Reason Roundup

Kamala Harris Wants to Revive the ERA: Reason Roundup

Plus: Democrats move to make ad targeting illegal, and more on Elizabeth Warren's child care proposal

|

Everett Collection/Newscom

One of President Kamala Harris' first orders of business would be to accomplish a second-wave feminist dream, according to comments she made during a live podcast taping in Iowa last weekend. Asked what she would do for women during her first 100 days if she won the presidency, Sen. Harris (D-Calif.) said: "Passing the ERA, let's start there."

That would be the Equal Rights Amendment, a long sought and mostly symbolic measure saying that women have the same rights in the U.S. as men. ("Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.") For this to make sense in 2019, you have to assume that all of the mentions of mankind, etc., in the Constitution don't currently include women and that only documents and laws officially referencing women do.

Some ERA advocates will point out that in practice, women still face discrimination. But that's not for lack of legal guidance, and adding another federal mandate isn't going to make everyone in the country not sexist.

It's telling, however, that Harris' answer here was to focus on a go-nowhere ra-ra-girl-power measure rather than anything that could actually improve women's lives. Criminal justice reform? Over-the-counter birth control? Stopping the separation of immigrant mothers from their children? Nah—something that sounds nice, changes nothing, and endears her to all those deep-pocketed boomer feminists and the kind of women who hold protest signs that say "If Hillary were president, we'd be at brunch."

The ERA needs the approval of 38 states to be ratified. So far, it has never been able to get past 37.

During the podcast, Harris also signaled that she would introduce nationwide public-school kindergarten and "a national policy for affordable childcare."

FREE MINDS

Bad digital regulations abound. Thailand is cracking down on the internet, with what "internet freedom activists have called…'cyber martial law,'" reports Reuters.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Democrats are pushing a "data privacy" bill that would bar businesses, nonprofits, and others from targeting ads toward specific demographic groups. The law is being pushed as somehow anti-discriminatory, but it would effectively prevent groups—including those geared at only women, LGBTQ people, people of color, immigrants from a certain area, or whatever category—from explicitly targeting the people they want to reach.

FREE MARKETS

Crowding out home child care. Niskanen Center analyst Samuel Hammond tweets us through the flaws in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's child care proposal. Click through for the whole thread.

QUICK HITS

  • Joe Biden remains mysteriously popular.
  • Good news:
  • Greetings from CPAC:

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.

192 responses to “Kamala Harris Wants to Revive the ERA: Reason Roundup

  1. Joe Biden remains mysteriously popular.

    It’s been a while since the voting public at large saw him open his mouth.

    1. Or use his hands.

      1. “This group is the 2020 presidential candidates. Note how most of them are jumping up and down and hitting themselves in the head with ping pong paddles and screaming incoherently about extreme policy positions. That guy standing over there looking kind of….normal is Joe Biden”

        Mysteriously popular? Nah.

        1. Well, he called Pence a decent man so those numbers should drop very soon

          1. Most Americans should not object to being courteous to a stale-thinking relic unable to abide modernity during whatever period of time that old-timer has left.

            1. That’s why I’m always nice to you, buddy

          2. Instantly genuflecting before the LGBTQ twitter mob at the first hint of any wrongthink will surely do wonders for his poll numbers among the working class in Ohio and Pennsylvania…

        2. It’s that simple. if you look at the field of candidates, Sanders is socialist. Warren has lied about her race for 30 years to the point she got the Cherokee upset (and they don’t publicly comment that much), and all the rest of the candidates are so far out of left field that they support the not only financially but physically impossible Green New Deal.

          Compared to all of them, Biden is the peak of normalcy. He’s the safe, boring choice. From polls, that’s what much of America wants right now. An end of interesting times.

        3. Another plus for Biden with the general public is that he doesn’t virtue signal… too often anyway.
          When public figures like Booker and Harris play Grand Inquisitor Ximenes, they come off as massive hypocrites. So Old Joe comes off as genuine and honest by omission.

  2. “Passing the ERA, let’s start there.”

    That would be a great thing to consume not only her first 100 days but her entire term.

    1. Yes.

      And if she finishes that early, she can turn her talents toward getting a federal law against lynching.

      1. The anti-lynching law is especially necessary now with Drumpf supporters roaming the streets looking for victims. The attempted modern-day lynching of Jussie Smollett was barely a month ago, and the perpetrators are still at large.

        #IBelieveJussie

        1. Are you lysdexic? I think you meant to say “Victims roaming the streets looking for victims Drumpf supporters.”

      2. “Indeed, the surname L*nch should be banned as a horrible relic of our past!”

        1. And the midday meal should no longer be called “lunch” since that’s too close to “lynch”.

          1. Worked for “niggardly”.

            1. Don’t be niggling either

          2. Kamala better not launch a campaign with that as the linchpin issue, it’s a cinch somebody else would clinch the nomination.

      3. “And if she finishes that early, she can turn her talents toward getting a federal law against lynching.”

        I dunno about you, but I’ve been busting my ass trying to get all my lynching finished before they make it illegal.

        1. When right-wingers claim ‘Republicans aren’t bigoted,’ do they expect anyone to believe it?

          (Not all conservatives are bigots, but essentially all of them appease bigotry, which is enough to brand the Republican Party with bigotry for at least a generation. Any of you guys ever talk with someone younger than 50?)

          1. Probably at the same level that we shouldn’t believe that hicklibs aren’t 85-IQ self-loathing losers.

          2. Kirkland, did you reply to the wrong post? Because your response to what I said is nonsensical.

            Then again, most of your posts are nonsensical, so maybe it’s just you being you?

  3. explicitly targeting the people they want to reach.

    if laws are advertisements that politicians run to sell themselves for future elections then this law self-combusts.

    1. Didn’t the Democrats boast about Obama’s data advantage in his campaigns? Why the FUCK do they think he HAD that for?

  4. adding another federal mandate isn’t going to make everyone in the country not sexist.

    But if this mandate has *teeth*….

    1. It’ll bite

  5. Why there are 5 lights and 67 genders:

    “Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
    — Anthony Daniels

    1. The Appendix in “1984” springs to mind also.

      1. A good deal of the literature of the past was, indeed, already being transformed in this way. Considerations of prestige made it desirable to preserve the memory of certain historical figures, while at the same time bringing their achievements into line with the philosophy of Ingsoc. Various writers, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens, and some others were therefore in process of translation: when the task had been completed, their original writings, with all else that survived of the literature [and statues, etc] of the past, would be destroyed.

      2. Having locked down the war is peace principle, the US is now going full ignorance is strength. Never go full ignorance is strength. That just leads to freedom is slavery, which a lot of Americans already buy into.

    2. A million times this.

      Social justice, climate change, subjective gender-identities, etc., are only means to the end of pure power. Like the man says, A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.

      1. Damn. I’ve never heard that before. A perfect way to describe a progressive male.

    3. Like I pointed out in response to John bringing up David’s “Death of Marat,” the lines in his note in that painting are the perfect example of the leftist mind:

      Detail of The Death of Marat showing the paper held in Marat’s left hand. The letter reads (in French) “Il suffit que je sois bien malheureuse pour avoir droit a votre bienveillance” or in English, “Given that I am unhappy, I have a right to your help”

      Leftists have been miserable, entitled, solipsistic assholes during their entire existence. They haven’t changed in 230 years.

    4. ++100 for Star Trek reference.

  6. “Passing the ERA, let’s start there.”

    i guess she gets voros mccracken’s vote

  7. Fun with socialism at CPAC: Rep. Jordan tells a crowd that this the crop of Dem 2020 contenders are doing what Democrats have NEVER DONE BEFORE: running as socialists instead of centrists. Minutes later, Matt Schlapp mentions the “eight years of socialism we had under Obama”
    ? Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) February 28, 2019

    Technically Obama wouldn’t necessarily have had to run as a socialist to govern as a socialist. Hashtag: WellActually#

    1. Where’s your monocle?

      1. No longer necessary due to free ocular sugary under medicare for all,
        Of course, I had to wait 10 years to get the operation, and it failed to improve my vision, but I am now prohibited from wearing the monocle so no one finds out it failed.

  8. “No one in this case was arrested on suspicion of sex trafficking, forced labor, compelling prostitution, or any other charge that implies force, fraud, or coercion in the arrangement.” — @ENBrown’s latest. https://t.co/3ln9n3AXqn
    ? Matt Welch (@MattWelch) February 28, 2019

    Leave the PR work to law enforcement.

  9. ENB citing a Welch tweet citing ENB.

    1. Hah!

    2. Bee Tagger noting ENB citing a Welch tweet citing ENB

      1. Just Say’n noting Bee Tagger noting ENB citing a Welch tweet citing ENB

    3. Just wait until Fruit Sushi’s book comes out. Set spam filters to high.

      1. Haha. +1000

  10. NEW HAMPSHIRE
    If the Democratic primary for president were held today …
    (UNH Granite State Poll, likely 2020 Democratic primary voters, 2/18-26/19) pic.twitter.com/BwnNSAjUQo
    ? PollingReport.com (@pollreport) February 28, 2019

    Everyone would be caught off guard.

    1. Jay Inslee, Washington State Governor, is running for President.

      Who???????????????

      1. Another clown throws his big floppy shoes into the clown car!

      2. He needs to run away as fast as he can, because we fucking hate him.

  11. RIP: “Free Minds and Free Markets”

    Long Live:

    “If Hillary were president, we’d be at brunch.”

    1. Where is that from?

      1. ENB made a mocking mention above that it was a sign she saw at a Women’s Protest against Trump. She’s speaking derisively against the people who weird such banal statements.

        1. It sounds like a sign that reporters would create and no one would disagree with

    2. Are they implying that Trump outlawed brunch?

      Because I am not seeing why the President would have any bearing on eating plans one way or the other.

      1. “Oh, very well. ‘If Hillary were president, we’d be shopping for shoes.'”

      2. The problem is that I like lox and bagels for brunch, but they don’t serve that anymore. Only someone with “dual loyalty” would order such a thing.

        h/t Ilhan Omar

    3. “If Hillary were president, we’d be at a soup kitchen.”

      “If Hillary were president, we’d be at war with Russia.”

      “If Hillary were president, she’d have a private email server.”

      “If Hillary were president, you’d be sorry.”

  12. she would introduce … “a national policy for affordable childcare.”

    Is this another aspect of the “living wage” or “guaranteed income”?

    1. Think mandatory abortions.

      1. “Oh. ……… OOOOHHHH!!”

        /Edith Bunker

      2. To ensure equality of outcomes, mandatory abortion for everyone!
        No age discrimination either, they’ll be done to the 400th trimester.

  13. “The knitting community is reckoning with racism”

    https://tinyurl.com/y4to2p49

    1. Fiber artists of color

      Nice band name.

      “Multiple times you compare the idea of going to India to the idea of going to another planet ? how do you think a person from India would feel to hear that?”

      “Like a person from another planet, DUH!”

      1. I guess Knitters of Color just implies something else. Or else the acronym is too close to the Knights of Columbus. Those guys are always ready to rumble.

        1. The Knights of Columbus are the WORST. When they use to battle the Klan in the early 20th century and built statues and murals to Columbus, who was despised by the Klan, they only did that because they felt threatened by the Klan moving in on their racism racket. Those extremists and their coat drives and their charity to mental disabled kids- it just infuriates me.

          1. My reasons are much more straightforward: I hate pancake breakfasts.

            1. More like “Pancake HATEfast”, am I right?

              Seriously, though, charity is worse than Hitler

            2. and their fish fries

              1. That is actually offensive. Fish is disgusting.

            3. What kind of evil human hates pancake breakfasts? That was the best part of growing up Catholic.

            4. I’m a Knight of Columbus. I’m not involved at all now, but early on I washed pots and pans at fish frys.

              And I didn’t even get to use it to signal my virtue.

  14. (“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”)

    (Shirtless at the beaches!)

    1. (Free masculine hygiene products!)

    2. Wait a minute. Should that say sex or gender?

      1. Now you’ve done it, Fist! YA “National Conversation”!

        1. The amendment would be outdated and problematic before it’s even enacted!

      2. Rule of Thumb:

        Sex and gender are only interchangeable when convenient. Hence when Title IX says “sex” it really means “gender”, because reasons. But, when Harris talks about “sex” she means “sex”, unless told otherwise.

        Didn’t you even go to college?

        1. I was home schooled and home colleged!

    3. The shirtless at the beach problem only exists because lawmakers are sloppy in their language. An ordinance that bans the presentation of sexual characteristics can be applied equally to males and females and still require bikini tops for women.

      1. But, topless beaches is the most pressing issue of our times

      2. “My entire body is an erogenous zone!”

    1. What is JC Penney, chopped liver?

      1. Not even that – at least chopped liver has value – – – – – –

    2. Monica’s dress is so 1990s. They need to come up with a new style.

    3. In all seriousness, creative destruction isn’t evidence of economic failure. Destroying costly and inefficient business models is a necessary requirement for economic growth.

      People can buy the same t-shirts and jeans at Walmart or Target for less.
      People can buy the same t-shirts and jeans online for less.
      People can buy the same t-shirts and jeans online at Walmart or Target for less!

      Who needs the Gap?

      P.S. Splitting the company into Old Navy on one side and brands like Banana Republic on the other isn’t the solution to the problem if we can still buy all the same shit online for less. And they can’t sell t-shits and jeans for less if they still have the costs of those physical stores and sales people to cover.

      If they had gotten out ahead of Walmart online, things might be different. After all, Walmart can’t shutter their physical stores and go online because they’re a grocer/convenience store on top of everything else. It’s probably too late for Old Navy to do that now. Walmart’s presence online is starting to rival Amazon. I rate the split stocks a long term hold at best. Old Navy is competing with Walmart and that’s low profit margin business, and Banana Republic is neither discount nor luxury, which makes them the church of Laodicea (Rev. 3:15-16)

      1. “Who needs the Gap?”

        You must not be white.

        1. You take away Old Navy and Gap and most white people will be walking around in tatters.

          1. The reason this stock is splitting and these store closures are happening is because people are buying their Old Navy and Gap clothes from Target, Walmart, and online instead of at Old Navy and The Gap.

            1. Ken, you’re sometimes too serious

              1. Poe’s Law!

                Yesterday, I had someone telling me that the U.S. government shouldn’t refuse to let in asylum seekers who are child molesters–in all seriousness.

                Sometimes I forget who I’m talking to, granted, but you never know when people are serious these days.

                Over the holiday, I was talking to this girl at Thanksgiving, and she was talking about how mad she was at this retailer for wasting helium during their parades–when there’s a big helium shortage. I laughed, and I started making jokes about the oxygen shortage, like I was an uninformed environmentalist, who would build bizarre positions on half-understood issues and add all kinds of dire predictions. She responded by doubling down on the helium shortage angle. It was hilarious. So I kept coming back with how we have to either stop making bubble wrap or pop all the bubbles in it by hand before we throw it out–because of the oxygen shortage. She ran out of the room in tears.

                I swear to God, I didn’t know she was dead serious about how we shouldn’t shop at that store because they keep using balloons in their parades despite the helium shortage. How was I supposed to know she wasn’t joking?

                1. She ran out of the room in tears.

                  Sheesh, Ken! Don’t you know there’s a *water* shortage too?!

                2. It’s hard to discern reality from parody nowadays. Agreed.

                  1. The who world has become The Onion.

                  2. Is there such a thing as a “correction of the market for ideas” because there needs to be and it needs to happen soon.

                3. “Yesterday, I had someone telling me that the U.S. government shouldn’t refuse to let in asylum seekers who are child molesters–in all seriousness.”

                  In fairness to Ken, he has a point. This actually happened.

            2. Have you ever shopped at Walmart for clothes Ken?

              Old Navy gives fat, working class people the ability to dress in cheap clothes that look relatively contemporary. The Gap does the same, but for the skinnier ones.

              On the other hand half on the clothes Walmart stocks are designed by Asian sweatshop pit bosses who think North Americans are legendary beasts with pencil necks who store fat in their kneecaps and shoulders.
              The other half are from bankruptcy sales in the 80’s.
              That said they do have a fine selection of RealTree camouflage dress shirts and slacks.

  15. The “other” is strong with this one, Kamala Harris.

    1. “M*****fucker!”

  16. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex

    unless you’re an accused university student, or are in family court, or …..

    1. Yep.

      What the left doesn’t know is that passing the ERA today would probably benefit men a lot more than women…

      1. Disaffected right-wingers — ardent defenders of straight white men, whom they perceive to be persecuted severely in modern America — should welcome that.

      2. No it wouldn’t – when they speak of “equal rights” they don’t mean equal and they don’t mean rights. They want preferential treatment.

        1. I know that’s what they mean.

          But the Supreme Court tends to not play around with that crap when things are written into the constitution in simple and clear language.

          Constitutional amendments are pretty much the only thing even sort of protecting individual rights anymore. The only thing pushing back against speech codes and gun control and everything else.

          Let these people write “gender discrimination is not allowed” into the constitution and see what happens…

          1. “But the Supreme Court tends to not play around with that crap when things are written into the constitution in simple and clear language.”

            I’d like to introduce you to the Obamacare Penaltax then…

  17. Dems want ad targeting made illegal? I thought they invented target advertising? Is it just me?

    1. It’s only bad when capitalists do it

  18. During the podcast, Harris also signaled that she would introduce nationwide public-school kindergarten and “a national policy for affordable childcare.”

    That doesn’t mean shit in Iowa. Now if she’s pro-ethanol, she might win the caucus no matter how bay shit crazy her other ideas are.

  19. For this to make sense in 2019, you have to assume that all of the mentions of mankind, etc., in the Constitution don’t currently include women and that only documents and laws officially referencing women do.

    How about pledging to be constrained by the rights already enumerated.

  20. “It’s telling, however, that Harris’ answer here was to focus on a go-nowhere ra-ra-girl-power measure rather than anything that could actually improve women’s lives . . . something that sounds nice, changes nothing, and endears her to all those deep-pocketed boomer feminists”

    Yeah, ENB nails it.

    In closed primary states, the Democrat who can present herself as more SJW than the rest will attract the most votes. In open primary states, the Democrat who has the most money to spend has a big advantage, and the Democrat who presents as the most SJW is likely to draw more donations.

    After topping the other candidates as more radical SJW than the rest, I don’t know how the primary winner is supposed to stop on a dime after the convention, do an about face, and then play down their radicalism to beat Trump in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, but building your radicalism around something as uncontroversial as the simple statement of the ERA might make that transition pretty easy.

    1. something as uncontroversial as the simple statement of the ERA

      Indeed, it’s as uncontroversial as the simple statement of the 2A!

      1. I would argue that the simple statement that men and women should be equal before the law is by itself less controversial than the simple statement that we have a right to choose to own and carry a gun.

        I’m not saying that’s the way it should be, but I think that’s probably the way it is.

        The ERA didn’t die because of the text. It died because everything associated with feminism became tainted. Just like today, social justice warriors have a hard time believing that their antics don’t make them popular, so they can’t be dissuaded from saying and doing things that turn people off. If the ERA had passed, it only would have happened in spite of feminists–not because of them.

        If the ERA becomes a major issue again, I suppose spoiling it will probably be a function of the activists, too. How dare the second-wave feminists try to enshrine their rights in the Constitution and leave us transgendered behind! At that point, leaders, donors, and activists on the left probably will feel compelled to be more inclusive, and at some point, the associated baggage will start making the more traditional heartland increasingly leery.

        1. Really, Ken? “Equal before the law” vs “right to choose to own and carry a gun”?

          Which simple statement is less controversial: “God exists” or “It is raining outside that window”?

          1. You saw the part where I said that’s the way it is rather than that’s the way it should be?

            Yeah, when you go up to your average swing voting suburban homemaker on the outskirts of Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Ann Arbor, Michigan, or Dayton, OH, and you ask her which one she agrees with the most, she’s likely to pick the one that says men and women are equal before the law over the one that says we have a right to choose to own and carry a gun.

            That’s what I mean by more or less controversial. I’m talking about from a election marketing perspective. I’m not talking about the way the world should be. I’m talking about marketing to the voters with the mindsets they’ve already got.

            1. Fair enough! 😎

  21. “No one in this case was arrested on suspicion of sex trafficking, forced labor, compelling prostitution, or any other charge that implies force, fraud, or coercion in the arrangement.”

    You can’t tell me that any woman would freely choose to jack off widowers for $200 an hour – that’s ludicrous.

  22. you have to assume that all of the mentions of mankind, etc., in the Constitution don’t currently include women

    “The Framers said exactly what they had in mind. For example, look at the 2A.”

  23. I prefer the WHIP to the ERA

    1. WIN is much better.

    2. I suppose you also believe in clubs for women?

      1. I believe they need A League of Their Own

      2. Women need their own sizes.

  24. Full-page, color ad, pg. 5 in the Chron this morning asking Nick, Mark and Sheryl to ‘save the world from fake news by using *independent* censors’
    At the bottom, you find it was paid for by AVAAZ:
    “Avaaz.org was co-founded by Res Publica, a “community of public sector professionals dedicated to promoting good governance, civic virtue and deliberative democracy,”[2] and MoveOn.org, an American non-profit progressive public policy advocacy group.[3][4] It was also supported by Service Employees International Union, a founding partner.”
    (wiki).
    So we have two immediate problems:
    1) The idiots did bother to include CNN, NYT, MSNBC, WaPo, the Guardian et all in the list of purveyors of fake news.
    2) Given the source, we know full well the political slant of the censors they would choose as “independent”.
    In fact AVAAZ is in the business of distributing fake news itself.

    1. Why is someone taking out an ad in favor of banning individuals and groups from social media? I thought the national corporate press had that covered?

      http://www.twitter.com/WiredUK/status/1101195527318851586

  25. That would be the Equal Rights Amendment, a long sought and mostly symbolic measure saying that women have the same rights in the U.S. as men.

    She wants women kicked out of school over baseless allegations and to lose all of their shit in a divorce even if the man is the one who cheated?

    She seems awfully mean.

    Fun with socialism at CPAC: Rep. Jordan tells a crowd that this the crop of Dem 2020 contenders are doing what Democrats have NEVER DONE BEFORE: running as socialists instead of centrists. Minutes later, Matt Schlapp mentions the “eight years of socialism we had under Obama”

    He is saying that the Democrats didn’t RUN as Socialists. Not that they didn’t GOVERN as them.

    Nice attempted burn, though.

    1. When people call themselves “socialists” you can’t call them “socialists”, because that’s fear mongering. This is how much the world makes no sense nowadays

      1. Calling Republicans “Nazis” is fine. Calling “Democratic Socialists” Socialists is just a step too far.

        1. Look at what happened to Van Jones. People are pretending as if Trump and a Republican congress didn’t pass criminal justice reform. What happened didn’t actually happen

          1. Trump and Republicans did prison reform which Obama and a Democrat controlled congress could have easily done. You have to ask why Democrats didn’t do it after all those years of supposedly being for criminal justice reform.

            Black Americans know, so they are leaving the Democratic Party in droves.

            1. “…so they are leaving the Democratic Party in droves”

              If you have any objective [non anecdotal] evidence of this I’d love to see it. Nice thought, but very hard to believe.

            2. It was way more important to fuck up healthcare (even more than it already was) than it was to do any of the things that would have actually helped the black community (like mj legalization, criminal justice reform, asset forfeiture and the militarization of the police, etc).

        2. A “bridge” too far?

  26. Environmental Rifle Association?

    1. I think it stands for “Extreme Rifle Association”. Except it’s written out as “eXtreme Rifle Association”.

      1. target shooting while snowboarding?

        1. eXtreme!

    2. “Cruelty-free bullets and fair trade assault rifles”

      1. Hunt local!

  27. Joe Biden remains mysteriously popular.

    I really hope ENB’s just being facetious here, because it’s not really hard to understand why the guy would be popular when you look at his political career. He’d probably be sitting in the Oval Office right now if he hadn’t deferred to Her Inevitability.

    1. At this point in the contest, it’s really just about name recognition.

      People have heard of Joe Biden. Most Americans couldn’t find Kamala if you gave them a map.

      The other interesting thing at this point is looking at Trump’s approval ratings. Last I saw, he was around 40% in some 14 states? That all changes when the comparison in people’s minds is to someone specific.

      People don’t think Trump is doing a great job compared to some non-specific ideal candidate in their heads. Compared to Bernie Sanders, you may get a higher number than 40%.

    2. Lizzie the Lezzie is pulling for whoever the most extreme far left person in the clown car turns out to be.

      It’s hard to say definitely who that is because so many of them are WAY out there, but it definitely isn’t Biden.

  28. Looking around elsewhere online, I’m seeing more or less the same thing I’m seeing in this thread–it’s almost as if the devastating testimony against Trump from yesterday never happened. It’s almost like it didn’t really matter at all. There are more important things going on. Like, um . . .

    The Caps and Islanders are playing tonight!

    1. Well, it goes without saying that *this time* Trump’s finished!

    2. Speaking of the Isles, did you see any of the stuff regarding the crowd last night reacting to Tavares’ return to Long Island? They spend the whole game booing and chanting stuff, and included among the chants was stuff like “it’s your bedtime” and “where’s your jammies?”. I personally probably wouldn’t have booed the guy, but the crowd was friggin’ hilarious.

      1. I love knowing that Americans are still capable of acting that way, and that they do–when the Rangers, Islanders, Flyers, and others play at home.

        It gives me hope.

      2. I swear you’ll still hear Beat Your Wife Potvin at some games. Live hockey is just more fun.

      3. If you know the Rangers suck, clap your hands!

  29. The ERA remains a no brainer. All sexes already have equal legal rights and protections under the law. The amendment adds nothing. So it’s puzzling that there still remains a cadre of supporters insisting that it’s urgently needed. They must imagine that it will so loosely interpreted that it will be a Saint Plenty’s Day shopping spree for radical feminism. And then the other side who refuses to ratify it are just as bizarre. Just what sort of odds rights do they imagine will it give to women that it the law doesn’t already give to men?

    The only thing I can think of is drafting women. But selective service needs to be abolished anyway.

    1. Fair points, except “And then the other side who refuses to ratify it are just as bizarre. Just what sort of odds rights do they imagine will it give to women that it the law doesn’t already give to men?”

      Couldn’t that argument be used exactly against those who oppose infanticide legislation? Why should those who don’t want laws have to make the argument of why those laws are unnecessary? The onus should be on those pushing such laws

      1. What I am asking is why there is such strenuous objection to it? I can’t get an answer from anyone. I’m mildly opposed simply because it’s not needed and thus the push for it seems suspicious. But I can’t see from the text how it is in any way problematic in this day and age except to the neanderthal cave dweller.

        1. Yes and that is the exact same argument made by those who support a federal law against infanticide. I don’t understand the rationale for people who oppose that law or those who oppose the ERA Amendment beyond not seeing the need for either.

          All I’m saying is that the onus should not be on the person who doesn’t want to do anything.

        2. it’s not needed and thus the push for it seems suspicious.

          It’s basically getting the camel’s nose under the tent for “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of body mass index.”)

        3. I think for some people–especially in my age group, the geezers–there’s a certain amount of “once bitten twice shy”. I’ve seen so many parts of the Constitution interpreted and used in such bizarre ways that I can’t help but wonder what weird doctrines the ERA will birth.

          1. I think for some people–especially in my age group, the geezers–there’s a certain amount of “once bitten twice shy”. I’ve seen so many parts of the Constitution interpreted and used in such bizarre ways that I can’t help but wonder what weird doctrines the ERA will birth.

            The current part that guarantees equality is pretty fucking shitty with regards to the rest of the Constitution it itself stands as an example of why we don’t need more.

        4. What I am asking is why there is such strenuous objection to it? I can’t get an answer from anyone.

          It’s specifically playing into the SJW bullshit layer cake. Also, you’ll notice that, unlike the CRA, the ERA doesn’t concern itself with bullshit like due process. Maybe that’s coincidence, but just the specter of Title IX convinces me the ERA is radioactive toxic waste. Even if it did it’s still a pretty blatant (further) enshrining of social hierarchy. So some simple minorities will be covered under the ERA, others under the CRA, and super-intersectional minorities under both. Then, two full amendments will trump any silly backwards interpretations of mere clauses about peacable assembly or the security of a free State.

          1. One might ask it the ERA would include chicks with dicks since that would seem to be a Democrat core constituency according to Democrat messaging.

    2. As someone who was around during the initial push for the ERA, one of the go-to arguments against the ERA was that it would ban separate men’s and women’s restrooms and locker rooms. This was of course scoffed at as ridiculous fear-mongering because the ERA didn’t actually literally mean what it said, nobody was going to argue that men should be able to use the ladies’ room and vice versa. And yet, even without the ERA, here we are.

      And I’d guess about 5 minutes after the ERA passes, the NFL is getting sued for discrimination. You think the argument that it’s a biological fact that men in general are bigger and stronger, more aggressive and more prone to violence than women is going to be any sort of defense? It hasn’t worked for the military, for the police or the fire departments or any other job where you’d think the physical requirements of the job would favor men over women, has it?

      1. Not that it will matter to them, but there is a difference between those three institutions and the NFL.

  30. Yeah, I keep trying to imagine what ERA proponents imagine it will accomplish that either hasn’t already been accomplished, or could plausibly be accomplished with a Democratic majority on SCOTUS, under already existing jurisprudence (Commerce Clause, 5th Amendment, and/or 14th Amendment, depending on the specific issue). I mean you can try to argue that it would prevent regulating abortion, but it can’t plausibly be read facially as doing that, so you’re not really gaining anything versus the status quo.

  31. Sad that states need to pass special laws to keep cops from being theives.

  32. One of the interesting things from that polling report is that Kamala Harris’ support seems to be coming at the expense of Elizabeth Warren.

    Elizabeth Warren has established a big donor network in Hollywood, but I’d still expect Harris to win California’s delegates. That puts Warren in a deep hole to dig out of. She needs to start clearly ahead of Kamala Harris, and yet Kamala Harris is winning support at Warren’s expense.

    Watch for Liz Warren to go negative on Kamala Harris–and sooner rather than later.

    P.S. Bernie’s support in New Hampshire is probably about New Hampshire’s proximity to Vermont.

    1. I would expect any state that Bernie won in the 2016 Democrat Primary to still feel the Bern in 2019.

      Results of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries

      NH, ME, RI, WV, IL, MI, WI, MN, ND, NE, KS, OK, CO, WY, MT, UT, ID, WA, OR, AK.

      Of course, those states might have went for Bernie to fuck over Hillary if non-Democrats voted to sabotage Hillary in open primaries.

    2. I’m pulling for Bernie big time – if he gets the nomination there is no way he makes it to the White House.

      1. +100

    3. Kamala stealing support from a woman of color like Warren…

  33. That would be the Equal Rights Amendment, a long sought and mostly symbolic measure saying that women have the same rights in the U.S. as men.

    BLM would like to have a word with you.

  34. Some ERA advocates will point out that in practice, women still face discrimination. But that’s not for lack of legal guidance, and adding another federal mandate isn’t going to make everyone in the country not sexist.

    Women cannot name a single right that is currently being denied them in modern America. Not a single one.

    1. “Ha! The right to free feminine hygiene products!”

      1. You can bet your ass that this ERA will never guarantee the right of women to be prostitutes and sell sex for money.

    2. The right to not be harassed.
      The right to equal pay.
      The right to equal job opportunities.

      There’s three they’ll get started with.

      1. So women are currently being denied the ‘right’ to not be harassed?
        So women are currently being denied the ‘right’ to have equal pay?
        So women are currently being denied the ‘right’ to have equal job opportunities?

        You might want to keep going since (1) those are not rights (2) what do those even mean so we can protect women.

        I love how ra ra women are about hearing them roar but they need protection from everything that men don’t have protection from.

        Men don’t have a right to a job but women want a protected right that they get ‘equal job opportunities’.

        1. You might want to keep going since (1) those are not rights (2) what do those even mean so we can protect women.

          Yeah, well, some people believe that rights like free speech are given by the Constitution. So whaddaya gonna do?

          1. The right to give your opinion is older than the Constitution.

            Including the right to ‘harass’ people with words.

    3. They can name thousands of them. What the fuck makes you think you’re going to be the one to define “rights” when there’s a shitload of people who insist free healthcare, free college, a living wage, protection from hurtful words and ideas, and beating the shit out of anybody who disagrees with you are all “rights”? Of course the ERA sounds innocuous, but that’s because you speak English and not Progressivese. Those words don’t mean what you think they mean.


  35. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Democrats are pushing a “data privacy” bill that would bar businesses, nonprofits, and others from targeting ads toward specific demographic groups. The law is being pushed as somehow anti-discriminatory, but it would effectively prevent groups?including those geared at only women, LGBTQ people, people of color, immigrants from a certain area, or whatever category?from explicitly targeting the people they want to reach

    That’s where selective enforcement comes into play! Also, does this count for political ads? Guessing the G-men exempted themselves.

    1. This whole “targeting” rhetoric had better be killed toot sweet.

  36. Yeah the whole “ERA” thing is just dumb virtue signaling at this point. The ERA has been dead for a long time now.

    1. Don’t you have some child rapists to import?

  37. “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

    So does that mean you only have equal rights if you have sex, or if you don’t have sex?

    1. I think it means they can’t discriminate either way. So incels will have one less thing to be mad about.

  38. Black History Month & #1 Issue Plaguing Black Americans: Larry Elder Exclusive

    Gotta love Larry Elder. Guy has a bunch of good things to say.

    I don’t think Reason seeks to interview people like Larry Elder. Larry Elder has very Libertarian ideals that cross racial lines.

    1. Larry pushes personal responsibility and believes that culture matters, so he will get no love around here

  39. Kroger expands ban on Visa credit cards to Smith’s Food & Drug stores in 7 states

    Interesting trend of companies not wanting to pay the outrageous fees to credit cards anymore.

    1. Processing fees are a killer. The faster we can get some sort of bitcoin-type system, the better.

  40. What’s the point of doing this, when the courts are already interpreting the 14th Amendment to require everything the ERA would require?

    The fact that the ERA was sent to the states and did not get enough ratifications ought to have mattered enough to the court to stop them from interpreting the 14th that way.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.