YouTube, despite its corporate leadership being very regressive, has become a hub for alternative viewpoints regarding current political and cultural events. I thought I’d do a writeup about YouTubers who create content I believe would be of interest to Glibs. The video creators are mainly concerned with current events from a political and/or philosophical perspective, however a few make videos about popular culture or general interest topics as well.
This article is not meant to be either authoritative or comprehensive (and there will be follow ups regarding these or other YouTubers), but rather a jumping off point for commentators to add both their own perspectives on those I’ve listed, disagreements with my opinions, as well as discussing YouTubers I’ve omitted either through ignorance or difference in perspective.
So here, in no particular order, are some of my YouTubers of interest:
Liberty Doll – A Libertarian woman with a Judy Greer-esque 40’s-50s’ nerd chic vibe, she often discusses 2A issues, including the recent 3D printing kerfluffle. She also discusses current events, liberty issues, as well as feminism and other anti-liberty philosophies.
Styxhexenhammer666 – A former Satanist and current mystic/spiritualist, Styx creates a lot of content about current political events, both foreign and domestic (including Trump). He occasionally has a slightly unusual take on matters which doesn’t always jibe with the standard libertarian view. He’s done a couple series of non-political videos. They are mostly related to the occult, but he also has a series of garden videos.
Matt Christiansen – His perspective is (in my view) somewhere between classical liberal and libertarian. Unlike many video producers, he doesn’t see the need to inject a hyper personality, instead stating the facts (and unleashing his acerbic wit) in his calm midwestern inflection. The videos might be on Trump or, say, pointing out the current stupidity in Portland. He also does the Beauty and the Beta podcast/livestream with Blonde in the Belly of the Beast. Blonde is an attractive woman who, over the past few years, moved from libertarianism to a much more conservative / identitarian perspective. (Think an American Lauren Southern without the public provocation).
Sargon of Akkad / The Thinkery – One of the bigger names in the anti-SJW ‘skeptic’ YouTube community, Sargon generally holds classical liberal views. He’s able to court controversy even beyond the standard regressive community (a few Glibs have been quite critical). As a UK resident, his perspective is mainly focused on Britain. In addition to his videos on the Islamization of the UK and Europe, he also has videos about recent events.
Karen Straughn / Honey Badger Radio – Karen and the others at Honey Badger Radio focus on men’s rights issues and critiques of feminism. The mostly female group makes interesting videos pointing out the discrepancies in feminist narratives and the legal and existential realities related to gender issues, ‘male disposability’, and why men’s issues are generally not taken seriously in the larger society (including why women should care about men’s issues).
Freedom Toons – Freedom Toons creates satirical cartoon videos from a libertarian perspective. Some of his targets have included modern journalism and free speech. These videos are short, so they’re good if you only have 5 minutes or so.
Bearing / Patrick – An Australian shit poster, Bearing generally goes after leftists and SJWs with humor. A couple of his recent videos have included one on the fight between Australian senators David Leyenhjelm and Sarah H Young and another on Lauren Southern’s Australia visit. His girlfriend is YouTuber Sugartits, who makes similar content.
Hard Bastard – He largely does videos regarding current events – such as the Cohen tapes – from a right of center perspective. A former Jehovah’s Witness, he often brings a slightly different view to his videos. His girlfriend is Aydin Paladin, who is (amazingly) a sociological graduate student with a general liberty focus. She mainly does videos on recent events, but also likes to delve into academic topics, both largely using that sociological framework. She has also worked with the Honey Badgers on a few of their videos. (Note: while I find her videos interesting, they are 1) academic, and 2) not short)
The Pholosopher – A Chinese American Ancap woman, she’s about as libertarian as you can get. A huge 2A proponent, she enjoys appearing in her anti-gun control videos with her AR. She also makes videos about how the US government has messed up the Middle East, and that taxation is theft.
Timcast – This will probably be one of my more controversial picks. Tim Pool is a former Vice reporter who is now trying to make a living as an independent reporter. As you’d suspect from someone who used to work with Vice, his politics are left of center. I include him because he does a couple things incredibly rare for journalists these days. He tries to get his facts correct, and he separates those facts from his evaluation of them. While he deeply dislikes Trump, he actually evaluates Trump’s actions on an individual basis rather than issue a blanket condemnation. I respect this.
Ben Shapiro – While Shapiro is mostly conservative rather than libertarian, he’s a skilled debater and often interesting. Also, since I’ve pointed out the women here a few times, let me link to his interview with Mike Rowe for Kristen.
Whycome no Jordan Peterson?
In all seriousness, this is a great list. A lot of these people I have watched before, but there are a few new names here that are new to me and I’ll check out.
RE: Blonde in the Belly of the Beast – First off; would. I started watching her from close to the beginning and I’ve been very disappointed by the turn she’s taken. She’s a hop, skip and a jump from actual white supremacy views. Lately she’s dancing close to the “from the womb of pure white beauty will spring the future of the race that will take its rightful place as the pinnacle of the world” kind of shit.
Also: Gavin McInnes does not provide very intellectual stuff, but I enjoy watching his vids as comic relief.
I also find it unbelievably ironic that he is one of the founders of Vice.
It would help if he resumed being funny. Once upon a time he was 50/50 in that department, but now he’s slipped more to the ‘annoying’ side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq4D8XOaAE4
The only episode of Gavin McInnes that I ever listed to. Two days later Robby wrote an article labeling McInnes as a far-right extremist after college students protested a speech that he gave at NYU.
An hour and a half?
*closes tab*
Gavin’s running shtick about being blatantly nice to Hillary otherwise she’ll have him killed is pretty funny.
It makes more sense if you’d been around that scene in the early days of vice (~1999-2004 or so)\
it was print-media trolling. it was “shitposting” before there was such a thing.
most famously, they parodied Cosmopolitan’s “Do or Don’ts” with their own version… which did things like “photograph homeless people asleep with their dicks out” and say, “DO: if you’re going to catch a nap in public, no better way to remain undisturbed than to scare harassers away with the sight of your unwashed nutsack”
it had no political dimension that could be identified. They did 2 famous issues, one on “Hate Groups” and another on the invasion of Iraq which were both just hilariously unconcerned w/ saying whether either things were bad or good. It was just stuff like, “NAZI FASHION TIPS” where they discussed Aryan Nation vs. Skinhead hairstyles/shoe choices., or “Interview with baghdad prostitutes”, concerned about whether bombing was undermining their normal business, and whether they hoped to score well with the newly formed sunni/shiite militias
it was ‘transgressive’, iow. it was purposely just a piss-take of what ‘real magazines’ pretended to do. It made fun of the idea that they had any journalistic responsibility at all. They did fashion shoots where they fed models alcohol and spaghetti until they puked.
As soon as McInnes left, it became just another progressive media outlet.
Yup. Vice was almost always an interesting or funny read in those days. I have both book collections of Dos and Donts and they are absolutely hilarious.
I was under the impression that the Pholosopher was Vietnamese American.
Hence the name “pholosopher”
Wouldn’t it be Phorosopher?
Wacist
That’s “lacist” you racist. What are you a lacist?
My wife is Japanese and if I say lacist, she has to really work to tell it from racist
That’s something she would say:)
libertarians are after all racists. they would totally bang a hot chick without even knowing if she is Vietnamese or Chinese.
As long as there one of the eses who cares?
Stop at “hot chick”. Who cares what -ese or -an or -ian they are!
I thought so too, but she’s done a couple videos on Cantonese phrases, which makes me think her family is of Southern Chinese origin.
Like a huge portion of the Vietnamese diaspora, it’s quite possible that she is Vietnamese of Southern Chinese origin. A lot of the Chinese-Vietnamese ended up on the wrong side of the revolution as they were the bankers and landlords of French Indochina.
The Hakka have always been the Jews of East Asia.
Mao or Ho, she certainly learned the right lessons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnq5LStlZPE
Oops.
Also, Tim Pool. Sometimes he’s kind of derpy, but in general I like him. I appreciate hearing his side since I know I’m going to hear stuff I don’t agree with from someone I have respect for…it’s pretty hard to listen to the other side of an argument when it’s all done in that sneering condescending style and he doesn’t do that.
One of my criteria for listening* to someone’s content is whether I can stand the sound of their voice for the average duration of their output. Several of those people listed (ie, Shapiro) are so grating on the ears that I no longer care what they’re saying, I just want them to stop talking.
* I listen to youtube videos in the background while I’m doing other things, so often I don’t even see what imagery is used in conjunction with their audio. Thus I can’t say I watch them, as my eyes are usually on some text on the other monitor.
Dave Smith, who somehow manages to keep a job as a panelist on CNN’s SE Cupp’s “Unfiltered”.
He’s got to be sleeping with her or something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tnv3eVf7tU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvRk2CYVzx4
Also, Michael Malice
Malice is good.
He’s kind of scatterbrained.
You don’t learn anything from Dave Smith, but his stand-up is funny and it’s amazing to see someone say this stuff on CNN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQfQ3V3hsJw
I cringed, though, when I saw his stand-up before a debate between the Mises Institute and CATO over fractional reserve banking at the Soho Forum.
Let it go, Dave
Mike Rowe was on Power Lunch yesterday discussing education and job training – there is hope!
He also has a disturbing shortage of shirts
That jacket is great!
And are the sunglasses to disguise the very obvious fact that he’s reading from a script? Not that I care, Straughan does it, too.
Shit, I think I’m thinking Razorfist.
Razorfist belongs on the list. Eclectic mix of metal, nerdery and current events.
Yes, Razorfist was one I just didn’t get around to.
Owen Benjamin.
Great stand up, pretty good Livestreams. More conservative than libertarian.
Nuance bro has become my favorite man on the street YouTuber. He’ll go to a protest and try to ask questions. Doesn’t edit stuff down to gotcha moments or anything.
He’s also done some inside videos about the awb or current events. He’s probably libertarian, but he doesn’t push his opinion in 99% of his content.
I like him. I still catch Anthony Cumia when I can – here they are together and hilarious.
Thanks for the list. I listen to half of these already (listening to Beauty and the Beta as I type) but I’m going to check out the rest.
I’m one of those critical of Sargon, btw. He may be a big proponent of free speech, but he often reveals his left-authoritarian roots. His unadulterated support for the NHS tells me all I need to know about his bona fides. It’s no surprise that his solution to the current spate of internet deplatforming is more regulation.
I vehemently disagree with his views on the NHS, etc, but that doesn’t stop me from listening to his content (at least those that are 40 minutes or less).
Yeah, I still like to hear his viewpoint, but I rarely watch due to the length of his videos.
I agree. When he wanders into specific policy arguments, Sargon’s politics are of the “we just need the right people in charge” variety; ie, tyrannical. I do enjoy his culture war/SJW takedown stuff though.
I suspect that’s a product of his limey upbringing.
Don’t deny it, that attitude is rampant there.
I didn’t see lonewacko on this list.
*RISES TO BEGIN THUNDEROUS OVATION*
Are you applauding the omission, or the (implied) suggestion?
Dave Rubin also, not for him but for his guests.
Or even Joe Rogan for that. I learned of Dave Smith on there.
Rogan yes. Rubin no.
Rogan is good because the person he’s talking to is typically smarter than him so he doesn’t interrupt him, unless he has Eddie Bravo on again and they’re talking about Jui Jitsu. He had Peter Schiff on earlier this month and Joe had this “wha” look on his face the entire time…
I like that about Rogan. It seems like he asks people on the show because he thinks they know something he doesn’t and wants them to tell him about it. That’s a refreshing take on the radio talk show format, which is mostly just lengthy op-eds or people yelling at each other.
I can’t stand Rubin.
So you pretty much hate everyone except Michael Malice
Are you Michael Malice, because that’s exactly the position that I would expect him to have?
I especially like Rubin when he has multiple guests, and they start talking to each other. He had one a while ago with Eric Weinstein and Jordan Peterson that ran for 2 hours. Then they brought in Ben Shapiro for the third hour. Fun stuff.
Just to show where my head is, I never miss videos by Helen Rennie or Chef John.
Chef John is great.
Don’t read his twitters. You’ll seriously begin to hate him.
Oh. Joy.
I’ll avoid that. It’s the same with most artists or actors.
Yeah he’s had a few comments in one video or another that made me roll my eyes and go “shut up and cook the food”
Huh, I been watching his recipes for years, and while as OMWC says I’ve seen a few stupid tweets (tho 99% of his tweets are retweets of fans foodie pix) I can’t recall any political content in the recipe videos, he seems to intentionally keep those neutral.
I kinda like yup suck at cooking, though I do not admit it in polite society
There is nothing wrong with “You Suck at Cooking”!!!!
Heck, his stone ground mustard, roasted string bean recipe was funny (and good eats).
Shapiro is so annoying.
His politics aren’t that great beyond the domestic front either. I’ve listened to his podcast a few times and each time I just kept murmuring “so close- you’re almost there”
On the non-political end of things, I’ve been deeply enjoying C&Rsenal’s Primer series about the development and adoption/use of various WWI small arms. The lead up to WWI was a huge period of technological advances in small arms, so there’s no shortage of fascinating history to hear about. Reasonably in depth, entertaining, and each gun has a shooting segment from a cute girl (this is ostensibly because she gets the closest to being proportioned like a WWI soldier of anyone on the team, but I’m pretty sure the impact of recoil on boobs factors in there too).
… go on.
Mister Metokur is good for deep dives on the frontiers of internet lunacy, if you’re interested in that sort of thing. Be prepared to have your dismal opinions of humanity made to look hopelessly optimistic.
Thunderf00t’s takedowns of scams are a lot of fun, too: solar roadways, self-filling bottles, Fukishima fallout literally bathing our west coast in radioactive particles, that sort of thing. His politics, not so much.
Captain Disillusion for deconstructing special (and practical) effects in viral videos.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Friends does a more farcical spin on respectable center-right headline-of-the-day coverage. It’s a podcast, but they livestream the episodes on Youtube every Thursday night.
I did watch his work for the scam takedowns once upon a time, but two things made me delete the bookmark. One was the recurring refusal to apply standard scientific skeptecism to global warming, and two was the going off the deep end starting around Brexit. When his argument boiled down to “I’m afraid of losing my grant monies” as the most substantial element, with more absurd scaremongering piled on, I got turned off. The fact that it marked the start of a distinct deterioration led to my departure from his audience.
“Mister Metokur is good for deep dives on the frontiers of internet lunacy”
He is. Although he also gets into a lot of pointless drama.
For lovers of the 2nd Amendment.
https://m.youtube.com/user/hickok45
*ahem*
https://www.full30.com/channels/hickok45
I love Hickok, and that guy is a ridiculously good shot. He’ll be ringing the gong at 80+ yards with a goddamn 380 pocket pistol
Yes – I got addicted to his channel when I shopping for my last gun. I realized I could buy a $5k custom match pistol and not shoot it half as well as he shoots an off-the-shelf piece of junk.
Him and Demoranch
Living in a non gun country i find demolition ranch and forgotten weapons quite entertaining.
I watched a lot of Hickock45 videos in the run up to my first purchase of pistols last fall.
Old cowboys make good reviewers.
Shout out for Deuce & Guns. Two awesome things even awesomer together.
Ken Harris who famously called Islam the “motherlode of bad ideas” on Bill Maher’s show.
also, Razorfist!
+1 for Bearing, that guy makes some funny stuff.
Also, I’m sure you’ve all heard of him, but i think Steven Crowder should be on this list.
didn’t bearing have some hiatus and argument with the general skeptic youtubers? I though he became a sort of persona non grata for the sargon crowd. Or am I wrong?
You’re right. I don’t remember exactly what it was that happened, but yeah he took a hiatus for like almost a year i think. Now he’s uploading again, but not at the same pace that he used to
definitely Crowder for his willingness to confront SJWs.
Crowder wasn’t omitted b/c I didn’t think he belonged here; I just ran out of time.
Paul Harrell for gun and ammo stuff.
Meh I rarely watch political things on youtube any more. I don’t like it but I rarely find something interesting or new… Most of my youtube watch are things to relax me
big dicko was fun back in the day but he hasn’t posted in a long time
This entire page is the reason why Youtube has to scrub content. It’s for our own good, you just won’t realize it until your opinions have been corrected.
I don’t like long videos. I mostly like short videos that are entertaining and get to the point.
Razorfist is a good example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oHIzJiaW5g
So are Barbara4u2c, Blaire White, Count Dankula, Shoe0nhead, Roaming Millennial, SomeBlackGuy.
I like Internet Historian, even though his videos tend to be rather long.
For me It really depends on the delivery and structure of the content as to where the optimal duration lands. Some people excel at short works, some can maintain engagement for long durations without issue.
Barbara4u2c never impressed me. She seemed to have the whole pretty girl saying nationalist stuff thing without much substance
Shoe0nhead was similar with anti feminism. nothing particularly interesting.
that guy T was ok back in the day now I don’t know if still around
So you are saying you hate white women?
Then I won’t recommend Lauren Southern.
No I respect white women enough to expect some intellectual depth
One of the defining characteristics of 2018 is that “pretty girl saying nationalist stuff” is a genre.
Chris Ray Gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnRYyorBvk0
I’ll second Dank. He’s entertaining, and his style of juvenile dumbassery resonates with me. I know a lot of people with a very similar sense of humor. Also, he does have some interesting things to say from time to time, and I’m a sucker for people who do good SJW takedowns.
Gus Johnson for really short comedy. Not political. I look forward to his stuff.
His brother just started to put out his own content too
I’ve always wanted to see his larynx explode on live TV.
OT
CW Cooke on the 2A being an individual right, not a collective right (as those fucking progs at the ACLU think):
(this is a great read)
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/08/27/the-truth-about-the-second-amendment/
it’s long. here are some excerpts…
1. …to be cognizant of the history is to arrive at one clear and unmistakable conclusion: that the “collective right” theory is just nuts. As a 1982 Senate report on the meaning of the Second Amendment concluded bluntly, it is “inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
2. Indeed, so obvious was it to the people of the United States that the right came glued to liberty and citizenship that it was referenced by both sides during the explosive fight over slavery and its aftermath. In his abhorrent majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford, Justice Roger B. Taney simply assumed that citizens were able to carry firearms and then used that dreadful prospect as a reason why blacks must never be afforded citizenship. Should Dred Scott prevail, Taney wrote, blacks would be “entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens,” which would “give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
3. The aberration in American history was not Heller but what immediately preceded Heller and passed for academic scholarship and judicial rigor in the middle of the 20th century. It was clear in the 18th century what the Second Amendment meant. It was clear in the 19th century, too. It was clear before ratification, at the time of ratification, and after ratification. It was clear before the Civil War, and during the drafting of the 14th Amendment, and to the postbellum segregationists who undermined it whenever they could. It was clear when almost every state added its own protections of the right to keep and bear arms and, in so doing, made a mockery of the idea that the right they were emulating had been born of a desire to limit federal power. There has been precisely one plot to recast the Second Amendment and, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, to “make it a blank paper by construction,” and that was the plot that flowered briefly in the middle of the 20th century. We must resolve to make sure that it never does so again.
Point 3 is dead on. This is why progs are so desperate for a “living Constitution”, so they can redefine the text at will.
Also: a collective right is no right at all. It’s a concept that falls into the “not even wrong” category; it’s just nonsense.
wtf is a collective right anyway? and when the right is misused, is there collective responsibility? i think leftists love that shit b/c reparations.
“collective rights” are in the same category as “social justice” and “public lands”
wtf is a collective right anyway?
Kind of like “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” It’s slavery.
It begs the question: what collective?
Naturally, the people pushing collective rights always mean the government. Which means it isn’t a right at all, but a power.
collective power? the govt has the collective power to bear arms? well that’s depressing applying it to the ACLU’s position statement on 2A.
I think I’ve said it before, but Cooke is my favorite Brit.
I never really watch political videos on youtube. Just not terribly interested. I mostly use the site for old live music, Mystery Science Theater episodes, and old sporting events.
I do like watching Jerry Miculek shooting videos because the man is amazing.
Fun fact: SP and I met Jan In A Pan at a party in Austin.
Which one of you had to carry her around?
SP got one side, I got the other. We only had two or three accidental spills.
LET ME DIE!!!!!
OMWC is the guy who goes around strip joints looking for a new body for Jan.
OT: ” Chambers argues that in the ‘marriage free state, marriage would have no legal significance. The state would not regulate the term, nor would it provide laws that dealt with the creation and dissolution of marriages.'”
I’m with you so far…
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2018/08/12/identifying-the-real-haters-on-campus/
“the marriage free state starts by working out what would be the just way to regulate relationships between unmarried people and then applies that regulation to everyone.”
Um, no.
“marriage is an institution that has been both the cause and the result of profound inequality: a mechanism for entrenching structures of privilege and exclusion, power and oppression, hierarchies of gender and race and heteronormativity”
Oh I get it. You’re rehashing 50 year old RadFem arguments and presenting them as shiny and new. Good thing for you that universities exist to pay you for that, otherwise you might have to do honest work like the fryer at Burger King.
You shouldn’t be because the quoted statement is simply wrong.
Even if the state did not do anything to recognize or sanction marriages it would still have a role to play in their dissolution because in addition to whatever else a marriage is it is also a contract and with the state being the final arbiter of contract resolution and disputes then it absolutely would have a role in the dissolution of marriages and that role in the dissolution of marriage contracts would by necessity require it to have some role in defining what constitutes a valid marriage contract.
Now if we want to presume the existence of a Ancapistani pluralistic legal system where the state is not involved in contract dispute resolution because the state no longer exists then so be it we can have that conversation, until then however you can no more isolate marriage from goverment regulation than you can any other contract because at the end of the day it is government courts and government force backing up that contract.
I should clarify:
My opinion (and how I read that) would be that there would be no separate and unique legal arena for marriage, it would simply fall into the basket of contract law.
Sure but that would not isolate it from government regulation is my point.
I have seen varying people on both sides of the gay marriage debate try to make this claim sometimes saying it is a good thing and sometimes saying it is a bad thing but the reality is even if governments explicitly stop recognizing and advantaging marriages in other ways it will still be regulating them at the most basic level
I think we’re arguing over semantics. Even (most) ancaps admit the necessity of having some kind of contract enforcement, even if it’s just the wronged party engaging in vigilante compensation. I’m not saying that agreements between people will be utterly outside the purview of enforceable contracts, I’m just arguing for the idea of “marriage” to be either confined to religious institution or to a personal definition; ie, someone wants to enter into a “group marriage” with many people so a contract outlining the terms are drafted. If the terms of the contract are broken, it’s settled by some kind of arbitration. Similarly, entering into a religious “marriage” is completely separate, subject to the rules governed by your particular deity and might include a secular contract or not.
TL;DR – I think we agree regardless of what wording the RadFem psycho used above.
Yes, I am not arguing with you, but her.
I am also a proponent of separating government from marriage to the degree possible and handling it like any other contract with the government filling the role of arbiter of last resort for said marriage contracts. Mrs Psychopants however that is not enough, she wants to regulate ALL interpersonal relationships, whether they are contract based or not. In fact she would rather do away with the concept of a contract because in her world view no contract could ever be fairly agreed to because one person is always more powerful than the other. Given that she is unconcerned with the logical failure of her statement because it is merely the result of her being unwilling or unable to articulate exactly what she means by …
In other words the state will regulate under force of law every single social interaction you ever have in your life. Any micro aggression will be punished and you will live in a world where that which is not mandatory is forbidden because you are legally allowed no free will at all.
The funny thing is this…
This requires that you hold 2 mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time…
1) Gender is a purely social construct
2) Something exists to somehow prevent biological females from assuming the advantaged gender of male
If Gender is a purely social construct with no biological significance then what is preventing biological females from adopting male social norms and receiving the same benefits as biological males?
“she wants to regulate ALL interpersonal relationships”
This is the crux of the matter. It’s always about control and totalitarianism, of course with she and intellectual fellow travelers at the helm. Marxists always attack the family because it’s a self-contained unit that people will always have their primary allegiance to, not the government. It’s a threat to their control.
In other words the state will regulate under force of law every single social interaction you ever have in your life.
So they’re trying to LARP The Handmaiden’s Tale?
The only issue they have with the Handmaids tale is which group is in charge
Chambers argues that in the ‘marriage free state, marriage would have no legal significance.
Wouldn’t it have the same legal significance as any contract? Which is to say, quite a lot?
the marriage free state starts by working out what would be the just way to regulate relationships between unmarried people and then applies that regulation to everyone.
Ah, a totalitarian. “Nothing outside the State”, etc. Every relationship ground into the same gray bureaucratic mush. I smell the New Soviet Man lurking in the background.
I’m going to give you a moment to think about your answer, Mike. Because first I want to talk to you about insurance. Does it suck? Yeah, you’re going to die, lets be real. But life insurance doesn’t have to suck, which is why I want to talk to you about…..
LOL I’ve actually been hooked on his Sunday Specials, where he spends an hour talking with his guest.
I’m not a big YouTube fan. I like to multitask when listening. One of the reasons I prefer podcasts. We should also, of course, give a shout out to our own YouTubers CPRM and Lt Fish as good picks.
As for Tim Pool, he did something I respect. He apologized when he was wrong. Won’t go into the details, but it involved a feud between two comedians, Dick Masterson and Maddox. It’s actually worthy of an article that I might write. Anyways, Tim and Dick wound up having a public fight over it, and when Tim realized he was wrong, he actually went on Dick’s show and manned up. I have respect for that.
Still, I just don’t get the format.
Good man, I thought I was going to have to name drop myself and sound like ass.
Agreed; my apologies to CPRM & Lt. Fish.
Alien abduction: 45 years after alleged UFO encounter, Mississippi man breaks his silence
STEVE SMITH to the white courtesy phone.
#ThemToo
Totally off topic. Sorry.
https://twitter.com/LPNational/status/1029406155393716224?s=19
I’ll just say that this is why we can’t have nice things.the lp got 3.4% of the vote in the general 16. But I’m sure it’s because Austin ran as a R.
Ron Paul seemed to have electoral success after he left the LP. Of course, now the LP doesn’t want him to speak at their events.
I didn’t even think of that.
I was too busy thinking “oh go fuck yourselves.”
They can’t even be nice to someone trying to run to advance things they want.
Why would you need people who actually advocate liberty when you have Bill Weld?
Well there’s that. The hero of Liberty.
I just would never go back to the lp if that’s how they act when I leave.
Weld is so repugnant.
If the LP were serious at all about getting any liberty-friendly ideas implemented, they’d disband and focus on entryism into the Pubs. This is the strategy socialists have been using with the Dems since the fall of the Soviet Union and it’s been a huge success. As it stands now, the LP is the Old Man Shouting at Clouds party with no realistic chance of ever having any influence on the American political landscape.
Social Conservatives drove the direction of the Republican party by starting out running for school boards and working their way up the ladder. It’s simple. Get elected someplace. Make stuff happen. Get rewarded by taking the next step up the ladder.
That’s the part that annoys me. I understand the quixotic run for President every four years, but I don’t understand why I almost never see the Libertarian party on the ballot for city council, school boards, etc.
I can think of someone who won election to a water board or whatever *snicker*
BULLY!
The libertarian brand is unpopular and misunderstood; therefore, running as a libertarian is a bad move. Better to be a “republitarian” or a “crypto-libertarian” and try to get elected that way.
This is exactly how the socialists did it. All but the most extreme Dems would never vote for someone who was a member of the Communist Party, but by engaging in entryism, they’ve managed to get people that align 80-90% with the Communist Party’s platform elected as Dems. That’s what libertarians should be doing.
Better to be a “republitarian” or a “crypto-libertarian”
Social conservatives were very open about trying to take over the Republican party from the inside. They started by running in elections where declared party isn’t shown or generally doesn’t matter much. Then after establishing a large collection of elected people, working the caucuses/primaries very hard — in the open — to move those people up the ladder. Their success forced the party to pay attention.
I don’t know if libertarians can openly work the party from the inside. The Tea Party was cover for a while.
But it is clear that running fuckwads like Johnson/Weld at the national level is pointless.
Social conservatives were open about what they were doing, because they were folded into the conservative movement under Buckley.
The Republican party of the 1950’s was dominated by what is now termed the “Old Right” which emphasized non-intervention, aversion to international agreements, being supportive of tariffs, restrictive immigration policies, and anti-organized labor.
The Old Right was a hodgepodge and included some early libertarians like Mencken and Rothbard.
Their dominance ended when Eisenhower won the nomination for president against Taft. Then the so called “Rockefeller Republicans” or “moderate Republicans” became the dominant faction.
Buckley and his magazine National Review tried to create a new governing faction dubbed “conservatives” that would combine “individualists” (early term for libertarians) with “anti-communists”, the “religious” and “internationalists”. Rothbard was briefly employed by National Review before he grew disillusioned with their foreign policy views.
Libertarians today have no magazine or institution to rally around, so instead they break off into little camps sniping at one another. The LP is just another camp. If there were an institution or publication that everyone could rally behind, libertariansim might actually be an effectual force either within the LP or within some other political party. As it stands, though, the mandarins of the LP prefer to snipe at people rather than creating a big tent.
“Libertarians today have no magazine or institution to rally around”
Ahem. What about where we are right now?
/wishful thinking
I think libertarians are stuck in an irrelevancy trap. People only compromise when there is something to be gained. Libertarians can’t win elections, so there is nothing to be gained, so libertarians have no reason to leave their ideological camps and compromise on a broader platform.
R C Dean: It doesn’t help that one parties idea of compromise is, “Do what we want now, and maybe in five years we’ll think about doing what you want.”
Around here, the LP is just another place to gain name recognition before switching to the Republican Party.
A local LP politico jumped ship to the R’s to get elected to the county board. His track record since is about as libertarian as Weld. Endless liberty encroachment and growing the county government. The sad thing is, as bad as he is, his D opponents would/will be worse. Do you like your poison fast or slow acting?
The Republican Party that would succumb to libertarian vandguardism died in 2016. The GOP is now a big tent full of reverse carpetbaggers that are openly hostile to libertarian ideology.
Rand has had some success dissuading Trump from listening to his foreign policy advisers.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/rand-paul-trump-russia-putin-768472
Rand needs to work on divorcing Trump from Miller.
The Pauls have always emphasized “state sanctioned murder overseas” over other priorities
Maybe, but the GOP right now really doesn’t represent anything other than Trump. There’s no coherent ideas holding it together, which might make for an opportunity to make inroads – Trump is a cult of personality, not the avatar of a movement.
Maybe, but the GOP right now really doesn’t represent anything other than Trump.
Oh, I dunno. A lot of high-profile GOPers are NeverTrumpers.
The GOP is being exposed as representing nobody but GOP apparatchiks.
I call myself “libertarian”, but I fucking hate the Libertarian Party
Why the “but”. It’s far from clear the LP has much to do with actual libertarianism.
You’re right, “and ” fits much better.
With eventual nominee Bill Weld, the LP will have managed to combine the identity politics of the Left with the foreign policy of the Weekly Standard. “Fiscally incoherent and socially statist”
Two points:
1: It’s twitter and not from Iowahawk.
2: It’s the Libertarian Party.
Combining the two you get: (A colossal waste of time)^2
I know better.
I thought so anyway.
Off topic, another word salad from Slate on why sex robots are a good thing.
Access to sexbot technology will not change the biological imperative of individuals to want to share their lives, and raise their children, with another human being. But it would make it possible for individuals to choose that human being based on characteristics other than mutual sexual desire—to disentangle the association of sexual intimacy and life as a family. For example, it is not hard to imagine two heterosexual women seeing the value in forming a household and raising children together as a married couple, but with their needs for sexual companionship met by sexbot technology. Nor is it hard to imagine a homosexual man seeing the value in forming a household and raising children with a woman, since that arrangement could significantly reduce expenses associated with reproductive technologies
Yup, that’s exactly where I see things going.
“disentangle the association of sexual intimacy and life as a family”
So… undo about 500,000 years of human evolution, not to mention 300 million years of mammalian evolution. We’ll make that New Soviet Man this time! Last time we just didn’t have the right people doing it!
Microwave ovens enabled gay marriage. The writer actually wrote that.
Yeah I think it is going to go completely the opposite way.
People who want to have and raise kids are still going to pair bond like they always have. Those who want nothing to do with procreating are likely going to isolate themselves from members of the opposite sex in every greater ways because they only use they have for the opposite sex is now being satisfied by their sexbot.
I think you are much more likely to see a couple of dudes “get married” as hetero life partners and use sexbots to handle their biological urges than you would see a man and woman get married and conceive children to raise together while not actually being in a romantic or sexual relationship with each other.
That said the reality is we are talking about a hundred or more years into the future because it is going to take that long to develop a humanoid robot with the kind of flexibility, maneuverability, and AI to be able to even partially replace an actual human in a sex act. What we have now are basically pose-able mannequins with partially animatronic heads
I’m sure sex robots will have an influence on gender roles in society, and will not just be a used by pervy middle aged men with extra cash.
Like any other technological advance, it will definitely have effects on society, most of which will not be foreseen or predictable. I can guess what might happen, but whether an effect is “positive” or “negative” is subjective. Will it weaken marital relationships? Maybe. Is that positive or negative? Depends on who you ask. Could pedos bang juvenile sexbots instead of acting out on real kids? Probably. Is that positive or negative? Again, depends on who you ask. The internet shook up our lives in massive ways. My personal opinion is that, on the whole, the internet has tipped positive. Social media OTOH, has been a sum negative and is a major drag on the overall positive of the internet itself.
TL;DR – Sexbots are coming (no pun intended). Their use will be at least as widespread as internet porn is today. Who knows what it’s going to do to male/female relations.
Instead of a 55 gallon drum of lube, we’ll be pimping 55 gallons of sanitizer?
Why not both?
Brilliant! “Dr. Sean’s Lubricating Sexbot Sanitizer”
(When you need a General Counsel, keep me in mind)
Also makes for a great countertop cleaner & protector.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5EcFbPzi64
For example, it is not hard to imagine two heterosexual women seeing the value in forming a household and raising children together as a married couple
Actually, yes, it’s very hard to imagine that, unless you’re a childless hipster who has never been around mothers.
the biological imperative of individuals to want to share their lives, and raise their children, with another human being.
What’s all this “biological imperative” talk? I thought we were all about “social constructs” now.
disentangle the association of sexual intimacy and life as a family
Well, that didn’t take long. What happened to “biological imperatives”?
it is not hard to imagine two heterosexual women seeing the value in forming a household and raising children together as a married couple
Why do they need to be married to form a household and raise children?
Clicked too soon.
I recall during the Gay Marriage Wars of ’15, the point was made that the only legal aspect of marriage that can’t be duplicated is the tax treatment of married people. The joint ownership of property, healthcare decisionmaking rights, even parental rights, of married people can all be functionally duplicated via contract or otherwise.
All this is fine by me and dovetails with the post above from the RadFem. Attaching the term “marriage” to it was what riled a lot of people up since it is a loaded word that carries religious overtones. If you had kept it as “civil partnership” and made all the benefits identical, I doubt many people outside of hardcore homophobes would have cared.
Attaching the term “marriage” to it was what riled a lot of people up since it is a loaded word that carries religious overtones.
Which is precisely why the gay marriage activists rejected the proposal to convert legal “marriage” into a sex-neutral “civil partnership”. They didn’t want equality before the law; they wanted to take something away from (and, as always) punish their enemies.
“What Happens to #MeToo When a Feminist Is the Accused?
The case seems like a familiar story turned on its head: Avital Ronell, a world-renowned female professor of German and Comparative Literature at New York University, was found responsible for sexually harassing a male former graduate student, Nimrod Reitman.
An 11-month Title IX investigation found Professor Ronell, described by a colleague as “one of the very few philosopher-stars of this world,” responsible for sexual harassment, both physical and verbal, to the extent that her behavior was “sufficiently pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Mr. Reitman’s learning environment.” The university has suspended Professor Ronell for the coming academic year.
In the Title IX final report, excerpts of which were obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Reitman said that she had sexually harassed him for three years, and shared dozens of emails in which she referred to him as “my most adored one,” “Sweet cuddly Baby,” “cock-er spaniel,” and “my astounding and beautiful Nimrod.”
Mr. Reitman, who is now 34 and is a visiting fellow at Harvard, says that Professor Ronell kissed and touched him repeatedly, slept in his bed with him, required him to lie in her bed, held his hand, texted, emailed and called him constantly, and refused to work with him if he did not reciprocate. Mr. Reitman is gay and is now married to a man; Professor Ronell is a lesbian.
The Title IX report concluded that there was not enough evidence to find Professor Ronell responsible for sexual assault, partly because no one else observed the interactions in his apartment or her room in Paris.
Title IX was intended to address a long history of sexual harassment and assault of women at school, according to Dana Bolger, a co-founder of Know Your IX, a national advocacy group that teaches students about their Title IX rights.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html
Title IX was intended to address a long history of sexual harassment and assault of women at school, according to Dana Bolger, a co-founder of Know Your IX
The Great Leap Forward was intended to address Chinese malnutrition, according to Mao Zedong.
from Professor of Philosophy and Law at the University of Chicago Law, Brian Leiter, comes this scathing review of the letter submitted and signed by her fellow lit profs…
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/06/blaming-the-victim-is-apparently-ok-when-the-accused-is-a-feminist-literary-theorist.html
Blaming the victim is apparently OK when the accused in a Title IX proceeding is a feminist literary theorist
As disgusting as all this business is, there is a fair amount of delicious schadenfreude when they get fucked by the system they created.
the schadenfreude is pretty good here. it’s not Hillary-Supporters-Post-Election good, but it’s still pretty good.
not enough evidence to find Professor Ronell responsible for sexual assault, partly because no one else observed the interactions in his apartment or her room in Paris
What double standard?
nevermind all those texts from her to him where she talks about having to stop kissing b/c she has a sore throat.
On the retaliation issue, even if Prof. Ronell had nothing to do with the letter (I have no reason to think she did), its signatories include many NYU faculty, thus making NYU liable for retaliation (I am not a Title IX expert, but from what little I do know, this looks like classic retaliation in violation of the law). In addition, of course, the letter is probably defamatory, since it basically calls the complainant a liar (though without naming him/her).
As long as the target of the defamation is identifable (and this one is), you don’t need to use his or her name to commit defamation.
The defamation suit is nicely set up by the overt statement at the beginning of the letter that they don’t actually know the facts. Nor would the plaintiff have to meet the higher bar imposed on public figures.
“Mr. Reitman is gay and is now married to a man; Professor Ronell is a lesbian.”
Wait…what?
Oh, I think its pretty clear that she’s bisexual. But that would only add weight to the accusation of sexual harassment. Better to characterize her as someone who would have no interest in sexual anythinging a man.
You know, I’ve been teaching in universities for about 15 years and I have supervised a handful of grad students. During that time, I have never been in a situation where it would be possible for me to sleep in a student’s bed or require her to sleep in mine. Nor have I ever called a student on anything other than my office phone.
I guess this is why I’m not a full professor yet.
I can just see the faculty meeting:
“Well, has Prof. Mulatto taken advantage of any of his students?”
“Not that we know of, no.”
“Goddammit, we even gave him grad students who he can destroy with a stroke of the pen. What’s he waiting on? We know he has . . . . unnatural proclivities.”
“We suspect him of having ethics, possibly even morality.”
“What the hell? I thought he wanted tenure.”
I’m laughing ‘cuz it’s true.
I’m guessing you’re not teaching in med or law fields.
No. In linguistics, the best I can do is invite the class to the Taphouse to celebrate the end of their Second Language Acquisition Theory course.
AND BY “INVITE THE CLASS”, MEAN . . . .
C’mon, the “Tap” house? Who are we kidding here?
It should be the Second Language Usurpation/Utilization Theory course or somesuch.
I like how what you are saying works either to demonstrate that you haven’t slept with a student, or that you have and you just have good op-sec.
Nothing good ever comes from fishing in the company pond.
Conferences are a whole ‘nother story.
I remember many a previous comment on the dangers of your wife. Is a conference far enough away?
I admit I stopped at “nimrod”
Say what you want about #metoo and Title IX, I think the key takeaway here is that it proves once and for all that even so-called “lesbians” gotta have the D.
In case some of you aren’t aware, John Stossel has a great Youtube channel. He only postes every couple of weeks, but they are always gold.
Dude, do you even Poppy? Also, I don’t want to be here when HM shows up.
Yes. You. Do.
‘fess up.
He doesn’t…someone accessing his computer using a browser in incognito mode with a VPN does, but not him.
I don’t get politics or culture war from youtube. Don’t like the format for that. My list:
Red neck makin knife
Caniderp breakin stuff
Rev. war food guy
Goofball making chips
Goofball with bad hair talking about bloke stuff
Oops, goofball with bad hair
A horologist that is better at horology than you will ever be at anything in your life
Nice work, BakedPenguin! Now you’ve given Mark and Sergei, and Susan and the gang their next targets to remove. If anyone from one of the social media companies are listening, everyone here was just joking. Everyone knows the favorite material of the right wingers and libertarians is the Now This series and MTV’s commentary on race relations.
TL;DR and Aydin Paladin are both good. They both do long videos, but they’re informative. TL;DR is British and suffers from some of the same blindspots as Sargon and Thunderf00t, though he’s a touch more self reflective and often critical of the other two. He’s also a fairly frequent guest on honey badger radio mentioned in the OP. Aydin is a self described lolbertarian, so her views and style are more glib. She’s great if you want to see someone do social science instead of social “science”.
I might have to check this one out. He’s one of the few that initially showed Antifa as the oxymoron it is.
No Forgotten Weapons? No C&RSenal???
I like the Townsends channel you turned me on to.
Oh, and the hydraulic press guy. Hilarious.
that guy’s a hoot. is he Polish?
Some sort of Eastern Euro. “Oh fock!”
If you haven’t seen this guy already:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Photonvids
Photonicinduction uses large power supplies, HV generators, and other electrical systems to do insane stuff in his attic. He melts wrenches, overdrives electric motors, etc. I get a kick out of the fact that he lives in some neighborhood in the UK. It has to have the worst AC noise and RF interference in the country.
No, I hadn’t. That’s pretty much what I do in my basement lab.
This is pretty much what I did during most of my childhood. My Mom would always get calls from the neighbours exclaiming “Do you know what your son’s doing now ?!?”
My Mom was a saint.
I always though jas. townsends and son sounded much better than just townsends
Yeah, sorry – my list was admittedly light on 2A/guns vids.
ANOTHER ARTICLE IS BORN!!!!
If any of our MN gliberatti have been silent lately, I’ve discovered why.
Police say southern Minnesota resident points gun at 2 kids, says stay off his lawn
Not much politics but looking through my few youtube subscriptions… hmmm… lets se…
I have a channel on which I watch University Challenge
Casually explained and You suck at cooking and ozzyman reviews as comedy
Infinite elgintensity and Bro science life as fitness comedy… also every damn day fitness in this category
townsends primitive technology and steve1984 mre info (for some weird reason) which relax me
ralfy for whiskey reviews
I still have ze frank from back in the day when he did true facts
tl;dr freedom tunes and big dicko and sargon as sort of political
demolition ranch and forgotten weapons and, although I don’t do HEMA scholagladiatoria
and a few more here and there… anyhooo
I don’t like watching internet videos. I have no patience for it, since I read probably 10 times faster than people speak.
Same here. You have to be pretty damned entertaining for me to watch your videos.
Not only that, but I filter as I read. I can skip over things that are repetitive or just not anything interesting. And I don’t have to sit through all the verbal tics, asides and digressions. Matt Welch is horrible at this – the man cannot utter a complete thought without going off on a tangent from which he may or may not return.
Looks like we’re back to the elegant, but hard-to-read format.
Agreed. I sometimes watch Razorfist or Jordan Peterson when someone links, but otherwise no videos.
If I were working on my house or lawn I would be listening to audiobooks, podcasts, baseball games, probably YouTube, but since I can’t work on my house or lawn, I don’t make time to listen to anything.
Back when I would have a stogie on the porch after work every day, I listened to audiobooks, etc. I think this same approach would work just fine with cocktails.
The great thing about cigars was that they created a nice period of time every day (30 – 45 minutes or so) that I had to myself to ponder, listen, read, whatever. The reek of the cigar kept anyone from wanting to socialize. Even the dogs.
I did some good thinking watching the sun go down, consulting with my cigar. I put togther a presentation for a state bar debate on the ObamaCare debate that way. I was on the “uphold” side; the AG’s office had someone to present the “strike down” side since they were in the case on that side. I looked at the briefs, was struck by the predictability and mediocrity of them, and cooked up my own theory.
Which scared the shit out of the AG representative. He went first, sat down, and sat back waiting for the same old same old to unspool. About two minutes into my presentation, he sat bolt upright and started frantically taking notes. I credit Hoyo de Monterrey and Lagavulin.
Off to vote in the primary. Wisconsin has open primaries, which works for me because I’m not party affiliated. I will be voting the R primary, and I’ve decided I’m voting for Griffin Jones for Senate. Anyone who can write that screed would make for a damn entertaining filibuster.
Maybe not the smoothest writing, but I would vote for them.
OT: She had to be in the right mindset for her previous career amirite?
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/a22713971/jenna-jameson-mental-health-weight-loss/
Tempus edax rerum.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/ninth-circuit-bizarre-gun-regulation-enforcement/
this has been discussed but French is a good 2A writer and this is his take on the 9th Circus allowing California’s new law that “requires new handguns to stamp microscopically the handgun’s make, model, and serial number onto each fired shell casing.”
California “grandfathered in” a defined list of makes and models of handguns exempted from the law, but the list didn’t include a number of the most popular models in the United States, and gun-makers must pay California a fee to keep their weapons on it. Naturally, the list is shrinking fast: “At the end of 2013, the CDOJ’s handgun roster contained 1,273 handguns and 883 semiautomatics. As of oral argument in March 2017, it contained 744 handguns and 496 semiautomatics.” That’s a loss of hundreds of approved weapons in under four years.
Uh, microscopic stamping on every casing? How? What if people reload used brass?
Why? I guess it would help solve crimes if criminals cooperated by leaving brass around from their state-approved guns. I might have to switch to a revolver for my murders.
Uh, microscopic stamping on every casing? How?
Its impossible, which didn’t stop the CA court from saying its still a Constitutional requirement. They might as well say that the only weapons allowed in CA are plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.
Hey, just what you see here pal!
If all gun makers refused to either microstamp or pay to be on the approved list, then I’d think this would be ruled unconstitutional as a de facto handgun ban.
Of course it’s unconstitutional regardless.
must get Kavanaugh confirmed ASAP
I still don’t understand how you can enforce a requirement for something that doesn’t exist.
Let me sit you down and tell you about something called the Affordable Care Act.
It was the time before the orange one overthrew she who was most qualified, before the fappening, before the touching by Biden…
Why, by selling indulgences, of course.
Some youtube channels, lets see; Red Letter Media, Today I Found Out and Techmoan are all channels I can folks here liking. They aren’t political, RLM is movie reviews, TIFO is odd facts and Techmoan is odd technology reviews.
TIFO is fun, The Great War has been a long run, almost done though,
Black Pigeon Speaks
Stefan Molyneaux is OK but he can drone on at times
and Rebel, Razor’s been mentioned 3 or 4 times already 😉
I don’t see Razorfist aka the Rageaholic. So I am going to say ///fakenews.
It wasn’t meant to be comprehensive; Razorfist, Jordan Peterson, Aydin Paladin, Hard Bastard, and several others mentioned above could have made the list.
OT: Crappy beer, but awesome publicity stunt.
Great Lakes Brewing should provide coolers next to it to provide Browns fans something to drink until they win.
Great Lakes has been ramping up for their 30th anniversary, for which they will be releasing an Imperial Oyster Stout… in August. *sigh*
I’m curious of my local dives are getting one of the special coolers. One of them would give out free drinks when the Browns scored, and for some reason they’ve become a dive bar with a solid beer selection.
I thought this was a sarcastic reply to a person mocking TDS. Apparently she’s serious. outlaw homeschooling, increase the education budget, have text books written by professors in the field not special interest groups, automatic voter registration, public funded elections. see, not so hard to fix if given the chance! lol
Outlaw homeschooling.
Get those idiot kids on the production line ASAP!
I like the assumption that “professors in the field” couldn’t possibly have an agenda.
Oh, they have an agenda, but it’s HER agenda. And that will never change, just like when the Dems take control next time, they will hold on forever.
+a whole lot of executive power
#1 will be packing SCOTUS because Trump stole Obama’s pick.
I shit you not. That’s where they will go.
I give them credit for being utterly committed to enacting their agenda, however they are extremely short-sighted when it comes to short-term vs. long-term gain.
we’re all short-sighted. the GOP nuked the SCOTUS filibuster. which will matter in a few years when Trump’s out and insane leftists get to handpick an anti-2A, anti-1A, multi-abortion patient, former-ANTIFA activist.
Not sure about that one. It’s only short-sighted if you assume the Dem’s wouldn’t end it when they’re in power. Which I would give a 99.9% probability of the Dem’s ending it to overcome a filibuster.
they would have ended it. and their pick would not be Merrick Garland.
No question in my mind that the next Dem Senate would apply the Reid Rule to SCOTUS nominees from a Dem President. No question at all. If for no other reason that they would have to in order to carry out their court packing plan.
And that will never change, just like when the Dems take control next time, they will hold on forever.
The problem is, with people like that, the next time they just might try to make sure that is the case.
camps. it’s always camps with leftists.
see you at camp! sounds fun.
They have an agenda, she’s just banking on them having the correct one.
Richard Feynman on his experience with California’s textbook committee
David Nicol
@MindWindex
17m17 minutes ago
We need to fix Democracy’s Achilles Heel:
Stupid people are easy to control via propaganda.
Demagogues arise and essentially overcome the nation with stupidity. We fix that by not allowing stupid people to vote. An IQ test for everyone will fix things.
an IQ test to vote? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Guess who’s not going to make the cut, David.
Not to sound like a dick, but I think that would kneecap the Dems forever.
ROFL
I thought IQ tests were racist?
These people cheered for Nurse Ratchet.
The tweet that kicked it off is getting under my skin a little: “Trump voters are too dumb to know how dumb they are.”
You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump.
“Trump voters are too dumb to know how dumb they are… time to start exterminating them like the cockroaches they are!”
That’s how I read the subtext.
“Vill no one rit me of zese troublink untermensch?”
Oh, they’re not out for extermination. Just control. Total control.
Correct.
Cockroaches have no function.
Idiot humans can collect garbage and shovel shit.
There’s something different about you.
Might be the avatar, I dunno…
None of these people are safe on youtube.
tl,dr: Laura Ingalls Wilder