we love to blame the alcohol and not the other deadly drugs that everyone else is doing. congress is snorting the rain forest and popping more heroin/poppin more than Cobain.

don't listen to Severian. he's a pill popper pop statistic. out to shame everyone else with his popism. can't drink like a real man because he's a pussy.

22-year olds in my little office make a big show of how much they love run and Coke. It's definitely an issue when young ones partake to conform to their dream of becoming a "real journalist."

All I meant with the anti-anxiety comment was that I don't drink, and have a script for anti-anxiety meds. I'm never hungover, never in legal trouble. Just how I roll. I don't self medicate because a doctor is doing it for me. To drink on top of these mess (which some people do need, me being one of them) would be dangerous and irresponsible.

congrats. for informing me at something as simple as that.:rolleyes:

I totally believe medication for anxiety depression and mental illness is a sarcastic cop out. There is an extremely validating experience to going out for beer and wings at your local bar that meds have nothing on. I treat my bartendresses like psychologists, I don't really like my local bar but they are all mature and respectful drunks and bartendresses and take care of me. You're shitty pills have nothing on that. Every traditional drug was treated as sacred by primitive cultures. You don't want to have a problem with them, that's the way you gotta roll.

word!!

lol fucking borrachos

i'm all about the sacred primitive cultures but being a wino is another story

Here's a Alphonse Mucha print I had with the White Cocaine Woman. Pretty powerful treatment for marketing pharmaceutical cocaine 100 years ago

i don't know every detail of this trade deal so i can't talk like a lawyer about it, but i think it's foolish to give up on trade, especially on the pacific rim, where we can get a strategic advantage over china.

but no, let's hide our heads in the ground and let someone else take leadership-- a leadership which may not be in accord with our standards

in spite of all the fear and insularism and tribalism, trade is great. it creates prosperity on both sides of the deal and it certainly beats war as a way to get access to resources. and as far as i understoon the tpp offered fairness in the protection of labor standards, intelectual property, the environment, etc.

but go ahead, let's go back to making shoes and textiles while we give up on our international leadership and our competitive advantage in sectors like agriculture and technology (from airspace to biotech). i'm sure it will work out great to hide behind our borders in fear of peasants with pitchforks while everybody else trades globally...

Did I mention Hillary's popular vote lead was 1 million plus and still growing daily?

I could check, of course, but nah.

trade is a 2 edged sword. West Coast US is doing GREAT with Asian trade, rust belt states, not so. It's a general win, IMO, but then I'm from West Coast US...

i think it's only a 2-edged sword if one wants to stay always the same.

the rustbelt wasn't a failure of trade itself, rather it was failure of the USA to help its workers adapt to the new industries or modernize its existing ones.

the rust belt had some of the same industries that help germany flourish (e.g. auto), except that it doesn't compete globally the same way.

if you're new chinese money-- do you buy audi or chevy?

cadillac is #10, everything above is from elsewhere:

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg4.../#462614a557a5

meanwhile, old steel places like pittsburgh are reshaping as tech hubs-- but only ever so slowly

you can't bring back coal to west virginia and kentucky-- natural gas is cheaper and cleaner. things change. we no longer ride horse buggys.

the years that have passed since nafta was enacted have been a huge missed opportunity. our leaders were asleep at the wheel.

where were the big jobs retraining programs? walmart greeter?

we dropped the ball.

I think a lot of Libertarians weren't really thrilled with Johnson either, as a whole. They definitely weren't happy with his VP candidate.

We'll see what comes forth in the midterms if anything, and next election, for this corner of the political spectrum. I have to believe people will want it to not be Johnson again, but I could see him giving it a 3rd go too.

Yeah, I'm West Coast turned rust belt. Looks like a fucking disaster to me... from here. I still have family out there, and I'm ALMOST considering moving back, despite having essentially just started a whole new (and pretty sweet) life here over the past 2 years.

Still. Washington and California were SO. BLUE. My friends out there think they feel disenfranchised, but there's barely a Trump supporter among them. Can't believe the things they say on social media. Meanwhile my neighbors want to "bend that cunt over and show her what an automatic weapon is" (Hillary.. and no, I don't know what that means exactly, but it's still disgusting and terrible).

Thinking about staring a blog. "My Redneck Neighbors" where I only lost direct quotes from their fucked up toothles mouths.

Anyway..

 

(Click for awesome video)

I imagine that's because he's really not a libertarian. He's a failed Republican who digs ganja, and thought being a Libertarian would be as easy as being open about how big of a slacker and fuckoff he is. If you ask me, he disrespected the party.

from what i've read he's not going to run again and he'll dedicate himself to fitness

which is apparently what he was doing already when he was governor of new mexico lololol

(i didn't live here yet back then-- but i've read accounts)

anyway, i'd like to see some libertarian mayors... that would be a nice experiment. a bit of the proof of the pudding.

reason has an article on the libertarian mayor of johannesburg. haven't read it yet but wanna.

FYI good article on the electoral college here, explanation? looks like slavery protection, you could figure


http://time.com/4558510/electoral-co.../?xid=tcoshare

I haven't really read the past few pages. I still haven't read a single post-election piece.

"Here's why it's almost impossible for Trump to win."

to:

"Okay, here's why Trump won."

I'm done with eggheads, I think.

-----

I often have sexual fantasies about Nikki Hadley. Hope she gets SOS position. Lots of photos for me to jerk off to. I'd do anything to pound that hot Indian cunt. She'd love it too; if not at first, then eventually. (Man, I'm loving the new PC-free America. Thanks Trump.)

i always said trump had a chance to win-- or that hillary had a high likelihood of goreing herself. i was only mildly encouraged by the polls but never sure. remember? remember? remember? i did fucking warn everyone and i wasn't shellshocked and i was prepared. so.

anyway-- haaaa haaaaaa @ post-pc word. how was melania?

don't know if that works for me. i feel dirty. i think of her as his victim.

but anyway, sarah palin genitorture fantasies here i cum.

no?

hm...

yeah i don't wanna be a hater. the incoming administration is already toxic enough for the whole solar system. i'm not going to be bitter like during bush.

gonna be a fucking difficult exercise, but i'll fight to stay sane.

Ok, so... statistics = awesome. I love statistics.

I've read a number of articles reviewing polling data and turnout rates for both Election Day and the 2016 primary. In fact Thurston has posted a few very straightforward ones on social media.

Based on what I've read, and information gathered from the polling locations I covered on Nov. 8, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify a full scale investigation of the 2016 presidential election results. I don't think anything will come of it, or that any investigation will even take place, but at this point I'm damn near convinced that some tampering took place, particularly in Florida, where Hillary's early voting lead was -- for lack of a better word -- statistically insurmountable. For Trump to have broken even with HRC would (should?) have been a statistical anomaly. For him to beat her? I don't have the actual probability on hand, but ... close to impossible, and certainly would have required an unprecedented Election Day surge from voters in a year where turnouts were low all around. It doesn't add up.

Do I sound nuts here? Is anyone following the (very thin) media coverage of the unprecedented multi-state surge? Even with the Comey incident, Hillary was still overperforming her own projections in early voting while Trump was almost universally underperforming his. The fact that all of this changes just enough to give Trump a lead in virtually every state that "mattered," not to mention the margin by which the states swung (1%, 1%, 1%... that's simply not how data distributes-- if these results were from a college research project, the prof would say "count that shit again") ... it's giving me a nasty pinch in my gut.

Either something is fishy, or I've lost it. Equally likely after the 11 days I've had.

Oh, also. Warren is fucking GUNNING for Trump.

Newsweek: Warren to Romey, "Bring your binders full of women to Trump cabinet..."

I think we may have our 2020 ticket already. And it's gonna be a fucking grudge match. Think Rocky IV, where Rocky trained in seclusion to avenge Apollo Creed after Ivan Drago killed him in the ring. Warren = Rocky. Trump = Drago. 2020 = epic beat down.