Reason Roundup

Is Juul Evil Now? Lawsuit Says Company Knowingly Sold Contaminated Pods

Plus: Reno versus strip clubs, the Constitution on polyamory, an Alabama abortion ruling, and more...

|

The popular vaping company Juul "shipped at least a million contaminated pods," according to a Buzzfeed headline yesterday and a new lawsuit from a former employee. The suit—filed by Juul's former senior vice president of global finance, Siddharth Breja—alleges some pretty damning things.

From Buzzfeed:

Breja alleges that on March 12, 2019, in an executive team meeting, he learned that some batches of mint e-liquid had been found to be contaminated. Approximately 250,000 mint refill kits, the equivalent of one million pods, were manufactured with the contaminated e-liquid, shipped to retailers, and sold to customers.

Breja's lawsuit claims that Juul's then-CEO Kevin Burns said: "Half our customers are drunk and vaping like mo-fos, who the fuck is going to notice the quality of our pods."

Breja alleges that he protested this decision and was quickly fired. Juul said his firing was because Breja had misrepresented his resume when he got hired. Breja's lawsuit calls Juul's claim "preposterous."

So basically, we have no idea what's going on. Breja could be telling the truth and Juul executives could be horrid sociopaths who don't care about consumer safety at all. He could be salty over being fired and making this up entirely. Or he could be telling the truth about "contaminated pods" but not the whole truth.

The lawsuit provides little detail about what the pods were supposedly contaminated with and why or how Juul came to the decision to sell them. (Instead, it pads the claim with a lot of unrelated statistics about youth vaping and recent political efforts around it.) The company could have known about some "contamination" but ultimately determined that the mint pods were still safe.

Breja's lawsuit against Juul was filed (in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) on the same day the company announced it would be cutting around 500 jobs. You can read the whole lawsuit here.


FREE MINDS

Is limiting marriage to two people constitutional? Polyamory is having a bit of a moment, in part due to recent allegations about U.S. Rep. Katie Hill (D–Calif.), who announced her resignation this week. National Review wades into the legal situation when it comes to polyamorous relationships and state-sanctioned marriage:

In his Obergefell dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts noted "how much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage."

And while it was verboten to say so at the time, the reasoning of Obergefell's majority—that the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees two adults of either sex the right to enter into state-recognized matrimony—readily lends itself to abolishing other components of the definition of marriage. If sexual difference is not a meaningful feature of marriage, why should the union be restricted to two—and only two—people?

More here. Meanwhile, Quillette makes the case for…trad polyamory?


FREE MARKETS

What happened when city officials tried to rid Reno of strip clubs? USA Today takes a look at Reno's attempts to boot strip clubs in order to woo Tesla and other big tech companies to the area (seems counterproductive?). This included undercover cops sent to pose as strip club patrons, "as part of a crackdown on Reno's strip clubs that has more to do with local politics—and economic progress—than vice," says the paper. More here. USA Today plans to unfold the story over the course of season two of its The City podcast.


ELECTION 2020

Some surprising results out of the latest New Hampshire Democratic voter poll:  

It seems people like Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) but don't want to vote for him, while they want to vote for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) but don't really like her.


QUICK HITS

NEXT: The Reason Podcast Is Now 3 Great New Podcasts. Subscribe!

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. “Half our customers are drunk and vaping like mo-fos, who the fuck is going to notice the quality of our pods.”

    It’s good to know your customers.

    1. Hello.

      Slow Trump is crazy day?

      1. Sorry couldn’t resist. I tease because I love.

        1. Waddup with this Wexit thing? For real?

          1. Hard to tell. They sure make a lot of noise. But I fear it more than Quebec separatism because they actually have a real beef and have money. Quebec carved itself a niche extorting Canada.

      2. Even Trump has to recharge his batteries every now and then.

    2. But are they drunker than the mo-fos who light the wrong end of a cigarette and don’t notice the difference?

      1. Those are the drunkest of all.

    3. I call bullshit

    4. Whether he said it or not that statement is accurate

    1. The US economy is slowing

      Poor CNN. They have been wishing for economic slow downs since Trump got this economy pop’n.

    2. I thought Trump was going to usher in 3-4% growth? Why has he been unable to do better than Obama’s numbers?

      1. Trump Trash will lie.

        If you’re a Purple Heart 20 yr veteran and you dare testify against Their King they will smear you as a “traitor”.

        Trump Trash infests this little message board too.

        1. Hey Mr. Buttplug, have you seen the latest disastrous economic news?

          3 of the top 50 richest people on the planet have lost money this year.

          That literally never happened under Obama. And it wouldn’t be happening under Clinton.

          1. … And your hero Warren Buffett is only up $191 million.

            Worst. Economy. Ever.

            1. This coal CEO supported Trump. Now his company is bankrupt
              Murray Energy, the largest private coal miner in the United States, has filed for bankruptcy protection. The company’s longtime CEO Robert Murray, the self-proclaimed king of coal, is out of a job

              Remember how The Con Man promised to turn around the coal industry?

              LOL – fucking White Trash believed him. You can’t make con jobs like this up.

              https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/10/29/robert-murray-energy-bankruptcy-orig.cnn-business/video/playlists/business-news/

              1. I like how you confuse industry with a single business. Stick to child porn.

                1. I sense the American coal industry is tanking in general (down double digits this year, with a similar decline forecast for next year). Do you different information, or a contravening contention?

                  Or are you just reflexively flattering your hero?

            2. Greed is good now.

          2. But GM made a $1.70/share profit this quarter.

            Obama showed how to turn around a bitch.

            The Con Man is poison to whatever he touches. “A fucking moron” according to his Sec of State.

            1. Yeah. The economy is so bad that even low unemployment is actually a bad sign — it just means people need 2 or 3 jobs to survive.

              By the way, didn’t your old username link to a George Soros site before your unfortunate lost password incident? I thought you’d like to know Soros is a fan of Elizabeth Warren. So think twice before the next time you criticize her.

              #LibertariansForWarren

        2. Our LT was put in for a Purple Heart for falling down stairs.

          1. SWIFTBOAT HIM!

            1. Not really necessary, the LT didn’t want it and refused to discuss it when asked.

            2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
              October.30.2019 at 10:49 am
              “SWIFTBOAT HIM!”

              IOWs, tell the truth?
              You are a pathetic piece if shit.

              1. Sevo, I realize you have Alzhiemers but that is not what “Swiftboat” means.

                The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the name of the organization “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” (SBVT, later the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) because of their widely publicized—and later discredited—campaign against 2004 U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry.[1][2][3][4]

                Since the political smear campaign[2][5][6][7][8] that the group conducted against Kerry, the term has come into common use to refer to a harsh attack by a political opponent that is dishonest, personal, and unfair.[9][10] The Swift Boat Veterans and media pundits objected to this use of the term to define a smear campaign.[11][12]

                1. Whataboutism, right here^^^

      2. He’s got a lot on his plate right now with all this impeachment nonsense. Once we get past this he’ll be able to get back to fine tuning the economy.

    1. But just think how much more it could have been if only America relinquished its sovereignty to an unelected supranational global government!

      1. Obviously unemployment is too low. We need to import millions more of unskilled labor.

        1. Just get out of people’s way and let them live their own lives without busybodies like yourself trying to dictate what they may or may not do with their own property. Fair enough?

          1. Check out this clown Jeff and his demands for property rights when the United States of America cannot have property rights over non-Americans.

          2. Just get out of people’s way and let them live their own lives without busybodies like yourself trying to dictate what they may or may not do with their own property.

            MS-13 and the Latin Kings–committing the crimes that the Bloods and Crips won’t do.

            1. Yeah the Italian, Jewish and Irish mafia were a lot more civilized. I’ll give you that. Plus they wore suits which is nice.

              Actually are more civilized since they are still around.

              I read a study about gangs in Chicago. Cops decided to crack down and started arresting the gang leaders. Violence went through the roof as the leadership structure collapsed and rivals were shooting it out.

              The basic mafia structure with strict leadership hierarchy does keep things under more control that is true. It is still crime and murder but less visible.

          3. God your sophistry is retarded. Heres the agreement. You start pushing the end of entitlements and when that happens I’ll join you on open borders. Deal? In the mean time, stop being such an idiot.

  2. If sexual difference is not a meaningful feature of marriage, why should the union be restricted to two—and only two—people?

    Good point. Thanks, Justice Roberts.

    1. The only reason gay marriage is a right and polygamy isn’t is because judges like gays and don’t like polygamists.

      1. +100

        Remember that person who tried to marry their pet after Gay Marriage was declared a right?

        Just because marriage has meant something specific for hundreds of years is no reason to cater to a few thousand gay people.

        1. Don’t worry allowing judges to change the definition of words based on current social fashion would never cause anything but rainbows and butterflies.

          1. I think its hilarious that Lefties don’t realize but Trump is a direct public reaction to that kind of Social Justice.

            Trump nominating replacements for RBG and possibly Breyer will shift the SCOTUS for 20+ years. lefties will hate that shift too.

      2. There is a fundamental difference. In the case of same sex marriage you have two people who are otherwise legally allowed to get married, just not to each other due to their respective genders.

        In the case of polygamy you have one person is who is legally allowed to get married, and two (or people) who are not legally allowed to get married (because they are already married)

        In case of marrying a pet, a pet is also not legally allowed to get married since they have no legal standing to sign a marriage license

        Back on the subject of polygamy, its also worth noting there is a difference between polygamous marriage (illegal everywhere in the US) and polygamous cohabitation (AFAIK only illegal in Utah)

        1. You are just begging the question. Yes, the law makes that distinction. So what? It used to make the same distinction between marrying the opposite sex and marrying the same sex. That changed because the courts liked gays and took it upon themselves to redefine a word over the objection of state legislatures. The only reason they didn’t do the same for polygamists is because they like gays but don’t like polygamists.

          1. Or people in general like gays more than polygamists. I see gay marriage more as law catching up to social reality. It would have been better to have it done through state legislatures. Social tolerance of polygamy is still much lower (and will probably continue to be as most people just don’t want it so it will remain rare).
            That shouldn’t matter to the court, I agree. Their job is to interpret law not public sentiment. But I think that’s why gay marriage is OK and polygamy isn’t.

            1. The courts disregarded the definition of marriage (being traditionally between a man + woman) to allow social change.

              If marriage does not mean a domestic contract of matrimony between a man + woman then it can mean anything some court says it does. This is why many people say many judges are biased and make up law.

            2. If it was “social reality”, gay marriage would have won an election. It is not up to the courts to change the constitution and the meanings of words based on what they feel is social reality. Surely you are smart enough to understand that.

          2. The only reason they didn’t do the same for polygamists is because […]

            The constitutionality of bigamy laws isn’t the issue that was before them?

            Even when you have a logical chain of events through legal cases, the earlier steps are not responsible for arguing that the later steps cannot (or even should not) happen.

            Plaintiffs in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) had no responsibility to argue that miscegenation laws, anti-abortion laws, sodomy laws, or same-sex marriage bans were constitutional.

            Plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia (1967) had no responsibility for arguing that anti-abortion laws, or sodomy laws, or same-sex marriage bans were constitutional.

            Plaintiffs in Roe v. Wade (1973) had no responsiblity for arguign that sodomy laws or same-sex marriage bans were constitutioanl.

            Plaintiffs in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) had no responsibility for arguing that same-sex marriage bans were constitutional.

            And plaintiffs in Obergefel v. Hodges (2015) had no responsibility for arguing that bigamy laws are constitutional.

            If you can’t argue against SSM on the merits, but have to point to some possible future ill, then you don’t have an argument against SSM. And when/if that future ill rears it’s head? Argue against it on the merits.

      3. Polygamist divorce cases don’t benefit women. How does 1 man pay alimony to his 3 wives when he runs off with 2 of them?

        1. As it has been practiced, both historically and today in some places, polygamy/polyandry/polygyny is not a single marriage with more then two people a part of it, but a system in which a person being married once does not preclude them from having a second (or more) distinct and separate marriage.

          That is to say, a polygynous marriage between Man A and Woman B and Woman C consists of two marriages (Man A and Woman B, and Man A and Woman C). Woman B and Woman C are not married to each other.

          So if you have Man A, Woman B, Woman C, and Woman D, Man A can divorce any of the women B through D without divorcing the other women. As such, each divorce is handled as it’s own distinct event.

          To bring this back to your question… he wouldn’t pay alimony to all three wives if he’s just divorcing one of them.

          1. I’ve been pointing this out for years as distinguishing the same-sex from poly marriage issues. Polygamy didn’t upset the common law understanding of what a marriage was, and prohibitions against polygamy are truly regulations on marriage rather than a redefinition of it. That’s why I opposed legal recognition of same sex “marriage” but wanted to abolish bans on polygamy.

    2. There is a fundamental difference. In the case of same sex marriage you have two people who are otherwise legally allowed to get married, just not to each other due to their respective genders.

      In the case of polygamy you have one person is who is legally allowed to get married, and two (or people) who are not legally allowed to get married (because they are already married)

      In case of marrying a pet, a pet is also not legally allowed to get married since they have no legal standing to sign a marriage license

      Back on the subject of polygamy, its also worth noting there is a difference between polygamous marriage (illegal everywhere in the US) and polygamous cohabitation (AFAIK only illegal in Utah)

      1. Do yourself a favor and google “begging the question” and get back to us.

  3. CEO Kevin Burns said: “Half our customers are drunk and vaping like mo-fos, who the fuck is going to notice the quality of our pods.”

    That is fucking hilarious. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that never happened.

    1. 1. I use juul
      2. he is right
      3. I like him more if he said that

  4. …he due-process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees two adults of either sex the right to enter into state-recognized matrimony—readily lends itself to abolishing other components of the definition of marriage.

    The 14th Amendment knows that same-sex and multi-member marriages can be just as validly awful as traditional ones. Rep. Hill is way ahead of the game.

  5. John Witherspoon Dies: Comedian & ‘Friday’ Star Was 77

    Mr. Willy Jones: Every time I come in the kitchen, you in the kitchen. In the goddamn refrigerator. Eatin’ up all the food. All the chitlins… All the pigs’ feet… All the collard greens… All the hog maws. I wanna eat them chitlins… I like pigs’ feet.

    RIP guy.

    1. Sad. He just did a show at the DC Improv not too long ago.

    2. That’s the beauty of it! I grab a dog, and I choke him, and I kick the shit out of him! All day long, my foot up a dog’s ass! Just bang-bang-bang up his ass! That’s my pleasure.

      1. +100

        It was a toss up on posting the quote I did or what you posted. 🙂

        1. The first time I saw Friday Craig’s dad had me on the floor crying, my side hurt, literally tears rolling down my cheeks. He is fucking hilarious in that movie.

          1. The secret is, you gotta coordinate!

  6. New CNN poll of NH (trend since July):

    Sanders: 21% (+2)

    Forget it, CNN. It’s NH-town.

    1. If he is only at 21% in New Hampshire, he’s done.

  7. X-37B Lands After 780 Days in Orbit Doing ???

    Check out the Level ? bio suits! When you use them this much, it makes sense to buy and not rent.

    1. Would, 2nd on the right,.

    2. The X-37B uses hypergolic fuels. Very, very toxic stuff. That’s why the hazmat suits.

      1. Is that why there is a 10 foot coned off exclusion zone?

        Really 11ft is cool but 10 ft means DEATH!?!

        Notice the person standing 25 ft away with no protective gear on at all.

        I would link an image of German ground crews suited up refueling the Me-163 “Comet” C-Stoff Hydrazone Hydrate and Methanol.
        T-Stoff was specified to contain 80% (occasionally 85%) hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), remainder water, with traces (<0.1%) of stabilisers. Stabilisers used included 0.0025% phosphoric acid, a mixture of phosphoric acid, sodium phosphate and 8-oxyquinoline, and sodium stannate.

        1. I think this one uses nitrogen-tetroxide and hydrazine. Nasty, nasty stuff.

  8. while they want to vote for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) but don’t really like her.

    I don’t really want to vote for her, but I wouldn’t mind maybe dinner with her and a show, and then maybe drinks back at my place later.

    1. I’m curious as to what exactly is causing her negatives, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that she goes out of her way to not tow the #woke party line or slag Republicans. Her non-interventionist foreign policy aside, she’s a pretty bog-standard Democrat otherwise.

      1. She stood up to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC and exposed them for being crooked and totally in the bag for HRC in 2016. Then she quit the DNC and told them to fuck off, and threw her support to Bernie.

        1. Yeah, it’s not an accident that Hillary insinuated that she’s a Russian asset. That drunk bitch sees Russians in more places than McCarthy and Kennesaw Mountain Landis combined.

    2. I don’t see how any normal person could not like her on a personal level. She seems like a very pleasant and nice person. I wouldn’t vote for her because she is a leftist. But, how anyone could not like her on a personal level based on her public persona is beyond me.

      1. Yeah, that whole thing sounded exactly backward to me too. I have a highly favorable opinion of her personally. And I even like a few of her positions.

        But she’s of the left on most issues, so a no-go for a vote.

        It has to be because she’s skewered a couple of their favorites, and because she isn’t fully woke on every issue – which surprisingly includes killing people overseas, now that Trump is wanting to not kill people.

        1. She is proof that anyone who thinks they can ever be woke enough to keep the left from going after them is kidding themselves. She is a mainline progressive on virtually every issue. But it only takes one issue to have them declare you an enemy of the people.

      2. While Tulsi Gabbard might be peachy to those she likes, she is still running on a platform to get rid of guns, spend like crazy on healthcare for all, “Racial justice”, “Social justice”….

        Tulsi Gabbard campaign record

        The only good things are Foreign police thru peace and ending the drug war. Trump is trying to do both of those things, in spite of neocons and drug warriors.

        1. You can be wrong about things and still be a nice person. You miss the point.

          1. I hear ya John. I really do.

            Being wrong is like you think 2 +2 =5. You would be wrong and can be a nice person.

            Tulsi Gabbard is a gun grabber and supports sending government agents to try to take my guns away. That is not “wrong”. That is a tyrant who would at least be morally wrong.

            She might be the least evil the Democrats are offering up as sacrifice but she is still evil as Lefties are.

      3. No, no, no, no.

        We are not allowed to like or even accept people who are out of sync with our political biases. The parties and their media mouthpieces have told us they are evil, non-humans hoping to eat our brains. If the left and right agree about anything, its that total tribal allegiance and blind obedience must prevail.

        1. It’s a little bit sad that John is the voice of sanity when it comes to recognizing the humanity of your political opponents.

          1. Says the guy cheering on the criminalization of politics.

        2. Some people want to put me in a gulag and take my guns.

          They also have political views that oppose mine.

          Its not a coincidence and not a tribal difference. Their tribe literally wants to silence me under threat of death.

          1. Who wants to put you in a gulag?

            1. FDR (A Democrat)?

            2. Andrew Jackson (A Democrat)?

          2. See the Perception Gap project.

          3. See. The Lefties deflect to try to convince the naive that reality and what they say is NOT what they want to do.

  9. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $61.4 billion

    Although that might seem like a lot of money, it only represents an increase of a little over $2 billion this year.

    Not. Good. Enough.

    France’s Bernard Arnault, for instance, has gained over $28 billion this year. Those are the results we Koch / Reason libertarians want to produce for American billionaires. And we know that can only happen by implementing the twin pillars of our agenda — open borders and no minimum wage.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. Is that what they have in France?

  10. It seems people like Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) but don’t want to vote for him, while they want to vote for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) but don’t really like her.

    Who doesn’t like Spartacus? But it’s not good for you if he’s your leader. Better vote for the strange cult lady who seems to want to lead us out of the ME.

    1. He clearly cried Spartacus too many times.

    2. I don’t understand that half either. That guy seems like an insufferable douche.

      But maybe that’s because I’ve only seen him in Senate hearings, the debate stage and on talking head shows where he’s spewing some ludicrous talking points.

  11. “Colonel testifies he raised concerns about Ukraine, Trump”
    […]
    “…”I was concerned by the call,” Vindman said, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.”…”
    https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/trending/sns-bc-us–trump-impeachment-20191029-story.html

    Well, that’s it right there! If any president has an adviser who ‘is concerned’ about his actions, IMPEACH the SOB!

    1. He was concerned about a call he didn’t hear. And oh by the way, he blabbed classified information to a ton of people who had no need to know.

      But he has a purple heart and is Jewish so that makes perjury and national security felonies totally okay.

      1. Military Officers really do give Enlisted folks a bad name.

        1. That guy certainly does.

          1. I know not all Officers but Jesus, there are too many already.

      2. You seem to be confusing or conflating two different phone calls. The phone call that Vindman was on, that he raised concerns about, was to negotiate setting up the phone call with the President.

        [According to Vindman’s testimony:] In this phone call, Ambassador Sondland, started to ask the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens as a condition for setting up a call with Trump. (The Ukrainians saw getting the phone call with Trump as a necessary step in getting the monetary aid Congress had allocated to the Ukraine.) Bolton cut off the call because he thought Sondland had crossed a line where he was asking for a quid-pro-quo that had nothing to do with national security while on a national security-related phone call.

      3. I have to go recheck Vindman’s testimony, but I believe he was listening to the later phone call the Ukraine had with Trump. He tried to have the transcript corrected afterward, because he thought parts of the conversation where Trump requested a quid-pro-quo were omitted.

      4. Can you give your source for “he blabbed classified information to a ton of people who had no need to know.” My understanding is that part of his job description was to distribute information from national security phone calls to a list of authorized people.

    2. So far all the evidence they have is people having a different opinion on foreign policy. It should be illegal to disagree with non elected members of government.

      1. #BurnBooks

        #Burn1stAmendment

      2. “So far all the evidence they have is people having a different opinion on foreign policy.”

        And those opinions seem to change based on the political party involved:
        Biden (D) did exactly what Trump is claimed to have done: OK
        Trump (R) is claimed to have done so: Impeach Trump!

        1. Trump is not accused of doing what Biden bragged about.

          Biden proudly proclaimed that he personally, on his own initiative, made US aid contingent upon personnel choices dictated by Joe Biden. It is a matter of conjecture, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots to his son having a job with a related company that he was wholly unqualified for, excepting his political connections.

          So Ol’ Joe stands accused of subverting US foreign policy for his own personal financial interests – in the form of cronyism for his son.

          Trump stands accused of telling the Ukrainians that the US would like to know the truth about the prior Ukraine government’s interference in the 2016 election and any corrupt actions involving the former VP and his son. You can use conjecture to say that briefly delaying US aid internally, without mentioning it to the Ukrainians, is somehow a form of pressure on Ukraine to comply with that request.

          The only thing remotely similar is the name of the country and the fact that the country was getting foreign aid.

          1. It is a crime for a Republican President to look into Democratic corruption. Didn’t you know that?

          2. I for one am super thankful to Lefties for helping make sure Trump was elected and gets reelected.

      3. No, that’s not right at all.

        I know because I watched NBC news this morning. His testimony was explosive. That’s what they said…. Explosive! And credible. His credibility was unimpeachable. It was explosive testimony that exposes wrongdoing on the part of the president. And he’s credible.

        They were very clear about that. This is really damaging to the president, and we are all waiting to see what Chairman Schiff is going to do. He’s making every effort to run a fair process. And transparent….. that’s important too. They mentioned that it was fair and transparent several times.

        And when I got in the car, the AP news story they were reading said the same thing. That there was explosive testimony from a credible witness and that it was very damaging to the president.. .. And they said that everyone is looking to Chairman Schiff to see how he would handle this explosive testimony, since he’s running a very transparent and fair process.

        It was almost as if there were some single source that was helping them all understand these complex issues…. you know, so they could properly frame them for people.

        1. So here you have a guy that you can dress up in a uniform and salute the flag who has “explosive testimony” about the evil Trump. Yet, the conducted his testimony in secret instead of on TV.

          Yeah, that makes sense. It is remarkable to think how bad someone’s testimony must be if Congress is afraid to put a guy in uniform in public to give it.

          1. It’s perfectly normal to do depositions before there’s public testimony. It’s a better way of fact finding. The Republicans have lawyers present to ask questions. You supposedly a lawyer but I find that hard to believe. You don’t even understand basic civil procedure. And then you don’t seem to mind that Barr’s investigation is completely in secret. You’re a disease.

            1. No its not. What is normal is whatever is going to sell to the public. If this guy had anything to say and was anything but a complete joke, he would be testifying on prime time TV.

              Barr’s investigation is a criminal investigation that is going to send people to jail. This is a political investigation whose purpose is to convince the public and the Senate. The only reason you would conduct it in secret is because you know how bad your witnesses are and feel your only chance is to do it in secret and then selectively leak the testimony giving your trolls in the media and on the internet talking points.

              1. The depositions are the first step. Of course the next comes public testimony. We want everyone to hear it from the witnesses firsthand. You’re just fucking stupid if you think the Democrats don’t want this aired publicly.

                1. Why have a deposition when you can have public testimony? There will not be public testimony. These people would be destroyed if they testified in public. The Democrats know that.

                  They are never going to impeach Trump and this will fizzle and they will move onto something else before the first of the year. Don’t you ever get tired of being lied to?

                  1. Are you this fucking stupid? You can’t actually be a lawyer and not understand the value of a deposition.

                    1. I am a lawyer. And I know how testimony works. I also know that this isn’t a lawsuit you fucking moron. And oh by the way, depositions are court documents and are public. Unless there is some kind of order sealing them, like they involve a minor or proprietary information or something, depositions are available to the public in their full.

                      You are so stupid, you can’t even be taught because you believe so much bullshit it is impossible to know where to even begin.

                    2. The trial is in the senate moron.

                    3. Most deposition transcripts do not become public records. (If submitted to the court with a motion, for example, they customarily become public records.) An assertion that deposition transcripts “are public” consequently is misleading or worse.

                2. Of they wanted it to be aired publicly it wouldnt be done as depositions in a SCIF you retarded pos.

              2. They have begun talking about this.

                The plan is to hold public hearings after they do the initial investigation. So Schiff will call just the witnesses that he thinks will play well on TV.

                Then they had it over to the Judiciary Committee. And they will have televised hearings with the same witnesses.

                So they have a plan to get 3 bites at the apple with all of their talking points.

                First when Schiff leaks or releases his version of the important bits of the testimony.

                Second, when they have public hearings in the Intelligence Committee.

                Third, when the Judiciary Committee takes it up.

                So they’ll have plenty of time to craft their message and coordinate with friendly outlets to ensure the proper things get covered at the proper time.

                They are not going to have a repeat of the Kavanaugh hearings, where they ended up looking like a bunch of lunatics from a 3rd world country holding a Kangaroo Court. They will stay on message for 3-6 months with this strategy, hopefully driving Trump’s numbers down enough to scare some republicans into supporting impeachment.

                1. The problem with that plan is that eventually someone has to stand up and say something in public. And unless that person has something credible to say, they will wind up looking like lunatics again. They could have done all of this with Ford and still would have ended up with the same results once Ford got up and testified.

                  If anything, doing it this way might make it worse by building up expectations. As bad as Ford was, at least people hadn’t been feed bullshit expecting it to be something that it wasn’t for six months. If they do what you describe here, the public will have been fed six month of “you just wait we have the goods” only to see a bunch of losers and liars with nothing to say once hearings happen. That would be even worse than the Ford debacle.

                  I think you are half right about what is happening here. Yes, they learned form the Ford debacle. But they haven’t solved the problem. They are just playing for time hoping they find something better than what they have.

                  1. “If they do what you describe here, the public will have been fed six month of “you just wait we have the goods” only to see a bunch of losers and liars with nothing to say once hearings happen.”

                    In the case of the Kav hearings, they really only had one witness. In this case, they have bus loads of senior administration experts to choose from.

                    In the universe of public opinion, it is all about whether or not you can get a narrative to stick- not whether it is true or not. This is an attempt to bias the jury (public) prior to going to trial. All they need is someone not-batshit-crazy to sit in that chair to give 40 seconds of sound bytes which then will be the exclamation point on the narrative that everyone “knows” right now, since it has been told to them for the past 3 months.

                    It’s great. Joe Leaker will come in and give the same testimony he gave to Schiff in secret. Except now, the story will be “Joe Leaker testified today, confirming much of the information that was leaked from proceedings last month”. See? He is the source AND the confirmation!

                    1. It still won’t work. The public has largely tuned all of this out. Doing it in secret is basically an admission it is all bullshit. So the narrative is never going to stick. The only way the narrative sticks is to get someone to say something in public that the public believes.

                      I am not even sure this would have worked back in the days of Nixon and there being three networks. But in today’s world where the media has blown so much of its credibility and power, no way in hell.

                      You are right about the technique. Just keep repeating the lie and the talking points day after day. I don’t think that dog hunts anymore. They still don’t have anyone who has anything to say. A parade of 20 people saying “well I heard this” and “I felt this” about something that still doesn’t even make sense as misconduct isn’t going to work.

                2. If it plays out as you describe Cyto, it will be Mueller all over again. The whole thing will be built up and then once it is made public will be a big nothing. That won’t work out well for any of them.

                  1. It already is nothing… that’s what’s so silly.

                    They already have the transcript…. yet they are acting as if they are “investigating” the call. With screaming headlines – “A 3rd administration official confirms that a call took place!” Each time they try to say that this proves something nefarious. But all it proves is what Trump already told you.

                    So either you can’t say that to Ukraine, or you can. That’s the end of it.

                    But nobody wants a referendum on that, because they’ll lose.

                    So they are buying time for their propaganda machine. 2 years of anti-Trump propaganda on Russia didn’t work… so definitely 6 months of propaganda on Ukraine will work!

                    That’s their thinking.

                    They are really getting frustrated. They completely subverted the media during the run-up to the 2008 election and they have completely owned them as a propaganda machine ever since… and yet they still can’t get their way! And worse, the reality TV show buffoon is the one who keeps handing their ass to them! That’s really got to sting.

                    1. I am still amazed that this is the best they can come up with. Going with this is a real act of desperation. It makes me think Barr really is going to start indicting and convicting people and they went with this because they are running out of time and this is all they had. I can’t believe they would not have waited and tried to come up with something better unless they felt like they had to do something now and not next spring for some reason.

            2. In US civil cases, both the Plaintiff and Defendant are present during depositions.

              1. Not really. You hire a lawyer to represent you. If the plaintiff is the one being deposed and questioned then he would be present but the defendant isn’t going to be there at the same time. He’d have lawyer representing him.

                1. YOU have zero idea what YOU are talking about.

                2. You are a fucking moron. The defendant absolutely is there. And he has a right to be there.

                  Just shut up for a while. This is painful.

            3. “The Republicans have lawyers present to ask questions”

              And to be clear, it was just alleged today that Schiff instructed the witnesses several times NOT to answer Republicans’ questions. So this is not a normal and transparent process. GOP does not get to call their own witnesses. The GOP does not get to ask their own questions. And the Dems selectively leak only the testimony that fits their narrative. Anyone who claims this is a fair and transparent exercise is a shill.

              1. Pod also apparently thinks house republicans are being impeached. Gop reps are not White House counsel.

            4. Impeachment at this stage is not a criminal investigation. every previous impeachment has laid out rules that included White House representation at the depositions. Stop being ignorant.

            5. Especially normal when it is a national security officer testifying about what happened in a national security phone call.

          2. Yea, ut at least they got the shots of him walking to the building in all his finery and wearing his serious face

            1. And looking fat and ridiculous in his uniform. So there is that.

              1. He is a doughy Ukranian

              2. If this was an officer defending trump, the media would claim he was in violation for wearing a military uniform to a political event.

        2. The Con Man tried to extort another government in order to force them to smear a US political rival.

          What is hard to understand about that?

          1. We are not talking about Obama and Hillary hiring Fusion GPS to work with the Russians to investigate Trump. Take your meds and try to stay up with the conversation.

            Or were you talking about Biden withholding aid from Ukraine so they stopped investigating the company that was paying his son $85,000 a month out of kindness or something?

            Either way, we are talking about Trump asking Ukraine to help the DOJ sort all of that out. Pay closer attention before posting.

            1. You’re just an ignorant moron John. That prosecutor was not investigating the gas company. The prosecutor was a crook who was not investigating corruption.

              1. The prosecutor was investigating the gas company. And Biden bragged about forcing him off the case. We have all seen the video dipshit. your lying about it isn’t going to cause us to forget that.

                  1. There is a deposition worh the prosecutor where he said he was asked to stop investigating due to US pressure dummy.

                1. Burisma Holdings is owned by Brociti Investments Limited, a Cyprus-based company owned by Ukrainian former politician and businessman Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky was minister of natural resources under Viktor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine. Brociti Investments acquired Burisma Holdings in 2011. Before that acquisition, Mykola Zlochevsky and Mykola Lisin each owned a 50% interest in Burisma Holdings. Lisin, a Ukrainian politician, died in a traffic accident in 2011.Management
                  Aleksander Kwaśniewski, former President of the Republic of Poland, was appointed to the board in January 2014.

                  Taras Burdeinyi is the chief executive officer of Burisma Holdings, and Alan Apter is chairman of the board of directors. As of 14 October 2019, the members of the board of directors, in order of seniority, are Alan Apter, Aleksander Kwaśniewski, Joseph Cofer Black , Karina Zlochevska, Christina Sofocleous, Riginos Charalampous, and Marina Pericleous.Aleksander Kwaśniewski, former president of Poland, joined the board in January 2014. In February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black, former director of the Counterterrorism Center of the Central Intelligence Agency (1999–2002) in the George W. Bush administration [this fucking guy works for Mitt Romney] Karina Zlochevska, daughter of Mykola Zlochevskiy, was also appointed in February 2016.

                  In April 2014, Devon Archer, a former senior adviser to the John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign, and Hunter Biden, an attorney and the son of then-US vice president Joe Biden, joined the board. Archer left the company in 2018 and Biden left in April 2019, when his term as a director expired.

                  1. Naftogaz is another Ukrainian gas company.
                    DTEK
                    UNB
                    Geo-Alliance group
                    Smart Energy
                    JV Poltava Petroleum Company (JV PPC)

                    Association of Gas Producers of Ukraine- ASPU

                    Quote a few British-Ukrainian joint ventures.

                  2. And nothing you posted supports your belief that:

                    “The prosecutor was investigating the gas company. And Biden bragged about forcing him off the case.”

                    1. Poor troll pod.

                      View the video of Biden that I posted. It hilarious to watch you Lefties squirm because you know what is coming.

                      Trump’s reelection in 2020, mass firings of federal employees, criminal indictments of Democrats, RBG is replaced by Trump nominee….

                    2. The Ukrainians have said exactly that. He had 2 open investigations into Burisma. Even the Biden version admits that.

                      The criticism was that the investigations were not going anywhere. “Sitting in a drawer, untouched in months” was the way it was put.

                      So you cannot claim he was not investigating them. Nobody is claiming that. When the leftie talking head shows say that, they are just making stuff up.

                      Now, if you had half a brain you could spin all of this so that it wasn’t all that nefarious. The entire administration in Ukraine was pretty corrupt. So you could say that the only reason the “investigation” existed was because of corruption. Maybe he was extorting stuff from Burisma by keeping an investigation open. That would explain the need to get rid of him, both for Burisma and for Biden. It would also explain why the next prosecutor quickly closed the investigations with a small fine. That shuts the door on the whole affair and whitewashes it nicely.

                      I’m surprised that nobody has been smart enough to spin that version. It has the advantage of making sense, and not putting Biden on the side of corruption, and allowing for the old prosecutor being corrupt, and allowing for the new prosecutor to be something other than a hand-picked lackey.

                    3. The investigations WERE NOT happening under the prosecutor. Sitting in a drawer as you put it. How would hiring a new prosecutor help Burisma? You’re just so fucking stupid. .

                    4. Nice pivot.

                      The accusation is that they were sitting in a drawer. Which means they existed. So the assertion that the prosecutor was not investigating Biden’s kid’s employer is a lie. An easily debunked lie.

                      Now, they coulda gone with the version that doesn’t lie about that – but puts the spin that the guy was corrupt and so was his investigation. That would have wrapped it all up in a tight little bow.

                      But they didn’t want to admit that there was an investigation. Because that might look like they got rid of the investigation for corrupt reasons. So they lied. And now it is too late to fix that lie, so they just keep piling on the lies.

                      And then they send out an idiot like you to parrot the lies, which must be really frustrating.

                      You shoulda gone with the believable version, even though we have reporting from way back in 2017 about the Ukrainian’s efforts to reach out to the US about the actions of the prior administration during the 2016 election cycle. Because that would have fit with what is rumored to be the CIA created narrative that the prosecutor was corrupt.

                      There is a reason that the board of Barisma is stuffed with highly connected western politicos, and it ain’t for their oil and gas expertise.

          2. Why it’s any different than anything other presidents have done, including your brown god king

            1. It’s never happened before. No president has ever tried to force a foreign govt to investigate his political opponent. Y’all are just so fucking brainwashed and deplorable.

              1. Hahaha. Poor pod

              2. Are you sure about that?

                I mean, one of the things Trump asked them to investigate was the Obama administration’s dealings with the prior Ukrainian administration on interference in the US election.

                1. You know who investigated Trump? Rosenstein and Sessions by recusing himself and allowing a special prosecutors to look into Russian interference and the extent to which Trump’s campaign participated in it.

                  1. Y’all are so twisted up because you feed on bs everyday.

                    1. This from the troll pod that said that Mueller would get Trump any day.

                    2. “Y’all are so twisted up because you feed on bs everyday.”

                      Are the walls closing in, scumbag?

                    3. To the extent walls can close in on a president yes they are closing in.

                    4. Good thing Mexicans are paying for that wall.

                  2. And they found nothing. Meanwhile, it appears that Hillary and the Obama administration were knee deep with the Ukraine investigating Trump when he was a candidate. You know, that is why the Barr investigation is now a criminal one. Obama people are going to be indicted long before Trump is ever impeached.

                    1. I wouldn’t go that far…

                      They definitely will be impeaching Trump – particularly if this investigation actually starts producing criminal indictments. There’s no way they just let “justice run its course” on that one. Not if they can help it.

                    2. Just flat out wrong. The Mueller revealed the infamous Trump Tower meeting. It revealed Manafort was passing secret Trump campaign data to Russian agents. It revealed Trump was secretly trying build a Trump Tower in Moscow while he was running for president while claiming he had no business. You are just a brainwashed moron.

                    3. Hivemind with the hysterical projection!

                    4. The Mueller investigation didn’t reveal the “infamous” Trump tower investigation. That was public long before Mueller came along.

                      But curiously, it failed to reveal exactly who the person was they met with, and why she decided to call that meeting. Strangely, nobody ever saw fit to look into that.

                      And yet it turns out that her previous employer was…… Fusion GPS.

                      Now, that’s a really strange coincidence. The idea that someone who was working for the same company that was digging up dirt on Trump from the Russians would turn up at Trump headquarters during the transition never raised any red flags for anyone over at Meuller headquarters? Doesn’t that seem a little convenient?

                      And odd that you’d tout that meeting – since it is widely acknowledged that nothing happened at that meeting. Even less than happened in Schiff’s infamous prank call by a fake Russian agent offering dirt on Trump.

          3. The smear was known in 2016 dumbass.

        3. The link is an AP feed, and THEY stretch it that far!

      4. It’s more than disagreement about foreign policy. Taylor and Vindman have testified that the Trump administration requested the quid-pro-quo of the Ukraine investigating the Bidens in exchange for getting a phone call with Trump and foreign aid.

  12. This included undercover cops sent to pose as strip club patrons, “as part of a crackdown on Reno’s strip clubs that has more to do with local politics—and economic progress—than vice…”

    Are we pretending vice is a more valid concern?

    1. It didn’t work out because they all recognized Lt. Dangle.

  13. The University of Michigan is getting rid of its “bias response team” after a student group sued, saying it suppressed their free speech rights.

    Looks like this team…

    [dons sunglasses]

    …couldn’t fight constitutional bias. Or something.

    1. They thought they were on the “buy ass” team.

  14. A federal judge in Alabama has blocked a near-total abortion ban passed by state lawmakers earlier this year.

    Federal judges love them some abortion.

    1. Less future judges?

  15. Across the Board, Scores Drop in Math and Reading for U.S. Students

    Can’t have plenty of Useful Idiots if they are not idiots.

    1. No worries – it’s all Trump’s fault

    2. “the lowest performing students are doing worse,” Peggy Carr, associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, said

      Well, that’s progress of a sort.

    3. But the set new records for wokeness

  16. “Standardized tests: Coalition threatens to sue UC for using SAT scores”
    […]
    “Major universities across the US are dropping the idea of admitting students on the basis of standardized tests. These came after some serious allegations were made that these tests discriminate against the people coming from the poor economic background and BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) communities. Now, several civil rights organizations have come up together urging the University of California(UC) to drop the use of standardized tests and threatened to sue if this is not done quickly….”
    https://www.englishforums.com/news/standardized-tests-coalition-to-sue-uc/

    Yeah, we’ll have to base admissions on ‘participation’ tests.

    1. Admission based entirely on who holds the proper politics. Even the fucking Soviets didn’t go that far.

    2. after some serious allegations were made that these tests discriminate against the people coming from the poor economic background and BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) communities.

      Please. We all know this has nothing to do with the scores of Asian applicants.

      The SAT in particular has been dumbed down for years precisely due to complaints from advocacy groups that the tough questions were designed to weed out black students, even though most majority-black high schools tend to be lower-performing regardless.

      There’s now a movement to get rid of remedial classes at colleges because it’s a basic admission that a lot of minority students arrive who can barely read or execute math at an eighth-grade or even fourth-grade level, much less one required of college freshmen. I guess this is the point of the “free college for everyone” policy, as the final step towards turning universities into a form of delayed adulthood rather than academic vigor.

      1. Why not just give everyone a college degree of in the field of their choice as a high school graduation gift? No classes or testing required.

        1. Why don’t we skip all this and go straight into people being able to buy diplomas?

          Diploma Mills as they used to be called.

          1. Why should anyone have to BUY a diploma when the government can provide them for FREE?

            1. They will be more valuable if everyone has one!

            2. The point of college is not education, as we all know.
              The point of having a degree is not to prove education, but to prove job worthiness.
              And job worthiness is not based on talent, intelligence, or capability. It is based on being a minimally competent employee who will accept their place in the bureaucracy and go through the motions without rocking the boat.
              The purpose of degrees is to prove how docile and obedient one is willing to be

  17. Missouri health regulators were tracking women’s periods.

    As smart men tend to do.

    1. The fact that this was not immediately declared winner of the daily internet is proof positive that there are very, very few married libertarians.

  18. In addition to the piece I’ve often linked by Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky, here’s a Washington Post editorial making the case that the First Amendment goes too far.

    Why America needs a hate speech law

    “Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?”

    Precisely. The main goal of Koch / Reason libertarianism is unlimited, unrestricted immigration into the US, especially from the Middle East. Why would we invite Muslims to move here, but allow desecration of their holy book? Doesn’t make sense.

    #LibertariansAgainstIslamophobia
    #LibertariansForRethinkingTheFirstAmendment

    1. I don’t believe this is the first time that a left-wing commenter for the WaPo has proposed neutering some aspect of the Constitution that they feel hurts their side.

    1. Does that include Ebonics?

      1. I bet it doesn’t include Jive either, Bro.

      2. Don’t think that’s a foreign language. And I believe African American Vernacular English is the preferred term.

        1. Thanks for the PC enlightenment! Say, what’s the preferred term for “hysterical”?

          1. State of decreased mental capacity

        2. Listen up Jive turkey, AAVE aint Righteous, gizz, you’re a poor boy but a good boy—now don’t come up crummy.

          Are you Hep to the Jive?

          1. Chump don’t want no help, chump don’t get no help

    2. My mother spoke Spanish at home, she was nearly 100% German. Dad comes from Irish/English stock and spoke German in the home. Both were 100% American like 3rd/4th generation. I don’t see what the problem is.

      1. Lack of desire to assimilate?

        Speaking some language besides American English 100% of the time in the USA would imply that that person does not want to be American.

        1. When I lived overseas, I never spoke 100% American English.

      2. Did all hell break loose when someone asked to pass the potatoes?

    3. 67.3 million might be a “record” in absolute numbers. It’s nowhere close to the record as a percentage of population. During the german immigration wave, it was estimated that over half of all households spoke that language.

  19. If sexual difference is not a meaningful feature of marriage, why should the union be restricted to two—and only two—people?

    And if the number is not a meaningful feature of marriage, why should the union be restricted to people?

    That’s *logic*.

    1. The quality of logic depends on one’s initial assumptions. The initial assumption in Obergefell that sexual difference is not meaningful for a sexual relationship is questionable at best, and demonstrably false at worst.

      Obergefell negates any societal purpose for having a legal institution of marriage in its attempt to establish a dubious equality between opposite sex and same sex couples.

      1. Same sex “marriage” could have been accomplished by getting government out of giving marriage licenses.

        The gay community chose a different path and it backfiring on them.

        I would be fine with county clerks being required to file Domestic contracts between consenting adults (man + woman, man + man, woman + woman, man + woman + woman….).

  20. Google Funds 29 US Journalism Projects That Decidedly Swing Left

    Crony Capitalism 101

    If you cannot get good news via good business practices then buy news outlets and do it yourself.

  21. The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor will do away with its bias-response team as part of a settlement with a nonprofit group that argued that the team stifled students’ free speech

    Of course, some student group will demand the team be reinstituted for “safety”.

  22. Schiff is telling witnesses which questions they can and cannot answer, shutting off GOP questions.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/republicans-blocked-in-what-democrats-charge-is-effort-to-uncover-whistleblower

    Also, from the new inquiry rules…

    Schiff can choose to release edited transcripts solely at his whim. There is no guarantee of complete transcripts even to House members. And while the GOP can finally issue subpoenas, the request can be vetoed by democrats. Under clinton either party could veto a request.

    1. Even with all of that, what is their story? That Trump withheld aid that was eventually given anyway because he wanted Ukraine to help DOJ find the DNC server that Crowdstrike assured the FBI was hacked by the Russians and that they were now free to look into Hunter Biden’s company.

      Who do they think is going to want to impeach Trump over that? The whole thing is just insane.


      1. Back to Videos
        FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor

        JOE BIDEN, 23 JANUARY 2018: And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

        So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

        (Laughter.)

        I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

        Well, there’s still—so they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But one of the three institutions, there’s now some backsliding.

        1. Biden should drop out of the Election race as it will just get worse for him.

          Old Democrats just never saw the internet coming where average people can bring up videos of Democrats saying the bullshit that they say. There are no MSM gatekeepers anymore that can block this.

      2. You are a smart person, but today you are posting comments that indicate you are either not keeping up with the news or intentionally oversimplifying what witnesses have actually said. The narrative involves the DOJ but separately trying to involve the National Security Council; investigation of Crowdstrike but separately Trump’s apparently believing there are tapes somewhere in the Ukraine of Joe Biden negotiating a position for his son; two separate phone calls (the one with Trump where there is a non-verbatim transcript) and a separate call to set up the former call; more than one quid-pro-quo alleged (one being investigation of the Bidens as a condition of even getting a call with Trump).

        It’s a lot to keep up with, but if you aren’t keeping up with it, what motivates you to go online here and post comments that oversimplify the actual case the Democrats are trying to make?

    2. Schiff is more of a producer of Trump season 3 than he is a politician

      1. He is the Washington Generals to Trump’s Globetrotters.

    3. Schiff is telling witnesses which questions they can and cannot answer, shutting off GOP questions.

      Schiff is preventing the Republicans from demanding that the witnesses name the whistleblower.

      On this point, Republicans are not acting in good faith with their “just asking questions” pose.

      1. The witness under testimony said he didnt know who the whistleblower blower was dumbfuck.

        Gop is trying to see who else they need to call for depositions.

        You are such a tool of authoritarians.

        By the way, whistleblower protections do not force anonymity. they only protect against retaliation. The fact that you are fine with anonymous sources trying to take down a duly elected politician show you are a useful idiot of the IC.

        1. You are the tool here. Carrying water for Team Red. Like you habitually do here.

          “Gop is trying to see who else they need to call for depositions.”

          uhuh, sure, they’re totally acting in good faith here

          You see that Team Blue is not acting in good faith with their scripted management of the investigation. AND I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS POINT. That you cannot ALSO see that Team Red is not acting in good faith with their bullshit process whining and their antics barging into closed testimony rooms just shows how much of a tool of Team Red that you are.

          Pull your head out of your ass, stop being a cheerleader for either tribe, and start thinking for yourself.

          1. You prove all the criticisms of you with every post.
            It’s hilariously pathological, psychoticjeff

      2. Yes, how dare republicans try to identify the supposed accusers so that they can cross examine them. That is total bad faith. Accusers should be allowed to remain anonymous and call out any information without fear of cross examination.

        1. And Chemjeff- I try to reply to your statements without a load of snark, but this one really was beyond the pale. You may like that they are roasting Trump over the coals (I kind of like it myself). But the idea that this is some sort of fair trial is absurd. I am ok with a political decision being political, but I am not ok with people painting it as some sort of blind justice. It is not. This is a political process where the majority party (Dems) are using their powers to build a case against their rival. And they are doing everything in their power to prevent the GOP from mucking that up.

          1. I don’t think it is a fair trial. I never said that it was. I’m not defending Team Blue’s antics here. Read my comment above. But I’m not going to pretend that Team Red is acting any more in good faith here than Team Blue is. They are making whiny process complaints instead of trying to rebut the substance of the allegations, they put on this media spectacle of barging into closed testimony rooms, and they pretend that “they’re just asking questions” when it is blindingly obvious to everyone that the reason why they are demanding that witness name the whistleblower is so that they can immediately leak that name and thereby smear that person and make that person Public Enemy No. 1 in Red State country.

            1. It’s not even a trial. I hope Trump gets his day in court.

              1. Well, if the Lefties project hard enough…maybe…just maybe… Obama, Hillary, and Joe Biden wont be indicted for federal crimes.

                Another reason Lefties want Trump impeached is that they need a Democrat President to pardon all the Lefties about to be convicted on federal crimes.

        2. Sure, let’s just do away with all protection of whistleblowers.

  23. Moonbeam didn’t get any smarter now that he’s irrelevant:

    “Jerry Brown implores Washington to act on climate: ‘California’s burning’”
    […]
    “WASHINGTON — Former California Gov. Jerry Brown visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday to give an impassioned plea for dramatic action to combat climate change, citing California’s wildfires as an example of the “life-and-death” stakes.
    Accusing Republicans of being “flat Earth” science deniers, Brown defended California’s efforts to set higher fuel economy standards in the face of President Trump’s attempted rollback of such rules nationally, but called for far more sweeping steps as well.
    “California’s burning while the deniers make a joke out of the standards that protect us all,” Brown said. “The blood is on your soul here and I hope you wake up. Because this is not politics, this is life, this is morality. … This is real.”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/Jerry-Brown-implores-Washington-to-act-on-14571536.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    No, it isn’t morality; it’s your fucking hair shirt, moonbeam, and I don’t want to wear one.

    1. Maybe he was blinded by Linda’s beauty, maybe he smoked his brain, but CA was burning ever year when I lived there in the seventies. Same fires, same places, same weather.
      No one denies that weather, and even climate exist. No one denies that people inhabit the planet. But anyone capable of rational thought can question the need for income redistribution, and fascism as a result of the earth doing what it was designed to do.
      If ol’ Jerry is really that concerned, he should be working to confiscate all the houses in the burn zone and leveling them. Then keeping the brush thinned out.

    2. Soooo… California is on fire because Trump is against the strict fuel standards imposed on California?

      1. Naah.
        It’s because the last 40 years of GOP-dominated state government ran the logging industry out of the state and then left the forests totally un-managed.

        1. I know this is said a lot, but it really is not true to any major extent. I mean, yes, CA chased loggers out, but no, these fires are not largely due to mismanagement.

          These fires are due to california’s climate. It gets wet in the late winter, early spring. That causes TONS of woody bushes to grow and drop seeds. And by October/November, all those bushes have dried out, and are ready to burn. Then the 30 – 50 mph winds start up. Remember that 5 years ago, everyone was talking about CA’s neverending drought? And then it rained so hard that damns broke? That rain has been filling reservoirs and INCREASING the growth during the spring/summer period, adding fuel for fires.

          There is no “forest management” that is going to prevent that from happening. Yes, in some parts of central/northern California, that would help. But the problem over all is just that California is completely built, and its plants adapted to this “Wet/Dry/Wind/Burn” cycle. And it gets a LOT worse during the wet years. In another year or two, we will be back in a drought, and there won’t be as much growth over the summer, and fires will be less intense. During that time, more people will move onto hillsides so that in ten more years when the cycle begins again, we will be super surprised and concerned.

          1. California’s Giant Sequoias literally need fire to open up their cones and release the seeds.

            Some Sequoias contain over 11,000 cones.

    3. Yeah, Jerry, it’s climate change and not California’s insane Earth First! land management policies.

  24. “New CNN poll of NH (trend since July):

    Sanders: 21% (+2)
    Warren: 18% (-1)
    Biden: 15% (-9)
    Buttigieg: 10% (+0)
    Gabbard: 5% (+4)
    Klobuchar: 5% (+5)
    Yang: 5% (+4)
    Harris: 3% (-6)
    Steyer: 3% (+3)

    This is about Sanders’ and Warren’s proximity to New Hampshire; i.e., don’t read much into this nationally about how either will do against Biden nationally. It is interesting that if either Sanders or Warren were to drop out, all that candidate’s support would probably break for Sanders or Warren rather than go to Biden. They already know who Biden is, and they’ve already decided they don’t want him.

    The fact that Gabbard’s likability numbers are so low that they don’t even register probably means that people don’t know who she is. It’s hard to like somebody when you don’t know who she is.

    The other problem with Gabbard, in my view, is that the things that make her different from the other Democrats are the ways in which she’s like Trump–especially on foreign policy. If getting a pragmatist in is important to you, why vote for someone making promises when you can vote for someone who’s actively trying to pull us out of Afghanistan and Syria?

    If ending our foreign adventures is the most important thing to you, then why not pinch your nose and vote for Trump?

    If ending our foreign adventures isn’t as important to you as getting rid of Trump, then you’re probably voting for whomever you think will beat Trump–which isn’t Gabbard,

    That’s the boat she’s in. It’s got a hole in the bottom of it and nowhere to go.

    1. I’m guessing that most of Gabbard’s support is from former Ron Paul cultists. He basically endorsed her.

      1. Ron Paul voted against NAFTA for bogus reasons.

        Rand Paul voted against cutting $772 billion from Medicaid for bogus reasons.

        Because Ron Paul or Rand Paul says we should do something isn’t a good reason to do anything, and, yeah, people who think something is a good idea because Ron Paul says something could be properly described as cultists.

        1. Ron Paul has been proven correct about NAFTA. It ended up being an economic boon for Mexico much more than the United States and nothing like it was sold as.

          1. And it was never Free Trade for North America.

            It was just another trade agreement that did have some good reductions in trade regulation and some bad trade regulations.
            NAFTA

    2. If ending our foreign adventures is the most important thing to you, then why not pinch your nose and vote for Trump?

      Probably because Trump hasn’t done much to actually end those adventures. Pulling troops out of Syria and trying to set up cease-fire negotiations for Afghanistan are the closest he’s really come to doing so.

      1. And he didn’t even really pull the troops out of Syria. He just shuffled them around while simultaneously sending MORE troops to the region.

        1. Link fell off.

  25. The Missouri state health director, Dr. Randall Williams, testified at a state hearing Tuesday that he kept a spreadsheet to track the menstrual periods of women who visited Planned Parenthood, an action that one lawmaker has called on the governor to investigate.

    With all due respect, isn’t that an important aspect of “women’s reproductive health care”? Is the problem that Williams had “personal data”?

  26. “ A federal judge in Alabama has blocked a near-total abortion ban passed by state lawmakers earlier this year.”

    Money isn’t speech, corporations aren’t people, and doctors aren’t vaginas!

  27. How the Obama administration set in motion the democrats’ coup against Trump.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/28/how-the-obama-administration-set-in-motion-democrats-coup-against-trump/

    AFTER DONALD TRUMP was elected forty-fifth president of the United States, the operation designed to undermine his campaign transformed. It became an instrument to bring down the commander in chief. The coup started almost immediately after the polls closed.

    Hillary Clinton’s communications team decided within twenty-four hours of her concession speech to message that the election was illegitimate, that Russia had interfered to help Trump.

    Obama was working against Trump until the hour he left office. His national security advisor, Susan Rice, commemorated it with an email to herself on January 20, moments before Trump’s inauguration. She wrote to memorialize a meeting in the White House two weeks before.

    I’m really looking forward to reading this entire book.

    1. That book also details how the IC wanted to get Flynn because he was going to audit them. The IC set up Flynn by having the FBI interview him and then lie about what he said allowing them to bring a perjury charge against him because he wanted to audit all of the black programs and actually hold people accountable.

      Somehow the “libertarians” at Reason don’t think such a story has any impact on liberty or would be of any interest to their readers. Funny that.

    2. The Obama administration was very proud of their failure to peacefully hand over power. They openly bragged about it in the New York Times right after the inauguration:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

      This article shows just how hard Mueller and his team (and Comey before them) had to work to ensure that probing “Russian interference” in the election didn’t spill over into any democrat activities.

      Once you learn that the entire basis for the suspicions about Trump and Russian came from the activities of the FBI, CIA and the Clinton Campaign working with Fusion GPS to get Russian disinformation, this article becomes damning.

      It should have been damning at the time – it is unprecedented that an outgoing administration would work to undermine the next government of the United States. We’ve had plenty of acrimonious politics, but we’ve never had that before.

      1. It appears that the CIA used its assets in the form of Mark Halprin and the Mfund or whatever the guy’s name is whose cell phone Barr recently recovered to feed fake information to the FBI which the FBI then used to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump aides and by extension Trump himself.

        In short, the FBI and CIA conspired to get a fraudulent FISA warrant to spy on a political opponent of the President’s party. That is by any objective measure the biggest political scandal in a very long time or perhaps history. What makes it worse is that the media was in on it and has been putting out FBI and CIA disinformation as both part of the plot and to try and prevent its discovery.

        1. The moment it turned out that Trump wasn’t full of crap when he said his “wires were being tapped”, this became the biggest scandal in US government history.

          This makes Nixon a distant second.

          The moment we heard “We had intelligence that the Russians were trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign” as a justification for spying on and attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign, everyone should have understood what was up. That alone is enough evidence – because you don’t start spying on someone if you think the Russians are trying to infiltrate their organization. You go to them and work with them to prevent such infiltration.

          Can you imagine the FBI and CIA spying on Sandia National Labs in response to Russian attempts to spy there? No, you can’t. Because that would be crazy. They’d call up the administrator and begin a counter-intelligence operation immediately. Their top priority would be to protect sensitive information.

          But in this case they kept the Trump campaign in the dark.

          That’s all you need to know. At that moment, you know their investigation is corrupt. There is no other rational conclusion. I don’t need a smoking gun email to tell me that – it is utterly impossible to justify sending in spies and moles to set up Trump campaign officials as a response to information that the Russians are trying to infiltrate the campaign. If you had handled a situation at Sandia like that I would expect that you’d be out on your ass, best case scenario. The fact that there are political motives to “mishandle” the Trump case like this just makes the conclusion all the more obvious.

          1. All of that and more. And they used the media to put out disinformation that Trump was involved with the Russians as a way to cover up and justify what they were doing. I think if the full truth ever comes out, we are going to find out a whole lot of “journalists” and “pundits” were working directly with the CIA and FBI furthering this whole thing. That will be an enormous scandal in itself.

            1. The MSM “gatekeepers” did this to themselves.

              By the time this is over, I would suspect MSM people are considered more sleazy than lawyers.

    3. Russia did interfere and commit crimes to help Trump get elected and of course there was suspicion Trump was involved but it wasn’t up to Democrats whether those suspicions were investigated. Trump’s own DOJ appointed Mueller.

      And John, Flynn admitted he lied. He pled guilty. Trump even acknowledged it by asking Comey to “go easy on Flynn because he’s a good guy”. Even Trump recognized that Flynn had committed a crime.

      1. And John, Flynn admitted he lied. He pled guilty.

        Which had nothing to do with Russian collusion, and was almost immediately contested because his lawyers could attack it with “fruit of the poisoned tree” arguments.

        And now that it’s coming out that Page and Strozk altered his 302s, the odds that he gets sentenced for anything is looking increasingly unlikely.

        1. Yup. pod is a troll but if he was a real man he would confess to all sorts of shit he didnt do if confronted by the FBI.

          If the FBI is breaking ex-senior military officers, they can break most people who have something to lose.

          There is a reason that the FBI does not video their interviews with people. It ain’t for government transparency!

        2. Flynn admitted his guilt. There’s no erasing that. Whether he is punished for it or not is immaterial.

          1. So did Obama, Hillary, and Joe Biden.

            We know the truth from their own mouths.

          2. He was forced into doing it. It wasn’t voluntary. Jesus Christ, I guess you think the show trials were valid because they admitted it. WTF is wrong with you?

      2. Russia did interfere and commit crimes to help Trump get elected

        No they didn’t.

        And John, Flynn admitted he lied. He pled guilty.

        He has never been sentenced and his lawyer now says that Brady evidence was withhelf from him making the plea involuntary and warranting the entire case be dismissed. They framed Flyn and forced him to plead guilty because they threatened to go after his kids.

        But throwing innocent people in jail over politics is what leftists do. It is who you people are. Why don’t you stop lying and just take pride in the fact that Flynn was innocent and you guys got the “kill shot” as James Clapper said in so many words.

        1. Didn’t self-proclaimed legal genius Ken “Dopehat” White try to dismiss that entire argument out of hand at least a year ago?

          1. Yes he did. Called me a lunatic and blocked me on Twitter for even suggesting the Flynn plea might be bogus. I am biding my time. I have his email address. Once it is beyond all doubt, I plan to rub it in quite hard.

            1. Please PLEASE please, John post a copy of your email to Dopehat here.

      3. Yes, he lied. But what was done to him is usually called “entrapment”.

        1. Flynn should have told the truth and he was convicted by Trump’s DOJ. I guess Trump is in on the conspiracy.

          1. Flynn did tell the truth. Page and Storzak doctored the interview forms.

            1. Look at pod call it “Trump’s DOJ”.

              Funny how Lefties consider the government all on the up-and-up unless it’s Trump’s _____________ .

    4. Hillary Clinton’s communications team decided within twenty-four hours of her concession speech to message that the election was illegitimate, that Russia had interfered to help Trump

      That’s not really new information, to be fair–it was brought up in “Shattered.”

      Funny how an alcohol-induced outburst from a two-time Presidential campaign loser became the basis for an entire party philosophy.

  28. What exactly would the reason be to like Cory Booker personally over Tulsi Gabbard? Booker seems to be a bit of an odd duck, and Gabbard seems personable.

    1. Booker’s turned from a relatively low-key, poor-man’s version of Obama into a bug-eyed, hysterical drama queen over the last two years. I can’t see how anyone could view him as anything other than an over-compensating try-hard at this point.

  29. “Missouri health regulators were tracking women’s periods.”

    Is there a database for every state?

  30. “Good news out of Alabama…”

    …for sociopaths.

  31. Good news out of Alabama

    I see Reason is giving up any pretense of unbiased reporting or libertarianism now.

    1. “I’m a liberal.”
      -Matt Welch

      You can tell he really means it because he openly proclaims on Twitter that he wishes anyone who disagrees with him could be killed.

      Like so many other institutions in America, Resson got infiltrated and hijacked by some Fifth Columnists, and the place has been getting less libertarian by the day for about 12 years now,

  32. This is government overreach at its worst,” Yamelsie Rodriguez, CEO of Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, said in a statement.

    No, government overreach at its worst is to force me to pay for your organization and the healthcare of others.

  33. Polyamory is having a bit of a moment, in part due to recent allegations about U.S. Rep. Katie Hill (D–Calif.), who announced her resignation this week.

    Oh, FFS, it’s only having a moment because stupid shills want the allegations against Hill to come as a cultural enlightenment moment for a member of the right team. As soon as you point out that her allegations have as much to do with polyamory as Harvey Weinstein’s the illusion of a moment is dispelled.

  34. For those of you who are still confused about how creative destruction benefits the economy and the quality of life of the American consumer, there’s a clinic on this happening in real time in the television broadcast distribution industry. Some companies are imploding. Others, who were chasing market share at the expense of profits are throwing in the towel, and newer, better, and less expensive offerings are still coming to market–all to the benefit of the economy and the American consumer’s quality of life.

    AT&T’s satellite service (ex-DirectTV) is still losing a million subscribers a quarter. As a satellite cable channel provider, they set up DirectTV Now as a streaming service to catch some of the people people who were abandoning DirectTV’s satellite service, but in order to compete with the other streaming services that offer live cable channels, they had to cut their prices so low, they were losing money like crazy just to hold on to their viewers in their streaming service. Streaming services don’t have contracts, like they do in cable and satellite, so consumers can leave for lower prices and get the same channels whenever they want. Oh, the humanity!

    Dish Networks, another satellite provider, set up SlingTV for the same reason DirectTV set up DirectTV Now, but unlike DirectTV, they weren’t trying to be everything to everybody. They offer a package stripped of all the traditional broadcasters (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, which you can get for free with an antenna), and you can opt to leave out most news services (no Fox, no MSNBC, etc.) and get everything else for a fraction of what DirectTV Now charges. DirectTV Now finally capitulated on chasing market share, and when they changed their name to some derivative of their new owner’s name (AT&T Now, et., al.), they raised their prices so they wouldn’t lose money on every new subscriber anymore. AT&T Now is now losing the battle for market share with other streamers, too–and they’re still bleeding customers like crazy.

    AT&T is losing billions of dollars because they bought DirectTV’s, when the latter’s whole business model was being disrupted by creative destruction. If you’re an employee performing a particularly inefficient function at AT&T, that’s bad news for you. If you’re an AT&T shareholder, that’s bad news for you, too. If you’re an American consumer, on the other hand, who’s been screwed for decades by monopolistic cable companies and the rent seeking behavior of broadcasters, this is great news for you.

    You’re being offered a multitude of new entertainment options that are priced so cheap, it’s costing bloated and inefficient companies like AT&T to lose billions of dollars. We should add that this is also good news for the economy because all those billions that companies like AT&T are losing to creative destruction are going into the pockets of American consumers–who can and are using that money to buy things they couldn’t afford to buy before. Falling prices freeing up average people to buy more and better for less isn’t just the definition of rising standards of living. It’s also a key to real economic growth.

    If you think it’s bad for the economy when creative destruction benefits shareholders in other countries, you’re missing the point. If foreign companies can be enticed into trade with the United States that increases the standard of living of average Americans and causes our economy to grow, then they should be encouraged to do so–and rewarded with soaring profits. Meanwhile, even if you have some qualitative preference for profits that aren’t yours going to foreigners rather than profits that aren’t yours going to Americans you’ll never meet and don’t know–ask yourself why the growth in the standard of living of your fellow Americans and growth in the American economy should only be allowed if it’s okay with Donald Trump, Liz Warren, or you and your bizarre, personal qualitative preferences?

    P.S. Sony is pulling the plug on Vue, its streaming cable channel offering for streamers. Market prices are so low, they just can’t do it profitably, and they’re throwing in the towel.

    1. That whole thing is about to get upended again. There are multiple companies looking to launch satellite constellations to provide fast, low latency global internet services. Once those services come on line and reach the consumer level – Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, etc. are in deep trouble.

      SpaceX is one of the chief entrants into this space – their CEO just made the comment that their new rocket will be able to deploy 400 satellites per launch – and each launch will cost them just a few millions of dollars, instead of the hundred million benchmark that has historically been the case. So they might have their 40,000 strong constellation flying in just a few years.

      It is all just vaporware until it actually happens… but it really looks like competition is finally coming to the ISP/cableTV space.

      1. I am all for these private party solutions to provide telecom, internet, and streaming services. Satellites seem like the way to go since buried cables are more expensive.

        With that being said, space junk will be a HUGE problem. IIRC, opposing direction space junk can collide at over 40,000+ miles per hour.

        1. It’s an issue. I understand they’re pretty good at tracking these things and avoiding collisions now and getting better all the time.

          “Our Starlink team last exchanged an email with the Aeolus operations team on August 28, when the probability of collision was only in the 2.2e-5 range (or 1 in 50k), well below the 1e-4 (or 1 in 10k) industry standard threshold and 75 times lower than the final estimate. At that point, both SpaceX and ESA determined a maneuver was not necessary. Then, the U.S. Air Force’s updates showed the probability increased to 1.69e-3 (or more than 1 in 10k) but a bug in our on-call paging system prevented the Starlink operator from seeing the follow on correspondence on this probability increase – SpaceX is still investigating the issue and will implement corrective actions. However, had the Starlink operator seen the correspondence, we would have coordinated with ESA to determine best approach with their continuing with their maneuver or our performing a maneuver.”)”

          —-SpaceX

          September 3, 2019

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/02/spacex-refused-to-move-a-starlink-satellite-at-risk-of-collision-with-a-european-satellite/#35583451f626

          I’m sure this is something the Air Force needs to be monitoring as a function of their legitimate libertarian purpose of defending our rights from foreign threats, but if they can already track satellites and maneuver them to avoid collisions, I suspect the financing, technology, and desire to get this stuff right is probably already available.

          1. Also, space is big. like, really, really big.

            Imagine just 1,000 cars in all of Iowa. Collisions would be really rare. Except there are no roads…. just one giant piece of tarmac covering the entire state, so you can drive anywhere. Now how rare are collisions….

            Except it isn’t 1,000 cars. It is only 10 cars. And it isn’t just the surface of Iowa, but a 1,000 level parking garage. With just the 10 cars.

            That’s the kind of density we are talking about.

            Space is really, really big.

            Also, there is an amateur organization that tracks all of the actual satellites in orbit. Even the super-secret spy satellites. They do it for kicks.

            (the real problem is the little stuff that is too small to track, like pieces of Chinese satellite that were blown off by a Chinese anti-satellite weapons test. Luckily, the orbits for these constellations are so low that any little junk like that will fall to earth in rather short order – too much atmospheric drag.)

        2. The nice thing about these constellations is that they are so low that they will de-orbit in about 5 years or less if they lose control of the satellite. Otherwise, they are built to intentionally fly themselves down at the end of their life.

          1. My dream is still buying a ton of relatively inaccessible land in the middle of nowhere when I retire. I used to go out there for fun and still do, but female companionship is an issue. The ones who want to go out there with no internet, no electricity, and a composting toilet are pretty gnarly.

            There’s an issue about building rural, too, in that it’s hard to find people who want to go out there and build stuff for you. If Musk solves my internet problem, that’s great. Getting a backhoe out there to dig a septic tank will be an issue. I’ve been looking at the following, which is just now being marketed to RV manufacturers, but someone should be able to adapt the same technology for an off-grid situation.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNePr8LbYpw

            Check it at about 7:07

            1. That would be awesome! Particularly if you could still have 10ms, gigabit Ethernet speed, space-based internet access.

            2. All you really need is some water coming off some mountain somewhere and some game animals running and flying around.

              1. Female companionship matters.

                The reason most guys buy an RV is because of female companionship. Without the concern for female companionship, all most guys need is some rope, a tarp, a sleeping bag, and a roll of toilet paper. If you want female companionship, however, you need a lot more than that.

                In fact, they probably need to bring their own toilet and shower with them wherever they go. And a kitchen. And a nice soft bed. And a table. And it needs to be nice enough that sister might think it’s cute.

                There are women out there who don’t need all that. I’ve met them. The reason they don’t need it is because they can’t get it. They were biker chicks, Rainbow Family types, or just super environmental types. If they can’t get that stuff because they can’t afford it, or whatever, they’ll try to be happy in their own little world. If you can afford that stuff and are just planning to hold out on them, get a lawyer.

      2. Yeah, Musk is launching that service as a means to finance his space colonization dreams. That’s about being able to leverage a revenue stream to finance a colony on Mars. They’re already launched some constellations of satellites, and rural people and people who like to recreate in the wilderness should rejoice if this is successful. He’s already gotten further than Teledesic did, and with Craig McCaw on board, I thought they had a great shot. That was really about the end of the internet boom. It made sense when the fiber companies’ profits were through the roof, much less so when their profits fell through the floor after the dotcom bust.

        Still, that’s about going after the cable companies’ broadband delivery business rather than the content delivery business. I suspect this is the way we finally get a la cart pricing for broadcast channels. If cable channel distributors like Spectrum can’t charge a premium anymore because their Musk took their cable monopoly away and now everybody everywhere in the world can stream, networks like CNN, Fox News, Discovery, or HGTV will start selling access to the apps they already have available. NFL Sunday Ticket has already made that trip. You don’t need DirectTV anymore to get NFL Sunday Ticket. You can buy a subscription through Roku.

        No new FCC action required to make service available a la cart. Creative destruction will work just fine without it.

    2. Streaming is completely obliterating the decades-old cable package model. There’s no incentive, after the one-year bundle commitment expires, to maintain anything other than a high-speed internet connection to get the channels and content you actually want, versus paying well over $100 a month for a bunch of shit you never watch.

      Unless Congress nukes the restriction on a la carte channel purchases, cable/satellite companies will probably continue to bleed customers for TV packages like they are for phones, and will end up raising internet costs to compensate. Once that happens, don’t be surprised if the media starts pimping the construction of municipal broadband.

      1. On one hand, the Locast verdict could be key.

        https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/media/locast-streaming-lawsuit/index.html

        If because of a Supreme Court ruling, it becomes easy for a service like that to stream content that’s already supposed to be broadcast for free, that will cause the fees the law requires cable companies to pay for carrying broadcast network content to break the cable companies as distributors. They can’t compete with services that aren’t required to carry that content (like Locast and Sling) and don’t have to pay those fees.

        On the other hand, even if the Supreme Court rules against Locast, people will just get that content in other ways–some of them legal and some of them not. Live sports is just about the only thing I would watch on broadcast television anymore, all that content is available locally for free with an antenna anyway. Roku lets me stream my antenna signal across my network. That’s not going away unless the broadcasters decide to abandon their spectrum.

        When technology changes things like this, regulation isn’t the solution. It’s like Napster. Once music became digitized, it didn’t matter whether people got it illegally through Napster or legally through iTunes and Spotify, the music distribution business was never the same. Once the market decides your regulation is no longer relevant, it doesn’t really matter what the regulation does anymore. The cat’s out of the bag.

        You can kill Locast or Napster, but you can’t stop people from accessing digitized content over broadband.

  35. Blackhawk Mining To File Prepackaged Bankruptcy Within Days
    Kentucky-based coal miner has a deal to slash 60% of its debt

    Coal dying as the Con Man ignores his shitty white trash “base”.

    1. This is mostly because of fracking and natural gas.

      Do you want President Trump to impose rules against fracking in order help the coal industry?

      If not, then why would you criticize him for abandoning the coal industry to market forces? We’re libertarian capitalists. We don’t want the president to fight market forces.

      1. I welcome fracking and renewables. My issue is he lied and promised gullible morons something he could never do.

        1. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
          October.30.2019 at 11:30 am
          “I welcome fracking and renewables. My issue is he lied and promised gullible morons something he could never do.”

          You can keep your doctor, you pathetic piece of shit.

          1. You can keep your doctor if you can afford to pay him. Yeah if you depend on govt help then yeah you might have to go the guy approved by your plan. It’s amazing to me that you can ignore the bottomless pit of lies from Trump and yet this little thing sticks in your head.

            1. You can keep your doctor if you can afford to pay him.

              Too bad none of your proposals actually address the cost issue, you twit.

            2. “You can keep your doctor if you can afford to pay him.”

              Are those goal posts heavy, scumbag?
              That was not the promise; you know it and as a fucking left y ignoramus, you are dishonest enough to hope no one notices the change.

            3. Actually not the case that you can keep your doctor if you can afford to pay him.

              Most docs now work for large hospital based groups. The majority will not accept self pay or insurance they do not accept. You can’t get an appointment.

        2. Stop the presses!

          Sarah Palin’s Buttplug found a lying politician, hiding in plain sight–right here in the United States of America!!!

          What are we going to do now?!

          Let us know if you find any other liars in our political class, Shrike, okay? Oh, and it’s interesting that you approve of what Trump is doing and isn’t doing on this. If Trump promises to nuke Iran, will you call him out as a liar if he doesn’t, or will you just thank God he was lying?

        3. My issue is he lied and promised gullible morons something he could never do.

          Please. Yeah *that’s* what your issue with him is.

  36. On the immigration front…

    I just saw a headline that said that 67 million people in this country speak a language other than English at home. In 90 major cities, more than half of the people speak a foreign language at home. In Los Angeles that number is nearly 60%.

    That’s some pretty big numbers. We’ve been experiencing immigration at a rate that is only approached by the levels from 100 years ago. But the sheer numbers dwarf those from that era.

    Plus, a large percentage of these immigrants don’t have any legal status to live or work here.

    All of that combined has to have a major impact on the nation. Too bad we can’t discuss any of that in terms other than “vote Democrat” or “politics of hate!”

    1. Somehow suggesting that we maybe take a pause and allow some time for the country to adjust and for the immigrants to assimilate means you are an evil white supremacist Nazi who hates all immigrants. Shika Dalmia assures me of this.

      1. Everyone knows peak efficiency is attained when everyone at the workplace speaks a different language.

        1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

        2. Lots of people I have worked with are bilingual. I have worked with immigrants from Greece, Korea, China, Iran, Israel, Russia, Syria, South America, Germany, Romania, Turkey, many others. They all communicated with family or others in their native language at times.

          Go to the grocery I usually hear at least 5 languages spoken. None of them seem to have a problem communicating in English. Even those that do at first it resolves in a short time.

          Since when do libertarians have a problem with that? Is English the official and exclusive language of libertarianism now?

      2. What is your evidence that immigrants aren’t assimilating?

        Hint: there is no official national language in this country

        Another hint: there is no requirement that immigrants must vote for Team Red before being considered “assimilated”

      3. Shika Dalmia is denigrated almost as much as Pelosi ’round here, so I’m not sure why you’re pretending any of you care about her opinion.

    2. The absolute numbers are large. As a percentage of the population, though, it’s nowhere close to the historical highs (either in total or in cities).

    3. All of that combined has to have a major impact on the nation.

      Okay. And?

      Which is more important, the health of the state, or the liberty of the individual?

      1. Which is the discussion I was talking about. You know, the one we aren’t having, because anything other than the approved (but incoherent) answer is evil, racist and probably insane.

        BTW – my personal preference is to end the quota system and allow the floodgates to open – under the H1-B style immigration system.

        It would upend the applecart a bit – no more millions of illegals, no more hoards of unskilled labor looking for low-wage jobs… but probably loads of competition at the high end. I know the workers in my industry hate H1B workers because of the perception that they impact wages negatively.

        Just imagine a hundred thousand welders coming immigrating under work permits. Suddenly that windfall from all the fracking work goes away.

        Which is why nobody is going to support that proposal, even though this nation would be infinitely better off – skimming the cream of the crop from around the world, bringing in all the educated and skilled workers.

        1. In case there is any confusion, the current approved answer is that all illegal immigration is perfectly fine. And it should remain illegal. But nobody should ever do anything about it.

          But legal immigration should be highly restricted. And we should particularly limit the immigration of people who have the means to be really successful.

          This is the current solution. It is a stupid answer, but it is the approved answer for the mainstream of politics and our official national policy.

        2. I completely agree with this. Sorry if I sounded a little defensive.

        3. Which is the discussion I was talking about. You know, the one we aren’t having, because anything other than the approved (but incoherent) answer is evil, racist and probably insane.

          Who’s stopping you? Republicans have been brushing off criticisms of their immigration policies as “evil, racist and probably insane” for years and years. So they won’t stop you. And Democrats are respected less then Hitler ’round here, so I’m not sure why their opinion would stop you.

          1. It ain’t me I’m talking about. It is us. As in, the United States. As a nation, we cannot have that conversation. Don’t pretend we can, because it has been tried for a couple of decades and it isn’t happening. It is so verboten that the last president was able to issue an open invitation to illegal immigration by saying he would direct the government to avoid enforcing immigration law against people who came here as minors, and the courts have actually ruled that you can’t change that order.

            This is insane.

            Bush tried to do something about it in the aughts with a proposal for a guest worker program and increases in quotas and paths to legal status for current residents. Even that was racist and xenophobic. There was never really a good public debate on the topic – it was dead on arrival.

            There is no conversation possible – because everyone wants the issue. And they have vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

            1. That the conversation doesn’t give the answer you like doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

              And this notion that either political party “controls” the conversation is absurd. Stalwart partisans who toe the company line in all issues are rare. Most people are moderates or weak partisans. And there are huge swaths of the country where one or the other party is basically absent.

              No one is stopping you, or anyone, from having this conversation. What is happening is that you are being ignored because other people aren’t interested. You are attributing to malice what is better explained by indifference.

      2. >>the health of the state

        yeah define this

        1. (Gets out really really big stethoscope)

          “OK I think if we emptied out Lake Erie and got everyone to piss in it we could at least get a urinalysis.” (Checks sample) “OMG. We’re pregnant!”

  37. plaintiffs’ counsel gotta find plaintiffs.

  38. Michelle Obama says whites ‘still running’ away from minorities, immigrants

    Who are the minorities and immigrants “running from” when they move out of shithole cities?

  39. Despite Common Core and more testing, reading and math scores haven’t budged in a decade

    Technocrats continue to seem dumbfounded that their stupid methods don’t work better.

  40. I’m not sure why the Juul accusations sounds that hard to believe. Tobacco companies suppressed research on lung cancer for how long? So it’s not like the nicotine-vice industry has a lot of earned trust here.

    And while it was verboten to say so at the time […]

    Verboten where? It was said to the SCOTUS, on every conservative platform, in political ads, on the radio… you couldn’t swing a dead cat without running into a “but what about polygamy?!” argument.

    If this is your idea of “verboten”, then “verboten” doesn’t mean much.

    1. It was verboten for gay marriage supporters to be honest about the implications of their argument. The entire gay marriage argument was made in bad faith. It was just supposed to be a special hand out for a group the elites and judges liked and a weapon they could use to fuck conservative Christians, a group the elites and judges disliked. That truth was never to be said.

      1. Let’s see…

        (1) We’ve actually been dealing with the “but what about polygamy?!” argument since the 90s.
        (2) We’re talking about millions of people over the course of decades, but you think it’s possible that there was some bad faith conspiracy? Even the cases that finally wound up in front of the SCOTUS weren’t coordinated until the SCOTUS rolled them together (HRC and the big national organizations weren’t on-board with that litigation, they thought it was too soon).
        (3) if marriage is a “hand out”, that’s not gay people’s fault.
        (4) If conservatives Christians feel “fucked” because gay folk can marry, that’s their own fault for putting too much importance on the government enforcing their particular religious beliefs. Loss of privilege may hurt, but it’s nothing the rest of us should mourn.

        1. (1) We’ve actually been dealing with the “but what about polygamy?!” argument since the 90s.

          They have been dealing with it by lying and claiming one wouldn’t lead to the other even though logically the arguments did.

          We’re talking about millions of people over the course of decades, but you think it’s possible that there was some bad faith conspiracy?

          We are talking about the bad faith arguments made by activists, lawyers and judges that tried to tell the public that declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage could not possibly ever lead to it being held for Polygamy. That was a complete lie. The arguments for gay marriage apply just as well to polygamy. They only didn’t carry the day because judges don’t like polygamists. If that ever changes polygamy is coming. The ground work has been laid. The gay marriage activists knew this and just lied about it.

          if marriage is a “hand out”, that’s not gay people’s fault.

          It is their fault they demanded it by court order rather than winning the argument politically. If this had been done by statute, this wouldn’t be a problem. The states would still have the power to define marriage as they see fit. But that wasn’t good enough. Civil unions and a contract based marriage system wasn’t good enough. Why? Because it was never about getting married. It was about using the force of law to coerce people into accepting their lifestyle. The gays are absolutely at fault for that.

          4) If conservatives Christians feel “fucked” because gay folk can marry, that’s their own fault for putting too much importance on the government enforcing their particular religious beliefs. Loss of privilege may hurt, but it’s nothing the rest of us should mourn.

          It is not a privilege to practice a religion. Fuck you. I don’t owe you acceptance of your lifestyle or your relationship. I owe you nothing except leaving you alone and living in peace. It is the gays who are getting the privilege here. They get the privilege of using a gun to force everyone to accept their lifestyle or else.

          There are few things Libertarians love more than helping the gays put their boot on everyone’s face. Fuck that.

          1. If you have to ignore the actions and arguments of millions of people, over decades, to attribute this “blame” to all gay folk, you’re probably not making a “good faith” argument yourself, you realize.

            That said, no. The lawyers at the top level were consistent in saying that wasn’t the issue in front of the court, and they weren’t prepared to talk about it. Because it was no more rational to expect folks arguing for SSM to defend polygamy bans then it was rational to expect folks arguing against miscegenation laws to defend sodomy laws.

            If this had been done by statute, this wouldn’t be a problem.

            Bullshit. If it’s a “hand out”, then it’s bad regardless of how it’s acquired. That’s the entire purpose of calling it a “hand out”.

            Civil unions and a contract based marriage system wasn’t good enough. Why?

            20+ state Constitutional amendments that meant we would have to go to court anyway.

            It is not a privilege to practice a religion.

            My marriage doesn’t stop anyone from practicing their religion.

            I don’t owe you acceptance of your lifestyle or your relationship.

            True. And irrelevant, as me getting married doesn’t require that of you.

            I owe you nothing except leaving you alone and living in peace.

            True. Also something that social conservative Christians in this country have never done.

            They get the privilege of using a gun to force everyone to accept their lifestyle or else.

            Me getting married no more forces you to “accept” my “lifestyle” then my aunt getting married to her eighth husband forces me to “accept” her “lifestyle”. Refuse to go to the wedding and make snide comments at Thanksgiving like everyone else dude.

            1. The “what about polygamy” argument was considered a non-sequitur and out of bounds.

              That doesn’t mean people didn’t raise it. But the response was always “That’s crazy… you are being ridiculous. Nobody is advocating that.” The most serious response would be “that’s the slippery slope fallacy”.

              But it was true that the logical implication of the reasoning behind that decision was that polygamy would be legal.

              All of which is probably fine with libertarians who believe the state shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what kind of relationships people have, including whether or not they get to call themselves “married”.

              1. It has long been the libertarian position that the state should not be in the marriage business. The problem is that it has been impossible to disentangle it.

                I have no idea why people object to polygamy.

                1. I think that comes down to guys who secretly had two families.

                  Also relevant might be a criminal element that arises if you have a shortage of women.

                  For most of human history, warfare and violence was very common. So there was a surfeit of women in need of men. Hence the opportunity for polygamy in a society. But maintain a 1:1 ratio and you begin to have issues if a significant portion of women opt for a multiple-wife situation.

                  The alternate side of this would be the “died in childbirth” situation. Prior to modern medicine, having a baby was a life-threatening risk. So societies need to have options for widowers.

                  All of which goes to underscore the unique times we live in. There have been negligible deaths of young men in war (as a percentage, not a comment on the value of human life), childbirth deaths are rare and people are generally well off. This gives the luxury of individual choice on lifestyle.

                  Look at China… due to a 1 child policy, there is a large surplus of males making good money. This is already causing issues, and will continue to do so. If it continues unabated, you might end up with a few million INCEL chinese men. That sounds like a situation that will be begging for a war.

              2. That doesn’t mean people didn’t raise it. But the response was always “That’s crazy… you are being ridiculous. Nobody is advocating that.” The most serious response would be “that’s the slippery slope fallacy”.

                I do hate quoting myself, but here goes:

                If you have to ignore the actions and arguments of millions of people, over decades, to attribute this “blame” to all gay folk, you’re probably not making a “good faith” argument yourself, you realize.

                There is no hive mind. There is no talking-points newsletter. There is no conspiracy.

                There were, however, many more answers then you’re giving credit for.

                But it was true that the logical implication of the reasoning behind that decision was that polygamy would be legal.

                And the argument in Griswold v. Connecticut led to Loving v. Virginia led to Lawrence v. Texas, which lead to Windsor v. United States, which lead to Obergefel v. Hodges.

                Which is to say, even if you’re right, it’ll still be argued on the merits/i>. And arguments against polygamy will still be presented, on the merits. Expecting prior cases in that chain to argue against theoretical future cases as a precondition of winning their own case is not, and has never been, a reasonable response.

                And contrary to your assertions that the response was always “that’s crazy”, folks like me have been pointing this out for decades.

                All of which is probably fine with libertarians […]

                So you don’t read the comments to Shackford’s posts, I take it?

            2. Careful you are sounding like an actual libertarian. It doesn’t go down well with most of the commentariat around here.

      2. “To Fuck conservative Christians”

        Been there. Well once anyway.

  41. “We’ve actually been dealing with the “but what about polygamy?!” argument since the 90s“

    Since about the year 90 CE actually.

  42. Prediction: The former Juul executive will settle and you’ll never hear about this supposed “contamination” again except as an unverifiable slur used by anti-vaping activists.

Please to post comments