Priebus Asked FBI to Dispute Russia Reports, Iraqi Air Force Bombs ISIS, Sessions Resurrects Private Prisons for Federal Inmates: A.M. Links

|

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

Advertisement

NEXT: Most Republicans Oppose Federal Interference With Marijuana Legalization

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.

      1. The usual Trump proponents seem to be missing today. I wonder why.

    1. She was busy.

        1. Ha. That and her profile banner are going to get her invited to lots of antifa cocktail parties for sure. You can take the writer out of Bustle, but you can’t take the Bustle out of the writer.

          1. “Well-behaved womyn rarely make history OR DC cocktail parties.”

  1. Oregon lawmakers want to take away your driver’s license if you pay for sex.

    And give you a SEX license.

    1. “Going down to Rosedale, take my rider by my side ….”

      1. Friendly faces everywhere? Humble folks without temptation?

    2. Married men most effected, even the faithful ones.

      1. Quality over quantity, I always say.

  2. Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus asked the FBI to dispute media stories saying Trump staff stayed in close touch with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign.

    Oh my! The FBI getting politicized?

  3. Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed the Bureau of Prisons to once again use private prisons for federal inmates, reversing an Obama administration directive.

    Meh. I can’t imagine this is anything but a lateral move on many levels.

    1. The Dems really shine in opposition.

    2. If still water runs deep, that’s about a half a foot, Max.

    3. You know why the Democrats have a hardon for Russia? They fucked up socialism for everyone.

      1. The left used to love Russia, now they don’t even send each other atheist greeting cards at the holidays.

      2. Russia committted apostasy against the one true faith, communism. As
        No as all good dhimmicrats know, the penalty for apostasy is death.

    4. For all you Maxine Waters fans

      A man who knows his audience.

      1. Indeed. And for all you Corrine Brown fans: Go Gata (with Subtitles)

  4. Oh, hi, Fist! Top o’ the morning to ya!

    1. Rich, I acknowledge you as well.

      1. I’ve been stalking you for years and never any acknowledgment. This country is going to shit.

        1. Did you even make the effort? I’m very approachable.

  5. Could someone please ask Sessions, or any of the other “we need more prisons” freaks, why the country with the highest percentage of its population behind bars needs more prisons?
    Who exactly are they planning on imprisoning? Why, in an era of demonstrably declining serious crime, are we planning on locking up more people? (Remember the earlier news that civil asset forfeiture now exceeds the take from burglary in the US.)
    Why do we need more prison cells? For whom? For what crimes? Be specific.

    Justify the expansion of the carceral state, or stop expanding it.

    1. Do you not think there is a reason that Trump has been warning about the crime/murder rate? Coupling that with someone like Jeff Sessions, who has politics from the 1950s, results in the things we’ve heard over the last day or so. These are “thin blue line” people who love the idea of rigid law enforcement.

      1. I do so think. It’s the same reason it was for Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, et al.
        Power and control. Whether it’s wrapped in warm fuzzy “it’s for your own good” or embossed on the boots of the “you done wrong and now you’re gonna pay” goons, it’s all about power and control.

        I think the problem with all of this is that there is no confrontation, either of the ‘alternative facts’ nor the unexpressed premises of cries for increasing the number of prison cells in the country.
        Why is no one asking the pointed questions about the reality of decreased crime?
        Why is no one hammering on the shame of having a higher percentage of the US population in prison than any other country in the world? Are we *trying* to become North Korea? [of course we are, we’re just not supposed to notice]

        Why is no one asking the even more pointed questions about “Okay, so we spend a bunch of money we don’t have to build new prisons, or subcontract imprisonment to private firms. Just who do you plan on locking up? Specifically.”

        If no one opposes the camps, the camps will be built.
        If the camps are built, they will be populated.

        1. I think the problem with all of this is that there is no confrontation, either of the ‘alternative facts’ nor the unexpressed premises of cries for increasing the number of prison cells in the country.
          Why is no one asking the pointed questions about the reality of decreased crime?
          Why is no one hammering on the shame of having a higher percentage of the US population in prison than any other country in the world? Are we *trying* to become North Korea? [of course we are, we’re just not supposed to notice]

          Well, it’s inaccurate to say no one is asking these questions or saying these things. Some libertarians and leftists certainly are. It’s just that the cost of not listening to those people is zero to those in a position to do something about it.

          1. Judging by the commentariat here, libertarians aren’t asking questions. I’m hopeful that the people here aren’t remotely representative of libertarians in general. If they are, I might need to call myself something else.

            1. ::a backflip and several furious flailing tap dance moves::

            2. Concern troll sounds concerned.

              Or are you just Botarted?

        2. One Day in the Life of Some Asshole Construction Worker.

      2. who has politics from the 1950s

        So he’s a progressive democrat?

    2. He got elected in part by whipping up fears of a massive crime wave no one can prove is actually happening, so now he’s got to “do something about it” by finding some people to throw in prison.

      Also, don’t forget that Trump got the support of the police unions in the election. There’s probably few more effective ways to retain their support than to give them more skulls to crack.

    3. “Could someone please ask Sessions, or any of the other “we need more prisons” freaks, why the country with the highest percentage of its population behind bars needs more prisons?”

      In California, the overcrowding in the prisons was so bad, judges have ruled, repeatedly, that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. They were ordered by the courts to alleviate overcrowding, but, you know, they’ve got more important thing to spend money on–like the ridiculous pensions of state employees and a bullet train to nowhere.

      They were ordered to alleviate overcrowding over a decade ago, and they still haven’t found the money to build new prisons.

      So they initiated an early release program, which ended up including violent offenders. I’m not talking about people pleading out–I’m talking about people who were duly convicted and sentenced to prison for domestic violence, etc. They’d rather release violent offenders than build new prisons in California.

      1. Seems logical to me that to alleviate crowding you’d opt to release people whose crime had no identifiable victim. That shouldn’t even be an exclusively libertarian position, it’s just just.

        1. This is the way it was:

          “On August 4, 2009 the three-judge court ordered that the defendants submit a plan within 45 days detailing “a population reduction plan that will in no more than two years reduce the population of the CDCR’s adult institutions to 137.5% of their combined design capacity.”[2] The plan would require California to cut 40,000 inmates out of its prison population of 150,000 when the verdict was issued.”

          —-Wiki Brown v. Plata

          http://tinyurl.com/z325fpj

          That was after California had failed to alleviate the overcrowding in response to court orders initially released in 2001. The case finding that the overcrowding caused mental health problems went back to 1995. Either way, Sacramento has had 16 years to fund building more prisons–keeping violent offenders off the streets. They’ve already been releasing non-violent offenders left and right.

          When you’re forced to release 40,000 out of 150,000 prisoners, there are going to be violent offenders in there. This is the state pen we’re talking about–not the county jail.

          Meanwhile, between 2001 and 2017, California’s population has grown by 5 million people. Releasing wife beaters, etc. rather than building more prisons is profoundly incompetent–especially when the state is squandering money on pipe dreams like bullet trains.

        2. Then they would have to consider that maybe it isn’t just to be locking those people up in the first place.

          1. They do that, too.

            The county jails have their own overcrowding problem. At one point, Brown tried shifting inmates to county jails, but a bunch of them are under court orders of their own.

            People in California get their lives ruined by the drug war, too–having criminal records, paying fees and fines, being subjected to parole, etc., etc.–and that shouldn’t be the case. But most drug crimes are not about going to the state pen–not in California. Maybe it’s like that in Tennessee.

            Let’s not get sidetracked by the stupidity of the drug war. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and one of the legitimate purposes of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights from convicted criminals. Just because we’re against the drug war doesn’t mean we need to oppose the legitimate job of the criminal justice system.

            When criminals are duly prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced, they need to go to prison, and there need to prisons where they can go. Recidivist auto thieves, defrauders, and embezzlers shouldn’t be free from the fear of going to prison, certainly not just because they aren’t violent. Point being, if California doesn’t have enough room for the wife beaters, then they’re not doing their job with a lot of other criminals, too.

            We need to beware of Jane Fonda syndrome.

            1. California =/= the rest of the country. Maybe you’re right about California. That doesn’t apply elsewhere though.

              1. I didn’t say it did.

                In fact, I said the opposite.

              2. California =/= the rest of the country. Maybe you’re right about California. That doesn’t apply elsewhere though.

                Can you even read, Botard?

                But most drug crimes are not about going to the state pen–not in California. Maybe it’s like that in Tennessee.

        3. Justice isn’t understood by most people, or there wouldn’t be so many prisons.

          How exactly is the victim repaid by putting the aggressor in a prison? No one has ever really answered that one.

          1. Victim compensation is certainly missing from the criminal law code. But at the same time, the aggressor’s suffering is a component of retribution for certain crimes. If someone killed your kid, would you consider justice served if that person had to pay you some money? I’ll take his money, then I would want that aggressor placed on a spike and tortured to death. But I’d settle for knowing that he’d live out his life in a cage.

          2. “How exactly is the victim repaid by putting the aggressor in a prison? No one has ever really answered that one.”

            It’s generally very easy for a victim to sue a criminal after they’ve been convicted in criminal court. When victims don’t go after the criminal who violated their rights, it’s often the case that the criminal doesn’t have any means to repay the victim.

            And restitution isn’t the only purpose of prison. There’s also incapacitation, deterrence, etc.

            Certainly, there’s more cause to put rapists, arsonists, etc. in prisons than just restitution.

            1. You wouldn’t have to put rapists in prison if you just cut off their dicks and balls.

              1. What are we, Saudi Arabia now?

              2. If you consider that a just and moral punishment, then I agree that you may need to start calling yourself something other than libertarian.

      2. Perhaps they can fix two infrastructure problems with a combined prison and spillway at Oroville?

      3. Can’t release those pot dealers. Better to release rapist/murderers.

    4. I’m probably in the minority on this, but I’m all for private prisons replacing government owned prisons. I personally think we have way too many prisoners, and think the prison population should be cut in half and all drugs legalized, but I have no problems with Tesla/Coca Cola/Walmart/IBM/Amazon opening a prison if they want to. It saves us money in the long run if they are not union controlled, and if the jailers crack a few heads open and get sued into oblivion, it doesn’t harm the tax payer as much as when a “State employee” cracks a head open and gets sued.

      1. I wouldn’t say I’m “all for it,” but the problems people attribute to private prisons are just as bad or worse with public prisons. So I might get defensive when people freak out about private prisons, but it’s important to remember that they’re not blessed institutions. When it comes to the production of “bads,” the efficiency of the free market can be an argument against privatization.

    5. Who exactly are they planning on imprisoning?

      Uh, immigrants. That’s been the major demand for private prisons from the federal government, and if there is a ramp up in enforcement, they’re gonna need more prisons.

      1. I have not hear anybody promoting the idea of imprisoning immigrants. People wouldn’t
        go through all the trouble of fees, paperwork, waiting lists if the outcome was to be
        thrown into prison the moment they get their approval.

        Now if we’re talking about people who come here illegally, and commit crimes, such as
        identity theft, robbery, rape… yes. Those people would go to prison until they can be deported.

        1. …Yeah. I thought that was obvious.

          1. You might think so, but the media has been stirring people up to the point where even legal immigrants are in a panic.

    6. considering places like Chicago only prosecute 1.4% of all gun crimes maybe the fed will step in and start prosecuting those crimes if the state is failing to its job of protecting citizens. just throwing stuff out there not sure if that would be good or bad but when cities refuse to prosecute gun crimes yet want more gun control laws I think they might be not doing one thing, prosecuting, to garner support for the other, gun control.

  6. *chirping crickets*

    One comment a minute?

    1. Don’t worry, no one’s going to miss you.

      1. What a coincidence, that’s the universal consensus about you, troll.

        1. Universal? Are you sure it’s not just the white consensus?

          1. Well, the white consensus is the best one, right?

  7. Greetings fellow Reasonoids I to am a fellow Reasonoid with no association with any other website whatsoever.

    1. Greetings John Titor, you know nothing. /wildling

  8. So I sat down in the Garden to watch the sunrise. Aur?ra. I fished round in my jacket pockets till I found my pouch and pipe. The pouch was empty, but there was a bit of chaff I scraped out of the seams, and I lit my pipe. I sat there and listened to the birds and watched the beautiful colours in the air. There was some crazy blue flower like I’d never seen before just growing out by the fence. And a squirrel there come hopping along the ridge. That Garden was a heck of a place, all amazing and beautiful and sticky and full of mystique and ennui and good things to eat. That squirrel. He scurries up into the branches of the tree there beside me, up from the roots (there’s a snake in those roots). He’s looking me in the eye. He’s got something in his hand, bright and shiny, maybe a little wrinkly.
    “Come bite the apple,” he says.

    Finish reading: https://www.patreon.com/posts/aurora-8034842

    This is the first message. There will be four messages.

    1. He’s got something in his hand, bright and shiny, maybe a little wrinkly.
      “Come bite the apple,” he says

      And that’s how he was molested by his uncle. The end.

  9. Oregon lawmakers want to take away your driver’s license if you pay for sex.

    It was then that I knew who posted the links today.

    1. LOL. That was my exact reaction as well. I mostly enjoy ENB posts.

    2. Husbands hardest hit.

  10. The Iraqi air force bombed several Islamic State targets in Syria Friday.

    Anyone other than Isis hardest hit.

  11. Starting at midnight on Friday, witches around the country are calling for a mass spell to be cast on Donald Trump every night of a waning crescent moon until he’s driven from office.

    Hughes explained that he chose a binding spell because “we’re not wishing harm on anyone, we’re just trying to stop the harm they’re doing. It’s not the equivalent of punching a Nazi in the face, it’s the equivalent of tying him up and taking his bullhorn away.”

    Well, this should make the cheese more binding.

    1. This reminds me of a story told about the Emporer Augustus. During his conquest of Egypt, which was part of his power consolidation. He visited some pagan temple (I forget which one) and was told by the priests to prostate himself before the idol of their god to show proper respect, because rulers who failed to do so met an early end (without the gods protection, no direct threat). So he pulled out his dick and pissed on the idols.

      1. That Augustus guy…he’s alright. The Spartans, the Thracians, Greeks, Teutons, Bastarnae , Druids, Heebies, Persians – they all adore him. They think he’s a righteous dude.

        1. +1 Abe Froman

    2. Wiccans, you’re full of shit and your idiot religion is based on New Age crap written by old men who wanted to dance with naked, gullible girls in the woods.

      Voodoo is where it’s at.

      1. I don’t know. You’re making the New Age crap sound pretty appealing.

        1. C’mon, bleeding out live chickens is kool

        2. Some dudes just like dancing with naked old men in the woods. Who are we to judge?

      2. old men who wanted to dance with naked, gullible girls

        Why do you think I go to Burning Man?

      3. The easiest way to have a 3some…

        Go to the info booth at a pagan festival and have them page Morgan and Raven

    3. “So anyway, see you all at the March for Science.”

  12. Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus asked the FBI to dispute media stories saying Trump staff stayed in close touch with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign.

    You’re missing the real story about this fake news – Trump had something to say about the story being leaked. And of course a Trump twitterwhine is worth far more mediaspace than whatever the hell it is he’s currently whining about.

    Kinda funny, Trump’s wanting the FBI to go to the media with the story that he and Russia are just good friends and there’s no hanky-panky going on between them and the FBI instead goes to the media with the story that Trump’s trying to get them to go to the media with a story. Which makes it look more like Trump’s being sneaky and trying to kick something behind the couch, the exact opposite of the effect he was shooting for.

    And now he’s trying to discredit the FBI for the leaks? For shame, Donald, don’t you know that’s part of the War on Cops? How dare you impugn the integrity and loyalty of our brave heroes in the law enforcement community? You ought to have your ass beat for that.

    1. His ability to innovate new ways to act like a completely pants-on-head incompetent buffoon is really astounding.

  13. My parents used to live here. Luckily they were white and elderly…oh, wait.

    1. Only non-whites receive injustice from the police. That’s just a scientific fact.

    2. “Coel, who has been on paid administrative leave since August 9, 2016 incident…”

      Sigh.

  14. This is sad I’ve always kind of “lurked in the bushes” reading the comments, because I’m too busy to make a comment while the links are still fresh. Now I finally have some free time and there is no one here.

    1. glibertarians.com

    2. Anytime is a good time to come out, so to speak.

  15. ?If the feud between President Donald Trump and the leadership of Mexico prompts Mexican officials to consider legalizing drugs south of the border, what exactly should we make of that outcome?

    ^Shit like this from yesterday’s links is why people are leaving. Reason doesn’t even know what it stands for anymore.

    1. The links are the absolute least of it. It basically comes down to Robby, Shikha, Chapman and Suderman pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining. I don’t recall the specific beef that people have with Suderman, his articles are usually very wonkish with policy verbage so my eyes glaze over and apparently I must be skipping ahead of those spots where he says retarded things. I can’t attest to the Suderman grievances, but given Reasons evident decline in standards, I’m not very skeptical of people’s bitching about him.

      1. You going to hold down the fort, FS? If so, I pop in once in a while.

        1. Yeah for a while at least. The commentariat is literally the only reason I’m here still. But as the number of decent commentarians dwindle, so too does my will to remain here. DON’T LEAVE ME!

          1. It’s the lack of balls on Reason’s part that bugs the hell out of me. They can leave it to the commentariat to make full throated defenses of free speech etc., but after a while you have to wonder why not just go take over another MSM site. I’m enjoying Glibertarians.com and the tech side of it is infinitely better than here, but I actually miss the random troll popping in. I’m sure Reason has noticed the flight, but have they actually mentioned it anywhere?

            1. The lack of balls is definitely Robby’s wheelhouse, the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice, that’s Shikha and Chapman’s schtick. Shikha Dalmia particularly isn’t just a bad person to have on staff at a libertarian magazine, she’s just a detestable person in general, as her twitter feed shows.

              1. Do you think anyone here would miss you if you dropped dead?

                1. Do you think I care? I’m not the one practically begging for validation from the editors. And then whining when I don’t get it. And then stomping off. And then begging for more validation about stomping off.

                2. And there it is. Vile, humorless and predictable. And probably sees nothing wrong with that little personality cocktail it has cooked up for itself.

                  1. And there it is. Vile, humorless and predictable.

                    Vile? What is this, Salon?

                    1. Vile? What is this, Salon?

                      I thought that was Robby’s word.

                  2. Vile, humorless and predictable.

                    I can only assume this was about Free Society.

              2. The Diaspora is mostly cosmos and moderates annoyed with garbage content. Yokels only make up around a quarter of the population. Of course, this would require you to actually have knowledge of something before opening your mouth.

                1. I’m pretty sure the yokels are the garbage content.

                  1. Oh boy, you sure got them.

                    1. It was mostly cosmos that exited, but many yokels too for sure. The disgust with Reason’s latest editorial decisions spans the yokel-cosmo divide pretty damn evenly. The regulars, be they yokels or cosmo, know how to get along pretty well even after a heated disagreement. Hail Retaxes only has one setting available regardless of who it’s dealing with; that of an asshole.

                    2. The regulars, be they yokels or cosmo, know how to get along pretty well even after a heated disagreement.

                      What you meant to write is, “principals, not principles.”

                      Hail Retaxes only has one setting available regardless of who it’s dealing with; that of an asshole.

                      And here, what you meant to write is, “actual libertarian.”

                    3. So you being an insufferable prick is a principle now? Cool story.

                    4. Conservatives really hate liberty, what can I say.

                  2. Yes, because yokels write the posts at HnR. Fucking retard.

            2. It’s not a “lack of balls”, and they don’t really care if every commenter leaves permanently.

              They’re pushing a very specific agenda; everything else is horseshit.

              1. That’s why, for the moment, I think it’s more productive to fill up their comments section with scathing rebukes rather than jump ship.

                1. Agreed, and I’m not going anywhere.

                  Also, I can’t wait until I have the chance to donate money to the new competition to help them hopefully grow into a viable full-fledged alternative to this shit.

                2. It’s not more productive, most Reason writers don’t give a shit about comment input, and the begathon is a drop in the bucket compared to their larger donors. Lack of clicks might make them reconsider some things, but call me cynical because their clicks have already been in decline since November. They’re basically a microcosm of the general problem with the media right now.

                  1. They’re basically a microcosm of the general problem with the media right now.

                    Originally I came to Reason because they seemed to be immune to the affliction that beset the rest of the media. And now, they’re working overtime to become just another pants shitting hyperbole factory.

                3. That’s why, for the moment, I think it’s more productive to fill up their comments section with scathing rebukes rather than jump ship.

                  “Scathing rebuke” is such a perfectly fine phrase that I’d hate to see it watered down by applying it to shrieking “PROGTARD!” at people like a child.

                  1. Are saying that people who disagreed with the writers didn’t present any arguments as to why the writer in question was wrong on a given issue?

              2. I agree. They are shilling for a glorious, TDS inspired, libertarian-progressive coalition that will crush their enemies and bring about the “libertarian moment.” I’m waiting with baited breath. I’ve always thought ENB, despite her obvious left-libertarian slant was at least a decent writer, but after that tweet she can go on the list with Chapman and Dalma as far as I’m concerned.

                1. ENB is about as ‘libertarian’ as Chuck Schumer. ENB, Shakiha, and Chapman are perfect examples of why the word ‘libertarian’ literally has no meaning whatsoever and the people identifying as such is dwindling by the day.

                  1. Yep, as much as it pains me to do so, I’m going to re-register as a republican and hope I get to vote for an Amash/Paul style representative in the primaries. I’ll still vote for libertarians on the local level if their platforms are good but as far as capital “L” Libertarianism goes; I could give a shit anymore.

                    1. I think my work here is done.

                    2. Good, then disappear idiot.

        2. What does “hold down the fort” mean in this context? Do you think the comments section will go somewhere? That trolls or useless commenters will take over if there aren’t one or two True Libertarians to whine about the writers’ word choices?

          1. Those are interesting interpretations. Wildly inaccurate, but interesting.

          2. If I wasn’t hear to whine, you wouldn’t have anyone to whine about for whining.

            1. FINE BY ME.

              I’M PERFECTLY CALM.

          3. You may be reading too much into things… or not reading enough into other things. You’re god damn right the writers’ word choices could use some critique. Maybe you missed the part where Robby celebrated “fash bashing” and Shikha justified the Berkeley riots because they were trying to lynch someone she thinks is icky. Just to name but two recent examples.

            1. not reading enough into other things.

              True enough, I don’t keep a close eye on the writers outside of this publication to make sure they never violate my standards of a True Libertarian. I tend to just look at what they publish here, and judge accordingly.

              (OK, even then, I usually ignore Shikha, unless she’s writing about Detroit or something)

      2. Suderman has been making arguments that ACA should not be repealed if it is not going to replaced. On a practical level that is coming out for the ACA as a permanent fixture of government policy.

      3. Yeah, I agree with you FS. The links are the absolute least of it. This just irks me.

    2. On the plus side I haven’t seen a lot of pants shitting about rescinding the federal bathroom mandate. But, I know it’s coming.

      “If Leviathan can’t tell us where to piss then that’s like segregation or something…nonsense..woke…libertarian moment!”

    3. What’s the problem with that?

      1. If anything, the complaint should be that the linked article wasn’t really about the possibility of Mexico decriminalizing drugs and that was only mentioned as an aside in a quote by Mexico’s former ambassador to China.

        However, it’s certainly a legitimate question to ask; if the drug legalization (certainly a good thing in a vacuum) is just being used as a bargaining chip in a diplomatic spat that could lead to other more illiberal policies (border wall, trade tariffs, etc.) is that a net win for liberty?

      2. Jokes are for alt-text only.

  16. OT: who has seen the prologue to Alien Covenant? And if so, any thoughts?

    1. The “Alien” franchise is much like “The Godfather” and “Star Wars” in that there are only two movies in each…

      1. I myself am not huge into Alien (or the Godfather). Just wanted to discuss the prologue.

  17. It’s ridiculous the reasons for which people are bailing on Reason. They do solid work on a great number of issues, but because Robby occasionally hedges in favor of social progressivism or because Dalmia is a full-throated supporter of unfettered immigration, something that’s hardly outside the libertarian ideological milieu, people are willing to trash the entire publication. This is a mag that talks frankly about first amendment overreach at progressive campuses, the bullshit of sex trafficking hysteria, gun rights, misbehaving police and prison personnel, state budget debacles, global warming skepticism, eminent domain and asset forfeiture, Obamacare, conspiracy theories, regulatory liberalization, public spending, pop culture politics, and, yes, immigration. Their remit is huge and the benefits of having such a publication producing quality work vastly, stratospherically outweighs whatever niggling doubts you have about Soave’s conservative bonafides or the handful of Dalmia’s tweets with which you took issue.

    I think it’s the bitching about staff much more than the staff themselves that drove away so many posters.

    1. I think it’s the bitching about staff much more than the staff themselves that drove away so many posters.

      I don’t recall anyone leaving because they couldn’t stand to see Robby and Dalmia’s honor besmirched.

      1. I don’t recall anyone leaving because they couldn’t stand to see Robby and Dalmia’s honor besmirched.

        But I would bet there are a lot of marginal posters/lurkers who stopped bothering when every other thread was 5% discussion about an issue and 95% “WHY WON’T REASON DECAPITATE ROBBY AND PARADE HIS HEAD THROUGH TOWN ON A PIKE” and toxic lashing out. The difference between them and the “diaspora” is that they didn’t bother to make a huge drawn-out self-aggrandizing show of it.

        1. No, that could never have happened. It’s definitely not possible that actual libertarians were turned off by the hysterical right-wingers and Trumptards taking over the comments.

          1. Fail Rataxes is a primary reason why I still come around. This guy is hilarious. He told someone to ‘check his privilege’ about federal bathroom policy. I couldn’t stop laughing. And this guy is for real.

            In order to read such ridiculous drivel I’d have to read Slate.com or Cathy Reisenwitz (is there a difference between the two?).

            1. Tulpa is the primary reason why I still come around.

        2. Well that’s a lovely series of gross exaggerations there, what with people typing all caps nonsensical responses to writers they disagree with. The diaspora who were “aggrandizing” themselves were almost all long-time posters on the both the right and left sides of libertarian thought, who wanted to tell their friends of many years that they were leaving the commentariat and the reasons why. There’s nothing aggrandizing about that. But apparently you deeply resent their departure and them telling their friends they were leaving must have ruptured your anal artery causing a deep butthurt.

          1. *applause

          2. Oh, get off it. No one calls anyone “butthurt” unless they’re projecting. The only thing I’m upset with them about is that they didn’t drag more of the conservative hypocrites like you and John out with them.

            1. No one calls anyone “butthurt” unless they’re projecting.

              You must be new to the internets. Now tell me that no one says “internets” unless they’re…. I don’t know, gay or something?

              The only thing I’m upset with them about is that they didn’t drag more of the conservative hypocrites like you and John out with them.

              See that’s the butthurt I’m talking about. You do realize that libertarian thought is deeper and broader than the left-lite variety that you cling to, right?

              1. Hang on, I had something for this, I need to do some googling for “jerk off emoji”

            2. So you’ve read not a single one of Shikha’s noxious, anti-speech tweets, but you’re the fucking expert on the subject.

              fuck off.

          3. The only reason that I started posting is because the comment section shifted from reasoned skeptics to conservative shills during Trump’s run. I don’t care that the media is shit, or that Robby is shit. That doesn’t mean that Trump isn’t total shit as well. Trump has the potential to be a complete disaster, more so than maybe any president ever. As hyperbolic as that sounds, it’s a rational conclusion to come to if your judgement isn’t being clouded by blood lust over the media, or if you’re not a republican.

            Also, no one cares if you leave the comments section. Shut the fuck up.

            1. I really hope you’re not Tulpa.

              1. I think I made maybe 5 posts 3.5 years ago or so.

                https://reason.com/blog/2013/09…..nt_3978448

                https://reason.com/blog/2013/08…..nt_3925447

                Being anti-trump is apparently unlibertarian, huh.

              2. The going theory is that it’s Bo.

                1. I think it would be great if everyone who thought I was this Bo would go off and start their own echo chamber in which they can all suck Trump’s tiny dick in unison. Just don’t announce it. Leave in silence.

            2. Gaze and despair at the lowbrow, hyperbolic replacements that will fill the commentariat people.

              1. Konima|2.24.17 @ 11:56AM| block | mute | #

                Shouldn’t libertarians be looking for more people like Soave, so that libertarianism can grow within the left-wing of politics as well? As insufferable as his articles can be, they do appeal to people who think along similar lines to him, and expose them to libertarian principles

                1. Because “to be sures” and hand waving are the way the principled libertarianism.

                2. You sure made me look bad. Being reasonable is a terrible sin amongst Trump’s tribe.

                  1. Yeah everyone you don’t like is automatically inducted into Trump’s tribe. We get it. No need to labor the point.

                    1. “Yeah everyone you don’t like is automatically inducted into Trump’s tribe. We get it. No need to labor the point.”

                      You claim that I’m someone who I am not, because I have opinions that run contrary to your own, and then have the audacity to complain when I categorize you similarly. Human psychology is fascinating.

              2. “Gaze and despair at the lowbrow, hyperbolic replacements that will fill the commentariat people.”

                What about you? Rigid, dim-witted, predictable, tribal, emotional, archaic, petty, stubborn? Choose any combination of the aforementioned and you have a great starting point for classifying yourself.

                1. He’s on the ropes. Now finish him off by calling him a Trumptard. You got this!

                  1. “He’s on the ropes. Now finish him off by calling him a Trumptard. You got this!”

                    You’re not good at this.

                2. Oh boy, projection is one hell of a drug.

                  1. “Oh boy, projection is one hell of a drug.”

                    Every single one of you parrots the same phrase. Are you even different people? Do you not get bored with yourselves?

                    1. You forgot to excoriate him for his Trump hat that you just know he’s wearing.

                    2. It may possibly have to do with you projecting being the reality of the situation, but it would require a self-awareness that you’re clearly incapable of.

                    3. “It may possibly have to do with you projecting being the reality of the situation, but it would require a self-awareness that you’re clearly incapable of.”
                      lol. Reality. You don’t seem well versed in it, considering your views. Keep trying though. I’m sure that someone outside of your echo chamber will eventually pat you on the back too.

                    4. I don’t believe you have a particularly strong insight into ‘my views’ in order to make that judgement. In fact, what you believe are ‘my views’ are likely fantasy strawmen based on your own bias.

                      However, your statements here have been well within the margins of rigid, dim-witted, predictable, tribal, emotional, archaic, petty, and stubborn.

                    5. Not very original are you. *imagines the joy on John Titor’s face as his father, John, high fives him for so effectively copy and pasting what someone else has said because he has run out of intellectual steam*

                    6. And there’s the dim-witted, predictable and petty coming into play. I highlight the characteristics you assume of others are common in your own comments, you respond with an idiot non-sequitur and an insult you believe is clever.

                      *imagines the joy on John Titor’s face as his father, John,

                      Oh yeah, John and I get along great, that’s why I called him out on his positions and being a cunt a month ago. Again, your fantasy strawman is not reality.

        3. But I would bet there are a lot of marginal posters/lurkers who stopped bothering when every other thread was 5% discussion about an issue and 95% “WHY WON’T REASON DECAPITATE ROBBY AND PARADE HIS HEAD THROUGH TOWN ON A PIKE” and toxic lashing out. The difference between them and the “diaspora” is that they didn’t bother to make a huge drawn-out self-aggrandizing show of it.

          I’d like to take a moment to 100% agree with this and what MJG posted above. I like and respect the opinions of many of the people who left. Even moreso the ones who aren’t coming back saying “Hey everybody come over to happyfuntimeclubhouse.com where all the cool kids are being cool all day every day”. I’m glad that people like pa, MJG, and Zeb are still around because they can converse without turning into giant whiny babies. I wish people like Free Society and Domestic Dissident would leave and not come back because they rarely have anything useful to say.

          1. What a useful thing to say! Sorry I’m not a leftist shill like yourself.

            1. Sorry I’m not a leftist shill like yourself.

              This is one of your rare useful occasions. And it’s only useful because it made me laugh.

              1. For further clarification, it made me laugh because of the perfect display of unintentional irony.

                Free Society|2.24.17 @ 2:07PM|#

                Yeah everyone you don’t like is automatically inducted into Trump’s tribe. We get it. No need to labor the point.

                1. I find all of the Trump-lites bitch about something and then proceed to do the thing they bitched about where they think no one will see. It’s all high-school level debate tactics. None of them want to actually discuss anything.

                  1. I find all of the Trump-lites bitch about something and then proceed to do the thing they bitched about where they think no one will see.

                    Gee wiz. It’s kind of insulting that you bend over backwards to prove my point for me.

                    1. Are you and the old Trump guard high-fiving each other every time you attempt to dish out inane zingers?

                    2. Now you’re promoting me to the Old Guard? You went and proved my point yet again. It’s kind of disturbing the way you relentlessly drive your dick into the dirt.

                    3. “Now you’re promoting me to the Old Guard? You went and proved my point yet again. It’s kind of disturbing the way you relentlessly drive your dick into the dirt.”

                      I don’t know who you are, nor do I care. I’m just hopeful that you’ll ride off into the sunset with the rest of Trump’s clan. Again, I’m sure that you think you and your friends sound brilliant.

                    4. Now call me a Trumper one more time. I don’t think you’ve fallen back on that trope as many times as you possibly can. I believe in you.

    2. while I’m not leaving, not that anyone would notice, the site content going on a few months has been terrible. But, over the years I’ve lurking there have been several spots like this and it has always turned around, so I’ll stick it out.

      1. Same… to the very first part. I’ve only been lurking for a few months, so I can’t comment on the content’s trajectory, but I like this site so far. I was thinking maybe everyone would come around eventually, and your comment gives me hope.

        1. I’ve been reading here for a decade or so, and there have been times of famine and feast in regards to the content as well as the comments.

    3. Why would readers want Soave to have “conservative bonafides”?

      Oh right.

      1. Shouldn’t libertarians be looking for more people like Soave, so that libertarianism can grow within the left-wing of politics as well? As insufferable as his articles can be, they do appeal to people who think along similar lines to him, and expose them to libertarian principles.

        1. Agreed. Shikha and Robby articles are the only ones I can get my friends to read or even consider the points made.

    4. “Dalmia is a full-throated supporter of unfettered immigration, something that’s hardly outside the libertarian ideological milieu”

      Umm…I think a lot of people have no problem with her immigration policy. It’s her opposition for free speech and support for violent protesters that people take issue with.

      I really don’t think it is too much to have so called ‘libertarians’ declare unequivocally that people who use violence to silence speech, regardless of what type of speech, are in the wrong. And that’s it.

      1. “Umm…I think a lot of people have no problem with her immigration policy. It’s her opposition for free speech and support for violent protesters that people take issue with.”

        And beyond that it is not just that she supports unfettered immigration but how she argues in favor of it.

        It is fine to support unfettered immigration, I am a supporter of that myself but that does not mean I bury my head in the sand and pretend that there are no actual issues with immigration, illegal immigrants, or having an unsecured border and you can’t be arguing in good faith if you simply deny those issues exist and call anyone who mentions them a subhuman racist not worthy of consideration.

      2. There is also Dalmia’s style of argument. Even when you think she has a point, she often gives bad faith reasoning to support it.

    5. The problem is you are just wrong.

      Reason hasn’t really been good on ANYTHING in months, not really since Trump has started dominating the news cycle. There has been a clear and obvious shift in editorial direction since KMW took over.

      Yeah they have always had Chapman and Dalmia’s crap that people had to put up with and Robbie and Suderman were hit or miss but overall when they wrote stories they actually had an identifiable libertarian slant to them. More importantly however Reason used to stand out in the media as, well for lack of a better term the voice of reason. They were not afraid to call out Obama or Bush on their BS policies while on the same day defending said Presidents or their policies from BS attacks. Since Trump? Yeah that is out the window. Now their attacks on Trump, and just as importantly his supporters look pretty much exactly like the ones you see in the MSM, no nuance, no calling out the MSM for their disingenuious attacks on Trump, not even a discernable libertarian theme to the articles and several of the writers have outright called for the abandonment of libertarian ideals in favor of attacking icky people with icky views.

      I used to like KMW as a writer when he had Welch looking over her shoulder, as an Editor in chief however she has been a disaster.

      1. “no calling out the MSM for their disingenuious attacks on Trump”

        Maybe they’re not all that disingenuous?

        “several of the writers have outright called for the abandonment of libertarian ideals in favor of attacking icky people with icky views.”

        Could you elaborate more on this?

        1. Shakiha defending violence against speech. Robbie excusing violence, while, ‘to be sure’ being upset not that violence is being employed, but rather that this ‘helps Trump’.

          All of the writers somehow viewing Leviathan mandating bathroom usage as ‘totally libertarian’ for some reason no one understands.

          All of the writers shitting themselves over NC passing a law allowing private businesses to decide their own bathroom policies, which somehow is ‘totally not libertarian’ for some reason no one understands.

          ENB thinking defunding Planned Parenthood is so ‘totally not libertarian’ because ‘rent seeking for me and not for thee’ is totally what Mises was all about.

          For Christ sake, stand on principle, even if the people that you are agreeing with are ‘icky’.

          1. ENB thinking defunding Planned Parenthood is so ‘totally not libertarian’ because ‘rent seeking for me and not for thee’ is totally what Mises was all about.

            I’d be shocked if anyone on staff is an actual Misesian. The Chicago school is paying the bills around here, not the Austrians.

            1. Not even the Chicago School. Maybe a watered down version

              The only Austrians that write here are probably the Judge and Stossel (who throws out Mises every now and then)

              1. Yeah I think those two are in fact Austrian school. I stand corrected and I guess I’m ever so slightly shocked, as promised.

          2. ENB also pulled about a quarter Dalmia when the Berkeley riot happened.

        2. Maybe they’re not all that disingenuous?

          Maybe he didn’t call them all disingenuous? Maybe he was speaking specifically about the ones that are disingenuous?

        3. “Maybe they’re not all that disingenuous?”

          The correct way to phrase this is “not all of the attacks are disingenuous”.

          Sure some of the attacks on Trump are spot on. He does make for a very easy target afterall and he is both a buffoon and a horrible President. That said for every valid attack or criticism on him there have been 2 that were just as insane as Trump himself appears to be.

          For example, I believe there were a minimum of 5 articles on here about Trumps or his supporters “making up terror attacks that never happened”, these were issues that were well covered all over the media. They were HUGE stories. Problem is they were bullshit. Sure the Trump team did say some stupid things but the most reasonable explanation is that they were speaking off the top of their head and misremembering things they had read about some time earlier or referring to something slightly different than what the media inferred (ex. Trump never mentioned terrorism in Sweeden, he almost certainly referring to immigrant crime). Rather than having just one or two articles that actually delved into what was actually going on Reason followed the MSM in publishing pants shitting screeds.

          1. Meanwhile Andy Pudzer actually appeared like a pretty good libertarianish selection for Secretary of labor and was forced to withdraw his nomination at the last minute. Barely a peep on the issue. Jeff Sessions is an abomination of an AG, I don’t think they have written 5 articles about him in total so far because they are too busy writing articles attacking Milo and doing so using the same slimy tactics the MSM uses to personally destroy people they don’t like without actually having to dig up any real proof of wrongdoing.

      2. They were not afraid to call out Obama or Bush on their BS policies while on the same day defending said Presidents or their policies from BS attacks.

        This is news to me, because I’ve been assured repeatedly by Reason’s more vocal critics here that all of the Reason staff loved Obama and supported all of his policies. Don’t you know that every Reason staff member voted for Obama in 2012?

        1. Actually, most of the staff admitted to such in 2008 and more than half did the same in 2012. It isn’t some secret. They publish how they vote each year

          1. Seriously, is this all performance art?

            1. Yes, MJG, that’s exactly what it is.

          2. That will come as a surprise to these people. Is there some definition of “more than half” which means “literally none”?

            1. I’d like to know at what point “more than half” becomes “most.”

            2. In 2008, I believe that a few actual Reason staffers said they would vote for Obama. But nowhere close to half.

          3. No, they didn’t. Yet for some reason people keep repeating that as if it’s true.

      3. Katherine.

        edits.

        the magazine.

        Gillespie.

        edits.

        the website.

        1. He also moderates debates real good.

      4. I’ve been reading and sometimes commenting a long time. Used to be a place with unique opinions and perspectives, and writers willing to talk about topics the mainstream wouldn’t touch.

        There was a very noticeable shift in the 2nd half of last year. I’ve lost interest in the half-hearted defenses of free-speech articles so full of virtue signalling that they are unreadable. I’m tired of reading dishonest crap about immigration without any historical context or honesty about risks and costs. I kept looking for honest analysis of Muslim immigration in Europe and the long term implications – but nobody here was willing to touch it.

        I find this place boring and dishonest now.

      5. Reason used to stand out in the media as, well for lack of a better term the voice of reason. They were not afraid to call out Obama or Bush on their BS policies while on the same day defending said Presidents or their policies from BS attacks. Since Trump? Yeah that is out the window. Now their attacks on Trump, and just as importantly his supporters look pretty much exactly like the ones you see in the MSM, no nuance, no calling out the MSM for their disingenuious attacks on Trump, not even a discernable libertarian theme to the articles and several of the writers have outright called for the abandonment of libertarian ideals in favor of attacking icky people with icky views.

        Nailed it.

        And for the record, I am a cosmo’s cosmo, and I hate Trump.

        1. Except that I’ve seen the MSM called out. I’ve seen nuance. I’ve seen them applaud libertarian appointments. Not that there haven’t been shitty articles that I completely disagree with. It just shouldn’t bother you in any way that they are hard lining against Trump in general.

          1. It just shouldn’t bother you in any way that they are hard lining against Trump in general.

            I don’t give a fuck who hates Trump and who doesn’t, and who takes a “hard line” and who doesn’t.

            Criticize what deserves criticizing and don’t make up shit just to be in the in-crowd. Don’t rush to story with hyperbolic bullshit that hasn’t been fact-checked.

            But I’m not actually boycotting the site, myself – for me it’s just that 95% of the people I come here to interact with went somewhere else, and I haven’t come here for the articles in years – I came here for them.

            PS – you, sir, are a douche.

    6. I come here *precisely* because they are willing to hold Trump accountable. I don’t just want a website that is thinly-disguised Trumpism, but with maybe 10% more liberty.

      1. But they aren’t holding Trump accountable. They’re shitting their pants over nonsense, so when the President actually does something bad (like the recent suggestion that the federal government will go after states who legalized marijuana) no one is paying attention anymore.

        And the worst part is that they don’t even stand for anything anymore. They don’t stand for speech, they don’t stand for religious liberty, and they don’t stand for smaller government.

        1. Remember: the EO was “nonsense.”

          1. It was and a wild executive overreach that reinterpreted a duly passed law by Congress. I know that you like kings, as long as they’re totally progressive and such.

        2. WakaWaka seems like a compulsive liar. A true Trump protege.

      2. None of this push back occurred when negative articles about Obama were constantly run, and that’s as it should have been/should be. It’s fascinating that people aren’t capable of discerning that they’re responding to criticisms of Trump and Obama and vastly different manners, while pretending to be libertarian.

        1. Dude, keep making it about politics. I’m talking about principles. You just want to talk about “nah uh, Obama”.

          1. It is Bo Cara so this is to be expected. He got really offended yesterday when i said obama was an empty suit and didn’t proceed to give my opinion on trump or any other right after.

            Slurp slurp Bo

          2. It is Bo Cara so this is to be expected. He got really offended yesterday when i said obama was an empty suit and didn’t proceed to give my opinion on trump or any other right after.

            Slurp slurp Bo

            1. I actually feel bad for you. You know you’re lying on some level, but on another level I know you’re just protecting your fragile mind from anything that might challenge your world view.

              Obama was a pseudo-intellectual whose greatest achievement was spouting empty rhetoric on the campaign trail, and his divisiveness was perhaps the primary reason that Trump was elected. I voted for McCain in 2008, and Gary Johnson in 2012. I refrained from voting in the last election. Please do tell me more about myself though.

        2. Um, you are not listening.

          NOBODY CARES THAT THEY ARE CRITICISING TRUMP

          They care about the specific issues they choose to criticize him on and the approach they take to that criticism.

          1. Except that they do care that they are criticizing Trump.

    7. Re: commodious rebrands,

      I think it’s the bitching about staff much more than the staff themselves that drove away so many posters.

      ?
      Trumpistas gonna hate,
      hate, hate, hate, hate!?

  18. Well, the final blow for many was the perceived treatment of the story of Sloopy’s mom, just two months after they used his kids as props for fund raising. So there is a personal element there as well.

    1. meant as a reply to above.

    2. Yes there is this as well.

      Police brutality, even at a very personal level is a very common theme here and all of a sudden you have a case where it is directly employed against someone who has been a long time friend of the publication and all of a sudden it isn’t a subject they want to cover?

      Odds were decent under Welch the story would have gotten at least a bricbrat if she wasn’t sloopy’s mom and it came to their attention, why all of a sudden is it being ignored without a real explanation for why? They didn’t even need to write an article about why the writes venturing into the comment boards has been a long time tradition here so it wouldn’t have been hard for one of them to jump into an AM or PM links with a better explanation.

      1. All part of a general “Fuck you” attitude towards the regulars. Maybe we let them down by complaining about Johnson / Weld?

        1. we treat commenters like family?a weird, legal-trouble-inducing, fanfic-writing, staffer-hating family, to be sure, but a family nonetheless.

          from the same article where they used Sloopy’s kids to get donations. I can see how someone less aspy than I could get emotional about all this.

        2. I voted for the LP ticket this time. I still had plenty to say in the negative about them.

    3. I’m on board with some of the other criticisms listed, but I sort of understand why Reason didn’t run with the Sloopy’s mom thing. Usually when Reason does a police brutality item, it’s accompanied by video, a lawsuit against the cops, a medical report, etc. In Sloopy’s mom’s case, there was just a poorly written local news story about the event that completely elided the actual police brutality.

      In no way am I questioning the fact that Sloopy’s mom got curb-stomped by the police for no good reason. I’m quite sure it happened. I’m just not aware that there was much in the way of concrete evidence for Reason to splash out in a blog post.

      1. I can see the point of some that they could have just had the intern make a few calls and write a post with no skin off their back. Sometimes you just gotta throw some red meat to your audience.

      2. There was still time for lawsuits. It was at a hs game, I bet there’s video.

      3. And that may be.

        Maybe they decided that given the lack of actual evidence to draw on they didn’t want to expend the resources digging into the story.

        That’s fine but when it started becoming an issue rather than coming in and explaining that to someone, anyone they just said “the story isn’t right for Reason” and left it at that.

        1. Fair point. Perhaps this wraps back around to what was alluded to above, that the site doesn’t care about the commenters and their measly donations or clicks or the free content provided. They have other, higher beings driving their content focus. Perhaps we’re all just a barely tolerable, sometimes humorous/entertaining diversion, sometimes liability, but always insignificant.

          *Begins sobbing and breathing into a paper bag*

          1. It is when you accept this truth that you will be free.

        2. KMW did actually provide a much lengthier explanation later to several people who wrote to her about the sloopy’s mom thing. Which may or may not satisfy anyone. I thought it was reasonable enough. I mean, what secret reason would they have for not covering it?

          Lots of people took the whole thing way too personally. If you don’t like Reason anymore, don’t fucking read it. It doesn’t exist solely or primarily for the benefit of the weirdos who spend way too much time commenting here.

          1. It doesn’t exist solely or primarily for the benefit of the weirdos who spend way too much time commenting here.

            Perfectly stated, Zeb.

      4. Since when does a lack of hard evidence ever stop Reason from going after those they don’t like, especially cops and cop wannabes?

        These are the same clowns who pretty much went all in on the lefty media narrative that George Zimmerman was a racist murderer, even though pretty much all the available evidence pointed to justifiable self-defense. Also, they did that post where ENB claimed she got detained by the United States Secret Service at the RNC in Cleveland, without so much as a shred of evidence to back the story up beyond her (completely worthless) word.

      5. You could be right. But then why not say that? Did they not want to admit that they do very little original reporting?

        1. Well, they did run with the phony dead grandma story…

    4. In regards to the writers, some links to support their attacks on some people would be nice. I don’t know how many articles I’ve read where something like, “To be sure Bannon is a racist homophobe Nazi, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point.” Where in no proof of the “to be sure” is given, so anyone who hasn’t fallowed what ever person they’re talking has no idea what’s going on.

  19. Bo why did ya change your name to konima?

    1. Same reason you’re pretending you’re not the “real” amsoc.

      1. This doesn’t make sense. So i the “real american socialist” is pretending not to be the real american socialist under the name of american socialist….but yet i haven’t changed my name like Bo has?

        That doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem to be a valid comparison

  20. Oregon lawmakers want to take away your driver’s license if you pay for sex.

    Married men hardest hit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.