MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

"Forget the Blue Wave and Behold the Purple Puddle"

An apt summary, from Prof. Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit).

From his USA Today column tonight.

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.

  • JeremyR||

    Eh, I fear the loss of being able to own a gun and having a much smaller paycheck (due to taxes) than anything the government will give me.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Minimize this if you want, but it's about the blue wave people started talking about in January, if not the one they ended up hoping for.

    Expectations were not beaten by either side, they were met.
    And expectations were that Dems would overcome a 5 point structural headwind to take the House. During a markedly good economy.

    Because Trump is remaking the GOP in pretty unpopular ways.

  • TLBD||

    I agree that it shouldn't be minimized.

    The party of unlimited spending, unlimited government power, character assassination, and mob violence won power while the economy is booming.

    Propaganda works, folks.

  • Sarcastr0||

    It sure seems to work on you...

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Which part of that was wrong?

    1) Party of unlimited spending. I'll partly give you this: While the Democrats are "the" party of unlimited spending, the Republicans are "a" party of it. Not a lot of fiscal discipline to be found in Washington these days, but none of it is on the left.

    2) Unlimited government power. Do you seriously contest that? Aside from regulating abortion, what area of life will Democrats admit is beyond the reach of government?

    3) Character assassination was on display during the Kavanaugh hearings.

    4) Mob violence all through 2016, and who can forget Democrats rioting at Trump's inauguration? Seriously, who riots at an inauguration? Democrats do.

    5) The economy IS booming.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Sorry you don't know what unlimited means. Or what mob violence means.

    And if you want to talk about character assassination, lets talk about Hillary and Obama. Oh, I know, you believe that stuff so it's different.

    Agreed about the economy.

  • KevinP||

    Is this what mob violence looks like? The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

    He brought an American flag to protest fascism in Portland. Then antifa attacked him


    Quote:
    Paul Welch came to the downtown protest Aug. 4 to let his political leanings be known.

    With pride he clutched his U.S. flag as he moved among the crowd of like-thinking demonstrators.

    Soon a group of black-clad anti-fascist protesters, also known as antifa, demanded he lose the flag, calling it a fascist symbol. Welch refused, and a tug-of-war ensued.

    Video captured by Mike Bivins, a freelance journalist, shows what happened next.

    As Welch and the counter-protesters wrangle over the flag, another masked counter-protester begins to strike Welch's body from behind using a weapon concealed in black fabric.

    That person then uses the weapon to club Welch on the back of the head, causing him to collapse instantly. The demonstrator with the weapon wanders off.
  • Brett Bellmore||

    If you won't admit there's a limit that applies to something you might want to do, why should anyone take your claim there are limits seriously?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Your lack of imagination isn't my problem, Brett.

  • bernard11||

    Since when is the truth character assassination?

    If the accusations against Kavanaugh - including lying at his earlier confirmation hearings - were false why the determined effort to cover up his background, and the refusal to conduct a serious investigation of the Ford/Ramirez charges?

  • I Callahan||

    He wasn't lying at any of his confirmation hearings. Period. As for the other charges - they were BS from the top down.

    So yes, it was character assassination.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    An investigation should determine whether your unqualified assertions are anything other than more right-wing rubbish. Let's hope the Democrats have enough subpoenas to conduct a proper investigation.

  • NToJ||

    He did lie about not being black out drunk.

  • iowantwo||

    You may not believe him, but there cant be any evidence that he lied.

    If you know what blackout drunk is, you would know that.

  • NToJ||

    When I say he lied what do you think I mean besides that I do not believe him?

  • ||

    Because, as you've been told multiple times, there was no possible way to conduct such an investigation that would lead to any result other than "inconclusive."

  • M.L.||

    If Feinstein cared about the truth rather than assassinating his character, things would have gone down very differently. As it turns out, all of the allegations were lies. Claiming that Kavanaugh lied is also a lie.

  • grb||

    I watched while He Said and I watched while She Said, and he didn't come off too well. But there's even better grounds to judge whether Kavanaugh was a frat-boy thug with contempt for women as a teen.

    Just look at Kavanaugh at 30. Special counsel investigations don't have a very stellar record. They're welcome if the other guy's ox is being gored, but typically persist well beyond reasonable limits and shamelessly abuse prosecutorial discretion. But only one special counsel investigation was a knowing fraud from beginning to end : Brett Kavanaugh on the suicide of Vince Foster. Of course you can blame Starr, but the farce was Kavanaugh's idea and his special project. Over three years were spent "investigating" with a smirk, dispatching the FBI to chase after evermore comical conspiracies while knowing they were all phony. The same man who whined about his family in the recent hearing caused years of suffering to Foster's surviving family.

    So was Kavanaugh a frat-boy thug with contempt for women as a teen? Probably. He was a frat boy thug with contempt for the law a dozen years later.

  • bernard11||

    As it turns out, all of the allegations were lies. Claiming that Kavanaugh lied is also a lie.

    There are highly credible allegations that Kavanaugh lied in his confirmation hearing for the appeals court. He really didn't know the stuff he got from the Democrats' files was stolen? Never had an inkling? Sure, Brett, now pull the other one.

    He clerked for Kozinski and they apparently became friends, yet he knew nothing, "nussing, Colonel Klink," about the activities tha got Kosinski in trouble. OK he pulled the other one.

    But gullible Trumpists will believe anything.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    But gullible Trumpists will believe anything.

    Some are that gullible and dumb. Others merely pretend to be ignorant, immoral, and credulous.

  • iowantwo||

    Did you get that info from the daily kos. or maybe cospiricies or us?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Ad hominem just shows you got nothing. Sad!

  • iowantwo||

    I got nothing? posters here claim the Kavanaugh lied. That is a statement containing nothing. seems the most appropriate response is more of the same.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You didn't engage, you just had scorn. That's on you and your credibility, not on them.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    There are highly credible allegations that Kavanaugh lied in his confirmation hearing for the appeals court.

    You're desperately flailing here, habibi.

  • David Bremer||

    Aside from regulating abortion, what area of life will Democrats admit is beyond the reach of government?

    Which adults other adults choose to have sex with. And what happens when those same adults choose to get married.

  • I Callahan||

    I'll grant you those three.

    Name any others.

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    What areas of life do you think should be beyond governmental reach that you believe are currently imperiled by Democrats wanting to regulate those areas?

  • ||

    Guns. Health insurance policies that don't cover transgender surgeries. Sugary drinks. Helmets for motorcyclists. Owning a bakery and not baking a gay "wedding" cake. Keeping one's money versus having it to be redistributed to Shaniqua and Consuelo's illegitimate children. Shall I go on?

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    No need, and thanks for the answers. Just a few questions:

    1. Regarding guns, what changed about the Second Amendment between 1967 when Governor Reagan supported gun control measures and now?
    2. Is coverage of transgender surgeries really an issue for you? Do you think that actually makes a difference in premiums paid?
    3. I'll have to agree that regulation of sugary drinks is silly, but I don't see it as a constitutional issue and as far as I know the only person who regulated those drinks was Republican NYC Mayor Bloomberg.
    4. I'm not sure that helmet laws are a partisan thing, but I could be wrong.
    5. The gay wedding cake issue certainly is a big deal for Republicans. I see the First Amendment arguments, but honestly I'm pretty sure that those arguments (even if they're valid) are a cover for bigotry and a desire to publicly disapprove of the gay lifestyle. Bottom-line, I'll agree that this is a real difference between Democrats and Republicans.
    6. Regarding welfare, I wonder if you feel similarly about money being redistributed to, say, Appalachia to provide electricity or irrigation to regions, or to coal miners who have lost their jobs, and the like. Or do you object only to Shaniqua and Consuelo receiving such money?

  • iowantwo||

    education

  • santamonica811||

    -The right to consume alcohol. (Republicans also agree with this, but you didn't ask for examples singular to Democrats.)
    -The right to use marijuana. (Or, even more widely held: The rights of each state to decide the pot issue for itself and for the federal govt to butt [heh] out.)
    -The right to have access to non-child-related pornography. (I think Republicans now agree with this; or, at least, have abandoned this fight.)
    -The right to engage in legal gambling.

    I expect that there is actually a pretty long list of social issues where Dem's want less govt intrusion/control...and where Republicans want more (or continued) govt control.

  • ||

    You forgot unprotected anal sex, even with HIV. That's also beyond regulation.

  • DStraws||

    Your finally starting to understand what personal responsibility means. There is still hope for you.

  • ||

    So you think having unprotected anal sex while HIV+ without disclosing that is acceptable?

  • Per Son||

    Who thinks that? And for that matter, I don't limit disclosure to to just unprotected anal sex. It should include all intimate activity that involves the exchange of bodily fluids, and should cover diseases such as hepatitis.

  • ||

    Read about the law that Scott Weiner (a homosexual "Jewish" Democrap from California) pushed through.

  • Per Son||

    Or you can tell me. Also, is there a difference between "Jewish" and Jewish? Checking for a friend.

  • ||

    You can google as well as I can. And yes, someone who is "Jewish" is one who does not follow halacha, but is instead a devout follower of liberalism.

    http://www.latimes.com/politic.....story.html

  • wnoise||

    Read about the law that Scott Weiner


    Yes, it makes non-disclosure of HIV+ status a misdemeanor, in line with other STDs.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Mixing up acceptable and legal, are you?

  • grb||

    Brett Bellmore says "Not a lot of fiscal discipline to be found in Washington these days, but none of it is on the left."

    Yet every time the Right has power they leave the fiscal situation much worse. Every time the Left has power they leave the situation much better. After almost forty years, that's a fact which can no longer be ignored. Of course the Left has a major advantage over the Right in accepting basic math. Fiscal discipline is much harder with a party platform based on magic purple unicorns and pink fairy dust supply-side claptrap

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    This is so correct; I'd really like to see someone try to argue against it.

  • ||

    I'll argue against it. The democrats do much more wasteful discretionary spending.

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    I suppose that you'd say that the military budget is by definition not "discretionary"?

  • ||

    It is discretionary. But the military is actually essential, even though there is plenty to be cut. But I'd rather spend 500 billion on the military than 5 billion paying for food stamps so that Shaniqua and Consuelo can buy food for their semi-retarded illegitimate children.

  • DjDiverDan||

    "Every time the Left has power they leave the situation much better."

    Total U.S. National Debt on January 20, 2009, when Obama first took office: $10.6 Trillion.

    Total U.S. National Debt on January 20, 2017, when Obama left office: $19.9 Trillion.

    So, by "much better", you mean "much deeper in debt with little to show for it"?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Your choice of debt not deficit is telling, DJD.

  • DjDiverDan||

    Sarcastro, are just as illiterate on matters of accounting as you are on matters of constitutional law? Because it certainly seems so.

  • grb||

    It's always safest to assume anyone of the Right is economically illiterate. They pretty much have to be in order to believe supply side fairy tales. But you do what you can to educate, so:

    The day Obama took his first oath of office, the CBO projected deficit was 1.3 trillion dollars.
    The day Obama left office the deficit was 500 billion dollars.

    It had dropped throughout his presidency, just as it will rise throughout Trump's (even during an economic expansion). That's the way things roll the past four decades : The Republicans make the mess (maxing out the nation's plastic); the Democrats then clean up. It's like following behind unruly teenagers.

    Want to look at accumulated debt? We can do that too: Total debt increase by president by year over his term :

    Reagan : 13.9% yearly increase, 8yrs
    GHW Bush : 11.5% yearly increase, 4yrs
    Clinton : 4.0% yearly increase, 8yrs
    GW Bush : 8.5% yearly increase, 8yrs
    Obama : 7.5% yearly increase, 8yrs

    Aside from confirming Reagan as the King of Red Ink, this shows sum debt grew slower under Obama than any Republican - even though he inherited trillion dollar deficits from his predecessor. Who, in turn, bungled away the surpluses he inherited from Clinton. Believing in fairy tales is expensive....

  • DjDiverDan||

    Grb, you are truly a complete fricking moron. I know that you won't believe that, but it is nevertheless true. If you are looking for economic illiteracy, look no farther than politicians who promise free stuff, like Bernie Sanders, and politicians who think government provided single payer health care will work, and politicians like Elizabeth Warren, whose Accountable Capitalism Act is the very poster child for economic illiteracy.

  • grb||

    Sad to see another diver make such a fool of himself.

    Newsflash : Politicians who say trillions in tax revenue won't affect the deficit are promising "free stuff" just as much as those promoting single payer. Math is like that : A trillion dollars is a trillion dollars, whether your talking about wildly irresponsible promises on tax cuts, or wildly irresponsible promises on spending.

    And that's only the beginning. Because if you look at front-line candidates for president the last forty years, Republicans consistently make more irresponsible promises to a much greater magnitude than their Democratic counterparts. George W. runs against Al Gore. He promises trillions in tax cuts paid for with moonbeams and unicorn sneezes. He promises the trillions in cost inherent in a transition to private Social Security. He promises a trillion dollar new drug benefit all on the nation's credit card. Nothing in Gore's campaign comes close to matching that. Or look at the last election. Who overpromised more - Trump or Clinton? That's a test of your honesty. Hint : It's not even remotely close.

    All the '16 GOP candidates promised trillions in tax cuts, massive military spending, gobs of pet project spending, and zero sacrifice to make it work. How is that different from Sanders? The candidate who promised least - who treated voters most like adults - was the one who lost : Clinton

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The party of unlimited spending, unlimited government power, character assassination, and mob violence won power

    Yes, the Republicans did win the Senate, didn't they?

  • I Callahan||

    "I know you are, but what am I" is not an argument. Those points are valid. Have the stones to address that.

  • NToJ||

    It's disingenuous to demand that people "have the stones to address" "unlimited spending, unlimited government power, character assassination, and mob violence". These are all hopelessly loaded accusations.

    But... 1. Unlimited spending is rebutted by... limited spending. Which is the world we live in. I don't know what evidence I'd need to show you to prove that Democrats, when in control, have not spent unlimited amounts of money. 2. Brett Kavanaugh is the culmination of decades of liberal Supreme Court justices limiting state powers under imaginary definitions of substantive due process. You can't on the one hand maintain that Democrats favor unlimited power while on the other hand arguing that Democrats enable baby-killers and gay AIDS (see ARWP). 3. How are we supposed to quantify "character assassination" in a way that we can measure two parties against one another? Do you have the "stones" to say that the current head of the Republican party rejects character assassination as a political strategy? 4. The party of "mob violence"? How is that being defined here? Is there something in the Democratic platform you can point to supporting mobs, violence, or mob violence?

  • SimonP||

    The party of unlimited spending, unlimited government power, character assassination, and mob violence won power while the economy is booming.

    What - are you talking about the Republican gains in the Senate?

  • I Callahan||

    Another brain surgeon.

    Those points are valid. Have the stones to address that.

  • DStraws||

    What constitutes unlimited spending and unlimited government power. Passing spending increases that are funded by increased taxes or decreasing spending on other programs--you know paygo.
    Unlimited power? I guess your guns are being confiscated, the IRS is auditing you again, and the police keep harassing you when you walk down the street! Oh that's right none of that is happening, who would have thought. Mob violence where? That's right pipe bombs, racial and religious murders. You are right the economy is booming continuing on the trend it has been on for the last 6 years or so. And yet the Republicans were unable to turn all that good news into political success--they lost the House of Representatives, governorships, and state legislatures.

  • ||

    Of course they weren't. The entire liberal machine is against them, and tons of idiot women who vote based on "niceness" and low IQ non-whites who vote for welfare payments will never support them. I can't wait until this all collapses.

  • grb||

    Speaking of propaganda, are we still rushing 15k regular army troops to the border to protect us from "an invasion" of 2500 ragged refugees still hundreds of miles from the US? That is Soviet-grade Pravda-level propaganda to a transparently ludicrous degree, but damn if folk on the Right didn't swallow it whole.....

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You don't get to be a Trump supporter -- not the cynical right-wingers who appeased Trump, but the ardent supporters -- with a strong education, lack of gullibility, sense of accountability, and preference for reason.

  • bernard11||

    And it costs $200 million plus, but the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.

  • ||

    Take it from Shaniqua's food stamps or Consuelo's Obamaphone.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Colorblind!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do the Conspirators still wonder why strong law schools decline the Volokh Conspiracy's invitation to hire more movement conservatives (and emulate the third- and fourth-tier schools controlled and populated by conservatives)?

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "The party of unlimited spending, unlimited government power, character assassination, and mob violence won power while the economy is booming."

    Yup. They took both the house and the senate.

  • mad_kalak||

    *I would give you an upvote if I could. Subtle, and hilarious.

  • grb||

    Generally I don't approve of bothsidesism, but this is too clever not to applaud.....

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, because the MSM are now almost entirely an unpaid PR firm for the Democrats.

    The media are the high ground of politics, and the Democrats hold that high ground. That means they always have a political tail wind behind them, pushing them forward. Stories that would hurt them get buried, stories that would help get promoted, they get their message out free while Republicans must pay, and hope their paid ads will actually be carried.

    The way Trump is remaking the GOP is mostly unpopular only because of that relentless media attack.

    Mark my words, if the Republicans do not make some effort to break the Democratic media and higher education monopolies, in a couple decades they're TOAST.

  • bernard11||

    Media monopoly?

    You've heard of Fox News - otherwise known as TrumpTV - and the WSJ? Sinclair Broadcasting? The right-wing radio screamers?

    Anyway, let Adelson or the Koch's start a newspaper or a Fox clone. No one is stopping them.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "You've heard of Fox News - otherwise known as TrumpTV - and the WSJ? Sinclair Broadcasting? The right-wing radio screamers?"

    Want to trade NYT, WaPo, CBS, ABC,NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC with us?

  • David Bremer||

    So, you admit that it's not a monopoly? And given that there's a big 'ol internet where you can get information (versus just 3 networks and a local paper), why are you so concerned about those other outlets?

    I agree those outlets have a leftward lean. But it's not like their leans are unknown to the general public. Republicans' real complaint is that the public considers them credible despite the lean. In that case, the answer should be to build a more credible, impartial (or even right-leaning) outlet. Instead, republicans clamor for and get things like Infowars. Even Fox News gets more outlandish with time. Twenty years ago, they at least attempted to appear impartial.

  • I Callahan||

    Most people are followers. If a majority of the media leans one way or the other, the majority of the people will lean in that same direction. David, you have it exactly backwards.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    A near monopoly. Amazon Wal-Mart and Target do not have a monopoly on retail sales but are the dominant players, just like WaPo etc.

    "public considers them credible despite the lean."

    "Two new Gallup polls have found that wide swaths of the American population believe that the media is biased, inaccurate and full of misinformation – just as President Donald Trump says. One poll found that 62% of U.S. adults believe that the news they see in newspapers, on television or hear on the radio is biased and that 44% say it's inaccurate." June 20, 2018

  • David Bremer||

    Then by the same polls, 56% percent of Americans believe the media to be accurate.

    Besides, the polling question doesn't bore deep enough to tell us what people think of the media. If a newspaper quotes Trump on his outlandish claims, then I would say the paper is full of inaccuracies and misinformation. But that doesn't mean the media is the source of the inaccuracies; they accurately reported the president's erroneous claims.

    Also, I may say that "the media" is filled with inaccuracies, but could mean any sorts of media other than the main outlets. Liberals could be referring to talk radio; conservatives to MSNBC. Regardless, people who see bias would probably agree that even inaccurate media outlets tends to be mostly accurate most of the time.

  • I Callahan||

    In addition to the AP, UPI, and about 90% of all major newspapers across the country. The fact that bernie thinks that's somehow equal is quaint...

  • bernard11||

    Here's the thing, Bob. Despite what you and Bellmore think, those other organizations are not simply mouthpieces for Democrats the way Fox is for Trump and the GOP.

    You don't like what they report, because you would prefer it not be true. That's all.

  • Sarcastr0||

    3 Fox personalities stumped with Trump.

    That's new level.

    But I fully expect folks here to use that danged media to rationalize every bit of dishonesty they find they have to condone as things get worse.

  • iowantwo||

    You got one thing right. They are personalities, that deal in raw opinion. As compared to the news people that claim neutrality.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "You don't like what they report, because you would prefer it not be true. That's all."

    That's true. I'd certainly rather that the President praise General Grant than Robert E. Lee, for example.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The deepness of your cut bespeaks the length you have to reach. For a story that was corrected.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    The NBC story was corrected. None of the others were, they simply pivoted to make it a story about a descendant of Robert E. Lee's comments.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Ok Brett, serious question. What would "breaking the Democratic media and higher education monopolies" look like from your point of view?

    Mandating 50/50 political affiliation among professors at public universities? Bring back the Fairness Doctrine for 50/50 partisan balance on TV?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    'breaking the Democratic higher education monopoly'

    What, precisely, is stopping bigoted, backwater Americans from filling the ostensible market demand with high-quality conservative-controlled campuses? Other than backwardness, superstition, ignorance, dogma, intolerance, insularity, and more backwardness?

    Conservatives figure turning Harvard into Hillsdale, Berkeley into Biola, Reed into Oral Roberts, Amherst into Ave Maria, Yale into Grove City, Columbia into Liberty, Williams into Wheaton, and Michigan into Ouachita Baptist would be progress.

    Right-wingers talk a lot, but I don't see many of the Conspirators choosing to be associated with conservative-controlled campuses. They lather up the rubes with jabs at liberal-libertarian mainstream campuses, and stop at third- and fourth-tier right-wing schools for a Federalist-funded hour or two, but they put their careers and their families anywhere but conservative campuses.

    Carry on, clingers . . . with continuing to be crushed in the culture war because science, reason, tolerance, education, and modernity are the American way.

  • I Callahan||

    science, reason, tolerance, education, and modernity are the American way.

    You really are a broken record.

    Science - it's your side that says it's perfectly normal for someone to not know what sex/gender they are.

    Reason - it's your side that screams up to the sky just because you lose a presidential election.

    Tolerance - when gays and blacks are run out of restaurants by screaming lunatics at the same rate as republican politicians are, come talk to me about tolerance.

    Education - Hah! Common core ring a bell? Test scores are DOWN thanks to that "progressive" idea. Even Bill Gates had to say he was wrong about it. As for universities - they're purely Marxist indoctrination centers, for the most part. The kids at Hillsdale are 20X smarter than those at Harvard, and more able to use logic to make a decision as well.

    Modernity - Well, you got me on that one. I grew up in Detroit, and in modern times, thanks to progressive modern ideas, the city is mostly a hellhole. It is the epitome of progressive policy and its eventual fruition. I'd take my city back in a minute if it were like it were in, say, 1966 (before the riots drove everyone out). For every Apple iPhone type idea, there are 3 modern ideas that ruined the country's urban centers.

    So you can take your smug, leftist attitude and place it where the sun never shines. You're a tshirt character at best.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The kids at Hillsdale are 20X smarter than those at Harvard, and more able to use logic to make a decision as well.

    Is it the superstition, the backwardness, or the diffuse intolerance that makes Hillsdale students better from the right-wing rube's perspective?

    Carry on, clingers. More Ouachita Baptist, please!

  • bernard11||

    I grew up in Detroit, and in modern times, thanks to progressive modern ideas, the city is mostly a hellhole.

    Is that the cause, or is it decades of inept management of the car companies by all those respectable white executives? Come on, those guys never talked to anyone who didn't belong to the country club, and ran three of the most important companies in the US into the ground. Surely that has something to do with the situation in Detroit.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "...science, reason, tolerance, education, and modernity are the American way."

    lol. There's a debate raging in the academic community right now over whether or not academics should sight scholars whose personal conduct they disprove of.

  • Sarcastr0||

    And I wish Hollywood had that's debate about Polanski. Don't you?

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Hollywood can do whatever it wants.

    But universities and Hollywood are different institutions with different goals, in ways that matter with respect to this topic, no?

  • Sarcastr0||

    I dunno, that both do peer review of culturally important stuff. I'm no STEMLord saying science is the be all and end all.

    Policing your community is important.
    Citation is not a directive practice - it is also important, but is as much art as science.

    Keeping what kind of discretion you are practicing out in the open is a good first step.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Are you guys discussing conservative schools (which teach nonsense, ban dissent and academic freedom, and disdain science to flatter childish dogma), or are you talking about legitimate colleges and universities?

  • iowantwo||

    What, precisely, is stopping bigoted, backwater Americans from filling the ostensible market demand with high-quality conservative-controlled campuses? Other than backwardness, superstition, ignorance, dogma, intolerance, insularity, and more backwardness?

    You suprise me. You agree and support school vouchers. Thanks

  • Michael Palin's Buttplug||

    I'd settle for every Democratic president not being treated like a rock star while Republican president is treated like a Nazi.

  • Michael Palin's Buttplug||

    *every Republican

  • David Bremer||

    Seems that the first step in that process would be to have a president not promote campaign ads that even Fox News considers too racist to air. But I'm spit-balling here...

  • Michael Palin's Buttplug||

    No, the first step in the process would be not to have spent decades
    lazily and baselessly tarring every Republican as a Nazi.

  • David Bremer||

    Sure,the first step in the process for the boy who cried wolf would be to have no cried wolf when there wasn't one.

    But that doesn't change the fact that there's an actual wolf this time. In fact, that's the perfect time to realize the error of his ways.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But that doesn't change the fact that there's an actual wolf this time

    --Random leftist, ca. 1964-2018.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You mean like the right has been about 'THIS time the immigrants are different and won't become Americans after all?'

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    More like left being about "THIS time really mean that this guy is a Nazi!"

    Try to keep up, twit.

  • bernard11||

    By who?

  • I Callahan||

    Affirmative action worked for race. Why not political affiliation? Especially somewhere as important as the media?

    Remember when the Dems thought the "equal time" thing was a good idea?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You should be happy: The Volokh Conspiracy often advocates affirmative action for right-wing academics. 'Emulate our weakest schools by hiring more movement conservative faculty members' is not a strong or attractive argument, but it is a quite popular one at the Volokh Conspiracy.

  • ||

    It would entail having the military fire on them. We need a strong leader like Pinochet or Videla who will leash fury on liberals and anyone associated with them.

  • Per Son||

    I assume that you mean unleash. I dine on your incel tears.

  • ||

    Yes, autocorrect. Sorry. And I'm married. To a woman. The way nature intended.

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    I'd really like to hear you address the fact that the NYTimes (the biggest of the "MSM") worked with a right-wing propagandist to publish feature-length articles about suggested but never established corruption in the Clinton Foundation. Or the NYT's article just before the election in which the headline stated that the FBI (supposedly another organization that's against Trump, right?) didn't see a clear link between Trump and Russia. Going back a few elections, you might want to read Bob Somerby's exhaustive chronicle of how the MSM slimed Gore in the 2000 election.

    I'm not defending the MSM. They're stupid, lazy, and focused on the wrong things, often leaving a viewer or reader less informed. However, those failures as journalists aren't the same thing as being propagandists, which is explicitly what Fox News and talk radio are for the Republicans.

  • NToJ||

    "No, because the MSM are now almost entirely an unpaid PR firm for the Democrats."

    Do you think Fox is an unpaid PR firm for the Democrats? Do you think Fox is part of the MSM?

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Fox called the House for the Dems before polls out west were closed.
    If they are working with the RNC, they are doing a shitty job.

  • NToJ||

    So are you going to answer my question?

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    They are part of the Washington establishment and have a larger presence of right of center voices than CNN and MSNBC do.
    If that makes them MSM, then that's what they are. If not, then not.

  • NToJ||

    Do you think Fox is an unpaid PR firm for the Democrats?

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Certainly not. They have a lot of people working there who think that someone like David Gergen is the paradigm of political wisdom. That does not make them willing flacks for the Dems. It makes them, frequently, flacks for the swamp.
    Why do you ask?

  • NToJ||

    I think Brett believes that Fox is either not part of the MSM or is a PR wing for the Democrats.

  • Rossami||

    Statistically, the President's party loses 28 votes in the House during the mid-term elections. That number is pretty stable regardless of the economy.

    Based on the count of races called so far, they've lost 27. That looks pretty much exactly like "met expectations". Not sure how you jump from that to a "structural headwind" or "remaking the GOP".

  • DStraws||

    The problem here is structural. The Democrats had about a 9% margin of victory overall that resulted in a 27 seat change to them. In the last midterm the Republicans had a 5.7% margin of victory which resulted in a 60 seat change. Do you not see a problem with this?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Republicans continue to benefit from our system's structural amplification of rural voices, from ugly, race-targeting voter suppression, and from aggressive gerrymandering, but the long-term drags of intolerance and ignorance (and the recent wins by Democratic governors) in an improving America seem destined to reduce those problems to manageable levels.

  • ||

    An America that is majority mestizo Hispanic is not an improvement. It's a huge decline.

  • mad_kalak||

    No, because people are self sorting to live in blue or red regions. It's the result of millions of individual level decisions. Also, the Senate is almost as divided as the House, and states are not gerrymandered.

  • NToJ||

    "Also, the Senate is almost as divided as the House, and states are not gerrymandered."

    The Senate is, by design, not representative of the population, either. It's apples:oranges.

    In your view does redistricting have zero, some, or significant effects on control of the house?

  • mad_kalak||

    I think you're not understanding, those that complain that the House naturally leans GOP these days due to gerrmandering are wrong in that it leans naturally GOP due to voters sorting themselves by party by voting with their feet. Likewise, the same thing happens at the state level. We don't have competitive elections (in many states) for the Senate, because of the same phenomenon that we have with the House, voters partisan voting with their feet and self-sorting the states red or blue states, just like House districts. It is apples to apples. Lots has been written about this using pretty good social science methodology, but at bottom, people sort themselves to live by like minded people.

    As to your question, some estimates show that gerrymandering has a small effect, one or two points in a race, others have none. My opinion is that it matters, but only at the margins.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Everyone always forgets, when this discussion comes up, that there are gerrymandered districts that favor Dems, especially black Dems.

  • Sarcastr0||

    But the net effect way favors the GOP, so I don't know why that detail matters, unless you think people are arguing Dems are pure on this which I have never seen.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    No, because people are self sorting to live in blue or red regions.

    Which group -- Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, reasoning or superstitious -- is building strong, modern, accomplished, educated, attractive communities?

    Which is building the opposite?

  • ||

    What was the Democrats' margin of victory if you exclude people granted citizenship under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act who would not have qualified for entry under the National Origins Act that was in effect from 1924 to 1965?

  • mad_kalak||

    They are citizens now, as are their kids, and grand-kids. Ain't nothin' gonna change it. All you can do now is prevent new Democrat client groups from being imported.

    You know, the whole chain migration thing was a compromise meant to keep the demographics roughly the same as prior to 1965, but when European immigration levels collapsed, all the slots went to 3rd worlders.

  • ||

    True enough, but I don't have to ever consider them my countrymen.

  • mad_kalak||

    Who do you consider your countrymen?

  • ||

    People who are loyal to their country and to traditional American ideals. People whose loyalty isn't limited to people who share their skin color, which is true of 90% of non-whites.

  • NToJ||

    "People who are loyal to their country and to traditional American ideals. People whose loyalty isn't limited to people who share their skin color, which is true of 90% of non-whites."

    ARWP wants loyalty to be color blind, unlike people who have different skin color.

  • mad_kalak||

    I hate to say it, but NToJ pointed out the inherent contradiction.

    That said, every race but whites gets pilloried for engaging in tribalism, but what made America work for a long time, was a lack of identity politics. The Alt-right is just doing what the left does already.

  • ||

    I don't really see how it's a contradiction. The former is an ideal, the latter is an observation of reality.

  • bernard11||

    what made America work for a long time, was a lack of identity politics.

    A lack of identity politics???? WTF are you talking about? What was Jim Crow but extreme identity politics?

    Local politics has often had strong ethnic divisions, and not just black and white by any means. All sorts of ethnic discrimination in public life is identity politics. It's just that when whites, whoever they are at the moment, do it they think it's perfectly OK.

  • ||

    Damn right. Nearly all non-whites are not loyal to America if that loyalty gets in the way of their racial tribal loyalty.

  • mad_kalak||

    You say to non-whites (paraphrased) "be loyal to America be colorblind"; but a large number of non-whites view loyalty to America as loyalty to whiteness because the history of America has been that of a white majority, even if the dominant theme was individuality. From a liberal's perspective, you're asking them to be a race traitor. The contradiction is that you redefine American individuality and colorblindness as a white trait by pointing out that whites try to be colorblind.

  • ||

    With all due respect, that made absolutely no sense. Being colorblind is a white trait insofar as logic and reason is only really something white men are capable of. That doesn't make one a race traitor for believing in those traits. In any case, if non-whites are not capable of doing so, why should whites tolerate their presence?

  • mad_kalak||

    Look at the spirited rebuke from benard11 above. His reaction points out the contradiction that asking people to be colorblind, for liberals, means asking them to be loyal to a white majority rather than their country. That's the contradiction, you see, in that it was a white majority that pushed an ethos of colorblindness. A non-white, typically, sees being colorblind as a loyalty to a different tribe, whites, rather than a higher ideal that we should all ascribe too.

  • NToJ||

    "Being colorblind is a white trait insofar as logic and reason is only really something white men are capable of."

    This sentence is at war with itself.

  • Rossami||

    What do you mean by "a 9% margin of victory overall"? Are you somehow trying to apply aggregate popular vote measures to a decentralized representation model? If so, you are doomed to failure. That's just not how the system works.

    Nor, by the way, is that how the system should work. If you're going to try to assign representation based on aggregate totals, you will destroy what little incentive there still is to pay attention to local issues and local constituencies.

  • NToJ||

    "...you will destroy what little incentive there still is to pay attention to local issues and local constituencies."

    Gerrymandering does not encourage attention to "local issues and local constituencies" because it mutates them. The Texas 21st is a good example. What do south Austinites and North/East San Antonians have in common with each other, much less with rural Kerrville residents? In an ideal world you'd want the districts drawn in a way that makes the popular vote approximately equivalent to the control of the house.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Why would that be ideal?
    And how would we even begin to try to achieve that result?

  • NToJ||

    "Why would that be ideal?"

    Because it would be more representative of the population's wishes than the alternative.

  • Rossami||

    Gerrymandering is irrelevant to my comment. What DStraws seems to be proposing is representation assigned based on the aggregate popular vote. That sounds a lot like a return to the discredited "efficiency gap" measure. It's flatly unworkable.

    If you want to fix gerrymandering, you need to look for much more neutral measures such as least-total-borders or higher weighting for county-line-integrity.

  • NToJ||

    Let's back up. We're talking about the federal house, not school districts. Whether to declare war on Iran is not a "local issue[]".

    Second, even in aggregate popular vote systems, why would local issues be irrelevant? They have as much vote as anybody else?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    how are you accounting for those seats that had no opposition party because they were wiped out in ranked choice voting?

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "Minimize this if you want, but it's about the blue wave people started talking about in January, if not the one they ended up hoping for."

    It was obvious from the day Clinton lost [yeah!] that the GOP would lose the House.

    "Because Trump is remaking the GOP in pretty unpopular ways."

    Now let's discuss 2010 and 2104. Looks like Obama remade the Dems in pretty unpopular ways.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Obama didn't change then Dems. Trump has hanged the GOP.

  • Toranth||

    Obama didn't change the Democrats. Right. They just stood behind him as he went hard-left on the ACA, then wielded his Pen and Phone to unconstitutionally create DAPA and DACA. Then, when he left office, they doubled down on those exact policies.

    But Trumped changed the GOP by standing up for the things the GOP has always said it wanted: lower taxes, less regulation, and secure borders. Considering the REAGAN ran on those same planks, I don't think Trump changed the GOP.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Yeah health care was a big new idea.
    And gay marriage? All Obama's brainchild.

    Your Trump the moderate is also a laugh.

  • mad_kalak||

    Trump has governed rather moderately. Don't mistake his bluster and fights with the press for actual policies, which are, as pointed out above, typical GOP. You're a bit guilty of motivated reasoning to see it otherwise.

  • Sarcastr0||

    This is a common refrain: the laws passed are OK, so we're fine!
    Our President being garbage tantrum baby has political consequences in an of itself. Beyond that, his war with the press is going to screw up one of our methods of governmental oversight. As is his war with his own Justice Department. He's screwing with our republican form of government, and that's way too steep a price to pay for some dumb tax cut.

    His easily manipulated 'leave no strongman behind' diplomatic policy is also problematic, as our place in the stability of the world is being supplanted, sometimes with less stability, sometimes with a substitute. Never in our favor. His hastening that momentum is going to have a long legacy, and not a good one for the US (and thus, IMO not good for the world).

    But it's also wrong on Trump's actual policies.
    His immigration policy seems to be not just anti-illegal, but anti refugee. And generally skeptical of immigration. That's not moderate. We'll see about his judges, but it's hard to argue they're moderate either.

  • Toranth||

    Limiting immigration to the legal process has been a staple of the Republican party platform since at least the 1970s. As I said, Reagan specifically campaigned with that as a plank. Even at the time, Democrats were careful not to paint themselves as *supporting* illegal immigration.

    I would instead point out that the opinion of the Democrats today - that illegal immigration is a good thing, and that enforcing immigration laws is evil and fascist - is not moderate. Trump's view on this is distinctly more moderate than the recent position of the Left.

    Similarly, your hyperbole about threats to "our republican form of government" ring hollow. Obama's policies lost at the Supreme Court, often unanimously, 50% to 100% more often than any other President back to Carter. His smooth-talking "Pen and Phone" government was a far larger threat than bluster and self-puffery.

    If the worst thing you can say about Trump is that he's a loudmouth, but his policies are OK, then that's better than most Presidents.

  • Kazinski||

    It's hard to minimize picking up 3-4 Senate seats, but go ahead.

    Compared to most midterms, and especially Obama's first midterm where the Dems lost 6 seats in the Senate and 63 in the house Trump had a decent night.

  • NToJ||

    "...especially Obama's first midterm where the Dems lost 6 seats in the Senate and 63 in the house Trump had a decent night."

    Last night a larger percentage of Americans voted for Democrats than they did Republicans in 2010.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Therefore...what?
    Dems had 24 seats open; way more than Republicans.

  • NToJ||

    More Americans voted for Democrats in the house election this year than they did Republicans in 2010.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    As America's electorate improves, it will become increasingly difficult for Republicans (and other ignorant, intolerant yahoos) to win elections.

  • ||

    And it'll be harder for America to pay its bills. Blacks and mestizos don't pay taxes.

  • Toranth||

    In 2016, the Atlanta Falcons scored more points - 100 more points! - than the Patriots, but the Patriots were crowned winners of the Super Bowl.

    How is that fair?
    /s

  • bernard11||

    Ah. But how did the acres vote? That's what matters to the right. One blade of grass-one vote.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    The president's party typically loses some seats in a mid-term election. For example, the Democrats lost 63 house seats and 6 seats in the senate in Obama's first mid-term election.

    Only losing 35 seats in the house and GAINING 5 seats in the senate is, relatively speaking, a coup. Certainly not a repudiation of Trump (7 of 9 candidates he stumped for won; Obama is 0 for 4), and definitely not a blue wave.

  • TangoDelta||

    It's exactly what I was hoping for. Unfortunately most people don't realize that gridlock is the best we can ever hope for with essentially a two party system. A look back through history will clearly show that only bad things happen when one party is in control of both houses of congress and the executive branch.
    (Un)fortunately the electorate usually figures this out after the trifecta happens and usually moves swiftly to correct it. It was fixed in '94 and '10 with both Clinton and Obama but W. started with gridlock and 9-11 produced the R trifecta in '02 which wasn't corrected until '06 which is what probably led to the D trifecta in '08. I blame complacency of both teams when their party is in complete control. If they had to battle every time there's a good chance we'd get the desired gridlock nirvana.

  • iowantwo||

    President Trump's favorability is at or above 50% His efforts at campaigning for Republicans in the mid terms is a 90% success.(better than anything Obama tried.) All of this with a withering unprecedented assault by a media that is now officially deranged.(see CNN's Acosta, today. assualting White House girl trying to do her job)

    The economy is better than anything the US has seen since the 60's, and 70% of the voters want our borders controlled and illegal aliens stopped.

    What is so unpopular?

  • Sarcastr0||

    President Trump's favorability is at or above 50%

    what?

  • Variant||

    Fairly unprecedented for the party in power to not sustain major losses during the midterms. I think there's a mild repudiation to the President's "demeanor" present here, but it's hard to see this as anything other than a major letdown for Democrats and a pretty good omen for the GOP in 2020, especially if Pelosi and company cowtow to their base and waste time on witch hunts and such.

    Plus, gridlock isn't such a bad thing is it? Markets should love it and it's not like the Republicans are any more fiscally sane than the Democrats.

    Meanwhile, Trump will be free to continue with some of the *good* things he's been doing, including remaking the judiciary (as voters punished candidates who bought into the Kavanaugh false accusations) and chipping away at the regulatory state.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Fairly unprecedented for the party in power to not sustain major losses during the midterms

    This is just not true. Bush in 2002. Carter in '78. Truman. Johnson and Kennedy. Just heard a podcast about it.

  • PubliusVA||

    "Major losses" is overstating things, but the president's party has lost seats in the House in every midterm election since the '50s except for 1998 and 2002.

  • Michael Palin's Buttplug||

    In the last 72 years only twice did a president see his party make gains in his first midterm election. The average loss for the president's party over that stretch has been 26 seats, so this was a fairly standard election. Nothing like a true wave.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "Just heard a podcast about it."

    Oh, then it must be right.

    1950 "The Democrats lost twenty-eight seats to the Republican Party in the House of Representatives. "

    1966 "Johnson's Democrats lost forty-seven seats to the Republican Party in the House of Representatives. The Democrats also lost three seats in the U.S. Senate to the Republicans. Despite their losses, the Democrats retained control of both chambers of Congress. Republicans won a large victory in the gubernatorial elections, with a net gain of seven seats."

    1978 "The Democrats lost fifteen seats to the Republican Party in the House of Representatives.[1] The Democrats also lost three seats in the U.S. Senate to the Republicans.[1] In the gubernatorial elections, Republicans picked up six seats."

    Right about JFK, modest wins.

  • Michael Palin's Buttplug||

    Just heard a podcast about it.

    The Party of Science™!

  • PubliusVA||

    1950 was under Eisenhower. He was a Republican.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Wrong.
    Get an education, you half wit rube.

  • gormadoc||

    ...

  • mad_kalak||

    Ike won in '52, Truman in '48.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Bob, check out this article on wikipedia.

    I was indeed mistaken, mistaking the President's party retaining the House for net gains.

    But the linked chart highlights two further count-examples to Variant's overstatement:
    Clinton in 1998, and of course FDR in 1934.

    I deserve some ridicule, tis true. But Variant is also Vary wrong.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Republicans are positioned to be every bit as successful as structural amplification of rural voices, vestigial voter suppression, and gerrymandering can make an electoral coalition that relies on disaffected, old white males and shambling, declining rural communities.

    Conservatives are positioned to be lords of every superstitious, struggling backwater in America, though, while the liberal-libertarian mainstream must attempt to be content with success in America's educated, accomplished, growing, modern cities and suburbs.

  • TLBD||

    Yes, we get it, you're racist.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    'Democrats are the real racists' is a winning slogan on Fox & Friends, and probably would make a hit song on backwater country charts and on the pickup radios in every downwardly mobile town in America, but Republicans are being branded with bigotry for at least a generation in every successful, growing, modern, educated community in America and with the young people who will replace stale-thinking old Republicans in our electorate.

  • Rossami||

    He didn't say that "Democrats are racists". He said you were, RLK.

    I'm not so sure that you are a racists but you are an intolerant bigot.

  • David Bremer||

    There's something really rich about someone complaining about racists, while simultaneously using stereotypes to denigrate an entire segment of the population. Particularly when those stereotypes are largely based on religious choices.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Poorly educated and bigoted are not stereotypes. They are accurate descriptions.

    Superstition is no excuse for intolerance, ignorance, gullibility, and lack of accomplishment. Childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse beginning at age 12 or so and constitutes no excuse for ostensible adults.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Poorly educated and bigoted are not stereotypes. They are accurate descriptions."

    "Minorities having lower IQs than whites is not a stereotype. It's an accurate description."

    "Gays all being perverts is not a stereotype. It's an accurate description."

    "All Muslims are terrorists is not a stereotype. It's an accurate description."

    It's the way all bigots think. See how it works?

  • Rorschach||

    Well, Muslims all being Israel-hating Nazis who want to murder all Israelis is not a stereotype; it's an accurate description.

    Also, Democrats all being racists who vote for those Nazis is not a stereotype; it's an accurate description.

  • David Bremer||

    Ahh yes, the reasoning of all bigots. It's not an offensive stereotype and bigotry because it's accurate!!

    It's funny you mention ignorance, gullibility, and lack of accomplishment. You know what is a good excuse for those - being born in a small town without a great education system or opportunities to go elsewhere. That's why I don't look down on people who happen to live in rural areas and, as a result, have different priorities or belief systems than me.

    I don't agree with them on lots of points, and there are certain beliefs I find repulsive and inexcusable. But I'm not going to denigrate them because they have different political or religious views than me. Particularly when many of them are driven that way by the sort of sneering, smug, self-assured attitude (including on points you've been shown to be incorrect on) that you repeatedly show in your comments.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The ambitious, smart young people leave. It's called bright flight.

    You are welcome to believe that being ignorant is as good as being educated, relying on superstition and dogma is as good as preferring reason and science, being bigoted is as good as being tolerant, being economically inadequate is as good as being marketably skilled, and the like.

    The race does not always go to the swiftest, nor the contest to the strongest, nor the debate to the stronger argument . . . but that is how I (and, in general, Democrats and the liberal-libertarian alliance bet, and that is why (much of) America has become strong enough not only to be great but also to subsidize the can't-keep-up communities and citizens.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The ambitious, smart young people leave. It's called bright flight.

    You are welcome to believe that being ignorant is as good as being educated, relying on superstition and dogma is as good as preferring reason and science, being bigoted is as good as being tolerant, being economically inadequate is as good as being marketably skilled, and the like.

    The race does not always go to the swiftest, nor the contest to the strongest, nor the debate to the stronger argument . . . but that is how I (and, in general, Democrats and the liberal-libertarian alliance bet, and that is why (much of) America has become strong enough not only to be great but also to subsidize the can't-keep-up communities and citizens.

  • mad_kalak||

    So then, Rev, what do you say about all the loss of population from the progressive dream that is Cali and Illinois? Bright flight?

  • Rorschach||

    Ah, yes, "bright flight" like that caravan of all you self-proclaimed moral superiors of ours fleeing our idiotic benighted capitalist U.S.A. hellhole for the brilliance and enlightenment of Venezuela's socialist paradise, right?

    Speaking of subsidized laggards, what would happen to all you grievance-studies majors if we were to cut off all government funding to your schools, I wonder? Would any of you parasites be able to make a living teaching White Privilege and Intersectionalist Dance Therapy courses?

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Damn fuckin' white people and their "Democrats are the real racists" bullshit...

    Hey Kirkland, did you happen to catch what that dumb bitch was wearing last night?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Which one?

    The trophy wife with the fake resume and sketchy immigration history?

    The Republican candidate?

    The bottle-blonde Fox talent?

  • gormadoc||

    I like the casual sexism. Maybe you and ARWP can get along after all. You can hate minority women together.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It is not sexism to think less of Melania Trump than of a woman who became educated rather than lying about it, or a woman who supports an anti-immigration bigot while benefiting from favorable chain immigration treatment for her parents, or a woman who developed a profession and a career rather than removing her clothes for money and marrying an old, obese, vulgar silver-spooner for a meal ticket.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Yup. White women need to be held accountable. They have so much work, growing, and learning to do.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Republicans are still smarting over giving women the vote.

    You guys genuinely believe this current batch of right-wing bigots will encounter a result that differs from that experienced by their moral and ideological predecessors who hated and feared the Irish, Asians, Jews, eastern Europeans, blacks, Catholics, women, Hispanics, other Asians, agnostics, Italians, atheists, etc.?

    I have a taco-sushi-bagel-linguine-egg roll-Jameson combo platter that says these Republican bigots are nothing special.

  • Rorschach||

    Democrats are never going to forgive us for freeing their slaves.

    You fools genuinely believe you baby-butchering fagscist racist misandrist leftard goose-steppers are going to get a result that looks Star Trek instead of like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, and East Germany?

    I've got poached eggs from my chicken coop in the back yard on toasted homemade bread that says every time Islamic terrorists set off an e-bomb over any major American city, the rare few Democrats who aren't already dead within two weeks will be reduced to gnawing on the rotting corpses of the majority who are.

  • I Callahan||

    What an insufferable POS you are.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Stop responding to him. Its easy to do.

  • gormadoc||

    The problem is that new people don't know who the trolls are. It would be nice if everybody knew but I don't see a way to make that happen.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Yes, but it only takes about two or 3 posts to get the picture about Kirkland.

  • AmosArch||

    News isn't news, its narrative pushing. The 'Blue Wave' is just the latest in products manufactured in DNC/MSM conference halls then drip fed into the sheeple minds on WAPOO, Farcebook, and Twitard to gestate into reality. Its been that way for most of the modern era I guess but rarely has it been so lopsided for one side of the political aisle.

  • Michael Cook||

    No coffee yet and on my way thru the Internet to this site I came across this teaser. It was a picture of a couple holding hands and headlined: "THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PANSEXUALITY AND BISEXUALITY."

    In my state this morning it will be illegal to sleep with a loaded gun in the unlocked drawer by the bed. I hope they don't startle me when they come to check!

    The blue wave appears to have been a bunch of millennials, educated women, and men who think exactly like women, all of them quite afraid of a great many things and very, very upset. Most of them are not completely stupid, but they certainly are shallowly and narrowly informed on the topics of the day.

    Too disturbed to sleep last night, I dug out the Bible and browsed 2Samuel. The story of David and Saul has always fascinated me. Politics back then was all about allegiances, which were constantly shifting. Nobody really trusted anyone. Even David, long after killing Goliath, went over to the Phoenician side for awhile because King Saul kept trying to kill him.

    Not much mercy ever shown to the vanquished back then, either. Never any real peace or assured security.

  • ||

    Exactly. This is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

  • Per Son||

    This repeated claim of yours will not help you get out of your incel bunker.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    There are now a bunch of cases where female beauticians getting sued by men for refusing to wax their balls. I wonder if they will get similar treatment to the bakers.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    You must subscribe to some odd legal publications.

  • gormadoc||

    He meant "by a man". It's his personal experience.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Hey, I just read them for the articles, not the pictures.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Too disturbed to sleep last night, I dug out the Bible and browsed 2Samuel.

    Nothing says 'full-growed, red state he-man' quite like curling up under the covers with a book of fairy tales to avoid being frightened in the middle of the night.

    Carry on, clinger.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The House Democrats can investigate Trump to their hearts content.

    However, the Republicans not only held the Senate, they picked up seats in the Senate. It doesn't matter what their investigations find, without the cooperation of the Republican controlled Senate, they can't actually do anything about any of it.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Let's ask the 1990s and 2010-2016 GOP about how well investigations work.

    A bit different since the media will trumpet everything but they are bound to be frustrated to death.

    EE Cummings and Nadler and Maxine Walters can only help Trump.

  • Toranth||

    Considering the Benghazi investigation is what uncovered Hillary Clinton's illegal email server, and that the investigation in the server is almost certainly what put Trump up over her... I'd say that the 2012-2016 Republicans are looking at investigations pretty happily.

    Now, let's ask the 2016-2018 Democrats what they think about investigations. Any day now, right, guys?

  • M.L.||

    Get ready for a lot of insane, ignorant shrieking about "The Emoluments Clause!!"

    I just read a WaPo columnist assert today, without evidence, that Trump is the "most corrupt President EVER!!" Or since Grant, or something. That's not new, I've been reading it for two years.

    And then of course there is "Russia." Will the media ever be held accountable for this seditious farce?

  • ||

    Not until we hold them accountable.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    they can't actually do anything about any of it.

    Says people who don't understand criminal referrals. This has become a "legal blog" every bit as much as a "libertarian blog."

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Says people who don't understand criminal referrals. "

    1. Presumes without evidence that there are actual crimes to refer.

    2. Which have to go to the DOJ, part of the Trump Administration. The AG could simply ignore said referrals.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    A "criminal referral" by Congress has no more legal effect than one by me or you.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Exactly, which is why I said the AG (appointed by and fireable by Trump) could simply ignore them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Which have to go to the DOJ

    Is that from the Book of Deuteronomy? Paul Manafort would love to have the cite.

  • bernard11||

    Does it matter to you?

    Suppose, hypothetically, there was clear evidence of tax fraud. Would that bother you, Matthew? would it shake your faith in Trump?

  • ||

    No, it wouldn't bother me. I don't care if people are cheating on their taxes as long as 47% of the population cheats legally by voting for Democraps to pass progressive tax systems that result in them paying nothing.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Schiff, Waters, and Co., have 2 choices:
    1. Act like normal human politicians, and alienate their base; or,
    2. Act like the idiots they appear to be, and guarantee Trump re-election.

    Trump solidified his control over the courts.
    The only real disappointment was Dean Heller; otherwise, the R's pretty much won everything they reasonably hoped to win.

    Then again, you libs now have "BETO 2020", to keep you warm for the next 18 months.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Robert Francis O'Rourke did better than I expected but his future in Texas statewide politics is not good. Among other obstacles, George P. Bush can match him in looks and name ID and money and is a real Latino to boot.

    Running for president is the rational choice for him.

  • KevinP||

    Beto is the white Obama. Shallow, superficial, without any notable accomplishments, appealing to the social media and comedy central crowd. I predict a bright future for him in the Democratic Party.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    When wingnuts have to scratch, claw, and spend to hold Texas, America is improving toward a point at which all of the Wyomings, Idahos, and Mississippis can't save Republicans.

  • ||

    Like San Francisco? How do you think you gringos are going to fare in a majority mestizo America?

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Remind us rubes, again:
    Who won Ohio and Pennsylvania?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Pennsylvanians elected a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator in humiliating blowouts; Ohioans elected a Democratic senator; and Pennsylvanians elected a piles of Democratic House members yesterday.

    Just not enough shambling bigots to carry the day for Republicans.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "When wingnuts have to scratch, claw, and spend to hold Texas"

    Um, Beto outspend Cruz by something approximating $60 million to $20 million. Do facts have a place in your philosophy of life, or do you just spew the first thing that pops into your head?

  • Kazinski||

    And as much as I like Ted Cruz, he spent his first 4 years in Washington crusading against Republicans as much as Democrats, including a mega feud with Trump, so it's not like he's Mister Republican. Greg Abbott had no trouble disposing of his democratic challenger in the governor's race, so I think it would be a big mistake to say that a realignment in Texas is imminent.

  • Kazinski||

    And as much as I like Ted Cruz, he spent his first 4 years in Washington crusading against Republicans as much as Democrats, including a mega feud with Trump, so it's not like he's Mister Republican. Greg Abbott had no trouble disposing of his democratic challenger in the governor's race, so I think it would be a big mistake to say that a realignment in Texas is imminent.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I'm not part of the the Cult of Beto, burn wow Ian this crowd shook by him.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    Beto "Nacho Senator" O'Rourke threw a tone of money against a candidate that no one likes--and still lost.

    He better not divorce the sugar momma yet.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Hehe, I take it you haven't heard of Texas.

    And, of course, Beto raised that money, which isn't a sign of something.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Is there a federal law that says US senate candidates can only raise money from sources in the state they are running in? In not, no all that money isn't a sign of anything without a breakdown of where it came from.

  • NToJ||

    About 45% came from out of state, I had read. I'll try and find the article.

  • bernard11||

    Neither should Cruz. You know, the one Trump thinks is ugly. Doesn't bother Ted, apparently.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    How cool would it be if, in 2020, we have "Nacho Senator vs. Cheeto Jesus"...?

  • Jonny Scrum-half||

    It's disappointing to see a cite to Glenn Reynolds, who has mastered the art of hiding his misleading statements behind a facade of even-handedness. For example, I don't understand his statement that "the economic boom of the 1990s took place after Clinton was forced to moderate his approach post-1994," when the GDP grew more in 1994 (pre-election) than in either 1995 or 1996. It was only in 1997, after Clinton won re-election, that the economy really took off.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Isn't 1997post-1994?

    He moderated his approach and then won re-election because of it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Does Prof. Reynolds still lie about being a libertarian rather than a self-certified movement conservative?

    Hard to believe a guy like that hasn't become a Conspirator. Maybe there is a caste system for right-wingers in unconvincing libertarian drag.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Are there any other topics on which you are the unimpeachable, omniscient arbiter?

  • M.L.||

  • NToJ||

    What's strange about this is that in the 2010 house "shellacking" Republicans had a less than 7% lead on the vote but gained 63 seats. In 2018 Democrats had an over 7% lead on votes but will get less than half the seats. Democrats will probably have a bigger win on votes than the 1994 house election too. Redistricting is a big deal. But demographics, long term, are a major problem for Republicans.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "demographics, long term, are a major problem for Republicans"

    As it has been for 20 years or more. We have all read The Emerging Democratic Majority.

    Yet they remain viable.

    Many [most?] GOP loses yesterday were in majority white suburban districts.

  • NToJ||

    "Yet they remain viable."

    I know, that's why I said redistricting was a big deal.

    "Many [most?] GOP loses yesterday were in majority white suburban districts."

    Uh, did you expect the GOP to lose in minority districts that they don't control? The losses are going to come from places the GOP controls. Not surprising.

  • M.L.||

    Why anyone would tally up a so-called "popular vote" in hundreds of entirely separate elections is beyond me. Actually it's not, but it takes an exceptionally dim-witted pundit to advance such a meaningless talking point.

    That said, it is true that demographics are a long term problem for Republicans. They're also a long term problem for anyone who wants a functional cohesive society and culture, or who favors ordered liberty over full blown socialism, or who believes in popular and national sovereignty and consent of the governed, or who seeks to retain whatever vestiges of Constitutional legitimacy that may remain. There's a reason why last time immigration reached a high water mark, this country tapped the brakes. If we do it again, then it will show that democratic elections aren't a total farce after all, yet.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    There just aren't enough bigots and disaffected losers to keep the Republican-conservative electoral coalition afloat.

    Change or go away, clingers.

  • ||

    There won't be enough taxpayers once they disappear. Your people don't pay taxes.

  • ||

    I fear it's too late. We've already let in enough third worlders with racial tribal loyalties tnat will use their power to push for the further immigration of more third worlders. We're done.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Still rooting for a race war and stripping voting rights from women, like a good little right-wing incel?

  • ||

    Women should never be allowed to vote, period. And I'd love a race war if it resulted in a societal reset.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do the Conspirators associated with legitimate schools wonder why fellow faculty members seem to exhibit disdain when a Conspirator arrives for a meeting, or is seen in the hallway?

  • NToJ||

    "Why anyone would tally up a so-called "popular vote" in hundreds of entirely separate elections is beyond me."

    Well if you tally up the so-called popular vote in individual elections--as you must to determine a winner--you will necessarily also tally the national popular vote. That's how counting works.

  • PubliusVA||

    True, adding up all of the votes in the individual elections does produce a number which is the sum of the smaller numbers. What's unclear is why that number has any significance, any more than totaling up the number of points scored by NBA teams over the course of the season is relevant to their standing going into the playoffs (which is determined by games won, not total points scored).

  • NToJ||

    It's relevant to knowing whether a majority of people in the country supported Republican or Democratic candidates. You may not be interested in the answer, but a lot of other people are.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    A majority of Americans who voted in the contested races.
    It's no more meaningful than the NBA team with the most points.
    The object is not (sorry Shillary) to win a few races by lots of votes; it's to win every race by 1 vote.
    I'm sure the Dems knew the rules going in.

  • NToJ||

    "A majority of Americans who voted in the contested races."

    Is the idea that if Republicans had run in uncontested Democratic districts, they'd equalize the final vote count? That seems unlikely, since the reason a Republican would not run is because the likelihood of winning was hopeless. Uncontested Democratic seats outnumbered uncontested Republican seats 39:3. And some states don't count the uncontested house votes anyway (like Florida), so it isn't skewing the overall number.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    You still ignore the premise--which had been the practice since the country was founded--that it's better to win a thousand races by a single vote than a few races by a thousand votes.
    This "but, look at popular vote totals", is just as moronic today as it was 2 years ago.

  • NToJ||

    What are you talking about? Are we not allowed to discuss the effects of existing policy? Why existing policy should change? If you don't want to talk about total votes, then stop engaging with me. It's a real piece of data. It is really the case that Republicans can win more seats with fewer votes. You think that's ok. I'm entitled to disagree with you.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    So to you adding up the number of apples and comparing it to the number of bananas should tell you something about the number of cashews?

  • NToJ||

    It's more like: Adding up the number of Americans who voted for Democrats or Republicans should tell you about whether Democrats or Republicans received more votes (in this election) than the other. Why are you running from this?

  • M.L.||

    You're just making a circular statement. "X is relevant to X." Ok, now trying explaining how it's relevant to anything else (it's not). Each candidate is a different candidate, and more importantly each race is a different race.

    Even the far left Washington Post admits this.

    But it gets better. Even if we try to pretend that you're right, by assuming a counterfactual system of government where representation will mirror these votes, you're still wrong. WaPo explains w/r/t to the Senate:

    While Democrats lost seats on Tuesday night, they actually won most of the races that were held — at least 22 of the 35 seats, and possibly a couple more. That's 63 percent or more of the seats, despite winning just 55 percent of the vote.

    Sounds pretty unfair to Republicans, right?

    Likewise in the house, your original post was pure nonsense: according to RCP Dems have 225 seats so far to the Rs 198. Guess what? That's a margin of 6.4%, quite similar to the vote margin of 7%.

    So will you stop your trolling now and admit you're wrong?

  • NToJ||

    "Each candidate is a different candidate, and more importantly each race is a different race."

    That's why we have generic ballot polling. If that sort of thing interests you, there's heaps of data.

    Your Washington Post link is speaking strictly to the Senate vote. It would be unusual to focus on Americans' views (overall) of the two parties by looking to Senate votes, because only 1/3rd of the Senate seats were up for a vote. But we're talking about House votes. House members are elected every 2 years. Everywhere.

  • M.L.||

    So no. Carry on then.

  • NToJ||

    "Likewise in the house, your original post was pure nonsense: according to RCP Dems have 225 seats so far to the Rs 198. Guess what? That's a margin of 6.4%, quite similar to the vote margin of 7%."

    6.2% according to my calculator, although it'll probably end somewhere around 232 D to 203 R (so ~6.7%). But that's my point: If Democrats win 7% of the vote, they have a house margin of 6.2%. When Republicans win

  • NToJ||

    less than 7% their margin is greater than 10%.

  • bernard11||

    There's a reason why last time immigration reached a high water mark, this country tapped the brakes.

    There was a reason all right.

    Whether it was a good one or not is a different question.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Worked out pretty well when it came time to win a World War.

  • Sarcastr0||

    By that weak correlative reasoning, so did locking up a bunch of Japanese-Americans.

  • Kazinski||

    It's not our fault that Democrats pack like lemmings in dense urban districts and routinely rack up majorities of >75%.

  • Sarcastr0||

    That's...not what lemmigs do.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Technically, lemmings don't do the thing most people think they are famous for.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I know. The power of Disney.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Smart, educated, accomplish people prefer modern, successful, educated communities (with strong schools, medical facilities, professionals, entertainment, etc.), and each other.

    Republicans and conservatives have other attributes and preferences.

  • DRM||

    But demographics, long term, are a major problem for Republicans.


    No, they aren't.

    First, the parties in a two-party system will, under normal circumstances, wind up aligned such that they average half the electoral victories. Structural changes, whether in the electoral system or the electorate, will simply result in changes in the parties themselves such that elections are again competitive.

    Second, "in the long run", ethnic identities aren't stable. Per Pew, while 97% of Hispanics/Latinos born outside the US identify as Hispanic/Latino, only 92% of their children, 77% of their grandchildren, and 50% of their great-grandchildren do. This is the same sort of ethnic identity decay that made the "Italian-American vote" go from much-discussed to forgotten.

  • Michael Cook||

    My mind is still stuck in the Old Testament. Having slain Goliath, David went on to become commander of Israel's armies under King Saul during constant wars. His success in this role only made it easier for plotters to convince Saul that David was planning a coup. Saul gave David his daughter Michal as wife but suspicion grew anyhow and soon David was on the run from the army he had just led so valiantly.

    While being chased around, David came to the town of Carmel. The ruler of Carmel was a jackal, but his wife Abigail is described as lovely and wise. Her actions in the thick of intrigue impressed David who took her to wife when her hubby was cut down. (Saul had taken back Michal and given her as wife to someone else.)

    Long wars ensue and eventually Saul and loyalists are wiped out. David becomes King of Judah in Hebron for 7 yrs while succession quarrels rage in Israel. Michal is sent back to him. Eventually the Israelites figure out that David is the primo choice for king of Israel and he moves the whole extended family to Jerusalem.

    Michal, unwisely, decides to henpeck David when he celebrates bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem by dancing wildly (and probably mostly nude) in public. She is cursed with infertility, which drops her to the bottom of the long list of David's favorite wives.

    David built a fine temple for the Ark and ruled for 33 yrs. To a red neck like me, King David ranks with Davey Crocket and even Donald Trump as a manly life well lived.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What kind of man believes fairy tales?

    Get an education, you rube.

  • Michael Cook||

    Fairy tale, or early oral histories that became among the first humanistically written historical accounts of anything that mankind possesses? There is probably more evidence today that King David existed and that he constructed the first Temple than there is of King Arthur and his round-table knights in post-Roman (illiterate) Britain. That is not to say that "no evidence" proves there was no King Arthur-like figure in British history.

    I believe that all of the Bible is "true" in a memetic cultural narrative sense (sneering at oral histories is another form of racism and cultural snobbery, BTW) and that some of the Bible actually happened, because oral stories and traditions often evolve from actual but dimly-remembered events, like catastrophic floods.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You genuinely believe a man rose from the dead, and expect such an assertion to be worthy of respect in reasoned debate?

    People are entitled to believe as they wish, but competent people neither advance nor accept superstition-based arguments or assertions in reasoned debate among adults.

    Those under the age of 12 or so are not to be held to that standard, especially if childhood indoctrination is involved.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    You genuinely believe microbes turned into people, and expect such an assertion to be worthy of respect in reasoned debate?

  • NToJ||

    There are testable theories of abiogensis. You can't test most religious claims. (You can test the human rising from the dead claim, and all experiments have demonstrated that you cannot, in fact, bring a person back from the dead.)

  • M.L.||

    Lots of your basic beliefs that you rely on every day are not "testable."

  • NToJ||

    Like what?

  • M.L.||

    Any moral claim, for instance.

  • M.L.||

    It's not just microbes into people. He genuinely believes that nothing turned into everything without any sort of intent or design whatsoever.

  • NToJ||

    The argument that something with an intent or design must have created everything is not even logically consistent.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Mixing up the natural with the supernatural to own the libs.

  • M.L.||

    I have no idea why that argument would be logically inconsistent, even if you merely describe the intent or design as a sort of metaphysical characteristic of the universe, as Thomas Nagel does.

  • NToJ||

    The argument that something could only arise out of nothing by some thing's intent or design has a premise that denies the conclusion. The form of the argument is:

    P1: Somethings cannot arise from nothing without intent or design from some thing (we will call some thing X).
    P2: Somethings exist.
    C: Therefore, X intended somethings from nothing.

    P1 and C are inconsistent. If somethings cannot arise from nothing without the help of an X, then X could not arise from nothing, either. The argument denies that there was ever "nothing".

  • NToJ||

    I realize now I'm missing a premise, but you get the point.

  • M.L.||

    It seems you are committing a category error, conflating the sort of thing that appears to have a beginning, e.g. the universe according to modern physics, and therefore a cause, with the sort of thing that cannot possibly have a beginning or a cause.

    But that's actually not the issue I intended to raise, although I perhaps mashed different concepts together myself initially. Rather, it's that it's unreasonable to think that things such as life and DNA arose merely as a result of accident and materialist mechanism, or that mind is a purely materialistic phenomenon, without some sort of metaphysical characteristic or teleological principle. This argument is found in the book Mind and Cosmos.

  • M.L.||

    To be clear, the Mind and Cosmos argument itself stops short of being an argument for the existence of "God" which is a broader topic, but it skewers a certain prevailing philosophical conceit.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Your appeal to incredulity about evolution is faith masquerading as logic.

    As a man of both faith and science, I have no problem reconciling that one asks how and the other asks why.
    Faith must have the humility to stay in it's lane, as must science. History has not been kind to the junctures where and when they do not.
    Nagel calling Intelligent Design a scientific debate is very wrong.

    That we do not yet understand the mechanism of the emergence of the mind isn't even an evolutionary problem. Indeed, it was only once we have a sufficient understanding of various processes that their evolutionary path became clear (e.g. the eye).

  • M.L.||

    Sarcastro - With all due respect, this topic clearly went over your head and you are not prepared to discuss this intelligently.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Typical.

  • mad_kalak||

    What you don't understand Rev, that even if the Bible is not literal true in every word (impossible, as it contains internal contradictions), it is still a historical account (albeit slanted). King David did exist.

  • Rorschach||

    What kind of far-left NPC like you doesn't believe in fairy tales?

    Having a B.A. in Grievance Studies isn't the same thing as being educated, you simpering misandrist eunuch.

  • AmosArch||

    The bible is more accurately classified, at least past exodus, as a semilegendary account of the history of israel and important related figures. Its much more historical than say the Olympian tales or actual fairy tales like Mother Goose. and stacks up well at least in some parts compared to other books of the era. A lot of information was first known only from the bible then confirmed by archaeology eg the existence of the Hittites.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Manly?

    Good lord.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    These guys are losing their grip, Sarcastro. The "end times" rants are just around the corner.

  • mad_kalak||

    What kind of man objects at the word manly. Generally one who isn't manly, but tries to cover that fact up by complaining about the standard by which men judge each other. In many ways, it's like a fat woman saying she rejects western patriarchal beauty standards.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Thanks for the diagnosis.

  • mad_kalak||

    You're welcome, check the mirror. Life's not fair, and we can't be James Bond or Bruce Wayne for real, but there is an ideal and those who scoff at it the most are the farthest away from it.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Drink more milk.

  • NToJ||

    Do you think the President is "manly"?

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Trump's signature accomplishment is putting 15% ethanol in our gasoline and ruining Republicans' lawnmowers.

  • M.L.||

    Keep in mind that non-citizens are permitted to vote illegally. This foreign interference in our elections is enabled and encouraged by the Democrats, and calls into question the legitimacy of Democrat wins.

  • Michael Cook||

    Rush just revealed that convicted felons in Florida will be allowed to vote (by ballot initiative just approved) in the next election. There are 1.4 million of them.

  • ||

    Yup, so Republicans just sealed their fate. Nearly all of those felons will vote for Democraps.

  • mad_kalak||

    Don't assume all 1.4 million will vote. Most won't I bet. However, when you add the Puerto Ricans now in FL, it will go blue in 2020 unless Trump shaves some off the historical black vote for Dems, and/or there is higher white turnout.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    In a rented room at a Trump property somewhere, Republican strategists with Liberty and Hillsdale degrees are struggling to identify a path to a conservative Electoral College majority without Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and most Americans.

    I wonder which Conspirators are advising them on the legalities.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    All they have to do is conspire with Donna Brazile and get Shillary the nomination again.

  • AmosArch||

    I don't know where this myth that a future America full of rural South Americans and ultraconservative muslims will be the key that leads progs to ultimate victory came from but please continue its hilarious.

  • ||

    They think an America full of 85 IQ Amerindians will be a beacon of success.

  • ||

    Probably. That's why filling America with non-whites is a bad idea. And why I don't believe in interracial marriage.

  • DjDiverDan||

    Looking at who is going to assume leadership positions in the House, Pelosi, Waters, Schiff, et al., I see neither a blue wave nore a purple puddle. It looks (and smells) to me much more like a large fetid brown pile.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    But the jokes about fright wigs and pencil necks will write themselves.

  • ||

    ROTFL! A fetid brown pile of rancid poop.

  • grb||

    Trust our friends on the Right to supply the coprophilia portion of the debate.....

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online