Reason Roundup

Kamala Harris Won the Democratic Debate by Fudging Her Record

Plus: Inter-generational warfare among Democrats, the reluctant anarchism of Marianne Williams, and more...

|

The chattering classes have crowned Kamala Harris the winner of Thursday night's Democratic presidential primary debate. As is so often the case with the senator from California and former top cop for that state, Harris earned her positive press with whoppers and attack lines carefully calculated for viral marketing potential. She may indeed have what it takes to be a winner—so did Donald Trump, whose propensity for bold and easily disproved falsehoods is also a hallmark Harris trait. 

What did Harris fudge the truth about? Let's start with the big ones. 

Harris told viewers that she disagreed with President Obama's policy of informing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when undocumented immigrants were arrested for state or local crimes. But "as district attorney of San Francisco, Kamala Harris supported a city policy that required law enforcement to turn over undocumented juvenile immigrants to federal immigration authorities if they were arrested and suspected of committing a felony, regardless of whether they were actually convicted of a crime," CNN notes

Another whopper: Harris claimed last night to have been one of the earliest and biggest proponents of police-worn body cameras. But as recently as 2015, she was arguing against making it California's official statewide policy. "I as a general matter believe that we should invest in the ability of law enforcement leaders in specific regions and with their departments to use … discretion to figure out what technology they are going to adopt based on needs that they have and resources that they have," Harris said at the time. 

She told debate viewers that as attorney general, she had required "that all my special agents would wear body cameras." That's true—Harris did require it of the small set of officers working directly for her, but not for officers statewide

Asked about the economy, Harris implied that low unemployment numbers in America are simply a reflection of poor people having to work two or three jobs just to get by. But that's not how the employment numbers work. And as The Washington Post points out, "there are 7.8 million people who hold more than one job right now, just 5 percent of Americans with jobs. The percentage has been roughly steady since the Great Recession, and in fact is lower than in the mid-1990s, when it hovered around 6 percent." 

In addition to these direct misrepresentations, Harris also made comments with at least a fuzzy relationship to reality. 

Harris spoke at one point of wanting rape victims to be able to run out into the street, flag down a cop, and be taken seriously and treated with respect. But when one underage girl in California did pretty much just that—running into an officer from Alameda County (Harris' old prosecutorial stomping grounds) as she was fleeing a violent pimp—that cop instead started a sexual relationship with the girl and, later, so did several of his colleagues, while others helped cover these relationships up. When the young woman finally came forward, her lawyers begged Harris's office to intervene and conduct an independent investigation into the Oakland Police Department. No dice. Harris was busy bringing charges against the website Backpage—charges she knew were barred by federal law (thanks, Section 230!)—and running a campaign for the U.S. Senate. 

(Speaking of Backpage, check out this excellent new ReasonTV piece on the government's war against the website, its founders, and sex workers at large, if you haven't already. Harris makes plenty of villainous appearances alongside her many Republican counterparts in this tale.) 

Aside from a Trump-like propensity for twisting the truth, Harris also shares the current president's hunger (and that of his predecessor) for executive power. Last night, and throughout her campaign, Harris has promised to override Congress and use executive orders to pass essentially any policy she wants. 

Harris' most talked-about moment of the debate last night was her argument with Biden over his erstwhile opposition to a federally mandated, nationwide busing program to help racially integrate public schools. Biden worked "to oppose busing, and there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day, and that little girl was me," said Harris—and lo and behold, her campaign was already selling t-shirts with that slogan by the end of the night.

Having previously opposed abolishing private health insurance, last night Harris was an enthusiastic champion of such plans. "In a January CNN town hall, Harris said she supported the measure, then walked those comments back almost immediately after," Reason's Billy Binion noted. At last night's debate, however, Harris was "one of two candidates to raise their hands when asked by moderators if they would eradicate all private insurance companies."

Asked how she would pay for all these programs, Harris was evasive, saying that no one asked Republicans that. (Oh, yeah?) 

Of course, Harris was far from the only one to stink up the stage last night. Check out more Reason coverage of the second Democratic debate night below: 


QUICK HITS

  • Every candidate in last night's Democratic debate said they would include undocumented immigrants in their universal health coverage plans. 
  • Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker were the most searched Democratic presidential candidates after the first Democratic debate in Miami. After last night, Americans were searching for Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Marianne Williamson:

  • Small government got a very small shoutout during last night's debate: 

  • Hickenlooper also credited himself for Colorado's legalization of marijuana. About that… 

  • Joe Biden got in one good line against Harris. Alas, this is kind of rich coming from someone who still supports the 1994 crime bill: 

NEXT: Government Officials So Sorry That Their Own Rules Make Them Leave Kids in Filth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Harris told viewers that she disagreed with President Obama’s policy of informing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when undocumented immigrants were arrested for state or local crimes, including small things like traffic violations.

    Maybe Obama understood the limited efficacy of pandering to the undocumented voter.

    1. Hello.

      “Asked about the economy, Harris implied that low unemployment numbers in America are simply a reflection of poor people having to work two or three jobs just to get by. ”

      /face palm.

      Harris is the worst.

      1. What’s the point of having an AOC if you’re not going to learn from her fails?

      2. Holy shit…she ACTUALLY said that?

        She saw the mockery AOC got and said “Man, I need some of that!”

      3. What? Does she think that if you have more than one job you get counted as two employed people? Could she be any more wrong?

        Low unemployment is pushing up wages. There is no state minimum wage where I live and fast food places are hiring at $13/hour.

        1. And they aren’t even able to fill jobs with that higher wage I bet.

          I’ve been to multiple fast food restaurants the last two months that closed their dining areas, and just running drive-through because they can’t find enough workers.

          1. Yeah. Help Wanted signs everywhere.

            1. I was at a Chik-fil-a the other day and could hardly find a place to park or a seat at 2:30 on a Wednesday because there were 40 or 50 folks there applying for a job.

    2. ITT Screech’s sad sockpuppet Brandybuck tries to incite the commentariat into supporting moderation, then gets told to screw.

    3. I used to think O could pander with the best of them. He looks like a novice compared to these shameless virtue signalers.

  2. When the young woman finally came forward, her lawyers begged Harris’s office to intervene and conduct an independent investigation into the Oakland Police Department. No dice.

    ENB needed to be onstage as Harris’ personal fact checker.

  3. …that little girl was me,” said Harris—and lo and behold, her campaign was already selling t-shirts with that slogan by the end of the night.

    Calculated spontaneity merch.

    1. Harris’s mother was an Indian cancer researcher from a wealthy family and her father was an upper class Jamaican (descended from both slave owners and slaves). Is she really going to try to claim some kind of authentic African-American experience?
      I guess it worked for Obama.

      1. He was an Economic’s Professor at Stanford .. Her mother a cancer researcher at U Cal Berkeley ..oh yeah she didn’t need to bus…. She moved to Quebec when she was 12 again she didn’t need to bus

    2. Is that an argument for busing, or against busing?

      1. My retort would have been: “…and, as a six-year-old, did you enjoy the experience of having to take a bus to a school far from your home and away from your friends?”
        Some are saying the whole thing about the Oakland, California school district needing to desegregate is a joke, anyway.

      2. Having seen a consent decree in action, I hate busing. That’s money siphoned away from classrooms, sleep lost, and study time being robbed from kids.

  4. All 10 Dems say their health care plans would cover undocumented immigrants. I’m *incredibly* pro-immigration, but this is how you get a second Donald Trump term.

    — (Stephanie) Slade (@sladesr) June 28, 2019

    Magic is for everyone, Stephanie.

  5. Totally not hypocritical for Reason to bitch about “twisting” the truth.

    Nope, not at all

    1. What do you want them to do? Why do you keep reading if you have such a low opinion of the writers?

      1. What other publications exist that claim to be libertarian? Many come here for the comment section, not the articles. Some read the articles to correct them. Some read the articles and get so sideways or have lost so much faith in the writers that all they can do is shake their heads and throw some shade at the staff for being such low quality journalists.

        1. Yeah, fair enough. The comments are the best part. But when half of your comments are bitching about the publisher of this site, you aren’t adding anything and it gets tiresome.
          Reason isn’t perfect by a long shot, but this idea that they are just secret progressives that a number of people seem to hold is silly. No, they aren’t all hard-core, principled libertarians. But they are hardly all progressive Democrats.
          I think a lot of the reaction comes down to their position on immigration. While I largely agree with them on that subject, their coverage is way too one sided (and Dalmia’s pieces on immigration are especially bad). Lots of libertarian-ish people have reasonable objections to open immigration and it would be good to see those views outside of the comment section sometimes.

          1. “I think a lot of the reaction comes down to their position on reality”

            FTFY

          2. Complaining about the complaints? Eh, whatever. Comment sections are going to contain feedback – feedback that will get fairly hostile if the readers feel like they’re being lied to, betrayed or manipulated. Even more so if the site explicitly says “hey, we represent the ______ ideological position on the subject” while not really supporting that ideological position. Half the complaints I see are people complaining that the writers of this publication are supporting fairly progressive talking points while claiming to be libertarian. I’d be pissed if I was a libertarian too.

            1. Well, my complaint is that a lot of the complainers seem to have made up their mind about reason and base a lot of complaints on some weird and poorly supported assumptions.
              Criticize and feedback is great. Just try to respond to what is actually written, not your prejudices about the publication.

              1. Just try to respond to what is actually written, not your prejudices about the publication.

                Okay, that’s a fair point.

              2. It’s ok Zeb, a lot of us complainers hardly bother coming here anymore.

                An example of why is this is the only mention of a fairly important topic that you would think Reason might spill some ink over…


                “Every candidate in last night’s Democratic debate said they would include undocumented immigrants in their universal health coverage plans. ”

                That’s all they had to say on the topic. You’d think taxing American’s to pay for foreign healthcare might be a topic they might write more on. I know I came here to read their take, and there isn’t one. I guess this is a pet topic Reason just can’t talk about.

          3. I>But they are hardly all progressive Democrats.

            No. They’re not. Not all of them.

            Some are just Democrats, and some are Greens, and some are outright socialists. And Nick is…..whateverthehell Nick is.

            The only place you can see much libertarianism is in the comments these days–and you’ve gotta wade through shit to get that.

            People bitch because they don’t need to come to Reason to get the prog/Dem/Green/Socialist/Nick point of view. They don’t need to have that point of view foisted upon them in a misplaced attempt at balance.

            That point of view is every fucking where. You can’t watch a movie, play a video game, read a newspaper/site, scroll through your own social media feeds without being inundated with how The Left thinks–and wants to force upon you.

            We bitch because we used to get a different line here sometimes. Now, even the slightest hint of libertarian thought outside the comments has to be buried in Soavisms so deep the meaning gets lost in the annoyance.

            Gods–Reason just posted a piece telling us not to watch the debates ourselves–so they could Vox at us.

            So we complain. And we’re gonna keep complaining.

            1. Fine. And I will continue to occasionally question some of the more hyperbolic complaints.

          4. no they have some good writers but they have some that despite claims to the opposite are really quite progressive(Dalmia). They still continue to support the second amendment and for that I think they need to congratulated for this. I just think they need to called out when they present progressive view points.

          5. Its purposeful propaganda.

            You trying to defend reason staff is so laughable.

            What you are implying is that reason staff are too stupid to defend themselves with quality articles. They need zeb to defend their work.

            Shikha is on staff and paid. She is a hack and her articles are so bad that many commenters say how they skip it for the comments.

            1. I only read her articles if I swallow poison. I go straight to the comments, where they are typically ruined by shitposters like Pedo Jeffy (Chemjeff).

            2. Right she claims to have the all the right background even praising Hayek and Ayn Rand yet from her writing it isn’t clear she has ever crack a book authored by either. She is simply a turd.

      2. I don’t read the articles, mostly.
        The comments are much more enlightening.

        But maybe Reason will go back and correct headlines about “decriminalizing immigration” and such

        1. I agree that their immigration stuff has gone off the rails (and I am more or less for very open immigration).
          But I think that the long-term Reason writers at least are generally sincere in their stated positions.

          1. “I am more or less for very open immigration”
            What do you propose to accomplish with open immigration?

            1. What do you propose to accomplish with open immigration?

              Pissing you off is plenty reason enough.

              Anyway, this whole discussion is based on false premises. The commentariat took a hard turn around 2016. The writing staff did not.

              Make of that what you will.

              1. More and more reason socks trying to shore up the sinking ship?

  6. “Aside from a Trump-like propensity for twisting the truth, Harris also shares the current president’s hunger (and that of his predecessor) for executive power. Last night, and throughout her campaign, Harris promised to override Congress and use executive orders to pass any policy she wants. ”

    This was the glaring take-away. Although “we” already knew it.

    1. This got me curious; so I did a some quick Wikipedia research.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

      Executive orders per president actually surprised the hell out of me, especially when broken down to E.O.’s per president per year.

      Obama had the fewest orders per year (34.6) since the beginning of the 20th century. Trump is relatively low on the list as well at 46.9/yr. Clinton and both Bush’s actually had fewer per year than Trump as well.

      No surprise at all, FDR ran away with the top spot at 307.8 per year.

      1. Having countless executive branch agencies lessens the needs for EOs. Just have them issue regulations.

        I do wonder how something like the “dear colleague” letter gets counted

        1. Yeah, there are definitely other means by which to enact executive power and influence.

          The numbers still aren’t what I expected, though. Especially seeing Calvin Coolidge in the top five.

        2. “Dear Colleague: I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

      2. Kinda hard to quantify.
        Some are relatively mundane, some have great impact.
        Some dictates from the Executive branch don’t rise to that level.
        Look at DACA, which wasn’t, even an EO, but a memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security.

  7. Every candidate in last night’s Democratic debate said they would include undocumented immigrants in their universal health coverage plans.

    If you’re going to buy a voter base, plan for the future.

    1. I’m trying to think of a Spanish language pun involving Ponzi Scheme, but in the meantime, I’ll just say Ponzi Scheme.

  8. “Every candidate in last night’s Democratic debate said they would include undocumented immigrants in their universal health coverage plans.”

    Excellent.

    Now, I realize we Koch / Reason libertarians generally want to reduce spending, and universal health coverage sounds expensive. But keep in mind our top priority is always to increase immigration into the US. We must seriously consider supporting any “big government” program that makes this country a more attractive destination for immigrants.

    #LibertariansForUniversalHealthcare
    #(AsLongAsTheUndocumentedGetItToo)

    1. That’s not even parody, it’s Reason’s official editorial position

      1. >That’s not even parody, it’s Reason’s official editorial position

        Um. No it’s not?

        Stephanie Slade was criticizing plans covering undocumented immigrants right there in her tweet, and they were also criticizing those plans on the post-debate podcast.

        1. They criticized it but they don’t object to it enough to demand an end to it as a condition of open borders. They still support totally open borders even though they know it will result in giving welfare to immigrants. So, their criticism of it is meaningless and Slade as she often does is being less than truthful.

          1. Maybe so, but that’s still a long way from support for universal healthcare being their editorial position.

            1. Pretty sure Gillespie wrote an article (or maybe it was a tweet?) advocating making common cause with socialists for the sake of open borders

              1. No, he didn’t. You must not have read that article, either.

                1. Oops.
                  Looks like you didn’t read the article.
                  How embarrassed you must be.

                  1. Weirdly, I’m not.

              2. Must have missed that.

                If he said that we should support socialists because they like immigration, I’d agree that’s not good.
                If he simply noted the point of agreement, so what?

                1. “In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.”

                  “Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.”

                  https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

                  1. I see – so if we follow the chain of your personal definitions and category changes then pointing out that libertarians and socialists don’t always disagree about everything = “we must make common cause with socialists for the sake of open borders.”

                    IOW, Tony-logic.

                    1. Are you really this stupid?

                      “libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet”

                      People like you are the reason my best friend got the fuck out of academia

                    2. “for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.”

                      I mean, seriously – you’re taking the “words don’t mean what they mean” position?
                      C’mon, man.
                      Just take the L and save what’s left of your face

    2. the New Green Deal sounds expensive too

    3. I have a RIGHT to have the government force other people to pay for my basic needs!

      Don’t you agree? Haha

  9. Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker were the most searched Democratic presidential candidates after the first Democratic debate in Miami. After last night, Americans were searching for Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Marianne Williamson…

    Apparently Americans are tired of First Ladies.

    1. I thought it was because they never heard of them before.

  10. .@Hickenlooper you don’t get to take credit for marijuana legalization, which you opposed. The people did that without you. #DemDebate

    — NORML (@NORML) June 28, 2019

    Well, he could always have been a bigger road bump.

    1. Illinois is the only state government that has legalized through the normal legislative process, right? So they are the only one of these 11 states that has representatives that are actually doing something in accordance with the will of the people they represent (at least on this issue).

      1. Sorta but it’s really about the taxes. Devil weed gonna save IL from bankruptcy. They hope.

  11. Do we need set up a gofundme account for an alarm clock?

  12. 7 p.m.

    President Donald Trump is joking with Russian President Vladimir Putin about interfering in U.S. elections.
    “After a reporter at an international summit in Japan asked Trump if he was going to warn Russia not to meddle in the U.S. election, Trump turned to Putin and jokingly said: “Don’t meddle in the election.”
    The off-handed comment came during the two leaders’ first meeting since special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russia extensively interfered with the 2016 campaign.”
    http://www.startribune.com/the-latest-trump-kicks-off-g-20-trip-with-meeting-with-abe/511925782/

    I think he just won re-election.

    1. “special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russia extensively interfered with the 2016 campaign.”

      Gonna need a ruling on the meaning of “extensively”.

      1. Hey, didn’t you see those two GIFs?

      2. You mean Buff Bernie didn’t make you vote Trump?

    2. He did everything humanly possible to prevent interference.

    3. That is grand-master trolling.

      Would’ve been better if he said “He meddled? BAD Putin. Naughty Putin!”

    4. “Trump turned to Putin and jokingly said: ‘Don’t meddle in the election.'”

      That’s actually hilarious. I don’t like Donald Trump, but you gotta hand it to him, sometimes he’s very funny.

      1. That’s funny. I don’t care who you are.

    5. He’s such a dick.
      Its awesome

    6. that’s fucking beautiful.

    7. Thats more than Obama did

      1. Too many seem to forget that, when The Russians™ were supposedly interfering in the election, Trump was a private citizen with no ability to take any action to prevent the claimed acts.
        0blama, however…

        1. You mean no ability except to report Russian interference attempts to the FBI?

  13. Hickenlooper: “you don’t need big government to do big things”

    “Go in there with all you got and hick just one for the Looper!”

    1. So I jump ship in Hong Kong and I make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. Big hitter, the Lama.

  14. WASHINGTON—The House passed a $4.6 billion bill funding humanitarian aid for migrants at the southern border, approving the Senate version of the legislation over the objections of nearly 100 Democrats and sending it to President Trump for his signature.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had earlier pledged to make changes to the Senate package before allowing it on the House floor for a vote.

    . . . .

    The bill provides nearly $2.9 billion for the care of children who enter the U.S. unaccompanied. It funds 30 new teams of immigration judges, and more than $1 billion goes toward Customs and Border Protection to help the agency process migrants.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-set-to-vote-on-senate-version-of-border-aid-bill-11561663455?

    Pelosi’s and stage left of the Democrats in the House wanted to hold those children hostage to leverage the propaganda potential of their suffering. Their objections to this funding were: 1) they didn’t want any money going to new judges, 2) they didn’t want any money going to Customs and Border Protection, 3) they wanted Trump to stop sending asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait for their hearings, and 4) they wanted Trump to take back the emergency money he was spending on the wall.

    It’s hard to pontificate about the moral depravity of the Trump administration from the top of a pile of dead bodies if there isn’t a pile of dead bodies to climb, so I guess the left’s plan was to let more bodies pile up until Trump and his Republican minions in the Senate finally capitulated? I may not agree with the Democrats in the House on much in terms of ideology, but those of them who voted for this package over the objections of their fellow Democrats may be susceptible to charges of harboring a rudimentary conscience.

    1. Wouldn’t go that far out on a limb, Ken.
      But it is possible some of them realized it wouldn’t look good to be a ‘no’ vote in their next campaign.

      1. At first I thought you were saying I might be going out on a limb by suggesting they wanted to let the bodies pile up, but you’re saying I’m going too far to suggest that they might have rudimentary conscience?

        LOL

        You’re right that their behavior can also be explained by fear of being seen as ruthlessly exploiting the suffering of children in an election year. To understand that such behavior might be unseemly suggests that they might have a conscience, however.

        The other Democrats in the House are so far gone, it may never even occur to them that someone might legitimately question their behavior or their motives. Sociopaths can figure out what other people find horrifying–even if they’re incapable of feeling that way themselves. Whatever the Democrats who voted against this package are, they seem to be worse than that.

        I can think of principled libertarian reasons to oppose that package, but when we’re talking about the left side of the Democratic party in the House, we’re not talking about any of those libertarian principles. They voted against it because they want more bodies to pile up until Trump capitulates on the wall or whatever. If there’s a simpler, plausible explanation, maybe one of our resident lefties can explain it to us.

        1. True.
          What possible objection to more immigration judges can one come up with?
          How can that possibly be justified?

          Its mind boggling

  15. Asked how she would pay for all these programs, Harris was evasive, saying that no one asked Republicans that.

    No one asked Republicans how they would pay for Democrat plans?

    1. I would tax unicorns flying overhead to pay for her proposals. It has as much reality as anything she’d propose.

  16. What I want to know is if old Gropin’ Joe got handsy with the wimminz.

    1. Tulsi Gabbard, hell yeah!

  17. Once the progressive / libertarian alliance has established open borders, the next issue of racial justice we need to address is reparations for slavery.

    Slavery reparations could carry a $17 trillion price tag

    I’m still waiting for Reason.com’s chief racial justice correspondent Shikha Dalmia to unleash her magnum opus — “The Libertarian Case for Reparations.” I think it has the potential to be even better than her piece comparing border enforcement to fugitive slave laws.

    #LibertariansForReparations

    1. “#LibertariansForReparations”

      And here you thought just being a libertarian meant you were in a small group!
      Prolly not more than two under that tent.

      1. Libertarians for Reparations is the best line he has come up with in a long time or maybe ever. Ten bucks says you could trend that on Twitter and Weigal, Friedersdorf and Will Wilkerson would be down with it.

        1. I’ll see your $10 and raise you $100 that that would never happen.

          You guys are beyond deluded. This is like if you set up an echo chamber in a special ed class.

    2. Really? Only $17 trillion?
      I mean the Egyptians held Israel in slavery over 400 years. How is that anywhere enough?
      Has 23 and me volunteered to contribute at no cost the DNA research to confirm heredity of the slave descendants that will receive the reparations? How about proving the descendancy from slave owners of those who must pay? Who is going to Africa to identify those who actually captured slaves and sold them to Americans? Will current Islamic states pay for the slavery of prior and current slave takers?
      So many questions, so few facts.

      1. And how many black people will have to pay reparations?
        I mean, I wonder if the ratio of descendants of slave holders is higher among the black or white population?

        1. And how many black people will have to pay reparations?

          All of them. They invented it.

          There was slavery before there WERE white people.

    3. And which dead man shall pay, and which dead man shall receive? It’s bad form to disturb the dead. But you’re right about Shikha: her tilting in the past does indicate she will climb on board the notion that settled estates, many times removed, can or should be adjudicated ex post facto. If we’re lucky, she’ll accidentally dig up habeas corpus while she’s at it and we’re off to an actual argument. People seem to have forgotten about that pesky precept of late…
      But here’s one for the road – what ward/precinct do the deceased have representation by?

  18. So the Democrats are saying in so many words that if they return to power, they are going to open the borders, provide free healthcare and welfare to anyone who comes, and expect the taxpayers to pay for it. It is not a “free shit” platform in the conventional sense because they are offering very little free shit to actual Americans. I am dumbfounded that a major party could go this batshit crazy.

    1. Oh come on, who wouldn’t vote for such things?

    2. Don’t you pay attention to what the Reason staff tells you? Polls show more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.” That proves the Koch / Reason open borders agenda has gone mainstream.

      Democrats will run and win on an explicit open borders platform in 2020.

      #ImmigrationAboveAll
      #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders

    3. That’s what the candidates are saying during the primaries. Once one of them wins the nomination, they’ll forget they ever said any of that and pretend the rest of us are crazy for remembering they did.

      Incidentally, that’s who Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of State. The longer the candidate needs to steer to the left in order to secure the nomination, the more stupid shit Obama had to say. He offered her the Secretary of State job to drop out of the race, and after that, Obama started emphasizing things like “Marriage is between a man and a woman”.

      It’s especially hard for the Democrats to shift to the center until they’re the only candidate left standing because of the Democrats’ super-delegates–who make up 15% of the convention delegates. They super-delegates are far more to the left than the average Democrat and they can be expected to vote for someone further to the left than Biden or Harris.

      There’s probably room for one relative centrist and one person from the far left. I’d bet on Harris to beat Biden just because (no matter what the polls say) I think Harris is likely to win in California with all its delegates. I think her law and order shtick is likely to play well in Texas over someone like Liz Warren, too. If she’s going up against Biden for the relative centrist vote, I just don’t see Biden beating her in the states where it really matters, and it isn’t about the percentages–it’s about the delegates.

      If Harris beats him in California and Texas, what’s Biden gonna do–make up for it by winning the super-delegates, who’d rather vote for Bernie Sanders?

      Biden is a sitting duck.

      1. Biden is done. But the primary is going to be long and bloody. And the ability of the candidates to go centrist especially on immigration is not what it once was. I don’t think any of them will be anything close to as centrist as Obama pretended to be if they get the nomination.

        1. They won’t be able to turn to the center until mid-March, anyway–after California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas are done.

          I think Texas is key. Bernie or Sanders could easily win Florida, but I think either one of them winning in California is a stretch. Warren is more likely to win in California than either of them. Texas will be the key, and that means they’ll blanket the state fighting each other. Over the long run, I don’t know what will be worse–the negative advertising of their opponents or the positive advertising extolling their own brands of socialism. Either way, however far to the left Texas is now, it’ll move to the right after being subjected to that. And how do you walk that shit back in a place like Texas?

          1. You have to love the New York Post

            http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/334537/

            They were all so adamant about free healthcare for illegal aliens, I don’t see how even they can convincingly walk back on it.

      2. Biden doesn’t even want to run.
        He cut himself off mid sentence saying “my time’s up”
        If that’s not a freudian admission, what is?

      3. If Harris beats him in California and Texas, what’s Biden gonna do–make up for it by winning the super-delegates, who’d rather vote for Bernie Sanders?

        Harris is one of the few people who would get me to vote (R) instead of N/A or L.

        Think Janet Reno with double-plus-good Intersectionality points. Obama was a community organizer at heart who periodically pointed government guns at people while the media looked the other way. Harris is a Government Organizer who has never had a problem pointing government guns at anyone who gets in the way of her ideals. She is just as ruthless as Hillary, though probably not quite as corrupt.

        The damage that Harris will do with government force, while the media cheers her on, will be immeasurable and long lasting.

        1. She is just as ruthless as Hillary, though probably not quite as corrupt.

          But way more self-righteous.

          1. When comparing Hillary to Harris, corruption starts to look like a mitigating factor.

            I can’t decide what to make of that fact.

    4. Well look who is copy-pasting from Trump’s twitter feed this morning.

      1. So look who remains a moron but makes up for it by being dishonest. If you think the message is something other than that, show why. Otherwise, go fuck yourself with a chainsaw instead of once again showing why no one on this board can stand you. Christ you are a worthless asshole.

      2. Please claim to be libertarian and also vote for one of these clowns Jeff. I would love to hear your defense of welfare for non-citizens.

        1. He feels child rapists are owed asylum by the US, so welfare for them is one of his less extreme positions

    5. >>>I am dumbfounded that a major party could go this batshit crazy.

      shhhhhh.

  19. “Longtime libertarian activist and Antiwar.com founder Justin Raimondo has died.”

    A real gut punch. Truly the heir to Rothbard’s antiwar activism. I remember when antiwar.com and Raimondo’s “Beyond the Headlines” was the bible for people who were active with the Ron Paul campaign. And then when it came out that the FBI was monitoring the site and its writers, antiwar.com became required reading for me. A real loss

    1. Thank you, Just Sayin. RIP, Justin. He was fighting for gay rights in the 70s, way before it was cool. Antiwar used to be my one of my daily reads for years and years. Justin went a little Trump crazy there in the end, but no one is perfect. He did the same for Obama. He was just so passionate about peace he jumped on any chance to reduce war. His writing output was amazing. He will be sorely missed.

    2. Raimondo was the real deal. RIP.

  20. “White Supremacist Propaganda on the Rise on US College Campuses”
    […]
    “…The Anti-Defamation League reports that during the 2018-19 school year, there were 313 documented cases of white supremacist propaganda found on US college campuses, a seven percent jump from the previous academic year.
    […]
    College campuses are brimming with ambitious, impressionable minds, making them an ideal incubator for the next generation of white supremacists….”
    https://www.theroot.com/white-supremacist-propaganda-on-the-rise-on-us-college-1835908562

    First, please define “white supremacist literature”. Next please give us some history; is this supposed 7% rise just a return to norm?
    Finally, anyone taking count will see that the poor, impressionable kids are NOT flocking to white supremacy; they’re flocking to left-wing ‘free shit’ propaganda.

    1. Refusing to grovel to PC pandering = white supremicist literature.

      They really are making it easy to define these days! Haha

  21. Harris seems to be almost less likable than Warren. I can’t see how she can win the general election no matter how much the media fluffs her.

  22. Woman kickballer still rebelling agains’t mama:

    “Soccer star Megan Rapinoe after Trump attack: ‘I stand by the comments'”
    […]
    “U.S. women’s soccer team player Megan Rapinoe said she does not regret snubbing a potential visit to the White House after she was criticized by President Trump.
    “I stand by the comments that I made about not wanting to go to the White House — with the exception of the expletive,” Rapinoe said Thursday. “My mom would be very upset about that.”
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/soccer-star-megan-rapinoe-after-trump-attack-i-stand-by-the-comments

    1. Sorry honey, but NBA free agency starts on Sunday and NFL camps open in three weeks. Your 15 minutes are running out and no amount of virtue signaling for attention is going to change that.

    2. File under: Meh and meh.

    3. i didn’t put my Michel Platini shirt on today b/c rooting *against* seems wrong, but …

    4. Does anyone really care that much about Megan Rapinoe (who?), whether she visits the white house or, really, about women’s (and men pretending to be women’s) sports?

      1. Sure! The Libertarians for Reparations. Both of them.

      2. The US team would be just as good without her.
        Seriously selfish bitch – way to put your psychosis above your teammates and fans

        1. Just got back from lunch, and you know what was on TV.
          Reaally strange: The woman is ‘representing’ the US in international competition, and will not recognize the anthem or PoA.
          Mind you, I despise the jingoism at auto races and such, but none of those participants are driving for ‘the national team’.
          Hypocrisy, Rapinoe is thy name.

      3. A lot of people may not know this, but she happens to be quite famous.

    5. “As a player on the US National team, I want to make it clear that I only represent the people who agree with me”

  23. How could democrats seriously be interested in nominating a fucking prosecutor as their next president?

    This seems to go against everything that they pretend to stand for.

    1. Not just a prosecutor but one of the worst ones ever. If they nominate Harris, they are telling every black voter in America fuck you you will vote for us no matter what and like it. It is pretty astounding.

      1. “But, but, but, she can’t be bad for black people! She’s black!” they’ll say, convincing more people than they ought to.

      2. “they are telling every black voter in America fuck you you will vote for us no matter what and like it”

        Well, that’s nothing new

    2. What do they even stand for now? Seems like all they really stand for is “Trump bad”. And the rest is just insanity or posturing for the primaries.

      1. “What do they even stand for now?”

        Free shit. You name it, you’re entitled to it, free. Food, housing, medical care, college, anything you want.
        Free.

        1. Oh, and TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s the platform.

      2. “What do they even stand for now? ”

        Totalitarian global socialism

    3. tyrant party surprises you?

      1. They’re usually tyrants in other ways in the modern era – as in “lets take your shit” – not, “hey lets jail people for doing drugs, having sex and not paying their parking tickets”.

  24. I gotta be honest. Breaking down Democrat lies seems so anachronistic. Who cares any more if politicians lie? Trump changed all that. This is shaping up to be about who can face off to Trump and tell him he is a jerkwad to his face in the most effective manner. Not much else matters.

    1. Standing up and going toe to toe with Trump is a really stupid idea. He is the best counter puncher maybe ever. Also insulting Trump is seen as an insult to his voters, some of whom the Democratic nominee is going to have to win. So telling him he is a jerkwad is exactly what he wants. The way to beat him is to be reasonable

      Beyond that, how many innocent people has Trump sent to jail. None last I looked. So, it is pretty rich for someone like Harris who has sent dozens or maybe hundreds of innocent people to prison and bragged about doing so to call Trump a jerkwad.

    2. Heraclitus
      June.28.2019 at 10:25 am
      “I gotta be honest. Breaking down Democrat lies seems so anachronistic. Who cares any more if politicians lie? Trump changed all that. This is shaping up to be about who can face off to Trump and tell him he is a jerkwad to his face in the most effective manner. Not much else matters.”

      Lefty asshole is here to tell us that Trump is teh one who normalized lying!
      Hey, Hera! Hope the TDS is fatal. Fuck off and die.

    3. Actually I think the democrats may have realized calling Trump anything is ineffective. Trump wins those battles every time, which is why they’re sticking with the policy discussions in favor of open borders, free shit for upper middle class people and abolishing your control over your health care.

      1. It’s more than that. It will be far too late when brilliant, highly educated liberals realize (if ever) that trumps wackiness is designed to drive them too far left to win a national election. They’re being played.

        And I find that hilarious.

  25. What I got from last night’s debate was:
    Kamala Harris is a dangerous racial demagogue. She should be kept away from all levers of power everywhere.
    Joe Biden is the male version of Hillary. Feels entitled to the nomination, doesn’t think that he has to put much work or effort into this whole debate thing, and condescending.
    Bernie’s time has passed. Time to let him go out to pasture.
    And I had never heard of Marianne Williamson before last night. Kinda hot in a MILFy kind of way.

    1. But they all love illegal immigrants and giving them welfare, so which one will you vote to give the power to steal from you and hand to a penniless Guatemalan?

    1. She lived in Montreal FFS for a period during her youth.

    2. She didn’t lie that she was bused – that part is true. She implied that she was part of an earlier busing program than she was, and more significantly, she deliberately implied that she came from a disadvantaged background and that the busing program is what enabled her to become an attorney and a Senator, which is bullshit. She came from a fairly privileged background and both of her parents were college-educated. She was bused for like a year before they moved to Canada.

  26. Just for the record:
    – The segregationists Kamala is so upset about were both Democrats.
    – “Medicare for all” is a blatant falsehood, as before receiving Medicare, you have to pay taxes for decades. So the Democrats need to just talk about nationalizing all healthcare services, which is what they mean.
    – Medicare only pays 80% of medical expenses, with NO annual cap on your out of pocket expenses. Is this really what you want?

    1. “So the Democrats need to just talk about nationalizing all healthcare services, which is what they mean.”

      As much chance of that as Obo admitting you were NOT going to keep your doctor under that pile of crap he came up with.

    2. “”Medicare only pays 80% of medical expenses”‘

      And does not cover preventive services.

    3. Also, let’s not kid ourselves. The “Medicare for all” is a lie. What they want is nothing like Medicare, for better or worse.

      1. Gillibrand came right out and said this

      2. It’s actually Medicaid for all.
        Know anyone happy to be in Medicaid?

  27. Totally OT, just an amusing story:

    “The 70-year-old retiree who became America’s worst counterfeiter
    How a mystery man produced thousands of the ugliest counterfeit $1 bills ever made — and eluded federal agents for more than a decade.”
    https://thehustle.co/worst-counterfeiter-in-history-mr-880/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    Not mentioned here, but in a story about him years ago, the claim was made that he was married to a particularly homely woman and used her as the model for Washington.

    1. There’s a 1950 movie based on that dude — Mister 880.

      1. They mention that and use some screen shots in the article.

  28. “”Aside from a Trump-like propensity for twisting the truth,”‘

    It’s candidate-like propensity. Trying to attribute that to Trump which existed since the election process was created is pretty lame.

    1. C’mon, he’s the guy who promised you could keep your doctor, right?

  29. Years ago Matt and Nick were out and about on a book tour, and I got the opportunity to hobnob with them and a bunch of Reason supporters. One of the topic that came up over drinks was the sorry state of the commentariat. The premise was that the HnR comment section was trollish and abusive and moderation was needed. As the sole member of the commentariat in the room, I stood up for them explaining the libertarian ethos of a free market in ideas.

    Skip forward years later to today. I will now admit that I was wrong. The commentariat is full of trolls of the worst sort. Physical markets need rules, and so do idea markets. We should not confuse the ideal of anarchism with that of outright nihilism.

    Reason needs moderators!

    The free flow of ideas must continue, but the we should not mistake nihilistic chaos for the emergent order of anarchism. Some basic rules need to be set in place. Rules to keep the discussions civil. No overt bigotry, no spamming, no abuse, the basic sort of moderation that every site but this has. I don’t mean voting like Reddit has, that just rewards the trolls and drowns out legit posts. But just basic troll reporting, alert moderators, etc.

    1. The biggest trolls at Reason today are Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, and their little army of professional fake libertarian analysts. The proof is their shameless ignoring of the police shooting of the police shooting in South Bend.

      The entire time they’ve been in charge here, few things have gotten their rage on like a white cop shooting a black person. Normally they NEVER miss one of these incidents, but this one they pretend didn’t happen. And it’s only because Pete Buttplug is one of their favorite candidates and they’re desperate to not make him look bad.

      There is almost no limit anymore to these guys’ shamelessness, dishonesty, and complete total lack of genuine principles.

      1. Inconsistency is the hallmark of humanity. About the best people can get is sunlight. Having lived a few places, I’d say overexposure to Los Angeles is part of the problem: dudes need to stay out of those environs for a few years and get a more varied perspective.

    2. This post is going to be thrown back in your face often.
      As it should

    3. free speech dude. a tyrant anarchist?

    4. I don’t think the trolls are any worse now than they’ve ever been. I find them easy to ignore.

    5. It’s easy to ignore those you choose not to read. No reason to force them off the pages.

    6. Reason needs moderators!

      This was the debate prior to registration, as well (which I was against). As indicated by the ongoing conversation, registration didn’t do the trick. Trolls get kicked off, change their handles, and come right back.

      I think your original explanation was the best – it’s actually come to be part of libertarian culture to obnoxiously pro-free speech. One might even say it’s fundamental to ‘libertarian humor.’ I don’t think moderating the comments section will change that.

      1. Nothing at the level of rctl/rather or white indian has happened since registration. So maybe it did something.
        That shit was annoying and close to ruined the comment section. Less persistent and destructive trolling is easy to ignore.

        1. Nothing at the level of rctl/rather or white indian has happened since registration. So maybe it did something.

          Fair enough. There were times it was almost impossible to have a conversation. It still gets like that sometimes, but banning the worst offenders does seem to have the effect of getting them to calm down for a few weeks at least.

          But I’m not sure we currently have a problem that will be solved by more moderation. Flame wars can be calmed down if comments have to be reviewed before they’re posted, but it also chills the immediacy of actual conversations.

          1. When is it almost impossible to have a conversation here? The conversations here, although sometimes heated and insult-laden (welcome to the internet), is actually much better than I see at the likes of The Hill, WaPo, NYT, etc. I see more thoughtful discussions here than I see anywhere else. I see lots of diverse opinions here too. Except for a handful of minor people that deliberately misread comments, argue in bad faith and/or call for actual violence, I honestly think this comment section is healthier than a lot of others I see. The only exception being websites with comment sections that are completely locked down and ban any dissent.. but those aren’t places about conversation, they’re about conformity and feeling safe.

            I think people calling for censorship are just butthurt because the commenters are constantly correcting the articles on this site and are starting to get really upset by the poor quality of reporting. That’s understandable considering that this site keeps saying their libertarian while supporting some fairly non-libertarian positions.

            1. Jeff came out for moderation.

              Because he is exactly what the commentariat has been telling him he was.

            2. I agree. The discussions here pwn pretty much anywhere else on the interwebs.

      2. My main beef is that there simply is no discussion any more. Try to be thoughtful and you get shit on.

        I’m not talking about banning people, I’m talking about the same rule the rest of the forumverse have painfully learned to implement. No personal abuse. It would be impossible to solve the wingnut takeover of the site, but at least we can keep threads from degenerating into garbage throwing.

        1. This is you isn’t it Screech?

          You got kicked around and now you’re trying to gin up a sad little fucking army to get payback.

          That is the saddest thing I’ve ever seen.

        2. Thoughtful how? Like making a valid argument that actually stands up to logic? Depending on who you’re conversing with, this USUALLY gets thoughtful responses. If you’re blathering on saying a bunch of soft headed nonsense, then yeah, people will shit on you for being daft.

          The fact is peoples WRONG opinions are not to be respected. Just because somebody feels a certain way about something means nothing. If you really think you’re right about something, and the other person is the one being a moron, just shrug it off. If perhaps you’re the one being a moron about something, perhaps you should consider their ideas and maybe you’ll become a wiser person.

          I don’t see how this stuff is hard. Sometimes I get irritated with a few of the idiots on here, but I don’t ACTUALLY get upset about it.

    7. I think some light-touch moderation wouldn’t be such a terrible thing.

      Aside from the actual spam, there are posters who just do nothing but shit-post, and there are posters who make calls for literal violence. Those sorts of things really shouldn’t be tolerated in a forum that is supposed to be about the respectful discussion of libertarian ideas.

      1. People say this is anti-libertarian, but last I checked libertarians were for property rights. And Reason is private property. Meaning that Reason has every moral right to set the standards for its comment section.

        1. Brandybuck
          June.28.2019 at 3:35 pm
          “People say this is anti-libertarian, but last I checked libertarians were for property rights. And Reason is private property. Meaning that Reason has every moral right to set the standards for its comment section.”

          Yes, and they chose to ignore lame proggy arguments for them to censor comments *you* don’t like.
          Fuck off.

          1. Calling someone a pedophile is not an “argument”.
            Threatening to murder Democrats is not an “argument”.
            Continually harassing and stalking certain posters does not constitute an “argument”.
            None of that promotes the free discussion of ideas. They only hinder the free flow of information instead.

      2. “there are posters who just do nothing but shit-post,”

        So just stop.

        1. He’s talking about you.

          You might try occasionally saying something of substance. The best advocates against anarchy are the people who are bad at handling anarchy.

      3. You referring to Mr. Shitlords regularly calling for the genocide of people who disagree with him politically or asking specific people to kill themselves? I think he’s cute.

        1. Good thing Lefties like Tony never murdered over 100 million people in the 20th Century.

          Tony knows people are not falling for Socialism anymore.

          1. And nobody’s following your “I’m not Russian” routine.

      4. I hate to do it… But I do agree that endless spam reposts are BS. But people shit talking is not in and of itself anything that should be removed. Stuff like Hihn would do endlessly copying and pasting the exact same nonsense, I would be okay with those being removed… But beyond that, not so much.

        And we all know how the stuff you would consider shit posting is just people having to repeatedly state obvious facts that some people are in denial about. I’ve stated some things 100 times on here, because people are dumb, but I never copy/paste the exact same thing as before.

    8. So a bunch of progressives sat around at a cocktail party and plotted to silence ideas they didnt like….

      And we all wonder why no one at Reason cares that tech companies are planning to alter elections and ban the same influencers simultaneously. Because they seek to do the same shit.

    9. Reason needs moderators! … no overt bigotry… no abuse …. keep the discussions civil

      And let me guess, you’re the perfect person for the job? Who gets to define bigotry and abuse? Is it uncivil if I call a fellow commenter a liar? Does mocking the author of the articles count? You don’t have to be here if you can’t handle this place. You are welcome to go to any one of the other websites that has a “basic sort of moderation.”

    10. Look! The resident progs call for censorship moderation.

      What. A. Shock.

      1. They couldn’t keep the act up forever.

        1. There’s a certain sense of satisfaction when you troll someone into revealing their true colors.

    11. Say what you will about Reasons web design, it has one of my favorite comments sections on the interwebs (though the preview button is sadly missed, and an edit window wouldn’t kill them either).

      Mostly I like that I can say words like cunt and fuck and truly express myself.

      1. And I like that you like that you can say words like cunt and fuck and express yourself, Tony

        1. You’re ever so kind.

          1. You know I’m the only one who’s nice to you around here, and that comes from a genuine place. I appreciate your contributions

      2. +1 Tony!

        Seriously, the total freedom to say what you want here is a breath of fresh air. As dumb as all the writers for Reason are, at least the comments sections are free! And I have learned a lot of awesome stuff over the years posting on here.

    12. The majority of trolls are reason socks to boost web traffic.

    13. UGH.

      “No overt bigotry, no spamming, no abuse, the basic sort of moderation that every site but this has. ”

      Spamming, I kind of agree. Copy/paste repeats of identical posts a million times are BS. But all the other stuff is just free expression somebody else doesn’t like for some reason. Maybe because their opinions differ. Maybe because it made them feel like an idiot. Maybe because the other person is just a legit dick.

      But the alternative is FAR worse than it is now. Nebulous stuff like “bigotry” is exactly why this country is fucked. We can’t have an honest conversation about a lot of things, because any discussion of a sensitive topic is called “bigotry.”

      What are the reasonable limitations to place on trans people in public spaces? Naked 65 year old men showering with 7 year old naked girls in shower rooms? Men playing in womens sports winning every single trophy? You try talking about those in a totally reasonable way with progs and they’ll just call you Hitler or whatever, despite them being reasonable issues to have nuanced opinions about.

      Also, the truth is there are many facts that aren’t convenient for a lot of “groups” in the world. Discussing the fact that 50% of the murders in the US are committed by 12% of the population (blacks if you didn’t already know) is not bigoted… It’s a fact. It’s a pretty damn relevant one too if one wants to reduce murders in the USA, or one is talking about gun violence, the effects of gun control, etc. Hispanics are 35% or so of murders. This leaves all other ethnic groups in the USA, more than 70% of the population, is responsible for only around 15% of murders. That’s a LEGIT data point for discussing all the above issues.

      So “bigoted” pieces of information are in fact some of the VERY most relevant on a lot of topics. So you can fuck right off with your censorship thank you very much.

  30. pop-up videos on every page today?

  31. […] Amazing what you can get away with when the media will cover your butt. Oh, and her bussing story was also a flat out lie. […]

  32. A woman won both debates, and all candidates managed to make it through today without committing treason unlike the current president. I’d hold onto your nuts if I were you.

  33. […] the candidate walked back those comments the next day after a barrage of critics warned that such a move would throw the health care market—and her hopes for the presidency—into […]

  34. […] the candidate walked back those comments the next day after a barrage of critics warned that such a move would throw the health care market—and her hopes for the […]

  35. […] the candidate walked back those comments the next day after a barrage of critics warned that such a move would throw the health care market—and her hopes for the […]

  36. […] the candidate walked back those comments the next day after a barrage of critics warned that such a move would throw the health care market—and her hopes for the […]

  37. Folks supporting these policies that tax the rich to pay for massive social programs are going to be pretty surprised when they find out that they’re “the rich.”

  38. Reason now adds popup videos but cannot keep the website stable.

    What a piece of shit you people at reason have created. Its just a turd.

    1. You gotta get a good ad blocker, popup blocker, and web page tracker blocker to improve website performance. Especially on this this website.

      1. I have all that stuff… It still is janky. And the pop up videos are REALLY annoying.

  39. After reading the headline, I was like…

    Since when has a politician NOT won a debate by lying?

    Does anyone else resent how we keep referring to this garbage as a debate? Whatever it was, it most certainly WASN’T a debate. For that, there must be some attempt at logical discourse.

  40. Liars club. Do we care that there is a winner? Hickenlooper probably invented the least, but… the party is in full psycho mode at the moment, so if he got a vp slot, I would be amazed. Obama chose Biden, because as a certified gaffe machine the contrast made him look thoughtful and erudite – and was good insurance against impeachment [kind of like Gore was for Clinton]. But… those calculations had a more centrist perspective and I doubt we’re in for a 3-peat of the same logic.

  41. […] 17-23 poll. In the latest poll, 12 percent of respondents now cast her as their first choice. (All those whoppers must have […]

  42. […] 17-23 poll. In the latest poll, 12 percent of respondents now cast her as their first choice. (All those whoppers must have […]

  43. […] 17-23 poll. In the latest poll, 12 percent of respondents now cast her as their first choice. (All those whoppers must have […]

  44. […] 17-23 poll. In the latest poll, 12 percent of respondents now cast her as their first choice. (All those whoppers must have […]

  45. Liars club. Do we care that there is a winner? Hickenlooper probably invented the least, but… the party is in full psycho mode at the moment, so if he got a vp slot, I would be amazed. Obama chose Biden, because as a certified gaffe machine the contrast made him look thoughtful and erudite – and was good insurance against impeachment [kind of like Gore was for Clinton]. But… those calculations had a more centrist perspective and I doubt we’re in for a 3-peat of the same logic. best wireless mouse under 1000

  46. […] 17-23 poll. In the latest poll, 12 percent of respondents now cast her as their first choice. (All those whoppers must have […]

  47. […] junior U.S. senator. She no longer can be dismissed as a longshot after her successful Democratic debate showing and rising numbers in the polls. As Joe Biden looks like yesterday’s news, Harris now is […]

  48. […] junior U.S. senator. She no longer can be dismissed as a longshot after her successful Democratic debate showing and rising numbers in the polls. As Joe Biden looks like yesterday’s news, Harris now is […]

  49. […] junior U.S. senator. She no longer can be dismissed as a longshot after her successful Democratic debate showing and rising numbers in the polls. As Joe Biden looks like yesterday’s news, Harris now is […]

  50. […] junior U.S. senator. She no longer can be dismissed as a longshot after her successful Democratic debate showing and rising numbers in the polls. As Joe Biden looks like yesterday’s news, Harris now is […]

Please to post comments