Reason Roundup

Press Goes Wild Over President 'Snubbing' John McCain But Barely Blinks Over $82 Billion Boost to War Spending: Reason Roundup

Plus: Feminists fight fair application of Title IX and Bitcoin prices continue to plummet.

|

Cris Faga/ZUMA Press/Newscom

On Monday, President Trump signed over another $82 billion in spending for the U.S. military. This money comes in addition to the Pentagon's existing budget, mind you, bringing the Pentagon's total annual budget up to $717 billion. As Eric Boehm noted in this space yesterday, it's "a spending increase that dwarfs the entire military budgets of most other nations on Earth. Russia, for example, will spend an estimated $61 billion on its military this year. Total."

Why do we need this? And where will the money go? Those are two questions the chattering classes haven't had much interest in tackling since yesterday, as the drama between Trump and fellow reality-star-turned-White-House-worker Omarosa Manigault-Newman has commanded attention. And what interest the military budget boost has commanded has largely centered on the fact that Trump didn't thank Sen. John McCain while signing the bill into law.

Because the Arizona Republican's love for warmongering is so renowned, Congress named this particular spending increase the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. But ever the petty bastard, Trump omitted McCain's name from the bill's title at yesterday's signing spectacle. And people. Are. Aghast.

In an especially sad sign of establisment fealty, even some journalists have been personally calling out the ommission, because we all know it's the job of the free press to see that senators get properly thanked for spending our money to do more damage overseas. "Jake Tapper thanks McCain after Trump didn't," CNN titled its particularly bootlicking segment.

And here's NBC anchor Andrea Mitchell:

Overall, the Pentagon gets to blow $700 billion in 2019. Trump called yesterday's allowance increase "the most significant increase in our military and our war-fighters in modern history," and added that "it was not very hard" to get Congress to pass it.

"Indeed, it was not very hard. Democrats are quick to condemn nearly everything Trump proposes and many Republicans are less than enamored with the current occupant of the White House, but partisan animosity vanishes when defense spending comes up," points out Boehm. "The final House vote on the NDAA…was 359-54, while the final Senate roll call was 87-10, with only two Republican senators opposing the bill and three declining to cast votes."

In a statement, McCain said he was "humbled that my colleagues in Congress chose to designate this bill in my name."

FREE MINDS

Title IX tables turn. A Title IX inquisition at New York University has found "world-renowned female professor" Avital Ronell guilty of sexually harassing Nimrod Reitman, a male graduate student who had been in one of her classes. Ronell was suspended from teaching for one year over emails exchanged with Reitman in which she called him pet names like "my most adored one," "Sweet cuddly Baby," "cock-er spaniel," and "my astounding and beautiful Nimrod," according to a Title IX report obtained by The New York Times. Reitman also accused her of kissing and touching him, texting and emailing him frequently, and forcing him to lie in her bed when they worked.

From the evidence available, it seems Ronell's actions go beyond the sort of linguistic mishaps, racy jokes, or uncomfortable subject matter that can run some university professors afoul of federal policies against sex-based discrimination in education. But according to the Times, NYU's decision to dicipline Ronell has "raised a challenge for feminists" and "roiled a corner of academia."

A letter from academics around the world testified to Ronell's character and cast aspersions on her accuser. "We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation," said the letter.

The fact that Reitman is a gay man and Ronell a lesbian further complicates things, and has been used as evidence that Ronell's behavior was not sexual. But whether that's the case or not, Title IX trials seldom dwell on the intentions of an alleged harasser. In countless cases before this one, the fact that someone perceived the actions of someone else on campus as harassing has been enough to get professors and students alike booted. If folks are upset over how this case went, they should take issue with the whole Title IX farce that's been playing out on college campuses this decade.

FREE MARKETS

Crypto keeps falling. The cryptocurrency market has hit a new low for the year, down 70 percent from its worth near the start of 2018. "A broad selloff in digital currencies has pushed the value of the entire market below $200 billion for the first time this year," The Wall Street Journal reports, citing a CoinMarketCap analysis. "At $191 billion on Tuesday, the total market value of cryptocurrencies world-wide is now at its lowest since November."

The worth of cryptocurrency leader Bitcoin has fallen 5 percent recently, "dropping back below $6,000 for the first time since late June," and almost 70 percent since the end of last year. Meanwhile,

Ether, the second biggest cryptocurrency by market value, tumbled 17% over the past 24 hours, falling below $300 for the first time since November. XRP, the currency offered by San Francisco startup Ripple, and Bitcoin Cash both dropped 15%. EOS fell 14%. All but two of the top 100 cryptocurrencies by market value were in the red over the past 24 hours, according to CoinMarketCap.

QUICK HITS

  • After checking to make sure there is no recorded evidence of him using racial slurs, the president wants to make it clear that he would never use racial slurs.
  • Irish police are reopening a sexual assault case brought by sex-worker rights campaigner Laura Lee, who died in February.
  • "The 'get Trump at any cost' legal posse has come up with a theory that puts not only the First Amendment at risk, but also the rights of voters to receive information about presidential and other political candidates," writes Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump's Bogus Argument to Deny Green Cards and Citizenship to Immigrants who Play by the Rules

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. Voters in Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin hit the polls today.

    Referendums on Trump!

    1. Hello.

      Ha, ha. What a Nimrod.

  2. Straight actors playing gay characters is the latest psuedo-woke entertainment controversy.

    And vice versa!

    1. Do these people understand what acting is?

      1. it’s just a way to fill time between political grandstanding and virtue signalling

        1. …and waiting tables.

          1. I thought the song went “.. parking cars and pumping gas . . ” ?

    2. Can’t wait until the black James Bond blows this bullshit away.

      1. I can. New Woke Hollywood won’t be able to resist the temptation to turn it into an unbearable PC Preach-fest.

        There will be scenes of Bond lecturing M on her White Privilege and using nonviolent methods to subdue the bad guys — who will all be either white South Africans or Alabama Rednecks in MAGA hats.

        And when Bond does finally bed the beautiful Russian spy, he will do so without the assistance of alcohol ( lest it cloud her judgement) only after obtaining her written consent.

        It’s not that Elba is a bad choice for Bond — certainly no worse than Craig or Dalton — but this has “Lady Ghostbusters” written all over it.

        1. Idris Elba is flat out stud perfect to play Bond. If this film gets fucked up it won’t be because of him, but I don’t see any reason to fuck it up. The whole point is to write the film to the James Bond character and let Idris do his thing. If a political point is trying to be made, the best way to make it is to not even acknowledge Bond’s race.

          All depends on how stupid the Producers/Director are.

          1. I think Elba can make a great Bond. I fear however they will fuck it up by trying to make him the “Black James Bond” rather than just letting him be Bond. Maybe they won’t. But, I have a bad feeling that they are going to use it as an excuse to virtue signal about having a black James Bond. Hopefully, Elba is smart enough to tell them to fuck off and not take the part if that is what they want to do. Elba should tell them “I am signing on to play James Bond not some special Ed virtue signaling we let the negro have the part James Bond”.

          2. It also depends on ignoring the James Bond character. He was a communist hating, British patriot whose targets never included ordinary criminals. He was an intelligence officer authorized to kill in cold blood in service to his country. He was proudly heterosexual, and a bit of a snob. He was a member of the British upper class, and a decorated naval commander.

            But yeah, make a movie about a black crime buster; it will sell better.

          3. Idris Elba is flat out stud perfect to play Bond. If this film gets fucked up it won’t be because of him, but I don’t see any reason to fuck it up. The whole point is to write the film to the James Bond character and let Idris do his thing. If a political point is trying to be made, the best way to make it is to not even acknowledge Bond’s race.

            Elba’s a fine actor, but Elba getting out of an Aston Martin and ordering a vodka martini feels wrong the same way Vinnie Jones getting out of an Aston Martin and ordering a vodka martini feels wrong. Similar with Tom Hardy. Ewan McGregor is closer, but still wrong. McAvoy or Fassbender, OTOH…

            1. his charachter should be different from bond but with a similar outlook. I’ve always thought the best story line would be that the James Bond name was only his agent name. that way they could bring several back together if they liked or have any person play the part but they always must be well educated , sofisticated and above all else love mother and country or something like that.

              1. I’ve always thought the best story line would be that the James Bond name was only his agent name.

                This actually gets more into where I think Elba is problematic. I don’t so much think that Elba could/couldn’t play the part (any more/less than Jones or McGregor could) as much as there are writers and directors who will murder the shit out of original characters and narratives with a ‘twist’ like this. Even when trying to conserve characters across actors, plenty of actor/writer/directors combos stumble (take your pick of Batmen). There’s also a concern that, even if you succeed in converting the Bond persona into a legend, eventually, you’ve diluted the character/legend to the point where it’s meaningless.

                Maybe a one-off, 007: Legends Never Die (Fall?), or something, could work but I’m still dubious.

          4. Elba is too old. Plus [SPOILER ALERT] Avon Barksdale already killed him so how are they going to write around that?

            1. Your [SPOILER ALERT] isn’t needed ’cause you didn’t spoil nothin.

              The series is still available on Prime in case you want to do a little brushing up on your spoilers.

              1. Was it the other way around?

                1. [SPOILER ALERT] That dude with the scar who made a living robbing other dealers done did it along with Elba’s (can’t remember the character names) own hit man.

        2. who will all be either white South Africans or Alabama Rednecks in MAGA hats.

          These are the henchmen. The master manipulators will, of course, be Russian.

        3. Just like Black Panther! What a joke!

      2. Looking forward to the remake of Superfly starring Rupert Everett.

    3. If you’re only psuedo-woke then you’re not woke enough. Get WOKER!

    4. Controversial entertainment? That’s the best kind of entertainment, having fun while pissing people off.

    5. Neil Patrick Harris hardest hit.

    6. There should be separate Oscar categories for this sort of thing. They should call it the “This Sort of Thing” award.

  3. Trump says Omarosa (a senior staffer paid $180,000 by taxpayers) skipped work, missed meetings, was vicious and not smart, but he kept her employed for a year because she said nice things about him https://t.co/IJq91LqRf8
    ? Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) August 13, 2018

    Maybe they’ll make her give the money back now.

    1. Trump picks only the best people, believe me. Omarosa, Sessions, Bannon, Bolton, Priebus, “The Mooch”, top quality one and all.

      1. Most people Trump picked, you never hear about because they are doing well.

        You mainly hear about the Trump picks that end up siding with Democrats.

        “They all can’t be winners” – Bad Santa

  4. Today in Reason, “The Libertarian Case for Letting These Guys Flee the Country” – the trial will make immigration look bad.

    NEW MEXICO JIHADIS CAN LEAVE JAIL UNTIL CHILD ABUSE TRIAL, JUDGE RULES
    Backus said that New Mexico state prosecutors were unable to show that the five defendants should have their bail denied because they posed a threat to the community. Backus said that the defendants will be required to wear GPS tracking devices through the duration of their court case.

    1. What immigrants do you think are involved in this case?

      1. Bad behavior by Muslim terrorists hurts the argument to import more refugees from the Middle East.

        1. Ah yes, it’s the “Americans commit crimes, so we have to keep foreigners out” defense. Of course.

        2. Because all Muslims are the same! Jihadis in New Mexico are no different than Syrian refugees escaping war!

          1. It hurts the left’s case politically, and therefore will be made to go away, and you will totally support them getting away with it.

            1. Because libertarianism should be singularly focused on “hurting the left’s case”. Got it!

              1. Because libertarianism should be singularly focused on “hurting the left’s case”. Got it!

                “Please, Mr. Leftist, kill me last!”

          2. “Muh white mans burden!”
            “Muh noble savages!”

          3. Especially when those Syrian “refugees” go all asplodey in Paris!

    2. To be fair, under the 8th Amendment everyone in the USA is entitled to non-excessive bail.

  5. Gangs set fires to cars across Sweden in night of anarchy
    Dozens of cars across Swedish cities were set on fire by masked gangs on Monday evening.

    The youths also threw stones at police, whilst it is estimated around 80 vehicles were vandalised.

    The riots come weeks before the Swedish elections where anti-EU party the Sweden Democrats are topping the polls.

    1. Laying low is not part of their game plan. Thank goodness.

    2. The west desperately needs Nick Gillespie’s beloved middle eastern “migrants” to burn down the cities that the native-borns will no longer burn down.

      1. Remember how reason ran a puff piece about the need to allow refugees from Syria about every single day back in 2015? Reason was all about how great it was going to be for Europe to let all of those refugees in. Mysteriously, they don’t seem to talk about that subject anymore. I wonder why.

    3. Sarcasmic not available for comment.

      1. The leftards will probably say that it’s justified payback for all those Viking raids of 1,300 years ago.

  6. Former Gun Control Candidate Charged With Shooting Her Campaign Treasurer
    Kellie Collins, a former congressional candidate in Georgia’s 10th District, was charged with the murder of her former campaign treasurer, Curtis Cain. The allegations of murder follow Collins’ advocacy for “responsible” gun control laws during her campaign. WSB-TV reports that she argued for stricter legislation “to protect the community.”

    Police found Cain’s body in Collins’s apartment with a gunshot wound. Cain did not come in to work last Tuesday, prompting deputies to check in on him. Police estimated that he was dead for roughly a week.

    1. Looks like Cain was not Abel to defend himself.

      1. That’s gonna leave a mark.

        1. I’d buy that for a dollar.

      2. He shoots and SCORES!

    2. More evidence these people are suffering from severe projection.

      1. And severe projectile-ing.

        1. Its like you were cocked and loaded!

      2. They want gun control because they now people like them cannot be trusted with guns.

    3. Kellie, doubling down for the cause.

    4. Former Gun Control Candidate Charged With Shooting Her Campaign Treasurer

      The woman’s a hypocrite, but no worse than Trump who actually “let” his in-laws into the country under a law that he doesn’t approve of. – Reason

  7. “The great deplatforming war rages on…”

    Until someone drops the atom bomb of government regulation.

  8. McCain’s still alive?

    1. Cancer-chan is slacking on the job.

    2. No kidding Zeb. I am starting to think the whole thing was a hoax.

    3. And still collecting his checks. Hasn’t voted since 12/17.

  9. Why do we need this? And where will the money go?

    We are in a forever war ENB. Best not to ask any questions until the war is over.

    1. But we’ve always been at war with Eastasia… right?

      1. I’ve tried to hold Kamchatka many times – it can’t be done. Better to start out in North or South America and slowly move your armies outward from there.

        1. Australia’s a pretty good starting place except that it leads to Asia.

      2. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – the most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” – but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…

        1. +1 So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you

  10. “The ‘get Trump at any cost’ legal posse has come up with a theory that puts not only the First Amendment at risk, but also the rights of voters to receive information about presidential and other political candidates,” writes Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

    But will it get Trump?

    1. Their attempts to Get Trump remind me of Elmer Fudd’s attempts to get Bugs Bunny. Lots of damage everywhere except the target, and it eventually blows up in their face.

      1. It’s wabbit season!
        It’s duck season!
        Wabbit season!
        Duck season!

  11. …NYU’s decision to dicipline Ronell has “raised a challenge for feminists” and “roiled a corner of academia.”

    Hey, if NOW could rise above the facts of Bill Clinton…

    1. For feminists, sacrificing principles on the altar of political expediency has never been a problem.

      They’re already circling the wagons around Keith Ellison. Get ready to hear Whoopi Goldberg explain that Ellison’s domestic violence doesnt count because it wasn’t “violence violence”.

      1. Too true. He never said a word.

      2. Colvin: Now, what would you do if you heard your sister got beat up by some guy?

        Shawn: Which sister? Cos if it’s Cherise, she probably had it coming.

    2. “Rise above”?

      I see what you did there….

    3. that story was amazing, beginning to end.

  12. “At bottom, current California law protects the worst officers by hiding their identities from the public and makes them indistinguishable from the bulk of the officers who do their jobs faithfully in accordance with the Constitution.” my latest https://t.co/oYPAjLaiFY
    ? Jonathan Blanks (@BlanksSlate) August 13, 2018

    Well, they wouldn’t need to protect good officers, now would they? Think before you tweet, people.

  13. God help me, I watched a couple of seasons of The Apprentice, and for the life of me I couldn’t figure out why The Donald hired that lunatic Omarosa when he won the election.

    1. In any administration, there are people who manage to get close to the President that no sane person would hire to work as a cashier at a 711. It is a phenomenon that defies explanation.

      1. Well, there is always a Bud Fox who manages to get close to a Gordon Gekko.

        1. Yup. Every powerful person has a few hangers on whom no one can figure out how they got there.

          1. You talkin’ bout John Podesta?

            1. Yes. Or to be bipartisan Paul Wolfowitz.

    2. Omarosa knows how to play Trump. She is cut from the same cloth.

  14. But ever the petty bastard, Trump omitted McCain’s name from the bill’s title at yesterday’s signing spectacle.

    At least he didn’t call him a dog.

  15. http://dailycaller.com/2018/08…..ild-abuse/

    Judge lets jihadist compound leaders in New Mexico out on a signature bond. Either the media got this story completely wrong and there is a lot more to it than the media has made it appear or this judge is insane or maybe both. If even 50% of what the media has reported about this case is true, this judge is a lunatic. I will give her credit for having guts. If one of these assholes goes out and does something horrible, she will rightfully be held responsible.

    1. They will flee the country and avoid a politically embarrassing trial.

      1. That is my guess. And my guess is that someone told the judge to let them go for that reason. That is an unbelievable thing to say but that is the most likely explanation I can see.

        1. This is all OK, because immigration, which is the only issue that matters.

          Tomorrow in Reason, the libertarian case for letting the left use violence to seize power and turn the US into Venezuela, because the left has the ‘correct’ views on immigration.

      2. Seems like I remember other terrorists who were allowed to slip away. Cubans, Saudis, good people with good friends at another agency.

    2. Do non-politically motivated kidnappers and child murderers regularly get such light sentences in New Mexico? That seems ridiculous no matter how you interpret their motives

      1. No. Even under New Mexico’s aversion to bail, no one charged with such serious offenses and especially without a job and family and serious ties to the community would ever get bail of any kind.

        1. The 8th Amendment does require non-excessive bail for all in America without a job or family tie exception.

          But yeah, NM seems to be going extra nice on these defendants compared to what normally happens to people.

      2. Well, it’s not a sentence, since they haven’t been tried yet.

        1. True, and I’m sure a crazed lunatic is going to respect that distinction. “Oh, well since it’s not a sentence I better behave myself” Come on.

          1. It’s the judge who is supposed to respect the distinction, and understand that pretrial detention isn’t supposed to be a punishment. They’re wearing ankle bracelets. Those seem to work pretty well for the courts.

            1. Sure she did. But pretrial detention is appropriate where the person is a real threat to flee or a danger to the public. For her to find these people are not a danger means either the media got this story epically wrong or she has lost her mind.

              1. Well, in the Daily Caller story the judge sounds pretty skeptical of the kinds of claims we’ve been reading in the media. She’s saying she doesn’t think the state has shown a very clear plan. It wouldn’t be the first time the media had run with sensational claims from prosecutors that weren’t supported by the facts.

                1. Cathy,

                  The media is more than anything incompetent. I am totally willing to believe that they got this story wrong. It might be that this woman is nuts. She wouldn’t be the first judge to be that way. But it is just as likely the media got the story completely wrong.

                  1. The Governor’s statement on the ruling blames NM Supreme Court rules on pretrial release.

                    1. If the rules prevent a judge from detaining someone charged with serious child abuse and plotting mass murder, the rules are insane.

  16. Can we just round Defense off to 1 Trillion and delete Social Security?

    1. You try that and you will really need the military to defend you against cane-whacking by millions of outraged seniors who had their income cut for forty-five years. After we use a cane to kneecap you, we will drive our walkers back and forth over your body.

      Oh, wait; the military cannot be deployed within the borders for civil law enforcement. (Well, except when Eisenhower wants to)

  17. Attention Washington-area libertarians!

    Did you attend a Washington Nationals game in 2017? You might be able to help us. Really.

    If you have photographic evidence of Brett Kavanaugh at a Nationals game, you need to step forward. As you know, Kavanaugh went into debt supposedly buying tickets. But is that really what happened? Did he actually attend any games? If so, who else was with him? Does this baseball ticket scandal connect with #TrumpRussia in any way?

    These are the important questions we need to ask. Call your Senators and make sure they are prepared to ask them as well. Otherwise an illegitimate Kremlin asset President might succeed in radically reshaping the Supreme Court for a generation.

    #StopKavanaugh
    #Resist

    1. Do you have any copies of Obama’s college transcripts?

    2. Someone needs to photoshop Kavanaugh sitting next to Hitler and Darth Vader and send it into these clowns. We still don’t have Obama’s college records and still haven’t seen that speech he gave in Los Angeles to a bunch of Palestinian radicals but the media is all about finding out if Kavanaugh is a baseball fan.

      1. There’s already one on there where they put Putin’s head on his daughter. At least the internet is treating this request with all of the respect that it deserves.

        1. How did they not know that was what was going to happen? I honestly can’t understand how someone could seriously do this. It is right out of the Onion.

    3. This OBL post is a softball to all of you idiots who keep debating him/her as if he/she is sincere and not a parody.

      1. He is totally a parody. Sometimes he is a good one. Today is one of those times. That is some funny shit. And sadly, it is legit. These people are that far gone.

        1. Yes, he deserves props for delivering the goods. I laughed as well. Tom needs to remember that OBL does parody, not debate.

          1. This might have been his best work to date. Although the morons at ProPublica at least deserve an assist for being so parody-able.

            1. No way. The best OBL line ever (IMO) was the one about believing that children were ‘mature enough to choose their gender, but not mature enough to choose whether or not to drink soda’. (Paraphrase, but close. It was absolute comedy gold.)

    4. #StillWithHim
      #InternsToo

  18. Via Twitter:

    Replying to @CNN
    Mcabe : SACKED
    Comey : SACKED
    Strzok. : SACKED
    Page : resigned

    1. The firings of course are the best indicators of the truth of this whole disgusting story. Sadly, what the general public is officially being told from most of the government/media complex is still mostly horseshit.

      Firings aren’t enough though. These people need to be prosecuted, given that they engaged in one of the most blatant abuses of power in about two generations. What these creeps did should never be allowed to happen again.

  19. Yesterday, several of us were having a discussion regarding Alex Jones, and issues were brought up that I didn’t have the opportunity to respond to properly–until it was too late. However, the libertarian implications were rather important, so for those of you who were interested, here’s what I was talking about, and for those of you who weren’t there, . . .

    The question was whether a company like Facebook or Spotify has any contractual obligations to Alex Jones at all when the TOS clearly state that (as someone else put it), “We can revoke your use of our platform under any circumstances” language.”

    I maintain that any statement in any contract that says one party can change the terms whenever they like and completely ignore the other parties’ contractual rights and their own contractual obligations is unenforceable–and that’s probably been the case going all the way back to Roman Law. Here’s a recent example from “In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation”:

    1. “Zappos’ terms of use says “We reserve the right to change…these terms and conditions at any time.” Zappos isn’t the only website using language like this; it’s ubiquitous on the Internet. Unfortunately, despite its widespread usage, this language is toxic to a contract.

      The court takes this amendment power to its logical conclusion. If Zappos can change the terms at any time, then it can change the arbitration clause at any time. Thus, citing to a long list of cases, the court says that such unilateral power to change the arbitration clause makes the clause “illusory”–and thus unenforceable.”

      —-Forbes

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/er…..906bc63e31

      In short, a clause that means one party can unilaterally change the terms of the contract at any time would mean that there isn’t really any contract at all–so the courts, correctly, ignore those silly clauses.

      I maintain that the libertarian solution to Alex Jones’ issue isn’t in congress, isn’t about regulation, and doesn’t involve the SC reinterpreting the First Amendment. The remedy is in civil court, and it’s all about contract law.

      Facebook, YouTube, et. al. had contractual obligations to Alex Jones, and one of the few legitimate libertarian purposes of government is to provide a civil court system so that individuals can sue to protect their own contractual rights.

      Alex Jones should sue the fuck out of them.

      1. I’m not 100% convinced, but I’m willing to admit that the idea appeals to my prejudices about “how things should be” as a libertarian, re: property rights, and the general feeling that this sort of deplatforming is overall harmful.

        The point about a contract that says “This contract is meaningless” being meaningless is well taken, though.

        But if the contract is null and void because they made the contract in such a way that it’s not really a contract, how can Jones have standing to sue for breach of it?

        Or is the idea that only the part that actually says “We can change this contract unilaterally at any time” that gets invalidated?

        1. “But if the contract is null and void because they made the contract in such a way that it’s not really a contract, how can Jones have standing to sue for breach of it?”

          He abided by the terms of the contract.

          I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a unilateral contract becomes enforceable when someone accepts the terms of the contract by executing its terms. “If you find my dog, I’ll give you $100”. I become contractually obligated to you–if you find my dog. That contractual obligation doesn’t go away simply because I insert an unenforceable clause.

          They offered to host people’s content if it was provided, and Alex Jones provided that content. They have obligations associated with that–just like I have contractual obligations to the guy that found my dog because he found my dog (and I promised to pay anyone who did).

          Again, Alex Jones supplied them with content in fulfillment of the contract. They have contractual obligations to Alex Jones because of his performance of the terms of the contract. They even profited from his performance of the terms of the contract. They built their businesses and brands on the backs of people like Alex Jones providing them with content. Alex Jones has a strong case–or so it seems to me.

          And the resolution of this really should be about Alex Jones’ contractual rights rather than Facebook and other rent seeking or the government’s regulation of speech.

          1. The TOS also includes that there are no warranties, express or implied. They say upfront that they make no promises to you.

          2. Facebooks TOS doesn’t say that they can change them at any time. They do say that they may be updated from time to time, and they will notify users. I don’t know if they have a clickthrough or browser wrap. This article suggests that Facebook obtained clicks before holding the users to the TOS, which was one of Zappo’s shortcomings.

          3. Accordingly, our liability shall be limited to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and under no circumstance will we be liable to you for any lost profits, revenues, information, or data, or consequential, special, indirect, exemplary, punitive, or incidental damages arising out of or related to these Terms or the Facebook Products, even if we have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Our aggregate liability arising out of or relating to these Terms or the Facebook Products will not exceed the greater of $100 or the amount you have paid us in the past twelve months.

            That will be hard to get around. They have zero liability to him.

    2. All the media platforms acting at once against someone’s business should be just as against the law as any other antitrust collusion. The government allowing it because the government finds it useful makes this a partially government activity and thus a 1A violation.

      1. Yeah, we were talking about that, too.

        95% of the people who download podcasts apparently do so from three sites. If they get together and decide to deplatform Alex Jones all at the same time, they’re effectively acting as a monopoly or a trust.

        In the meantime, these companies built their businesses on the “free” content that Alex Jones provided them by means of investing his time, money, effort, and brand into their platforms.

        They have contractual obligations associated with that, and whether or not you think the government enforcing laws against collusion is a good idea, it speaks to these companies’ lack of good faith to a jury in civil court.

    3. When they revoked Jones’s use of the platform, they weren’t changing the terms of the contract, those were the terms of the contract.

      Analogy: I have a contract with you: You can live rent free in my guest house if you paint me a picture every day. Included in the contract is a clause that I can evict you whenever I want. If I later evict you, I haven’t broken the contract.

      1. “When they revoked Jones’s use of the platform, they weren’t changing the terms of the contract, those were the terms of the contract.”

        Were the offending files against the TOS at the time the files were made, or were those standards changed and applied retroactively?

        “I have a contract with you: You can live rent free in my guest house if you paint me a picture every day. Included in the contract is a clause that I can evict you whenever I want. If I later evict you, I haven’t broken the contract”

        I put up a sign offering you $100 to find my dog. You go out and find my dog and bring him to me, I don’t get to decide not to pay you because of a clause on the sign that says I can revoke the offer whenever I like. You put the work in. You found my dog. You brought him back to me. Now I say I’ve decided not to pay you?

        The courts will not uphold that–no matter what’s in the TOS. And they haven’t been upholding clauses that say that, far as I can tell, going back to when the Romans founded Londinium.

        1. Tom’s analogy also has problems because of landlord / tenant considerations, i.e., both decisional and statutory law.

        2. If you don’t pay the $100, I will keep the stray dog I found that looks like your dog.

      2. “I can evict you whenever I want” isn’t usually a valid, enforceable clause. Evictions have all sorts of requirements associated with them because there is a contract that has to be broken, property to be moved, rights to not be violated, etc.

        1. To be fair to Tom, one might argue that his contract creates a tenancy-at-will which enables the landlord to evict upon thirty days written notice (in many states). But, he must furnish the 30 day written notice to the tenant and be able to prove that he did so in court. Some states require the notice to be served by a constable / sheriff / special process server.

          In addition, if the tenant does not vacate, Tom will have to file an eviction lawsuit and prove that the tenancy is one at will and that he served the 30 day notice to quit and the lawsuit upon the tenant.

        2. And there are state laws that prevent such evictions. Hell, if the person is squatting it can be hard to evict them in some states.

          1. But it’s private property! You can do whatever you want with it! /s

            Libertymike, you have made my point. Even in tenancy-at-will you cannot evict someone immediately. And you will have to go to court, and get the sheriff to enforce it.

            If you just show up, kick their stuff out, and change the locks, you may very well find your ass in jail. You will absolutely be paying damages. And it doesn’t matter if the contract says “hold harmless”. That’s the analog to the tech situation. No notice. No delay. No court or sheriff. No time to move your stuff somewhere else.

            1. So your argument is that the authorities should treat property owners in digital space just as shittily as they treat property owners in meat space.

              Brilliant!

              1. So your argument is that the authorities should treat property owners in digital space just as shittily as they treat property owners in meat space.

                “Monopolies are okay as long as it’s not the government!”

              2. If you think that is treating people shittily, then yes, I do. Or something similar at least. But I wouldn’t argue that is treating someone bad.

          2. Gah, that should have replied to Libertymike not John. Oh well.

            1. It still works because we both basically made the same point. LibertyMike’s was just more detailed and technical and mine was just pithy.

  20. “calling it “the national defense authorization act.””

    FINALLY… fedgov now has authorization to provide for national defense. All it took was an extra $82 billion; I feel much safer now.

  21. This is the dumbest thing you will read about Alex Jones.

    The same thing is at work in the realms of journalism, politics, and infotainment. Viewers (i.e., citizens) are all too eager to indulge dumb, nasty, cruel, or nutty demagogues because they find such fare entertaining or psychologically comforting. Editors and television producers, hungry for clicks and eyeballs, are only too happy to invite people into their pages or onto their sets if they might bring those eyeballs and clicks with them.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ns-for-us/

    You really can’t overstate how stupid that is. It sounds reasonable right up until you give it some thought. Jones is a nut and a carnival barker for sure. It doesn’t seem to occur to Goldberg that people find such things entertaining because they are entertaining and not because they believe what the person says. It also never occurs to Goldberg that “you should only give the responsible a platform” is just an excuse to suppress unpopular speech. If people like Goldberg can’t handle competing with the likes of Jones in the marketplace of ideas, they need to give their platform to someone worthy of it and find a new line of work.

    1. Goldberg considers himself and his couch ‘responsible’. Basically, he doesn’t want competition from anyone to his right. Pure financial self interest.

      1. He is a sophist. Goldberg has one move. He takes a term that has either really positive connotations like “classical liberal” or really negative connotations like “nativist” or “populist” or “nationalist” and then defines whatever he believes to be identical with the positive term and whatever his opponent believes to be identical to the negative. He then declares the opposing view to be illegitimate and thus avoids the need to actually debate the point.

        He defines himself as a classical liberal. And that is fine because his views are consistent with classical liberalism. They are not, however, encompassing of all classical liberalism. You can be a nationalist and also be a classical liberal. Our founders were nationalists. You can believe in protectionism and be a classical liberal or reject mass immigration. Classical liberalism is a philosophical framework. It is not a cookbook that provides the answers to policy problems. Goldberg basically turns classical liberalism into a dumb form of Libertarianism where individual freedom is the only legitimate goal of government policy except when it involves something Goldberg doesn’t like.

    2. They just can’t get over the fact that people voted for Trump because they like him, and they just can’t get over the fact that people voted against Hillary Clinton because they didn’t like her.

      1. They honestly thought they influenced people. Every day Trump is in office is a reminder of how unimportant they actually are. If they couldn’t keep Trump from being President, what can they do?

        At some point, the corporate donors that keep places like NR in business are going to realize that they don’t actually influence anyone and stop wasting their money. That is what scares people like Goldberg more than anything.

        1. Good point John.

      2. people voted for Trump because they like him,

        Over 20% of them said they voted against Hillary, not for Trump, the highest number of anti- votes ever recorded. That means he’s the only GOP candidate that Bernie would have beat.

        that people voted against Hillary Clinton because they didn’t like her.

        And nearly 20% of them voted for Trump.

        Plus nearly 10 million who voted against both
        And he won the electoral vote by 39,000 voters. 0.03% of the vote.

        Yes, he was elected. but your smug denial of the facts is as daffy as
        1) Anyone who disagrees with Trump denies that he was elected.
        2) Or is deranged.

        So why does your deranged mind say that Obama was not elected?
        (Birther psychos)

        This is why most of us (Americans) ridicule both of you.

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano having a ranting cheeseboard moment again.

        2. No bold HIhn?

        3. Goddamnit stick to ONE sockpuppet, Hihn!

        4. I don’t know who Hihn is. But I see three people failing to challenge any facts. So far.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano playing dumb, as if we haven’t seen this sockpuppet before.

            1. Now FOUR fail to challenge the facts on Trump’s election margin.
              (They can’t)

  22. How could @realDonaldTrump sign the John S. McCain Defense Authorization Act and speak for 25 minutes without mentioning @SenJohnMcCain?

    I don’t know, because McCain is a fucking asshole whose whole claim to fame is he crashes airplanes, he finished 894 out of 899 in college, he left his wife when she became crippled in a car accident, he ditched her two kids that he adopted when he married her, he was a member of the Keating 5, and did I mention he is a insufferable prick?

    1. McCain ran for re-election in 2016 promising that he would vote to repeal Obamacare. Then once he was safely re-elected for the last time, cast the deciding vote against repealing Obamacare. If that isn’t proof of his poor character and what an asshole he is, nothing is.

      1. Its the job of every responsible Republican to lie so they can get into office and protect the Democrats.

        1. Be the tax collector for the welfare state if they are not able to lose with honor.

          1. “If the Dems introduced legislation to kill every white male in the US, Bob Dole would offer an amendment to phase it in over a 3 year period.”

            1. thats too funny and true

      2. But he was so gracious when he resigned his Senate seat after being diagnosed as terminal so that the people of Arizona would still have two senators. Oh wait, he didn’t.

      3. McCain has been a RINO for a long time. Many people knew this which is why they didnt vote for him in 2008.

        Everyone knew that Obama was a socialist running as a Democrat and we were proven correct.

      4. cast the deciding vote against repealing Obamacare.

        That was a dumb way to do it.
        Learn some depth, something more than slogans.
        Even Rand Paul said it should be repealed and replaced on the same day!

    2. Why is our Congress naming spending bills after one of their members with a foot in the grave as if it were some kind of monument to him?

      1. He’s a war hero,
        He’s a hawk on greater defense spending
        Welcome to Planet Earth

  23. “Press Goes Wild Over President ‘Snubbing’ John McCain But Barely Blinks Over $82 Billion Boost to War Spending”

    Someone just noticed TDS?

    1. If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, it doesn’t make a sound unless the White House press corp can blame Trump for it somehow.

      1. If a man is speaking in a forest and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

        1. How many others will defend the President’s latest attack?

          1. John Galt is back|8.14.18 @ 10:33AM|#
            “How many others will defend the President’s latest attack?”

            How many fucking ignoramuses will call that and “attack”? One already has.

            1. Two so far.

        2. When a woman is confronted with mutually exclusive alternatives, her first choice is almost invariably “both”.

      2. You mean like “If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, it doesn’t make a sound unless the Fox News corp can blame Obama for it somehow.”

        or lets do the time warp

        If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, it doesn’t make a sound unless the Fox News corp can blame Bill Clinton for it somehow.

        You can toss talk radio in with Fox. Derangement syndrome has known no party bounds for the past 30 years.

  24. I see that you PFL Block Yomommatards of Reason have found your new favrorite image.

    Also, fuck John McCain, and fuck you.

  25. Thanks. The insane spending increase and Trump’s vicious vindictiveness are equal threats to America.

    We’ve seen his obsession to forever punish anyone who triggers his fragile ego. His psychotic hatred for Obama traces to Obama totally and publicly humiliating Trump’s birtherism at the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner – to Trump’s face! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxFkEj7KPC0

    God help anyone who teased the Trumpster in grade school.

    1. Who has Trump ever actually punished? Sorry, but saying mean things on them on Twitter doesn’t count as “punishing them”.

      1. Corrected link for 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4
        I originally posted Obama’s 2016 ridicule. Both are hysterical, but it’s the first one Obama will “pay for” forever.
        That’s Trump. But can President Snowflake enact his revenge without destroying America?

        1. Talking shit about Obama five years before he got elected is pretty thin gruel. Moreover, undoing everything Obama did out of spite might be the best example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons I have ever seen.

          1. Talking shit about Obama five years before he got elected is pretty thin gruel

            Because he proved you wrong?

      2. but saying mean things on them on Twitter doesn’t count as “punishing them”.

        That would depend on why he did it. His list is endless. Who would have imagined that any President would call for limiting a Free Press? Any American President?

        1. Yes, His name was Barrack Obama who called Fox News an enemy and had the FBI spy on hostile reporters. Then there was FDR and Woodrow Wilson who actually did shut down newspapers and throw people in prison for saying things against the war effort. But you keep pretending Trump calling the media the biased idiots that they are is the same thing.

          1. You keep pretending that’s all he’s done/

            1. If he did more, then what was it? Go ahead and disprove my claim by providing links and examples of what you mean. Sorry but links to Trump saying mean things before he was President don’t cut it.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks that mean words on the Internet are the equivalent of being thrown the gas chambers of Auschwitz. That’s why he chimps out when someone dares talk back to him.

              2. I only need one to prove you a liar.
                His repeated attacks on the parents of a soldier who died defending his country

                I’ll ignore your newest lies.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows about liars because he sees them all the time. It’s called a mirror.

                  1. His had proof!

    2. John Galt is back|8.14.18 @ 10:23AM|#
      “…The insane spending increase and Trump’s vicious vindictiveness are equal threats to America.”

      Yes, that is a boogy-man under your bed. Go back to sleep, little boy.

      1. Ron Paul is a little boy to you people.

    3. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s pushing another one of his sockpuppets.

    4. That applies to McCain as well. At least, if you are in his party.

  26. Why do we need this? And where will the money go? Those are two questions the chattering classes haven’t had much interest in tackling since yesterday, as the drama between Trump and fellow reality-star-turned-White-House-worker Omarosa Manigault-Newman has commanded attention.

    *facepalm* Why? Why does anyone give 2 shits about this Omarosa person (who the fuck is she anyway?) and whatever stupid slap fight she’s having w/ fellow walking dickcheese Donald Trump? This is the kind of bullshit the media cares about? Jesus Christ, we are so fucked.

    1. I always get Omarosa and Barbarossa mixed up.

      1. Just remember that the Russians didnt like either one.

      2. testarossa

  27. Corrected link for 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4
    I originally posted Obama’s 2016 ridicule. Both are hysterical, but it’s the first one Obama will “pay for” forever.
    That’s Trump. But can President Snowflake enact his revenge without destroying America?

    1. A powerful important guy turns out to be a bit vindictive. That is just unprecedented.

      1. Like you’re “a bit” honest?

        1. Yes, I am very honest. And Trump seems to be vindictive. Until he does something illegal or unethical in pursuit of that, I really don’t care.

        2. About as honest as claiming our fiscal problems are due to defense spending. Whining about the lack of attention to fighter jets while ignoring entitlements is the height of fiscal hypocrisy.

          1. About as honest as claiming our fiscal problems are due to defense spending. Whining about the lack of attention to fighter jets while ignoring entitlements is the height of fiscal hypocrisy.

            Yes, it is. But unlike your own hypocrisy, we libertarians oppose both

            1. “we libertarians”

              Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his other nine personalities.

              1. We libertarians have opposed both for 50 years.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano pulls out another sockpuppet.

                  1. EVERY libertarian is a sockpuppet of Hihnsano, in an alt-right commentariat!

    2. Its spelled Jon Galt.

      1. The king of f-ups shoots … ,… he SCORES … yet another self-humiliating blunder y lc1789!
        Can he or she do simple arithmetic?

        1. How many socks do you need, you pathetic piece of shit?

        2. Made you look at the spelling sockpuppet.

  28. Trump says Omarosa (a senior staffer paid $180,000 by taxpayers) skipped work, missed meetings, was vicious and not smart, but he kept her employed for a year because she said nice things about him

    Again, this is the shit we’re supposed to be outraged about? Not the $717 billion of taxpayer money being shelled out to the military next year, oh no! We’re supposed to be outraged about:

    1) Trump not sucking McCain’s dick hard enough and
    2) The fact that he kept a useless incompetent moron on his staff just because she said nice things about him. Something I’m sure no president or politician has ever done before.

    Jesus tiity-fucking Christ…

    1. The Omarosa thing is totally bread and circuses for the media. Nothing about it is going to change anyone’s vote. But the media can’t help themselves but obsess about it to the expense of things that might actually harm Trump.

      It doesn’t surprise me that he kept such an idiot on for such a shallow reason. Trump’s real blindspot is that he legitimately loathes the bureaucracy. That should be a good thing but it turns out to be a flaw. Trump’s administration is often hampered because he doesn’t think the bureaucracy is important. So, he doesn’t fill appointments and doesn’t take hiring very seriously because he doesn’t think they matter. The problem with that is that they do matter. They are the ones who implement his policies. Also, the Democrats are masters at getting their people into important civil service positions that continue to serve after they leave office. Trump will never fully tame the regulatory state and risks his legacy being undone once he leaves office if he doesn’t become more adept at getting his people in the right positions.

      1. Trump’s strategy was to reduce the bureaucracy and would end run his problem of not having enough qualified people volunteer to get into government.

        The RINOs in the GOP know this, which is another reason they hamper Trump’s proposed cuts to the federal government. Politicians get political power via appointments and large federal budgets.

        Trump just can only rollback so much government without Congress helping.

        1. Congress matters most. But Congress isn’t going to whack the bureaucracy in one or even two administrations.

        2. Trump’s strategy was to reduce the bureaucracy

          By knowingly hiring “wacky Omarosa” and paying her nearly $200,000 of taxpayer dollars. solely because “she said nice things about me.”

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano knowingly hired “Boise Barbara” and paid her nearly $200 of his Social Security check for the same reason.

    2. She was able to use her personal cell phone to make recordings in sensitive areas. Their OpSec is miserable. Makes you wonder how careful they are with classified info.

      1. She was able to use her personal cell phone to make recordings in sensitive areas. Their OpSec is miserable.

        You really ought to figure out how SCIFs are run. If she did, in fact, make recordings in one of these areas, she’s subject to prosecution. Unclassified areas don’t have those restrictions.

        1. According to Ronna McDaniel (GOP Chairwoman), she recorded in the Situation Room.

          1. If she’s lucky, the recording won’t have any classified information on it, and she’ll merely get slapped with a permanent loss of security clearance. If it does, she’s fucked, because her name isn’t Hillary Clinton.

            1. She doesn’t seem to have a clearance.

              She didn’t seem to break any laws.

              She wouldn’t need any clearance for any conceivable future job. Only an idiot would have hired her for a White House job.

              Their OpSec sucks. If they got played by a reality TV huckster, what chance would they have against actual espionage?

  29. “and Ronell a lesbian further complicates things”

    Probably was opportune to “be lesbian”, greatly increasing reknown, dignity, and scholarly reputation.

  30. McCain said he was “humbled that my colleagues in Congress chose to designate this bill in my name.”

    Too full of himself to use the more fitting terms “embarrassed”, “ashamed” or “humiliated”.

  31. If there is mud on the floor, they say in the shale industry, that means cash is coming in the door. That is, when workers are out in the field and the boots are getting dirty, money is being made.

    Thanks to an infusion of high technology driving the natural gas industry, it’s not just about dirty boots anymore ? and it’s a good story. It’s a marriage of advanced technologies and dirt-under-your-nails hard work rarely told, because extracting shale is not a popular business politically.

    Fracking, it turns out, is the one high-tech industry not embraced by politicians in Pittsburgh who are rushing to embrace the likes of Uber and Google.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……h-tech-job

    Of all the crazy things reason has ever published, I think Gillespie’s piece a while back on how the “sharing economy” and not manufacturing and such was the future might have been the dumbest.

    1. Yeah, you kinda need to manufacture he things you’re gonna share.

      1. Yeah. you would think people who claim to love the “free market” would understand that you are only as wealthy as the amount of goods and services you produce and that sharing what you have doesn’t make you any wealthier as a society.

        1. Yeah. you would think people who claim to love the “free market” would understand that you are only as wealthy as the amount of goods and services you produce

          The manufacturing part is provided by a bunch of cheap shit from China.

  32. >>>But ever the petty bastard

    McCain has a vise-grip lock on the title.

  33. >>>Straight actors playing gay characters

    if their counterparts are for the most part in the closet the fuck am I supposed to know who to root for?

    1. The end result of all of this will be having fewer and fewer gay characters in movies. If you don’t write any gay characters, you don’t have to worry about stirring up an angry Twitter mob when you start casting. If you were producing a movie right now, why would bother with having a gay character and risking this kind of nonsense?

      1. I’d remake PCU. Whole generation missed the point.

      2. On the Big Bang theory there is a gay man playing a straight man, should he not be allowed to do that since he is not hetero. If the gays get what they want of only gays playing gays then only straight people can play straight parts as well. they may want to rethink their reality

        1. They are a designated victim group and straights are not. So, they figure that it will never happen to them. It remains to be seen if that is true. But you are right that this is where this leads if you follow the logic of it. It is pure insanity.

          1. Oh John don’t worry, you’re doing enough more than enough whining on behalf of straight people.

      3. Gay people are a tiny minority anyway. The fact that TV and movies have so many gay characters makes it seem like being gay is mainstream and common. Its not.

        Gay people fear being like the rest of us. Nobody special.

        1. No, we manage to be either normal or fabulous as we see fit.

          The fear is when flag-humping fascists like yourself start talking about us as a “tiny minority,” with an implied “expendable.”

          1. Libertarians would protect your gay minority like they would protect every American.

            We just will not sit idly by while some gay people use politics to force us to bake cakes and hunt us down like the fascist Gentrifiers that you are.

            We get it, you want to force people to like gay folks. I am not going to let people use the government for that.

      4. It seems like it would also force many working gay actors, who are ‘out’ in their private lives but would prefer to not do so publicly, into a very difficult situation.

  34. Well, McCain got one mention for every vote he put in on the bill, right?
    Sticking his name on the bill was pure politics, and irrelevant to the funding. Why mention him? He did nothing.

    1. I assume it’s about the fact he’s close to exiting this world.

      1. that fact is the only good thing about McCain and I hate to disparage the ill but he does deserve it

  35. None of the fiscal hawk libertarians here seemed to give a shit about the defense spending either. And rightly so. Obama and Hillary are still on the loose!

    1. Those of us who can count above “I want” realize that the “insane” increase to a total of 3.7% of GDP doesn’t matter when your welfare state is already over 12% of GDP and growing nicely.

      1. Some of us care whether public money is being put to productive use or not.

        1. Tony|8.14.18 @ 11:29AM|#
          “Some of us care whether public money is being put to productive use or not.”

          As if you knew what “productive” meant.

        2. And some of us can prioritize.

    2. I’m a horrible person, but I have to admit my first thought was, if it’s raining defense cash what should I invest in to catch some of that rain.

      1. Space lasers.

        1. under armour likely to land space suit contract

      2. TBH, all defense stocks are already bloated and overbought. It actually might be time to get contrarian.

  36. To keep all of us here in the commentariat from going to far down the path of creating a narrative of our own about the media, there are actually lots of news articles this morning that discuss the content of the defense authorization act without any mention of Trump and McCain.

  37. Press Goes Wild Over President ‘Snubbing’ John McCain But Barely Blinks Over $82 Billion Boost to War Spending: Reason Roundup

    Think of “the press” as Facebook pages full of jr high kids. That helps one understand what we’re dealing with here.

  38. That’s uh, that’s a lot of tweets.

  39. Manafort did not call a single witness for his defense.

    Looks like an acquittal against Mueller.

    I guess Reason is waiting for the verdict before really jumping into Mueller’s failures.

    1. Want to bet on the verdict?
      http://www.predictit.org/Ticke……2018#data

      1. I have not been following the case closely but it would seem the state never proved a criminal case.

        The defense didnt even bother challenging the state claims because there is no criminal proof to refute.

        I would think a verdict will come in tomorrow after closing statements. If those go late, maybe Thursday.

        I might take a bet. I was going to save up for the big election 2018 Lefty defeat but I might start with Muellers failures.

        1. You lose again.

          The judge rejected dismissal.for lack of proof.

          Trump trolls be bobbing and weaving. The end draws nearer. But this con gets you through today. Just like your idol. Bullshit today, because nobody will remember when it’s replaced with new bullshit later.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.