Reason Roundup

Trump and Obama Each Break Records on Bad Immigration Policy

Plus: how Hyperloop could reshape the Midwest, crowdfunding social media, the billionaires behind Democratic candidates, and more...

|

The Trump administration still falls short of the Obama administration when it comes to deportation numbers. But under President Donald Trump, more people are being held in immigration detention centers than ever before in U.S. history. And the majority of these detainees (70 percent) are people with no criminal records, according to the latest numbers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"More than 14,000 are people the U.S. government has determined have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if deported," points out The Washington Post.

Both Trump and former President Barack Obama have presided over a huge number of deportations, although keeping so many people unauthorized immigrants detained has slowed the Trump administration's march toward Obama-like deportation numbers.

While Obama "removed 409,849 people in 2012 alone," Trump "has yet to surpass 260,000 deportations in a single year," notes the Post. "And while Obama deported 1.18 million people during his first three years in office, Trump has deported fewer than 800,000."

An ICE spokesperson said the high detention numbers were due to an increasing number of Central American migrants being caught trying to cross the border illegally, while immigrant advocates and civil libertarians blame the Trump administration's harsh and haphazard policies and the fact that ICE is simply detaining people for longer and longer time periods. Many people previously eligible for bond and release are being ordered held in ICE custody while winding through an increasingly backlogged immigration hearing process.


FREE MINDS

A Columbus to Chicago Hyperloop by 2029? "Realizing the fantasy of jet-speed surface transportation will depend more on bureaucracy and political will than on engineering wizardry," writes Justin Davidson at Intelligencer. That being said, "if Hyperloop is to grow from gee-whiz infancy into a mature—even boring—form of intercity mass transit, it could launch a slow-motion transformation of the heartland."

Lima, Ohio, Mayor David Berger "believes the new system will turn his struggling small city [population 37,000] into a magnet," writes Davidson:

"The quality of life here is good," he says, "and Hyperloop would make us attractive to people who work in downtown Chicago"—now a four-hour drive.

"Living in our community could be practical for a much larger universe of folks." That's a good thing for Lima, but is it good for America? There's something paradoxical about the notion of controlling sprawl by encouraging people to live hundreds of miles from their jobs.

William Murdock of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission told Intelligencer that when it comes to Hyperloop over traditional high-speed rail, for instance, "the environmental footprint is smaller, the right of way is narrower, and the noise impact is lower."


FREE MARKETS

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is launching a crowdfunded social media platform. WT:Social will display user feeds in chronological order and will not display ads or sell user data, Wales said.

"About 160,000 people have signed up for WT:Social since it launched in October," notes Stephen Johnson at Big Think. "The platform is free to join, but new users are put on a wait-list, which can be instantly bypassed if you donate money. WT:Social hopes to survive only on donations."


ELECTION 2020

Abolish billionaires…except when they're big Democratic donors?


QUICK HITS

  • A bill to decriminalize marijuana federally is moving forward in the House.
  • In remarks for The Federalist Society last week, Attorney General William Barr claimed "the real 'miracle'" of our country's founding was the "creation of a strong executive, independent of, and coequal with, the other two branches of government" and that far from being the "rebellion against monarchical tyranny" of which we were told, the real target was an overbearing legislature. Writes Damon Linker: "This is, to put it mildly, an unorthodox reading of the American Revolution."
  • Snippets from Monday's impeachment inquiry proceedings: "Now what led you to believe the president didn't give a shit about Ukraine?"

  • South Dakota's latest anti-drug campaign is… interesting.

South Dakota's New Anti-Meth Campaign

  • Mina Chang, a senior State Department official, is resigning amidst revelations of multiple false claims she made about her resume and charity work, including a photo of herself in which she claimed to be on a "humanitarian mission" in Afghanistan and pictured with women "in hiding" somewhere outside Kabul. "They were wives of local employees of the defense contractor that paid for her trip," notes NBC News.
  • A prosecutor in California used his 13-year-old daughter as pedophile bait.
  • Anyone have this on their 2019 bingo card?

NEXT: Barred from Participating in Public High School Graduation for Using "Nigger" in a Tweet?

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

  1. A Columbus to Chicago Hyperloop by 2029?

    Can’t get out of either city fast enough.

    1. Hello.

      It’s an interesting thing. Why would billionaires give to the Democrat party in the first place given their recent rhetoric? If there’s one thing I’ve learned from history is that leftists tend to follow through on their threats. So if they say they want to ‘abolish’ them, I think it’s safe to assume they really do even if they claim it’s metaphoric.

      After who needs them, amirite? They’re not a class and would be reasonably easy to go Robespierre and round them up, no?

      http://news.trust.org/item/20191118220055-zhc6k

      1. “Why would billionaires give to the Democrat party in the first place given their recent rhetoric?”

        Billionaires are not stupid. They have teams of people they pay millions of dollars to ensure their wealth grows and cannot be touched by the tax man. Some money managers have one client.

        Meanwhile, socialist policies hold everyone else down, ensuring billionaires remain better off than everyone else. They step on the necks of average americans and claim virtue while doing so.

        1. Actually, I bet many billionaires are exactly stupid, especially when they decide to posture and signal their political views. Some (but not most spouses and other heirs) might be very smart about making money, but not so much about spending it.

    2. Sad to see that the Rust Belt is still in delusion mode.

      They have an opportunity to attract people to move back to the region (low housing costs and plenty of space, still reasonably ok freight transport and communications infrastructure, and the basics of a diverse economy). But they are completely clueless that they’ve got to attract the only part of the population that is mobile now. Which is pre-homeowners – the young. Homeowners are now permanently immobile – and they are now anchored in Sun Belt. And the Midwest still seems culturally incapable of appealing to the young.

      A hyperloop. How freaking stupid can you get.

      1. High speed rail doesn’t make economic sense, pretty much anywhere in America. And now, by adding the immense expense of tunnel construction, it’s supposed to work out better?

        1. And the biggest reason it doesn’t make sense, besides the economic concerns of construction and the environmental review nonsense that would inevitably find that some three-tailed squirrel’s habitat was threatened along the route, is that there’s no provision for what people would do for transportation at the end of their trips. Oh great, I can get from Chicago to Columbus quickly–how the fuck am I supposed to conveniently get around town on my own? Uber?

          This was one of the many reasons why the Green New Deal was so stupid–it basically argued that the country’s entire road network had to be torn up and replaced by a nationwide mass transit system.

          1. That is exactly it. Trains will never replace cars because a train can’t drop you off at your house.

          2. That is it exactly. The priority for cities has to be to build out their intracity public transport. Of the three cities mentioned (Chicago, Columbus, Lima) only Chicago even comes close to having actual intracity transit.

            And even after that intracity stuff is built out in multiple cities – the harsh reality is that rail only works for either freight or passenger but almost never both. Only exception anywhere in the world is mountain valleys where space for both road/rail is limited/expensive. Europe passenger rail works cuz density and intracity stuff is well built out so it is freight that has the more diverse routing needs done better by road/truck. US is the opposite and always will be. So even after intracity is built out – the intercity mass passenger option should prob be air and bus – which means cities themselves only need to build lots more depots and maybe a few more airports.

            1. Sometimes someone say something so monumentally stupid that you just have to stare at it and marvel that someone o manifestly imbecilic figured out–not just how to type, but how to string together their idiocies in a way that other can see just how completely moronic they are.

              Hihn aspires to such stature, but JFree, this is it. This is the real shit, right here.

              1. So you think people are clamoring to DRIVE 5.5 hours from Chicago to Columbus? Moron

      2. People with homes elsewhere can sell them and live like kings in the Midwest.

    3. If anyone says that a design system is just a matter of “political will” instead of “engineering wizardry” when no functional prototypes have ever been built, then grab your money and run.

      In fact, if they use the phrase “engineering wizardry”, grab your money and run. By the time that any design is ready for mass usage, it’s old hat. By the time passenger airlines first appeared in 1919, people had been flying for 15 years and what we now call charter airplanes had been running for 5. By the time passenger trains came into existing, steam engines had been hauling materials in factories and pumping water for decades. It was novel, but not anything out of the blue.

      No one has ridden a single centimeter in a hyperloop. The test track was the largest vacuum chamber ever constructed, and it was a single mile long and a fraction of the necessary width. Even the wildest, stupidly expensive plans would have actual throughput of a 1-lane highway.

      1. Well they were delivering mail in vacuum tubes in buildings in the 1930’s. Should be a snap to upsize it to human capsule size, stick a person in it, and shoot them from chicago to columbus.

        1. I will assume you are joking and laugh accordingly.

          Aside from small issues like “life support” and “G Forces”, we have the larger issue of just how much energy these things will use. This isn’t like vacuum tube delivery systems where the vacuum is doing the actual work. The trains are electric vehicles that will run inside the vacuum tube. Vacuums aren’t cheap to maintain by any stretch of the imagination, and especially not when carrying weights on the order of several tons.

          This isn’t going to be “green” anymore than taking a sailboat for a trans-Atlantic cruise is “green” (ie: 10-100 times the CO2 emissions of a commercial flight)

          1. Life support?!? You people with the negative vibes. We’re talking about a loop! And it’s hyper! Which is like much better than merely superduperlooper even if it doesn’t rhyme as well. I mean if that can’t inspire someone to hold their breath for a bit until they arrive in Columbus, well then maybe they should die. Omelettes and eggs and all.

  2. “Trump and Obama Each Break Records on Bad Immigration Policy”

    Umm… we have democrats promising illegals free shit.

    1. That’s not bad. It’s compassion.

      Do you prog bro?

      1. I’ve read more than young adult fiction, so impossible to prog.

    2. Please don’t call them “illegals.” “Undocumented Americans” works better.

      #LibertariansForBigGovernment
      #(AsLongAsItBenefitsImmigrants)

      1. Undocumented romancer, amirite?

    3. To Reason, that’s a good thing. It’s only fair.

  3. …new users are put on a wait-list, which can be instantly bypassed if you donate money.

    Twitter for libertarians.

  4. So you can pay money to instantly join a social network that nobody is on.

    1. Wasnt there an expensive app on iTunes which was just a red crystal like screen?

  5. Almost 20% of American billionaires have donated—either directly or through their spouse—to the campaign committees of Democrats running for president.

    Money well spent.

    1. So are billionaires still the bad guys, or not?

        1. American billionaires fund advocacy for open borders (Charles Koch), common sense gun safety (Michael Bloomberg), and impeachment (Tom Steyer). Billionaires are clearly on the right side of history.

          1. I’m actually sad you didnt mention jack and company for ending hateful speech.

            1. Well, it’s obvious that OBL doesn’t know jack.

  6. A bill to decriminalize marijuana federally is moving forward in the House.

    President Biden will not be signing that bill.

    1. He might sign it if someone hires his kid.

      1. Or if he can give it a few more hugs

    2. It’s a gateway bill.

  7. “Mina Chang, a senior State Department official, is resigning amidst revelations of multiple false claims she made about her resume and charity work, including a photo of herself in which she claimed to be on a “humanitarian mission” in Afghanistan and pictured with women “in hiding” somewhere outside Kabul. “They were wives of local employees of the defense contractor that paid for her trip,” notes NBC News.”

    How dare nbc attack these nobel and innocent unelected bureaucrats.

    1. NBC was late to the game. This one also faked a Time cover, inflated her Harvard record, lied about participating in Democratic and Republican national conventions, etc.

      I gather it was the fake Time cover that landed her a spot with the Trump administration.

      1. I’m not shocked you were too dumb to get the sarcasm.

        1. Well, he is mentally handicapped.

      2. Leave Fuaxcahantus out of this, asshole bigot.

      3. I love that some idiot thinks “novelty Time cover” is faking it, and that the Dem idiots adopted it as a talking point.

        No seriously, there are retards other than Rev that ACTUALLY BELIEVE she fabricated a magazine cover with the intention of fooling people into believing it was real lolololol

        HeY Rev, I NEVER LIVED IN THE OLD WEST, THOSE SEPIA TONES AREN’T REAL LOLOLOLOLL

  8. A prosecutor in California used his 13-year-old daughter as pedophile bait.

    GET THAT MAN A GOVERNORSHIP!

    1. Joe Biden think she needs a hug

  9. from “george bush doesn’t care about black people” to an *exclusive hannity interview* about proselytizing with joel osteen…

    Both events eliciting blank stares.

    1. Joel Osteen looks an awful lot like Rand Paul

      1. Babylon Bee had a great take on this: “Joel Osteen asks Kanye West who this ‘Jesus’ is that he keeps talking about.”

        1. That’s about right. Prosperity Gospel preachers are nothing more than grifters.

          I think Kanye is sincere about wanting to live as a Christian, but he sure isn’t going to get there hanging out with the likes of Osteen, and his wife and her money and fame-obsessed family are definitely going to hold him back from that.

          1. Hey, if Jesus wasn’t into fame, they why all his blather about worshiping his dad?

      2. Rand wishes he had Osteen money.

  10. Another released transcript, david hale. Stated under deposition that other countries such a Lebanon were also under review by OMB to ensure they were taking measures against corruption. No mention of the Bidens there. Establishes a baseline of normal review prior to releasing funds.

    1. It’s comforting to know the is at least an attempt of a review before pissing away millions of my tax dollars.
      I’m guessing not many reviews result in cancellation of any funds being wasted.

      1. The irony is these reviews are basically standard. Somehow Democrats are arguing any review, including standard ones, are illegal when bad man is orange.

        1. Can you point to any source where a Democrat literally said that any review, including standard ones, are illegal?

          1. Oh of course he can’t. That is just his narrative.

            1. The whole premise here is the Ukranian review was abnormal and illegal. That is literally what the inquiry is about.

              How dumb can you get jeffrey?

              1. He can talk to his own sockpuppet.

          2. The point is, this was a standard review. The only reason democrats care is because Trump attacked a member of the establishment.

            1. Agree that that was the point of JesseAz’s first sentence, and his first sentence had some validity as an argument. (It does gloss over the Ukraine aid being held up without required notification of Congress and that it was released so late that the aid came within three days of expiring.)

              But then JesseAz wrote a second sentence which I suspect is a strawman that JesseAz made up to fit a world view he believes in.

              I would still like to hear JesseAz’s answer to my question. Perhaps he does have a source where some Democrat actually said what he claims was said.

              1. “It does gloss over the Ukraine aid being held up without required notification of Congress and that it was released so late that the aid came within three days of expiring.”

                Congress wasn’t notified by any of the delays mentioned in the testimony as they were routine. Congress was also not notified about Lebanon. Also the aid was released on the 16th, the funds were set to expire on the 30th. So you are wrong yet again. You also ignore that the DoD already had released the funding for the Javelin weapon system prior to the secondary funding review.

                Mikey, do you honestly know any basic facts of this? After all this time arguing while pretending to be neutral?

                1. There was a bureaucratic process that took over a week once the funds were released. That’s why, although the funds were released on the 16th, completing the release almost missed the 30th deadline.

                  As asked by you, I have posted links explaining all of this — twice. Yet you are saying *I* don’t know the basic facts when you are demonstrating that *you* do not know the basic facts.

                  1. ” almost missed”

                    So, didn’t miss.

                    You’re almost convincing us you’re neutral.

                2. Even a routine review requires notifying Congress that the funds are being delayed.

                  1. This is what he is reduced to ladies and gentlemen.

              2. “I would still like to hear JesseAz’s answer to my question. Perhaps he does have a source where some Democrat actually said what he claims was said.”

                LOL. Wow, how disingenuous can you get.

                What do you think the point of the inquiry actually is? I’m being generous, btw, of calling this sham an inquiry.

                1. Can you point to any source where a Democrat literally said that any review, including standard ones, are illegal?

                  My question is asking you to back up what you wrote, “Somehow Democrats are arguing any review, including standard ones, are illegal when bad man is orange”, with some factual source.

                  1. “Can you point to any source”

                    Other than the hearings going on now?

                    Why do you even pretend you’re not a fucking prog, prog.

          3. That is literally what the inquiry is for lil mikey, the claim that the review for Ukraine was illegal. yet at the same time as the holdup of the Ukraine funds at OMB, so too was funds for Lebanon and other countries being held up.

            This is sad that I have to tell you constantly the basics of the inquiry still.

            1. The inquiry is focused on whether Trump used foreign diplomacy to pursue personal political gain. I don’t think anyone involved in the inquiries has made the OMB’s missing the deadline for notifying Congress about holding the aid to Ukraine is a major accusation of wrongdoing.

              The inquiry, for me, is something I’m just observing as a non-partisan. The important thing for me is not the inquiry, but presenting a countering voice to the Trump partisans who have been hanging out in the Reason comment section. When a Trump apologist tries to gloss over facts or present an oversimplified narrative, I’m going to point it out.

              1. “The inquiry is focused on”

                Only a prog would believe other progs so uncritically.

              2. “I’m here to literally whine about comments that don’t support bureaucratic political abuse of the elected president enough”

                -“Mike Laursen”

                Dance, marionette!

              3. Why do you care about who people like instead of the truth?

                At least you admit your Jeff.

    2. Vindman is already hiding behind his lawyer today. Not sure why the democrats think this helps.

      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vindman-chides-nunes-its-lieutenant-colonel-vindman-please

      1. Dude is a straight scumbag.
        Really an indictment of our military

        1. Well, at least he perjured himself in his earlier testimony. Seems to be a running theme with the Dem “heavy hitter” witnesses

          1. Can you say more about how Vindman committed perjury?

            1. Watch the testimony.
              Most recently he testified that he followed the chain of command, then contradicted himself by testifying that he didn’t go to his immediate superior.

              1. Thank you for answering. Any other contradictions?

                1. He said he has no clue who the whistleblower is but his testimony certainly indicates otherwise.

                  1. Explain further what he said in his testimony that indicates he knows who the whistleblower is?

                    1. He was about to say who he talked to and was told not to because it’d out the blower.

                      Except he said he never spoke to him and Schiff claims he doesn’t know who it is.

              2. IANAL, so I just did a little reading on the definition of perjury. To be perjury a false statement must be material to the outcome of the proceeding. How is whether Vindman followed chain of command or not material to whether Trump attempted extortion?

      2. Not answering questions that might out the whistleblower = “hiding behind his lawyer”?

        1. How would Vindman, his lawyer, or Schiff know he was about to out the whistleblower when NONE of them know who the blower is?

          1. Schiff is disallowing questions that, in Schiff’s judgement, seem to be digging for information that could lead to outing the whistleblower. That doesn’t require any of them to know who the whistleblower is. It only requires evaluating the nature of the question being asked.

            1. Schiff is disallowing questions that, in Schiff’s judgement, seem to be digging for information that could lead to outing the whistleblower.

              But without knowing who the whistleblower is, how could one know what information would out him?

              The purpose of any investigation is digging out information.

              1. The purpose of investigation is digging out information about a particular matter.

            2. “Schiff is disallowing questions that, in Schiff’s judgement, seem to be digging for information that could lead to outing the whistleblower.”

              He interrutped when Vindman was literally saying people he talked to. If Vindman says he has never met the leaker and Schiff doesn’t know who it is…how, again, does one justify this?

  11. California: shielding us from volunteers who call ridesharing services for the blind.

    Their heightened remaining senses are better suited to the sounds and smells of a yellow cab anyway.

  12. South Dakota’s latest anti-drug campaign is… interesting.

    “Meth: What the fuck else is there to do in South Dakota?”

    1. Make fun of North Dakota.

    2. Polish Jefferson’s knob?

  13. “Almost 20% of American billionaires have donated—either directly or through their spouse—to the campaign committees of Democrats running for president.”

    This is what I’ve been saying all along. It’s just a quirk of American politics that Democrats are supposed to pretend they oppose the billionaire agenda. In practice, however, Democrats are the pro-billionaire party — especially now that they’re embracing unlimited, unrestricted immigration.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
    #BillionairesKnowBest

  14. Don’t meth with Missouri.

    1. /pulls out Vaudeville cain. Taps palm.

  15. “The Trump administration still falls short of the Obama administration when it comes to deportation numbers. ”

    I am sure Shikha will be able to spin this to make Orange man bad and brown man good

    1. No “spin” needed. Obama never put kids in cages. Drumpf has.

      1. Well Obama hasn’t since 2016 anyway.

    2. Most will pass over the line about only 30% of them having criminal records… that’s 300k from Obama’s first 4 years who were criminals. And that’s only of criminals who were convicted.

      1. don’t you mean 300k food trucks? Jeff has told me again and again about the brilliant entrepreneurial talents of penniless Guatemalans

        1. Some are entrepreneurs, some are criminals, some are smart, some are stupid. They are all just ordinary people like you and me.

          1. Based on the stats, Trump agrees with you

          2. So Ryan is the smart one, you are the stupid one. Got it.

          3. “https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1196458812389109761”

            It would be nice if you could use your brain, absorb this information, and adjust your worldview accordingly, but we both know that won’t happen. If you need me I’ll be living in reality.

    3. Ryan, Ryan, Ryan….lemme help you out here. This is actually good. Why?

      Clearly, POTUS Trump has work to do. The very thought that POTUS Obama might have done something better will doubtless drive POTUS Trump to deport more illegal aliens. Hundreds of thousands of more. That is just fine by me.

      So POTUS Trump, better fire up those planes, trains and boats. 🙂

  16. …she claimed to be on a “humanitarian mission” in Afghanistan and pictured with women “in hiding” somewhere outside Kabul. “They were wives of local employees of the defense contractor that paid for her trip,” notes NBC News.

    Hey, people hide from defense contractors.

  17. “Now what led you to believe the president didn’t give a shit about Ukraine?”

    No Trump-owned buildings or golf courses.

    1. Be honest, who does give a shit about Ukraine?

      1. It’s just a sitting duck. A road apple. The Ukraine is weak. It’s feeble.

        1. I think it’s time to put the hurt on Ukraine.

          1. UKRAINE NOT WEAK!

      2. Well, I do enjoy Chicken Kiev from time to time.

      3. The Bidens for one. There’s gold in them thar Ukraine.

      4. Ukrainians?

      5. The Russians. For sure.

  18. “More than 14,000 are people the U.S. government has determined have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if deported”

    Torture? Where? Mexico? What’s going on in Mexico? Who runs Mexico? Sounds dangerous. Opening the borders will help us?

    Those people running from “persecution or torture” must love knowing their enemies can hunt them without pushback from the law

    1. Probably a couple of billion people have reasonable fear of torture and persecution around the world.

      It’s not the job of Americans to house them all, and if we did, we’d join them in reasonable fear of torture and persecution.

      Import Not Americans, become Not America.

  19. “Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is launching a crowdfunded social media platform”

    What a great idea. Just like Wikipedia, they can edit away the right wingers

    1. And eric ciaramellas name.

  20. …from being the “rebellion against monarchical tyranny” of which we were told, the real target was an overbearing legislature.

    We need a king not a president!

    1. Well, if it was the right king…

  21. “A prosecutor in California used his 13-year-old daughter as pedophile bait”

    Holy shit look at that mugshot. Everyone in this story is ridiculous.

  22. I am very excited to see the progress of Hyperloop.
    It gets really tiring to have to drive hours and hours to get to anywhere.
    I once lived in a place that was 2 hours from the nearest airport. I’m sure others here can relate. It is just soul-crushing after a while, to spend all that time traveling just to visit anywhere.
    Plus it is good to see an idea for mass transit that doesn’t rely on 19th century choo choo trains.

    1. Everyone likes the fact that you are 2 hours away.

    2. Baby Jeffrey wants the country to spend tens of billions of dollars so he doesn’t have to be inconvenienced every once in a while.

      1. Umm where did I say that, Jesse?

        1. Are you under the impression the Hyperloop is being solely funded by non-tax payer entities? If so, I’ll laugh even more at you.

          1. I said nothing of the sort. I didn’t say anything about the technical details. I said I’m excited about the progress that Hyperloop is making. Stop trying to turn this into another one of your typical partisan food fights. God you are tiresome sometimes.

            I swear, if I were to say “I love my mother”, you’d probably respond “but only because she votes for Democrats, you prog!”

            1. You really don’t get the argument, this is why I consider you ignorant.

              Like most of these Musk type ventures, they are heavily subsidized developments that benefit a small percentage of the taxpayers. The fact that you don’t understand this makes me laugh at your ignorance even more.

              This isn’t about partisanship. This is about idiotic investments of taxpayer funds when we are already 20 Trillion in debt. If the venture is going to be successful, it should be left to private markets to develop and implement.

              You don’t care about taxpayers or government run entities because you aren’t actually libertarian.

              1. No, Jesse, this is you trying to turn a bland statement of generic support for Hyperloop technology into some partisan battlefield. It is about you who cannot stand passing up some comment that I made, even an innocuous one, and finding some pretext to create a fake controversy over it.

                You do realize it is possible to like the technology itself while disliking whatever subsidies Musk’s company gets, right?

                But hey, you want to talk subsidies? Okay let’s talk subsidies. How much is airline travel subsidized? How much is the current surface infrastructure (“roads and bridges”) subsidized? How much is auto transportation itself subsidized over other forms of transportation? The status quo is not some anarcho-capitalist paradise. Maybe Hyperloop technology would lead to FEWER transportation-related subsidies overall. Here is an interesting article on the hidden subsidies that cars get:

                https://medium.com/radical-urbanist/cars-gets-billions-in-hidden-subsidies-b3bf9e6bfafc

                Someone who was seriously interested in the subsidization of the transportation sector might consider making some of these good faith arguments. But not you, you’re using my benign comment as a launching pad to attack me yet again in your usual partisan pitbull style.

                1. Btw… if you want to analyze costs you really shouldn’t bring in transportation costs for passengers versus transportation costs for goods. You are really proving you dont understand actual shared costs vs individualized costs. Transport tail for consumer goods reduces costs for basically all consumers. Yet here you are arguing for passenger transportation which only benefits a small percentage of taxpayers.

                  You keep pretending you have a minimal understanding of things but keep making simple mistakes.

                  Maybe take sometime to actually learn your arguments prior to your sophistry.

              2. I’m sorry baby jeffrey, link to yourself ever criticizing the subsidy side of the equation.

                Is this more of your sophistry where you claim you don’t support welfare for immigrants yet only say so when called out?

                1. He’s just really excited about Progress

                  1. Oh you’re right. I should beg to keep the status quo forever. It doesn’t get any better than what we currently have, amirite?

                    Screw Iphone 11, I’m going back to flip phones! They were good enough!

                    1. Jeff literally thinks people bag on him because it’s personal, and not because he’s a fucking idiot who posts retarded shit.

                2. Good Lord you are such a partisan shithead.

                  Okay, here it is: I don’t like the subsidies going to Hyperloop. Got it?

                  I ALSO don’t like the subsidies going to all other forms of transportation. How about you?

                  Furthermore, NOTHING about subsidies, or the lack thereof, are an indictment of the technology itself. One can object to the subsidies but admiring of the technology. There is no inconsistency there.

                  This is just you ginning up a fake controversy in order to find some reason to bash me with it. You thought it was going to be some sort of gotcha game. Maybe stop the frothing at the mouth for a moment and try not to view everything through the lens of tribalism.

                  1. No one cares prog.

    3. Taking a moment to agree with you so I feel better about other things I will surely say in the near future

    4. If a person is flying more than once per week, they should consider living closer to the airport. Otherwise, your boring story is soul crushing.

      1. Sure, if people are flying more than once per week, living near an airport seems like a prudent choice. But there are people out there who don’t fly that frequently, but do still make trips, and spending so much time just traveling to and from the airport, along with the trip itself, is a big giant hassle.

        You could either try to understand the challenges that other people are going through, or you could stick your nose in the air and tell them to go screw themselves. Your choice, I suppose.

        1. So you double down on spending 10s of billions because your life is sometimes a hassle. Or are you going to pretend you didn’t say that again? I have to ask again… do you understand the subsidies that are going into the hyperloop? Do I need to tell you about how very few mass transport systems are revenue neutral? Are you willing to pay your actual share of the cost so you can save time to the airport? Or are you asking for a subsidy?

          1. Can you at least pretend to understand the different circumstances that other people find themselves in without being a total dickhead about it?

            You are usually one to bemoan arrogant coastal elitists looking down their nose at the hicks in flyover country. People who live in rural areas sometimes have to make trips too and don’t have the luxury of calling an Uber to whisk them to the nearest airport. What’s different this time? Hmm I wonder what it could be….

            1. So hyperloop is going to cater to rural areas?

              1. Potentially it could cater to more areas than what are currently served by big airports, because Hyperloop hubs don’t have to be like big behemoth airports, but closer to a bus terminal.

                1. Potentially everyone could have their own jetpack, so we won’t even need travel hubs

                  1. And if this were an article about jetpacks, maybe you’d have a point.

                    1. If this was an article about hyperloop being funded with no subsidies so would you.

        2. “But”

          Jeff always thinks he knows better.

    5. I dunno. Hyperloop, like high-speed rail, seems like it is just as vulnerable to terrorism as air travel. Once you deal with the parking lot, TSA screening, and checking in luggage, hyperloop or high-speed rail would be pretty much the same experience as flying.

      1. Fuck off prog.

    6. It is just soul-crushing after a while, to spend all that time traveling just to visit anywhere.

      I’m no chiropractor, but if your soul is getting consistently crushed by being in the same place, wherever you are, it sounds like the problem is more internal, like you’ve just got a weak spine, rather than having to do with the conveyance that transports you from one-spine crushing location to the next.

    7. I once lived in a place that was 2 hours from the nearest airport. I’m sure others here can relate.

      Also, as a matter of fact. I’m calling bullshit. You may’ve lived in a place where it was 2 hours from the nearest international airport. But from what little I know about you, 2 hours from the nearest airport of any kind is almost certainly bullshit.

      1. Funny how so many of you who have never met me and have never had any personal conversation with me of any kind, claim to have so much insight not only about the arguments in my own head, but my own lived experience and personal history.

        Maybe next you can tell me what kind of school I went to and who my best friends were when I was growing up.

        1. A terrible school where grade inflation likely have you a high B low A average while teaching you nothing.

        2. but my own lived experience and personal history.

          You didn’t read what I wrote. I admittedly know exceedingly little about you. I know that something on the rough order of 99.9% of the N. American population lives well within even an hour of a municipal airport. I’m pretty close to the rural edge of my local suburbia and I can get to no less than 4 in less than 90 min.

          I don’t have to read a cat’s mind to understand the general function of catnip.

          1. Yes, about 90% of the people live within 1 hour of an airport. I was in that 10% of the population that wasn’t. It was a rather rural area.

            1. I agree, you’re lying.

            2. It was a rather rural area.

              I grew up in a rather rural area. It might’ve taken you longer than 2 hrs. to set foot on a plane, but there were at least 2 airports within 2 hours. I know people who grew up in more rural areas. They had at least 1 airport within 2 hours. I know people who grew up in even more rural areas who had at least something loosely described as an ‘airport’ within 2 hours. I even know people who live in even more rural parts that don’t have anything resembling an airport within 2 hours of them. They are categorically different from you, if not because of proximity to air travel then because they aren’t disingenuous self-serving shitbags.

              1. So what is your argument with me then?

              2. So you even had friends who were in a similar situation as myself, who lived far away from an airport, yet you took the time to claim that I was somehow lying for having lived far from an airport, because you hate me that much? Is that it?

                WTF is wrong with you people?

                1. I didn’t say they were friends and I pretty clearly said that they weren’t like you if only because they weren’t disingenuous shitbags.

                  You likely lived closer to an airport than I did and it would be dead simple to prove otherwise, but you won’t because you’re lying scum.

                  1. Why would I possibly lie about that? This is ridiculous.
                    Do you just assume everything I say is a lie?
                    If I say I love my mother, will you think that’s a lie too?

                    1. Why would I possibly lie about that?

                      After I repeatedly claimed not to know the inner workings of your head, why would you assume I do now?

                      It started out as just disingenuous, unclear as to whether you were just mistakenly misleading or intentionally lying, expanding on the mistake after it’s been shown to be a mistake can’t really be considered to be mistakenly misleading.

          2. And I do apologize for my antagonistic tone earlier. Jesse seems to bring out the worst in me.

            1. No he brings out the every day all the time in you.

    8. A Hyperloop is a subway with a new wrapper. It wont be able to travel in a vacuum on a perfectly straight flat tunnel at 700 MPH. its a subway, and all the same problems for trains and subways exist for the hyperloop and more so. Look at the test hyperloop tracks. Its not feasible, its too expensive, and it wont deliver any of the promises its making.

      1. Baby jeffrey wants you to ignore those costs and focus on those terrible 2 hour long drives he has to the airport every once in a while. He has spoken.

        1. Okay, Jesse. What do you think about people who live in rural areas but yet still need occasionally to make trips? Too bad so sad? Move to the city? “Learn to code”? Why is it now we see your arrogant elitism coming out of the woodwork when one of those people living in the sticks turns out to be someone YOU hate?

          1. It’s hilarious that you think the hyperloop is a solution to rural travel times.
            Mind-bogglingly stupid, but funny

            1. Okay, so what are your thoughts on rural travel times?
              Do you have any? Do you even give a shit?

              1. Automobiles

                I know, just crazy!

                1. But Little Jeffy wants the future!

                2. Burn the WITCH!!!

                3. You mean, subsidized automobiles burning subsidized gasoline on subsidized roads? What are you, some kind of socialist????

                  1. I think a catapult should work for you

                    1. So just like Tulpa you come here only to shit up the thread with personal insults against me. Got it.

                  2. Do you have the first fcvkin clue what a subsidy is?

                    1. Do you think you pay for the full cost of the roads you drive on?
                      Do you think the price at the gas pump represents the entire cost of extracting the oil, refining and blending it, and transporting the products?

                4. And this response just reveals your own status quo bias.

                  1. No it doesn’t. You’ve just talked yourself into another circle.

                    1. Okay, so what are your thoughts on rural travel times?
                      Do you have any? Do you even give a shit?

                    2. Jet packs dummy.

              2. High speed stage coaches and hyper sedan chairs should do the trick.

        2. Turns out the “Real America” of Trumpworld fantasies aren’t really the salt-of-the-earth farmer/rancher/rural folks that Team Red likes to idolize, it’s only the rural folk that vote for Team Red.

          But people who live in the sticks but who don’t go along with Team Red’s agenda? SCREW THEM

          1. Psychoticjeff strikes again!

            1. Oh yeah you’re right. Jesse really cares deeply about all those rural folks who have long travel times. Except for people like me, for whom he doesn’t give a shit. Got it.

                1. So in your mind, I’ve been completely dehumanized. And you have the gall to call me mentally ill. Got it.

                  1. Prove you’re a person

                    1. What does this have to do with Hyperloop or transportation in general?

              1. Or maybe driving 2 hours once in awhile isn’t really a big deal Baby Jeffy?

                1. He’s getting so upset because he’s getting laughed at for supporting Musks retardation lolol

                2. Right. So suck it up, who cares about the plight of rural folk living in the sticks, etc., etc.

                  1. If you don’t want more trains you hate rural people!

                    1. For a moment, could you at least bring yourself to say “different people experience different challenges based on their different circumstances in life”? Is that too much of a concession to make?

                    2. Sorry I couldn’t hear you through your crying.

          2. “Turns out the “Real America” of Trump world”

            Hey asshole, you were just complaining about making this partisan and now you’re doing it.

            You sad fucking hypocrite.

    9. “”It gets really tiring to have to drive hours and hours to get to anywhere.””

      Which will be closer, the Hyperloop hub, or the airport?
      What are you going to drive when you get to your destination?

      1. Well my understanding is, Hyperloop hubs don’t necessarily have to be these huge infrastructure investments like an airport, they can be smaller affairs, analogous to a bus terminal. So potentially smaller towns would be able to have their own Hyperloop hubs.

        Sure, initially, it will be just between big cities, but hopefully over time it would become more decentralized.

        1. As the fairy god Progress has promised

          1. And… Jeff totally dodged the question because he knows the answer makes him look retarded.

        2. “my understanding is”

          Stunted and embarrassingly incomplete like everything else you’ve ever discussed?

          1. So “it’s not personal” yet you took the time to respond to every comment of mine with an insult. Huh.

  23. MAJOR #TRUMPRUSSIA UPDATE!!!!!

    NEW ANALYSIS: We tallied 25 times Trump was SOFT ON RUSSIA. Examples: He praised Putin. Denied Russian meddling. Said Russia can keep Crimea. Reluctant to impose new sanctions. Attacked NATO. Congratulated Putin’s election. Withdrew from Syria.

    Congratulated. Putin’s. Election.

    All patriotic Americans must demand a Commander in Chief who will confront Russia — with military force if necessary.

    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia
    #LibertariansForStayingInSyria

    1. What we need here, is a quick nuclear exchange. That’ll teach ‘em.

      1. Only a reckless narcissistic maniac like Trump would fail to relentless confront a paranoid adversary that has 15,000 or more nuclear weapons.

      2. Russia’s 2016 attack on our democracy must be understood in the context of earlier atrocities like Pearl Harbor and 9 / 11. I’m not saying a nuclear war should be our first option, but we cannot rule out some form of armed conflict.

        1. May death come swiftly to our perceived enemies.

        2. Pearl Harbor: 2,335 killed (military)
          9/11: 2,977 victims (non-hijackers)
          2016 election: EVERYBODY!

    2. And here’s more on Drumpf’s disastrous foreign policy blunders.

      The more I talk talk to sources, the more i’m hearing America’s betrayal of the Kurds, and the humiliation, “misogynistic” “squashing” of US ambassador in Ukraine for political motivations makes people think, we, Americans, have become the “bad guys.” Hearing it was gut punch.

      The US has always been a force for good in the world. Even our mistakes, like the Iraq War, resulted from a desire to liberate oppressed people. And Orange Hitler has totally ruined our reputation in less than one term.

      1. If people like Richard Engle think we are the bad guys, Trump is obviously doing something right.

    3. Times Obama/Hillary were soft on Russia:

      Russian Reset
      Soft sanctions for Crimea
      Skolkovo tech trade that ended with US technology on Russian weapons
      Slowing of LNG exports to Europe creating dependency on Russian Oil
      Kerry organizing Russia to handle Syria’s chemical weapon destruction (hint, they weren’t destroyed)
      “Wait until after the election” – Obama
      Non development of mid-range nukes despite Russia breaking the treaty and developing them
      Disallowing defense shield interceptors in Poland and Ukraine

  24. http://amgreatness.com/2019/11/18/the-swamps-swingline-stapler/

    If the Trump era is the Beltway’s version of “Office Space,” the president is Peter Gibbons—dismantling his cubicle, refusing to submit his TPS reports, and parking in the boss’s primo spot. Trump’s defiance earns plaudits from Beltways outsiders—the two Bobs, in this scenario—who are set to promote him for his insubordination.

    Folks like Yovanovitch, meanwhile, are a collective Milton, sitting in the basement while clutching the Swingline stapler they insist belongs to them and threatening to burn the place down if they don’t get their way.

    That is a very clever and astute analogy.

    1. And just like Milton, no one knows who hired him, why he is allowed in the building, or why his position existed in the first place.

      1. And just like Milton, Yaovanovitch is at a desk in the basement drawing a paycheck. Get this.

        After becoming accustomed to heads of state referring to you as “Madame Ambassador” and “Your Excellency,” being addressed as “Ms. Y” by a dozen or so Georgetown University whippersnappers would bruise anyone’s ego. (Yovanovitch admitted that she still retains a position at the State Department at the same salary with no daily responsibilities but also is allowed to moonlight as a Georgetown fellow. Sweet gig.)

        1. Turns out she’s just a crybaby.

        2. Imagine being this person. Not even a cog in the wheel, someone who generates no good or service or any real value.

          Then all of the sudden you get a chance to temporarily wake up from your hum drum stupor you call a life to take down a man shattering your disillusioned fantasy of liberal utopia… This is her big chance!

          pathetic people with pathetic ideas

          1. This woman thought she was doing God’s work in Ukraine. Trust me. I know these types.

        3. I would call her Yomamavitch.

  25. A bill to decriminalize marijuana federally is moving forward in the House.

    Does the bill earmark the civil fines to fund Medicare For All?

  26. GLAAD now demands the corporations no longer give to the Salvation Army. You see running one of the most efficient charities in existence and helping needy people to get something to eat and fix there lives is just not worthy if it doesn’t include support for sodomy and pederasty.

    http://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/the-morning-briefing/

    1. On the other foot, apparently conservatives demand that corporations do donate to the Salvation Army. It seems weird to turn a chicken sandwich into a political football.

      1. I do not see how saying that you shouldn’t stop because GLAAD demands that you do is demanding that you donate to the charity. By that logic anyone who objects to GLAADs extortion is just demanding people donate to the charity. Ah, no.

        1. I do not see how saying that you shouldn’t stop because GLAAD demands that you do is demanding that you donate to the charity.

          I didn’t think you would. After all, you’re one of the good guys.

          1. After all I am one of those people who understands how logic and reason work. Demanding people donate to the charity would be going around telling people who are not doing so now they must.

            That is not what happened here. GLAAD demanded Chick Fila stop doing something they already were. The people objecting to that are not demanding Chick Fila do anything except what they were already doing and not give into extortion.

            Let me put it to you in terms maybe even you can understand. Imagine someone shows up at your house and puts a gun to your head and says, “stop mowing your lawn or I am going to kill you”. If I stand up and tell the person they can’t do that, am I telling you that you must mow your lawn? By your logic I am. Do you understand now?

            You really are as simple minded and hard headed as Jeff. I really don’t get people like you.

            1. I’ve been around long enough to know better than to expect you to be able to see anything from any point other than the one you’ve staked out. You’re just another partisan determined to turn everything into an us vs them political game. I don’t think anyone has a real problem with you doing that, just don’t get all snotty when you’re called on it.

              1. It is not so much that you can’t understand reason, it is that you refuse to even try. You have lost this argument six ways to Sunday. Instead of saying, “yeah, you have a point”, you just scream insults.

                This is why you are have never gotten any smarter Sparky. You can’t solve a problem unless you realize you have one. You made a stupid point, saw it be demolished and rather than learn from the experience you just rant and rave like you are Hihn or something. Don’t you want to be better than you are? Just a little?

                1. I’ve seen you any number of times make the exact opposite of your argument. You can tell when it’s happening when it goes something like “so-and-so did such-and-such because what they really think is blah blah blah and I’m right and you’re stupid so fuck off.”

                  1. I have never taken the exact opposite of this argument. The argument is simple, GLAAD are a bunch of assholes for demanding that Chick Fila stop donating to a good charity. What would be the opposite of that argument and where have I taken it?

                    Regardless, even if I had, that has nothing to do with the issue here. The issue here is whether people who demand GLAAD stop bullying companies into stop donating to the Salvation Army are as you claim demanding that companies do. And that claim is absurd and irrational.

                    Now, I have explained that to you about five times now. Why do you refuse to understand such a simple point and where do you think doing that gets you?

                    1. whether people who demand GLAAD stop bullying companies

                      If you bother to read some of the things linked in your link, you’d see that there are no conservatives or conservative groups making any demands of GLAAD.

                    2. Of course they are not telling GLAAD anything. GLAAD isn’t going to listen. They are making demands of Chick Fila to ignore GLAAD which is the same thing. Again, my telling you don’t let that guy tell you to stop mowing your lawn is not me telling you to mow your lawn. It is me telling you not to let someone extort you.

                    3. Amid reports that fast food chain Chick-fil-A was halting donations to Christian groups, the restaurant’s foundation is maintaining they are philanthropically restructuring, not caving to political correctness in pursuit of higher profits.

                      Now tell us all how Chick-fil-A is actually lying and what they really think is…

                    4. Holy shit, did I just read Sparky completely shit the bed then quadruple down??

                      WTF????

              2. Are you putting him in a them category?

                1. You’re pretty much all in the them category as far as I’m concerned.

                  1. People who can make a rational argument? That category? It is a good category. You should try and join it.

                  2. You know when I troll, I do it enthusiastically at least Sporko. Try to have some verve man.

  27. China cracking down in HK.

    QUICK GET LEBRON AND KERR ON THE PHONE FOR THEIR OPINIONION!

    1. It is complicated Rufus. That Chinese student that was just shot in the head was asking for it by wearing that short skirt.

    2. QUICK GET LEBRON AND KERR ON THE PHONE FOR THEIR OPINIONION!

      You mean they weren’t coordinating their efforts at Lebron and Kerr’s convenience? How rude.

  28. http://www.foxnews.com/sports/penn-womens-volleyball-team-season-canceled

    U Penn cancels women’s volleyball season because vulgar posters were found in their locker room. Even the most uptight Victorian would find that insane. You can’t just take the posters down and tell them not to put them back up?

    1. Let me guess — the U Penn women’s volleyball team stinks?

      1. The Quakers were 11-10 and 4-8 in conference play before their season was canceled.

        Not good but not horrible.

        1. That’s pretty horrible.

          1. No, it really isn’t. The ivy league doesn’t offer scholarships so the quality of player is often substandard compared to other d1 programs.

    2. It’s unclear what the vulgar messages were and if they were aimed at anyone in particular.

      I’ll lay down $100 that says these posters weren’t shirtless firefighters. Another $100 that if they’d been something out of On Our Backs the University wouldn’t have been able to take them down.

      1. I can’t tell what they were. What do you think?

        1. I’m leaning heavily towards something between naked selfie and revenge porn. They’re adults so it’s not child porn and the pic got shared or even taken with multiple members of the team so there’s no way to punish an individual and if it could be construed as the least bit racist, it would be. Ultimately, the admins have a situation where girls are being bitchy to each other and the only thing they can go with is ‘vulgar’.

  29. In remarks for The Federalist Society last week, Attorney General William Barr claimed “the real ‘miracle'” of our country’s founding was the “creation of a strong executive, independent of, and coequal with, the other two branches of government” and that far from being the “rebellion against monarchical tyranny” of which we were told, the real target was an overbearing legislature. Writes Damon Linker: “This is, to put it mildly, an unorthodox reading of the American Revolution.”

    Damon Linker is being obtuse. The rebels (the more thoughtful ones, at least) were objecting to Parliament’s assertion of an unfettered right to legislate for the colonies. (See John Adams’s Novanglus columns, for example.) And later, the drafters of the Constitution were mainly worried that the legislative branch would be too strong and would hamstring the executive.

    1. Linker is not being obtuse. He is just dead wrong. The Founders’ views of the world were colored by the English Civil War, which was about as far removed from them as our Civil War is removed from us, and the Glorious Revolution. The English Civil War resulted in a parliamentary tyranny so bad that England invited Charles II back to become king after Cromwell’s death. The entire English system after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was designed to have an executive in the form of a King to reign in Parliament and make sure there was never another Cromwell.

      The Founders saw themselves not as having a revolution but re-establishing their rights as Englishman. They understood the real danger to the country was an out of control Congress and mob rule. And they designed the Constitution to prevent that. They did it by dividing the Congress into two houses, one of which represented the states and was not elected by popular vote, giving Congress strictly enumerated powers, and giving the President the power of the veto and making him commander in chief of the military.

      Writer, Damon Linker is a fucking moron.

      1. So they tried to design in dysfunctional divisions in order to limit the power of government. Brilliant.

        But WTF happened?

        1. No, they didn’t design in dysfunctional divisions. They ultimately gave all of the power to Congress. But, they made it very difficult for Congress to exercise that power because Congress has to agree to use it. That is not dysfunctional at all. It is brilliant.

          WTF happened? The country amended the Constitution and made Senators popularly elected for one thing. And the Supreme Court started reading the commerce clause as some kind of trap door that drops the entire system of enumerated powers out of the bottom of the document for another.

      2. Thanks, John, for reminding us that
        a) balance of power
        b) through check and balances,
        c) amid three CO-EQUAl branches

        …. are all myths and lies, created by a conspiracy of Never-Trumpers and Fake Media … over 200 years before THIS Trump arose … the Trump who claims to be the Chosen One, while glancing skyward at 0:05 into this video. (lol)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgwalqjF5nw

        … and retweeting libertarian conspiracy nut, Wayne Allen Root, that he (Trump) is “the Second Coming of God”

        Does this mean I WON’T get a +10000 from lc1789? 🙂

        1. Nothing I said denied the coequal brances or the balence of power among the branches.

          Look you stupid fucker. Don’t respond to posts the content of which you do not understand. You clearly have no idea what I am talking about. Claiming that I am denying those things makes no sense.

          Again, you are too fucking stupid to have this conversation. Go post talking points about Orange Man Bad or something.

          1. LIAR

            Nothing I said denied the coequal brances or the balence of power among the branches.

            You REPEATEDLY said, in multiple posts. that their ,major concern was an out of control CongressI

            YOUR WORDS

            They understood the real danger to the country was an out of control Congress and mob rule. And they designed the Constitution to prevent that.

            TO CONTROL THE CONGRESS!!!
            Then you go BAT SHIT CRAZY

            They did it by dividing the Congress into two houses, one of which represented the states and was not elected by popular vote, giving Congress strictly enumerated powers, and giving the President the power of the veto and making him commander in chief of the military.

            Not only wacky … NOT ONE FUCKING WORD ABOUT … OR CONTENT .. ON …. BALANCE OF POWER .., CHECKS AND BALANCES .,.. OR THE BRANCHES BEING EQUAL

            ***YOU DENIED THE BRANCHES BEING EQUAL BY RANTING ABOUT THE VETO …. AND IGNORING IMPEACHMENT***

            Look you stupid fucker

            *sneer*

            Don’t respond to posts the content of which you do not understand. You clearly have no idea what I am talking about. Claiming that I am denying those things makes no sense

            YOU SAID THE CONSTITUTION WAS CREATED TO CONTROL CONGRESS
            YOU GAVE VETO AS THE EXAMPLE … BUT FAILED ON IMPEACHMENT.

            Like your equally crazed … and equally out of context bellowing here!
            https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8017950

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has another bitchfit.

              1. SELF-DEFENSE, PROVING THE ASSAILANT IS A “BITCHFIT” TO A TRUMPTARD … JUST AS IT IS TO TRUMP HIMSELF.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks shrieking like a bitch doesn’t make it a bitchfit.

                  1. PROOF: Self-defense

                    He pulls this shit every time I post DOCUMENTED facts … triggering the alt-right version of a snow flake — alarge ball of ice
                    https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8017980.

    2. And later, the drafters of the Constitution were mainly worried that the legislative branch would be too strong and would hamstring the executive

      Only in your authoritarian fantasies.
      Barr’s overreaching legislature is as crazy as an overreaching judiciary.

      The Novanglus Essays were
      … about Natural Rights ..
      … written before the Revolution (1774-1775)
      … which was followed by the Articles of Confederation
      … THEN the Constitution … 12 years later.
      https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/adams/the-novanglus-essays-by-john-adams

      1. That isn’t even a sensible response. Yes, they believed in natural rights. But that doesn’t mean they were not concerned about an out of control legislature violating them.

        You are one of the few people I have ever seen that I think would be better off if you didn’t read. Reading never seems to make you any brighter. You always take the wrong lesson from what you read and it ironically makes you even more crazy, angry, and stupid.

        1. That isn’t even a sensible response.

          (smirk)

          Yes, they believed in natural rights

          .John Adams is a PERSON, not a “they” (lol)

          But that doesn’t mean they were not concerned about an out of control legislature violating them.

          That’s not what either of us said. I PROVED he was WRONG on what the Novanglus Essays SAID … and WHEN they were written.

          You are one of the few people I have ever seen that I think would be better off if you didn’t read.

          Then I’d be like you! … SCREWING UP the issue … and forgetting your own false assertion!

          I link to PROOF … you swim in the same moral swamp of unprovoked assaults …

          You always take the wrong lesson from what you read and it ironically makes you even more crazy, angry, and stupid.

          THAT BABBLING … while you “defended” what HE never said … attacked what I never said … and forgot what YOU said!!!

          I also linked to PROOF he was wrong .. the federalispapers.org
          THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, JOHN … while you throw a hissy fit of blunders!!!

          You BOTH claimed the Founders were MOST concerned about a legislature hamstringing a President … here is how you FAILED, when challenged

          But that doesn’t mean they were not concerned about an out of control legislature violating them.

          LAUGHABLE DIVERSION … “FORGOT” YOUR OWN CLAIM … AND LIED(?) ABOUT HIS CLAIM AND MY RESPONSE. (hamstring)

          WHY DID YOU CUT AND RUN, JOHN?

          Yes, they believed in natural rights.

          KNOWINGLY misrepresented the Novanglus Essays … as representing the founders … but written BEFORE the Revolution … when there was not the slightest thought of Constitution!!!
          Ever hear of the Articles???

          *****

          You always take the wrong lesson from what you read and it ironically makes you even more crazy, angry, and stupid.

          THAT is was set the tone of this response … and the boldface …. as you were TOTALLY humiliating yourself!!!

          John hasn’t seen THIS yet. 🙂
          https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8017850

          1. Don’t correct others grammar when yours sucks.

            1. (yawn) When whiny pussies lose on the facts, they whine about …. GRAMMAR!

          2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity.

  30. William Murdock of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission told Intelligencer that when it comes to Hyperloop over traditional high-speed rail, for instance, “the environmental footprint is smaller, the right of way is narrower, and the noise impact is lower.”

    Unfortunately for Hyperloop, there’s a little-known start-up from somewhere up north called Kringle Industries that’s working on a disruptive travel technology involving flying reindeer that makes Hyperloop obsolete before it even gets off the ground. As I understand it, the primary sticking point of this “Sleigh Service”, as it’s known, is a charge by the Office for Civil Rights that the CEO maintains a no-fly list based on who’s “naughty” and who’s “nice” that raises disparate impact concerns.

    1. I was already to invest in Kringle Industries until someone turned me on the United Federation of Planets Inc. and their personal transporter. That is the future man.

    2. Isn’t Kringle purely in the package delivery business?

      1. It’s important to diversify.

      2. No, that’s me.

        1. That was kinda funny.

  31. “under President Donald Trump, more people are being held in immigration detention centers than ever before in U.S. history. And the majority of these detainees (70 percent) are people with no criminal records, according to the latest numbers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    “More than 14,000 are people the U.S. government has determined have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if deported,” points out The Washington Post.”

    I’ve broken down these statistics before. It’s unclear why the people here are being detained. Is it because they crossed the border illegally and asked for asylum as a defense against deportation? Are these people who have been granted asylum by a judge but are being detained for some other reason? There’s no way to tell from this text.

    Even more confusing, when the U.S. government determines that the asylum seeker in question faces “a reasonable fear of persecution”, that is the criteria for determining whether an asylum seeker is eligible for a hearing–not asylum. The determination of whether an asylum seeker is eligible for asylum needs to be made by a judge at a hearing rather than by a bureaucrat at a federal agency.

    Are these people being detained because their whole family is waiting for placement in an apartment somewhere? Are these people being detained because the relatives that were planning to sponsor them are no longer willing to sign the waiver forms promising to reimburse the taxpayers if the asylum seeker ends up on federal assistance?

    Another question that needs to be answered: Why shouldn’t people who have been caught crossing the border illegally be held until their asylum case is heard? Holding people until their court date–unless they make bail–isn’t that what we usually do with criminals? Why should the rules go out the window for asylum seekers who purposely break the law by crossing the border illegally? Are these people being held–but could be freed at any time if they agreed to wait in Mexico for their hearing?

    That’s an awful lot of questions. Here’s another: Why is it Trump’s fault if the number of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras went from about 4,500 a year when Obama issued DACA in 2012 to a rate that was more than a million a year in May of 2019? If there’s a really bad hurricane this year, I hope you don’t blame the weatherman. It’s not his fault.

    Are you saying that Trump should do more to prevent asylum seekers from crossing our border illegally?

    1. The sentence you quote, makes no sense. If the government had determined they had a reasonable fear of returning, they would have asylum status and would not be in detention. So, the only reason I can think why someone who has asylum status would be in detention is because they committed a crime that caused them to lose that status but can’t be deported since you can’t deport people if they have a reasonable fear of persecution.

      The Post seems to have left the committed a crime part out. What is happening is the government is running out of room to detain asylum seekers and is opening up more space by deporting people who have been granted asylum but lost their status because they were convicted of a crime.

      1. USCIS- Asylum

        There are very few reasons to be granted asylum as these asylum seekers must have suffered or reasonably fear persecution because of these factors.

        Many of these asylum seekers are poor and their countries are shitholes. Still not good enough reason for asylum.

        1. I know that. But that is not the problem with the sentence Ken gives. These people rightly or wrongly have been granted asylum and are still in detention. That means something else is going on, likely they are criminals.

        2. Yeah, the way that sentence is written (and quoted), it makes it seem as if Trump is holding people in prison after they were granted asylum by a judge.

          “More than 14,000 are people the U.S. government has determined have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if deported,” points out The Washington Post.”

          That probably should have been written like this:

          “More than 14,000 are people awaiting placement for housing and jobs after being given a date for their asylum hearing”.

          I think the Washington Post was being deceptive.

          I think ENB was probably a victim of TDS on this. Believing whatever people say so long as it’s bad and about Trump is sort of what having TDS is all about.

          1. “More than 14,000 are people awaiting placement for housing and jobs after being given a date for their asylum hearing”.

            —-Ken Shultz

            Incidentally, when I worked at the hospital, when we discharged homeless patients, we weren’t allowed to just dump them on the street. We had people whose job it was to find them a place to live and stay, and we had a transportation department whose job it was to make sure they got there.

            These people, by treaty, are eligible for rent subsidies, SNAP benefits, public schooling for their kids, etc. It would surprise me if it were legal for the government to just dump them on the street with a court date–especially when you consider how many children are involved.

            In other words, it may be against the law for Trump to do what they’re criticizing him for not doing to these 14,000 people.

            1. News today … Trump has the highest number of CHILDREN incarcerated … in the entire world
              More than North Korea.
              More than China

              What a humanitarian DISGRACE

              1. Because we can believe China and NK

                AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

                1. THAT WAS THE UN .,.. YOU CRAZED HYENA

                  1. Tell your lawyer I said he’s a retard.

                    1. TELL YOURSELF THAT YOU ARE A FUCKING ILLITERATE.
                      NO LAWYER MENTIONED IN THE THREAD

                      THE UN IS … AND THIS LINK PROVES YOU BOTH FULL OF SHIT ON THE UN GLOBAL STUDY.
                      https://omnibook.com/view/e0623280-5656-42f8-9edf-5872f8f08562
                      IS THIS BECAUSE … MORE PROOF THAT TRUMP IS A DESPOT LOCKING CHILDREN IN CAGES … EVEN MORE THAN CHINA.

                    2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks anyone takes his ravings seriously.

          2. I think the Washington Post was being deceptive.

            No! That simply cannot be. WaPo is a denizen of democracy, or something like that. 😉 /sarc

      2. “The sentence you quote, makes no sense. If the government had determined they had a reasonable fear of returning, they would have asylum status and would not be in detention.”

        There are two kinds of asylum seekers.

        1) Affirmative.

        These are the people who walk up to a border checkpoint and and ask a Homeland Security official for asylum. They haven’t committed any crime, and Trump has mostly tried to make these people wait for their asylum hearing in Mexico.

        2) Defensive.

        These are people who are caught crossing the border illegally. Plenty of them are caught on purpose. The cross illegally and present themselves to Homeland Security that way.

        When they’re arrested for crossing the border illegally, they ask for asylum as a defense against deportation. When they’re processed, people at Homeland security ask them questions about why they’re seeking asylum. A lot of them say things like, “My brother moved here, and he’s got a job lined up for me”. Because their asylum claim isn’t based on a claim of fleeing persecution, the agency decides that they don’t have a right to a hearing–because they’re not really even asking for asylum. They’re asking to be immigrants.

        On the other hand, when asked about why they’re seeking asylum, some of them will say that the local gang threatened to kill them, their family threw them out because they’re gay, local officials in Guatemala (or wherever) threatened to beat them up if they didn’t pay protection money, etc. Those asylum seekers who claim to be fleeing persecution are granted a hearing date by the agency–because their claims for asylum are deemed to be credible enough to justify an actual asylum claim rather than seeking merely to immigrate.

        The question then becomes what to do with those who have made asylum claims. They can be deported at the government’s expense any time they choose to drop their asylum defense to deportation. Because the legitimately ratified treaty on asylum seekers stipulates that these people cannot be treated differently from other Americans while their claim to asylum is being adjudicated, they’re entitled to all the same social support Americans citizens are entitled to use. They’re usually placed in a program with a job if they can be. They’re placed in an apartment that the government is paying for–like they’re on welfare. They get SNAP benefits. They get Medicaid. And they get all this stuff right up until the moment their case is adjudicated. Of the few that actually show up in court for their hearing, very few are actually granted asylum. They’re mostly economic immigrants and family members of people who have already come here, legally or illegally.

        However, they are also under arraignment. They’ve been charged with a crime, and they’re disputing their guilt based on an asylum claim, but they’re still charged criminals. It can take the government a long time to find them a place to live, a job, etc. If the one of their family members on the outside signs a waiver, promising to keep the asylum seekers off of social services (or reimburse the taxpayers if they end up on them), then they’re released early.

        The ones who are released to a job are basically like prisoners on a work-release program. Those 14,000 are most likely defensive asylum seekers who are waiting for work release–pending their hearing. If they dropped their asylum claim, they’d get a free ride home whenever they wanted.

        1. Ken I am aware of all that. But look at the sentence in the Post. It says that More than 14,000 are people the U.S. government has determined have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if deported If the government determines that, they have won their asylum claim and get status. If they have status, they should no longer be detained. You are talking about people whose asylum claims have not yet been heard. And you can’t say the government has determined those people have a reasonable fear of persecution because no determination has been made.

          You completely missed my point. You just told me a bunch of things I already know.

          1. “It says that More than 14,000 are people the U.S. government has determined have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if deported If the government determines that, they have won their asylum claim and get status.”

            I think you’re missing my point.

            When the government determines that their fear of persecution is reasonable, that’s what entitles them to an asylum hearing.

            That is NOT what entitles them to asylum.

            The people who wrote that at the Post and the people who quoted it don’t seem to understand the difference between qualifying for an asylum hearing and qualifying for asylum.

            It is not enough to say, “I want asylum” in order to be eligible for a hearing on your asylum claim.

            The reason you want asylum must be one of the reasons covered in the treaty–or you do not get an asylum hearing.

            These are people whose claims of asylum have made them eligible for an asylum hearing–but they haven’t been to a hearing yet. They’re like people who are charged with murder but are claiming self-defense. That is why they’re still being detained–even after their claims for asylum have been judged–by a government official rather than a judge–to be credible.

            1. Then the sentence is a straight up lie. It hasn’t been determined that they have a reasonable fear. What has been determined is that they have a credible claim of having reasonable fear and thus are entitled to a hearing. The determination that you get a hearing is just a determination that you have a credible claim. It is not a determination that that claim is true of valid.

              The Post writer is misstating the law here.

              1. “What has been determined is that they have a credible claim of having reasonable fear and thus are entitled to a hearing.”

                That is correct.

                We agree.

                I don’t know the motives of the people who wrote or quoted this piece, but being deceptive is certainly one explanation. At the very least, it’s uninformed. The very best explanation is that the author and whomever quoted it doesn’t know the difference between the two. I suspect the the Washington Post author used the word “government” here in a purposely ambiguous way. It’s much more instructive to point out that it was a federal agency that determined these people’s claims were in fact asylum claims.

                Trump is not holding people prisoner after their claims to asylum have been verified and substantiated by a judge–and yet the way that statement was written, it looks to average people like that’s exactly what’s happening.

            2. Ken to Police Officer: “I want John charged with stealing my generator”.

              Police Officer: “What happened?”

              Ken: “I let him borrow the generator, and when he brought it back, it was broken”.

              Police: “That’s not theft. That’s a civil claim, so I’m not arresting him”

              The reason you’re not arrested and arraigned for theft is because you’re not even really being accused of theft. By my own admission, you didn’t really steal anything.

              The reason “asylum seekers” don’t get a hearing if they don’t make a claim for a reason that’s covered by the treaty is because they aren’t really asylum seekers. They’re illegal immigrants.

              Those who do make legitimate claims–according to a police officer–are entitled to an asylum hearing despite being arraigned on breaking the law. They are not people who have been granted asylum by a police officer. It’s not that their claim for asylum has been substantiated by a judge. It’s that the claim of an asylum defense itself has been properly assigned by the officer.

              1. Those who do make legitimate claims–according to a police officer–are entitled to an asylum hearing despite being arraigned on breaking the law. They are not people who have been granted asylum by a police officer. It’s not that their claim for asylum has been substantiated by a judge. It’s that the claim of an asylum defense itself has been properly assigned by the officer.

                Ken, we are saying the exact same thing. The statement by the post is just wrong. The government hasn’t determined these people have a reasonable fear. The standard for a hearing is credible claim. Saying the person has a credible claim and is entitled to a hearing is not the same as saying you have determined that the claim is genuine.

                That is why I said the sentence in the post made no sense. It doesn’t. The Post was lying here.

    2. Not what she intended, but she cleverly said that Trump is full of shit on Obama’s deportations. He deported a record number, a record that still stands.

      And the DACA that drives Obama-haters INSANE was no more than placing them as a bottom priority … while deporting a record number overall.

      Chief executives have no right to establish workplace priorities … while increasing the workload … if the executive is black … or a Democrat … or a Kenyan-born Muslim … when tribal hatred is so intense. That’s just common sense.

      1. Chief executives have no right to establish workplace priorities … while increasing the workload … if the executive is black … or a Democrat … or a Kenyan-born Muslim … when tribal hatred is so intense. That’s just common sense.

        That is not a priority dumb ass. DACA was reading an entire class of people out of the law. To give an analogy, imagine if a DA in a state that didn’t have the Castle Doctrine declared that all people who are acting in their home against an intruder who has no legal right to be there will not be prosecuted for assault or murder no matter what the circumstances. Doing that would effectively be creating the castle doctrine even though the state legislature refused to create one.

        That is exactly what DACA did. It said a certain class of people will no longer be deported. That effectively created an exception to the INA that was not in the law. It was lawless and illegal. And if it was done in any other context, retards like you would be having a fit.

        You are dumb as a fucking post. I can’t overstate how much I hold you in contempt and what a worthless waste of space you are. Please stop commenting on things you clearly don’t understand. It is insulting to the entire human race.

          1. You’ll know you’re being spoken to when you hear “excuse me waiter” otherwise you can stay silent.

            1. BULLYING
              INFANTILE

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano self-identifies.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano explains his methodology.

    3. “Another question that needs to be answered: Why shouldn’t people who have been caught crossing the border illegally be held until their asylum case is heard? ”

      Because to some bleeding hearts, anything less than a free week at Disney, followed by keys to a new furnished house and car is racist oppression?

    1. It is just another case of the media and the Democrats gaslighting the public.

      1. I thought democrats were for lowering emissions.

      1. The scandal may have been fake but several witnesses say the smell was real.

    2. I had to look it up. Thanks for the laugh!

  32. ENB left out the best part of Holmes testimony. I am not making this up. Holmes claims that immediately after Sondland and Trump discussed Ukraine:

    “The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland’s efforts, on behalf of the President, to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden, and I could only hear Ambassador Sondland’s side of that part of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the President that the rapper was “kind of f—-d there,” and “should have pled guilty.” He recommended that the President “wait until after the sentencing or it will make it worse,” adding that the President should “let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker-tape when he comes home.” Ambassador Sondland further told the President that Sweden “should have released him on your word,” but that “you can tell the Kardashians you tried.”

    1. So Sondland doesn’t give a shit about Americans locked up abroad. I can’t say I am surprised.

      1. So John doesn’t give a shit about sovereign nations, each having their own … sovereignty. I can’t say I’m surprised READY … FIRE … AIM

        The rapper was arrested for gross assault, but of what use are facts and reality to authoritarians … because when Sondland does not fully worship the Orange God, he’s treasonous. (Sondland, not God)

        1. The rapper said he was innocent. There is nothing to say that he wasn’t. You don’t consider that possibility because you are a fucking lunatic who is in here yelling at trashcans and shitting all over the place.

          1. There is nothing to say that he wasn’t.

            JOHN HAS ACCESS TO CRIMINAL RECORDS … IN SWEDEN!!
            (he does this shit .. in public … repeatedly!)

            You don’t consider that possibility because you are a fucking lunatic who is in here yelling at trashcans and shitting all over the place.

            MY POINT IS THAT *YOU* ARE FULL OF SHIT, BECAUSE I KEEP PROVING IT.

            So Sondland doesn’t give a shit about Americans locked up abroad. I can’t say I am surprised.

            HE’S CHARGED WITH ASSAULT

            YOU ALSO FUCKED UP THE CONTEXT, THAT TRUMP WAS WORKING FOR HIS RELEASE … TO PLEASE THE KARDASHIANS …. WHICH INCLUDES KANYE WEST …. A RAPPER … WHICH LEAVES YOU ALL ALONE … TWISTING IN THE WIND … WITH NOT EVEN TRUMP AT YOUR SIDE.

            AND YOU BELLOW THAT PEOPLE ARE LOCKED UP FOR NO REASON …. IN SWEDEN!BECAUSE YOU’VE SEEN THE CRIMINAL RECORDS THERE!!!.

            You don’t consider that possibility because you are a fucking lunatic who is in here yelling at trashcans and shitting all over the place.SHOW US THOSE CRIMINAL RECORDS FROM SWEDEN, SKIPPY!

            You FAIL to realize that you cannot bully me … while making a total ass of yourself … NOW FOUR TIMES ON THIS PAGE,

            ***It’s not nice to ridicule the severely retarded … so I’ll stop now … at four takedowns.

            Watch the Bellowing Blowhard continue stalking me!
            Cyber-bullies continue their attacks … regardless of how crazy they look .,.. because unprovoked assaults are the only way they can feel “manly” along with the bellowing) Same reason as Trump!

            1. It is always fun to get Hihn to fall into complete incoherence and random bold letters.

              They should ban you for your own good. And God forgive me to getting so much pleasure torturing a crazy person.

              1. The rapper said he was innocent

                SO???

                So did Charles Manson, Skippy

                There is nothing to say that he wasn’t (innocent).

                JOHN HAS ACCESS TO CRIMINAL RECORDS … IN SWEDEN!!
                (he does this shit .. in public … repeatedly!)

                YOU BELLOW THAT PEOPLE ARE LOCKED UP FOR NO REASON …. IN SWEDEN! … BECAUSE YOU’VE SEEN THE CRIMINAL RECORDS THERE!!!.

                You don’t consider that possibility because you are a fucking lunatic who is in here yelling at trashcans and shitting all over the place.

                SHOW US THOSE CRIMINAL RECORDS FROM SWEDEN, SKIPPY!

                and random bold letters.

                DO … YOU …. HEAR … ME …. NOW?

                Fucking thug.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has another bitchfit.

                  1. On the evidence … the bitchfit is you … the whiny pussy.!

                    Why do YOU believe
                    1) John has access to criminal records in SWEDEN?
                    2) Someone in jail says “I’m innocent” — he MUST be released on that alone

                    Trumptards be like a pack of wild dogs .. launching multiple unprovoked assaults … stalking their enemies down the page …. even to save a fellow dog when PROVEN a liar.

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues crying like a bitch.

          2. The rapper said he was innocent

            SO???

      2. Also, race relations for political gain is just well-worn subtext.

    2. In sort of related news that may be overshadowed by the impeachment inquiries, Sweden dropped the investigation into rape charges against Julian Assange.

      1. There’s enough rape charges in Sweden to keep them busy for a generation or two until the migrants change the laws

    3. I was eating lunch at a restaurant with a friend of mine when he received a phone call from Mike Laursen.
      I could overhear Mike on the other end of the call describing how he’d just raped a 10 year old boy yesterday, and was going to try to rape a 7 year old boy tomorrow.

      1. Is the point you are trying to make that, in your opinion, overhearing the person on the other end of a phone call is “hearsay”? If so, I disagree. If one can hear both ends of a conversation, one can hear both ends of a conversation; that’s firsthand witness.

        Is the point you are trying to make that, in your opinion, Holmes is straight-up lying? If so, you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, as a non-partisan observer of the impeachment hearings, I don’t have any reason to trust or not trust his testimony. I am waiting to hear Sondland’s testimony tomorrow.

        1. And Mike’s lies continue

        2. Is the point you are trying to make that, in your opinion, overhearing the person on the other end of a phone call is “hearsay”? If so, I disagree.

          That is because you don’t understand what hearsay is. That is a textbook example of hearsay. It is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the statement.

          My God you are dumb.

          1. You can call me dumb, but you haven’t explained how Holmes is not a firsthand witness of a conversation reporting what he directly heard with his own senses.

            Educate me instead of using insults.

            1. You might as well argue science with a creationist. These cultists are blind to their irrationality.

              These are the same guys who positively freak out at the suggestion that Trump is more responsible for increasingly accepted white nationalist views than liberals. Not fully culpable, just more culpable than liberals. Heads exploded. Oh, and they fight accusations of having violent fantasies by … wait for it … threatening me.

              Geniuses. These guys aren’t libertarian at all. They are conspiracy theorists who have a strongman fetish.

              1. Howdy, De Oppresso. Nice to see you here.

              2. Hearsay is a term of art. You fucking retards are not going to be allowed to lie about its meaning.

            2. He doesn’t matter that he is a first hand witness. He can say that he heard the conversation but the contents of that conversation can not be offered to prove assertions made in them.

              1. Yes, but since Sondland will be testifying, Sondland can be asked about Holmes’ recounting of what he heard at their lunch.

                My understanding is that Holmes’ testimony is not hearsay if the people he claims said certain things are available for cross examination.

                Trump may not be available, but that’s where the analogy to a criminal trial breaks down. We can’t get too technical about hearsay because the hearings are not a trial. Nothing is being proven in the hearings.

          2. If Holmes, Sondland, and Trump had all been sitting at the same table, and Holmes later testified to what he heard Sondland and Trump say, would that be hearsay?

            Is your argument that it is hearsay because an electronic device is involved? Or because Holmes didn’t see Trump, and assumed it was Trump’s voice? Or that Sondland or Trump is not available for questioning?

            1. If Holmes, Sondland, and Trump had all been sitting at the same table, and Holmes later testified to what he heard Sondland and Trump say, would that be hearsay?

              Yes. And no it has nothing to do with whether it is recorded. The statement is made out of court and is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That makes it hearsay. Unless it falls into an exception, it doesn’t get in.

    4. Volker made a HUGE flip against Trump … the fourth to do so … to avoid perjury convictions … when other witnesses called them out.

      OBVIOUSLY part of the Deep State Conspiracy!!!
      Oh wait. Then they’d have NO threat of perjury.
      Never mind.

  33. It’s clear impeachment is losing steam. After weeks of breathless coverage, Reason can’t even manage to get it above the fold in the roundup so far this week.

    1. Obviously, Barr has no clue what co-equal means.
      And “overbearing legislature” MAY be even crazier than
      “overreaching judiciary” + “rogue judges” + “judges inventing rights”, combined.

      We all realize, right, that he’s whining about impeachment, as if the Founders should have got his permission. So very Trumpian!

      1. Hihn, you are an illiterate loon. Please post somewhere else and get some help.

        1. Cold blooded John, wishing that idiot on other people

        2. John is now PUNISHING ME … for humiliating him here (1)
          https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8017850
          (He’ll squawk and lie. But it will take maybe 20 seconds to see how CRAZY he is, with your own eyes

        3. John is now PUNISHING ME … for humiliating him here (2)
          https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8017980
          (He’ll squawk and lie. But it will take maybe 20 seconds to see how CRAZY he is, with your own eyes

        4. John is now PUNISHING ME … for humiliating him here (3)
          https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8017950
          (He’ll squawk and lie. But it will take maybe 20 seconds to see how CRAZY he is, with your own eyes

        5. John is now PUNISHING ME … for humiliating him here (4)
          https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8017992
          (He’ll squawk and lie. But it will take maybe 20 seconds to see how CRAZY he is, with your own eyes

        6. John is now PUNISHING ME … for humiliating him here (5)
          https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8017997
          (He’ll squawk and lie. But it will take maybe 20 seconds to see how CRAZY he is, with your own eyes

        7. John is now PUNISHING ME … for humiliating him here (6)
          https://reason.com/2019/11/19/trump-and-obama-each-break-records-on-bad-immigration-policy/#comment-8018068
          (He’ll squawk and lie. But it will take maybe 20 seconds to see how CRAZY he is, with your own eyes

          Count ’em. SIX … THAT is one SICK FUCK STALKING CYBER-BULLY
          SEE how many times he calls me illiterate” … EVERY TIME I PROVE A LIE, OR A BLUNDER.

          Clarify: Not ALL Trumptards are as sick as … Trump.

          1. Now that’s a freakout

            1. It is lovely isn’t it? I bet he is chewing on the furniture right now.

          2. Go cry to your lawyer about it, pussy.

  34. Police surround last holdouts at Hong Kong university

    You can sense the glee in MSM as the Commie agents crack down on non-violent freedom protesters.

    1. my Mavs fans friends are tired of me injecting “Free Hong Kong!” into their threads on Luka’s recent triple double etc.

      What’s the fave team in the Uighur camps?

    2. You can sense the glee in MSM as the Commie agents crack down on non-violent freedom protesters.

      You can sense the glee among Trumptards …. when Trump told such MASSIVE PSYCHO LIES … denying the violence and beatings INITIATED by their kindred nazis and racists in Charlottesville.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Two sides of the same authoritarian coin.
      As a growing majority of Americans now agree.

      1. >>growing majority of Americans now agree.

        dude that will never happen about anything.

        1. growing majority of Americans now agree.

          dude that will never happen about anything

          THE DUDE — OBVIOUSLY A TRUMPTARD — SAYS A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WILL NEVER AGREE ON ,,,
          1) What the current month this.
          2) Who the President is.
          3) What color an orange is.
          4) 2 + 2 = ???
          5) ****ANYTHING!

          Trump’s base in all its glory!

          1. Growing majority of Americans agree

            Dumbfuck Hihnsano will die alone and unloved, even by his children.

  35. Chief justice orders delay in House fight for Trump records

    Chief Justice John Roberts is ordering an indefinite delay in the House of Representatives’ demand for President Donald Trump’s financial records to give the Supreme Court time to figure out how to handle the high-stakes dispute.

    Lefties were sure that Roberts is on their side after the Penal Tax ruling.

    1. to give the Supreme Court time to figure out how to handle the high-stakes dispute.

      That’s what leaders do
      But I understand your confusion.

  36. “William Murdock of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission told Intelligencer that when it comes to Hyperloop over traditional high-speed rail, for instance, “the environmental footprint is smaller, the right of way is narrower, and the noise impact is lower.”

    Vactrains used to be a big thing back in the 1970s and 1980s, especially during oil shocks. There used to be this magazine called Omni, which mixed science fiction with speculative science. It was like pre-internet Wired magazine. And using pneumatic tubes this way used to get a lot of attention all the way back then. It’s probably the inspriration for how people travel on Futurama. The “vactrain”, as it was often called, was like the infamous “space elevator”, the “sky hook”, etc. . . .

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

    It was originally conceived before the airplane took off, but afterwards, the idea was that it could theoretically go faster than commercial aircraft. Meanwhile, a Ferrari goes faster than a typical SUV, but most people think a typical SUVs is sufficiently fast for their purposes. Is the problem for travel between Columbus and Chicago that people can’t travel that route fast enough?

    Back during the 70s and 80s, the idea was that you could move a tremendous amount of people and stuff around while using very little energy. That seems like a great idea if it’s 1973, oil prices spike 400%, and the government institutes rationing so that your dad can only buy gasoline on even numbered days because the last number on his license plate is even. The vactrain seems like a great idea when your dad has to wait in line for two hours to buy gas that may not be there when he gets to the head of the line–like a hungry Russian in a grocery with empty shelves.

    Fracking has taken care of that problem. The Saudis are effectively selling their oil reserves short by floating Aramco to diversify away from oil–to some extent for fear that those reserves won’t be as important in the future as they were in the past. So, it’s hard to tout a vactrain as the solution to oil shocks. The problem of oil shocks appears to be about as solved as it needs to be.

    They used to tout the ability of vac trains to avoid deaths. About 40,000 die in car accidents every year. 40,000 divided by 330 million = 1.3 ten thousandths of one percent. Every life is precious, but people buy their kids offroad motorcycles because they’re fun, too. Meanwhile, automated cars may help with those statistics. That’s probably not a great justification for the expense of a vactrain.

    The only compelling benefit I see to a vactrain at this point is the ability to use public transportation without leaving your car. The biggest drawback of mass transportation systems is often that you have to drive somewhere and then leave your car behind so that you can use the mass transportation system. Then you commute back to your car and then you drive your car home. There are inefficiencies and wait times associated with that transition from your car to mass transit and back that are a deal breaker for a lot of people. There’s also the fact that you can’t use your car if you leave it out in the suburbs.

    A vactrain could solve that problem, but last I heard, Musk had ruled out the ability to drive your car onto a hyperloop vehicle to keep the costs of boring the tunnel and construction down.

    Now they’re trying to justify this huge infrastructure project on the basis of climate change? There’s no reason to support spending on a project of that size without quantifying the costs and benefits first. How much do we need to spend on vactrains before the temperature first starts coming down? Of course, that’s a completely different question from how much we need to spend in order for the drop in temperature to start having a positive impact. Even more expensive, how much do we need to spend on hyperloops before the problem of climate change is finally solved?

    Justify the costs of the project in those terms, and I might be willing to spend more than two seconds thinking about why the answer to the question of whether we should invest in vactrains as a nation right now is “no”.

    1. Is the problem for travel between Columbus and Chicago that people can’t travel that route fast enough?

      Yes but the issue is psycho-relativistic. The drive from Chicago to (e.g.) Columbus is 4 hrs. but the drive from Columbus to Chicago feels like 8. It’s like the commute to and from the dentist’s chair.

      1. The drive between ATL and Cincinnati is about 8 hours, while the drive between Cincinnati and Cleveland is roughly 4.
        That Cincinnati-Cleveland drive is pure torture

      2. There use to be an interurban train between downtown Chicago and downtown Milwaukee. It was incredibly fast, 90 minutes with stops, considering part of it ran on surface level streets. It ended service in 1963 when it couldn’t compete with the new interstates although it matched travel time by car.

    2. All you have to say is “Elon Musk” and the whole thing is exposed as a massive scam. Might as well support my idea of flying reindeer, it’s just as plausible as this fantasy.

      1. There’s this thing called an adhominem fallacy.

        Meanwhile, he’s really building Teslas, and people are loving them.

        Meanwhile, he’s actually in the process of solving the problem of rural broadband. The reason he’s doing that is to create a revenue stream for SpaceX to finance his Mars colony. I don’t care if his ideas are pie in the sky–so long as I don’t have to pay for them if I don’t want to. In fact, Musk, by way of SpaceX is helping me a lot as a taxpayer because he’s embarrassing NASA on cost. His development and launch costs are a tiny fraction of what NASA is spending on their heavy rocket–that started years before SpaceX existed and has no only started getting to the test firing stage.

        In that case, Musk’s pipedreams are saving the taxpayers boatloads of mony on launch costs. The libertarian dream is to replace government with private contractors, isn’t it? It’s hard to do that without government contracts. If he’s wildly profitable for competing with the government on cost, then as a taxpayer, I couldn’t be happier. His whole launch system is about lowering costs. As taxpayers, let’s all hope that Musk’s profits continue to skyrocket even as the costs to taxpayers of his services continues to fall.

        It’s the same thing with Tesla. If he’s undermining the UAW at the expense of willing investors rather than taxpayers, then I hope he’s wildly successful. It’s the same thing with The Boring Company and his hyperloop. I hope he’s wildly successful, and I hope he completely displaces government mass transit and rent seekers like Amtrak. Musk’s pipe dreams aren’t the problem. I’m cheering him on right up until the moment his efforts cost me more as a taxpayer than they’re saving me by undermining government.

        1. Meanwhile, he’s really building Teslas, and people are loving them.

          No they aren’t. Or, at least, not as cars. Smug, overpriced engineering, yes. Even then, smug overpriced engineering would make them more of a fad which, evidence suggests, they are.

          Meanwhile, he’s actually in the process of solving the problem of rural broadband.

          Whether they want it solved or not and whether they want it solved at the price point he can lie about delivering it at or not.

          If he’s wildly profitable for competing with the government on cost, then

          … he can still be a huge fucking long way from actually competitive on cost and any pro-market minded person would be honest about it.

          I hope he completely displaces government mass transit and rent seekers like Amtrak.

          Same mass transit with a new rent seeker is same mass transit with rent seekers.

          I’m cheering him on right up until the moment his efforts cost me more as a taxpayer than they’re saving me by undermining government.

          They have been costing you money and consistently failing to undermine (or even catering to and bolstering) the government since the beginning. You might argue that you weren’t due some of the money that Musk has liberated from tax control but Musk has done little to nothing to ensure that the money stays liberated and has gone on to secure more public money to his own ends any ends that he believes align with his goals.

          He’s wildly profitable for competing with the government, in part on the government’s dime, to the detriment of more truly and wholly private companies. Even if you look past the pseudo-science, the cronyism, outright fraud, and fly-by-night hucksterism is reprehensible from a business and anti-government standpoint.

          1. “Whether they want it solved or not and whether they want it solved at the price point he can lie about delivering it at or not.”

            Some places still have no options.

            For plenty others, their best option is 4G by AT&T or Verizon.

            Musk is paying of these launches with the proceeds from other launches. If his price point isn’t competitive with AT&T and Verizon, I’ll be might surprised–especially when those companies are trying to cover the cost of rolling out 5G.

          2. “Tesla owners are more satisfied than any other auto brand’s, according to Consumer Reports”

            https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-tops-consumer-reports-owner-satisfaction-list-2019-2

            1. And scandis have a high self reported happiness, because jante.

              1. If Tesla owners say they’re happy with their cars, I don’t think can tell them they’re wrong about their own happiness.

                I’m not an elitist. I don’t know what makes them happy better than they do. Do you?

                1. Teslas are fine cars, at least from what I’ve heard (other than not being able to open them in certain temps because the pop-up door handles get frozen shut) and I think they’re visually appealing.
                  Unfortunately, it seems they’re not profitable without government subsidy – and Musk has been committing all sorts of fraud in relation to Tesla and SolarCity

                  1. We’ll see about that. That’s a big question.

                    And I’m not sure where you’re getting your information about fraud.

                    If I were a Tesla stockholder, I wouldn’t have been happy with that acquisition, but it’s not like there isn’t any reason to think Tesla owners might also like to buy some solar panels, batteries, and charging stations to install in their homes.

                    I think a lot of people are anti-Musk because some of his products are pro-environmentalist. Tesla will be successful or not regardless of whether he’s associated with green thinking.

                    I should add, I think there are a lot of false distinctions that exist in people’s minds about environmentalism. The biggest environmentally minded people I know live in rural Utah. They care because they hunt and fish and the outdoors is their constant recreation. Incidentally, they also use solar, too, not because they care about the environment, necessarily, but out of necessity. Running power down dirt roads for miles is expensive.

                    At that point, when we’re talking about people who will come after you for polluting the water they fish in, ruining their hunting by putting developments up everywhere, and use solar, what’s the distinction between environmentalists and conservationists?

                    Is it how they talk about global warming? Hell, those rednecks are already on solar–why fault them for their thoughts on the bullshit nature of global warming?

                    Is the difference that they shop at for their outdoor at Bass Pro Shops and Walmart rather than REI and Macy’s?

                    At that point, we might as well start talking about who does and doesn’t like country music.

            2. 8 months later, your own source reports;
              “Tesla’s surprise quarterly profit is ‘highly questionable’ and not ‘at all sustainable,’ one analyst says”
              https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-3q-profit-stock-price-jump-not-sustainable-analyst-says-2019-10-1028628522

              Is Tesla a car maker or a customer satisfaction company?

              1. “Is Tesla a car maker or a customer satisfaction company?

                Isn’t that a false dilemma?

                Meanwhile, Tesla has a market cap of $65 billion.

                Ford Motor Company has a market cap of $35 billion.

                That’s what the market think of how badly Tesla is going.

                If you’re thinking about taking your nest-egg and using it to short Tesla, I’d strongly advise against it.

                1. That’s what the market think of how badly Tesla is going.

                  The exchange is not the market it’s literally the *prospective* market and doesn’t give two shits about libertarian sensibilities. If someone thinks that Ford won’t receive a bailout and Tesla will continue to receive subsidies, the market can and does reflect that Tesla’s great because it’s a fully funded arm of the government. The market routinely overvalues companies that produce no valuable product, lack long term strategy, and don’t exist 5, 10, or 15 yrs. down the line.

                  If you’re thinking about taking your nest-egg and using it to short Tesla, I’d strongly advise against it.

                  Assuming I haven’t built my nest egg shorting Tesla.

                  1. “The exchange is not the market it’s literally the *prospective* market and doesn’t give two shits about libertarian sensibilities.”

                    I can’t believe how deeply you’re painting yourself into a corner on this.

                    The market knows exactly what it’s doing and why. The market capitalization for Tesla was as low as $35 billion last spring–because of their performance problems.

                    https://www.fastcompany.com/90354557/teslas-market-cap-plummets-by-30b-in-9-months-heres-why

                    The stock has skyrocketed since then for the same reason–because of their performance.

                    Some of the brightest minds the world has to offer put their best efforts into valuing Tesla’s stock and making decisions about whether and at what price to buy and sell its shares. Those market forces are about as good an estimate as can be had at this point in time. Things change on a daily basis, and if Musk falters, that market capitalization will, too. Regardless, the market cap isn’t where it is because speculation is stupid.

                    If you think you know more than the market about why Tesla is valued the way it is, don’t try to profit from that knowledge. Go back and read the old books again about why market forces and price signals are smarter the individuals who participate in those markets.

          3. “Same mass transit with a new rent seeker is same mass transit with rent seekers.”

            If you can’t see the difference between Amtrack and The Boring Company from a libertarian perspective, I don’t know why.

            1. If you can’t see the difference between Amtrack and The Boring Company from a libertarian perspective, I don’t know why.

              So you deny the rent seeking or are you just asserting that you can’t compare a 60 yr. old orange to a 20 yr. old orange?

              1. What rent seeking?

                Rent seeking is turning to the government for regulation in the attempt to make a profit–without adding anything of value in return.

                The prototypical example is an English Lord who puts a chain across his neck in the river. In the winter, when the dirt roads are impassible, he charges everyone who wants him to raise his chain a “rent”. There is no value added when he strings that chain across the river. He wants money for nothing.

                When Amtrak goes to Congress and tells them they want more money and they need more money because hardly anyone wants to ride their trains and they need to account for all their costs–that customers don’t value enough to pay for with fares and ridership–they are rent seeking. They want money for nothing.

                If the government goes to Musk, and Musk gives them a better system for lower costs to the taxpayer than Amtrak’s upgrade–and the system is sustainable because of fare paying customers who value that service enough to finance it–he is not rent seeking. He is adding value and saving the taxpayers’ money.

                It costs Musk $150 million to launch his large payload rockets.

                IF IF IF and when NASA gets their heavy payload rocket up and running, they estimated that every launch will cost the taxpayers about $2 billion–and that’s not factoring the development costs, which are in the tens of billions already without a single launch.

                If Musk charges NASA $200 million to launch those heavy payloads for them, he is not rent seeking. He is saving the taxpayer a minimum of $1.8 billion per launch–and he’s adding value in the form of satellite launches. NASA, on the other hand, is rent seeking. They’ve squandered many, many more times of taxpayer money than Musk has funded with private companies–and every launch they land will be rent seeking the taxpayer for $1.8 billion a pop. What will we be getting for that $1.8 billion?

                The correct answer is nothing.

                Thank you, Mr. Musk.

                1. When Amtrak goes to Congress and tells them they want more money and they need more money because hardly anyone wants to ride their trains and they need to account for all their costs–that customers don’t value enough to pay for with fares and ridership–they are rent seeking. They want money for nothing.

                  Ken, you aren’t so dumb as to be unaware that 60 yrs. ago Amtrak was privately held and profitable just like The Boring Company has yet to be. And, despite the lack of profits, The Boring Company is already asking for allowances and special permissions on the assertion of profitability.

                  He is saving the taxpayer a minimum of $1.8 billion per launch–and he’s adding value in the form of satellite launches.

                  Assumes the $2B or the $150M a) are real numbers and b) would/should/could be spent anyway. Moreover, you’re distinctly ignoring the fact that the books are being pretty openly tilted on the backend, whereby failed promises and handouts around Solar City fail to propel Tesla to any sort of long term success and that potential numbers on SpaceX aren’t similar distortions, i.e. the cost of launches, if they had to happen could be well less than $150M (or $75M) if the other $75M weren’t propping up a Gigafactory in China cranking out fashion plates that make the Swedes feel better about themselves.

                  1. Here’s a link (with links to source data) for those numbers on the relative cost of NASA’s heavy rocket vs. SpaceX’s heavy rocket.

                    “For the first time, a government cost estimate of building and flying a single Space Launch System rocket in a given year has been released. This estimate of “over $2 billion” came in the form of a letter from the White House to the Senate Appropriations Committee first reported by Ars this week.

                    In the nearly decade-long development of the SLS rocket, NASA officials have studiously avoided providing a so-called “production and operations” cost. This is partly because it can be difficult to estimate flight costs during development, but also very likely because doing so might give lawmakers who have backed the project some measure of sticker shock. After all, a fully expendable version of the Falcon Heavy rocket, which has two-thirds of the lift capacity of a Block 1 version of the SLS rocket, can be bought today for $150 million.”

                    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-does-not-deny-the-over-2-billion-cost-of-a-single-sls-launch/

                    Later in the article, they add up the development costs and assume an optimistic ten flights in 2020–and they come up with a figure of $5 billion per launch including development costs.

                    No one in the their right mind would pay a premium like that. Only NASA would spend $2 billion (or $5 billion) per launch when they could pay SpaceX $150 million to do the same thing. Why haven’t they pulled the plug on the SLS rocket already?! It’s pork on top of stimulus on top of pork.

                  2. Amtrak not only loses money as a whole. It also loses money on every single route in the system, nationally–except for the commuter routes between Boston and Washington DC.

                    And if you’re telling me that it’s been a money loser for at least 60 years, then that’s a great reason to pull the plug already. It’s pork! If it can’t be sustained by the customers who use it, it should probably be closed down.

                    The only exceptions might have to do with its value to national defense, but who’s making that argument?

                    Throwing $42 billion at it isn’t likely to solve that problem either. Since when has a bullet train made sense? They couldn’t even sustain the support for that in California of all places, where they’ll squander money on anything.

                    If Musk, on the other hand, can build a system that will let us shut that irrational atrocity of Amtrak down because it’s run by private, profit-seeking, entrepreneurs, who are making decision based on profit seeking criteria, then for goodness’ sake we should let him. Maintaining course certainly isn’t the solution to Amtrack not being profitable for 60 years.

          4. “Musk has done little to nothing to ensure that the money stays liberated and has gone on to secure more public money to his own ends any ends that he believes align with his goals.”

            Again, you can’t replace government with private companies without having government contracts. The transition just can’t work without that.

            What, you expect federal and local government to willingly choose to abandon mass transit everywhere first–and then Musk can come in and compete among the ashes?

            If we wait for that, then replacing government with entrepreneurs will never happen.

            The way that transition happens is that private companies come in and offer to provide better service than the government provides for less cost to taxpayers. As the government services continue to be an expensive failure for all the same reasons, spending more and more tax money on the government owned failure becomes increasingly difficult. That’s the way the transition happens.

            Musk’s Mars colony is less of a pipe dream than the idea that the government will ever abandon these services to market forces without a superior alternative already in place.

            It wasn’t necessary to abolish the Post Office. Private entrepreneurs invented UPS, FedEx, the fax machine, and email, and then the Post Office started to die on the vine. Now people are wondering whether we really need a Post Office anymore. That’s the way these transitions happen.

            1. Ken….I look at Elon Musk as a hybrid of Einstein and Edison. This guy is something special. We only get 1-2 people like him every generation.

              1. Which is weird because off the top of my head, I can name more than half a dozen more special people within a generation of Musk. People like Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thiel, Dennis Ritchie, Norman Borlaug, Wozniak, DeLorean, Shelby, Dyson, Berners-Lee.

                He’s more like a bad copy of Charles Lindbergh or a less successful Howard Hughes.

                1. mad.casual…Look, I am not taking away from their ability or success, but they are not even in the same ballpark, IMO. They are among the best in their chosen fields. Elon Musk is literally 1 in a billion. None of those guys you mention have the breadth of accomplishment across as many different fields as Elon Musk. Not one.

                  1. Elon Musk is literally 1 in a billion.

                    If satire, I tip my hat.

              2. I hope he’s wildly successful, and I’m glad he’s saving the taxpayers so much money.

                1. Me too….and the scary part is that he is not even 50 yet. The next 10-15 years are going to be huge for him. I fully anticipate his making breakthroughs in multiple fields: neurobiology, genetics, and space travel.

            2. Again, you can’t replace government with private companies without having government contracts. The transition just can’t work without that.

              This is the crux and, IMO untrue, self-defeating, and anti-libertarian. Like saying we can’t possibly have cars without a buggywhip maker’s union.

              We can’t have a space program or wireless networks without government contracts?

              1. “This is the crux and, IMO untrue, self-defeating, and anti-libertarian. Like saying we can’t possibly have cars without a buggywhip maker’s union.”

                No.

                It’s like saying that a government will never abandon services without an alternative in place.

                The government will never vote to abandon old ladies, who can’t drive, to do their shopping and go to their doctors’ appointments–without a means of public transportation.

                If you insist that they do this as a precondition for moving from a government system to a system of private entrepreneurs, then you might as well be insisting that we never make the transition.

                Private contracts taking government contracts and providing services better and less expensive than when the government does it is the means to a more private system–and there is no good reason to oppose replacing government services with private contractors. In fact, replacing government services with private contractors is what libertarian small government is all about. It’s what anarchocapitalism is all about, too.

                You’re not even defending a principle.

                This is like opposing the decriminalization of marijuana on the basis that local governments are zoning them like liquor stores. That isn’t principled. It’s just stupid.

                1. It’s like saying that a government will never abandon services without an alternative in place.

                  Are you really asserting the government never incurs and/or suffers the effects of unforeseen consequences?

                  Regardless, you’re engaged in a bit of a libertarian/free market Zeno’s paradox. Where you fundamentally assert that the government doesn’t ever abandon services without an alternative in place but act like replacing Amtrak with The Boring Company in the regulatory machinery is substantially different from the unabated forward march of the leviathan.

                  1. Why wouldn’t replacing a company that’s majority owned by the government with a privately owned entity be an improvement from a libertarian capitalist perspective?

                    I don’t believe Amtrak has ever made a profit. And they want $42 billion for infrastructure improvements.

                    https://www.wsj.com/articles/amtrak-has-lost-money-for-decades-a-former-airline-ceo-thinks-he-can-fix-it-11562385660

                    If Musk can build better systems at less cost than upgrading Amtrak, why wouldn’t that bet better and more libertarian?

                    Keeping costs down is a function of profit, you know? Profit is the difference between costs and revenue, and the best way to maximize profits is to minimize costs. That’s why privately owned, profit seeking corporations always do things for less cost than the government.

                    Why wouldn’t Musk funding this with private investors (rather than taxpayer money) and sustaining it with fare paying passengers (rather than subsidies) be better from a libertarian capitalist standpoint?

                    You know all this stuff. What, do you have Musk Derangement Syndrome? To the extent that he replaces taxpayer expense with private investment and profits, it’s a good thing–regardless of whether you don’t like him personally for some reason.

                  2. “Are you really asserting the government never incurs and/or suffers the effects of unforeseen consequences?”

                    I’m saying that the government isn’t about to cut off services to the proverbial widows and orphans until there’s something more concrete in place–because democracy.

                    The reason hospitals can’t refuse to help patients in the ER on the basis of a their inability to pay is because if those rules weren’t already in place, the first mom or child to die on the steps of the ER because she or her baby doesn’t have insurance would cause such an uproar, the government would quickly step in and require hospitals to treat people regardless of their inability to pay–even if it weren’t already illegal not to do so.

                    The good news is that there’s no need to depend on politicians who are so principled they’d rather commit political suicide than require ERs to treat dying children. For instance, we slash taxes, costs, and other regulations within healthcare to the point that health insurance becomes so inexpensive that even poorer people can afford the premiums.

                    If your plan for privatizing government services is predicated on politicians being willing to commit political suicide, then it’s your plan to privatize government services that’s committing suicide.

  37. Comcast Faces Fights on Multiple Fronts as Cable Pie Shrinks

    We are witnessing how the free market dismantles massive corporations because of mismanagement and market changes to be sold off to satisfy new market demands.

    1. Comcast must have a shit ton of effective lobbyists. They somehow managed to add a surcharge for providing local tv access, something they were required to do. They also add a surcharge for local sports coverage whether you watch it or not. I understand they recently removed channels from their next to basic package including TCM.

  38. http://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1196746253050286080

    Interesting and terrifying Twitter thread by a British lawyer who is before some Orwellian Employment Tribunal. The issue is someone who was fired for saying there are only two biological sexes. You cannot overstate how insane this stuff is.

    Counsel for R asks J to have regard to “very dangerous” views and that they are not worthy of respect in a democratic society. It is humiliating & demeaning to say trans women should be excluded from single sex spaces.

    It gets worse from there. Transgenderism is pure evil. It is the most hideous thing the left has yet invented. And fucking reason loves it. Unbelievable.

    1. I know. Before the transgender BS, there were a handful of people who honestly thought they should have been born as the opposite sex (i.e. transsexuals). Now honest people of good faith can disagree as to the treatment transsexuals (i.e., HRT, living as the other sex, surgery, etc. vs. therapy to deal with gender dysphoria). But, it didn’t challenge the very basics of mammalian biology that there are 2 sexes: male and female. And the entire basis of categorizing that way is for reproduction.
      That should NOT be read as saying sex is only for reproduction. I am pretty libertine on matters of sexuality among consenting adults. But, from a biological standpoint, there are 2 sexes by definition for sexual reproduction.
      But the entire concept of “gender” is meaningless. Is it a social construct? Fine, go against that construct. Be a masculine woman or a feminine man. Or be totally androgynous. Go find your style and let your freak flag fly baby! But that doesn’t negate the biological truth of 2 sexes.
      In addition, transgender has nothing to do with sexual preference. Which is why I still don’t entirely understand why gay and lesbian groups included the rest of the alphabet.

      1. But the entire concept of “gender” is meaningless. Is it a social construct? Fine, go against that construct. Be a masculine woman or a feminine man. Or be totally androgynous. Go find your style and let your freak flag fly baby!

        I agree. And transgenderism is a rejection of that. It says that if you are a famine man and you like to play the social role of a woman you actually are a woman. One of the many inanities of transgenderism is that while it claims to make gender fluid it actually enforces an incredibly rigid view of gender such that if you don’t fit some almost comical stereotype of masculinity or femininity, you are actually the other sex.

        In addition, transgender has nothing to do with sexual preference. Which is why I still don’t entirely understand why gay and lesbian groups included the rest of the alphabet.

        It is worse than that. By embracing transgenderism, the gay rights community has kicked lesbians out of the group. Lesbians have a real problem with the idea that a man can be a woman just because he thinks he is. And they are objecting and being kicked out of the gay rights movement as a result.

        The whole thing is rank misogyny at its heart. It is either men claiming they can be a woman by thinking they are and just basically reading women and femininity out of existence or it is telling women to hate their bodies and sex and become men. I think the gay community took up the cause because the gay rights movement is run mostly by gay men and gay men as a group hate women. It is no surprise that they would find something as misogynistic as transgenderism appealing.

  39. If you read what Malkin said rather than what a bunch of people said she said, it appears that she was calling the “genteel” conservativish cocktail-party right a bunch of cucks and they kicked her out of the cocktail party circuit for being so gauche.
    To criticize Malkin for preparing for what comes after Trump is insane – my own prediction is that 5 minutes after Trump is gone it’ll be as if he were never there at all because all these people who are claiming we’re at a tipping point in the culture wars sure as hell aren’t acting like it. If there’s a war a ‘brewing, you can’t afford to be picky about your allies. Come 2024, we’re going to see somebody like Pete Buttigieg going up against somebody like Jeb! Bush and the Uniparty will be firmly back in control. Wear those chains proudly boys, you’ve earned them.

    1. I don’t think it will be that simple. Someone is going to pick up Trump’s mantle. There are too many votes to be had doing so for it not to happen. Now whether that someone really means what they say or is just some uniparty fraud remains to be seen. But, I think someone will. Who knows who the 2024 nominee will be. But I will bet a lot of money that it won’t be Jeb. At most it will be someone like Jeb who is pretending to be anything but. The cocktail party set are finished. They are never going to be forgiven by the rank and file for trying to undercut Trump and once Trump leaves public life, the left will no longer have any use for them either.

      Their only hope is to find someone to co-opt the forces that put Trump into office. They might do that. But I seriously doubt they will be smart enough to do it. More likely they will fall in behind a bunch of tone deaf losers like the did in 2016 and someone smarter will come along and pick up the mantle Trump left and wipe the floor with them.

      1. is Jeb! even in public anymore?

        1. I am sure he is lurking around somewhere. It will be interesting to see who runs in 2024. Nikki Haley is way ahead of the curve on the whole co-opt the Trump movement thing. She worked for Trump and can now build connections for four years trying to take over the movement when he leaves.

          The other person is Pence. Pence has positioned himself quite well. He has been a loyal servant of Trump but has kept his head down such that the establishment doesn’t reject him. But, I am not sure he wants the job.

          1. Pence seems 1998 to me. Like I can see it from the (R) perspective but (R) and I aren’t on the same page anymore so …

            1. I can’t see him generating any excitement. But after 8 years of Trump, a no excitement acceptable, dull guy may be what people want.

              1. maybe so. still > any of those tyrant (D)s running today

  40. Julian Assange: Sweden drops rape investigation into WikiLeaks founder

    Democrat’s plan trying to get Assange seems to be falling apart.

    1. Getting Assange is a Democratic effort only?

      1. True. After ’06 Lieberman (D) became Lieberman (I).

      2. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/438381-gop-senator-assange-deserves-to-spend-the-rest-of-his-life-in-prison

        Senator Ben Sasses (R): “This arrest is good news for freedom-loving people. Julian Assange has long been a wicked tool of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services,” Sasse said in a tweet early Thursday. “He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison,” the senator added.

        1. So a comment is a concerted effort to get him?

          God you’re fucking pathetic.

      3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/04/republicans-break-donald-trump-tweet-julian-assange-dnc-hacks

        The House speaker, Paul Ryan, called Assange “a sycophant for Russia” on a conservative radio show

        1. And that’s just a reach lolol

          So 0 for 2

      4. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/republican-reaction-trump-wikileaks/index.html

        … while offering their support for the US government’s efforts to pursue his extradition and prosecution.

        “I think it’s about time,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of GOP leadership who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, when asked about Assange’s arrest in London.

        1. And that’s a quote that you’ve lied about the characterization and origin of.

          So, a comment, another comment, and a lie is the best you have.

          1. How is that a lie. Blunt, a Republican, is clearly calling for Assange’s extradition and prosecution. That means that there are Republicans who support “getting” Assange, which means that loveconstitution1789’s phrase, “Democrat’s plan trying to get Assange…” mischaracterizes the desire to “get” Assange as a Democratic goal only.

            1. Poor Mikey doesn’t know there are Democrats hiding in the GOP. They’re called RINOs.

              1. Goal post moving. 15 yard penalty.

                1. This is absolutely a bipartisan effort and I don’t understand why Trump isn’t making Assange’s life easy considering he handed him the presidency.

                  1. I don’t either, but all the articles I could find say that Trump has moved from his past stance of praising Assange to his current stance of saying he doesn’t know much about Wikileaks.

                  2. Probably because it’s become apparent that Trump perjured himself regarding his knowledge and relationship to wikileaks. So now he wants to distance himself.

          2. He tries so hard to defend progressives and totalitarian bureaucrats…
            But he’s totes “libertarian”

  41. Technology Stocks Head Toward Best Year Since 2009

    Poor Obama’s legacy.

    Markets imploding, Boehm!

  42. Atlanta Journal-Constitution Editor Questions Accuracy of Clint Eastwood’s ‘Richard Jewell’ Ahead of Premiere

    Let the protective Narrative flow from the MSM as they move to protect their role as Propagandists.

  43. Sources: It’s The Real Deal, Bloomberg Could Formally Enter 2020 Presidential Race In Matter Of Days

    Another old White guy running as a Democrat. Of course, tons of Black Americans will be voting for that person!

    Let’s Stop and Frisk the truth.

  44. People from across the aisle have been joining together to make fart jokes about a politician and it has given me a glimmer of hope for humanity. That is all

  45. Schiff and Vindman both have no clue who the whistleblower is…AND won’t allow testimony to continue because it’d impact the whistleblower.

    Odd.

    Seems inconsistent to stop questioning because it would “out” the whistleblower since neither would know who said person is.

    1. If Vindman gives the names of people in the intelligence bureaucracy in public testimony it could inadvertently give information that could lead to revelation of the whistleblower’s identity.

      1. If he said a name of ANYBODY, that risk exists. Schiff only stopped him from naming ONE name. Not all of the others he named.

        You’re trying really hard to defend the indefensible here.

  46. But under President Donald Trump, more people are being held in immigration detention centers than ever before in U.S. history.

    They are not “held”; they can leave any time they want, just not onto US territory.

    1. Logic????

Please to post comments