Reason Roundup

House Passes $15 Minimum Wage Bill

Plus: Portland mulls an anti-mask law, solar companies hoard panels before tax credits expire, and 2020 candidates have some plans.


The House passed the Raise the Wage Act yesterday in a mostly party-line vote, more than doubling the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

"Today we wake up for a day of jubilation because of the sense of fairness this legislation engenders," gushed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) on the House floor. "We wake up with a smile on our face, showing the world with all the love in our hearts, and that love in our hearts is about fairness for the American people."

Thursday's legislation would phase in the new $15 standard over a period of seven years. The minimum wage would then increase annually by the same percentage as the country's median wage, as determined by the U.S. secretary of labor.

Democrats' minimum wage legislation also makes some policy changes. It gets rid of waivers that allowed employers to pay disabled workers less than the statutory minimum wage. The bill also does away with the lower rate for tipped employees.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that implementing a $15 minimum wage nation-wide would increase pay for 17 million workers, but would also cost another 1.3 million workers their jobs.

Labor groups cheered the minimum wage hike:

Other voices were decidedly more skeptical.

"Passing a $15 per hour minimum wage represents the triumph of good intentions over good policy," said Michael Farren, a researcher at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, in a statement. "The CBO's recent report used 11 studies of the minimum wage's impact on all workers. Eight out of the 11 studies found mild to severe negative employment impacts of the minimum wage."

A study of Seattle's $15 minimum wage, passed in 2014, found that more-experienced low-wage workers saw their pay increased as a result of the law. Less-experienced workers saw higher hourly wages but reduced hours. And workers entering the labor market found it more difficult to find a job, resulting in a net wage decrease, according to the same study.

The Raise the Wage Act now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it is unlikely to pass.


Officials in Portland, Oregon, are chewing over the idea of banning mask-wearing at protests, hoping that this will curb the city's political street violence, reports The Wall Street Journal. The city has made national headlines for its clashes between left- and right-wing demonstrators.

Covering one's face is a practice commonly associated with left-wing "Antifa" protestors. Recently, masked protestors assaulted journalist Andy Ngo in downtown Portland.

In July, Portland Police Chief Danielle Outlaw called for an anti-mask law, saying at a news conference that "a lot of people are emboldened because they know they can't be identified."

The ACLU of Oregon has strongly condemned such a proposal. "A policy that prohibits wearing a mask to a protest not only risks chilling First Amendment–protected activities, particularly for those who wear 'masks' for political and religious reasons, it misses the issue entirely," a spokeswoman for the organization told the Journal.


Renewable energy companies are stocking up on solar panels in preparation for the expiration of a federal tax credit for solar installations. Reports Reuters:

Duke Energy, 8minute Solar Energy and Shell-backed Silicon Ranch are among those working to claim the full subsidy, which is available to firms that either start construction or spend 5% of a project's capital cost by the end of 2019….North Carolina-based Duke, for example, plans to claim the maximum credit on as much as 2 gigawatts worth of panels. That is enough to power 380,000 homes, even though some of those projects might not go online for years.

The Chinese company Trina Solar estimates that 20 percent of current demand for U.S. solar panels is driven by tax considerations.

Federal tax credits for solar investment have existed since the 1970s. These credits have often been envisioned as temporary programs, but Congress has a history of extending them rather than let them sunset.


  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) has a new plan to take on Wall Street.
  • Speaking of plans, former Vice President Joe Biden has some ideas for fixing rural America.
  • Campaign workers for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) are demanding a $15 minimum wage.
  • Big money Democratic donors are lining up behind Biden, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, reports Politico.


  • An arson attack at a Japanese anime studio has killed 33 people.
  • Satanists in Scottsville, Arizona, fight for their right to give an invocation at city council meetings.
  • Newly released court documents show Trump was in frequent contact with his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, about hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign.
  • The State Department is trying to evict a San Francisco couple from a $15 million mansion that once served as an Iranian consulate.
  • Jeffery Epstein is denied bail.
  • A Philadelphia man shimmies down the outside of a 19-story building to avoid fire.

NEXT: As Politics Get Shaken Up, a Peace Coalition Emerges

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. Hello.

      The Democrats. /smh.

      Are they even a party anymore? All I see are factions, buffoons and kooks.

      It’s all I’ve got.

      1. You have to give them that the Democrat-controlled House did manage to pass a bill. So, there’s that.

      2. They’re marketing reps.

      3. Lol I think you mean the Republican party. The Dems are practically a solid voting block compared to the Trumpanzees vs the Neocucks lmfao.

    2. Hey… I was just about to post this. Sanders is old news at this point, if he was going to get a shot, it would’ve happened in 2016. As far as I can tell, a lot of Democrats feel like Sanders betrayed them by taking awhile to endorse Hillary Clinton, causing his voters to go to Trump and Stein. I think that says more about the people who feel this way than it does about Sanders – they really think that what the candidate does actually directs the voter’s behavior – if Sanders says “go vote Hillary” his army of mindless drones will do so. I doubt it, Sanders voters hated Hillary on their own. It wouldn’t have mattered if Sanders had immediately gone onto SNL and sang a love song to Hillary Clinton after being defeated, his supporters hated Hillary from the outset.

      Anyway, fun to see Sanders cant even abide by his own preferred policies. How much is he making? Millions? While those at the bottom make $13/hour. No one NEEDS 3 houses.

      1. I think you are right. The Dem establishment hates him. The problem is I am not sure they can sell his brain dead fans on someone else.

      2. But the pigs NEED all of the milk and apples!

      3. I still remain convinced that Bernie is the only one with a set of dedicated voters and he is the only one with a groundgame going into the primary’s. That is still important. Biden inspires noone and a ton of polling has many Biden’s voters second choice as Bernie which makes no sense but there it is. But if Bernie can win some early primaries which he will and Biden continually puts his foot in his mouth which he will I could totally see Bernie getting momentum. The problem is the establishment would never ever let him win.

        1. One of the reasons why I thought Trump was going to win the election in 2016 despite what everyone was saying was because he had a dedicated group of people who really liked him and wanted him to be President and Hillary didn’t. I never met anyone who actually liked Hillary. They just supported her because that is what they did.

          Every President in my lifetime has had that core group of followers who liked and believed in them. Biden reminds me a lot of Hillary. He is sort of the default candidate that no one likes but is better than the crazies. Bernie in contrast is more like Trump in that he has a dedicated group of followers. And I agree Bernie is the only Democrat in the race that can say that.

          1. Trump has the advantage because he knows where to give some concession to a group and they become loyal to him. Bernie cannot really do much of that with Socialism.

            For example, Trump’s policy strategies get Black American unemployment down and he gains the loyalty of more and more Black Americans.

            Unless you are in the tiny group that will benefit from Bernie’s Socialist policies, you avoid that guy like the plague.

          2. Good point, John.
            But I take issue with one thing – the reason Trump and Bernie have a dedicated group is not because they’re following Trump and Bernie, but because Trump and Bernie are following the demands/beliefs of those groups.
            In both cases, someone finally came along and enthusiastically embraced the conclusions those groups had already come to, and the supporters embraced the candidate for that

            1. I agree with you, Nardz. I think politicians and media get it backwards all the time – they think its the candidate that dictates what the voters think and feel, but its actually the other way around. A civilization’s values, and, by extension, its politicians, come from the bottom up, not the other way around.

        2. I think his dedicated group of followers is severely diminished following 2016 and is no where near powerful enough to get him the nomination. I suppose it depends on whether Biden’s voters really will go to Bernie. I suspect they will split among Harris, Warren and Bernie, IF Biden gets knocked out.

          Maybe you’re right, I don’t know. All I’m going on is gut feeling and my anecdotal experience, no data. But your point about him having the only serious, dedicated base on the Democrat side is probably true (based on gut feeling).

          1. It suffered defeat, which is almost always a blow to morale. Trump hijacked much of the zeitgeist, and what’s left over is diluted among an expanded set of candidates

        3. It’s important to remember that this is a selection process, not an election one, for the DNC. They have their preferred candidates that will be getting preferential treatment–in this case, it appears to be Kamala Harris, with Elizabeth Warren as a backup. Biden’s being accommodated because he still polls well with the party’s few remaining blue-collar white voters, and Bernie because of the brain-dead white college student claque, but beyond that, everyone else is just there for window dressing.

          It was the same way with the RNC in 2016–they wanted Jeb or Rubio before Trump upended their plans. I don’t see a similar situation happening with the Dems in 2020 where an eccentric iconoclast rallies the base over the party establishment’s choices. We already know, thanks to the DNC email dump, that they’ll actively undermine anyone who looks to be a legitimate threat to overcome who they really want.

          1. Let’s go Marianne Williamson, maaaan!

            1. Though not so much an iconoclast, but more of a leftover beatnik.
              Still the most fun clown in the car

          2. Fuck em’ all…time for Civil War 2 to fix this country.

    3. It is endlessly hilarious watching utter hypocrites getting smacked.

      I am awaiting, ANXIOUSLY, CNN bringing this up. Or MSNBC. I bet they have some great journalism to unload on this.

  1. The Democrats are so into signaling, they’re willing to make fools of themselves celebrating the passage of a bill in the House that won’t be passed by the Senate and won’t be signed by the President.

    That bubble they live in just keeps getting weirder. Do they imagine they’ve abolished the Constitution and live in a parliamentary system of government? Let’s hope Nancy Pelosi doesn’t declare war on Russia for being homophobic.

    1. Signaling to your own crowd will not necessarily win over swing voters. They will be baffled how they lost with all that signaling.

      1. its all part of a plan, signal to their own crowd to keep winning NY and CA by ever wider margins, and use that to gain sympathy for eliminating the electoral collage, and apportioning senators by population

        1. Pretty much.

        2. Don’t they need a constitutional amendment or a violent revolution to abolish the electoral college? Good luck trying to get the state legislatures to agree to that! It’d be asking the majority of American states to voluntarily give up their citizen’s right to have their voices and policy preferences heard for the rest of time.

            1. So a bunch of democrats are pledging that they will give their electoral votes to democrats? I’m not surprised, but why would Republicans agree to this? I don’t see them doing that, even if legislation is “pending”, they have no chance of getting passed in red states.

              1. All it takes are the right SCOTUS justices to activist it right out of the Constitution, probably using civil rights and the 14th as cover

              2. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are hardly “red” states, and if those 4 pass it goes into force. They have republican majorities now, but being purple states means that’s only ever 1 election away from changing

                1. One of the great things about purple states is that they aren’t deep blue – a lot of their Democrats have to walk a fine line between “progress” and still loving and preserving American traditions.

                2. Only one problem with the National Popular Vote Compact. Blue states will be losing numerous House seats to Red states.

                  The count will be WAY off for this little scheme to work.

                  That and when Trump wins the most states and national popular vote too, Lefties will be crying their eyes out. Trump wins 50 states to 0. Haha.

            2. Which would also be unconstitutional.

              1. The constitution would only require it to have congressional approval (compact clause of Article 1, Section 10) so at most they have to wait until Dems control both chambers again

                1. There likely wont ever be a Democrat President ever again.

                  Democrats know this which is why they are trying this desperation move.

            3. Which is doomed for either legislative or legal failure the first time any of the states in it vote for Candidate A but the popular vote requires their electoral votes go to Candidate B.

              1. There is no constitutional requirement that electors vote for the winner of their states popular vote. States can pass laws requiring they vote with the popular vote, but that also means they can pass this law

                1. I’m guessing the popular vote of their own state.. I’m guessing Texas can’t pass a law that says it’s electoral college votes must be cast according to the popular vote of California.

                  1. Isn’t that precisely what the Compact calls for?

                    Must be nice to want to be utterly irrelevant.

                    I can see why progs love the EU so much…

              2. Something they CAN do is to allocate their electoral votes proportionally like Maine does.

                Which of course, would make Republican landslides so they won’t do that.

              3. Remember in 2016 how “faithless electors” were somehow going to save everyone in Trump? Hillary actually lost more electors from that than Trump did. It takes a massive lack of imagination for blue states failing to see how this could backfire on them.

                1. Lefties are desperate as hell.

                2. You are talking about a real brain trust of top, uh, ungendered persons

                  “Hey Harry, let’s filibuster 100 of Bush’s judicial picks”

                  “Hey Harry, now were safely back in the majority for generations, let’s end the filibuster for judicial appointments and get all of Obama’s guys in.”

                  What could ever go wrong?

      2. My local “soccer mom” congresscritter voted for minimum wage boost with all the gushing signaling shit you’d expect. Real soccer moms (many swing voters) will be happy because it means their precious teenaged Aaron and Taylor will be getting raises so they can pay a bit more of their auto insurance. Meanwhile, the folks whose kids are getting hurt (unskilled, low educated minority folks) won’t be complaining because they are already firmly in the Dem camp because “racism.”

        1. I run into the same type of soccer moms here. They social signal their sympathy for the impoverished from their $750k home. I had lunch with one of these types yesterday, talking to me about how amazing their kid is in the school orchestra – stating that the tier that their kid is in at this public school is so excellent that “its basically required to have private lessons”.

          I don’t have any problem with that. Buuuut, because I’m a little bit of an asshole and I know her politics, I said “oh, so you must have ‘this much’ money to do well in music at your kid’s public school? That seems a little bit privileged for a public school to be expecting that.”

          She responded that “well its only like $80/week to get one, its not that much money.” That had me in stitches – once I pointed out that that is $320/month or $3,840/year, which is roughly 25% of a typical working class person’s housing expenses in this area. Then I relayed a story about how my own parents struggled to come up with money for toilet paper when I was growing up.

          She had herself tied in knots trying to defend her position. “Well I used to be a single mom and I struggled too (now she has another husband making hundreds of thousands), I was only getting ______ a child support from my first husband, and I couldn’t afford ____ and ____….” It was hilarious.

          1. “I once struggled at one time, so I deserve being pampered by my sugar daddy husband while a spout inane progressive politics!!”

            Funny how a “woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” until it’s time to pay the bills with these types. It’s incredible how a demographic that’s so utterly useless to society is so relentlessly catered to by politicians. Talk about White Privilege.

            1. White women are undoubtedly the most privileged people in our country. Luckily I don’t think we should be passing any laws to change that. I just think it’s funny when white women act like they’re oppressed.

          2. Haha. She must love hanging out with you.

            I have friends like this too. Nice people who I like and respect, but their politics are retarded. I’ve given up pointing out their hypocrisy. Not my job. I just smile and wish them well.

            Now my lack of input and enthusiasm for their beliefs is offending some of them. Sigh.

    2. It truly is bizarre.

      But it does fall in line with the progressive mindset to the extent it’s easily given to sophistry, shallow and without principles.

      So perhaps there is rhyme to it.

    3. Lest you forget:

      Seems to be a lot of virtue signaling to go around.

      1. And of course, at the time, we all cheered these efforts. Then the Republicans got control and… crickets.

        The difference is, you can be assured that if the Dems get control, they’ll be all in on this minimum wage thing.

        Now ask yourself, who is really virtue signaling here?

        1. More accurate: Republicans got control and…. McCain’s Brain Tumor voted.

          1. You’re being too charitable to McCain.

      2. This is no different than 2012. If you just control the House, you can pass whatever it takes to please your base knowing all along that it won’t be enacted and you won’t be held responsible for it. You would think people would be smart enough to see that by now.

        1. “”You would think people would be smart enough to see that by now.”‘

          I refer you back to a Mark Twain quote on a different thread.

        2. Yup. Split control of Congress is absolutely the time to pad your voting record.

      3. That was even more to the point due to subsequent failures to pass such bills when they had control.

    4. Its a way to make Republicans look mean to the little guy during an election. Not so different than Republicans voting for repeal of obamacare for all those years.

    5. Not sure they will end up making fools of themselves. If Pelosi is making proclamations that passage of the bill in the House proves the Democrats are full of love (she actually used the word, “love”), then when the Republican Senate doesn’t pass it, well logically their hearts are full of — the opposite of love.

      1. Mitch McConnell’s heart is definitely full of hate, but that’s a pre-existing condition for him unrelated to the minimum wage.

  2. “The bill also does away with the lower rate for tipped employees.” Yeah, if I was still a server I’d be in the streets over this shit. If this somehow gets past the Senate they’d be the first to start losing jobs.

    1. Yeah, get ready for worse service and more expensive food if this passes.

    2. I feel bad for the waiters and waitresses when this policy inevitably passes within the next 10 years. I think a lot of them will go from making an effective $18 – $22/hour to making a flat $15/hour.

      But, does this mean we can partially make up for it by not having to tip anymore? Don’t we tip because that waiter/waitress makes $2.13/hour and needs the tips to make a decent wage, and we like to encourage good service in this country, so we use variable tipping to encourage good service? Maybe we lose that last part with a $15/hour minimum, but it would also be nice to be able to just pay the total amount of what you order. Same thing with delivery drivers.

      Overall, $15/minimum is a net loss for us as a nation, but I’m looking for silver lining here.

      1. Yeah, I’d be in favor of true pricing instead of tipping. But then, I’m not from New York, where tipping seems to be one of the most prominent features of the culture.

        1. One good thing about tipping for service in a restaurant is that it discourages people who aren’t good at the job. When it’s tip based, people who aren’t good at it don’t make a lot. People who are good servers can make good money.

          1. My understanding is a lot of tips are pooled among the employees. The employees know who isn’t pulling their weight vs. who just got some really shitty bad luck tables that night.

            1. As a teen I waited tables at a place like that. It was my first “real” job (after doing odd jobs and light construction in my middle school and early high school years). I really got taken advantage of by the “lifers” on the staff.

              I routinely pulled in $120 in tips – sometimes more. Which would have been a lot of money back then. We had 2 runners and we bused our on tables. Yet we split tips evenly. So I’d go home with about $25 bucks. The owner’s son in law was the head waiter, and he’d sit in the back with his buddies until he had to take some tables. So I’d run all night while they just hung out. But I think they were skimming a few hundred bucks off the top too. I only worked there one summer – so I didn’t stay around long enough to call them out on it.

              Pooling tips is a pretty bad idea from the “tips as feedback” mechanism.

              1. Yep, its really dumb. You might as well have a unionized workforce without any of the benefits of a unionized workforce. The more tenured employees get paid for doing basically nothing/bad work while the new bright-eyed and bushy-tailed employees slowly lose their motivation to give a shit because they’re just spinning their wheels to reward their lazy tenured co-workers.

                Its a stupid system.

              2. Pooling tips is communistic. No reason you should have busted your ass all shift just so a bunch of useless layabouts could walk home with more money.

            2. Some places do that. Many don’t. I think it’s a terrible idea. If you don’t make decent tips as a server, you probably aren’t very good at it. Or work at a lousy restaurant that’s going to fail. And tips are supposed to be for the individual and have something to do with the quality of the service.

              1. Ah, okay. I have had several people tell me they worked at places that had pooled tipping, but it sounds like its less prevalent than I thought.

        2. Yeah, tipping in the US is retarded. This is one case where we should be more like those exalted Euros, where dining prices account for standard wages, and tips are occasional and small.

          1. And service is shit compared to great servers here in the USA who work for tips.

      2. How many government tipped employees are there?

        Other than AOC, of course.

        (I still expect to see the ridiculous “suggestions” on receipts that offer 20, 22, 25, and 30% tip amounts, often calculated incorrectly)

    3. Like they did in DC when DC council voted for the same thing and were forced to backtrack.

  3. Britches, you don’t start off the sex links with pictures of Nancy Pelosi.

    Jesus Christ.

    1. The internet is one long proof that someone somewhere is always into it no matter how disgusting it is.

      1. Posting over 90 granny pr0n is a serious breach of etiquette.

      2. Nobody is into that. Not even Mr. Pelosi has been into that for quite some time.

        1. Everything Leo. Everything. The world is a very disturbing place.

  4. The Left is forever preaching about how the country needs to “come together” and how divisive anyone who disagrees with them is. Whenever something comes around that everyone can agree on and celebrate, however, the left is the first to shit all over it. The 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 is just the latest example.

    1. Again, the left are about none of the things they claim to be.

      Le Douche Dauphin up here is the poster boy for playing ‘we must come together but speak divisive language’ shtick.

    2. If we have things to celebrate about our past, how can we possibly construct the new world order?

    3. They sent Laika into space knowing damned well she’d never survive. Fuck them.

      1. I know. They murdered dogs up there. Fucking assholes.

        1. Oh hell, there is a worse story than that (they also killed monkeys in space, if memory serves). But the worst was sending a man out and the man being fully aware there was virtually no chance he’d come back.

          Vladimir Kamarov , knowing that if he refused to go up in Soyuz I meant that Yuri Gagarin (the backup pilot) would have to go, agreed to go on an unsafe rocket (Gagarin noted 203 defects in it) and demanded that he be given an open casket funeral upon his death.

          Listening posts in Turkey overheard him cursing out the Soviets before his death.

          The ship was, of course, made poorly. Almost out of fuel. The parachutes did not work at all (meaning the impact of a crash from space would liquify his body).

          The Soviets, though, did honor his request. A chipped heel bone was the only piece of him recovered. It is an easily searched image.

          1. If you want creepy…Amazon has, for sale, the recording of his death.

    4. It slammed the space program for forcing male and female astronauts to wear the same space suit, deemed problematic, since the two sexes have “different sweat patterns.”

      But don’t they also argue that men who identify as women are indeed and in fact women?

      1. I wonder if that’s an actual complaint from female astronauts or just something they thought of to bitch about.

        1. Space suits are the difference between life and death. A lot of thought goes into them. The US has been sending women astronauts up since the 1980s. I would be good money this is complete bullshit. I can’t believe NASA just handed women space suits and said “these only come in male sizes”. I would be surprised if every astronaut’s suit isn’t made specifically for them.

          1. I would be surprised if every astronaut’s suit isn’t made specifically for them.

            I think they must be. They at least have to be customized for the height of the astronaut. Especially if it’s the pressurized suit. I don’t see how you could do anything in one if they don’t fit just right.

            1. I don’t either. And astronauts in emergencies could be expected to wear them for days. So, they couldn’t be uncomfortable to work properly.

          2. It appears they come in standard sizes.

            1. Thanks. Who knew.

      2. “different sweat patterns”

        Nice album name.

        1. It would be a great debut record for “These Incredible Lesbians” which was a great band name that came around during the Women’s Soccer World Cup.

          1. Specifically a great band name for an all-male band.

      3. I would think differences in sweat patterns would not be the highest complaint for women having to use male suits.

  5. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) has a new plan to take on Wall Street.

    So, Dodd Frank, Sarbanes Oxley, SEC Act of 1933 and 34, Investment Advisers act of 1940, CFTC, MSRB, OCC, include Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, the Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984, the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (2012), and various other federal securities laws are not enough?

    1. Because of the constant work of wreckers and saboteurs, our efforts to protect the people from exploiters is never done and must always be redoubled.

    2. I bet you the majority of Wall St. votes Democrat.

      Which makes all this the more perplexing.

      1. Regulations always benefit large firms and establish interests. The last thing the people on Wall Street want is a free market. Free Markets are unpredictable and cause important people to become ordinary rich people. And no one wants that.

        1. That’s the part of the equation the left conveniently over looks.

          Corporations can celebrate $15 min wage because they’re big and strong enough to with stand it and have far more wiggle room to play around with margins of many kinds.

          A SME less so and these are the people and families that get hardest hit.

          So it may *help* 17 million people (a good chunk of whom I’m almost certain no amount will be enough for them because of life choices) but we don’t see the unseen on how it hurts small business and the community at large.

          But who cares about them amirite?

          1. a good chunk of whom I’m almost certain no amount will be enough for them because of life choices

            Man, I so feel you on this. People’s income changes over time. Their debt/income ratio does not.

            It takes significant discipline to keep expenses the same or reduce expenses when you get a raise. Discipline most people do not have. Hell, most people don’t even have a basic education in personal finance, since we don’t require that in any of the K-12 schooling curriculum.

            1. That is very true. And a lot of people don’t want to admit it. It’s much simpler to think that being poor is just bad luck.

              I know people who make $35k who live in a comfortably middle class way and people who make 3x that who are broke. Low wages is not the main reason for poverty in an awful lot of cases.
              My parents instilled in me a good sense of financial discipline and frugality, and an aversion to unnecessary debt, so I have an easy time saving and not spending too much. It amazes me how many otherwise very smart people just have no idea how to be smart about money.

            2. This to both of you.

              I see this every single day as a business owner for the last nine years.

        2. Bingo.

    3. It’s like “gun control” legislation. There are already 10,000 laws, but somehow none of them is sufficiently “common-sense”.

      1. +100

      2. Hey man, Bloomberg has a lot of money to spend on elections. If he wants gun control, then we need to give him gun control.

    4. Too much is never enough

  6. Although I will vote Democrat as long as the alt-right white nationalists control the GOP, I can admit when Democrats are wrong. And I believe this $15 / hour minimum wage is one example.

    As a Koch / Reason libertarian, I know that the key to a prosperous economy is unlimited, unrestricted immigration and no minimum wage at all. Fortunately the Democrats are moving toward our position on the former issue. Let’s hope they eventually come around on the latter.


    1. OBL is truly a man of principles. That’s so rare these days.

  7. Portland Police Chief Danielle Outlaw called for an anti-mask law, saying at a news conference that “a lot of people are emboldened because they know they can’t be identified.”

    “Chief Outlaw”, eh? Anyway, get ready for mandatory human license plates.

    1. Anti mask laws are a good thing. It is the only way you can put a stop to this kind of shit. Make them show their faces and punching Nazis will become a lot less attractive.

      1. Similarly, CC laws are a good thing.

        1. Yes they are. Make this shit a contact sport before it gets out of control. At some point, people are going to start getting killed by Antifa if something isn’t done.

          1. For sure, given Panty-fa’s tendency to pick on the smaller, the weaker, children, and the elderly. One of these days they’re going to bash some old guy with their bike locks and he’s gonna have a heart attack or stroke out.

            1. My hope is some old guy pulls out a gun and kills a few of them.

              1. That would be an absolutely appropriate response to a lot of what I’ve seen in various videos. Looks like Oregon has pretty decent carry laws (shall issue, few restrictions on where you can carry). Not sure if cities can further restrict it.

                What I sometimes wonder is where the fuck are the police? How did the people that beat the shit out of Ngo on the street in broad daylight not get arrested on the spot?

                1. I am generally not a believer in pulling guns on people. I think a lot of the CC advocates way underestimate the legal risks of doing so. That said, if a mob of people are threatening to attack you and the police won’t do anything, pulling a gun and using it if they don’t back off is really your only choice in that situation.

                  1. I think a lot of the CC advocates way underestimate the legal risks of doing so.

                    Yep. Brandishing a firearm is a crime in many states. So if you feel threatened, pull that gun out and don’t get attacked? You could get arrested.

                    Plus the optics of some old guy pulling out a gun and shooting black bloc would be just as disastrous for Trump and 2nd amendment supporters as it would be for black bloc if one of their members kills an old guy with a bike lock. As much as I want public opinion to continue turning against the black bloc, we really should be hoping that no one gets killed and this all deescalates.

                    1. Indeed. Violence in the streets is not good, even when it’s justified.

                      Rationally I hope it doesn’t come to that. But part of me would smile if some old dude shot a Black Block asshole who was attacking him.

                    2. I definitely get the visceral emotional reaction. Its hard not to smile when some dude you really dislike gets punched in the face… but its the people that get hurt/killed that will get the public’s favor, sympathy and support in the long term.

                2. What I sometimes wonder is where the fuck are the police? How did the people that beat the shit out of Ngo on the street in broad daylight not get arrested on the spot?

                  The police don’t get involved there because they know the Mayor is an Antifa sympathizer, and would come down on them hard if they interfered in Antifa’s operations.

                  You have to remember, this is a city where they operate in broad daylight with no repercussions for their actions. They even have an official soccer fan club for the local MLS team, for god’s sake. They operate in Portland, Seattle, and places in the Bay Area with the same impunity that the KKK did in the 1920s in a lot of cities.

                  1. Thank you for saying it Red Rocks White privilege Lefties are acting with open violence and intimidation with the same impunity as the KKK did in many areas.

                    Funny how the KKK was started by Democrats and now Democrats are doing this antifa thing.

      2. Or they could, you know, enforce the law as the protest is happening. I mean, I know this might sound crazy, but perhaps standing aside while “protesters” assault people and smash things isn’t such a grand plan after all.

        1. They could do that too. But people still can run off or disappear into a crowd. Don’t let them run around in masks.

          1. Virginia has an anti-mask law. It hasn’t been enforced at any of the protests.

            1. No law works if the cops won’t enforce it. The cops should be arresting anyone seen with a mask on immediately.

              1. Or protesting while disguised as Indians.

              2. No law works if the cops won’t enforce it.
                That was the main point of my post. The cops aren’t enforcing laws prohibiting violence. Why would they enforce a law prohibiting masks.

                1. > Why would they enforce a law prohibiting masks.

                  Because they suspect it’s unconstitutional and don’t want to waste millions of dollars being sued by the ACLU.

      3. John, there is no constitutional authority to ban products and services.

        Anti-mask laws are so clearly unconstitutional since one of our costume holidays literally causes these anti-mask laws to require exceptions for Halloween masks. Then what about people who work as clowns or Easter Bunnies? What about women with too much makeup on?

        The problem are Lefties being violent, not them wearing masks.

        Send in the cops and arrest violent rioters. Then take their masks off and book them. Give them non-excessive bail and set a trial date.

        1. They are totally constitutional. Banning masks is no different than banning burglary tools. States, unlike the feds, have general criminal jurisdiction. That means that they can ban things if they can make a good enough case that doing so is necessary to enforce the law. And masks fit that description.

          You keep reading the Constitution as you want it to read not as it actually reads.

          1. loveconstitution1789 doesn’t understand the concept of the states having general police power, however I would argue that banning masks at protests runs afoul of the 1st amendment

            1. Kevin Smith, states dont have plenary powers.

              They gave up that ability by joining the United States of America. States now get their powers from the US Constitution and their respective state constitutions. The states are also limited by these Constitutions.

              1. The 10th amendment would beg to differ

                “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

                The federal government is only allowed its express powers granted in the constitution, but the states are only bound by what is expressly prohibited.

                Most state constitutions also do not bind the state to express powers, but rather grants them general police power.

                Since there is nothing in the US constitution (or any state constitution that I am aware) expressly prohibiting states from banning products or services then they are presumed to have that power insofar that it doesn’t conflict with restrictions incorporated by the 14th amendment (such as banning handguns)

                1. Another to look at this based on your 10th Amendment citation is if states have plenary powers then the people cannot have any powers.

                  If the state has the power to ban products and services, then the people cannot have the power to buy and sell any product and service that they want.

            2. If they can criminalize nudity at a protest, I see no reason why they can’t ban masks as well

              1. Nudity prohibitions involve government saying you need to wear a minimum of clothing in public. There isn’t a constitutional basis for this power but I bet Americans would overwhelmingly support a constitutional amendment for this government power.

                Mask bans are government saying you cant wear something because it hides your face. Except during Halloween and other exceptions. Also government has no constitutional right to see your face. Religious exemptions would also be required for head coverings. Dust and gas masks would also need exemptions.

          2. States dont have plenary powers.

            States need constitutional provisions to ban products and services. None do that I know of.

            John, I guess you forgot how constitutions work. They grant powers and rights while limiting government.

            I know YOU want masks banned because Socialists are running around rioting and being violent. Police are not really arresting those people but you want to give the government power to arrest people for wearing masks?

            You are free to convince state governments to amend their respective constitutions to ban products and services.

            1. States need constitutional provisions to ban products and services.

              No they don’t. That is not how it works. The feds need constitution provisions to do anything. The states have general police and legislative authority. They can do anything they want as long as it doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment or the BOR as incorporated by the 14th Amendment.

              1. Then why do states have constitutions, John?

                If states can do whatever they want as long as they dont infringe on the US Constitution and the federal rights of its residents, then why have state constitutions?

                State constitutions provide powers and limitations, just like the US Constitution does for the federal government and the states.

                Georgia State Constitution
                To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.[…]

                Article I, Section 2, PARAGRAPH V. What acts void
                Legislative acts in violation of this Constitution or the Constitution of the United States are void, and the judiciary shall so declare them.

                GA State Constitution

            2. I don’t think a mask ban is a product and services restriction.

              It is a public attire restriction – perhaps you could make an argument that it is akin to wearing appropriate clothing and not showing your bits.

              But it also is a specific speech restriction – requiring removing a veil of anonymity in public. Now, Antifa has bad motives and they wear masks because they intend to harm others, not because they fear reprisals for their speech or opinions. Others may have different reasons for wanting anonymity.

              Like marching in a protest against sodomy laws, or some other embarrassing thing. Or maybe there really is a reason to fear exposure…. like being a male student protesting kangaroo court “sexual assault” trials on a liberal campus. If I were a student at Berkely, I damn sure wouldn’t want my face next to a poster protesting anything of the SJW agenda. They’ll run you out of town on a rail.

              1. The 1st Amendment protects all “peaceful assembly”. If you are peacefully assembling, then you are protected by the 1st Amendment.

                A mask is a product. It is manufactured, bought, and sold.

                As we found out during the Prohibition, a Constitutional Amendment is required to ban alcohol, which is also a product.

                No state, that I know of, has a constitutional provision allowing for the ban of products and services. States have all sorts of laws banning products and they are ALL unconstitutional void laws in their respective states.

                All a state has to do is add a constitutional provision that allows banning products and services.

                1. I think you misunderstand. I’m on the “you can’t ban that” side.

                  But the prohibition isn’t on selling or making masks. It is on covering your face in public. A scarf will do the trick. So will a sleeve cut off of a long sleeve shirt. Or a knit ski hat. Or…

                  Which shows that what they attempt to ban is the hiding of your identity. Which is probably right near the top of first amendment protections. Who wrote all those pamphlets during the founding of the US?

                  1. You can have 1A protections AND push the fact the government has zero enumerated power to ban products and services. Masks are a product.

                    Mask bans cannot work because there are too many exemptions for work masks, safety masks, Halloween masks, and religious attire that can mask ones face.

                2. Literally no one here is arguing that we should ban masks or face coverings.

                  1. John is.

                3. Actually states do not necessarily have to have amendments for banning certain things, depending on how the constitution of that state is set up. The reason the federal government did, and still does even though they don’t seem to care anymore, have to pass an amendment to ban random substances is that article one and the tenth amendment limit the federal government’s power to certain categories, of which banning alcohol was, of course, not included.

                  1. Actually, states have to give themselves the power to ban products and services.

                    States dont do it because most people fall for the US state plenary power fallacy.

              2. People march in protest against sodomy laws?

                I’m sure the courts are umm… plugged up adjudicating the many offenders who are caught in the act. Worthwhile thing to take to the streets over.


            3. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

              1. You’re right, the 10th Amendment does say that.

                How do we know what powers the states and people have then?

                The states constitutions spell out what powers and rights their state government has and the residents of that state have. Also what rights are protected.

                Then laws are created off those state constitutional powers and rights.

                1. State constitutions are only limited by the delegation of powers to the US Government, 14th Amendment incorporation, and Article IV section 4 (republican form of government). Bans on products and services aren’t restricted by any of those. Since bans already exists, I assume state constitutions don’t normally restrict those.

                  1. Then I ask again, why have state constitutions?

                    If states can do whatever they want except for limitation in the US constitution, then why have state constitutions?

                    The 13 original states had state constitutions before the US Constitution was drafted. This was because their plenary power was derived from their state constitutions and their residents. When the 13 original states ratified the US Constitution, they surrendered certain powers and rights. One such power was absolute/plenary power.

          3. You keep reading the Constitution as you want it to read not as it actually reads.

            That does seem to be his thing.

            1. You people make some fantastically inaccurate claims.

              Not a single citation from any of you.

        2. Yeah, I can’t see a decent justification for a right to wear a mask in a public place.

          In public spaces, your actions ought to be public. In private spaces, your actions ought to be private. People should have no reasonable right to privacy in public spaces and ought to be able to be held to account for their actions in those public spaces. Masks are deliberately being used to protect the identities of people who are regularly violating the rights of their fellow citizens. This quite literally is a safety vs. liberty concern, and one where I don’t think the old adage of “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” applies to. We’re talking about long-lasting safety for those who would like to exercise their right to be safe in their person and pursue happiness. This is not a temporary safety initiative. This is a serious safety concern we are continuously running into and its curtailing the free speech and right to protest.

          You could still wear a mask in private and we can carve out exceptions for certain forms of employment.

          1. Yeah, I can’t see a decent justification for a right to wear a mask in a public place.

            that’s not how the burden of proof ought to work.

            We don’t have to justify to the state whether we ought to exercise our liberty, the state has to justify to us why they think they ought to restrict our liberty.

            Don’t give in to the argument of “there’s no justification for a citizen to do X”, because one day it might be wearing masks, the next day it might be owning guns

            1. You know how I keep decrying dumb anti-Trump arguments because it ends up putting me on the same side as Trump?

              Yeah…. this is one of those moments.

              Stop making dumb Antifa inspired arguments against freedom. I don’t need to be on the same side as Dave Weigel and the lefty trolls and sock puppets.

              The fact that Antifa is bad and a bunch of brownshirt thugs should not lead you to abandon your libertarian principles. The police could put an end to this PDQ if they wanted to. You notice they don’t try this crap in Knoxville, TN or Scottsdale, AZ or Huntsville, AL. They do it where they have a friendly police force and city government to protect them.

            2. Okay, let me rephrase that – we should empower the states to restrict people’s ability to wear masks in public.

              Then, go re-read my post above for why I feel this way and actually respond to the argument itself.

            3. Why do you equate everything to guns?
              My guess: you’re a closet gun grabber

      4. Anti mask laws are only a good thing since enforcing the other laws seems like a bad idea there. God forbid they arrest these cock suckers for starting a riot or trashing downtown.

        1. Yeah, they could easily nip it in the bud when they have a bunch of guys assembling with weapons, with the announced intention of confronting a lawful and permitted protest violently. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict what will happen next. Just pick up the worst of the bunch on “disturbing the peace” charges long before they confront anyone. Then grab up the few brave souls who barge in to the permitted demonstration and initiate conflict on similar charges.

          You could get the whole thing stopped before you even have to file battery charges.. or worse.

          Or, you could go the Portland route and make sure that the police steer clear until after the violence is over…. and make sure they only arrest the people who just got assaulted. See how that works out for ya….

        2. The issue is that even if there’s cops all over these streets, they can’t arrest everyone that is getting violent. Often times the arrests need to happen using video footage reviewed after-the-fact. Black bloc uses tactics specifically designed around hiding identities and using the crowd to block police from detaining individuals. We need to be able to identify violent individuals and arrest them a couple days later, once they can’t hide in the crowd anymore.

          Plus, we need to put some god damned social pressure on these nerds. When one of them assaults an old man with a bike lock, all of his/her friends and family should know.

          1. Drone their asses!

          2. I wonder how cops ever arrested and successfully prosecuted violent rioters in the past?

            If we cant see their faces, you cannot possibly get a conviction.

        3. No one complained when anti-mask laws were passed in the South. That worked out well for everybody, even trick-or-treaters and the Easter Bunny

  8. Omar vows to continue being Trump’s ‘nightmare’ as hundreds greet her in Minnesota

    Hundreds greet Omar while almost 63 million Americas voted for Trump.

    Yeah…that’s the same popularity.

    Besides, is anyone really falling for the notion that Lefties don’t hang on everything that Trump says and does and tweet nonsense first? Not that Trump’s interns don’t tweet like maniacs.

    1. “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”

      Those places clearly being their congressional districts.

    2. she may not understand the word “nightmare” ~~ Nancy Pelosi

      1. Yeah. She’s more like Trump’s ideal opponent.

  9. Jeffrey Epstein denied bail for sex offenses.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    More unconstitutional denial of bail. Epstein can pay almost any amount of bail, so the judge decided to just not let Epstein have a Presumption of Innocence.

    1. Bullshit. They found a fake passport in the guy’s home. He is has several private jets and is facing the rest of his life in prison. They guy is a flight risk. “Excessive” is a relative term defined by the circumstances. No bail is not excessive in some cases, which this is one.

      1. Bullshit. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not illegal to have a “fake passport”. I have multiple “fake passports”, whatever that means. When I travel overseas, I leave my other passports with the hotels instead of my actual US passport.

        He has an 8th Amendment right to non-excessive bail pending trial. There are no “flight risk” or “danger to society” exceptions listed for the 8A.

        1. That is not what the 8th Amendment means. It has never meant that and was never intended by the founders to mean some people are denied bail under the right circumstances. If you don’t like that, change the Constitution.

          1. John, it does mean that which is why they added it. The British denied bail to defendants pending trial.

            We bitch about judges on here all the time but on THIS, the judges are flying the straight and narrow? I don’t think so.

            I know that you don’t like it but you can always change the Constitution to add “flight risk” and “dangerous person”, whatever the fuck those things mean.

            1. The British denied bail under unreasonable circumstances. Excessive bail shall not be required does not mean bail must always be available. It leaves that question open. It just says if there is bail, it can’t be excessive. There is just no case to be made that it means bail must be given in all circumstances. That is insane.

              According to you, if they had captured the 9-11 hijackers alive, they would have gotten bail. Really, you think the Constitution means you can commit mass murder and promise to do it again and the courts are supposed to let you walk pending trial?

              That is nuts. I am sorry but you are completely wrong about this.

              1. John, come on! British denied bail under reasonable circumstances..

                If the question of granting bail is left open then why would the Founders say anything? The government can simply deny bail to everyone.

                Yes, John, the worst of the worst “terrorist” is guaranteed non-excessive bail. They are also guaranteed a fair speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, assistance of counsel, right to confront witnesses against him, trial in the jurisdiction where the crime took place, right to have an indictment by Grand Jury, right to not be a witness against himself….

                Even a 9/11 hijacker is entitled to the Presumption of Innocence.

                Gitmo is 100% a violation of the US Constitution because most of those guys have not gotten any trials.

                It might be “nuts” according to YOU but it is literally written into our constitution. To me, you are nuts, for wanting to give government the kind of power you are advocating.

                The judge unconstitutionally denied bail to Epstein for sex crimes. Defendants charged with sex crimes get bail. Not him, because the same people wanting to throw away the key say that he is a “flight risk”.

                That is why I am a Libertarian not a Republican or Democrat.

                You are free to change the Constitution.

                1. Defendants charged with sex crimes get bail.

                  Actually, those with history of sex crimes, particularly violent ones, often don’t get bail. People with a history of actively impeding investigations by destroying evidence, fleeing and/or intimidating witnesses are even less likely to get bail.

                  I’d argue that the issue is not whether or not we should/shouldn’t set bail – its the fact that people are not getting fair and speedy trials. The bail issue wouldn’t be so severe if we were giving people trials within a week or two of getting arrested.

                2. Legally, technically, the “guys” in Gitmo are unlawful enemy combatants, with no US Constitutional legal protections, even subject to execution under international law.

                  That is why you wear a uniform on a battlefield and do not hide amongst civilian populations, nor target them.

                  1. Says the government who is unconstitutionally holding people in their custody for crimes.

                    There is a also a thing called reciprocity. America cannot take the moral high ground when it kidnaps people from non-USA territory and refuses to give them Due Process of summary court martial under military justice system.

                    America is holding those guys without trial of any kind and that is exactly what the US constitution forbids. The British did that to American colonists and many other people.

              2. You would think that someone named “loveconstitution” would have a better handle on the Constitution. His ignorance is all over this thread. Sad.

                1. Trolls. Gotta love their solid citations for nonsense.

        2. It is not illegal to have a “fake passport”.

          Forging official documents isn’t illegal?

          1. Or obtaining official documents by way of fraud, either or

            1. How about possession? “Obtaining” official documents require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

              I deactivation the chip in my US passport. I still get through US customs, no prob.

          2. “Forging” non-US documents is illegal in the USA now? Your would have to prove that the person actually forged the documents otherwise its possession of “forged” foreign documents.

            Hmm.. that seems like a jurisdiction issue.

            Not sure the US government has the power to criminalizing the possession of foreign documents. That nation would have to prosecute that “offense”.

            1. Yes, forging a foreign passport is illegal, as is procuring a forged passport

              (a) Restrictions and prohibitions. Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful—
              (6) for any person to forge, counterfeit, mutilate, or alter, or cause or procure to be forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered, any permit or evidence of permission to depart from or enter the United States;


              1. Key words, “depart from or enter the USA.” If you dont enter or depart the USa, that US Code does not apply.

                Simple possession of a bogus passport is not illegal under the US code you cited.

    2. I think you’re making a joke here, but just in case you aren’t – Epstein is a HUGE flight risk and there’s also a massive risk that he would use his influence and fortune to intimidate and bribe witnesses. Hasn’t he already made some suspicious $130,000 payments to potential witnesses in the past?

      The only way this guy should be able to get a lighter sentence is by squealing on the Republicans, Democrats and other prominent public figures that are systematically raping teenagers.

      1. Ha! You think the Clinton machine is gonna let that happen?

        BTW, for about a decade the “Lolita Express” story was about influential people taking his plane to his island – and Bill was the biggest of the big names on that list and the story was that there were a lot of flights that he was on. And the mainstream press didn’t touch that story with a ten foot pole.

        But suddenly there’s a video of Trump at a party at Trump’s country club with Epstein. Now they are interested. I wonder how long it will take them to find someone who will claim that Epstein pimped her out to Trump – despite having no evidence of ever having met Trump. Prediction: The dates will be “sometime over a 2.5 year period”.

        1. They are desparate to pin this on Trump. All of the evidence is to the contrary. Trump has never been known to be into young girls. All of his wives were over 30 when he married them. And Trump is famous for being cheap and never so much as playing a round of golf at a property he didn’t own. So, there is very little chance he ever partook.

          Meanwhile, I think it is almost certain Bill Clinton did. And it is pretty likely some other famous people or politicians from both sides did as well. If and when the truth ever comes out about this, it might be the biggest scandal in US political history.

        2. I know the Clintons won’t let that happen, and since they wont, Epstein needs to get no bail and life in prison. His only way out should be to squeal, which wont happen. If he does, he’ll be found dead.

          1. If the Clintons were that good, he would already be dead.

            1. They’re not that good, the murder will be for revenge, not prevention.

              1. It would be an act of prevention if murdered in jail before trial.

                He was naked in solitary confinement with bare walls but managed to hang himself.

                1. Damn dude you nailed it!

            2. You were saying?

      2. Why would I joke about Constitutional rights?

        I am sorry you fell for the government’s claim that there are exceptions to the 8A right to non-excessive bail. I would absolutely be open to you pointing out where those exceptions are in that single sentence of the 8A.

        If Epstein flees before trial, then go get him and raise his bail. Its not like Epstein can hide. He is super rich and a reward would surely send people looking for him. His bail could pay for a bounty on his head.

        I laugh when I saw the propagandists say how Epstein had “48 loose diamonds and over $70,000 in cash”. SO WHAT! If I had a billion dollars I would walk around with hundreds of thousands in cash. I would have a room in my house full of gold coins and cash. I would have enough Arms to supply a small army.

        1. It is absolutely constitutional to deny bail to people that we can reasonably suspect will commit additional crimes if provided bail. John did a good job up above: Excessive bail shall not be required does not mean bail must always be available. It leaves that question open. It just says if there is bail, it can’t be excessive. There is just no case to be made that it means bail must be given in all circumstances. That is insane. According to you, if they had captured the 9-11 hijackers alive, they would have gotten bail. Really, you think the Constitution means you can commit mass murder and promise to do it again and the courts are supposed to let you walk pending trial?

          Now, I agree that since we are not providing bail, he ought to have a speedy trial decided by his peers (the long wait times we give people while they sit in jail NOT convicted is absolutely unconstitutional).

          1. Yeah, that’s an under-appreciated scandal in this country. People (usually poor people) are held for sometimes years awaiting trial on charges that might only result in probation.

            The left has gotten themselves all distracted with “evil korporationz” and “profit” in the prison system instead of keeping their eye on the ball with excessive and abusive prison terms and coming up with ways to prevent crime and encourage people to become productive citizens. As such, nobody is working on productive solutions to the problem. Well, nobody except a bunch of nutball libertarians that nobody listens to. And Kim Kardashian. And Trump.

            Sheesh. The world really has become a farce.

            1. Yep, I totally agree. Its something most people have zero understanding of. Even people like Ben Shapiro still have this cartoon version of the US justice system in their head – innocent until proven guilty, everyone gets representation, proper due process, trials/juries, speedy trials, etc. Half that shit doesn’t even happen or is just symbolic in practice.

              You’re also absolutely right that libertarians are the ONLY political group in this country that gives a shit and has real solutions to the problems. Since this controversy is tied up in race instead of class (and this most certainly is a class issue), the Democrats will be completely ineffective in fixing anything. Republicans don’t even care as far as I can tell.

              1. The Founders instituted multiple strategies to prevent people like John from indefinitely locking people up.

                Right to non-excessive bail.
                Right to speedy trial.
                Right to public trial.
                Right to assistance of counsel for defense.
                Right to impartial jury trial.
                Right to due Process.
                Right to Equal protection.

          2. TripK and John have not cited a single source to support their positions and the US Constitution does not list any exceptions that you want it too, like “flight risk” or “danger to society”.

  10. Serious question: Have the Dems presented any analytical evidence for why the minimum wage should be $15, and not $12.54, say, or $60?

    1. Yes of course.

      You see, Karen the assistant night shift manager at the Taco Shack makes $15 an hour. Meanwhile, Carl, Trey, Kimmy, and I only make $8 an hour (except Kimmy, who makes $8.50 because she’s a suck-up). That just simply isn’t fair. Especially because we’re the ones doing all the work. Karen doesn’t ever have to work the fryer or the grill, and she barely ever works the register. Hell, she probably only has to wash her hands like three times a night, and yet she screams at us to wash our hands at least 15 times a shift. I can’t even scratch my balls without then having to lather up because of that hygiene Nazi. $15 dollars an hour to sit in her office and then tell us what to do.

      There’s your analytics, bub… fairness.

      1. But, H — What about the CEO of Taco Shack? Xe makes *$1000* an hour and doesn’t even *know how* to work a fryer or a register!

        1. Oh don’t you worry about that. Next we’ll pass the wealth tax, and that greedy bastard is going to pay for our health care and high-speed trains that take us from our free college to our free housing.

          1. Right on! BASTARD!!

      2. Fairness!

        My new favorite word. Used to shame anyone who wishes to stick to reality. It’s great because no matter how libertarian a leftist is, he/she/zi cannot help but yearn for the utopia in which fairness is achieved, despite being a relative, emotional term.

        1. I thought fairness meant that you get what you deserve. Telling every employer what they must pay and every employee that they can only work if someone thinks they are worth $15/hr doesn’t seem very fair to me.

          1. I got my definition from Obama. His definition is “whatever pushes my agenda”

          2. “Use every man after his desert and who should ‘scape a whipping?”

        2. Weird – I was always told that life isn’t fair. It was almost a mantra in my house growing up. Too bad we had to grow up scrappy and resilient.

          1. “I was always told that life isn’t fair. It was almost a mantra in my house growing up.”

            It was a mantra in my house. Along with “The world doesn’t owe you a living”.

            1. That’s the broke version that hardworking cohesive families use. The woke version is “I’m a victim give me things”

          2. “Life isn’t fair”
            “Hey, it’s a free country”

            Are two expressions which haven’t survived our transition into Late Progressivism

        3. To be fair (haha) the concept of “fairness” has been mutilated for a long time.

          Half the country can look at one guy (ummm, I mean non-binary trans person) who pays millions in taxes, and another who pays zero federal income taxes, and then scream that the first one is not paying its “fair share”.

      3. So when you guys make 15/hr and Karen gets bumped to 22/hr then we can start this whole cycle again 🙂

        1. See my above comment about the wealth tax. Anything more than what I make should be considered wealthy. Make them pay their fair share.

        2. They end up making nothing because no one wants to by a $20 taco.

          1. buy a $20 taco.

    2. lol

      That’s not how this works. This is how it works…

      1. The dems present crazy utopian ideas without any proof it will work within reality
      2. They get praised by brain dead morons who don’t understand how capitalism works (rich white liberals and their welfare pets)
      3. Anyone with a couple brain cells firing simultaneously suggests that the plan won’t work
      4. The brain dead morons cry about systemic racism, or billionaires, or reality, while the MSM praises dems for their “compassion”
      5. The brain dead morons jerk eachother off on twitter or reddit before the rich ones leave for brunch

  11. Iran says U.S. may have shot down its own drone by mistake

    Of course the World will believe Iranians who kidnapped an oil tanker crew this week and are holding them hostage.

    1. But otherwise we are supposed to believe John Bolton? Also, doesn’t Saudi Arabia have so much interest in an American invasion of Iran while Iran has very little to make claims of provocation laughable? This is strikingly similar to “they gas their own people”.

    2. Navy drone? Marine drone? Army drone? Air Force drone? Coast Guard drone? CIA drone? DHS drone? NYPD drone? State dept drone? (oops already said CIA), NRO drone? IRS drone? Weather Channel drone?

      Space force drone!

      1. Someone is droning on….

  12. “Passing a $15 per hour minimum wage represents the triumph of good intentions over good policy.”

    … except for the part about good intentions. Making it illegal to work for less than $15 an hour (or 10¢ an hour) is anything but well-intentioned.

    1. There are charitable industries that exist for the sole purpose of employing the severely disabled that have precious few to no opportunities to work elsewhere. They produce cheap commodity items and can only exist by paying a very low wage. They provide basic dignity, somewhere to go and something to do for people who would not have either otherwise.
      And in the name of protecting these people, I guess, they just legislated them out of a job.

      1. Never underestimate the government’s ability to issue waivers excusing people from laws they just past.

        1. There already was a waiver, and this bill went out of its way to end it.

          No doubt at the behest of “activists” who think middle aged blind and crippled people, and adult mentally retarded workers will be snapped up by Corporate America if enough quotas are set

  13. The left’s antipathy is not limited to Biden. At the Washington Post, David Weigel profiles “The Democrats who don’t miss Obama (or Biden).” In his day, Weigel covered any number of Tea Party conferences (often unfairly); if he noticed that Netroots is the left-wing, hall-of-funhouse-mirrors version of those events, he failed to include it in his news “analysis.”

    Rather, Weigel provided a deadpan account of how “the largest annual gathering of liberal activists, which pulls everyone from electoral data gurus to disability rights activists into one loud space, had no nostalgia at all for a two-term president who, for a while, seemed to redefine the Democratic Party.”

    In this telling, Obama — and by extension, Biden — “left activists demoralized, reducing Democratic Party power to its lowest levels in 90 years.” That Obama redefined his party as further to the left and that it is in tatters because he pandered to the activist left too much is a possibility simply too terrible for them to contemplate.

    Yet Weigel, in some obligatory throat-clearing, includes the following concession to political reality: “Although most Democratic voters adore Obama, and although he’s far more popular than other former presidents, the thought of winding the clock back to before the 2016 election does not animate liberals.” Weigel’s use of “liberal” rather than “progressive” or “left-wing” is fairly misleading, given how Democrats tend to identify themselves:

    Obama is no longer useful to the cause.

    1. I dunno why it’s called Obamacare but it sure does sound like white supremacy to me

  14. House Passes $15 Minimum Wage Bill

    That loud, metallic clink you heard were the robots high-fiving each other.

    1. Robotics and automation will become the reality even faster than is already happening as more incentives are created.

      Robotic burger makers already exist (in San Francisco, of course):

    2. Bender approves.

  15. If Trump wins reelection (and I haven’t seen anything from the Democrats yet to make me think he won’t), the trauma for progressives when their delusional bubble bursts will be even worse this time than it was last time. It was a nightmare for them when Trump was first elected, but they haven’t woken up yet. They think they’re awake, but the world they’re living in is just another dream. In their dreams, disrespecting Betsy Ross on the Fourth of July is perfectly respectable, and the American people will rally to the defense of antisemitic women from Somalia because they’re women from Somalia.

    Sometimes, the break between the progressives and the rest of us really does seem to be like the one between the proles and the rest of the outer party members in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The proles jeer at the propaganda they’re being spoon-fed, but the outer party members really believe it–insofar as they have an authentic inner self that’s still capable of really believing anything.

    Anybody else ready, “American Psycho”? It’s like the author leafed through the pages of an issue of GQ magazine in the early 1980s (when the Yuppies emerged), and imagined the kind of person that would read that magazine and really believe in what it was telling them. Yeah, he’d be an ambitious, over achieving, self-hating, impeccably dressed, Wall Street, serial killer! Someone should do the same thing for the progressives of today.

    What kind of depraved personality would it take to genuinely believe in the wholesale horseshit the progressives and the media are selling us these days? I don’t think he’d be a serial killer. She might be a terrorist. It might come out something like Fight Club, only the moral of the story wouldn’t be about a delusional response to consumerism. It would be about the sick and depraved mind necessary to be a true believer in the shit the left is selling us every day.

    1. According to FBI statistics, the United States experienced more than 2,500 domestic bombings in just 18 months in 1971 and 1972, with virtually no solved crimes and barely any significant prosecutions.

      People have forgotten how violent the left actually is. My guess is that we will see a wave of leftist political violence if Trump wins re-election and maybe even if he doesn’t.

      1. “My guess is that we will see a wave of leftist political violence if Trump wins re-election and maybe even if he doesn’t.”

        There’s already been a wave of Leftist violence against the right to control the streets and prevent fascists from organizing. Yhat will probably continue. There’s also been Rightist violence, with would-be pipe bombers and the like. I suspect we will see some assassinations of Leftist figures in the days and years to come. The Somalian congress women will be an irresistible target for the fascists.

        1. prevent fascists from organizing

          That’s a funny way to say “prevent people who disagree with me on any particular thing from speaking”.

          1. Or people just trying to drive to the store.

          2. “That’s a funny way to say ”

            It’s just Leftist speak. You’ll have plenty of time to get used to it.

        2. The Somalian congress women will be an irresistible target for the fascists.

          I’ll believe these congresscritters are in any real danger once people start shooting at them during softball practice or assaulting them on their front lawns.

          1. I don’t think we’ll have to wait long. An escalation in political violence seems all but inevitable. This is a positive for the Republicans, as Freikorp-like tactics in taking out Leftist leadership figures has proven so effective over the years. Leftist street brawling has its charms, but is nowhere near as effective.

    2. “If Trump wins reelection (and I haven’t seen anything from the Democrats yet to make me think he won’t), the trauma for progressives when their delusional bubble bursts will be even worse this time than it was last time.”

      Trump has been bad for the Clintonite moderate wing of the party. But the socialist wing of the party hasn’t has it so good for decades. Increased influence and visibility is not a nightmare for a politician, it’s a boon. A second Trump administration might even prove better for the left of the democrats as they purge the Clintionite moderates.

      1. Increased influence and visibility is not a nightmare for a politician, it’s a boon.

        Just ask the Tea Party!

        1. “Just ask the Tea Party!”

          The Republican party is closer now to being the White Party than it’s ever been. This is a great victory for the Tea Party insurgency.

      2. Using this logic, a progressive win would be the worst thing for them as they would quickly become the “in” party and summarily rejected.

        You might be right. In fact, I think this just happened a few years ago. Haha

  16. How to ensure the $15 minimum wage is more than virtue signaling, besides, um, getting it passed in the Senate and signed by Trump?

    Pass companion legislation prohibiting any reduction in staff and hours, as well as any rise in prices.

    Otherwise, economics.

    1. That would undoubtedly cripple many more businesses.

    2. Sounds like directive 10-289. Yikes!

  17. The minimum wage is a bad idea because it interferes with liberty of contract and private property rights.

    I should have the liberty to decide how much to pay any employee. It’s my money, and the employee is a willing, uncoerced participant in the marketplace.

    It’s also bad for a lot of economic and political reasons, but the libertarian case is based on private property rights. Period.

    1. I should also be allowed to sell my labor for whatever price I decide, including some number below $15 an hour.

  18. Oh look. The police state is at it again, abusing dental X-rays to turn adults into minors.

    1. If a CBP officer decides a person isn’t the age they say they are, they can alter the person’s age so it matches the officer’s beliefs.

      Because no one would ever lie about their age. Nope, if the immigrant says it, it must be true.

      God you are stupid.

      1. You didn’t even read the story.

        The traveler had a passport which stated she was 19. But the CBP officer didn’t believe the age on the passport. So the officer subjected her to dental X-rays which can only determine age of a person to within an error range of 5 years. When the range came back “14.76 to 19.56 years”, CBP *still* didn’t believe she was 19, made up a fake birth date declaring she was 18, and threw her into a cage.

        And it gets even worse than that.

  19. I am glad to see Pelosi admit that Democrat policy is entirely driven by irrational emotional concerns and is devoid of thinking about who and how many people their “love” will harm.

    1. irrational emotional concerns

      there’s a lot of that going around

  20. Just look at all those America-haters.

    1. Hating jews is super American

      1. Do you think all of those people there hate Jews?

        1. I know she does. She’s been blatant about it for years.

          Also during that time, she committed tax fraud, and now has the audacity to support multi-trillion dollar socialist plans that would confiscate the majority of both of our incomes and cripple the middle class. So much America-ing

          If you’re going to commit tax fraud at least go after the IRS. But no, she goes after taxpayers. So much America-ing

          1. Yes, she apparently committed tax fraud, was caught, and paid the proper tax bill along with a fine.

            Everyone knows that REAL MURICANS never cheat on their taxes. Why, just ask Joe Biden.

            1. Why, just ask Joe Biden.

              Double-barrel Joe is not who I look to for an example of what America is supposed to be about.

          2. >>>she committed tax fraud

            always something to applaud.

            1. Not when she is pushing to tax me at 90 percent.

            2. Libertarians for double standards!

        2. And those people are jobless morons paid by the DNC. Cmon man use your head.

          1. And those people are jobless morons paid by the DNC.

            Of course they are, because Trump tweeted that it was all staged. Right?

            1. Of course they are, because Trump tweeted that it was all staged. Right?

              I’m not aware of what Trump tweeted but it doesn’t have to be staged for jobless morons to get paid.

    2. Just look at all those America-haters.

      Hate may not be an accurate term, but waiting at the airport to chant “Welcome home congressman!” is pretty fucked up no matter who your congressman is. Unless you’re being paid to do it.

      1. What if your congressman is a black somalian lady? Wouldn’t that be even more fucked up?

    1. Shikha tried to warn the left. Made up of non-cohesive, emotion fueled children, the left can’t help but pick fights with the adults because “fairness.” When the adults have had enough (like right now), the left gets pounded on.

      Then The Cathedral comes out with puff pieces about all the victims of the leftist stupidity, but blames it on the Right.

      I know you like Shikha, you really should listen more closely.

  21. “We wake up with a smile on our face, showing the world with all the love in our hearts”

    Oh fuck off, you shameless cunt.

  22. they got her hair up out of her face to make her look younger v. those other chicks

  23. The Chinese company Trina Solar estimates that 20 percent of current demand for U.S. solar panels is driven by tax considerations.

    Federal tax credits for solar investment have existed since the 1970s.

    Remember, the real evil is Trump and *his* tariffs. He’s what stands between the U.S., China, and free trade.

  24. 50 years ago, somebody did something

    “AP — 50 years ago today, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy left a party on Chappaquiddick Island near Martha’s Vineyard with Mary Jo Kopechne, 28; some time later, Kennedy’s car went off a bridge into the water. Kennedy was able to escape, but Kopechne drowned.

    1. I never realized it was during the Apollo 11 mission. No wonder it stayed so below the radar for so long

  25. They are already working on circumventing the electoral college

    They’ll need to work harder.

  26. [Portland] has made national headlines for its clashes between left- and right-wing demonstrators.

    That’s one way of describing it.

  27. We wake up with a smile on our face, showing the world with all the love in our hearts, and that love in our hearts is about fairness for the American people.

    For the American people who aren’t priced out of their job.

  28. Officials in Portland, Oregon, are chewing over the idea of banning mask-wearing at protests…

    What if it’s January and they’re protesting bitter winds?

    1. Muslim women hit hardest.

    2. The end of motorcycle helmets is at hand – – – – – –
      Next to go; makeup.

  29. …former Vice President Joe Biden has some ideas for fixing rural America.

    Give them a fish they eat for a day, give them broadband internet and they can learn to code.

  30. Campaign workers for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) are demanding a $15 minimum wage.

    Milk and apples for the thinkers not the workers.

  31. Satanists in Scottsville, Arizona, fight for their right to give an invocation at city council meetings.

    The devil is already well represented in local government.

  32. The State Department is trying to evict a San Francisco couple from a $15 million mansion that once served as an Iranian consulate.

    Since they can’t get the president to go to war with Iran, this will have to do.

  33. Newly released court documents show Trump was in frequent contact with his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, about hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign.

    No racial component = BORING

    1. Good lord, I don’t even remember the crazy scatterbrained lady that accused Trump of sexual harassment… this is like 438 “gotchas” ago.

  34. […] about that. One of his ideas—one of the more popular ones, considering that a version of it passed the House of Representatives this week—is that workers should be paid no less than $15 an hour, regardless of what agreement they […]

  35. […] ideas about that. One of his ideas—one of the more popular ones, considering that a version of it passed the House of Representatives this week—is that workers should be paid no less than $15 an hour, regardless of what agreement they and […]

  36. […] about that. One of his ideas—one of the more popular ones, considering that a version of it passed the House of Representatives this week—is that workers should be paid no less than $15 an hour, regardless of what agreement they […]

  37. […] about that. One of his ideas—one of the more popular ones, considering that a version of it passed the House of Representatives this week—is that workers should be paid no less than $15 an hour, regardless of what agreement they […]

  38. “We wake up with a smile on our face, showing the world with all the love in our hearts, and that love in our hearts is about fairness for the American people.” Nancy Pelosi

    Yes, that’s what this is all about: “showing the world.” For progressives, it’s all about intentions, not outcomes. This is about virtue signaling and making themselves feel righteous while destroying jobs and businesses. At least I won’t have to deal with cashiers anymore.

    1. Republicans should just let them have the $15 minimum wage, good and hard. It’s mostly going to affect minorities voting for Democrats; maybe it will teach them a lesson.

  39. Ngo was beaten up and badly injured right in front of police. If police can’t be bothered to intervene then, they certainly aren’t going to enforce a mask ban against Antifa.

  40. […] about that. One of his ideas—one of the more popular ones, considering that a version of it passed the House of Representatives this week—is that workers should be paid no less than $15 an hour, regardless of what agreement they and […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.