some of the alt-right have supposedly adopted the term because it combines two of their favorite things, memes and killing Muslims.

        2. Gotcha, Latin battle cry during the Crusades.

          Battle cries never sound cool in English.

            1. Man, I’ve watched the ‘band of brothers’ speech from that Henry V movie close to one hundred times on youtube but never sat down and watched the whole thing, which is basically full retard of me.

              (‘Badass speeches’ is a youtube list of mine that I have turned to in the bleakest moments of finals weeks and now work weeks)

              1. One of the manliest and Englishest movies ever made. Yes, you don’t often think of the two together.

                Derek Jacobi, Ian Holm and Brian Blessed, among others – what a supporting cast Branagh was able to gather!

                And damn, the music is awesome – I am not a Christian, but I’d lie if I said Non Nobis doesn’t make me want to sing.

              2. Yeah, that’s dumb. Watch the whole movie, it’s fantastic. It has Brian Blessed shit-talking the French.

                1. Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt,
                  And any thing that may not misbecome
                  The mighty sender, doth he prize you at.
                  Thus says my king; an’ if your father’s highness
                  Do not, in grant of all demands at large,
                  Sweeten the bitter mock you sent his majesty,
                  He’ll call you to so hot an answer of it,
                  That caves and womby vaultages of France
                  Shall chide your trespass and return your mock
                  In second accent of his ordnance.

        3. “God will it” It’s a Latin Crusader battle cry. Became an internet meme awhile back, probably due to Crusader Kings 2.

          1. All I know is, the one concession I’ll give to the terrorists is “Allahu Akbar” is a great battle cry.

    2. Wait a second… this is why I’m not getting laid? Bro you just gateway’d me to a RADICAL new way of thinking.

    3. PUAs are alt-right now? It really is just a catch-all for people they think are icky.

      Men who deploy the “SJW” attack seek to reestablish control and agency over the cultural conversation by ridiculing progressive attempts to seek greater diversity and representation in media, and to dismiss basically anything that could be deemed “multiculturalism” or representation

      Sounds about right…

      There really is too much derp to address, though. Sheesh.

      1. PUAs are alt-right now?

        To be fair, the amount of distinct objects found in intersection of those two sets is quite large nowadays.

        1. Indeed.

          (I eagerly await the alt-right anime series)

          1. Magical Girl Puri-Puri-Purity Chan?

            By day she’s homeschooled and hangs out with her Aryan friends. At night, she battles Outsider Foreign Demons while wondering if mysterious PUA-Kun is white or not?

            1. Won’t happen. Globalist Jews control the Anime industry.
              Case in point, the Bella and the Bulldogs anime adaptation.

              1. If Jews controlled anime industry, all women would be big-tittied blondes fighting over some weedy useless nerd..

                Oh. Oh my god! (((Everything))) is clear!

            2. I was thinking more of a shonen series, basically Attack on Titan but Muslims and Mexicans instead of titans. And a lot more clearly xenophobic rape scenes.

              1. So, Berserk? Or Fist of the North Star with skin filter for villains?

                1. Berserk’s rapes aren’t xenophobic, unless Rape Horse is a minority status now.

                  Actually Attack on Titan works really well. It’s all about German ubermensch defending walls from foreign invaders. And there’s one Asian, and she’s more competent than the whites (Hajime Isayama, secret member of the alt-right, or typical Japanese nationalist?). But they’ll have to have less white people die obviously. And the foreigners need to attack in hordes and be naturally stupid. With their strings being pulled by the owner of the local deli the main characters frequent, to stress the point of the (((hidden enemy))).

                  1. , unless Rape Horse is a minority status now.

                    If Rape Horse is not a minority, we are literally all fucked.

              2. An Attack on Titan rape scene? It would either be spelunking or like juicing an orange. And IIRC, they don’t have fun bits anyway.

                1. I mean foreigners raping white women. For tips, see Mad Bull 34.

                  1. Fucking 80s anime, man. Fucking 80s….

                    And yes, I know that Mad Bull is extra special even by those standards, but still.

        2. I guess you have a point there. When are libertarians going to be thrown into the alt-right? Or have they already?

    4. Penises are Evil!

    5. convinced them liberals were colluding to destroy white Western manhood

      Umm, aren’t liberals pretty much up-front about that…?

      1. But you’re not supposed to tell that to the worthless male scum!

        Also, I love the section bitching about GamerGate. Which reminds me, I haven’t said FUCK YOU REASON (except Cathy Young) in a while, so FUCK YOU REASON (except Cathy Young)!

  10. file under: when all you have is a hammer

    Problem: less economic mobility, (possibly, maybe, perhaps due to excessive taxes and regulations?)
    Solution: more taxes and regulations

    More equality, by contrast, is pretty clearly achievable from a technical standpoint through different tax and regulatory structures.

    Thanks, Matt. You’re the Derp Champion.

    1. Shorter: Parents are fucking up.

    2. Indeed, some people, like my colleague Tim Lee, think that a big boost in growth is essentially impossible for a country like the United States that is already pretty affluent on the whole.

      My flabber is surely fucking ghasted.

    1. It is never clear to me whether we are supposed to abolish the concept of race entirely, or hold it up as the primary metric of a person, idea, or cause’s worth. This course description tries to do both at the same time.

    2. Always start with the conclusion. Proggie rule number one.

    3. New rule: no federal student loans for any course on “whiteness” (or “blackness”).

      1. If you’re going to go there, simply refuse federal funds for any college that maintains a “cultural diversity graduation requirement” (read mandatory identity studies indoctrination).

  11. “Twitter’s Dorsey excluded from Trump meeting because of an emoji”
    Well, maybe not:
    “Another possible reason: Trump adviser Peter Thiel, the venture capitalist and Facebook board member, has long disliked Twitter.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..796785.php

    But the second one wasn’t as nasty toward Trump, so the Chron went with the first.

    1. The fact that Twitter has been purging conservative and alt-right accounts, and even shadowbanned Scott Adams for a while, may have something to do with Twitter’s exclusion.

  12. Again?

    I’m shocked. Now I wonder just who put her up to this? Couldn’t have been anyone on the left. Putin?

    1. I mean, not Putin himself, but proxy Russian intelligence agencies yeah, 100%.

    2. Just as we have lone wolf Muslim terrorists, we can have lone wolf fake Muslim hate crimes.

    1. Yeah, anonymous sources, “hack”, “personally involved”.
      Parse that and we have someone with a suspicion that Putin might have timed the release of honest information sometime during the election.
      Maybe.
      FFS, the hag LOST on her own! Give it a REST.

      1. Only genius hackers from a former superpower would be able to trick an old fool barely able to use a computer into giving up his password. All the more so if the old fool has a ton of embarrassing info which many people were trying to get.

        I’m super cereal you guys.

      2. Yep, she lost in a country whose voters were catastrophically uninformed about the issues. I agree. This is a bigger problem than Putin.

        1. Fuck off, asswipe.

        2. Or perhaps they were well informed about the issues and that’s why they chose one candidate over another?

          The egotism of the Left: that if you have their view, you are intelligent and knowledgeable; if you have another view, you are a mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger who votes on emotion alone and is impermeable to reason.

          Interestingly, though, all you have to do is read the comments section of any major newspaper lately, and it seems that the Left is all emotion, and turns to name-calling anyone who challenges their position rather than countering their point (because it’s not worth countering, because everyone knows he’s right and doesn’t need to explain!)

    2. Aren’t U.S. intelligence agencies (and their private sector cyber-security counterparts) the ones who stand to gain the most power and $$$ from a cyber-Cold-War? Anything they say should take that into consideration.

  13. file under: most people don’t read past the headline

    Headline: Vladimir Putin’s Popularity Is Skyrocketing Among Republicans

    way, way down:

    “Despite this, 58 percent of Americans overall believe Russia is unfriendly or an enemy to the U.S. That number drops slightly to 52 percent among Republicans and 56 percent among declared Trump voters.”

    1. Also: McCarthy-Like Russophobia Skyrocketing Among Democrats.

  14. file under: about last night

    Drunken Kim Jong Un forces top military leaders to write apology letters — then forgets it

    “Why are you gathered here?” Kim allegedly said, adding: “Be careful about your health because you are all old.”

    With that, the military men began crying ? a reaction which pleased Kim, according to the account of the strange session.

    1. North Korea is like looking into the nightmares of the past. Down with monarchies and the like for real. Do it for the fucking children.

      1. Joffrey Baratheon would be an improvement over Kim Junk Food.

    2. Mad Dog gets it:

      “…there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.”

      I can’t believe no one has whacked the little fucker.

      1. There’s always the possibility that he’s not actually in charge and that he doesn’t get whacked because the people who are in charge don’t want him to be.

  15. file under: other people’s money

    The IRS spent more than $1.4 million on long-term travel for just 27 employees in fiscal 2015, including on high-end car services and luxury apartment and hotel stays, a Senate report has found — with one lawmaker blasting “woefully insufficient efforts” to reduce expenses at the agency.

    And yet some employees pushed the limits on the taxpayers’ dime.

    The report cites the case of one employee spending more than five months at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, racking up a $38,799 tab, while another stayed in a number of Washington hotels including the Ritz Carlton ? Pentagon City in Northern Virginia to the tune of $72,544 for the fiscal year.

    1. At least they learned to stop spending money on spoofing TV shows for training videos:

      Gilligan’s Audit

      Tax Trek

    2. The report cites the case of one employee spending more than five months at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, racking up a $38,799 tab, while another stayed in a number of Washington hotels including the Ritz Carlton ? Pentagon City in Northern Virginia to the tune of $72,544 for the fiscal year.

      That’s an impressive number of hookers.

  16. “Hillary Clinton Blew Millions on States Already Wrapped Up to Deny Trump Popular Vote”
    […]
    “Hillary Clinton spent millions of dollars to attract voters in Chicago and New Orleans ? despite having their respective states locked up ? to keep Donald Trump from winning the popular vote, according to Politico.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/entertai…..796199.php

    But Putin! Fake News! Coomey!

    1. I’ve been saying that for weeks. When I was watching certain games (during some of which my internet went down), I saw several dozen Hillary commercials in AN EXCLUSIVELY CALIFORNIA TV MARKET.

      How could anyone possibly be so stupid?

      1. “How could anyone possibly be so stupid?”

        Stupidity is like heat. Although there is a theoretical maximum value, it is so incredibly high that for all practical purposes, there is no upper limit.

        To sum up: Peak Derp = Planck Temperature

        At 10^10 K electrons approach the speed of light, but they also become more massive, so their temperature can continue to rise. At 10^32 K such staggering densities obtain that greater temperature would cause each particle of matter to become its own black hole, and the usual understanding of space and time would collapse. Ergo, the Planck temperature is as hot as things can get.

    2. She figured she had it won and wanted to guarantee a mandate.

      1. I laughed when she has to cancel the fireworks show. It still makes me laugh. The hubris, the sense of entitlement, the assumption of victory, then BAM!
        Ah… that will give me joy when I am an old, old man.

        1. I missed this…she had a fucking fireworks show planned?!

          1. And special custom broken-glass confetti, to be rained down from the glass ceiling above her…

            It’s delightful. They couldn’t have scripted a better ending that lacked handcuffs.

            1. “Turn the machines back on! Turn the machines BACK ON!”

            2. This is the best part-

              “We will offer you five cents on the dollar for the fireworks, right?” he said, repeating what he says his campaign told Clinton aides. “They never responded.”

            3. “…They couldn’t have scripted a better ending that lacked handcuffs.”

              That’s GOOD!

            4. Wait, she wanted to shoot broken glass all over her supporters? Could we maybe arrange for a second-place victory party?

              1. That should have been “broken glass” in quotation marks to denote it was, indeed, fake; but I got distracted.

                If Robby doesn’t have to edit then neither do I.

        2. I didnt know about that. That is funny.

    3. New Orleans is in Louisiana, a reliably red state.

  17. Watching American Dad! because, fuck it, I’m getting drunk and doing nothing tonight anyway. And this exchange:

    Bartender: Don’t worry, doll. lt gets easier.
    Haley: At least l’m not being exploited like these poor strippers.
    Bartender: Sweetie, these girls are being empowered.
    Haley: Yeah, right.
    Bartender: Think about it. They show their breasts, and men hand over hundreds of their hard-earned dollars. Who’s really being exploited here?
    Bar slob: Plus, to quote Camille Paglia, they are sexual conquerors, controlling the channel between nature and culture. [to stripper] TAKE IT OFF, BITCH.

  18. Rand cut the statue of Liberty inscription short, exactly at the relevant part

    “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

    I’m all for people who are in fact “yearning to breathe free”. Most of the world is not yearning to breath free. Nor most of our immigrants.

    1. Where do we stand on people yearning to vape free?

        1. I’d visit Vape Nation but wouldn’t tell anyone about it. Kinda like Taiwan.

        2. Man, the Avatar the Last Airbender sequels are getting stupid.

          1. I, too, despise yellow-washing.

            1. Have they done something even worse than Korra, or is this just about how fucking awful Korra was?

              1. Hey now, Reason has some Korra fans. Somehow.

                Robby Soave’s shitty taste in anime confirmed.

                1. Man. Just when I’m thinking he’s doing good work and I ought to stop twitting him about his spelling.

                  1. Never, ever show sympathy or forget yourself and treat Robby as if he were a human.

                    Fucking Fae creatures need to remember their place!

          2. Avatar looks dumb. I like dumb. I like Miyazaki’s oeuvre, and that’s as dumb as dumb comes. But Avatar looks dumb even relative to that.

                1. JFC I should know better thank clicking on your links.

                    1. I never got interested in watching OPM.

                      By the way, what ever happened to mecha? Are there any good recent mecha anime series out there? It’s like they stopped taking mecha seriously after Orguss 02.

                    2. No clue. I’ve dropped out after Black Lagoon. Fucking moe, fucking Japan….

                      No, wait. I did watch Girls und Panzer which I’m prepared to defend to the death. But tanks aren’t real mecha…

                    3. Anime bastards still haven’t done anything with Vinland Saga.

                      And new Berserk was goddamn awful. I need something with substance dammit, that doesn’t take place in a bloody high school.

                    4. Meh, it’s ok, goofy and fun. I just like the opening (POWER, GET DA POWER).

                      Not entirely sure about mecha, Gundam’s still producing its yearly content but it will never die. Mecha seems to only get popular now if it’s annoyingly self-aware, whether seriously (Evangelion) or stupidly (Gurren Lagann).

  19. Why did he decide that the strategy to win over people who think Mexicans are crossing over the border to vote for Democrats was to run as if he were Mike Huckabee. Rand Paul is at his best when he’s advocating insurrection. Why didn’t he run full-tilt crazy? The guy that won the whole thing did.

    1. Now go home and get your fucking shinebox.

  20. So, does anyone else remember that story where the Sanders campaign was cut off from access to the DNC servers for violating access limitations or some such business? Has anyone (not invested in selling the Russia angle and attempting to foment civil unrest to undermine the legitimate winner of the election) followed up on that in light of the leaks?

    1. does anyone else remember that story where the Sanders campaign was cut off from access to the DNC servers for violating access limitations or some such business?

      It was December 2015/January 2016 if i recall.

      it was complicated. The DNC only gave his campaign permission to use certain party-resources. Then his people decided to grab some of the stuff themselves.

      the media (naturally) took the side of Clinton and accused bernie people of breaking the rules.

      Here

      Documents Show Sanders Staffers Breached Clinton Voter Data

      After Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign was disciplined by the Democratic National Committee for improperly accessing the Hillary Clinton campaign’s proprietary voter database…

      The DNC has revoked the Sanders’ campaigns credentials to access the data until an investigation has been conducted.

      The Sanders campaign responded Friday by calling the staffers’ actions “inappropriate” but also filed a lawsuit against the DNC over a “breach of contract.”

      “Rather incredibly, the leadership of the DNC has used this incident to shut down our ability to access our own information, information which is the lifeblood of this campaign,” said Sanders campaign chief Jeff Weaver.

      1. Yes, I remember. I’m just wondering whether anyone has thought to investigate whether his team might have gotten access to emails along with it.

  21. It’s a little heavy on the pablum, (I’m one 100% serious when I say California should sucede) but worth the read.

    “Californians Can and Should Lead A Revolution”

    https://www.good.is/features/c alexit-california-independence

    1. Fuck off, asswipe.

    2. You are such an idiot that you can’t even post a working link

      american socialist

        1. It disturbs me to know that you masturbate while you post here.

        2. Mostly, you’ve been busted as an ignoramus and should fuck off, asswipe.

    3. I’ll email my Six Step Plan to the Department of Defense. It’s probably kinder than what they’ll come up with when the People’s Republic of California nears bankruptcy and starts sucking up to China for money.

  22. Can someone tell me where the hell Reason is regarding the executive branch agency refusals to provide information to the President-elect transition team and congress?

    We are essentially at a zero rule-of-law or checks-and-balances state, but hey, Reason hates Trump so all good.

    1. Everyone discussed it in detail, but then we all agreed to keep our thoughts secret from you and the staffers deleted the thread.

      1. I thought Libertarians were all about inclusion…

        1. Libertarians are all about free association. And we all freely agreed to not associate with you.

          1. I keed! I keed!

            1. If RA needed a sarc tag after what I said, he deserves everything he gets.

              1. You are absolutely correct. I am still not used to the mostly “adult” commenters here. Past sites I frequented trained me to avoid offending others. I need to work on that weakness…

                  1. HnR never fails after a long day. Well done DJ

    2. Apparently Trump has disavowed that request, so constitutional crisis averted. Now, once his people are actually at the agency and he starts opening up branch offices in the north side of Alaska for warmists and their defenders… on the plus side, if they’re right and not just spreading FUD to empower the global elite, they’ll be living in a nice moderate climate while we wither.

  23. Are you aware that Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder (TARD) has become an epidemic?

    Literally shaking right now.

    1. The acronym is particularly fitting.

  24. Janet Yellen: Interest Rate Hike Is A Vote Of Confidence In U.S. Economy NBC News

    Trump is lucky to be sworn in while there is a healthy, vibrant US economy. But he will fuck it up like the Bushpigs did and the cycle will start all over again like in 2008.

    1. Trump is lucky to be sworn in while there is a healthy, vibrant US economy.

      Citation needed

      1. Hey, ask him about $500 gold! And 8%; that’s always good for a laugh.

      2. Come on, Mike. Even if you haven’t met this particular troll before, the handle Palin’s Buttplug should have been a tip off

        1. Yeah, I know we shouldn’t feed the trolls and yet I fed both Buttplug and AmSoc. And I gave an unnecessary sarc tag above. Rough night. I’ll get better…I promise!

        2. How much up Trump’s small asshole must one be before you graduate from the lowly troll status at Reason.com. When I first got here I was excited to hear about libertarianism– the new dynamic force in American politics. But now I discover it’s just more warmed over right-wing bullshit. Sad.

          1. Fuck off, asswipe.

          2. BTW, this is particularly telling:
            “When I first got here I was excited to hear about libertarianism– the new dynamic force in American politics”
            Asswipe presumed a political group opposed to government coercion would somehow support a worn-out, pathetic ideology dedicated to the mass murder of millions for the enrichment of the dictatorial class.
            How fucking stupid do you have to be to do that? Did asswipe ever read anything at all about political/economic views before blundering in here and being told he’s an anachronism along with being an ignoramus?
            Yeah, asswipe, go sit on a can and please, please, please hold your breath since you didn’t get what mommy promised.

    1. But those pretty people on the TEEVEE have A Message for us!

      1. Nothing like using a hashtag like “#UniteForAmerica” when one of the likeliest outcomes is an open civil war.

        1. First they completely misunderstand how the electoral college vs the popular vote works and then they move on to misinterpreting Hamilton.

          How the fuck do these idiot tie their shoes in the morning?

        2. Boy, HotLips looks awful.

    2. OK, but then:

      “…only Bernie Sanders could win the election for Democrats….”

      Bzzzt!
      Bring on the Speidel!

    3. Even Sen. John McCain stated that he didn’t think “the outcome of the election was impacted by Russian hacking.”

      John McCain is reliable now?

      1. Well if even he is unwilling to blame the Russians…

        1. I get their point, but it’s funny watching anyone go to Mr. Let’s-Give-ISIS-Weapons for advice. Trump really has upended the table.

  25. Lee Jun-fan didn’t die for this.

  26. “The retired Army general chosen by Donald Trump to be national security adviser was investigated for inappropriately sharing classified information with foreign military officers while he was serving as an intelligence commander in Afghanistan.
    Army documents that were made public Wednesday by the Washington Post and obtained by The Associated Press concluded that while some intelligence was wrongly shared by Michael Flynn, it was “not done knowingly.””
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..795897.php

    I guess the investigation makes him ineligible for a cabinet position, while the hag’s numerous investigations made her “qualified” for POTUS.

    1. Shoulda put the two dudes into IDF uniforms!

  27. file under: burn after reading

    Some real gems in this one:

    “A person of size leans to one side in a chair, having a conversation with someone off-camera.”

    ” I believe that the destigmatizing of fatness is not only beneficial, but ultimately integral to the long term goals of fat liberation.

    But while we expand the definitions and boundaries of fatness, and continue to work towards fat liberation for all,”

    “Caleb Luna is a Contributing Writer for Everyday Feminism. They are working class, fat, brown, queer, living, writing, performing, and dancing in Oakland, California. They are a first-year PhD student at University of California, Berkeley, and their work explores the intersections of fatness, desire, fetishism, white supremacy, and colonialism from a queer of color lens. You can find more of their writing on Black Girl Dangerous and on Facebook and Tumblr under queerandpresentdanger.”

    I guess the author is a colony organism.

    1. Everyday Feminism biographies are wonderful works of fiction. Too bad article quality never comes near.

  28. Trump repudiated Bolton’s foreign policy views–just not the name Bolton.

    The Trump campaign is in a bit of a quandary because other than Sessions, the only political figures who were willing to bet their futures on Trump were people like Gingrich, Palin, Giuliani, and Bolton–who had no political future.

    When you win, you’re supposed to look after the people who supported you, but with Sessions beating out Giuliani for Attorney General, and the Exxon guy beating out both Giuliani and Bolton to head the Department of State, the Trump campaign looks like they don’t give a damn about the people who supported him during the campaign–and that doesn’t play well when you’re trying to entice someone to screw over their supporters in exchange for a plumb assignment come Trump’s second term.

    I mean, what’s the point of cronyism if you don’t take good care of your cronies?

    That’s why Bolton is still being considered as a deputy at State. It isn’t about Trump endorsing any of Bolton’s foreign policy views; it’s about everybody knowing that Bolton is mentally handicapped poster child for Trump taking care of people who are loyal.

    Remember when Bill Clinton executed a retard to signal that he was tough on crime? Trump is making a retard the Deputy Secretary of State to prove that he rewards loyalty.

  29. P.S. Apart from insisting that only Congress has the power to declare war, I don’t think there is a libertarian foreign policy.

    I.e., there probably isn’t anything apart from that, in foreign policy, which can’t be justified in libertarian terms.

    I can think of solid libertarian arguments for toppling Pinochet, supporting Pinochet, and doing nothing one way or the other about Pinochet. In foregn policy, especially, It’s how you get there.

  30. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

    =======================> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.