Reason Roundup

Luckily, Trump's Border Speech Was a Big Nothingburger: Reason Roundup

Democrats' response did produce some good memes.


Perhaps the most bizarre part of last night's widely televised presidential address is how surface-normal it all seemed. Sure, President Donald Trump spouted off a dizzying array of incorrect statistics and outright lies about illegal immigration and the situation on America's southern border. But he failed to let loose any of the fascist-leaning orders many were predicting after his administration started throwing the words "national emergency" around.

Trump also paid lip service, at least, to humanitarian motivations and goals.

And he delivered much of it in a rote, flat affect that induced an Uncanny Valley effect. There was no name-calling, no stream-of-consciousness. No glimmer in his eye to go with the demagoguery on all the bad things border-crossers do. A number of outlets are reporting that Trump really didn't want to do the speech.

"Watching Trump's flat delivery of sentiments that he can't possibly believe was the inverse of comforting," writes Alyssa Rosenberg at The Washington Post. "Instead, the address had the queasy effect of a serial killer's mask in a horror movie: It was a failed attempt to look normal that concealed something even more terrifying underneath."

(While we're on the topic of Post columns, you should definitely read Alexandra Petri's all-subtext version of Trump's address.)

This strange spectacle was blessedly brief and, unbelievably, followed by an even less credible attempt at coming across like human beings from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.). Or, as Petri put it: "The Democrats responded, in a long hallway, looking like something out of 'The Shining,' that the Government Shutdown Belongs In the President's Lap."

At least that one lent itself to some good memes.


NEXT: Brickbat: No Holiday for Parking Enforcement

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Luckily, Trump’s Border Speech Was a Big Nothingburger

    The factcheckers all had boners anyway.

    1. Hello.

      “Chuck. Wake up. You have to go on. Here’s a shot of LIFE.”

      “The coffin was jammed but we got Nancy out in time.”

      1. If nothing else this administration is showing just how foolish everyone in office is. Why anyone supports any of them us beyond me.

        1. Yea let’s all gather round and shout at the guy stopping illegal wars

          1. Hearing what Bolton said is going to ruin this uninformed clinger’s day (and argument).

    2. Has any other president explicitly made the point that African-Americans more than any other group are the ones who have to grin and bear the pain when loads of low-skilled off-the-books workers flood the labor market and drive down wages?

      1. Has any president explicitly made the point that non-Americans, more than any other group are the ones who have to grin and bear the pain when American borders are closed to their labor and products and so put people out of work?

    1. How else is a Democrat supposed to get re-elected if they are not giving away free shit?

      1. Arguments for shutting down the border: the Dems doing everything to let people illegally vote, have them count as ‘residents’ for Congressional redistricting to give the left more votes in the House, and constantly looking for more ways to spend tax $$ on immigrants – legal or otherwise.

        If Reason wasn’t on board with total extremism on the topic, they might want to address the above. Its going to create a backlash.

        1. You don’t get it Johnny. Penniless Guatemalans don’t come here for free stuff. And they’d never take a handout. And they’d never take amnesty. And even if they did, they’d never vote for the hand that gave them said free stuff. Also, libertarians would usually say it’s immoral to redistribute wealth via force, but the democrats are just so much less mean, it’s much more important to focus on the bad mouthed orange guy.

          It’s no one’s fault democrats openly promote socialism. It’s not like the poor disproportionately vote for democrats in every election. It’s just not human mature to want more for yourself.

        2. Former U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (“one of the most libertarian Democrats you’ll find,” says Reason Editor-at-Large Matt Welch) just assumed the governorship of Colorado.

          Matt Welch evidently said this.

          Either Matt Welch does not know what a Libertarians is or supports or….

          No that’s it.

  2. Megan McArdle on why we should pay people to donate kidneys.


    1. I have a few in the fridge.

      1. What species? I’ll trade you a ’98 Legacy wagon with 125k on the clock for anything upwards of baboon.

  3. Former U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (“one of the most libertarian Democrats you’ll find,” says Reason Editor-at-Large Matt Welch) just assumed the governorship of Colorado.

    Reason Editor-at-Large and noted TOTAL SQUISH.

    1. +10000

    2. If there were ever a reason to finally end FISA, this should be it. This was always the natural progression of secret courts; using them for political gain.

    3. Comey also, according to the letter, overlooked evidence that foreign actors had accessed Clinton’s emails, and probably those of her staffers, including at least one containing “Secret” information. That information, too, was excised from Comey’s draft exoneration memo for the purpose of helping Clinton. The only conclusion possible ? which Goodlatte and Gowdy do not state ? is that Comey’s FBI intentionally gave Clinton a pass when they should have recommended to the Justice Department that she be prosecuted.

      “No reasonable prosecutor ….”

    4. Trump is not of the body. Hillary is of the body. Therefore, protect Hillary and destroy Trump.

      1. The body analogy really fits. Our government is having an allergic reaction to Trump. Sometimes you get some pollen that is annoying but largely benign to your body, and the immune system just freaks out. Before you know it, this tiny particle that lodged itself in your sinuses has driven you to fits of sneezing and watery eyes. Indeed, for some people, an over abundance of white blood cells leads to a cascade of chemical releases from other organs, sending the entire body into shock.

        Time will tell if our government’s immune system (the DOJ) will eventually calm down over this newly introduced organism. But so far, a bloated DOJ has initiated the cascade from other organs of government, such that the entire host is literally shutting down.

        1. One of Mueller’s victims made the point that the body’s violent rejection of Trump is partly (mostly?) about putting fear into the heart of any other rich outsider who may get the idea that he can come in and mess with the nice gig the insiders have going. Basically, “We will destroy you and your family.”

          1. Or maybe most Americans — especially the educated, accomplished, reason-based Americans residing in modern, successful communities — dislike half-educated liars, superstitious rubes, and disaffected right-wing bigots?

    5. There are two things going on here. First Trump is a pretty smarmy character and a lot of the people he’s chosen to surround himself with are smarmy too. Some have probably actually committed white collar crimes. Are they worse than say, the Clintons or the Kennedys? Probably not but there may be real crimes to prosecute. The media, including Reason, do a great job of breathlessly reporting this story so every perjury trap or failure to register as a foreign agent becomes the crime of the century.
      The second thing is that the Obama administration used the Justice department to cover for the crimes of the Democrat candidate while illegally attempting to destroy the Republican candidate. This is not speculation or a conspiracy theory. It is in the public record available to anyone who bothers to look. It is by far the biggest political scandal of my lifetime and I watched the Watergate hearings live on TV as a teenager. The media, including Reason, don’t cover this story at all.
      I’d also point out that the Mueller investigation is a continuation of the bloodless coup that started with a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and used by the Obama administration to destroy their political rival. And for the record, I did not vote for Trump and have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate except Ron Paul. I am not a Republican and have to intention of becoming one.

  4. DNA clears accused Golden State Killer of 1975 murder

    The man accused of being California’s Golden State Killer has been cleared of involvement in the 1975 murder of a 14-year-old girl in the Central Valley, prosecutors said Tuesday.

    DNA testing excluded Joseph DeAngelo as a suspect in the murder of Donna Jo Richmond and ? along with other evidence ? indicates that another man was rightfully convicted of the slaying, according to a conviction review.


    This guy was accused and arrested for being a serial killer and was 100% not. I hope he sues and gets millions of dollars for being falsely accused of a crime.

    1. “This guy was accused and arrested for being a serial killer and was 100% not. I hope he sues and gets millions of dollars for being falsely accused of a crime.”

      DNA tied him to, like, 50 rapes and a couple of murders other than this specific murder.

      1. DeAngelo has been charged with 26 counts of murder and kidnapping. Prosecutors believe that he killed 13 people and raped dozens of others in six California counties in the 1970s and 1980s. The rape cases happened too long ago to be prosecuted, so prosecutors brought 13 related kidnapping counts. He is on trial in Sacramento County but hasn’t entered a plea.

        Jesus, you people will say anything to be wrong wont you?

        They also believed that he killed the girl he was just 100% cleared from.

        1. Who the fuck are “you people”? You probably think I’m brown or something, given that you’re a racist prick.

          What I said was accurate. He was tied to a bunch of rapes. He won’t be prosecuted for the rapes due to the statute of limitations, but the DNA still indicates that he committed the rapes. And it ties him to several murders. Just because there was at least one murder in California during that period that he didn’t commit doesn’t mean that he’s some falsely accused victim.

          1. Poor troll thinks “you people” means something racist rather than a bash of stupid people who script trolls.

        2. The DNA cleared the guy as well as implicated him so your point about mistrusting DNA analysis is confusing.

          1. No…Shoddy DNA assumptions got him arrested.

            DNA science cleared him.

            I smell a payday for this guy.

            1. If you’d read the fucking article you wouldn’t be looking like a fool right now.

              1. The fool is you, Fascitii.

                I added the article for that reason.

                The rapes all had their statutes of limitations pass.

                Murder has no statute of limitation, so make sure your ducks are in a row before arresting someone for murder. Especially being a serial murderer.

            2. No. Please read the details of this issue.

              DNA evidence linked him to a whole host of rapes. Because these all happened to be close to the place where this specific murder occurred, there was a theory that De Angelo also killed this girl. However DNA evidence (along with a review of the court case itself) has led prosecutors to conclude that he did not commit this one specific murder. He has not been exonerated of all wrong doing- just this one murder. And it was DNA evidence (in part) that led authorities to this conclusion[1].

              De Angelo remains in custody, pending his court case for the other kidnappings (since that is the only crime still within the statute of limitations).

              [1] The statement by authorities is much more nuanced than the article headline. They mention DNA, but also point out that all details of the prosecution (other evidence, transcripts of proceedings, etc) led to this conclusion. Given this nuance, I still think it is at least plausible that the authorities are just trying to cover their asses. But whatever. If this guy raped those other girls (trial pending), he will be put away for forever, and the original murderer is died in prison.

    2. I think you’re mistaken. The dude was cleared of killing a 14 year old but he’s still linked to a dozen other cases.

      1. Ed Gein was investigated and cleared in several missing person cases he was accused of.

        He confessed to the murders of Mary Hogan and Berenice Worden whose identifiable body parts were found in his home; he evidently collected body parts from eleven or so grave robberies.

        But being suspected of other crimes did not exonerate the crimes he definitely did do.

  5. …because awards can’t go to “adult products.”

    Awards are for children anyway.

    1. Orgasm is its own reward.

    1. The drug war says hi.

      1. There’s a lot of ways you could hold both beliefs. You could also just believe it’s a a wicked waste of money.

    1. Let’s just hope our bestest friends the communist Chinese don’t realize we’re fiscally insolvent anytime soon right 😉 Then we’d REALLY be in trouble!

  6. And he delivered much of it in a rote, flat affect that induced an Uncanny Valley effect.

    He was blinking S.O.S.

  7. “Watching Trump’s flat delivery of sentiments that he can’t possibly believe was the inverse of comforting,” writes Alyssa Rosenberg at The Washington Post.”

    Which sentiments can’t he possibly believe?

    The source of her delusions may be pathological, in which case maybe they can be properly diagnosed and treated. In the meantime, I’ll just diagnose her with TDS.

    1. In the meantime, I’ll just diagnose her with TDS.

      Creative diagnosis, Dr. Dull.

      1. Dull doctors can still be correct doctors!

        1. Seriously… ENB whines about not having to be outraged at a speech… Because it was mostly rational (if occasionally slanted, as most political speech is). Maybe stop buying into the Post/CNN/”orange man bad” hysteria and clutching at pearls. To much virtue signaling, not enough critical thought.

          1. Virtue signalling is the new Liberterianism though! So she MUST do it!

  8. Sorry lady, but Trump absolutely destroyed The Joker. Trump came off as calm, reasonable, and willing to compromise. The adult in the room.

    The Joker on the other hand, she came off as small, petty, and completely unwilling to compromise. He is going to win this fight in the court of public opinion, hands down.

    1. I didnt watch the stuff live but loving at clip later, Schumer and Pelosi are giving tells that they have no hand and are still betting, while Trump has the Royal Flush pulling them in.

      1. I’m sure this analysis will prove as accurate as your prediction of a “Red Wave.”

        Face it, the Drumpf Regime is falling apart. Americans are increasingly realizing that “border security” is a racist dog whistle. The Koch / Reason open borders position will prevail.

        1. “…. “border security” is a racist dog whistle ….”

          Tell that to Canada and Mexico who expect Americans to respect the sovereignty of their borders.

      2. Democrats cannot even steal that last House seat in North Carolina to get 236 House seats for the 116th Congress like the GOP controlled 115th Congress had.

        And Democrats lost 4 Senate seats.


        Trump is going to get more than 306 to 232 Electoral College votes for Election 2020.


    2. My local congresscritter is claiming her mail is running 5 to 1 to stand firm against Trump and his wall. Trump supporters need to contact their congresscritter and let them know which way the wind is blowing (if, in fact, the majority of Americans want the wall to be built.)

      1. Lefty Congressman (I am assuming that is what you have) will say whatever allows them to do what they want. She will never provide any supporting evidence of names who were for or against the wall, I’m sure.

        Congress can pass a veto overriding budget with 2/3 of each house of Congress.

        There are still plenty of RINOs left in the GOP but they know what will happen if they vote to undermine Trump’s push to break the Democrats down…again.

        1. She is, a newly elected one. Maybe she tells the media some falsehood but you can bet the staff keeps actual count. My point is that Wall and border security supporters need to let their congresscritter know, and not just bloviate on blogs.

          1. Definitely Creech. If you care about something, write your Congressmen. Traditional letters usually get me a more personal response. I assume because less and less people write letters.

            Emails via their website work too.

        2. Exactly I sent a letter to Feinstein once about her gun control proposal and her letter back essentially said thanks for writing but FYTW

  9. I have to disagree… I think it was good in that he addressed the charges of the wall being immoral head on instead of shying away from the hard questions. My only criticism of it was I wish it could have been longer, and more in depth. I would have really loved to hear his more in depth arguments for the wall and stopping illegals!

  10. “Watching Trump’s flat delivery of sentiments that he can’t possibly believe was the inverse of comforting,” writes Alyssa Rosenberg at The Washington Post. “Instead, the address had the queasy effect of a serial killer’s mask in a horror movie: It was a failed attempt to look normal that concealed something even more terrifying underneath.”

    This says much more about Rosenberg than it does the president.

    1. First it was Literally Hitler, but now that the concentration camps haven’t opened they’re switching to Literally Ted Bundy. The Post has totally jumped the shark.

      1. Can you even REMOTELY imagine them saying something like this about Obama? Or even Clinton???

        People who deny there are INSANE levels of media bias are fucking crazy themselves. Watching some of the writers at Reason talk about how the media ISN’T out to get Trump show how dumb, or how evil, they really are.

        1. Exactly. Its takes a really bad person to lie about what they are doing to involuntarily fuck you, why they are trying to fuck you, and lie about YOU being mistaken that they are trying to fuck you.

    2. That ENB would like to that quote reflects poorly on her sanity/objectivity as well.
      Trump is a decent speaker given prepared material. Tho I disagreed with much in his RNC acceptance speech, he delivered it well when he wasn’t ad libbing.

  11. LOL at Nancy as Bride of Frankenstein.

    Everyone knows she’s really the Bride of Godzilla.

  12. Another Black Man Has Died in the Home of Democratic Donor Ed Buck

    My name is Ed Buck and I’ve come to ______ .

    1. Oh man! Another one! I hate it when that happens.

      1. Back when Democrats ran slave plantations, they just buried the Ni& under the flowers.

        Now they might have to answer questions…someday.

    2. When someone dies, we should start playing “Six Degrees of Hillary Clinton”.

      1. Fun Clinton Fact sheet I found years ago:

        Below is a comprehensive list of 48 mysterious deaths connected to the clintons that have grave implications.
        1 ? James McDougal ? Clinton’s convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.
        2 ? Mary Mahoney ? A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
        3 ? Vince Foster ? Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
        4 ? Ron Brown ? Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
        5 ? C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
        6 ? Paul Tulley ? Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992? Described by Clinton as a “Dear friend and trusted advisor.”

        1. 7- Ed Willey ? Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
          8 ? Jerry Parks ? Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
          9 ? James Bunch ? Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a “Black Book” of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
          10 ? James Wilson ? Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.
          11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

          1. 12 ? Bill Shelton ? Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.
            13 ? Gandy Baugh ? Attorney for Clinton’s friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
            14 ? Florence Martin ? Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
            15 ? Suzanne Coleman ? Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
            16 ? Paula Grober ? Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
            17 ? Danny Casolaro ? Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

            1. 18 ? Paul Wilcher ? Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 “October Surprise” was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death
              19 ? Jon Parnell Walker ? Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
              20 ? Barbara Wise ? Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
              21- Charles Meissner ? Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
              22 ? Dr. Stanley Heard ? Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton’s advisory council personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.
              23 ? Barry Seal ? Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas, death was no accident.
              24 ? Johnny Lawhorn Jr. ? Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

              1. 25 ? Stanley Huggins ? Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
                26- Hershell Friday ? Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.
                27 ? Kevin Ives and Don Henry ? Known as “The boys on the track” case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
                28 ? Keith Coney ? Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988.
                29 ? Keith McMaskle ? Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
                30 ? Gregory Collins ? Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
                31 ? Jeff Rhodes ? He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
                33 ? James Milan ? Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to “natural causes.”
                34 ? Jordan Kettleson ? Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
                35 ? Richard Winters ? A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

                1. THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD: 36 ? Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37 ? Captain Scott J. Reynolds 38 ? Sgt. Brian Hanley 39 ? Sgt. Tim Sabel 40 ? Major General William Robertson 41 ? Col. William Densberger 42 ? Col. Robert Kelly 43 ? Spec. Gary Rhodes 44 ? Steve Willis 45 ? Robert Williams 46 ? Conway LeBleu 47 ? Todd McKeehan

                    1. I have a colleague who is best friends with one of Pantsuit’s college room mates and current confidant [whatever THAT means]; what does that make me, three degrees? Damn, better make sure my insurance is paid up.

                    2. Quo Usque Tandem

                      You’re on a list for being here AND on a list for being degrees from certain death?

                      Get the most life insurance you can.

                  1. love it. also, don’t most deaths have grave implications?

                2. “33 ? James Milan ? Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to “natural causes.”

                  Lol. Wf? For real?

                  Not that I’m surprised or anything.

                    1. Here is Snopes on the Milan case

                      This is my favorite entry. Remember that Arkansas medical examiner, the one I said wasn’t always the most conscientious investigator on God’s green earth? Yep, we’re about to see him again. Fahmy Malak listed James Milam’s cause of death as a perforated ulcer, adding that Milam’s small dog afterwards ate the dead man’s head, accounting for Milam’s headless condition.

                      Milam’s daughter-in-law insisted Milam was murdered. She claimed Malak showed her photographs of the headless corpse, and the neck was cut clean. The Milam family has not attempted to legally challenge the ruling because of the expense, so we’ll never know which way the cat jumps, ulcer or murder.

                      Whatever killed him, Milam died three months before the Ives and Henry murders. What are we supposed to believe here, that Clinton conspirators knocked off someone who “had information on the Ives and Henry deaths” three months before Ives and Henry actually died? Wow, talk about a preemptive strike!

                      It is a good point about the timing of the death, but “his small dog ate the head of the body and that explains why it looks like he was decapated” seems pretty ludacris to me. It appears he was murdered and the cops really didn’t want to investigate it. Make of that what you will.

                    2. I didn’t just read through the full list there… But I’ve seen stuff about many of those in the past.

                      Here’s the thing that gets me. I don’t know a SINGLE FUCKING PERSON who has had ANYWHERE near the number of strange deaths happen surrounding them in their entire lives. ESPECIALLY so many people that one seems to have an axe to grind with.

                      I’m getting close to being half way through my life, and I can only think of a handful of people I know that died period. Several of them could be turned into “suspicious circumstances” should somebody want to read into a car accident etc.

                      But that many people… With real and direct relationships with 2 people. It is just beyond what seems possible by statistical probability. Front line combat vets don’t have that many friends/colleagues killed.

                      So I ain’t sayin’ the Clinton’s have people whacked all the time… But I wouldn’t be surprised either.

                    3. That is the thing Vek. All of these events have an innocent explanation. But taken together it starts to get very strange. I know of no one in public life who has been associated with more than a few unnatural deaths and in most cases none at all. Yet, the Clintons are associated with dozens of them. Even if they had nothing to do with it, it is a very strange thing.

                    4. “I’m getting close to being half way through my life, and I can only think of a handful of people I know that died period.”

                      Yeah well, as the arrow of time continues that little observation will change. I’m going to go ahead and asume you are a latent serial killer waiting for the right moment to strike because people you know will die.

                    5. It is not die machine. It is knowing people who are murdered or died in strange and unnatural ways. Everyone knows people who have died and of course all of us are going to die eventually. Not everyone, however, seems to know a bunch of people who were murdered or committed suicide or died of an ucler and had their dog chew their head off.

                    6. @TheRealRedTony
                      Well that’s not what vek said, is it? I don’t know if vek appreciates you putting your ridiculous words down in place of his, but my observation is you can barely manage to do that for yourself. Unless, of course, you and vek are one and the same and you’re just jerking yourself off. Anyway, fuck off Tulpa.

                    7. Machine,

                      There is nothing ridiculous about anything I said. Your assertion that it is, is just you showing the board you are a moron but make up for it by being angry and stuborn and by lacking the ability to respond to reasonable arguments in a reasonable way.

                3. I like to say the difference between the Clinton cohorts and Trumps cohorts is that Trumps are alive

                  1. Yup, whether they’re having people killed all the time, or they just have the WORST LUCK picking their associates… It’s still weird. If I personally knew dozens of people who had offed themselves, or died under weird circumstances, I suspect It’d freak ME out after awhile!

                    I know a couple people who died in car related accidents. One person choked to death on vomit while sick. Vaguely know like 2 people who were murdered. I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head. I guess that means I might end up with under 10 people with remotely weird deaths by the time I die… The Clintons passed that number when they were barely older than me. Either bad luck, or they have people offed all the time IMO.

    3. At least he isn’t throwing away perfectly good white boys.

  13. Former U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (“one of the most libertarian Democrats you’ll find,” says Reason Editor-at-Large Matt Welch) just assumed the governorship of Colorado.

    Nobody cares about your stupid selfie, douchebag!

  14. A badly redacted court filing from Paul Manafort’s lawyers shows what special counsel Robert Mueller thinks…

    … about the Golden Globes?

  15. The Mysterious, Stubborn Appeal of Mass-Produced Fried Chicken

    Except for vegetarians and perhaps the hyperlipidemic, fried chicken is beloved nearly universally. And that’s a universe that includes some pretty discriminating palates?many of whom seem to prefer Popeyes over anything else. Anthony Bourdain was a vocal fan. Celebrity chefs like David Chang and Hugh Acheson sing its praises. The fried chicken experts MUNCHIES spoke to had plenty of compliments, too.

    “Popeyes has great fried chicken,” says James Beard Award-winning chef Ashley Christensen. “I like the level of salt in the chicken. They push it just enough. It’s got a touch of spice to it. The meat is super juicy.”

    Whether it’s a Michelin-rated kitchen or a hole-in-the-wall local legend, few can match Popeyes’s bird. Which is why some don’t even try: Last year, a Long Beach restaurant was busted for serving Popeyes chicken and ostensibly passing it off as its own. Poultry fraud is tough to defend, but this particular culinary con speaks to how Popeyes punches above its weight class in terms of quality.

    1. Why do so many accomplished chefs call Popeyes their favorite fried chicken?

      Because even top chefs can resist the urge to be smug foodie dickweeds.

  16. Speaker Pelosi said that the wall is immoral.
    Why isn’t she sponsoring legislation to have the existing wall removed?

    1. You mean, the one around Obama’s house?

      1. No, the one around her house.

    1. boy toy

  17. Os?, which Buzzfeed describes as a sex toy “that uses ‘biometric mimicry’ for hands-free vaginal and clitoral stimulation,”

    Thank god for technology. Ose is going to make sure millions of millennial progressive feminists don’t reproduce

    1. If they used the “biometric mimicry” of the nerds coding the device, you’re looking at a lot of frustrated millennial progressive feminists when they realize the device is nothing more than an electric toothbrush coupled with a random orbital sander.

      1. I hope they program Brad Pitt in there and cat ladies never resurface.

        Also, I think that an orbital sander with some lube would be a wild ride

    2. What’s the difference between this and sticking a vibrator in your cooter?

      1. Have you ever tried to push a vibrator into a credit card reader?

        1. Yeah, the cashier had a stroke. I still can’t figure what she was getting so hysterical about.

  18. This is one of the many reasons I’m thrilled about the #BlueWave.

    House Democrats Push Forward On Universal Gun Background Checks

    We Koch / Reason libertarians need to move toward the Democratic position on guns, just as Democrats are moving toward our position on immigration. The future of the progressive / libertarian alliance depends on it.


    1. You’re a Life Member, aren’t you? Just asking, [being one myself].

  19. Allison Williams dishes about the possibility of a Girls movie saying she ‘hopes for one’

    And Allison Williams opened up about the possibility of a Girls movie, while on Andy Cohen’s SiriusXM’s Radio show on Monday.

    The 30-year-old actress told the host that she ‘hope[s] for one’ and believes it would be ‘super fun.’

    Me too, A-Dubbs!

    1. Wasn’t that show basically a four or five-year run of showing Lena Dunham defecating in various locations?

      1. It’s basically a show about the vapidity of a certain Brooklyn hipster lifestyle.

  20. What’s the deal with Pelosi’s face? It doesn’t look real. I feel like if I put on a pair of sunglasses I found in an alley, I’d see her true appearance plus a bunch of propaganda slogans everywhere in Futura bold font.

    1. What’s the deal with Pelosi’s face? It doesn’t look real.

      There’s a reason why she and moobs faced head on to the camera: it was so you wouldn’t be able to see the cables going into the backs of their heads.

    1. “Such activities and situations include, but are not limited to, creation of excessive physical or psychological shock, fatigue, stress, injury, or harm,” the hazing policy states.

      Let’s go back to the ridiculous article from yesterday…

        1. No, not even if you play some adventure themed music in the background.

    1. We rule the world now. We ruled the world in the past. We will always rule the world, because we’re the stronger AND more capable of the sexes. It’s just a matter of us getting sick and tired of putting up with womens bullshit and putting our foot down. We could LITERALLY put all this nonsense back into the bottle inside of 48 hours if men wanted to. And god I hope we do someday.

      Feminine thinking run amok is in fact what is wrong with almost everything in the world today. The way women think about shit is fundamentally unworkable in the real world. They’re too soft, caring, and feelz oriented to sustain a functional society. There are some exceptions that are logical, but they’re far and few between.

      Sad but true!

  21. Trump’s delivery was horribly flat. He just deadpan read from the teleprompter. He made Obama look gifted with the prompter.

    As expected, he did very little but stoke fear about illegal immigration. He didn’t even bother with his weak “but some I presume are good people” cop-out. Every story was about how they are terrible people who bring crime and drugs and rape 16 year olds.

    Chuck and Nancy did a better job in delivering their speech, I thought. However they were too focused in their remarks on insisting on getting the government back open. I understand *they* think it’s important, but it’s not what is most important in light of all that is going on.

    1. Chuck and Nancy did a better job in delivering their speech, I thought.

      I guess when you put the bar on the floor it’s not hard to clear.

    2. So it really is a personality cult. All about delivery style, not the ideas. Funny stuff.

      1. I am not a porfessional media person and do not appear on TV. But, it seems to me that when still’s of one side’s speech are being memed all over the internet with captions like “People of Earth..”, that can’t be good.

        1. +1

          Try as they might, the media people are having a hard time making Trump seem abnormal.

          There was some fear mongering in there, but he didn’t declare martial law like we were in V is for Vendetta or something.

          Sooner or later, people are going to catch on that the people crying “wolf” are full of shit–and start making fun of them. And these are the people who are going to impeach Trump!

          In the end, they’re gonna end up being laughed like John Birch society types obsessing over fluoridation and reds under the bed.

          1. He gave a reasoned and passionate speech that explained his position and the stakes involved quite well. And rationally he wins the argument. The Democrats can’t claim to really be for border security and then turn around and claim that building a wall is immoral. That makes no sense. And you can tell they understand how weak their position is becuase 90% of their response was about the shutdown and poor government workers instead of border security, which they claim is the reason they won’t fund the government.

      2. All about delivery style, not the ideas.

        To be fair, it’s not like any of them actually have ideas.


          In the age of the internet, is this what winning on stle points looks like?

          1. To me, the most disconcerting image from that list is this one where it looks like they’re attempting to smile.

            Those faces are going to haunt my nightmares for the next couple of months at least. Thanks a lot.

            1. They look like something from Fear the Walking Dead. I understand they are old and it is hard for older people to look good on TV. But, my God, how do you look like that? It is just terrifying.

              1. It’s American Federal District Gothic.

            2. I’ll repeat: Trump was not the GOP candidate: he was the candidate of Republican primary voters who had had it with the usual and voted “none of the above” i.n 2016

              If that (Schumer and Pelosi as the faces of the Democrat National Party) keeps up, the Democrat primary voters will get their own “none of the above” candidate for 2020.

        2. Then let’s talk about THAT.

    3. It’s not Trumps fault that Hispanics are, by a LARGE margin, the 2nd most crime prone ethnic group in America after blacks.

      It’s also not his fault that the US had about ~2% Hispanics in the 1960s, and that the other ~14% or so who came here since then are illegal immigrants or the children of illegals. In short, Hispanics that have moved here since the 60s are responsible for 35% of murders in the USA, despite only being ~16% of the population. If that’s not increasing crime, I don’t know what is.

      So sayeth a part beaner whose family has been in the US since long before the 60s.

  22. So if the Soviets get polling data from Manafort that’s bad, but if they get it from say Adam Silver, that’s OK?

  23. From “Eight Minutes of Televised Trump Tonight Could Cause Chaos” to “Nothingburger”, and all Trump did was reiterate pretty much what he’s always said sans soundbites and commentary.

    I still don’t understand what the progressives were expecting. Calling a state of emergency to build a wall wouldn’t be the worst thing that our government’s done in the last 10 years either.

    1. Anything Trump does is the worst thing ever to happen in the last 100 years. The man uses KETCHUP for Gods sake!

      1. “Nothingburger” is journolist for “the speech went so well and hurt the Democrats enough that even we can’t spin it as something positive, so we will instead pretend it didn’t happen”.

        1. At times like this, I turn to my NPR Morning Edition attitude meter for a reading. It ranges from Giddy, through Chipper, Measured, and Downbeat, to Funereal, based on how well they think Trump fared the previous day. This morning the reading was “Downbeat.”

      2. There’s this thing called “catastrophizing”. I believe it’s a typical symptom of anxiety disorders. People assume that if something bad happens, typically failing at something, it will be a catastrophe, and they get so wound up, they can’t perform well–and fail. Meanwhile, the failure probably isn’t a catastrophe at all.

        I failed the test, and now I can’t be an engineer, and now I’ve failed my parents, and they won’t support me in school, and I’ll have to drop out of school, and I’ll have to take a job at Wal*Mart, and I’ll get fat, and no one will love me. We’re talking about feelings, expectations, and emotions, really, so pointing out it’s a slippery slope fallacy isn’t the answer. In a world of uncertainty, the question is how you fill in the blanks.

        Mostly, it’s about failing to see the blanks as they really are. Most engineers have bombed a test at some point. Your parents may not disown you for failing a test. Dropping out of school isn’t the worst thing that could happen to you, and working at Wal*Mart isn’t a life sentence. It’s practically impossible to get people suffering from anxiety to see this stuff as it is ahead of time, but no . . .

        Trump’s speech wasn’t a catastrophe, and if he builds a wall on our southern Border, that won’t be a catastrophe either. Trump being elected wasn’t a catastrophe, and if he’s reelected, that won’t be a catastrophe either.

        1. In the psych hospital where I worked, they might try to help such people with meditation. It was supposed to help them stop obsessing about the future and catastrophizing. Isn’t that like a California progressive kind of thing, meditation? Maybe that would help.

          1. Either that or weed should do it.

          2. CBT. Have you read The Coddling of the American Mind, Ken?

        2. Clinton’s two terms were catastrophic. He had 8 chances to kill or capture bin Laden and didn’t even try, resulting in 9/11/01. Then his “everyone should own a home” resulted in the housing bubble, which brought us the Great Recession.
          Some presidents can indeed be a catastrophy.

          1. Yes they can. Clinton just managed to push the catasrophy onto his successor.

          2. You want to make a rational argument that something is likely to be catastrophic, I might listen. Catastrophes are indeed possible.

            Some of these people have been living in non-stop catastrophic mode since November 8, 2016. There weren’t any good reasons to assume last night’s speech would be catastrophic, and the idea that building a wall on our southern border will be both catastrophic and ineffective is probably self-contradictory.

            Even if it were effective, it’s unclear to me that it would be catastrophic.

            If we had resisted the urge to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003 as we did in 1991, I believe 9/11 would have been less catastrophic. If we’d been less susceptible to catastrophic predictions if we didn’t invade Iraq in 2003, we might have avoided a lot of pain and misery.

            1. Having the benefit of hindsight makes catastrophes seem predictable, but the fact is that some of the world’s smartest and best-motivated people at Bear Stearns and Lehman bought New Century’s and other subprime lender’s portfolios at huge discounts to the value of the homes–and with tons of leverage–about a year later it destroyed them. The reason people often fail to see the path to a catastrophe is that the path ahead of us is never as clear as the path behind us. You had a whole year between the time New Century cratered and Lehman and Bear cratered to short assets and companies tied to subprime and home loans. Did you take advantage of it?

              Rational thinking can sometimes encompass the probability of catastrophes, but “catastrophic thinking”, like an anxiety disorder, is inherently irrational. Just because hundreds of millions of people all over the world really were conspiring to kill Hitler doesn’t mean Hitler wasn’t paranoid, and if catastrophic thinking is sometimes warranted, last night’s speech was a poor example.

              1. They called those loans, Ninja Loans.

                Everyone should have known.

                I saw it coming, so I set my investments to the safest and low risk investments I could find.

                I rode out ~1.5 years and then bought up every good investment that was cheap.

                1. People like Michael J. Burry made a fortune.

                  He would have made more but he had to settle to collect short sales because Wall Street hates to pay up on good bets that expose crony capitalism on Wall Street.

    1. Only if you’re lactose intolerant.

      1. Hot, lactose gassers > all other farts.

    2. I spilled milk on my baloney sandwich once. It was inedible after that.

  24. Trump’s Border Speech Was a Big Nothingburger

    Anyone who actually expected anything different is a moron.

    1. “I am surprised at how relieved I am that nothing real actually happened in Trump’s address tonight. Apparently I was actually worried”
      -Katherine Mangu Ward

      Reason: just a poor man’s Huffpo (with, generally, better commentors)

    1. NO! I’m looking forward to the “Everything Must Go” sale!

      1. Craftsman is at Lowe’s now, so what else do you want, a deal on a pair of Rockports?

        1. Oh, I go for the “fixtures”, plastic sheeting, stuff like that.

  25. If we don’t have the will to deport illegals, or even to stop feeding them and giving them rights and social services (e.g. free healthcare), then we certainly don’t have the will to build and staff a wall. In fact, the point of the wall is to never finish it to use as a pretext to round up and detain bad hombres indefinitely. They will say, “We can’t send them back – the wall isn’t built yet you idiot.” It is frightening to me personally because I am one of Trump’s bad hombres and my ‘homeland’ is Israel, at least according to him (even though Israel would reject me if I ever made it there).

    1. It’s easy to see why you would be rejected.

      1. Why are you trying to sow division and discord?

    2. I have the will to set up robotic 50 caliber machine gun turrets that cover 100% of the border… So it’s not my fault!

      I suspect we could program them to fire a warning shot and then tell the people to back the fuck up, or else they’ll be capped. I suspect we would rapidly end our illegal border crossings with such a method, and nobody would likely ever get shot anyway.

  26. “The Democrats responded, in a long hallway, looking like something out of ‘The Shining,’

    Beautiful. An in-depth analysis.

    1. The Demmy Twins: Hello. Come and play with us. Forever… and ever… and ever


    The totalitarian roots of “de-platforming” must be confronted. Winning an intellectual debate won’t stop it because the internet censorship struggle is over power rather than persuasion.

    Peterson mused: “…one of the things that I can’t fathom, in some sense, is the lack of imagination on the part of the people who are engaging in censorship of what they regard as hate speech…there’s an old military adage which is that if you invent a weapon it will be used by your enemy within 15 years. OK so why what makes the people on the left–because they’re the ones who are doing this–well, as you can clearly see in the Change the Terms website, what makes them so sure that exactly the same tactics won’t be used against them, like at the drop of a hat, once the tactics have been validated and put in place?”

    They can be sure, because they know they are totalitarians–and their opponents are not. They are willing to seize control by “any means necessary.”

    For that same reason Russian Cadets couldn’t stop Bolsheviks, Weimar Liberals couldn’t stop Nazis, Chinese Nationalists couldn’t crush Maoists, Iranian moderates couldn’t stop the Ayatollah, and George W. Bush couldn’t prevent 9/11.

    They failed to understand their enemies.

    1. The worst kind of totalitarians are the woke kind. The ones that don’t even realize they are so.

      Look at that messianic creep Tim Cook.

    2. No I’m pretty sure they understood their enemies. What they weren’t willing to do is to BECOME their enemies by adopting the same evil tactics as their enemies.

      If your argument is “you can’t beat the Nazis unless you’re also willing to put Jews into ovens”, then you’ve already lost.

      1. No they did not understand their enmies. If they would have, they would have done what was necessary to stop them. Killing someone who is going to kill you does not make you a murderer. So, they would not have become their enemies. The problem is that they didn’t understand the nature of their enemies and thus thought killing them was wrong. Killing them wouldn’t have been wrong.

      2. No I’m pretty sure they understood their enemies. What they weren’t willing to do is to BECOME their enemies by adopting the same evil tactics as their enemies.

        And they got crushed as a result.

        1. The problem is that Hitler or Mao doesn’t show up wearing a sign that says “I am Hitler”. And the consiquences of someone like that getting close to power are so grave that people naturally have a tendency to not want to believe that they are even if they spell it out in so many words. Normal people don’t want to kill their political enemies. To be confronted with enemies who cannot be reasoned with and can only be dealt with by killing them or imprisoning them is an awful position. Worse than that, the only way to stop them is to kill them before they do harm. But, when you do that, you then never live the counterfactual of them doing harm and thus are forever haunted by the possibility that they were not really who you thought they were. So, people engage in confirmation bias and do everything not to see what is in front of them.

          In the end, there is no winning. If you do nothing, they take over and horrible tragedy results If you do what is necessary and kill them, the tragedy is avoided but you are forever remembered as the terrible killer who murdered those well intentioned idealists. Pinochet saved Chile from becoming Cuba. And his reward was to be remembered as a great villain. Sometimes it just really sucks to be you.

          1. This is pretty much true. IMO, there’s a point at which it is pretty obvious the “other guy” will do some shit that is so horrible it is best to just kill them. I think a lot of rational people can look at a Franco or Pinochet and see that out of two bad alternatives, they were far and away the better one, because in the real world the theoretical best option is often not on the table.

            Personally, I’m pretty sure the US is getting mighty close to that point. In truth, if we keep going on the same trajectory as we are now with the leftist insanity, and in 5 years Trump declares a state of emergency and rounds up shit tons of Democrats… As long as he gives them proper trials before their hanging, which is the American thing to do… I wouldn’t really have a problem. They’ve all violated their oath of office, to defend the constitution. They’ve willfully worked their hardest to subvert it. And a million other things, including many actual statutory crimes, many of which are punishable by imprisonment, or in some cases execution.

            We’ll see how shit goes down… But unless something drastic changes, we’re probably going to NEED a purge to save America from disappearing forever. Keep in mind the Founding Fathers had to knock heads to set this country up in the first place, and there’s no reason to think we won’t have to do it again to keep it.

            1. The thing that scares me about today is how casually the left dehumanizes its opponents. Take a typical leftist rant about “white men” or “white people” and substitute “Jew” and it reads exactly like the things that Nazis were saying in the 1920s. The thing is that white people and white men are not Jews. They are not some long despised powerless minority. There are millions of them and they are often armed. And the more the left casually dehumanizes them, the easier it is for them to dehumanize the left. That isn’t going to end well if we are not careful.

              1. Depends on what you mean by “end well.” Personally, I hope the left starts a violent uprising. IMO a lot of the extreme leftists need to be killed in order to set shit straight. Being the nice guy I am, I don’t want to throw the first punch… But I’d LOVE to throw the last punch.

                But yeah, tactically, they’re idiots. The Jews were a small minority. Small minorities are easy to pick on. They Jews ALSO weren’t especially known for being into whopping ass. Messing with the MAJORITY population in a country, that IS known for kicking peoples asses… Not the best idea.

                I am 110% sure if it comes to violence the left will get stomped into the dirt so fast it will make your head spin.

          2. One of the best critiques of Jonah Goldberg’s silly “Liberal Fascism” book pointed out how Goldberg consistently overlooked the will to power that most totalitarian movements and their leaders possessed.

            There’s this delusion amongst the Comfortable Class that people are always reasonable and are willing to compromise. So when they come up against someone who sees that worldview as a weakness, they happily continue to acquiesce to demand after demand until they’ve completely lost any leverage or rights they once possessed.

            1. Goldberg is so annoying he causes me to defend Progressives. It is true that Progressives looked at a lot of the central planning and economic views of fascists with envy. It is also true that they made excuses for Hitler and Mussoulini as well meaning nationalists. What Goldberg fails to understand or dishonestly fails to mention is that in the 1930s people didn’t know how things were going to turn out. They didn’t know that fascism was going to result some of the worst crimes against humanity in history. So, “fascism” to them doesn’t mean the same thing that it does to us today knowing how things turned out.

              Of course the fascists were pretty clear about what they were going to do and the Progressives just ignored them and didn’t think they meant it for the reasons you say and I outline above. Were Progressives guilty of willful moral blindness? Absolutely. Were they fools not to take the fascists at their word? Maybe but it is easy for us to judge that now when unlike them we know with certainty that the fascists really meant what they said. But whatever they were, they were not “fascists” in any meaningful sense of the word. Goldberg’s book is just a slander. He took what is known to anyone with any knowledge of the subject, namely that communism and facism were two sides of the same evil coin, and turned it into a nasty slander. He is no better than the Progressives that he claims to hate.

              1. The truth is too that other than Hitler, all the other fascists weren’t actually that bad. Not by REAL historical standards. They were pretty par for the course.

                Mussolini, Franco, and guys like Pinochet etc one could argue were fascists… They didn’t MASS MURDER people. They merely rounded up mostly actual communists trying to take over their countries. They restored order. They held shit down. They weren’t super nice about it, but they were no worse than most monarchies, or even many democracies have been.

                He is right that the Comfortable Classes don’t seem to understand that compromise is not always possible when dealing with some people. The right in America has given away the farm, and got NOTHING in return because they fell for the same trick for 100 years in a row.

                Trump, for all his flaws, seems to have finally realized there is no dealing with the left, other than forcing them to comply.

    3. Sun Tzu nailed it.

      1. Master Sun nailed a lot of stuff.

          1. Probably. I’m sure badass ancient Chinese generals got to have a pretty decent collection of concubines.

    4. “…one of the things that I can’t fathom, in some sense, is the lack of imagination on the part of the people who are engaging in censorship of what they regard as hate speech…”

      One of the things that I can’t fathom, in some sense, is the lack of imagination on the part of the people who equate Internet deplatforming with acts of war.

      1. The reason they are deplatforming is that they think the speech is violence and want it eliminated entirely. Deplatforming is just the begining. If they were saying “we don’t want this speech on our platform but it can go somewhere else” and meant it, you would have a point. But that is not what they say or what they mean. They mean to prevent the speech from happening at all. The deplatorming is just the only means available to them right now. But when and if other means become avialable to them, they will use them.

        1. But when and if other means become avialable to them, they will use them.

          Prove it.

          1. I am taking them at their word. Show me where they have ever said anything otherwise. Why would they? How can you reconcile what they are saying about the speech being violence with them not wanting to eliminate it?

            What have they done to deserve the benefit of the doubt here?

            1. I am taking them at their word.

              Then provide examples of:

              1. Where they stated it.
              2. Proof they have the ability.

              1. You provide me examples of where they said they were okay with the speech being on other platforms. They are going to great lengths to deplatform speech they don’t like. The burden is on you to show that they don’t really mean it and just don’t want to be associated with the speech. If you ban speech from your platform and call it violence, it is reasonable to assume you don’t want it on other platforms. If that is not the case, it is up to you to make that clear not me to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean well.

                1. You provide me examples of where they said they were okay with the speech being on other platforms.

                  No, you made a claim. It’s apparent that you can’t back it up.

                  They are going to great lengths to deplatform speech they don’t like.

                  Big deal, start a competitor.

                  The burden is on you to show that they don’t really mean it and just don’t want to be associated with the speech.

                  No it isn’t, regardless of how much you want it to be. You’re familiar with the concept of shifting the burden of proof judging by how pissed off you get when people do it to you.

                  If you ban speech from your platform and call it violence, it is reasonable to assume you don’t want it on other platforms.

                  Irrelevant unless you can show how owners of one platform have control of all platforms.

                  If that is not the case, it is up to you to make that clear

                  I’ll assume that the ‘you’ in this sentence is some platform owner. Even in that case, it is not on anybody to justify their intentions to you.

      2. Yeah, because censorship is SUCH a great value to hold up!

        If it were ONE company doing this, fine. But it is literally a coordinated effort on the part of basically every major tech and media company. This has been shown to be plainly true from both leaked documents, and them simply all magically deciding to ban people on the same day, etc.

        It’s basically cartel like behavior to push a political agenda… And one that happens to be horrible, and awful, and tyrannical. That some people have enough brains to see that this is just the beginning doesn’t mean they lack imagination… It means they HAVE imagination and can see the future before it happens.

        1. Yeah, because censorship is SUCH a great value to hold up!

          Show me where I posted that.

          And one that happens to be horrible, and awful, and tyrannical

          That’s not an overreaction at all.

          That some people have enough brains to see that this is just the beginning doesn’t mean they lack imagination

          No, what shows their lack of imagination is their complete inability to form any sort of competition. Easier to just devolve into shouting about murdering your enemies before they murder you.

          1. In a vacuum it would be an overreation… But in the real world as it exists, I don’t know that it is. Rabid leftists have taken over the media, the tech industry, academia, the permanent bureaucracy at all levels of government, etc. They’re not playing fair, they’re vigorously pushing an agenda. They took over all this stuff not by merit, but largely by intentionally subverting things, and being nepotistic in hiring etc.

            It is a problematic situation dude. If you don’t think so, you must not be a very good judge of things.

            As for creating competition… People are trying, and have been. With media, it has gone fairly well. Conservative/libertarian media is completely black balled from polite society, but it is massive on the internet. But most other “tech” platforms happen to lend themselves to being monopolies or duopolies, and unfortunately nobody with a real free speech bent has managed to really start anything of much significance. Even a few conservative/libertarian leaning tech guys have basically had terms dictated to them in companies where they’re major shareholders or founders. That’s what styming orthodoxy will do I guess…

            But hopefully their tyranny gets so bad that Facebook/Twitter/YouTube will break themselves a-la Myspace and something better will take its place. I wouldn’t count on it anytime soon though.

  28. Former U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (“one of the most libertarian Democrats you’ll find,” says Reason Editor-at-Large Matt Welch)…

    Not exactly a high bar to clear. It’s only a couple of inches off the ground and most of those twits can’t clear it.

    1. “one of the most libertarian Democrats you’ll find”

      Talk about damning someone with faint praise.

    2. Well, shit. We’re moving to Colorado this year and this does not fill me with confidence.

  29. They can be sure, because they know they are totalitarians–and their opponents are not.

    Yet. Once we’re guaranteed somebody’s totalitarian state the above will no longer be true. The left’s opponents can’t risk that.

  30. >>>incorrect statistics and outright lies about illegal immigration and the situation on America’s southern border

    as nice as I can possibly make this sound, what exactly are the *correct statistics and outright truths* about illegal immigration and the situation on America’s southern border?

    1. As best I can gather from reading far too many Shikha diatribes on the subject, any statistic or fact which makes illegals look bad automatically assumes the status of Bald-Faced Lie, while any statistic or fact which which makes them look good is instantly accepted as the Gospel Truth.

      1. That’s about it. Reason selectively reports the valid stats in such a way that there is NO WAY they cannot know the general image they’re trying to push is wildly different than reality. Explain how Hispanics can be responsible for more than twice their portion of the population in terms of murder rates, while ALSO committing less crime? Ohhhh, because black murder rates are even worse. But you’ll never hear Reason give a balanced argument that puts the full facts out there.

        I guess “Hispanics are only the 2nd worst crime committing ethnic group in the USA… But they’re better than blacks!” doesn’t have quite the same ring as “They commit fewer crimes than your average American” which happens to include native born blacks and Hispanics, hence throws the stats.

        1. So you expect Reason writers to be a bunch of racial collectivists?

          If you want racial collectivism, there’s plenty of websites out there that will cater to your desires. I am glad that Reason has chosen a different path.

          1. Don’t give me that bullshit. They’re pushing an agenda. They use collectivized arguments ALL DAY LONG to push for things, like immigration. They use statistics they think serve their case, and then blatantly ignore other valid stats that would make one question the practical wisdom of mass illegal immigration.

            If you can’t allow all facts to be known in a debate, and still feel confident that your side will win the debate… You don’t have a strong argument. This is the same problem progs have, since all their positions are garbage. Libertarians are right about MOST things, but there are a few areas where purist ideology will create negative results in the real world. They may be morally correct, but have bad practical results.

            I don’t know how anybody can expect a single rigid set of moral values to ALWAYS produce the best practical results 100% of the time anyway.

            The truth is, sometimes a person would be better off shooting somebody and stealing their shit. It’s morally wrong, but can often times be practically correct. Now, IMO one should only consider such action in a life and death situation, and maybe not even then, but it simply shows that being moral is not ALWAYS the best practical way to handle your shit.

            Morally right, and practically right are two completely different things. In libertarian thought they line up most of the time… I just hate how Cosmotarians are pretending they’re in alignment 100% of the time.

  31. Looking around for the “chaos” from some speech last night, finding my morning coffee (and damn MS “updates”).

  32. Sooo WaPo just randomly says the president is like a serial killer… Because he delivered a normal, bland, political speech. But there’s no bias in the media! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    I didn’t actually watch his little speech, but he has always been dodgy when he’s not doing it off the cuff. I guess we’ll have to wait longer for that sweet national emergency declaration 🙁

    Personally, I think he should have trotted out “Oh, and we’re not giving back pay to federal employees this time. I will veto any bill that includes it, unless I get my wall pronto. At least I’m trimming the deficit!” back in December… But better late than never would be good!

  33. You want to talk about something that might not be a catastrophe but sure as hell do a lot of damage to the economy?

    “45 members of Congress [are backing] a “Green New Deal” proposal by Ocasio-Cortez that calls for 100 percent renewable electricity within 10 years and investments in clean energy jobs, among other things.”…

    Nancy Pelosi squelched it, but if Pelosi’s looking for a catastrophe, she might look to the one in her own party. 100% renewable electricity in ten years! That’s political suicide–and isn’t that now very much in the bounds of the Democrat mainstream?

  34. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……

  35. “…Jared Polis (“one of the most libertarian Democrats you’ll find” says Reason Editor-at-Large Matt Welch)….”

    If Jared “gun control” Polis is in any way, shape, or form libertarian, then one can safely conclude there aren’t any libertarians in the Donkey Party.

    Welch’s statement also lends support to the theory that most libertarians nowadays are just progressives who hate high taxes and zoning regulations.

    1. The Reason Libertarians are libertarians to the exent that being so helps whatever their pet cause. Since they are nearly all urban hipsters, they are libertarian when it comes to things that matter to urban hipsters, uber, food trucks, zoning, immigration, gay marriage, trannies, abortion and so forth. When it comes to things like guns and religious rights and other unfashionable causes that don’t matter to urban hipsters, they suddenly become a lot less libertarian.

      1. Reason staff are mostly self-admitted Anarchists and Leftists.

        It really does not matter what they self-identify anyway. You can pick out Libertarians from what they say.

    2. “one of the most libertarian Democrats you’ll find”

      “Smartest guy at the Special Olympics”
      “World’s tallest midget.”

    3. Here’s the thing though, I don’t think it is most libertarians… It think the major libertarian organizations, like Reason, have all been taken over by the same progressive types as the MSM and academia. Granted with a few legit libertarian positions mixed in.

      In my personal life, probably 80-90% of libertarians I have met were right-libertarians… Yet left-libertarians dominate all the important institutions nowadays. Just as Americans at large are far more conservative than the MSM, so too are most libertarians more libertarian than our institutions.

      One need look no further than the comments section here. I’d say it’s probably 90% are more right/centristy on all the typical Reason Cosmotarian hard on issues… Some by a little, some by a lot. Probably 50% or so are CONSIDERABLY far to the right on them. And yet most of these people are largely libertarian, they’re just not into all the proggie virtue signalling bullshit.

      We’ve let the prog-tarians take over all our shit… And things like Reason should be taken back if at all possible.

      1. Because this is such a totally libertarian point of view, amirite?

        vek|1.9.19 @ 11:02AM|#

        In truth, if we keep going on the same trajectory as we are now with the leftist insanity, and in 5 years Trump declares a state of emergency and rounds up shit tons of Democrats… As long as he gives them proper trials before their hanging, which is the American thing to do… I wouldn’t really have a problem.

        1. Trials are unlibertarian?

        2. Treason is a thing Jeff. Why didn’t you quote the part about how IMO many Democratic (and Republicans too!) politicians have broken both statutory laws which can carry long jail sentences, or even death, AS WELL AS their oath to protect and defend the constitution. Cuz I did say that bit about breaking laws and oaths, which kind of matters in a nation of laws…

          If somebody were caught giving military secrets to an enemy foreign power, is that not a punishable offense? Well I think a lot of politicians have done a lot of things that are worthy of prosecution. In both parties as I said above.

          Sometimes systems become so corrupt they need a purge. Preferably you do it in a lawful manner. If not, oh well. Systems ALL naturally become corrupted over time. I think we’re pretty damn close to that point myself.

          Several founding fathers made comments that support MY position, so that’s good enough for me.

    4. progressives who hate high taxes and zoning regulations identifying as progressive

  36. >>>I am surprised at how relieved I am that nothing real actually happened in Trump’s address tonight. Apparently I was actually worried.

    gotta stop w/the actuallys

    1. considering the media and some pundits and others were claiming he was going to declare martial law it was a total let down

  37. It took two democrats to counter Trump and they still failed they did not have one fact to contradict Trumps facts

  38. “dizzying array of incorrect statistics and outright lies”



    LOL. It’s been interesting to see over the last year that Reason is “in” on the current version of journolist or whatever, always aping the chosen talking points of the day.

  39. Ruth Bader Ginsurg’s consecutive “sick day” count: now at 3 and rising.

    1. stuck in loop watching biopic. thinks life flashing before her eyes.

    2. Any bets on who Trump will nominate to replace RBG?

  40. Those pics of Schumer and Pelosi – are they fake? Not the Frankenstein one, obviously, the other two?

    If not, what the hell is wrong with these people? Have they never looked at themselves on camera? Did they not at least rehearse this beforehand so they could see how weird those two look? Schumer’s head is *enormous*. That *has* to be ‘shopped.

    1. They are real. And they are bizzare.

  41. President Donald Trump spouted off a dizzying array of… outright lies about illegal immigration
    Didn’t watch and probably never will.
    Did Trump actually lie, or is ENB just really mad and twisting shit again?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.