Reason Roundup

Ted Cruz Wants To Punish Google Because Execs Didn't Vote for Trump

Plus: a bipartisan batch of U.S. lawmakers proposes more plans to take over tech, San Francisco bans e-cigs, Tiffany Cabán wins Queens DA primary, and more...


Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) has joined conservative counterparts like freshman Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) in threatening action against "Big Tech." Unlike Democratic counterparts, who at least pretend their impulses are based on concern for concrete issues, Cruz and company seem to have no problem revealing the self-serving, corrupt, authoritarian nature of their proposals.

Hawley's whole thing has been pushing social media regulation and free speech crackdowns based on his belief that a few big online companies have shown bias toward ordinary conservative users. Cruz is taking a less populist route, harping on how much money tech executives donated to Democrats versus Republicans and whether any of them voted for Dear Leader.

In a congressional hearing yesterday, Cruz grilled a Google executive on whether any of her colleagues had voted for Trump and whether any of them had donated to Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. As a lot of folks have pointed out, this smacks of some super-corrupt and fascistic operating.

Tea Party-era Ted Cruz would've flipped his shit over this stuff. But like most of that formerly free-market promoting crew, he's now perfectly content to promote MAGA socialism and pretend there's nothing to see here.

Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.)—whom you might remember from his absolutely insane leaked internet proposal last summer—and Hawley have teamed up on a weird, unworkable, ignorant-of-reality scheme to make tech companies tell every individual user what their personal data "is worth."

Sen. John Thune (R–S.D.) wants to micromanage how search engines and web platforms display content, requiring them to offer algorithm-free experiences.

And Hawaii Democrat Sen. Brian Schatz suggested companies should face "legal and financial responsibility" when Washington doesn't like the algorithms they use.


NEXT: Brickbat: Respect Our Authority

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. San Francisco just banned all e-cigarettes, becoming the first city in the U.S. to do so.

    The electricity to run them contributes to Global Warming.

    1. Hello.

      San Francisco moves to ban itself.

      1. Do they realize how much CO2 the tourists walking around there put into the atmosphere?

        1. Human feces on the street releases methane, which is many times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.

          1. Forget cow farts, when are we going to end the scourge of bum shit.

    2. Both real and electronic cigarettes use tobacco or tobacco derived substances. Tobacco is grown in Virginia. Virginia is a red state that voted for Trump. Therefore whatever beat down the San Fransisco cops give these degenerates is justified.

  2. Tiffany Cabán, a self-identified “queer, Latina career public defender” who supports sex work and marijuana decriminalization, wants major criminal justice reforms, and is running to be district attorney of Queens, New York, just won the Democratic primary there.

    A public defender as DA? This should be interesting.

    1. “You’re out of order! You’re out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They’re out of order!”

      1. “The pages of this court document are out of order! The vending machine in the lobby is out of order!”

  3. Is Ted Cruz with the beard from the (more) evil, or more stupid, universe?

    1. Neither. More honest.

      1. Why do you scare us like that?

  4. The National Rifle Association has canceled its NRATV program.

    I’m sure its videos were changing a lot of minds.

  5. “A heart-wrenching photo of a migrant father and his toddler daughter who drowned trying to cross the Rio Grande river into Brownsville, Texas, is a stark reminder of how perilous the journey north is for Central American migrants and the desperation that compels them to risk it.”

    Completely unacceptable. And totally avoidable. A Koch / Reason open borders policy would eliminate tragedies like this.

    Anyone who opposes open borders? You have blood on your hands.

    1. Agreed. We should be running cruise ships between Central America and the U.S. to bring in everyone who wants to leave their shithole countries and come live with OBL and his friends.

      1. Man you must really hate the migrants if you want to put them on a cruise ship. Just the thought of being on a cruise ship makes my skin crawl.

        1. Populist scientists could develop a lethal strain of norovirus as a final solution

    2. You forgot a hash tag

      How about #buildbridgesnotwalls

      1. #draintheRioGrandeforjustice

      2. Build Bridge Snot Walls?

    3. Any blood on their hands must be because they haven’t gotten around to drinking it yet. Amirite?

    4. I know this is satire but the Dems take this seriously

  6. Another documentary about sex trafficking has been revealed to be totally fraudulent.

    In their defense, the documentarians did it for personal financial gain.

    1. You guys are too real for this wholesome website

  7. British anti-sex nutjobs are going around filming strippers and then releasing the video publicly…

    Time for the birds to copyright those jubblies, innit?

    1. British anti-sex nutjobs

      Nice band name.

  8. “San Francisco just banned all e-cigarettes, becoming the first city in the U.S. to do so.”

    Oh dear. I’m glad I’m not Sevo’s neighbour today. He must be extra crispy crusty this morning!

  9. Elizabeth Warren solidifies her reputation as the candidate of bold ideas.

    2020 candidate Elizabeth Warren announces sweeping election security and reform plan

    As the Mueller Report proves, Russia hacked the 2016 election to install one of its intelligence assets as President. It was an attack on our democracy not unlike Pearl Harbor or 9 / 11. All patriotic Americans must demand increased election security so nothing like that happens again.


    1. Unlike the current president’s charge that Mexico infiltrates our election process, Warren’s assertion is not at all based on mindless hysteria.

      1. Russia troll the US with facebook videos equates to foreigner meddling in our elections, but foreigners sneaking across the boarder to actual vote is not.

    2. The good news this morning is that Mueller is going to testify again and this time will be waving around the W-2s that Russia’s intelligence services provided Trump for 2016, and 2017.

      1. I don’t think the dems are going to like what they get from Mueller. He made it very clear he was not interested in talking to Congress anymore. But he’s complying with their subpoena. They are forcing him to come and it’s fair to guess he’s not happy about it. He warned them they he would stick to what is in the report. Congress dems should be prepared to hear the question is out of scope of the report and I have no comment.

        What happens to the dems position if Mueller becomes a hostile witness?

        1. He’s going to get crucified on what a shitty organization and investigation he ran Dems really screwed the pooch insisting on him testifying.

  10. The measure would require commercial services with more than 100 million active monthly users to disclose to their customers and financial regulators the types of data they collect. They also would have to provide their users with an assessment at frequent intervals of the data’s value to them.

    The measure also requires these things from the government, right? RIGHT?!

    1. Those things are already required from the government. It is called FOIA and the paperwork reduction act.

      1. “Dear Federal Government, In accordance with the FOIA, please disclose the types of data you have collected on me and an assessment of the data’s value to you. Thank you. Sincerely, John Q. Public”

        1. You can do that and they are required to tell you under the Privacy Act.

          1. Will they tell me that they have collected at least one new type of data as a result of the request?

            1. They will tell you anything you want. You just have to ask them. Unless you are the subject of a criminal investigation, you can get any file on you they have. And even if you are, you just can’t get the criminal investigation file unless they charge. The rest you can get.

              So, just write a letter to whatever agency the voices in your head are telling you is spying on you and tell them to fork it over.

              1. Well, to be fair — this request thing does seem to be working for Judicial Watch.

                1. They may not like doing it, but they will do it.

                  1. they will do it, eventually after being sued multiple times just like Judicial Watch has had to do. who else has the time or money to do that.

                    1. This

  11. …based on his belief that a few big online companies have shown bias toward ordinary conservative users.

    I don’t think that’s really in doubt. What is in doubt is how it’s the federal government’s place to do anything about it.

  12. Tea Party-era Ted Cruz would’ve flipped his shit over this stuff.

    A magnificent beard does things to a man.

  13. On the Cruz thing, that is a Fonz jumping the shark leap of logic, that Cruz was not doing anything but establishing a lack of diversity of thought in Google’s management

    1. Step 1: Progressives and big tech intermingle in secrecy
      Step 2: They get smug and rich while implementing marxist tactics
      Step 3: Conservatives call it out and attempt to counteract the shady behavior
      Step 4: Reason, while claiming to be libertarian, ignore steps 1 and 2, and go after conservatives

      1. Fair assessment of what’s happening.

      2. REASON POUNCES!!!

      3. Your Step 3 left off “by appealing to the government to force them to give voice to political opinions the tech platforms don’t share.”

        Such that Step 4 might more accurately be stated as “Reason, being libertarian, ignore the voluntary and victimless steps 1 and 2, and go after conservatives seeking to use government force against their opponents in step 3.”

        1. Stop acting like Jeff. You’re generally smarter than this.

          It was made clear to you yesterday multiple times..

          The companies can still act like censorious assholes, they just lose EXTRA legal protections if they do. There is no forcing of anything. Stop with the dishonesty.

          1. I think it’s great how you believe that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is being dishonest. I’ll bet Jeff is impressed by your obsession with him as well.

            1. It’s not obsession. It’s good natured ribbing of an imbecile. Stop white knighting Jeff, he isnt going to fuck you.

              1. Stop white knighting Jeff

                I don’t have to be white knighting to call you a moron. If you were any good at logic you would know that.

                1. “I don’t have to be white knighting”

                  It just turns out that you are.

                  1. Aww, you got Tulpa to white knight you. You guys will make such a cute couple.

                    1. Look, Sparky is still upset that he got caught white knighting.

                      No wonder your mom died just it be away from you.

                    2. Take your retarded drooling elsewhere, fuckwit.

            2. And it is dishonesty because he was told what the bull did yesterday and immediately reverted back to first impressions. The bill isnt fucking long. Read it I know that’s a step too far for you sparky, but thought he was better than that.

              1. he was told what the b[i]ll did yesterday

                You asserted what you believe the bill would do, but you did not persuade because you did not construct an argument. You simply stated a claim and mocked anyone who didn’t simply believe you without proof.

                Maybe you should actually try constructing an argument instead of just assuming everyone lives in the same right-wing echo chamber that you do and therefore reads the same articles, holds the same assumptions, and believes the same narratives, as you do.

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

          2. It was made clear to you yesterday multiple times.

            Well – it was asserted multiple times that Section 230 grants some sort of extra privilege to web platforms that should be taken away to punish them for de-platforming conservatives, but it was never made clear to me why this is being described as a libertarian position.

            Personally, I don’t think Section 230 should be necessary because I don’t think under standard principles of liability that anyone should be held liable for content generated by someone else, no matter whether their media is electronic or print.

            But I haven’t gotten the impression that this is the thrust of the people who are suddenly concerned about these “privileges.” I.e. I haven’t seen calls to expand those protections to print media – what I see is a threat to start holding web platforms liable for content they didn’t create as retaliation for suppressing opposing political views.

            What does suddenly prosecuting YT for copyright infringement have to do with whether or not Alex Jones is given a platform? Other than using state power in an arbitrarily retaliatory manner, that is?

            1. No no, you totally missed the whole discussion.

              What really happened is:

              Jesse: I assert claim X.
              Others: I have some problem with claim X, here are some rebuttals.
              Jesse: Sheesh you guys, just use Google! I’m clearly right! Read the bill! Claim X is completely correct! I don’t need to provide any references, or even construct a formal argument, all I need to do is assert a claim and then say “use Google” and presto I win the argument! You are a liar for daring to question the obvious validity of claim X! You’re an idiot!

              1. There are child rapists waiting on your sponsorship Jeff, why are you wasting time making a fool of yourself here?

        2. Hell. They can still be assholes as long as they are up front and clear about being assholes.

        3. I think steps 1 and 2 had plenty of government support: companies had little choice but to swing hard left to indemnity themselves against “hostile workplace” claims.

          I don’t think that makes what the reps are doing any better; after all, you can’t solve a government created problem with more government…. But, it is perhaps important context.

          1. I think steps 1 and 2 had plenty of government support: companies had little choice but to swing hard left to indemnity themselves against “hostile workplace” claims.

            I don’t disagree. But some companies do what they need to do in order to comply, while others go out with zeal and suppress opinions that contradict the Progressive paradigm. Google is the latter.

            I don’t praise what Google does. I just don’t think we can rationalize what Cruz is calling for, since as you say it is a call to counter dishonest government manipulation of the marketplace of ideas with out-and-out government regulation of the marketplace of ideas, which is clearly a step in the wrong direction.

            I even think Google might be opening themselves up to some sort of litigation, or even action from the government, based on the dishonesty with which they go about filtering content. One could certainly argue that they’re engaging in a form of false advertising.

            What chafes on me is the notion that content platforms need to be actively threatened/punished with unrelated actions for having incorrect political views, coupled with the pretense that this is some sort of ‘defense of liberty.’

            1. Why doesn’t it chafe on you that content platforms are actively threatening/punishing with unrelated actions their posters for having “incorrect” (i.e. disagreeing with them) political views?

              Oh that’s right, they’re on Your Side so they’re blameless.

          2. “you can’t solve a government created problem with more government”

            I agree. But I don’t see any curiosity from Reason about what got us to this point. It’s all ignored. To Reason the only problem is the people trying to solve it the wrong way.

        4. ” victimless steps 1 and 2″

          Hold onto this one, I’ll be rubbing your nose in it later

          1. I look forward to it.

            1. You look forward to backpedaling and making excuses for your position?

              1. I look forward to Ryan showing me how Steps 1 and 2 are not victimless. I’m sure he’s going to do it any minute now.

                1. So AGAIN, because you’re fucking stupid, you look forward to backpedaling and making excuses for your position?

                  1. You know, there are comments you have made that lead me to believe that you are, in fact, a reasonably intelligent and well-educated person with some at least occasionally interesting perspectives.

                    Why you run around with such a huge chip on your shoulder trying so desperately to get people to hate you I have never understood. It seems like you could be making valuable contributions to these discussions.

                    1. I’ve explained it many times. It’s not my fault you’re too fucking stupid to pay attention.

                      And I DO contribute. Substantially. Just not with this particular sockpuppet.

    2. The leap makes no sense.

      I think o finally know why jeff comes here. He has the same intellectual curiosity as most of the writers here. It was clear what Ted Cruz was establishing if you watch the video. The fact that reason quotes teo snarky tweets instead of linking to and analyzing the whole exchange is telling.

      1. Reason is a shitshow. So obvious Cruz’s testimony wasn’t attacking people’s right to donate politically but rather was demonstrating the general political leanings of the people under discussion.

        1. Meanwhile Vimeo has joined Youtube in deplatforming Project Veritas.

          And Apple is telling Parler it cannot be an alternative to Twitter unless it censors it’s content exactly like Twitter does.

          Platforms my ass, these entities are claiming control of all discourse. That makes them liable for all discourse that does occur.

          So the next time Antifa (or whoever) uses one of their services to coordinate an event and someone is harmed by that even that service needs to be sued for damages as an active participant.

          1. And this is where Libertarian philosophy fails.

            “The market will resolve the problem”.

            Well, the market is definitely NOT doing so. Google’s COMPETITORS are protecting Google.

            What’s Reason’s thought process when the market refuses to deal with an obvious problem? Snark isn’t a solution, especially terrible snark by ENB.

      2. Jeff comes here because it only bans people for things like child pornogtaphy, like with Palin’s Buttplug. Jeff normally gets banned for stupidity and shit posting.

  14. And Hawaii Democrat Sen. Brian Schatz suggested companies should face “legal and financial responsibility” when Washington doesn’t like the algorithms they use.

    Democrats: “We will not be outdone!”

    1. How about an algorithm-free feed?

      Is it THAT hard to do? I seriously doubt it.

      Hell, it’s LESS work for them since they won’t have to curate.

      We should also split up Alphabet into tiny little companies. The largest video platform shouldn’t also basically control internet advertising as well.

  15. …whether any of them voted for Dear Leader.

    You don’t credibly get to call Trump that until we hear school children led in song praising his existence.

    1. There is just something so disturbing about this–

      Mm, mmm, mm!
      Barack Hussein Obama

      He said that all must lend a hand
      To make this country strong again
      Mmm, mmm, mm!
      Barack Hussein Obama

      He said we must be fair today
      Equal work means equal pay
      Mmm, mmm, mm!
      Barack Hussein Obama

      He said that we must take a stand
      To make sure everyone gets a chance
      Mmm, mmm, mm!
      Barack Hussein Obama

      He said red, yellow, black or white
      All are equal in his sight
      Mmm, mmm, mm!
      Barack Hussein Obama

      Mmm, mmm, mm
      Barack Hussein Obama

      It’s almost like one of those kid’s hymns they use in Sunday schools.

      1. Democrats deny traditional religions, so they invented one of their own.

  16. NYT doubles-down on fake news:

    “Helsinki, Mueller shadowing upcoming Trump, Putin meeting”
    “…When President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet this week on the sidelines of an international summit in Japan, it will mark a new chapter in a much scrutinized relationship that crackles with questions and contradictions. Even as Trump places a premium on establishing close personal ties with Putin, his government has increased sanctions and other pressures on Moscow.
    The agenda remains a mystery, as still does the outcome of their last meeting, nearly a year ago in Finland…”

    Translated from TDS:
    We don’t know what we’re writing about, but dammit, TRUMP!

    1. Even as Trump places a premium on establishing close personal ties with Putin, his government has increased sanctions and other pressures on Moscow.

      It is like he is engaging in diplomacy or something. The nerve of that guy.

      1. He better not have a big red button that says reset with him. He better not be giving russia us technology now used on russian weapon development. God damnit. Those were Hillary’s to dos.

  17. So the biggest company in history that controls enough of the information the public consumes to make Stalin blush makes it clear that it plans to do anything to ensure it’s preferred candidates win office and reason that is totally okay. Does ENB deep throat the tech giants?

    1. Lizzie bats for the other team. The last couple of nights she has been dreaming of eating out of Jen Gennai’s love bucket.

      1. Brave New World was spot on. These dumb bastards would give away any freedom or privacy as long as it comes with porn and in a shinny box marked “technology”.

    2. Do you really think it’s better to give government control of that technology through onerous regulations?

      Give us the data or we’ll crack down real hard on you, Google.

      1. First, the law should be enforced. Google is a monopoly and it is pretty clear it and a few others are engaging in a cartel to suppress speach they don’t like. That is illegal. I guess my question for you is what other laws do you think Google should be exempt from.

        Also, if Google is doing what the Project Veritas tape says they are doing, they are in clear violation of the federal election laws. If they want to give inkind contributions to one party or the other by skewing their algorythms, they ought to have to disclose that and they haven’t.

        Lastly, is there any amount of oppression that you wont’ defend as long as it is done by a corporation? Is it your opinion that no private entity no matter how powerful can ever be a threat to freedom?

        1. How is Google a monopoly? They’re popular, I’ll give you that.

          Is Amazon a monopoly? Is Twitter?

          1. It’s rather telling that you’re honing in on that particular assertion, as opposed to the last two questions, which are far more relevant.

            1. Rather telling that you would criticize him for disputing the Monopoly claim.

              The word “Monopoly” is being thrown around frequently in the discussions I’ve heard and read and is one of several important issues.

              1. Rather telling that you would criticize him for disputing the Monopoly claim.

                Megacorporations acting as quasi-government entities, “monopoly” or no, is something that libertarians ought to be concerned about. Especially in the tech sector, which has billions in venture capital to throw around and can leverage both their financing and reach within public life to manipulate society to their own ends.

                A libertarian shouldn’t support an oppressive corporation any more than they should an oppressive government.

        2. Lastly, is there any amount of oppression that you wont’ defend as long as it is done by a corporation?

          How exactly can Google “oppress” people? By not hosting their content?

          1. They can memory hole virtually anyone they want. They can deplatform and deprive someone of access to the public square at their whim. They control nearly all of the public platforms on the internet. And when they act in concert with facebook and twitter, which they appearently do, they can make it virtually impossible for someone to get a message out google doesn’t like.

            You seem to think no private entity can ever restrict our freedom. And since you refuse to answer my questions to you, think such entities should be above the law.

            1. I suppose it’s possible that a private company can restrict our freedom. I’m not convinced that is happening here.

              You seem to think of freedom of speech as a positive right. You seem to think that Google should be forced to platform speech that they don’t agree with. I believe that freedom of speech (like other natural rights) is a negative right. You can’t actively prevent me from speech, but I would never claim that you have to actively support my speech.

              If Google is deplatforming people in violation of their terms of service, then I think the correct course of action is to bring suit against them. On that, I think, we can agree. But beyond that you have no more “right” to be able to speak on Google’s platforms than you have a “right” to freely speak in a private residence or business.

              1. “If Google is deplatforming people in violation of their terms of service, then I think the correct course of action is to bring suit against them. On that, I think, we can agree.”


              2. They don’t platform speech, they control access to information.

                If you type in “Clinton illegal acts” in a few years, and it returns nothing but a bunch of stories about how the election was stolen from Hillary, or you type in Margaret Sanger Eugenics, and it returns nothing but fluff pieces distancing Sanger from eugenics, then they will have achieved the desired result.

                1. they control access to information.

                  And since Google owns the only way to lookup information on the Internet…

                  Wait, no they don’t.

                2. But how is that any different than CNN, Fox, MSNBC? When the left wing had a monopoly on the news, Fox sprang up and competed. That was a free market solution, not a heavy-handed solution. If Google goes off the rails like CNN did, then you’ll see another content provider spring up and take up the 45% of the market that Google alienated.

                  Believe in markets, they work.

                  1. But how is that any different than CNN, Fox, MSNBC?

                    Because CNN, Fox, and MSNBC provide CONTENT.

                    Google says that it’s just a search engine. It doesn’t say that it’s a device designed to further the aims of the Democratic Party and the left. It doesn’t tell you that the results you’re getting have been skewed to best assist the left.

                    It lets you think that you’re going to get the best match for what you’re searching for–not the match that best serves Democrats.

                    All anyone wants is a return to the algorithms that are based in the aggregation of searches. That’s it. No new laws. No policing of language.

                  2. Guess who owns internet advertising, without which a competitor cannot arise to challenge?

                    Guess who also has a small cabal of companies that will work with it to shut down your capacity to actually do banking, etc?

                  3. And I suppose you have a multi-national bank in your back pocket you can go to when leftists get the credit card companies to not accept payments for your competitor?

              3. Google is absolutely memory-holing people as much as they can. They think it’s their company’s role to swing the next election to ensure Trump gets elected.

                The above is fine. The problem is that they’re being do so by being sneaky and dishonest about it. They’re not advertising their policy, they’re making it behind closed doors and essentially conservative content when searched for without warning people that content is being hidden. They’ve also deleted videos on youtube and claiming it’s violating privacy when all they’re doing is pointing out that Google is making these business decisions.

                I don’t think government should intervene, but it makes sense that conservative politicians, the very group that’s the target of their policies, wants to call them out for it.

                1. Hopefully the context of my second sentence was enough to convey that their hope is ensure Trump DOESN’T get elected. I’d fix it but there’s no edit button.

          2. Google can target people they dont like by manipulating how you appear online. They can smear you and remove anything they dont want people to know about you. If you have an opponent, they can heighten them artificially. They can make you look dangerous and also make your information easy to find so the violent mob can come after you.

            And somehow allowing all this is libertarian

            1. But just imagine for a minute that this power exists at the whims of politicians in the FTC, or worse, Congressional oversight.

              Even IF you think what Google is doing is a problem, I can’t imagine how bad it would be if partisan bureaucrats or politicians were involved either in directly regulating them, or by holding a carrot (Section 230 protections) over there heads until they “comply.”

              1. I agree with your solution above to sue them and add to it the removal of the revolving door of Obama admin and google execs.

                1. It’s interesting that today’s left-wingers have no problem complaining about the conflict of interest inherent in the military-to-contractor pipeline, but display no such scruples when it comes to the same practices within mass media, or party apparatchiks taking up positions on corporate boards and within corporate marketing teams when those individuals are Democrats.

                  1. Of course they have no problem with it. All they care about is the acquisition of power by any means whatsoever.

      2. “Do you really think…”

        Lame strawman argument is lame.

  18. “San Francisco just banned all e-cigarettes, becoming the first city in the U.S. to do so.”

    For people who live outside of San Francisco, it may be surprising to hear that the social conservatives were able to dominate the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on this issue, but you can’t expect the Republicans on the Board of Supervisors to lose on every issue all of the time.

    Just kidding!

    There hasn’t been a registered Republican on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors since God only knows when. They’re all registered Democrats.

    The fact is that Republicans–even socially conservative Republicans–are vastly superior to progressives on issues of personal liberty. They won’t let people vape without the city’s permission–is there any other way to interpret this? People in religiously conservative Utah live freer lives than people in San Francisco. Don’t take my word for it. Ask Cato:

    The only thing in San Francisco that’s more pathetic than the Board of Supervisors is the pathetic sheeple who continue to vote for them. It’s so hard to reasons with sheep. I guess the first step is that you have to get them to stop wanting to be sheep. Otherwise it’s all:

    The Progressives are my shepherd; I shall not want.
    They maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
    They saveth me from the nicotine steam.
    They restoreth my soul:
    They leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for their name’s sake.

    Propagating this kind of sheep-thinking is yet another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

    1. Here’s a prediction: San Francisco will be the last place in America to legalize “sex work”–because the government is so heavily dominated by progressives.

    2. San Fransisco has solved all of its other problems and can now move onto vaping. Come on, the place is a paradise, right?

      1. Cities that pander to filthy, degenerate people end up becoming that which they support.

        1. I heard that the mayor accused the governor of Texas of shipping homeless people out to them.

          Sounds like a great idea.

          Let’s go Team Red – have a nonprofit set up that goes into the streets and offers bums $100 and a ticket to San Fran, Seattle, Portland, LA, etc.
          Would be fun seeing the Ds scramble to find some legal justification to use govt force and the courts to stop it.
          Don’t think there is one

          1. I heard that the mayor accused the governor of Texas of shipping homeless people out to them.

            Whether that’s true or not, these cities have been marked out by the hobo network for a long time now, because they know the cities will bend over backwards to give them stuff, the police are neutered from doing anything about any criminal mischief activity short of telling them to move to another spot, and the citizens are cowards for not holding the Democratic politicians to account for their enabling of what is largely a mentally ill, hyper-addicted population with no capability at all of surviving as normal human beings.

            There’s been a “camping ban” in Denver for a few years now that’s resulted in a lot of homeless migrating down to places like Englewood to camp on the creek banks. The city of Centennial just passed a camping ban specifically to keep the homeless from setting up their hobovilles in the green spaces.

    3. “”There hasn’t been a registered Republican on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors since God only knows when.””

      Since the fire?

    4. It’s so hard to reasons with sheep.

      “It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse.”

    5. By the way vaping is being demonized you would swear that it is worse than unfiltered tobacco. How the angry mob has been riled up against this has been impressive to see.

      1. And that’s the direction in which many of the current vapers who don’t quit will probably go eventually. If they can’t get their supplies locally, they can order stuff online and have it delivered from out of state, I suppose. I expect a lot of people will turn to old school cigarettes.

      2. Vaping bans are great because they prove that the smoking bans were never about second-hand smoke. Just like the AHCA isn’t about health, gun control isn’t about safety, the GND isn’t about the environment, and so on, and so on, and so on…

        Socialism is about piling on until people fight back, so that the police state seems like the reasonable response.

        1. Totalitarianism 101

  19. Schatz suggested companies should face “legal and financial responsibility” when Washington doesn’t like the algorithms they use.

    “Why, some of those fuckers use only a three-digit approximation of pi!”

    1. The law is the law. If you don’t like it change it. But the fact is monopolies, cartels, and collusion are illegal in this country. Why should google be above the law?

      1. Google isn’t a monopoly by any stretch of that word’s definition.
        I use their competitors’ products or services for virtually everything: search, email, mapping/navigation, contacts & addresses management, user generated content in video form, mobile phone apps, VOIP and video chat, purchasing movies or music, social media, etc. I don’t buy advertising space, but there are competitors for that, too. Google isn’t a monopoly, it’s just big, and being big is neither immoral nor a crime.

        1. What if they work with the government in a revolving door fashion?

          Immoral yet?

          What if they use algorithms to hide everything good about you, highlight everything bad, and make it easy for violent people to find you?

          Is that a crime?

        2. Why do you bust this sock out like it hasn’t already been outed as a sock puppet?

      2. “Collusion” is illegal? Seems a bit vague for my libertarianism.

  20. Imagine being one of the five chooches who didn’t even make the first cut of the George Soros Invitational (Bullock, Gravel, Messam, Moulton, and Sestak). What a bunch of fucking sad sacks and losers!

    1. They’re all still better than Tulsi Gabbard.


      1. probly not at some things.

  21. “Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Wednesday the U.S. and China were close to a trade deal, and he’s optimistic that progress can be made during weekend talks between President Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jinping.

    “We were about 90% of the way there [with a deal] and I think there’s a path to complete this”

    I’ve condemned Trump’s trade war with China from the beginning, but I remain as hopeful as ever that Trump comes out the other side of this with a deal that’s better than the one we had going in since, you know, I’m an American.

    If anything, I’m even more hopeful that Trump wins now than before. Wouldn’t it be great to see all the cry baby, phony-free traders condemn Trump for capitulating and making a deal? And that’s what they’ll do, isn’t it? They whined and cried about Trump initiating a trade war, and they’ll reveal themselves as phonies when they bitch and moan about it if and when he ends the trade war, too.

    I saw the same thing from anti-war people around here and elsewhere so many times during the Bush Jr. administration. On the one hand, they say they want the president to end the occupation of Iraq. On the other hand, they use every failure as further evidence that the president is the problem–rather than the occupation. (Note: Changing the president to Obama didn’t solve the problems of the occupation either).

    At some point, the question for Trump from a reelection perspective becomes, “Why should I end the trade war if my critics will only use my capitulation to come after me as a failure”? If Trump comes back with a better deal than before, I’ll be thrilled. If he ends the trade war without getting a better deal, he might deserve even more credit for doing what’s best for America–even if it might hurt his reelection chances.

    Those who only used their criticism of Trump’s trade policies as a means to go after Trump’s leadership will deserve no credit at all if the trade war ends. If Trump is hesitating to capitulate on trade with China for fear of what supposedly free trade critics will say about him in an election year, then those pathetic critics are the barrier to trade with China–and I’m against barriers to trade.


    Fire destroys another historic landmark in France. Remember kids there is no downside to mass immigration from Islamic nations. Reason assures me of this.

    1. What’s the connection? Is it because the sand people smoke more than the native Frenchies? Thank God SF has solved this problem.

      1. The connection is arson. Maybe a bunch of French Catholics are running around burning churches and cultural landmarks. But I doubt it.

        Maybe the sacred Mulsims are such nice people.

        1. Is there another article that you didn’t link to that claims arson?

          1. They article doesn’t give the cause. Just like no one seems to know how the Notre Dame burned down. Funny that. Maybe there is just a rash of bad luck in France.

            I get it. Libitarians love Muslims. And Muslims can never do wrong. So, no amount of circumstantial evidence will ever be enough. And even if it was, it will be everyone but the Muslim who did it’s fault.

            1. You could’ve just said that no, you have no evidence of arson in either case. Why you’ve made such a habit lately of shitting your pants over every little thing is beyond me.

            2. They article doesn’t give the cause.

              But you’re positive it was Muslims. That’s not crazy at all.

              Maybe there is just a rash of bad luck in France.

              Everyone knows that fire safety was the main consideration 1000 years ago.

              I get it.

              No, you really don’t.

              Libitarians love Muslims.

              Do they? *shrug*

              Muslims can never do wrong.

              Hmmm, I don’t see anyone claiming that.

              no amount of circumstantial evidence will ever be enough.

              Well you are a lawyer so it must be true if you say it.

            3. What do you ever be talking about?

            4. John cannot definitively exonerate Muslims from arson.

              /Mueller doctrine

  23. Kim Kardashian slammed for exploiting Japanese culture for Kimono line

    “I’ve been passionate about this for 15 years,” Kim Kardashian tweeted Tuesday alongside an announcement for her new shapewear line, controversially named Kimono.

    Japan, however, has been passionate about the kimono since it originated there in the Heian era, beginning 794 AD — millennia before Kardashian even arrived on the pop culture scene with her leaked 2003 sex tape.

    The internet was quick to accuse the star of cultural appropriation of the traditional full-body garment.

    1. Hopefully, she is quick to tell them to fuck off.

    2. Japan, however, has been passionate about the kimono since it originated there in the Heian era, beginning 794 AD — millennia before Kardashian even arrived on the pop culture scene with her leaked 2003 sex tape.

      1. “And don’t even get us started about Mt. Fuji!”

      2. It’s possible her sex tape was also cultural appropriation. Japanese are into some weird shit.

        1. It’s not like she did a bukkake.

    3. Guarantee that every person who’s actually bitching about her for doing this is not native Japanese, but is either white or 2nd/3rd-generation Asian-American of mostly Chinese or Korean descent.

      1. Unlike stupid Americans, east Asian countries seem to grasp that it is to their benefit to export their culture to other countries. Not only does it foster peace, but the economic benefits of other countries appropriating your culture are massive.

    4. John Cleese is being excoriated for having tweeted this:

      “Some years ago I opined that London was not really an English city any more

      Since then, virtually all my friends from abroad have confirmed my observation

      So there must be some truth in it…

      I note also that London was the UK city that voted most strongly to remain in the EU”

      What a terrible thing to say!

    5. Alexandria Occasio-Cortez should be excoriated for tweeting this:

      “Concentration camps are not the same as death camps.

      This is an important distinction. One of the biggest lessons from that dark history is that it didn’t happen overnight. It emerged out of slow, increasingly concerning steps that acclimated the public to inhumane treatment.”

      Apparently, she was trying to defend the use of the term “concentration camps” to describe Homeland Security facilities that are holding asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, but she just ended up making bogus distinctions that make it sound like she might want to round up opponents of her Green New Deal.

      Moral of the story: Twitter is a sitcom. The people who write the content, the laugh track of people responding to tweets–we shouldn’t take any of it seriously.

      1. Twitter is the id of humanity. And you’re right, nobody should ever take anything posted there seriously.

        1. If it’s the id of humanity, you better damn well take it seriously.
          When prominent govt figures start talking about grabbing guns, rounding people up, etc – and using military force against those who resist.
          Yea, important to take these signs seriously

          1. I must have missed something. Do you know what id is?

      2. The reality is the camps at the boarder are more akin to President Carter and the Cubans, than Germany and Jews.

        1. They were trying to smear Republicans as Nazis, and her false distinction is a pathetic attempt to rationalize the smear.

          1. Also to knock those dirty Jews down a few rungs on the victim hierarchy

    6. “traditional full-body garment”

      Sounds nothing like the kardashians… I am outraged at the lack of skin showing

      1. I’m holding out for Kim’s Open-Kimono line.


    Warren calls for decrminalizing illegal border crossing. But no one supports open borders. No.

    1. Look on the bright side, John. It’s paperwork reduction. You won’t need to carry your passport to get back into the U.S.

    2. The idea is to stop Trump and company from criminalizing the crossing and then using the conviction to undermine future petitions for legal status.

  25. >>>Tea Party-era Ted Cruz would’ve flipped his shit over this stuff.

    sure. which one’s lying?

    1. Smith is an anti-SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) activist who opposes teaching kids about sexual orientation and gender identity at schools.

      I guess it’s “activism” now to say that kids should be learning things like, oh, science, math and language…instead of sex positions and normalizing gender dysphoria

    2. always worth a repost

      Men are not women

      Insensate fury ensues…

  26. “The National Security Agency collected records about U.S. calls and text messages that it wasn’t authorized to obtain last year, in a second such incident, renewing privacy concerns surrounding the agency’s maligned phone-surveillance program, according to government documents and people familiar with the matter.

    The previously undisclosed error, which took place last October, occurred several months after the NSA said it had purged hundreds of millions of metadata records it had amassed since 2015 due to a separate overcollection episode.”

    “NSA Improperly Collected U.S. Phone Records a Second Time”

    1. If you read down in the article, the issue specific to these cases appears to be about telecom companies offering more data than the NSA requested.

      I make no claim to being an expert on this, but my understanding is that Section 215 of the Patriot Act releases telcos from liability for complying with a subpoena.

      “In order to protect anyone who complies with the order, FISA now prevents any person who complies with the order in “good faith” from being liable for producing any tangible goods required by the court order.”,_Title_II#Section_215:_Access_to_records_and_other_items_under_FISA

      If we can’t get various interests in Congress or the courts to respect the Fourth Amendment repealing the AUMF and the Patriot Act entirely, maybe we can improve things by simply lifting that liability protection from the telcos. If it were easier to go after the telcos for releasing information to the NSA without a warrant, they’d presumably be more careful about not releasing data unless it was specifically covered in the warrant.

      1. Private.

  27. Members of Libertarians For Ted Cruz are among my favorite right-wingers parading about in unconvincing libertarian drag (and culture war casualties).

    Reason inexplicably hosts the blog of Libertarians For Ted Cruz’s academic division. Mostly to benefit from the popularity of a podcast presenting the authoritarian take on ‘national security,’ surveillance, and secrecy, I guess.

    1. No one cares what you think about anything, you toothless fucking hillbilly.

    2. Is this the de-platform logic I’ve been hearing about? Don’t worry Rev, words can’t hurt ya! Try engaging with ideas you don’t like and debating them.

    3. “Members of __________ are among my favorite ________”

      This seem to be among your favorite crutches.

    4. Go die in a fire, fucking slaver.

  28. > San Francisco just banned all e-cigarettes, becoming the first city in the U.S. to do so.

    But shitting on the street is still perfectly legal. I’m serious here. The homeless shit on the city streets and the city doesn’t even pretend to try to stop it. Walk out of a fancy restaurant and some scabbed over dude is shitting on the sidewalk.

  29. I tried a couple times to post a comment explaining what this was really about with a link to the video from a group that rhymes with Vroject Peritas explaining what Cruz was asking about. but my comments mysteriously failed to appear. Let’s see if removing the link and changing the group’s name helps.

    1. Ken. The Goog is watching. Be careful.

    2. It’s kinda like everyone already knows what’s going on and it turns out Google has a right to do that. Unless someone can give evidence of collusion between progressive politicians and Google beyond campaign donations.

      1. Project Veritas has plenty. Try to keep up

        1. He’s a fucking sock puppet, he’s not here to learn anything.

    3. The problem may be that you’re posting a comment containing more than one link. If so, post the second link in a second comment.

      1. There was just one link, to the relevant video on CitBhute. It looks like Reason’s claim that they don’t moderate comments is as honest as the rest of their writing.

        1. If the link is super long, more than 50 characters, the comment also gets bounced. You can avoid that by using href.

        2. Delete the “s” from “https”

          1. He’s not going to try to fix his comment, he’s just going to coyly imply that he’s being censored by some omniscient tech Big Brother. That seems to be the goal of his comment.

            I really don’t like google either but I hate disingenuous arguments.

            1. No one cares what you like bitch.

    4. Here’s a link to Project Veritas:

      I don’t know anything about them.


    The concerned gun owner pointed to SB107 and said the purpose of it was “to take away [his] semiautomatic firearms.”

    Morrison then interjected that the purpose was not to take them, but to prevent any future sales.

    The gun owner responded by pointing out that the ban on future sales included a fine for current owners who did not hand their guns over. He said, “You want me to turn them over to the state police unless I pay a fine for each firearm and register them, then I get to keep them.”

    Morrison concurred, saying, “Okay.”

    The gun owner then asked, “If I get to keep it–if I pay a fine and register it–then, how dangerous is it in the first place and why do you need to ban it all?”

    People in attendance applauded the gun owner’s point and once applause died Morrison said, “Well, you just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all, maybe it’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have to worry about paying the fine.”

    1. Every single one of them, to a man, hate our freedoms. They hate our freedoms with an abiding, burning passion that cannot be quenched.

    2. “Well, you just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all, maybe it’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have to worry about paying the fine.”

      Julie Morrison, the politician who made that threat, represents a district in Chicago. Has she never heard of McDonald vs. Chicago?

      Why would she think she can openly defy a Supreme Court ruling that specifically ruled that Chicago’s gun control laws were unconstitutional because the protections of the Second Amendment apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment? If Chicago’s gun control laws were unconstitutional, how can it be constitutional to arbitrarily confiscate people’s guns?

      When they do confiscations in California, they do it on the basis that the person is legally disqualified for some legitimate reason–felony conviction, insanity, . . .

      You can’t just go around arbitrarily violating people’s constitutional rights, Ms. Morrison–regardless of whether you won an election. She must be a mess. I feel sorry for her family. Can you imagine living with a megalomaniac like that?

  31. “In a congressional hearing yesterday, Cruz grilled a Google executive on whether any of her colleagues had voted for Trump and whether any of them had donated to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. As a lot of folks have pointed out, this smacks of some super-corrupt and fascistic operating.”

    This is horseshit.

    I’d cite my anti-antitrust creds, but most, if not all of you, have seen me hype consumer choice and existing or emerging alternatives to Google’s products as the appropriate response to Google’s shitty behavior. I.e., if I’m antitrust on the basis that consumers should make different choices if they don’t like Google, does that make me a fascist?

    If people don’t like Google because their corporate culture is widely hostile to their own viewpoints, that doesn’t make them fascists. A politician pointing out that Google’s viewpoints don’t mirror the whole spectrum of American thought and that their censorship policies reflect that–there isn’t anything fascist about that.

    If and when real fascism arrives in America, few people will actually fight its arrival–because they’ll have heard the boy crying wolf over nothing so many times before. If you don’t have any respect for your own credibility, maybe have mercy on the potential victims of real fascism in the future. You’re not doing the cause of libertarianism any favors by crying wolf.

    1. Is it not fascist to act against Google because of their politics? Cruz is clearly invoking that it’s a problem that an influential technology company has politics his party doesn’t agree with.

      1. This out-of-context clipped video and quote are certainly set up to make it appear that way. I wonder what context the entire exchange could provide.

      2. No, I wouldn’t describe Google’s censorship of their own private property as fascist at all. If the First Amendment protects anything, it’s the right to say or censor what you want on your own property. Do you think fundamentalist bakers have the right to refuse to put something on a wedding cake? I do, and Google has the same rights as anyone else.

        I don’t have to like what they do with their property rights in order to support their property rights, and I expect the government to protect my right to decide what can and can’t be said on my property, too.

        If Google is violating their contracts with content creators by way of end user agreements, then that isn’t fascist either. That’s just breech of contract.

        Being reasonable means we shouldn’t agree with everything everybody says that’s bad about people, causes, and companies that we don’t like. No, I don’t like Google, to the point that I’m working hard to avoid using their products and encouraging other people to do likewise, but they aren’t fascists.

        They aren’t even the government. They’re just progressive shitheads with way too much power. The power they have is the power we give them–and that is as it should be. Take their power away by refusing to use their products if you don’t like them. What you’re proposing through government regulation looks like rent seeking. You think you can’t win in the marketplace, so now you’re looking for the government to bail you out under the auspices of antitrust.

        1. “You think you can’t win in the marketplace, so now you’re looking for the government to bail you out under the auspices of antitrust.”

          Incidentally, that “You” was second person plural–not directed at “You”, specifically, second person singular. I probably should have used third person.

          The point is that we can put Google in its place with our consumer choices, and I think there are a lot of people who are unaware that there are so many great substitutes for Google’s products out there–and that can lead to them thinking that the only way to fight Google is through regulation.

          That isn’t so. We can’t undermine Google in all sorts of ways through consumer choice, and so long as we can, we’re flirting with disaster by inviting the government in to solve our problems for us–when we’re perfectly capable of solving them ourselves. Doesn’t the government using antitrust as an excuse to impose progressive polices seem like the most likely outcome?

          When Liz Warren and Ted Cruz go after Google, they’re criticizing it for opposite reasons. Liz Warren doesn’t want them tolerating hate speech and “fake news” from conservatives. If you put the government in charge of monitoring the fairness of speech, future progressive presidents will use that power to their advantage. Fuck Liz Warren and the Trojan horse she rode in on.

          1. You made some really good points and I agree with pretty much everything you said. However, I think you misread my comment. I do not support Ted Cruz or the Amendment to 230 and I do not support antitrust action. I think Google, as a private platform and a non-publisher website, can control their users content as they like. My comment was addressed to your previous concern that antitrust action against Google is appropriate which I thought you were invoking here as well.

            1. But you still want them to benefit from government intervention in the form of special protections from having to defend themselves in court

              1. No, I am making the obvious distinction that a social media platform isn’t a publisher

                1. You mean “assertion” not “distinction” sock puppet.

            2. “My comment was addressed to your previous concern that antitrust action against Google is appropriate which I thought you were invoking here as well.”

              Yes, I’m against antitrust actions against Google for all the reasons I stated above.

              1. Okay good to know

    2. No.

      The Supreme Court has ruled on this kind of thing before.

      Munn v. Illinois, Supreme Court majority decision, 1876:

      Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.

  32. I get the impression that Cruz’ comments are taken out of context here. I can see that it would be reasonable to ask these types of questions if you are trying to establish that Google’s staff political leanings are exclusively in one direction. That should have NO bearing on whether or not google should be regulated, but it could be used to set up a larger argument that google is censoring particular voices due to politics. By itself, its a weak (or nearly insignificant) piece of evidence that might be made stronger when combined with the more significant pieces of evidence such as the removal of content relating to the pintrest controversy, the internal google emails discussing how to censor prominent center-left and center-right people, videos of google execs discussing internally that it is google’s responsibility to meddle and subvert the American voters in 2020.

    Was Cruz really trying to say we should regulate google because they didn’t donate or support Republicans in 2016? Or is he just making a small point about political leanings as part of a much larger argument? I’m at work so I can’t watch the video right now.

    1. Good point. I would even add that the partisan politics of Google is a very important piece of content when discussing their influence which I think is a very important discussion to have. But still, it’s easy to imagine that Cruz has further interests when making this point considering the antitrust case against Google and obviously the 230 amendment.

      1. Ted Cruz has been talking about Google’s stated goals of trying to swing the next election. It seems like a useful piece of evidence to establish that they have a lack of viewpoint diversity. He’s not trying to FORCE them to establish viewpoint diversity, but the lack of it provides circumstantial evidence that they may be engaging in unethical business practices.

        I don’t care about Google’s politics, but them tinkering around behind the scenes and trying to quietly manipulate people is really shitty. Sure, be as political as you want, but you need to be honest about it if it’s affecting your business practices.

  33. By the way, don’t think that I haven’t noticed that you guys haven’t said a word yet about the police shooting in South Bend, Indiana.

    Usually when a white cop shoots a black person you guys are all over instantly, always assuming of course that the shooting was unjustified and one of the worst atrocities ever. And you normally rant and rave about it for days on end, so it’s more than a little odd that yours completely ignoring this one. Do you guys really worship and love your fellow homo Pete Buttplug that much already??

    1. Good point

  34. This is an incredibly disingenuous takes on the whole google/pinterest/veritas situation – at least I now know what the latest left-wing spin is.

    Libertarians don’t do ourselves any favors when we mis-characterize criticisms of corporate behavior and sweep it all under the rug as a ‘private property’ issue. Acknowledging what is going on, why it is potentially problematic, and then advocating for the actual market-based and legitimate-role-of-government-based solutions is necessary if the actual goal is to prevent government regulation.

    Right now, the whole thing reminds me of ‘Mr Smith Goes to Washington’ with Google and big-tech playing the role of the news organizations back in Smith’s home state. It is representative of one of the worst potential abuses of crony-capitalism which, left unchecked, WILL cause the politicians to step in and grab more power for themselves.

    1. +1

    2. What else would you expect from a former cocksucking crackhead prostitute who has written extensively in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion and birth control and lied repeatedly about the undercover Planned Parenthood videos that have been verified by a court of law to be legitimate and unedited?

      1. I take issue with your post.

        Is “Former” strictly accurate?

        1. I regret that I have no upvotes here to give your comment.

  35. Going a couple of links deep, I see the San Francisco vape ordinance is against vaping devices that aren’t licensed by FDA — and that the ordinance was proposed because Trump postponed FDA’s requiring such licensure for nicotine vaping devices. So it’s a fuck-you to Trump, fuck all you vapers who happen to get in the way. Note that FDA has not required any licensure of cannabinoid vapes, and that San Francisco’s ordinance will still allow those to be sold.

    So what if Trump undertakes some measure to make sure FDA doesn’t interfere with cannabis? Will San Francisco’s supervisors then outlaw that too, or will their heads just explode?

  36. So much white-knighting taking place for Ted Cruz. Ted F’n Cruz.

    And by many of the same people complaining about Reason articles speaking favorably about George Will or David French.

    Good heavens.

    1. “So much white-knighting taking place”

      And so much bitching from you about it. You have made a name for yourself unrepentantly bitching about a particular set of people, while simultaneously slurping a different set of people, because you are a Prog piece of shit and it is obvious to everyone.

      1. How dare anyone point out that Elizabeth Nolan Brown, the paid cocksucking whore, is an inveterate liar instead of joining her on her knees to get some of that good proggie dick!

  37. Couldn’t you go back to sucking old men’s cocks for a living and leave the thinking to those better suited for it?

  38. […] you know something has gone terribly wrong. Yet Texas Senator Ted Cruz uttered those very words to a Google executive at a congressional hearing […]

  39. […] you know something has gone terribly wrong. Yet Texas Senator Ted Cruz uttered those very words to a Google executive at a congressional hearing […]

  40. […] crack down on online platforms. Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), once a lover of limited government, grilled Google User Experience Director Maggie Stanphill during a congressional hearing last month over whether the company’s leaders had voted […]

  41. The data presented during this hearing shows that Trump actually won the popular vote, not Hillary. It also reveals that Trump won by a landslide and despite Google’s attempts.

    But go on and ignore it. Guess who likely will win re-election in 2020?

    Gotta give Trump and his team credit, they sure do know how to ‘bring on the heat’ as a strategy tactic (which is working beautifully) and how to play 4D chess. Keep mocking and laughing. You won’t be for much longer is my wager.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.