Reason Roundup

Republicans and Democrats Rev Up Spin Machine for Start of Public Impeachment Hearings

Plus: the effects of restrictive zoning on education access, DACA's uncertain future at the Supreme Court, and Mayor Pete's miraculous surge


They're here, they're finally here.

On Wednesday, public impeachment hearings will begin in the House Intelligence Committee with the testimony of William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, deputy assistant secretary for state for European and Eurasian Affairs.

Both men have already testified in closed-door hearings that President Donald Trump and his political allies, including his personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani, tried to inappropriately pressure Ukrainian officials to launch corruption probes into Hunter Biden and the Democrats in order to benefit the president's 2020 reelection campaign.

Much of their testimony has already been made available in partially redacted transcripts. Today's hearings, however, will give both Republicans and Democrats a chance to tell their respective stories about the House's impeachment inquiry.

For Democrats, the narrative is clear: Trump is a corrupt extortionist who has hijacked U.S. foreign policy for his own selfish purposes.

"[Taylor and Kent] will describe their own experiences and how American policy toward Ukraine was subverted to serve the president's personal, political interests, not the national interest," said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) in a statement to The Washington Post.

Republicans meanwhile will do their best to present the case that Trump did nothing wrong in his dealings with Ukraine, and that the entire impeachment proceedings are a crass partisan attempt by Democrats, and occasionally the deep state, to unseat a duly elected president.

"Democrats want to impeach President Trump because unelected and anonymous bureaucrats disagreed with the president's decisions and were discomforted by his telephone call with [Ukrainian] President Zelensky," reads a Republican memo obtained by The New York Times, which references the July phone call Trump had with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which he appeared to have offered to trade $400 million in aid to Ukraine in exchange for that country opening investigations into Trump's Democratic political rivals.

With so many of these accusations already out in the press, Wednesday's hearings will likely be dominated by political theatrics from each side.

Media coverage is already billing the hearings as a dramatic, historic clash between Trump, his congressional allies, and House Democrats. Bars in Washington, D.C., are hosting watch parties for the morning's hearings.

While Taylor and Kent testify again, two members of the Trump administration who allegedly have deep knowledge of the president's Ukraine dealings will continue to say nothing: Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John Bolton, former national security adviser.

Both men have been subpoenaed by House Democrats, but so far, the two have declined to testify, citing the White House's claim that senior presidential advisors can't be compelled to testify before Congress.

Mulvaney tried briefly to join a lawsuit brought by a former Bolton aide asking a federal judge to rule on whether the president's instructions to current and former advisors not to testify to Congress are outweighed by congressional subpoenas, before abandoning that effort Tuesday. He now says that he will not testify.

In addition to today's events, public impeachment hearings featuring top diplomats and national security officials are scheduled for Friday and throughout next week.

On the whole, Trump is taking everything in stride.


Congress' Joint Economic Committee (JEC) has published a new study examining the role that restrictive zoning laws have on access to education.

"In a cross-city comparison, major cities with more restrictive residential zoning are less effective at providing high quality public education at a low, affordable price," reads the study.

"Portland, Oregon features traditional residential assignment policies, restrictive residential zoning, and high, climbing average home values across increasing school quality levels. In contrast, Houston and Chicago, two major cities with less restrictive residential zoning, do a better job delivering access to high quality public schools than comparison cities with restrictive residential zoning, keeping home prices low and affordability high across school quality levels. As anticipated, cities with open enrollment or districtwide lotteries exhibit flatter relationships between home values and school quality."

JEC policy analyst Vanessa Brown Calder, the report's author, highlights some of her findings in this thread.


The Obama-era Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program reportedly had a tough day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

A number of states are suing the Trump administration for trying to end DACA, which stayed deportations for people in the country illegally who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Trump has argued that DACA itself is illegal, and that it is within the administration's power to end the program. Lower courts have so far stopped the administration from killing it.

However, most media outlets report that the court's conservative majority appeared to side with the government during their questioning, saying that the Trump administration had offered good enough explanations for axing the program.


  • South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg posts impressive Iowa poll numbers, while support for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden flags.

  • In The Atlantic, Jonathan Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell propose some less-than-optimal fixes for the discourse on social media.

  • Another set of clashes between protesters and police in Hong Kong.
  • A little bit of perspective on the situation in Bolivia.
  • The San Francisco Board of Supervisors sides with people over plants, approving plans to redevelop the University of California, San Francisco's Laurel Heights campus into 744-unit housing and retail complex. Neighborhood activists had sued, arguing the project would destroy valuable open space and some really nice trees.
  • Vandals are targeting D.C.'s bike share program with some underhanded tactics.

  • Nothing on Netflix? Maybe you should check out a live stream of border wall construction!

NEXT: Brickbat: Netflix and Chill

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

  1. Republicans and Democrats Rev Up Spin Machine for Start of Public Impeachment Hearings

    Of course they all have to make impeachment political. Gah!

    1. Objection!

      1. I love how Reason has benched ENB.

    2. How about making it *fun*? Give the public 15 minutes after each testimony to vote “BS” or “Orange Man Bad”.

      1. Lock in your votes now!

        1. Have your credit cards ready!

        1. Those odds reflect the success of the Donkey/MSM propaganda campaign. As did the HRC election odds.

          1. These polls are different.

    3. Hello.

      Spin? The Republicans are more right than not.

      Let’s keep things straight. It was Pelosi who decided to call for an impeachment during a PRESS CONFERENCE. In doing so, ignored the tradition of doing so through a vote in the House. The Dems only did so later or else the Senate was going to (correctly) dismiss the process. This was UNPRECEDENTED in American history.

      Then, Schiff started to selective leak information creating a narrative the Democrats formed until they were forced to play by the rules – if they are at all. The Democrats are acting as if the President is not directly accountable to the PEOPLE first through this theatre for POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.

      And for what Reason? There is NO EVIDENCE he committed an impeachable offence. ‘Inappropriately’ is not a reason to challenge the DIRECT WILL OF THE PEOPLE through a lawful election. And if proven, STILL NOT a crime. It’s not. Bribery, collusion, influence, hold funds – whatever – are the RULE not the exception of government affairs. Using civil servants to serve the President is a norm going back to Justice John Jay. It’s not illegal.

      And if there’s ONE place where the CinC can ‘abuse’ his power it’s in fricken foreign affairs. They all use power as a leverage. Did anyone pay close attention to Obama? You try and tell me Trump rises to his actions. Ga’head.

      So if you’re gonna take down Trump be ready to a) rewrite the history books in American politics and b) hold every President moving forward to the same IMPOSSIBLE standards.

      I notice the little ‘spin’ Reason plays with this and it’s unfortunate. They should be focused on the shenanigans of the DNC.

      Sad that it takes a Canadian to write this.

      1. But this is Reason where the Plague on Both Their Houses shtick is mandatory.

        1. Plague on Both Their Houses is well earned. Nevertheless there is a substantial difference in the level of Donkey delusion.

          1. I did indeed weigh in on the Quebec brickbat the other day.

        2. It’s lame because it sets aside principles.

          1. Yep. Like the “principle” to extort collusion from another country for your own private benefit. Now that’s a “principle” Trumpian bootlickers can get behind !!

            1. When that’s proven then your comment is correct.

              That’s a serious charge. Like the Hilary Foundation.

        3. Reason always, every single time, referred to Blasey Ford’s accusations as “credible”. I’m not sure this is the same Reason you remember.

        4. “Shtick?” A plague on both their houses is a common point of view among non-partisan libertarians. It would be odd if Reason took any other editorial position.

      2. Preach it, Brother Rufus!

      3. “There is NO EVIDENCE he committed an impeachable offence.”

        You are either very misinformed or have not been following the news lately. There is evidence, and quite a lot. You may not like it. You may disagree with it. But the evidence is most certainly there.

        And if you have been following the Stone trial, it is now apparent that Trump committed perjury in his written responses to Mueller. Whether Trump is impeached or not, he is still on the hook for several separate felony cases, both in NY state and federally.

        Again, I understand you are a fan of the man. But we are nation of laws.

        1. You are either very misinformed or have not been following the news lately. There is evidence, and quite a lot. You may not like it. You may disagree with it. But the evidence is most certainly there.

          You didn’t list any. I’m just coming up to speed right now since I haven’t really been following this story.. but I keep seeing people on this board saying that there’s evidence of wrongdoing and then not providing any evidence.

          1. People’s opinions of what Trump meant are now evidence according to some people who have an opinion.

          2. This.

            1. So it’s just like the impeachment hearing…

              Dude “testified” that his aid was at dinner with someone who talked to trump on the phone, and the aid could overhear Trump’s voice (not on speaker) saying he was “most” interested in Burisma investigation…

              1. 4th hand gossip

                1. That’s right.

          3. Just ask yourself why no explanation for the aid being withheld, no explanation for Rudy being in charge of a proxy war with a nuclear adversary, why did/do so many people “wrongly” assume the president wanted Bidens investigated? Why were Rudy’s two henchmen caught fleeing the country, and why is one now indicating he knows all about the Biden “investigation” and is ready to flip?

            No evidence? That’s not no evidence. Again, you don’t like it, you think it’s fake, but it’s there.

            And then check Vindland, Sondman, Taylor testimonies.

            1. So your evidence is speculation?

              Everyone saying there’s evidence, when asked to produce evidence, basically tells me some variation of “just think it through! Doesn’t this seem suspicious??” or “go read this really long 300+ page thing!”

              Well, maybe his actions are suspicious. But suspicious is not enough. We’re a nation of laws. There has to be actual persuasive evidence. As far as reading 300+ page documents, uh, no. I have a life. I don’t even believe that you’ve read those documents.

              I’m not a fan of Trump, but I’m also not a fan of impeaching the President over his ideological opponent’s suspicions. There has to be a smoking gun.

              1. The testimonies! I’m sorry they are long, but they are strong evidence.

                1. I’m sure you read every page.

                  1. I haven’t. But I’ve certainly seen evidence. The claim around here is that there is no evidence. That is false.

                    1. I asked you for it and you haven’t provided any. You suggested I read documents you haven’t read. This isn’t compelling at all. I want to know if Donald Trump did something that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

        2. Not a fan of nothing. Couldn’t care less about who it is.

          Nation of laws my ass or else Hilary….well you know.

          1. Or else Hillary was investigated a dozen times or so? She probably did some shit, I’ll grant anyone that, but she didn’t get away with it because anyone let her.

            1. Y’know if Republicans really want to investigate Biden, they could do it at any time in the Senate.

        3. If we’re only a nation of laws when it’s Republicans under the microscope, then we are not, in fact, a nation of laws. We’re a banana republic, and there is little incentive to follow said laws.

          1. Hillary wasn’t investigated a dozen times or so? Didn’t the last investigation of her just wrap up? You’re not being honest with yourself.

            1. yeah, by the same folks who then went and spied on Trump during the election, who are being investigated right now for illegal spying and trying to undo the election results.

              So Hillary’s investigation is highly suspect. Of course, I was thinking more along the lines of how Trump’s being grilled for shit that Obama did on a whim.

              1. Weren’t you guys screaming bloody murder about Obama’s use of executive orders and executive privilege?

                You know Trump is outdoing Obama on both counts, right?

    4. It is terrible that a political (not a legal!) process would be poliiticized.

    5. What is this about?
      It’s about keeping Russia as an enemy.
      That will be the main thrust of all testimony.
      Listen to Taylor – he’s saying that if we don’t attack Russia, peace will be in jeopardy.
      Execute these fucks like Taylor and Kent

      1. Nardz : What is this about?

        Trading the favor of the U.S. government for personal gain.

        It’s not complicated. Bullshit about “keeping Russia as an enemy” is a transparent diversion. Trump created his own private “foreign policy” for his own private benefit. He barely attempted to disguise his aims as being for the United States – not him – and even when he did the duplicity behind that disguise is clear. When United States goals interfered with Trump’s private gain, the latter always took priority. That’s what the evidence shows; that warrants impeachment.

        It’s not complicated.

        1. Eat a bullet, grb.
          You’re nothing but a deep state shill, here to promote The Narrative and convert useful idiots.
          You will die
          No reason for you to procrastinate

          1. Man, you Trump fans really are toxic, shitty people. Almost to a man.

            1. “Toxic”
              You’re shitty, but not a person, hivemind

  2. …tried to inappropriately pressure Ukrainian officials to launch corruption probes into Hunter Biden and the Democrats in order to benefit the president’s 2020 reelection campaign.

    “Inappropriately.” Always with the value judgments!

    1. Perhaps that’s innappropriate, but those Afghani farmers getting drone striked, downright…. oh my bad, that’s old news.

      There’s plenty of value judgements made here every day to show the lack of principles

    2. “which references the July phone call Trump had with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which he appeared to have offered to trade $400 million in aid to Ukraine in exchange for that country opening investigations into Trump’s Democratic political rivals.”

      Why is this even a question any more? Where in the transcript- either the transcript provided by Trump, or after amendments from the hearings, does this ever appear? Nowhere at all does Trump “Offer” anything, or ask for an “Exchange”. This is absurd to describe the call this way when a review of the transcript very clearly shows nothing of the sorts.

      This is gas lighting writ large. You look at the transcript, and see nothing at all, but the media keeps coming back saying “It appears to show this.” and “Witness shows that appearances were right” (When that witness is just sharing their opinion).

      The name of this site is Reason. How about providing a little more logical rigor to the reporting than standard water-carrying? Like analyze the text. Parse the arguments of Schiff, et al, and identify some falacies or arguments not supported by the damn witness statements. Instead, you are blindly repeating Schiff’s talking points.

      1. Reason knows it’s job.
        Progress uber alles

      2. You look at the transcript, and see nothing at all,

        ” I would like you to do us a favor though”

        1. Jeff, do us all a favor and cease to be

        2. We all know the reason you didn’t post the actual quote shit bag.

          He asked about Crowdstrike. You lost. Now you have to lie.

        3. You’re a fucking piece of garbage Jeff, and this entire wasteful spectacle is at the feet of useful idiots like you

          I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it, if that’s possible.

          Curiously missing? Any mention of Biden.

          You’re fucking trash Jeff.

          1. Hey look, he’s suddenly quiet. How unlike Jeff.

        4. “You look at the transcript, and see nothing at all”

          The last AP NORC poll I saw had plus-70% of people saying the call was either illegal or unethical. People who “look at the transcript, and see nothing at all” and not looking at all. They are the ignorant or dead-enders who’d praise Trump’s fabulous new clothes if he pranced around naked (apologies for that image)

          Normal people see pretty clearly what that call was about…..

          1. “Poll”

            You progs never want to stop being Charlie Brown

          2. You take the time to write all this….

            “You look at the transcript, and see nothing at all”

            The last AP NORC poll I saw had plus-70% of people saying the call was either illegal or unethical. People who “look at the transcript, and see nothing at all” and not looking at all. They are the ignorant or dead-enders who’d praise Trump’s fabulous new clothes if he pranced around naked (apologies for that image)

            Normal people see pretty clearly what that call was about…..

            And we just provide full quotes from the call.

            And you think WE’RE the ignorant ones?

            1. Yep. Me and plus-70% of the country don’t need to pretend not to see what’s clearly there. If the principles of the transcript weren’t named “Trump” and “Zelensky”, you’d see like a normal person too. And that’s before you add months of the exact same quid pro quo extortion, already confirmed by a score of witnesses. Given all that, it’s a wonder you don’t put out your own eyes like a modern-day Oedipus – just to spare yourself the trauma of sight. Blindness would be pretty comforting to a Trump supporter right now. There’s so much you have to pretend not to see…..

              1. You’re dangerously psychotic.
                Big red flag…

              2. grb claims Trump committed what the Democrats actually committed. Left-wing projection strikes again.

  3. “[Taylor and Kent] will describe their own experiences”

    of hearing about things that concerned them.

    1. “Miss Jones in accounting told me that she overheard a congressional aid say that he heard Kelly say that he thinks what Trump did is inappropriate.”

      1. After he read about it in the NYT.

      2. Ray McKigney: “Miss Jones in accounting told me…..”

        Ya know, your comedy shtick might be more convincing if the White House wasn’t blocking the testimony of Rudy Giuliani, Mike Esper, Rick Perry, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Charles Kupperman, John A. Eisenberg, Pat Cipollone, and a score more critical witnesses.

        Somebody doesn’t want all the facts out, eh? But there is good news: One of Giuliani’s little thugs, Lev Parnas, has already started to talk. Just think of the things he’s seen! He was Rudy’s courier for shakedown demands to Ukrainian officials, bagman for the payoff to Pete Sessions (which bought the Ambassador Yovanovitch smear-letter) and go-between for Rudy, disgraced prosecutor Victor Shokin & exiled oligarch Dmytro Firtash. Wanna bet he provides more exciting detail than Miss Jones in accounting? And John Bolton is promising everyone scorching testimony. He just wants to be “forced” by the court.

        Speaking of which : The White House is ignoring subpoenas for almost all critical witnesses. What happens when the “judge” issuing those subpoenas is Chief Justice Roberts, presiding over a Senate trial? Stonewall’n gonna get a bit more complicated then. Hell, maybe we can even get Donald to testify.

        Don’t worry. He’ll still have the right against self-incrimination….

        1. And again, OUR evidence is what the principals on the call said–your ‘evidence’ is what other people thought about what the principals on the call said.

          And you don’t see the glaring error in your thought process.

          1. YOUR evidence is equivalent to “not seeing” what is two inches in front of your face. Over seventy percent of people look at the same transcript and clearly see what you pretend not to. Given numbers like that, who cares about the disingenuous “blindness” of a small number of bootlicking toadies?

            Oh, and all the people present at the call are in with the 70%. That’s why there was panicked damage control afterwards. That’s why Trump is desperate to keep as many people from testifying as possible. Can you imagine Bolton on the stand? Ouch.

            Your dishonesty is embarrassing. The campaign to force Ukraine into collusion for Trump’s private benefit lasted months. It involved dozens of people and repeated demands. It left a slime trail broad and long. But for you none of that counts except the phone call, even though it was all the same thing repeated over and over. Then you ignore what’s plainly in the call. Then you pretend months of parallel extortion doesn’t exist.

            Normal people don’t need to go thru all those dishonest contortions. Your best bet is to give up all the bullshit and go with a “no harm no foul” defense. Everyone already knows Trump is a sleazy turd, so there’s the advantage of low expectations….

            1. grb, I don’t think the Trump fans here are being dishonest. (Well, maybe with themselves.) They honestly want to see only what fits in with their world view of Trump as a swamp drainer and the Democrats as being more partisan and more manipulative than the Republicans.

              From that vantage point, any neutral observer who sees problems with both the Democrats and Republicans (as one would presume most libertarians on a site like Reason would) is a “progressive”.

              1. Go with the raving lunatics, “mike”
                That’ll fool everybody

            2. What profusive fan fiction you produce.

        2. Shall we discuss Schiffs blocking of witnesses?

          1. Or directing witnesses as to which questions they should answer.

          2. Apparently we are supposed to invent an entirely new jurisprudence, uniquely created to excuse Trump’s sleaze. After all, what would be damning evidence in any trial at any level in the country somehow doesn’t apply with Trump. To hear his toadies talk, anything short of DJT doing a Radio City Music Hall dance number in Times Square shouting “quid pro quo” with each high kick is mere “opinion”.

            This willful & oblivious blindness extends to process as well :

            (1) First, this proceeding is equivalent to a grand jury decision whether to charge. It is equivalent to the years of secret grand jury investigation that collected evidence on Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But they had no input, no representation, and no ability to call or challenge witnesses. Trump has close to 50% representation on the panel – with every man-jack of them (or woman) a total whore to his interests.

            (2) Second, anyone who believes they have total freedom to call any witness or pursue any line of questioning is shit-stupid on how courts operate. If your witness or questions aren’t germane to the charges the judge will shut you down in a heartbeat. Is it really possible toadies like damikesc or JesseAz don’t know that? I admit to finding it difficult to distinguish between dishonest & stupid in Trump supporters, but really……

            Yes, we all know that Trump’s “defense” can’t defend what he’s done, so he would prefer to peddle distraction bullshit, such as the “CloudStrike is Hiding the Servers in Ukraine” lunacy. But NO court and NO judge would allow that kind of circus freakshow. Why should Schiff?

            1. It’s “CrowdStrike”, you raving moron.

              This is not a grand jury, it’s a desperate circus.
              Just window dressing to make gossip, hearsay, and psychotic fantasy look “grave and serious”

            2. You used a lot of words here to not actually say anything.

  4. Media coverage is already billing the hearings as a dramatic, historic clash between Trump, his congressional allies, and House Democrats.

    Journalists standing passively on the sidelines, watching to see how it all turns out.

  5. Maybe you should check out a live stream of border wall construction!

    oh great, more articles about how it’s really a show about nothing

    1. It’s a Rickroll.

  6. In The Atlantic, Jonathan Haidt and Tobias Rose-Stockwell propose some less-than-optimal fixes for the discourse on social media.

    the proxy wars for fixing people continue

  7. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg posts impressive Iowa poll numbers…

    That’s what she said.

      1. Is a gay man a more attractive candidate to women than a straight man since he is not sexually threatening? The women’s luv them the gaze.

        1. I’ve never voted on the basis of which candidate is “more attractive”

          Kinda funny you think women do. I’m guessing you don’t have much experience with women……

          1. More attractive candidates usually do receive more votes. It’s not a men/women thing necessarily, though there tend to be more male candidates than female candidates, so the effect is probably more easily observed in women voters.

            It doesn’t take a lot of experience with women to know that they, like all humans, don’t always act rationally.

          2. You’re a woman? Or are you one of those newfangled ones with their dicks still attached? JFK, Bill Clinton, Obama. Women have voted for the “Cute” guy for a while . They even do so in Canada.

          3. So grb is so fucking stupid he denies studies on candidate attractiveness such as nixon vs JFK where polling was disparate on who win debates based on if watched on television or listened to on radio.

            Grb, ever admitting his ignorance.

    1. She, He, SHeX

  8. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg posts impressive Iowa poll numbers, while support for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden flags.

    that is the appropriate verb since THE FLAG is such negative thing to democrats!

  9. the Trump administration had offered good enough explanations for axing the program.

    in honor of joe pesci being in the news lately:
    axing the program what?
    and what was the program’s answer?

    1. “Now Go Home And Get Your Fucking Shinebox”

  10. Maybe you should check out a live stream of border wall construction!

    It’s a trap!

  11. Like: “just after a user submits a comment, AI can identify text that’s similar to comments previously flagged as toxic and ask, ‘Are you sure you want to post this?'”

    If passive-aggressive is the best Skynet has to offer, I’ve built up a spectacular tolerance.

    1. Now I want to more than ever!

    2. Good luck reporting offensive posts.

      “User Joe Mamma just said something really offensive.”

      “What did User Joe Mamma say?”

      “The AI won’t let me tell you.”

    3. No more nukes
      The robots will nag us to death

    4. “You’re wearing that shirt?”

    5. “Yes, HAL. Open the pod bay doors.”


    Mount up!
    It was a clear black night, a clear white moon…

    1. No, Warren G and Nate Dogg would definitely #maga

  13. …the project would destroy valuable open space and some really nice trees.

    Move to Wyoming.

    1. the real estate version of learn to code

  14. Over 400 California marijuana business licenses suspended, injecting fresh uncertainty into state’s cannabis industry

    How is that “Legalized Marijuana” going for ya?

    Anyone who votes for Democrats to get “legalized weed” deserves exactly what is happening.

    The Party of slavery made slaves of weed users.

    1. I’m sure the party of Jeff Sessions would be much better for that. “Oh no, a state licensing scheme isn’t going smoothly. We should just lock up all the nonviolent pot smokers instead.”

    2. How is that “Legalized Marijuana” going for ya?

      Compared to the status quo of the past half century? Far from perfect, but pretty well I’d say.

    3. Chains are better than cages!

  15. “Much of their testimony has already been made available in partially redacted transcripts.”

    “Partially redacted transcripts” of what amounts were taken before a secret committee, sometimes with instruction from the Democrat chair telling witnesses not to answer questions asked by Republicans on the committee?

    Are Republicans allowed to call witnesses before this new committee–over the objections of Democrats? Because, far as I know, they weren’t allowed to call witnesses that might support the president. In fact, my understanding is that the Republican witness list has been completely ignored by Democrats, and the Democrats suddenly declined to hear witnesses they previously intended to call–because calling them might exonerate the president.

    Any conclusions drawn from testimony before such proceedings should be greeted with skepticism–partially redacted transcripts or not. In fact, under the circumstances, we probably have a better grasp on what happened and why if we ignore the proceeds of the former hearing entirely than we do by taking any part of that record seriously.

    1. Gee, you’d think this is the sort of stuff that a libertarian publication might think worthy of presentation and evaluation.

      I guess they knew the comment section would come through for them.

      1. Ken should get a salary from Reason for posting reasonable comments to balance out the insanity in most of the articles.

        1. With supporting links that aren’t sourced from Vox.

        2. seconded. Reason should fire the mouthbreathing knuckledraggers they have for journalists, and hire Ken and a few others from the comment section. I come here because I know I can get facts from some of the regulars along with links.

      2. Reason is “libertarian” like Joe Biden is “moderate”

        1. It used to be more about preaching the libertarian gospel to the heathen.

          Now it’s more about preaching social justice to the libertarian choir, and I don’t think it’s working. All they seem to manage to do is to push the libertarians who read them further to the right in revulsion.

          1. Hell, I’m ok with “both sides.”

            If we actually heard from both sides.

            But, at least when it comes to Trump, there is nothing remotely balancing that ever gets serious consideration. And even worse, things that are tangential, but might be perceived as redounding to Trump’s favor (e.g. ABC/CBS conspiring to go after an internal leaker/whistleblower or Biden’s own Ukraine problems) get largely ignored or treated as nothingburger.

    2. ““Partially redacted transcripts” of what amounts were taken before a secret committee, sometimes with instruction from the Democrat chair telling witnesses not to answer questions asked by Republicans on the committee?”

      Ironically, they are livid that Trump released “incomplete” transcripts of the call, even though it was a 4 person collaboration and even noted cunt Vindman says it is overall very accurate except that the other three didn’t agree with some of his requests to change some words.

      “Are Republicans allowed to call witnesses before this new committee–over the objections of Democrats?”

      Based on what Schiff has written in memos…no.

      1. It wasn’t just that Schiff shut down the Hunter Biden request either.

        I love source documents! Before the internet, we had to take journalists’ word for everything. Nowadays, if we want to see who’s on the Republicans’ witness list, we can go straight to the source and see the list ourselves!

        Here are some of the people on the list of witnesses the Republicans want to testify:

        David Hale – Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs

        Tim Morrison – former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the National Security Council

        Ambassador Kurt Volker – U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations

        If they’re trying to impeach the president for inappropriately asking the new Ukrainian government to investigate Hunter Biden, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to ask Hunter Biden questions to establish whether or not an investigation of Hunter Biden’s activities were appropriate. Why should the children of presidential candidates be immune to prosecution?! If asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Burisma Holdings was entirely appropriate, then they’re asking the American people to accept impeachment because the president did something appropriate.

        If they decide they’d rather suffer the political ramifications of protecting Hunter Biden from scrutiny and moving forward with impeachment despite that baggage, that’s one thing–but are the people above not being called as witnesses? If the answer is “No”, the next question is, “Why?”.

        1. Out of curiosity, could the Senate start its own circus investigating Biden for shit he did in office? Or is investigating folks the purview of the house?

          1. Recommending impeachment is the purview of the house. Investigating Biden, who is now out of office, would be 100% a law enforcement matter. They could pass a resolution expressing their opinion that Biden should be investigated, but they wouldn’t do the investigation.

            1. what about investigating an official who is in office, but not necessarily the president? Say, certain corrupt Representatives? (Granted that would be a nuclear option, and I’m not saying they should, but I’m curious if they could)

      2. “and even noted cunt Vindman says it is overall very accurate except that the other three didn’t agree with some of his requests to change some words.”

        You couldn’t be more disingenuous if you tried. The words that should have been changed were directly incriminating of the president, that’s why they weren’t changed. And Vindman, the cunt as you call him, was wounded in service to his country, which 100000000x more than anyone can say that Trump has done. Vindman has nothing to gain from this, but Trump sure does.

        1. Vindman, like you, is a spore.
          His job is to tell the narrative his masters give him.
          You’re both doughy, low character warmongers

          1. I’m anti war and quite the physical specimen.

            1. And still deserve to jump in front of a speeding semi.

              1. One thing’s for sure. I’d fuck you up, old man.

                1. The only thing you’ve ever fucked up is a box of Twinkies.

                  1. You shouldn’t call your mother that.

            2. Yea, we’ll totes take your word for it
              You consistently lie, but I’m totes convinced you’re telling the truth this time

        2. I am a veteran too. And Vindeman is a cunt and a fucking disgrace. The guy is a Ukrainian agent. Read his testimony. Most of it is about how wonderful Ukraine is and all of the great things he has done for it. If you didn’t know any better, you would think he worked for them.

          He is a piece of shit and the Democrats know it. If he wasn’t, they would want him to testify in public.

          1. Pretty damning and awful Vindman’s thinking the country he was born in is a wonderful place, and wanting to do things to help it out. Hell, he probably even has relatives there.

          2. You are slinging slander, John. Shame on you.

        3. At least damikesc waited until a couple of days after Veteran’s Day to call Vindman a cunt.

    3. Agree that the Democrats are being heavy handed about allowing Republican-requested witnesses in the public hearings. Now, that the hearings are public I expect any blatant partisan moves will hurt the Democrats in the court of public opinion.

      If you’ve looked at the released testimonies, the actual redactions ate very light. All I saw was blacking our the names of some attendees.

      1. “Now, that the hearings are public I expect any blatant partisan moves will hurt the Democrats in the court of public opinion.”

        You don’t seem to appreciate that excluding witnesses makes the hearings permanently suspect.

        What facts did we never hear because the witness wasn’t allowed to testify? Ever heard the expression, “You can’t unring a bell?”. Well you can’t hear a bell that’s never been rung either.

        Why should the American people buy the results of an impeachment hearing if the testimony of crucial witnesses in the president’s defense were purposely excluded?

        1. They won’t. And at this point, it is hard to see how the Democrats will have any witnesses. Who will they have? They won’t have Ciarmella, they won’t call Vendeman. Who else is there? And what are the other people going to say? None of them have any direct knowledge of the events in question. All they can say is “based on what I heard i think the President did…” It is going to be worse than the Mueller hearing. Right now before anyone hears from anyone when the Democrats are free to selectively leak testimony is as good as it will ever get for them. And they don’t have anything now.

          1. “”It is going to be worse than the Mueller hearing.””

            That would be pretty hard to top.

          2. Why are you saying they won’t have Vindeman? (I may have missed some news that you saw.)

        2. “Mike” also elides the fact that you are the one made this an issue. without your input anyone reading this article might not become aware of the problem.

          The ‘court of public opinion’ is largely not being informed of these relevant concerns.

          Which should be a concern for “mike” and for Reason.

          1. Are you literally saying that the American public won’t notice televised partisanship on the part of the Democrats unless they see Ken Schultz’ comment on this blog?

            1. How will they notice testimony they never see–because the Democrats excluded witnesses?

              1. That’s a valid question.

                And I apologize to ThomasD, because I misread something he wrote above.

        3. Dunno. I’m waiting to see how the public hearings actually play out.

          1. No you aren’t. You’re just pretending you are.

            1. No, he not pretending. He is fine with a biased ‘inquiry’ plays out because he trust that an in the tank media will not report it as such.

              And given that a ‘fringe’ publication like Reason is toeing the MSM line, how could he not be confidant of that?

  16. With the official impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump’s extortion of Ukraine beginning on Wednesday morning, the Republican strategy to defend Trump’s words and actions is to never, ever mention Trump’s words and actions. Which leaves nonsensical claims of “coup,” and “deep state,” and “subverting the will of the voters.”

    And if that doesn’t work, Plan B seems to be to try and toss Rudy Giuliani under the bus. 

    As a Republican member of the impeachment committee tells Axios, “This is not an impeachment of Rudy Giuliani … It’s an impeachment of the president of the United States. So the point is as long as this is a step removed, he’s in good shape.” And according to another Republican, “Rudy will be cut loose because he was rogue.” Okay, great strategy.

    It was all Rudy’s fault. Except for that tiny detail of the call summary released by the White House, where Trump told Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky:

    Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you … Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could  speak to him that would be great … I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call … I will tell Rudy … to call. 

    Yes, a step removed, rogue Rudy, acting on his own … except for the part where Trump is telling him what to do.

    1. It is extortion now. I thought it was prid quo pro. It is really funny that not only do you people say this stuff but you also have no idea what lunatics you sound like. Even the liberals I know, and I know many, don’t seem to give a shit about this. Whatever you thought of the Clinton impeachment, it commanded the nation’s attention. This can’t even do that. Literally no one who is not being paid to do so cares about this. It has become the world’s longest piece of performance art.

      1. “Even the liberals I know, and I know many, don’t seem to give a shit about this.”

        They screwed up by letting everyone know it was a deep state coup. What were the writers thinking?

        Also, remember when Reason said it wasn’t a deep state coup? Good times. So fucking libertarian to ignore bureaucratic malfeasance.

        1. Maybe I am naive, but I think even a good chunk of Democrats would find actually removing Trump in this manner to be a shock to their conscience. I think the country is divided into three groups; the lunatic fringe on the left who believe any amount of fan fiction fed to them about removing Trump and care about this, the Trump supporters who are angry about it, and the big middle who have varying views of Trump but all think there is no way this results in anything and is nothing to care about or pay attention to.

          1. “the big middle who have varying views of Trump but all think there is no way this results in anything and is nothing to care about or pay attention to”

            I agree. Most people agree this isn’t the way to remove a president. Consider what they all were yelling about in 2016 and what they’re yelling about now…

            1. Last weekend one of my dyed in the wool Democrat friends was practically salivating that “Giuliani was going to be the fall guy” for all this.

              Meaning that they’ve already (subconsciously at the least) accepted that nothing much is going to come from any of this, and they are willing to claim victory of some lesser player gets taken down a notch.

              They are truly and laughably bathetic now.

              1. So they are going to end up taking out Guilliani, a guy who will never run for office again and wouldn’t have a job if Trump hadn’t given him one at the price of destroying Biden who was until this happened their best shot at beating Trump.

                And this is their best case scenario. Looks like things are going swimmingly.

                1. And they really can’t even ‘take him out’ since there is nothing there anyway.

          2. “Maybe I am naive, but I think even a good chunk of Democrats would find actually removing Trump in this manner to be a shock to their conscience. ”

            Removal of Trump would require substantial Republican participation, you ignorant bigot. If Senate Republicans vote to convict Trump, do you intend to stick with the ‘Democratic coup’ argument?

            1. The Republicans participating in overturning a lawful election in this manner would not make it any better. You so stupid you give me a headache. I really pray to God that you are a parody but the thought of someone out there being as stupid as you appear to be is frightening.

              1. An educated, sensible person would wait for the evidence to be presented before announcing unqualified declarations along that line.

                Do you claim to be a lawyer, you bigoted, to-be-replaced malcontent?

                1. Looks like someone learned how to cut and paste.

                  1. Cut and paste, or eat paste? ’cause it’s Kirkland we’re talking about…

      2. The shifting of the goalposts has been blatant, and yet we are expected not to notice.

        In less than a month we went from a clear “quid pro quo” to “extortion” to “firing ambassadors without cause” to “undermining American foreign policy” to “using improper channels” to investigate and, now, we are in the final phase which ties it all back to the Russia hoax: “Trump was deliberately undermining Ukrainian sovereignty because a weak Ukraine is exactly what Putin wants!”

        This is the stupid Mueller thing all over again, except packaged a bit differently.

        1. To sell the public on something, you have to have a coherent compelling story and a face to tell it. Watergate had John Dean. Dean was a complete lying scumbag but he was a face to put on TV who told a great story. Monicagate had Monica Lewinski. Notice, they never impeached Clinton over Whitewater. Whitewater didn’t have a face or a story. It had accountants and lawyers talking about things only they understood. It was only when they had Monica who could tell a story everyone understood that Clinton was impeached.

          The Democrats here have no story. The story keeps changing and it never makes any sense or gives the public a reason to care. And they have no face to tell it. They just have a bunch of deep state apparachniks who look like the kind of guy who frames people for crimes for a living.

          I still don’t think this ever gets out of the House.

          1. Informing the public, against the President’s lies and despite his stonewalling, would be public service enough. The reasoned approach would be to await and consider evidence before attempting to reach a reliable conclusion.

            1. Why is the janitor yelling at everyone?

              1. Ahahahahah ahahahah

              2. The Democrats must thank God for people like Arthur. Without him they’d be out of business.

                1. They must be reassured that if they lose Art, the at least have others like grb, mike laursen, de oppresso, and chemjeff doing their bidding

                  1. I’m a registered republican, was elected precinct committee officer for 8 years. Never voted dem for federal office in my life. It’s too bad the repubs had to go off the deep end. I can tolerate policy disagreements, but this blatant corruption/idiocy/light treason is too much.

                    1. I’m a registered republican, was elected precinct committee officer for 8 years. Never voted dem for federal office in my life.

                      Sure, that’s why you belch out neoliberal copypasta.

                    2. neoliberal does not mean what you seem to think it means, dumb fuck. Explains your dumb, dumb comments yesterday. Learn something:


                      noun: neo-liberalism; noun: neoliberalism
                      a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
                      “social and political issues surrounding neoliberalism”

                    3. Thanks for proving me right, dumb fuck.

                    4. It’s like playing chess with a 4 year old.

                      Neoliberal is a term in international relations that means the preference for institutions and liberal values (individual rights, free markets, independent judicial, etc.). This is in contrast to Realism, which basically means might makes right.

                      Neoliberal does not mean super liberal, like neo con does.

                      I’m trying to help you look less stupid.

                    5. You’re 4 years old?
                      Surprising. I’d have guess younger than that.

                    6. Sevo, have you come to also display your proud ignorance, or just a lame dad joke? Do you want to take a stab at the definition of “neoliberal”, or was my schooling or red rocks unhappy fuck enough?

            2. Lol at Hicklib.

          2. They also have Schiff – who looks like someone sent from central casting to play the role of ‘corrupt, slimy politician.’

      3. it commanded the nation’s attention

        Because the commander in-chief was caught standing at attention.

        1. Part of him, anyway.

      4. “It is extortion now. I thought it was prid quo pro.”

        Don’t worry, John. They will EVENTUALLY figure out the crime.

        And is it wrong to note that Jen Rubin was never conservative…she just REALLY liked killing dark-skinned folks?

        1. I do wonder how often is Reason supportive of any process when the alleged crime or misdemeanor keeps changing as evidence of the original claim keeps drying up. I bet it’s frequent given their behavior over the last 3 years.

    2. “Which leaves nonsensical claims of “coup,” and “deep state,” and “subverting the will of the voters”

      Do you wipe yourself or does your mom still do that?

    3. Pod
      November.13.2019 at 9:43 am
      “With the official impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump’s extortion of Ukraine beginning on Wednesday morning,…”

      For three years, shitstains like you have been trying to find ANYTHING but ANYTHING you could in the hopes of impeaching Trump.
      You lose.
      Fuck off and grow up.

    4. “extortion”

      There’s that self-defeating prog hyperbole again.

  17. Senators are told they will be made to work SIX days a week for six weeks for Donald Trump’s impeachment trial at height of Democratic primary season

    Haha. Plus, all Senators are to be sworn in during any impeachment trial as per the US Constitution.

    1. AOC will insist they get overtime pay.

    2. I wasn’t big on him early on, but damn is McConnell a boss.

      1. I have real problems with McConnell but I think he is okay with being a behind the scenes kind of leader.

        He does not publicly come out and support Trump but McConnell keeps the US Senate in line and does not even vote on most garbage coming from the House.

        1. And the Left bitches when he does. See The New Green Deal, which he did have voted on.

  18. The rapidly deteriorating situation has fueled fears of major intervention by the Chinese government.

    “That’s a knife.”

  19. Bars in Washington, D.C., are hosting watch parties for the morning’s hearings.

    In case anyone doubted that Red vs. Blue is just another team sport for a lot of people.

    1. In case anyone doubted that business in DC involves a lot of morning drinking.

    2. Americans. Mixing up sports, politics, and religion since 1492. Or maybe before (ask the Aztecs).

    3. Leslie Stahl makes $1.8 million to lecture successful CEOs about their “absurd salaries.”

      1. It’s different. She’s famous. Like ball players. And movie stars.

      2. Because feeling guilty about oneself is also a modern American pastime.

  20. State Department faces its biggest crisis since Joseph McCarthy’s hysteria

    McCarthy was correct then and 5th Columnists still occupy the bureaucratic corps to undermine what parts of America that they can.

  21. Homeless man hurls bucket of diarrhea at woman near Hollywood Walk of Fame

    Commifornia: The land of hurled buckets of steaming shit.

    1. It is totally legal to shit on the streets and throw shit at people but you better not eat a sandwich on a train platform. Ladies and Gentleman, your California. Forget a boot stuck on a face. A bum throwing his shit at a passerby is the leftist vision of the future.

      1. It’s performance art. *looks down nose at John*

        1. G.G. Allin tribute acts.

          1. I saw him live once SQRLSY ruined the show by eating the props

      2. Hey, people that eat sandwiches on trains have had their time! Now its time for them to move over and give the much-maligned shit bucket bums their turn in the spot light!

        We’ve been throwing shit bucket bums in jail for far too long, all just for living their own truth.

      3. Sometimes I wonder if the reason left-wing authorities permit these sorts of things is simply to cause more disorder, which will call for a larger state, rinse/repeat.

        1. You *wonder* that this is the reason?
          Damn, that’s naive

          1. Note: same goal behind support for illegal immigration and eventually open borders – grow that welfare/regulatory state!

    2. Going to relive the unromantic parts of Medieval life.

  22. Nothing on Netflix? Maybe you should check outa live stream of border wall construction! I Am Mother, 9 of 11 Coral Springs dispatch supervisors said it was so riveting they couldn’t take their eyes off it.

    1. I watched The King on Netflix the other night. It is a very creative retelling of Henry V. It was good. Definitely worth watching.

    2. I Am Mother was garbage.

  23. I predicted 2018 would be a #BlueWave. I was right.
    I predicted in 2019 the Democratic House would #Impeach Putin’s Puppet. I’m in the process of being proved right.
    My prediction of a 2020 Democratic victory in the Presidential election is looking better every day.


  24. White House to use webcams to create live feed of border wall construction

    Mexicans paying for the border wall AND web cams? I am so glad that reason has assured me that illegals in the USA pay more in taxes than they receive.

    1. The unions will get that shit shut down real quick.

  25. I really do think that Buttigieg will end up being the guy.

    1. When I learned the rules of intersectionality in college, the professors made very clear that gay white cis-males aren’t nearly as marginalized as straight women of color like Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. That’s why Mayor Pete has never been a top tier candidate for me.


      1. Sad truth is there are people who actually think like this.

    2. I may not know much about statistics but I know what an outlier is and why you should be skeptical of them.

      1. I’ve felt this way since the 2nd debate. He’s probably going to be the guy.

        Those polls that had Trump winning were also outliers, which is probably why he didn’t win… oh wait.

        1. If Pete is the guy…good luck with that whole black turnout thing.

          1. I don’t think he’ll win the Presidency.

        2. If Pete is the guy, do you think anyone other than the MSM and hard-core leftists will ever stop pronouncing his name as ‘Butt Gig?’

    3. I really do think that Buttigieg will end up being the guy gay.

      1. I get jumped all over for making a Lindsey Graham is gay joke, but you guys let this one in? C’mon, man!

        1. well yeah you’re a piece of shit sock puppet, cry more

        2. The very first time I heard about Buttigieg and saw that he is a gay man, I cracked a bit of a smile. It’s pretty funny. But at this point, the joke is so tired only a Boomer could still be entertained by it.

          1. Cry more zoomer..

              1. Swing and a miss crybaby zoomer.

                1. Ok, Boomer.

    4. “for what?” will be interesting

    5. Buttigieg would be the guy to choose if they want to have a chance at winning. Biden’s campaign will die slowly, but it WILL die. Sanders and Warren are too communistic for both the donors and moderates. I could see Warren getting the nomination, but it won’t be pretty for the Democrats if that happens (Kinda hoping this happens). Buttigieg tries to play himself off as rational compared to the others, but not afraid to scrap (ex: Beto). He’s a veteran, he’s from the flyover country, and he’s gay but not in-your-face about it, he could grab low-information independents & never trumpers. Of course, look at his actual policies and its the same as the other 20+ jackasses on the stage, but he comes off as moderate, and that’s the kicker.

      1. Buttigieg tries to play himself off as rational compared to the others, but not afraid to scrap (ex: Beto). He’s a veteran, he’s from the flyover country, and he’s gay but not in-your-face about it, he could grab low-information independents & never trumpers. Of course, look at his actual policies and its the same as the other 20+ jackasses on the stage, but he comes off as moderate, and that’s the kicker.

        Well said. This is exactly what I’m seeing. If he has another really strong performance in the next debate, he will get the nomination. Absent any really really big gaffs along the way, of course.

        1. This all assumes the Dems pull their heads out of their ass and start to try to win, which would be a first for them this cycle. I could definitely see Warren get the nomination due to the far left demanding it, or even worse for them, the DNC pulling the same shit as the last election and ignoring Warren for a more moderate candidate, in which case I think the far left would break off from the party this time around.

          Buttigieg and Gabbard have the best chances if they get the chance to develop into something more, IMHO. Everyone else is too looney or too irrelevant, or both.

          1. I’m looking forward to watching the “I support the troops by yelling at Colin Kaepernick” crowd try to criticize the dual-veteran mayor Pete + Gabbard ticket.

            All of a sudden a bunch of weekend militia wannabes are gonna have to justify supporting “crosses at Arlington remind me of my family’s sacrifice” (Trump) versus actual soldiers who they will no doubt deem “not real”

            The fact that “conservatives” aren’t all over DJT jr.’s latest bs is damning evidence of how hollow their “support the troops” bullshit is and always has been

      2. How many black men will vote for him?
        Is it a significant enough number to worry about?

        1. Honestly, I’m kinda expecting a larger amount of the black vote than usual to go to Trump. Guy’s been helping the community, and while the media loves to paint him as racist, his actions show a different picture. He might not be what everyone wants, but he’s doing more for the black community than the last 5-6 presidents, and he’s reaching out to those communities, which is rare for a Republican. Most Republicans who try it are immediately jumped on by the media to put an end to that shit.

          Do keep in mind that I just think Buttigieg would be the best chance for the Dems to win, not that they are going to actually win. Trump’s not losing too many voters, and the Dems aren’t doing themselves many favors with winning the independents.

  26. Journalists’ New Kind of Expose: Uncovering Their Salaries

    Finally! reason staff can find out if it is still worth it to leave this Propaganda gig for other Propaganda gigs.

    1. I would love to see the tax returns of every journalist and pundit in Washington. I want to know how many of them are on the payroll of the CIA and foreign intelligence services. I bet the list is long and distinguished.

      1. As Tim Pool said…man, some of these guys are willing to work for REALLY low pay. This isn’t going to improve their salaries in the future.

        1. But not working might lead to starvation, also not good prep for later work.

          1. Wrong. Starvation is great prep for the socialist revolution.

      2. Long maybe – – – – –

    2. And this is when we discover that ‘learn to code’ is actually really good life advice.

      Aside from the female editor at VOX earning $4k (who is probably sleeping with or related to someone in the senior leadership/board of directors/parent company) not a single person earns more than a moderately underpaid IT person.

  27. The second half of season 3 of Trump has been awful. These democrats have no interesting back stories, there’s also way too many of them to keep track, and it appears they can’t even keep their story straight. To top it off, they dropped the veil and openly admitted to being a Deep State coup, so now average americans can call bullshit. How you gonna give away the ending like that?

    Seriously, where’s the dragon for Trump to slay? This shits so boring.

    1. What happened to “Russian Collusion?”

      1. Russian collusion 2.0 = Ukrainian bribery.

        Both fully fabricated from entirely foreign sources.

        1. I want them to go on a position that a candidate promising things to get something in return is bribery.

          Vote for me and get free health care, college, ect. That is quid pro quo and bribery. Vote for me and you get something of value in return.

    2. They have just strung out the IG and Durham is going to get the deep state plot way too long. The whole thing is dragging as a result of it. Too much Shiff and not enough winning biggly, though the Epstein gets murdered and winds up destroying the entire mass media subplot has been a good one.

      1. Great point. I am much more glued to the ABC/ Epstein story. It’s got mysterious characters with various personalities, actual crimes, and islands to boot.

        These deep state goons are nothing but old white men who push paper for a living.

        1. And the mysterious “whistle blower” turning out to be some hipster beardo with a low testosterone problem was probably the biggest let down of the season. You were expecting Danial Craig or something. Instead, you get the doofus who is always boring the shit out of everyone going on about the latest craft IPA at parties.

          1. “You were expecting Danial Craig or something.”

            Daniel Craig is a leftie SJW, it should be noted.

            1. Actors must appeal to the masses, who are asses, so must be SJWs. There are rare exceptions, of course.

              1. The masses are decidedly not lefty SJWs though. Twitter is. Hollywood executives are too terrified of being publicly executed by their own families in exchange for retweets and likes to stand up to twitter.

                This is part of the reason viewership for their products that promote overt SJW crap has declined rapidly. People are just tired of being preached at.

          2. Guy may look like Snowden, but he is no Snowden.

        2. These deep state goons are nothing but old white men who push paper for a living.

          They sure as hell aren’t spying on our enemies. The CIA could fuck up a cup of coffee. These fucking morons manage time and time again to actually make us less safe against foreign threats. Too busy bugging Senate conference rooms, or something. To say nothing of Aldrich Ames, who managed to get all of our Soviet assets executed when he sold them out to the KGB.

          1. Read the book Legacy of Ashes. it is a history of the CIA. The whole book is one tragic comic fuck up after another. The CIA is the most incompetent organization in the history of civilized man.

            1. That’s on my Christmas list – along with: Enemies – A History Of The FBI by the same author. What a total cluster fuck our entire intelligence apparatus is – a complete and total cluster fuck.

            2. I beg to differ. Congress has the handle on incompetent.

          2. They may suck at their job but they have a ridiculous amount of resources….

            Thanks for the book suggestion below, added to my list

            1. Are we assuming that their job is to enforce American laws and look out for the people of the US?
              I’m not sure that’s their job
              At least not as they consider it

              Look at the two scumbags who testified today – they clearly don’t, too the point of in no way considering, give a shit about the American people or the US as a whole.
              Their entire concern is their caste, their status, and their foreign peers.
              Public servants my ass – public parasites indeed

    3. I know, right? I was told there would be pussy-grabbing and Fifth Avenue shootings and all I’m seeing is people in pussy hats shooting themselves in the foot. Sad!

      1. Decent.


    Charles Koch is in danger of falling out of the top 10 richest people on the planet!!!!

    His $61.8 billion net worth is only good enough for #9. Somehow Julia Flesher Koch is ahead of him with $61.9 billion.


  29. Venice flooding becomes second-highest in history, as tourist hot spot hit with ‘apocalyptic devastation’

    I mean come on Italians. You have been warned about this “Climate Change” and rising waters and NOW IT HAPPENS!?!

    1. The idiot Mayor thinks it is.

      The best of the best are on the MOSE Project. If they can’t save Venice, only God can. Not Greta and the Cult.

      1. The place is built on a swamp and has been sinking for centuries.

        1. So drain the swamp?

          1. But then the Huns will get them!

            1. Someone has been reading Venetian history.

            2. I cant wait for the word Ostrogoths to make a return!

              1. We call them “asylum seekers” or “refugees” these days

          2. +1 Swamp people.

        2. The only thing that is going to save Venice is a seawall and dikes – like New Orleans.

          Although the place is pretty much a Hollywood back lot facade. Something like 2/3 of the buildings are fully vacant and many of the others are only partially inhabited.

          1. I have never been but would like to go. I didn’t know that about the vacancies. Why is that? Are there just screwy laws that keep the buildings from being updated or something? You would think there would be enough idle rich who would like to have an apartment in Venice to fill it up many times.

            1. I suppose the explanations are multiple. But I’d say the two biggest issues are that less and less people actually want to live there. Imagine living inside Disneyland, except even more overpriced.

              And the place really is sinking – most buildings are set on submerged wooden piers, and the lowest levels are continually damp if not downright flooded. It’s all literally rotting away, and it would probably cost a fortune to stabilize a building and more to actually renovate. Most of the private residences that are still occupied are only using the third floor and up (historically kitchens were built on the top floor anyway.)

              It’s worth a visit, but I wouldn’t stay more than three nights. You can more easily (and cheaply) stay on the mainland and just come in for the day. But the benefit of staying on the island is that the crowds really thin out at night (once the cruise ships leave) and you can wander the place practically by yourself.

              The place I have not been, but have heard is the cheaper and nicer alternative is Trieste. Which, from the photos looks remarkably similar to Venice.

              1. That is a shame. It is totally unpractical to have a city there but I like the fact that it is there and wish it were a real city and not just Disneyland for rich white people.

                1. At one time it was a very real city, and they’ve preserved a fair bit of that. At least for the time being. But, unlike Rome, Venice has a rapidly approaching expiration date. Go while you can.

                  But I say that about everything. I went to Stonehenge as a kid, and was able to walk in and around the stones. You cannot do that anymore. First time we were in Ephesus you could sit in the old public restrooms, now you can’t. Pretty soon you wont even be able to go into the amphitheatre on a regular basis.

                  1. I studied abroad in Greece and Turkey in 2005.
                    It was a big difference. The main tourist spots in Greece and Istanbul were roped off, but the smaller sites – especially in Turkey – were free reign.
                    Good stuff

                    1. We got to see a still being excavated tomb in Pella, but couldn’t take pictures because it was painted and the flash might damage that. Also in Pella, I was busted for trying to slip a stone into my pocket…

                  2. When I was in Iraq, I did something very stupid and risked my life to go out to the ruins of Niniveh. It was not long after the invasion and the place was deserted except for a few friendly Arabs who would give you a tour for a small price. It was unbelievable. I am told ISIS damn near destroyed the place. Going to see the ruins of Nineveh would have been a really stupid way to get myself killed but since I didn’t damn am I glad I did it.

          2. “The only thing that is going to save Venice is a seawall and dikes ”

            From my experience, lesbians seldom make cities a lot better.

            1. But when you stack them, they make a very effective sea wall.

      2. “”Greta and the Cult.””

        What happened to Ian Astbury?

        1. I thought they were just ‘The Cult’.

          /Astbury grunt.

    2. Is the water rising? Or are the buildings sinking? The whole town was built on mud and sand.

  30. Bars in Washington, D.C., are hosting watch parties for the morning’s hearings.

    What’s the best drinking game for this?

    Proposal: Every time someone says “quid pro quo”, take two shots.

    1. the buzz word now is “extortion”. You have keep up with the talking points and the goalpost shifting.

      1. OK. Every time someone says “extortion”, drink excessively.

        1. That’s probably what DC bar patrons normally do on any given night.

  31. Nike will no longer sell its shoes and apparel on Amazon

    Too bad shareholders cannot effectively sue for violating fiduciary duty.

    Of course, it’s a great business decision to not sell on the most prolific online retailer in human history!

    1. What’s a Nike?

      Didn’t they change their name to Woke?

      1. How did Bezos get banished to the Gulags? I thought he was Mr. Woke.

        1. I think it has more to do with Nike’s desire to control brand identity than anything else. That and selling through Amazon doesn’t really give them any net benefit since they are big enough people search them out directly.

          1. Apparently Collin Kaepernick’s name hasn’t been in the news recently enough… so the NFL set up some kind of odd workout for him Saturday in ATL.
            Strange story for lots of reasons, but one theory is that Nike nudged them to do so

      2. How can one of the chief users of “slave labor” be the wokest of the woke? It’s almost like the woke don’t really believe what they bitch about…

    2. the most prolific online retailer in human history!


      Get out of your bubble.

      1. Alibaba’s 40 ways to buy is so crazy its thievery!

        1. I’ve never purchased from them.

          Once I was looking for the price of nitric acid and the range of prices on Alibaba was an order of magnitude wide. I would not put much trust in them.

          1. Same here.

    3. As a comment in the article said, “A more personal experience? Will the 10 yr old who made it deliver the shoes personally?”

      1. I wonder if Nike could have my shoes pre-worn by one of its laborers? Breaking in new shoes is a pain.

  32. Ms. Calder’s chart is worthless unless it can be made large enough to read.

  33. US consumer prices increase more than expected in October

    Boehm’s having another aneurysm.


    1. “Consumer prices”? Whatever. You’re cherry-picking obscure data in a pathetic attempt to spin this abysmal economy.

      Here’s what matters — Charles Koch’s net worth is stagnating, and regular people are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive.


    1. It’s nothing that pallets of cash can’t solve.

      1. If they need an address I can provide one.

    1. They couldn’t hit the reset button when Marlena was possessed by the devil in the early 90s? Bring the old Austin back!

  34. “Exclusive: Sen. Kamala Harris introduces bill to crack down on PG&E bonuses”
    And that’s only the start of the bad news:
    “…following a pledge by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, to convert PG&E to a government-owned company…”

    As a gov’t-supported monopoly, PG&E is hardly anyone’s candidate for a really well-run organization; they’re expensive and not very good at what they do.
    But if you want to see how poorly and how much more expensive it can get, just let these two econ-ignoramuses have their way.

    1. Government owned, government controlled; defines the difference between communism and fascism.

      Is Kamala going to indict herself for the government approved fully regulated bonuses? Or what?

      1. This guy is one of the rare commentators who understands the difference between communism (or socialism) and fascism.

      1. “We must protect…..some whistleblowers” — ABC

    1. Given their handle is some geek reference to Harry Potter, I’m going with someone on their IT staff.

  35. Democrats Blast Trump Trade Aid as Favoring Southern Farmers

    Democrats always with the irony. Democrats NOW against helping Southern Farmers.

    1. EU flag full of yellow stars.

      1. wrong stars.

    2. Tattoo numbers on it?

    3. Germany volunteers Jew stamps from concentration camps.

      ‘We were gonna throw them out but with this ruling we now have a use for them! Win!”

  36. Cities with less restrictive residential zoning (Houston & Chicago) do a better job providing access (measured via hsg costs & hsg affordability) to higher performing schools than comparison cities with more restrictive zoning.

    Look, do you want code enforcement or do you want educated children? Because we can’t do both.

    1. What has educated children got to do with public schools?

  37. Exclusive: Michael Savage Raw and Unfiltered on Trump, Beethoven, & the Future of America

    I am sure Lefties will try to cancel this guy. I don’t pay attention to Savage but he said some interesting things.

  38. Trump has argued that DACA itself is illegal, and that it is within the administration’s power to end the program.

    Now if he can apply the same logic to all the other unconstitutional power grabs of his executive predecessors.

  39. Does anyone think the House vote will change by even one yay/nay between now and when the show is over?

    Can’t we save lots of time and (digital) ink by just holding the vote tomorrow? I mean, congress and our esteemed media have much more important things to do, right?

    1. > I mean, congress and our esteemed media have much more important things to do, right?

      Actually, the more time congress wastes the better. Right now it’s a race to see who can bankrupt the country first, the Democrats or the Republicans. The more time they waste on silly spectacles the less damage they can do.

      1. True, but it would be nice if Congress would take a few days to resolve the DACA matter.

        1. Doesn’t matter what Congress does. Trump don’t want no DACA therefor no DACA. What’s the point of being president if you can’t tell Congress to STFU and have them respond with “yessah”.

          1. When exactly did Congress pass DACA?

    2. My personal preference is for the Senate to go ahead and vote “not guilty” now and be done with it. Leave the actual charge blank until the house figures out what it is, then amend the record.

  40. I wonder what would happen if the Senate voted guilty between the November election and re-inauguration. Would Pence be President for a month or two only? Could a guilty verdict forbid taking office in January?

    These kinds of race conditions are the best puzzles. No, that that kind of race, you idiot.

    1. Impeachment and guilty finding precludes the impeached from holding office ever.

      1. I have seen several arguments on that, none seemed to settle it.

  41. > …live stream of border wall construction!

    Pr0n for alt-righters…

    1. We left-libertarians know that only Israel is allowed to have a wall.


      1. Have you ever read a foreign policy article on Reason?

        1. In my experience Reason’s foreign policy coverage consists of pointing out harsh living conditions in other areas or countries, and encouraging the entire populations of those places to immigrate to the United States. Which is exactly the position a libertarian website should take.


  42. I hope Tulsi wins the primary. And it would also be nice if we stopped selling weapons to the people who committed 9/11

  43. Regarding The Atlantic article, these are their suggestions to improve social media and reduce its destabilizing effects on republics and democracies (although they incorrectly refer to America as a democracy):

    (1) Reduce the frequency and intensity of public performance.
    (2) Reduce the reach of unverified accounts.
    (3) Reduce the contagiousness of low-quality information.

    All of these are interesting ideas that deserve exploration. I don’t see what Jesse Walker is complaining about. The article isn’t even arguing for the government to be involved. These are all private solutions to a real polarization problem that is happening right now that, I believe, is largely attributable to the rise of social media and how people have decided to engage with these platforms.

    1. “”(3) Reduce the contagiousness of low-quality information. “”

      low-quality information is 90% of what you see on social media.

      1. That’s the point.

        1. What good is social media if I can’t see a pic of what you had for dinner?

    2. The polarization “problem” is simply magnified by social media, but the cause is the widespread psychosis of fanatical religious zealots calling themselves “progressives” who won’t leave anyone the fuck alone for the last 10 years counting

      1. I think it would be accurate to say polarization not just “simply magnified” by social media… its magnified by several orders of magnitude. The 10 year timeline you gave matches up nicely with the rise of social media too.

        1. Aside from here, I also post on a fantasy football forum.
          That’s about the extent of my social media usage.
          The fantasy football forum gets heated over certain players and opinions, sure. But the same people calling each other idiots in one thread can agree in other threads and call someone else an idiot. In other threads, all will joke together.
          Social media coarsens

          1. damn it

            *social media coarsens discourse more than it polarizes.
            What polarizes are a bunch of morally righteous totalitarians intolerant of anything outside the hive mind.
            Does religion, speech, television, internet cause terrorism- or do a bunch of morally righteous totalitarians intolerant of anything outside their practice cause terrorism?

            1. Honestly, I don’t really understand your point about coarsening vs. polarization. I suppose you think that the polarization that’s happening would still be happening at the same rate absent social media? I doubt that. Just look at the battle over section 230, online toxicity, speech policing online, Russian bot networks, fake news, etc. The polarized political positions themselves largely revolve around social media.

              1. I’ll give you “accelerating” or “exacerbating” but only because it gives greater range to the morally righteous totalitarian fanatics intolerant of anything outside the hivemind

                1. You’ll give me “accelerating” or “exacerbating” … as opposed to what?

                  I think the increasing polarization and destabilization is largely attributable to social media and how people use these platforms. Don’t you think saying something so obvious like social media isn’t the cause, its the people that are using it, is kind of useless? Its an argument of semantics, not substance.

                  I think the comparisons of social media to TV and radio are silly, because those mediums are far different from social media in so many ways. When TV came out, did it give everyone their own TV station 24/7? Was it indexed and searchable, stored forever and instantly accessible? When the TV came out, did it give an amplified voice to every common man and woman, promising them that their voices would not only be heard by every one of their friends on every issue?

                  TV and radio were probably destabilizing in their own ways back in the day, but comparing them to something as empowering as social media seems silly to me because they only share the most basic qualities (they distribute content which can be described as media) – nothing surrounding their actual use in the real world is similar to social media.

                  1. Cry more zoomer.

                    1. Ok Boomer.

                  2. You’re blaming the tool to excuse psychotic totalitarians for aiming it at people and pulling the trigger

                    1. That’s just a hand waving excuse to avoid the discussion entirely.

                    2. How is that?
                      I’m pointing out the primary dynamic here, the important one, that makes the polarization of social media different than everything else, like sports.
                      Social media is a tool, like a gun. It offers positive and negative uses, but it isn’t the prime mover.
                      Lust for totalitarian power and its fanatic adherents is

                    3. I don’t know. I think there are good reasons we don’t allow citizens to procure ICBMs.

                    4. Although ICBMs are just a tool and its the people that use ICBMs that kill people, not the ICBMs themselves because ICBMs are just inanimate objects…

                      I mean, you get it. Its a bit silly to go this direction, I know, but I think its silly to say that social media should be totally unrestricted because its just a tool like arms (which are heavily regulated and restricted… hence why you cannot purchase the vast majority of weaponry). The two really aren’t that comparable, but if we’re going to compare them, here we are.

                      Its mostly a moot point though, because The Atlantic isn’t arguing for government solutions, they’re arguing for private ones (and I’m saying its an interesting thought and there’s nothing to be upset about regarding the topic).

                  3. What’s happening now is nothing compared to what happened in the late 60s and early 70s. Hell, it’s mild compared to the early 20th century, which saw massive labor unrest throughout the country and the rise of the IWW and KKK as organizations with state-level influence.

                    1. Yeah, so far. I think we’re just getting started.

  44. Adam Schiff in his opening remarks declared that the facts are not seriously in dispute, which is tautologically true. He then went on to list a number of things which are in dispute, as they are most decidedly not facts. But we all know that Adam Schiff is spear-heading the impeachment process because he thinks it will make him more well-known and therefore make it easier for him to lure more young boys into his rape dungeon. What? How can you possibly doubt the fact that Adam Schiff is spear-heading the impeachment process? Don’t be ridiculous.

    1. Have you considered applying for a position at Reason? You certainly have the chops for their type of output.

    2. “”Adam Schiff in his opening remarks declared that the facts are not seriously in dispute,””

      Moderately in dispute?

    3. Adam Schiff is definitely a child molester
      I’ve not seen anyone dispute that fact

      1. Not seriously anyway.

  45. This is just fucking mind-boggling, listening to George Kent indicting Donald Trump for meddling in our foreign policy vis-à-vis Ukraine. How dare he? Kent is not just a career public servant, he’s a third-generation career public servant and Trump has absolutely no business questioning Kent’s authority to direct our foreign policy.

    1. I really can’t figure out why they have gone so batshit crazy about Trump. Trump’s policies are about 90% mainline Republican. He slapped some tariffs on China. Hardly Smoote Hawley. And we are still stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq. He pulled like 50 guys out of Syria.

      I like Trump, but I don’t kid myself. He is a lot better than the alternatives but hardly perfect and certainly not the kind or real subversive and radical I would want up there. Yet, they act like he is. They have totally lost their minds and will do anything to put him out of office.

      I understand their opposition to him. What I can’t understand is their total lunatic overreaction to him and complete unwillingness to try and co opt him or do anything but stage a soft coup. It makes me think that perhaps they are guilty of some very unthinkable things and are terrified Trump is going to expose them. That sounds crazy but it might take a crazy explanation to explain their clearly crazy behavior.

      1. Hell, if they were remotely sane towards him, the Dems could have gotten a lot of what they wanted. He’d have HAPPILY compromised on DACA and all if the Dems would do anything.

        1. They absolutely could have. I can’t explain their actions. It just makes no sense.

      2. They are guilty of some very unspeakable things, and they were so close to locking in their totalitarian hold on power.
        They are largely incompetent “people” and are panicking because they believed that the messiah’s reign was going to cement their ruling class lordships

        1. One of the more if not the most remarkable things about this is that after three years of the full weight of the national media, FBI and IC community thrown against him, this absurd phone call to the President of Ukraine is the best they have. Either Trump is the greatest criminal genius of all time or the most honest man since Jesus because I can’t believe there is anyone out there that they couldn’t come up with more dirt than this on given the time and effort spent on taking down Trump.

          1. Its pretty amazing, but Trump might not just be the least corrupt president in decades, but also the least corrupt person in the federal government right now

            1. +10000000000

      3. “I really can’t figure out why they have gone so batshit crazy about Trump.”

        It is so important to the left to promote the unacceptability of certain aesthetics.

        I never bought George W. Bush’s drawl. I suspect he spoke that way for the same reason country-western stars from Nashville wear cowboy hats. It gives you a certain acceptability in certain constituencies, but it comes at a price. There are other constituencies that will hate you for speaking with a drawl.

        George W. Bush was about as much of a traditional Barry Goldwater / Ronald Reagan Republican as Lyndon B. Johnson–which is to say, not at all. George W. Bush was just like LBJ in every way that mattered. George W. Bush expanded LBJ’s Great Society by way of the Medicare prescription drug expansion. George W. Bush was a cultural conservative–just like the southern Democrats of LBJ’s day. George W. Bush led a neocon war of forced liberation–just like LBJ did in Vietnam. So why did the left hate George W. Bush any more than they hated LBJ?

        It was because George W. Bush spoke with a drawl, went to NASCAR races, and made it seem like the aesthetics of middle America were perfectly acceptable–and the left cannot stomach that.

        That is also why they hate Trump.

        Notice, Obama continued pretty much all of George W. Bush’s policies, from warrantless wiretapping and TARP raiding medical marijuana clinics in California hundreds of times. Obama deported more illegal aliens than had ever been deported before. The left didn’t give a shit because Obama shared their aesthetic sensibilities. He said things in the right way

        Trump says things in the wrong way. He will not abide by their aesthetic code, and that is why the left hates Trump. He makes the behavior of average Americans seem acceptable.

        I keep talking about the difference between June Cleaver and Roseanne–and that’s what we’re talking about. No one ever really acted like June Cleaver on Leave it to Beaver. It was a fantasy image that everyone was expected to adhere to back in the 1950s–but wasn’t realistic. In the real world of the 1950s, alcoholism was rampant, they had serious problems with juvenile delinquency, there was a heroin epidemic, people beat their kids like crazy, and girls were getting pregnant left and right. When Roseanne replaced June Cleaver on television, it wasn’t that housewives everywhere had changed. It’s just that TV stopped pretending that being a less than perfect housewife was unacceptable.

        We’re back to the 1950s again–especially with Millenials. They literally threw Roseanne off of television for being a typical American and saying typical but unacceptable things. The only people who are supposed to have a chance at the microphone are people who project the Millenial version of June Cleaver. He or she must be perfect from a social justice standpoint in every way, and anyone who isn’t has no business being a position to speak to the general public. Otherwise, the general public might come to imagine that being less than perfect on social justice is some way acceptable.

        That’s why the left hates Donald Trump: He’s Roseanne rather than June Cleaver.

        1. To borrow a football analogy, the deep state/entrenched bureaucracy is less concerned with the Xs and Os than they are about the Jills and Joes.

          Nixon was a left wing Republican too, but they hated him none the less.

          1. They hated Nixon because he was a nobody from California who took down Alger Hiss for being the spy and the traitor he was. Alger Hiss went to Harvard. Alger Hiss was a clerk for Justice Jackson. Alger Hiss was one of FDR’s best and the brightest. A nobody like Nixon had no business taking down someone like Hiss.

            This is what liberals actually thought. The fact that Hiss really was a commie traitor piece of shit made no difference. People like Nixon must know their place and know they cannot take down a better like Hiss.

            They are the most elitist bastards on earth.

        2. I think there is a lot too that Ken. Part of why the left seems so crazy to me is that they are totally obsessed with aesthetics and I am not. It is not that they hate Trump. Trump has been around for decades and the left never had an issue with him. It is that they hate Trump’s supporters and by extension hate Trump for daring to appeal to those people or put forward the idea that they are in any way acceptable. It is class snobbery all the way down.

          That said, I can’t help but think that there isn’t more to it than that. They are hiding something.

          1. “It is that they hate Trump’s supporters and by extension hate Trump for daring to appeal to those people or put forward the idea that they are in any way acceptable.”

            He’s their “whipping boy”.

            Everyone was afraid to discipline the king’s son for fear of offending the king and for fear appearing to imagine oneself higher than royalty–but you don’t want a spoiled monarch either. So, they’d raise a lesser aristocrat’s baby with the king’s son from birth. They’d go through the same education and training together, but when the king’s son misbehaved, it was the whipping boy who was punished.

            Yes, the elite lash out at Trump because they hate the everyday people he represents. He makes it seem like the imperfections of everyday people are acceptable, and, by lashing out at him, they’re trying to make it seem to everyday people that their typical and imperfect behavior is unacceptable.

          2. I agree. I think Ken is definitely on to something with the aesthetic argument. However, there are a lot of leftists who use racial or gendered slurs to seemingly ill effect. I definitely think another part is whether the person is willing to (or can be blackmailed into) playing ball. Someone who skipped the usual political ladders probably lacks sufficient incentive/blackmail material to control.

          3. You may recall that W ‘stole’ the 2000 election and Trump ‘stole’ the 2016 election with Russian help. The MSM has reinforced these things (or at least failed to dispute them) and the stupid Progs actually believe them. They see themselves as the victims of the ultimate crimes.

            This makes the hate from what you all listed much more intense. They are like jilted women.

        3. “So why did the left hate George W. Bush any more than they hated LBJ?”

          Hmmm…I’ve heard about that era – “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”

          Of course at that time the left included some people who supported LBJ, but much of that faction either faded away or joined the Republicans.

        4. How the fuck does the behavior of a $400 million trust fund baby, draft dodger, failed casino owner, fraudulent charity founder, fraudulent university founder compare in any way to the behavior of an average american?

          1. So you’re saying you’re so stupid that you think a person’s actions are determined by their race and economic background.

            But then you pretend not it be an SJW LOLOLOL

          2. And then the room was filled with a “woosh” sound as Ken’s point went right over one of the resident leftist troll’s head.

            God you people are stupid. You really are. You are just beyond rational conversation.

            1. I see his point and I challenge it. Great use of extensive ad hominem, John. That’s a shining example of intelligence for you.

          3. “How the fuck does the behavior of a $400 million trust fund baby, draft dodger, failed casino owner, fraudulent charity founder, fraudulent university founder compare in any way to the behavior of an average american?”

            It’s an easy recipe.

            Step 1: Pour total derision on average Americans for eight years during the Obama presidency.

            Tell them they’re racist because they’re white.
            Tell them they’re xenophobic because they believe in secure borders.
            Tell them they’re homophobic because they’re Christians.
            Tell them they’re stupid because they aren’t willing to sacrifice their standard of living on the alter of climate change.

            Tell them that over and over again for eight years until they become absolutely convinced that you hate them.

            Step 2: Call Donald Trump all the deplorable names you called the average American for the last eight years.

            Call him homophobic, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, and stupid–over and over again.

            3) Step 3: Over time, as you pepper Trump with the same deplorable names you’ve been peppering the American people with for the last eight years, the American people will come to believe that he’s representative of them.

            Why wouldn’t the American people come to think of Trump as representative of them under those circumstances?

            1. P.S. Progressives can’t stop themselves from using this losing strategy because pouring hate on average Americans is what being a social justice warrior is all about.

            2. Agree with everything you said. The Democrats and Hillary insulted middle America throughout the 2016 race, then were surprised to lose.

              Still doesn’t make Trump a heroic person, even though some may perceive him that way out of disdain for the Democrats.

              1. Trump is still in office. He refused to left Democrats run him out of office.

                Trump spends his time trying to roll back government no matter what Democrats do to stop him.

                Trump put his family in the firing line for a bunch of Lefty nut jobs who want to rape and pillage future generations for Social Security, Single Payer, ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and endless war.

              2. Trump used heroic language to represent his willingness to fight against the elite: Drain the swamp. 90% of the people agree, although they may identify different ways to drain.

            3. I understand that rural voters feel looked down upon. They are looked down upon by many, rich fake republican trust fund babies among them. But your analysis is incomplete by at least half.

              So the current culture war lays 100% at the feet of liberals, and not at all on Fox News and Sinclair broadcasting? How has filling the homes of those rural americans with straight disinformation for the last 2 decades helping us?

              1. Because screeching “Fox News!” isn’t an argument, isn’t original, and is merely deflection

                1. But screeching “liberals are mean to hicks” is an argument?

                  Tell me how Trump, an embarrassment of a trust fund baby, represents average Americans, without invoking “but hillary…”.

                  1. But screeching “liberals are mean to hicks” is an argument?

                    It’s more substantive than “FFFAAAAAAAAUUUXXXXX NNNNEEEEEWWWWWWSSSS!”.

      4. >>I like Trump

        i love him *because* they hate him.

      5. Do you really want to know why people react to Trump differently than they would react to some other Republican?

        Three reasons:

        1. He’s an idiot. He really is. He doesn’t read or study, he is not interested in policy, he doesn’t think things through, he values loyalty over competence. He repeats right-wing conspiracy theories as if they are fact, because Rudy Giuliani whispers them in his ear.

        2. He’s a con-man. His entire brand is an illusion. He made his money in NY real estate by sleazy deals. He made his money in casinos by manipulating the bankruptcy laws and stiffing a whole lot of employees and contractors. He made his money with Trump Steaks and Trump University and all of the rest of his branding nonsense only because of his image, not because he sold anything of real value. Here is a clue, the image presented of him on The Apprentice was a myth.

        3. He’s normalized some of the worst elements of nationalism through his careless rhetoric. Parse all you want his statement about Mexicans being “rapists and murderers”, or “fine people on both sides”, there is no way any other respectable candidate would have made those types of statements. Because at least they understand that a president has to show some degree of moral leadership. Trump honestly doesn’t care about that and he carelessly uses words that enables his worst supporters.

        1. 1. He’s an idiot. He really is. He doesn’t read or study, he is not interested in policy, he doesn’t think things through, he values loyalty over competence. He repeats right-wing conspiracy theories as if they are fact, because Rudy Giuliani whispers them in his ear.

          Which is complete nonsense. The guy has been successful at one thing after another. All you are saying here is that you disagree with his policies and lack the imagination to explain why or the humility to admit other people might have reasonable differences with you. It has gotten to a point where the constant charge that any Republican who wins an election is an “idiot” is so tiresome and absurd and so reflective of the speaker rather than reality, it simply isn’t worth responding to.

          He is a con man

          No he is not. If he was, you wouldn’t hate him so much. If he were a con man, he wouldn’t be doing the things that his supporters elected him to do. He would be selling out to the Democrats and you would love him. Again, you are just projecting here and showing your inability to deal with disagreement and total intellectual and emotional maturity.

          3. He’s normalized some of the worst elements of nationalism through his careless rhetoric.

          You mean like deplorables and bitter clingers? You mean rethoric like that? Or claiming that the President of the United States was in on 911 and invaded Iraq to steal its oil?

          There is no difference whatsoever between Trump’s rhetoric and the rhetoric of about a million other politicians over the years. You just think that only your side should be able to engage in such things.

          You really are the picture of the liberal idiot Jeff. Its like you come on here to live down to every bad stereotype of the immature, ignorant, hateful liberal.

          1. Absolutely sublime, wasn’t it?

          2. 1.

            No, John, this isn’t just “I disagree with Trump’s policies”, it is that he has no coherent or definitive vision on nearly anything – and moreover, he is not even interested in having one. He shoots from the hip, goes with his gut, “knows more than the generals”, etc. That makes him reckless and erratic. I would have imagined conservatives such as yourself would have valued prudential, reasoned decision-making over impulsive erratic decision-making.

            2. Believe it or not, John, I am not a fan of con artists. Trump’s entire brand is the IMAGE of a rich and successful New York playboy. And he has parlayed that brand into a great deal of money based on a very thin reed of competence. He understands quite rightly that image matters more than substance – it only matters that people believe he is successful rather than actually be successful. So he can start off with a hefty sum of Daddy’s money, turn that into bankrupt casinos, star on The Apprentice with a total fantasy image of Donald Trump, and voila here he is today. But what has he actually MADE? His main fortune comes from taking properties, slapping his name on them, and then overcharging on the rent just because it has Trump’s name. In any other context you would call that deception and exploitation. But with Trump, that of course is excused.

            Let’s talk about that “deplorables” quote, shall we?

            You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

            But the “other” basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that “other” basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

            Hillary says that there’s a bunch of people who support Trump because they’re just bad people, but then there’s another bunch of people who support Trump because they feel like the government is letting them down and they are looking for change, and they see Trump as leading that change. She is sympathizing with their plight here. When has Trump EVER said anything like that? When has Trump said anything like “oh I sympathize with those illegal immigrants who are just coming here for a better life”? Oh no, it’s paranoid hyperventilated fears about ‘invasion’ and we must ‘build a wall’ and ‘shithole people’ and ‘they’re animals’ and other dehumanizing rhetoric. Hillary shouldn’t have called “half” of Trump’s supporters “deplorable”, but Trump’s rhetoric on illegal immigration far surpasses this little quote from her.

            I gave you reasons why people may be legitimately upset with Trump, in ways that they wouldn’t be upset with another Republican president, that don’t boil down to “aesthetics” i.e. “I don’t like his New York accent”. You can choose to believe it or you can choose to lie to yourself that people don’t like Trump just because of his orange hair or something.

            1. Please keep proving the point

            2. And all of your reasons were absurd and either based in irrational snobbery or double standards.

              You have done nothing but further prove Ken’s point.

        2. Shorter Mike Laursen “Trump is a poopyhead”

          1. Ken spends five paragraphs explaining why liberals hate Trump because of aesthetics and class and then good old Jeff comes along and gives a perfect example of what Ken is talking about. And he doesn’t even realize he did it. That is amazing.

            1. Dude is hopeless

        3. Because at least they understand that a president has to show some degree of moral leadership.

          People really need to stop doing this. The sooner the better.

          1. There’s plenty of red pills to go around but most people enjoy their bubble

          2. Gotta agree when you’re right. And you’re right.

        4. 1. Cry more
          2. Cry more
          3. Cry more

          Your impotence signalling amuses me

      6. It’s not that hard to figure out why career diplomats and intelligence officers would bristle at working with Trump. They are used to working with Presidents who read their memos and consider their advice during briefings, who weighs information from them as being more credible than news he learned from the TV, and doesn’t announce decisions about sensitive diplomatic matters via tweets (and then reverse himself in another tweet).

        1. Thank you for reminding me why he’s awesome. Please continue to cry about the lack of attention Trump pays to unelected imbeciles

        2. You mean like Presidents who took off to a fund raiser in Vegas when the US Ambassador to Libya was under attack? You mean like that? Or Presidents who draw red lines that Syria and Russia laugh at?

          1. Trump never stopped campaigning. A president having “rallies” is creepy as fuck and obviously reminiscent of other political cults of personality that have gone down in violence. Pretty myopic of you to criticize anyone for fundraising, when it is clearly the favorite activity of your favorite plays-a-billionaire-on-tv schmuck.

          2. Or Presidents who consider “intel documents” sourced from news articles to be legitimate intelligence and not just fan fiction.

            1. The irony. Trump doesn’t even read. He gets all his info from fox news and Rudy.

              1. You seem to have gotten yours from Harry Potter and coloring books.

                1. I see you haven’t read any of the many sources I cite daily for you willfully ignorant conspiracy theorists.

        3. It’s not that hard to figure out why career diplomats and intelligence officers would bristle at working with Trump.

          The swamp is unhappy with Trump’s attempts to drain it? Who’d a thunk it?

          This is further reason people cement their ties to Trump and his polls will never drop below ~40%.

      7. I have a theory, but it’s only based on minimal evidence and gut feeling. It’s public knowledge that Trump knew and was friends at one point with Epstein and the Clintons, not to mention plenty of other folks in the political scene. According to Trump’s side of things, he cut Epstein out after an incident at one of his clubs, and from all appearances, this is true, there’s no more news or pics of them hanging out after the early 00’s, and there is a record of Epstein trying something and getting banned from the Mar-a-Lago. This was prior to Epstein’s first run-in with the law. And again, according to Trump, he was the only witness who willingly interviewed with the FBI. If you look at Trump’s comments about Epstein around this time, they are similar in nature to remarks that Seth Macfarlane made regarding Weinstein prior to #metoo, namely that they state out stuff that everyone knows about but no one does anything about because it would mean painting a huge target on your back and being jumped on by everyone who would be implicated.

        I think Trump got a very good look at the type of stuff the Clintons and the Epsteins of DC got up to and was disgusted by it. He might not have anything besides personal testimony that could be brought up in court, but he knows some dirty secrets and doesn’t like these people, even if he is forced to work with them (which would just be a fact of life at the level he operated in as a businessman).

        The reaction from the Dems comes partly from Trump winning even though they had talked themselves into believing that there was no possible way they could lose, but also I think some folks are aware that Trump knows about the skeletons in the closet and doesn’t approve, and the Dems are worried he’ll try to do something about it.

        1. I think you’re on to something there

          1. I think so too.

        2. +100

        3. Just want to make sure I just really saw the three of you agree to a conspiracy theory admittedly based on very little evidence and “gut feeling”.

          1. Not all of us have blind faith in “our bettors” like you do

    1. Sitting here in a mechanic shop and let out an actual LOL in front of people.

      Now people are wondering what I find so amusing.

    2. I don’t get it…I don’t get it…oh, I got it! Heh heh.

  46. These politicians and their humorless self-righteous fake virtue buttons/pins on their lapels.

    THIS is the reason we need a third party. The Snarky Pin Party

    1. I’d at least be amused if they wore buttons saying “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself”

  47. … when the circus comes to town

  48. God what a bunch of clowns.

    1. *cues up Barbra Streisand for chemjeff*

      1. Is that his intro music?

    2. No one cares about your sexual history.

  49. I ran across a ten month old video of an MSNBC panel discussing Syria. Jeffrey Sachs traced the origins of the Syrian conflict to Obama and what he called ‘The Permanent State’. That’s a softer way of saying “The Deep State”. I’m happy to start using that term if it makes people feel better.

    Here’s that video. Operation Timber Sycamore. Anyone who believes “The Deep State” is some kind of right wing conspiracy isn’t paying attention or is being willfully ignorant.

    1. Operation Timber Sycamore?

      They are not even trying any more.

      1. Timber Sycamore is going to be my stage name if I ever become a male stripper (unlikely due to my age and the fact that my body hair would have been considered excessive during the ’70s)

          1. *Gives Ryan a lap dance he’ll never be able to forget*

    2. I learned about the existence of the ‘deep state’ the way most informed people did – through reruns of “Yes, Minister” on PBS. It’s been a running joke for 40 years and now it’s suddenly a conspiracy theory…

    3. Eisenhower warned of the “military industrial complex”… the Deep State.

      Others complained of the bureaucracy …the Deep State.

      Only the name has changed.

  50. I predict that this impeachment is going to be a real Schiffshow.

    1. That’s as bad as the “peach mint ice cream” joke during the Clinton impeachment.

      1. made it 20 years never hearing that

      2. The puns aren’t going to get any better.

  51. RBG did not attend the oral arguments Wednesday because of illness.

    Supposedly a stomach bug.

    Imagine the Lefty tears when Trump nominates and the US Senate confirms a new SCOTUS justice in the next 5 years.

    1. Maybe RBG isn’t into oral.

      I’m sorry.

    2. RBG is in perfect health.

      I learned in college one of the most malicious tactics of the misogynistic patriarchy is to suggest that women “aren’t physically capable” of performing important jobs. The media used this sexist trope against Hillary Clinton in 2016, endlessly replaying video of her minor fainting incident.


      1. endlessly replaying video of her minor fainting incident.

        Which one?

  52. A Schiffshow indeed.

    But I really cannot fault the Democrats. They are merely doing what partisan politicians will do when the situation permits.

    And that’s the heart of the issue. The only way the Democrats in the House are getting away with this one sided farce is because the media has already signaled to them that no matter how ridiculous they may behave, no matter how absurd or contradictory the information they offer, it will all be treated credibly

    The media are the real clowns here. Anyone purporting to be on the outside looking in should at least note that.

    1. Recall how the media covered for Bill Clinton in 1998.

      1. “Republican allegations” was how Lewinski was introduced to us. Even though the original information came from people in the White House, not from the GOP. Remember Linda Tripp? The woman who complained about a hostile workplace because she thought Clinton was banging one of his supporters in the office? You know, the one who said he actually tried to rape her? Yeah…. not “Republican Allegations”.

        But they waited to cover it until a Republican politician repeated what he’d read. And then they covered the “allegation” being made, not the actual substance.

    2. I think the media has become so partisan that it hurts the Democrats. The national media allows the Democrats to get away with literally anything but no longer has the power to hide it from the public. So while Democrats get away with it in the media, the don’t with the country.

      Had the media been anything but obscenely partisan, no way does Hillary Clinton ever even consider running for President. Hell, she might not have ever tried her home brew server in the first place if she wasn’t certain the media would do anything to cover up for her. Instead she did do that and then thanks to the media was still a viable candidate and ended up winning the nomination. And the Democrats were saddled with the most flawed nominee in history. Had the media even tried to do their jobs, they might have gotten someone better.

      1. I have to agree. The media’s shift from “extremely biased reporting” to “outright propaganda” has alienated a lot of people.

        I maintain that Trump never would have gotten elected if the press had not been so transparent in their treatment of him during the election cycle. It allowed Trump to dismiss any and all criticism with offhand dismissals.

        I don’t know if it has had the same effect on other people, but when I watched the way the press tried to make some kid from Kentucky into the face of “Trump’s White Supremacist Nazi America”, I was not just put off, I was deeply offended and angry. And the same goes for any number of stories, but that one is a perfect example because it is so glaring and so pointless. Even if they had been right – Trump never met the guy, was never going to meet the guy and has nothing to do with the guy except that he’s wearing a MAGA hat. So even if they were right in their reporting, it still would have been nakedly partisan agit-prop. The fact that it was all a knowing lie just deepens the depravity of these people and our contempt for them.

        1. The Epstein thing is just unbelievable. ABC kills the story and then conspires with CBS to fire some woman whom they wrongly thought leaked the tape of Amy Roerbach complaining about them killing the story.

          The same people who tried to destroy the life of some high school kid who happened to be on the mall wearing a MAGA hat, spent years covering up for an underage sex slave ring. The major media is just evil. I don’t know what we are going to do. We do need a media. But the one we have is hopelessly compromised. There is no fixing them or treating them with anything but complete contempt.

          1. wait, they fired the wrong person? When did that come out? And I’m guessing the lady’s suing them?

            1. It came out a few days ago. They fired the wrong person. The woman that Meghan Kelly interviewed who was fired from CBS had access to the tape but had nothing to do with it being leaked to Project Veritas.

              1. They did fire the wrong person. The people that should have been fired were every single person involved in the cover up – from the top-level executives down to the foot soldiers.

                Whoever leaked is an American hero doing their part in the service of actual truth and justice. In my eyes, anyone running interference for Epstein is just as bad as a pedophile. ABC is run by pedophiles.

                1. agreed. These fuckers need to be looked at for criminal conspiracy at the very least.

                  And lets not get into NBC’s covering up for Weinstein or how their entire C-Suite seems to think sexual assault is a requirement for the position.

              2. In fact, the leaker is STILL talking to Veritas and discussing the investigation and how they are trying to get staff to turn on each other.

          2. “The Epstein thing is just unbelievable. ABC kills the story and then conspires with CBS to fire some woman whom they wrongly thought leaked the tape of Amy Roerbach complaining about them killing the story.”

            If the woman isn’t the new CEO of CBS in a year, her lawyer is doing something wrong. There is literally zero cause for her dismissal. Even the reason they used (ABC wanted us to) wouldn’t fly. Doubly worse when ABC was wrong.

        2. If a hostage taker told me that if I gave a thumbs up, the hostage taker would both pay me $20 and not shoot one of the corporate media stooges he’s holding… I’d tell the hostage taker that I don’t negotiate with terrorists

        3. The early positive and later negative coverage of Trump in the primaries probably cost Cruz the nomination. In hindsight, I think Trump has been more successful in things I care about and realistically Cruz would likely have lost to Clinton. I know people hate Cruz’s guts here, but I thought he was the next best option to Rand Paul. Of course, I’m a conservative-libertarian so I lean more towards voting someone who could win than issuing a spoiler vote

          1. Trump won the nomination for two reasons; he was the only candidate who from the very beginning talked about immigration and trade, and he wasn’t an ideologue. One of the best things that ever happened to Trump was all of the Conservative Inc, pin heads claiming Trump wasn’t a real “conservative”. They were so stupid and out of touch they didn’t realize how badly Bush had trashed that brand. So every time they claimed Trump wasn’t a conservative, Trump’s Republican supporters liked him more.

            1. As for Cruz, I’m still hoping Trump gives him a SCOTUS nomination, honestly.

              1. Would be great on many levels, and I share your hope, but I don’t think Cruz has given up his top spot dream.

        4. Cyto and John, you are on to something.

          The Donkeys outrageous statements are swallowed so unquestionably by the MSM, the Donkeys have gotten sloppy, careless and say all kinds things they would have believed, but kept to themselves, in the past. They feel brave enough to drop their masks.

          The people are a bit smarter than the MSM gives them credit for. The MSM echo the the deplorable list of isms and are then less credible.

      2. Yep, when nobody holds you accountable it is inevitable that you will eventually do some really stupid shit.

        1. They’re also doing really stupid shit because less people are bothering to watch them. How else will they get attention?

  53. Tjhe same people who want impeach Donald Trump also excused Bill Clinton in 1998 for committing perjury to defeat a sexual harassment lawsuit.

    1. That was many years ago. Are we talking about literally the same people, or people with the same party affilitation?

      1. Yes. Literally the same people. People like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc. They were all there.

        And the same goes in the inverse. Lindsey Graham, etc.

        The difference being, of course, that we have switched parties. Oh, and the Republicans didn’t announce that they were going to impeach Clinton before he even took office and then spend the next several years presenting nebulous and shifting lies as reasons for impeachment. They only moved after his own party refused to move against him when things went beyond shady real estate deals, prescient futures investments and sketchy avoidance of criminal investigations through miraculously disappearing and reappearing records and into allegations of sexual exploitation of young interns, workplace harassment and actual sexual assaults. (at the time the standard they had been operating under was “if you make a woman uncomfortable in the workplace with your sexual behavior or language, you have to be fired”)

        This time around the democrats have changed their minds about the actual reasons for impeachment several times, but the conclusion remains the same.

        Actually, I’m surprised that some of the Old Guard of the congressional black caucus haven’t come forward to say that Trump used the “N-word” directed at them. And it is shocking that some of the women on the hill haven’t played the “He called me ‘Babe'” card. That was a go-to for a while when you wanted to silence and discredit someone in Washington.

        1. Old (Clintonia) standard: No smoking gun.

          New (Trumpian) standard: Somebody somewhere thinks your motives may have been less than pure.

  54. I caught a couple of minutes of the impeachment hearings this morning.

    Calling this “impeachment hearings” is a stretch. The democrats clearly view this as an opportunity to get hundreds of millions in free negative political ads. They did not pretend that they were looking into, investigating, or even adjudicating anything. They were making an argument, that is all. They were using the megaphone of national TV to pimp for their team.

    And as far as I could tell, the network I was watching was “all in” on helping them. NBC ran the “Historic Impeachment Hearings” label across the screen for all of their coverage. Their “spin” on the proceeding was that this is a super-serious constitutional duty and the Democrats on the committee are extremely conscientious and patriotic in conducting their duty. And NBC was very proud to be able to bring this historic moment to the American people. Live!

    1. There are lots of yaking by talking heads but the public gets that anyway. The question is has anyone testified to anything that someone might care about. And from the sounds of it, the answer is no.

  55. Neighborhood heads up: someone near 15 and W NW has been spreading poop on the undersides of @bikeshare bike handles for the last two Sundays.

    Homeless fucktard in LA: “Hold my beer bucket of shit.”

    The sad thing is when I heard about this on the radio this morning I missed where they said this was but my first thought was “gotta be either LA of San Fran.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.