NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

So resigned these days that this was a headline:

Smokers Earn Less Than Non-Smokers, but Doesn’t Mean They Are Discriminated Against

And that's OK. and here's why.

lololol:

All of these illegal votes canceled the votes of legitimate voters, and if Justin Timberlake voted illegally in Memphis, he also negated the vote of a legitimate resident of Tennessee. While we can joke about celebrity hijinks (and Timberlake has certainly had his share of those), voter fraud is no joking matter. No one should be allowed to get away with such fraud, no matter who they are. Even Justin Timberlake.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441448/justin-timberlakes-voting-selfie-did-he-commit-voter-fraud

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441448/justin-timberlakes-voting-selfie-did-he-commit-voter-fraud

Any time these pantloads engage with culture, prepare to be alternately bored and mystified.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441439/conservatives-guide-best-and-worst-nba

remember when that guy was going to run for president

Jon Snow’s Team — This isn’t a political reference, but Toronto loves the Raptors like the North loves the Starks. They are truly kings of the North.

yes, you should be the chief executive of this country.

Basketball is pure ‘Murica. It was invented in the heartland.

Basketball was invented in Massachusetts by a Canadian from Ontario, you dumbass.

not nro but

Is Your Daughter a Whore?
By Erick Erickson | October 31, 2016, 12:12pm

oh man: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441647/gops-leverage-coming-supreme-court-nomination-fights

While President Clinton is failing to get her nominee(s) confirmed, there is always a chance that one of the current justices will announce their retirement or – God forbid – die. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83 years old, Anthony Kennedy is 80, Stephen Breyer is 78. (Scalia was 79 when he passed.) If another justice departs the court, there wouldn’t be any more 4-4 splits. Depending upon which justice departs (and on Justice Kennedy’s thinking on the cases), you would probably see some 4-3 splits in favor of the originalist view.

- God forbid -

Or perhaps Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer all die - God forbid - and the court can just hand down 3-2 splits until a Republican president saves the day. Unless the future republican presidential nominees can't find their ass using both their hands, and the court dwindles to just Chief Justice Roberts. WIN!!!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwSfvxhWIAAwwx2.jpg:small

https://frinkiac.com/meme/S06E01/1024289.jpg?b64lines=IElTIElUIFNULiBTV0lUSEVOJ1MgREFZCiBBTFJFQURZPyciICInVElTLCcKIFJFUExJRUQgQVVOVCBIRUxHQS4uLiI=

It's a testament to how Trump has fucked with normal discourse that NRO is neutered these days.

So I appreciate reminders of NRO's previous battshittery:

Tomorrow is the only trial Hillary Clinton will ever face for her crimes.

She will never be dragged into a court of law. Not just for the reason Andy McCarthy spelled out regarding her classified e-mail crimes – because a trial would expose the president’s own misdeeds. Even on the pay-for-play foundation, some minions might – someday – face legal consequences, but Hillary herself will skate. She’s protected, in the mafia sense.

Nor would a Senate trial convict her, if it were to come to that, rendering impeachment pointless. So long as the Democrats hold at least one-third of the Senate, it will never vote for her removal from office, no matter what she’s done in the past or does in the future. Literally, no matter what real-world action she takes – arresting David Bossie, shutting down Breitbart, closing churches that won’t perform gay marriages. I’d still like to think she wouldn’t try any of that – or at least that she wouldn’t be able to find anyone willing to do it on her order. But if she did, it is a metaphysical certitude that she would get at least 34 Democratic senators to vote against her removal from office. After seeing what’s happened over the past eight years, to suggest otherwise is delusional.

At least that post is somewhat within the bounds of reality - author recognizes that a) impeachment is futile and b) she probably wouldn't try to do those things

No posts!

Do Conservative Intellectuals Have More Fun?

by PETER AUGUSTINE LAWLER

December 6, 2016 11:33 AM So conservative public intellectuals — such as our good friend Yuval Levin — are thrilled that an article in the New York Times (not written by Ross Douthat) actually said that liberals have something to learn from conservatives. Liberals, in their programs for students, are all about progressive activism. Conservatives are all about Great Books — usually the greatest hits of our tradition of political philosophy. That might mean, as Damon Linker puts it, that conservatives are actually winning on the intellectual front. Liberals have to counter by getting their students to spend their quality time reading real books together.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Manning isn’t a woman in need of rescue. He’s a soldier who committed serious crimes. He wasn’t a “whistleblower,” as many of his defenders claim. He just dumped hundreds of thousands of classified documents into the public domain for the purposes of “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms” without the slightest regard for the lives of others. There is no excuse. Manning is a traitor who pled guilty to a lesser offense to avoid the full penalty for his crimes. He has received too much mercy already. Obama’s commutation of his sentence is a disgrace.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Barfing in my mouth

it's no surprise that conservatives would lean heavily against pardoning her, because conservatives tend to side with the state whenever it uses its war powers and police powers, regardless of the details of the case. they would reflexively discount any argument that conscience and one's duties as a citizen gave manning enough authority to override the orders of a superior officer. as a liberal, I give more weight to the authority of conscience than anyone at NRO ever would.

still, it seems to me that whether or not manning committed a crime of sufficient weight as not to deserve clemency is something reasonable people could disagree about. NRO takes much worse positions upon far weaker grounds. this opinion, at least, can be respected as having a leg to stand on, even if vehemently objecting to an act of mercy is nagl for half a dozen reasons.

Reasonable people don't misgender trans women in print tho

of the recent intelligence breaches chelsea's situation is for sure the easiest to empathize w/ - from the leak to the conditions she was treated etc - i think i'm more skeptical re leaks than ilx in general and i think obama did the right think commuting her sentence. less sure that snowden should be pardoned and def think assange is a pos. NRO weirdly doesn't see that these things rest on a continuum - all violations of national security are equal in both damage done to the US and sympathy for the motivation. i guess bc violations of trust immediately put one outside the communal SELF + mark you as an outsider whom conservatives fastidiously ostracize (if not worse), no matter how and why they occurred; there's no comprehension of "patriotic criticism" (unless the criticism is of the 'we need two Stalins! No, fifty Stalins!' type)

I'm a bit conflicted about the Manning case, in part b/c of the barbarism of the sentence handed to her in relation to her crimes. David French, floated as a Trump alternative last summer, you might recall, is a former armed forces guy, thus less, ah, able to appreciate the quality of mercy.

there's nothing to pardon Snowden of, he hasn't been convicted of anything, much less sentenced. sorry if this is the 100th time somebody pointed this out, I'm catching up.

The same was true of Nixon, yet he was granted a pardon by Ford.

anyway NRO is a grease fire that is eternally refreshed with rancid oil from the Koch's dog food factories, so why does this thread still exist?

A president's pardoning power isn't dependent on conviction.

VDH, reminding me of NRO's glory days

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444235/donald-trump-challenge-self-control

Who would oppose deporting illegal alien law-breakers or the neo-Confederate idea of nullifying federal law inherent in sanctuary cities?

rip states' rights

I also question the constitutionality of sanctuary cities tbh

(guess that's for the uncool conservative beliefs thread)

If Trump continues with these long overdue corrections and can unite with the Congress to push through legislation on economic reform, there will arise a sense among even some of his opponents on the left that the Obama trajectory of tribal polarization, doubling the debt, foreign-policy chaos, anemic growth, rogue federal agencies, climate-change obstructionism, etc. could not go on as it was.

uhhh am i reading this right

did he say the "Obama" trajectory of tribal polarization, doubling the debt, foreign-policy chaos, anemic growth, rogue federal agencies, climate-change obstructionism

this surprises you?

ha been a while since i've read VDH and needed to remember that "the opposite of what you say is true"

oh, i doubt it's constitutional too -- merely struck by how nullification is suddenly a bad thing again

I also question the constitutionality of sanctuary cities tbh

? not sure what's unconstitutional about it, the feds can't dictate how local PDs allocate resources, and it isn't the local PDs jobs to turn over arrestees to immigration. Now, if a federal deportation force is put in place in sanctuary cities and the local PDs don't defer to their authority, *that's* unconstitutional.

By ignoring the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration, the states are in effect ignoring -- I won't use "nullifying," for crissakes -- the law. No? Am I getting something wrong?

they're not ignoring the federal government's jurisdiction, the federal government can come in and take those people any time they want. they just aren't notifying the feds that they have them. cuz who has time for that shit (and who's going to pay for it?)

also it's not states that are doing this, it's municipalities.

our mayor's not having it

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-Mayor-Lee-stands-up-to-Trump-says-city-10883956.php

I'm all for a city-led 2017 nullification crisis tbqh

idk i don't see how it's different from some mississippi sheriff saying well, those are some nice federal civil rights laws you got but you're gonna have to come down here and enforce them yourselves

exactly

it is explicitly NOT within municipal police departments jurisdiction to enforce immigration law. Immigration is handled by the feds. It is explicitly within municipal police departments' jurisdiction to follow civil rights laws because that's how those laws were written - they apply to all citizens, regardless of what state or city they are in. I'm Not getting where the confusion is arising from here. Congress has not passed laws mandating that municipalities have to bear the burden and costs of performing the ICE's job. You guys get that immigration law is *completely separate* from criminal law, right...? Someone is arrested for, say, stealing a car. From the local police department's point of view, it's their job to handle the arrest and prosecution of this person for stealing a car. It is NOT their job to check the person's immigration status, notify the feds, hold them until the feds show up, keep database/immigration records on who they arrest etc.

Right, but these men and women who are targeted aren't citizens?

I'm not being snarky -- I'm trying to figure out my position.

the cops don't know that! No one walks around with citizenship papers, what is this Nazi Germany oh wait

I don't carry around my birth certificate, do you? Imagine what it means for a locL PD and the general populace if every single person arrested has to be detained until they prove their citizenship status.

Two, the media-driven, left-wing derangement is unprecedented

One word for you, Victor: Birtherism.

by JAY NORDLINGER January 30, 2017 11:44 AM @JAYNORDLINGER

Earlier this morning, I walked down Memory Lane a little: The Left was always telling conservatives that, thanks to our privileged lives, we could not see how the other half lived. We were blind to their suffering and deaf to their cries.

Of course, the same accusation is heard today. It comes from the Left — but also from the Right. And frankly, I hear it more from the Right, day in, day out.

Anyway, a further stroll down Memory Lane — to the Democratic convention of 1984. Mario Cuomo was the keynote speaker, and here is a taste of what he said: “A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well.”

I remember burning when I heard Cuomo say that (and everything else). Where to begin? Maybe with this: Reagan was the son of an itinerate, alcoholic shoe salesman. When a kid, Reagan was sent to the butcher to get scraps for the cat. Only the Reagans didn’t have a cat.

Etc.

Moreover, Reagan’s policies helped the poor and struggling above all, because the well-off really didn’t need the help: Economic growth, no economic growth; jobs, no jobs — the well-off were fine. They always are.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

etc.