Reason Roundup

Democrats Overwhelmingly Vote to Give Trump's People More Spying Power

Plus: Sondland worked "on Ukraine matters at the express direction of" Trump, why hospital prices are so screwy, D.C. gets pushback for ditching sex work bill, and more...

|

Don't like being spied on by federal government snoops? Too bad. Mass surveillance of American communications is likely to continue, with the Trump administration calling the shotsand we have both ruling parties to blame for that.

Democrats are "just as responsible for warrantless surveillance as Trump and the GOP," as libertarian-leaning Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) tweeted yesterday.

Nearly every Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to fully reauthorize the Patriot Act through March 2020, extending the right of federal agents to use all sorts of secret surveillance against Americans. 

That's right: "At the same time that Democrats are holding impeachment inquiries to determine if President Donald Trump abused his executive power, they apparently have no qualms about letting him continue to spy on Americans," as Reason's Eric Boehm wrote yesterday.

Only 10 House Democrats voted against it and three—including 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii)—didn't vote, leaving a whopping 219 Democratic representatives who voted in its favor. Meanwhile, just 12 Republicans voted for the measure.

House Democrats who joined Amash in voting no included freshman members (and Trump scapegoats) Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.)

Some have defended affirmative votes by pointing out that the Patriot Act reauthorization was tucked into a stopgap spending measure designed to avoid imminent "government shutdown." But there's no reason for the Patriot Act extension to outlast the stopgap spending approval, which only funds things through December 20. In fact, there's no reason for the Patriot Act extension to be tucked into this spending measure at all. Yet House leadership rejected an Amash amendment that would have removed the Patriot Act provision from the spending bill.

The extension "has no business being in there," but "just like GOP leaders, Dem leaders ruled my amendment out of order," complained Amash on Twitter Monday.

In the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats lent a lot of support to the spending measure and its Patriot Act reauthorization.


FOLLOWUP

Yesterday in impeachment proceedings:

And so far this morning:


FREE MINDS

Disruption at D.C. City Council meeting after prostitution decriminalization bill was tabled. Activists from BYP100 and DECRIMNOWDC interrupted a city council committee meeting yesterday to protest the lack of support for sex work decriminalization by Vince Gray, Ward 7's council member.


FREE MARKETS

Why is hospital pricing so screwed up? A podcast discussion between economist Russ Roberts and Keith Smithfounder of the free market oriented Surgery Center of Oklahomahelps illustrate that. They bring up a hospital that billed a patient more than $101,600 for a surgery, only $13,000 of which was then covered by the insurance company.

Before anyone starts cursing insurance companies: the price charged directly to patients at Smith's center for the same surgery is $10,000. The hospital was billing the insurer way above a reasonable rate. Why? Because it can claim that disparity as a loss and use that to get money from the government:

Keith Smith: So, a $100,000 bill, the hospital collects $13,000. They claim that they lost $87,000. This $87,000 loss maintains the fiction of their not-for-profit status, but it also provides the basis for a kickback the federal government sends to this hospital in the form of what's called Disproportionate Share Hospital payments.

But the insurance companies still share some blame here:

Smith: I mean, why would an insurance company agree to play along with this hospital? Well, the insurance company actually wants an inflated charge because then, for employers they work with, they can show that the savings that dealing with that particular insurance company generates is very, very large…. Now, what the insurers actually do is ask the hospital administrators, "Can you do a brother a favor and actually charge $200,000 for that, so that our percentage savings actually looks larger?"

Listen to the whole podcast here. Read a longer except here.


QUICK HITS

NEXT: Yes, Nancy Pelosi Can Become President

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. Mass surveillance of American communications is likely to continue, with the Trump administration calling the shots…

    He learned illegal surveillance from watching Obama, okay?!?

    1. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, either way, Trump, along with many others, refused to learn anything about the constitutional notion of “privacy” while on their way to supposed adulthood.

    2. Hello.

      “(and Trump scapegoats) Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.)”

      Don’t get this point.

      Whatever.

      They’re illiberal asshats. Scapegoat away.

      1. It doesn’t compute when you have Trump Derangement Syndrome like you guys. Sorry.

        1. Aww he dragged your boos!!!

    3. It is almost as if the party who thinks the government can be infinitely wise and good want that power available, no matter who is in office. They do not dislike executive power, they dislike this particular person wielding it.

      1. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      2. Yeah, it would almost be heartening to see the party actually stand on a principle over partisanship, except that principle is “the government should possess absolute power over you serfs.”

    4. Yeah, because of all the listening devices that Obama put under the WH. I mean, how can we expect Dear Leader to perform when he’s got all that Kenyan microwave energy flowing through his brain. This is all Samantha Power’s fault!

      1. “Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”
        -LTAL

      2. I see you’re upset that Kirkland is trying to steal your spot as Most Retarded Poster.

  2. …protest the lack of support for sex work decriminalization by Vince Gray, Ward 7’s council member.

    They could always withhold their services.

    1. Lol Vince Gray rebranding himself from Vincent after barely escaping corruption charges.

  3. Kurt Volker Revises Testimony and Says Corruption Allegations Against Biden Are “Not Credible”

    The Bidens have borrowed the Clinton machinery and Volker doesn’t want to go on and then come off “suicide” watch.

      1. Who are you and what did you do with Sevo?

    1. It’s amazing to me where you have a case of a clear conflict of interest and monetary benefit and Joe Biden on tape admitting to influencing a foreign Corruption investigation using his political office aide money yet we know the allegations aren’t credible because other faceless people wanted the same outcome for reasons. While on the other hand we are investigating trump and trying to understand how what he was thinking when he withheld aide of which we have less evidence into his corrupt intent than Bidens. Biden on tape admitting he withheld money for corruption purposes and bragging he achieved a result he was seeking, Trump withholding money for unclear reasons(maybe corruption maybe not we have no direct insight as he is not on record saying why the aid is withheld) and not achieving a result he is accused of seeking is the bigger issue here.

      1. I just can’t get past it. It’s the largest and most clear double standard I think I’ve ever witnessed in politics and even to my cynical mind the cognitive dissonance blows me away. Largely because to say Trump was doing what he was doing you have to aknowlege Biden’s actions.

        1. You’re just flat out wrong. Biden did not stop any investigations. Biden helped stop a corrupt prosecutor which allowed for the appointment of a new prosecutor.

          1. How do you know that?

            1. The people’s word you are taking all stand to benefit materially or politically by you believing that.

              1. You’re repeating a conspiracy theory popularized by Rudy Giuliani that doesnt make sense.

                The evidence suggests Biden actually may have placed his son in legal danger by advocating for the prosecutor’s removal because he was widely accused of stymying anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine — replacing him could have led to further investigations into a company Hunter Biden had ties to.

                By the way what exactly are you alleging Biden Jr did?

                1. Could a corruption investigation have impacted Biden politically?

                  1. Just the possibility of one impacting him politically is enough for Democrats to say Trump is unfit for office. So even if just the possibility of one could have impacted Biden politically he was in charge of disbursing aid and he influenced a corruption investigation.

                2. “that doesnt make sense.

                  The evidence suggests Biden actually may have placed his son in legal danger”

                  Doesn’t make sense that Joe would use US policy to protect Hunter, but does make sense that Joe would use US policy to put his son, and possibly himself, in danger.
                  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you modern Leftists

                  1. I mean fuck man, he didn’t even try that time.

                3. Biden Jr may have done nothing wrong he was the patsy its what his father Joe did. Joe threatened to withhold money to stop an investigation into the company his son worked for that is a fact.

                  1. According to the dems you don’t even need there to be an investigation for there to be a crime. Your standard here is even to high. Joe just needed to influence a possible future investigation with aid money which he did by firing a prosecutor who may or may not have investigated his son in the future therefore impacting him politically. That is the standard the Dems and the press are saying rises to an impeachable offense of bribery, treason and high crimes.

                4. You’re repeating WHAT FUCKING JOE BIDEN SAID ON FUCKING VIDEO

                  there. fixed that for you.

                  moron.

            2. He doesn’t know it. He believes it. But, in leftist circles, that is the standard of proof nowadays. Beliefs, feelings, and hunches take precedence over facts. That is why Joe Biden is clean as a whistle despite every indication to the contrary, and why Trump is still a Russian agent despite the fact that the Mueller investigation came up with nothing.

            3. Here is a good summary:

              https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

              After Shokin was appointed as Ukraine’s prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited the investigations into Zlochevsky. He also ultimately launched another probe into the profitable gas licenses that were awarded to Zlochevsky’s companies as he served as a top minister in Yanukovych’s government.
              But by March 2016, Shokin was ousted. Hundreds of Ukrainians had demonstrated in front of the president’s office calling for Shokin to be booted and the Ukrainian parliament voted to accept his resignation.
              For months before that, the US and other countries had pressured for Shokin to be ousted because he didn’t make a concerted effort to fight corruption. Biden, who was spearheading the Obama administration’s Ukraine work, was at the center of these efforts, and threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine if Shokin wasn’t fired.
              So, it’s true that Biden was among those who pushed for Shokin to be fired as Ukraine’s top prosecutor, but by the time this happened the probe into Burisma was dormant, according to Bloomberg.
              According to the Times, Ukrainian and American officials have also debated whether Shokin was using the threat of prosecution against Burisma in order to solicit a bribe.
              Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told The Washington Post, “Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma. Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”
              Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s former prosecutor general who left the post at the end of August, told Bloomberg in an interview in May that neither Biden nor Hunter are the subject of investigations: “I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of US presidential elections. Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing. A company can pay however much it wants to its board.”

              1. Thanks Jeff.

                Not shitting on you, but I can’t even read that nonsense. Biden will never be charged, for multiple reasons, but one is the same reason this round of impeachment won’t work. Old white dudes with weird names and fingers pointing everywhere. Bragging isn’t a crime, lying while not under oath isn’t a crime, and attempts at diplomacy are not a crime.

              2. How do you read that and come to a conclusion that this exonerates Biden by the standard that the Dems have established for Trump? Even if you by everything the dems are selling hook line and sinker Trump was trying to tie aid to a corruption investigation that impacted him politically and failed. Biden was tieing aid to a corruption investigation that could’ve impacted him politically and succeeded. In fact this is even worse for Biden because is surmises that Shokin was looking to shake him and the US administration down by having the investigation which would have impacted him and by extension the Obama administration politically. WTF does dormant mean in this context and why should we trust the guy that literally replaced Shokin after he was let go? I’m honestly trying to understand.

                1. Basically your defense is Biden didn’t know he was being shaken down and didn’t read his briefs. Also we must believe the ukranian prosecutor who just got his job because the last guy got fired over aid being withheld who says everything was on the up and up. What the hell else is the guy who replaced the other guy going to say?

          2. How do you know Trump wasn’t trying to root out corruption and try to stop corruption? If it’s because one is Trump and one is Biden you have no credibility. Intent doesn’t matter either it’s illegal to materially influence a foreign corruption investigation if it could benefit you politically or it isn’t. We can’t read any of these people’s minds and they are all professional liars.

            1. Trump doesn’t give a shit about corruption. He doesn’t give a shit about authoritarians murdering journalists. He doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine. He only cares about the “big stuff” like investigations of his political opponents.

              1. And you’re are a partisan fucking ignoramus whose comments are NWS.

                1. Dude you hate yourself but don’t even realise it.

                  1. Pod
                    November.20.2019 at 10:38 am
                    “Dude you hate yourself but don’t even realise it.”

                    Uh, OK.
                    Jo momma, too!

              2. Biden didn’t give a shit about corruption. Obama CERTAINLY didn’t given his administration’s behavior domestically. Biden just wanted to protect his junkie loser of a son.

                1. There were a shit ton of people on Burisma’s board. Why is only Biden Jr’s employment the corrupt one? What exactly are you alleging Biden Jr did?

                  1. Now explain jr’s Naval reserve service,two waivers to get him that commision and his being dumped a month later. Bad luck?

                  2. How many of them had a dad who ran the US foreign policy in regards to Ukraine? I’m betting only one.

                  3. So if Trump had demanded a $3.5 million board position for Donny Jr., instead of potential dirt on the Bidens, that would be OK?

              3. Is it illegal to influence a foreign investigation that could impact you politically?

                1. That didn’t happen. Biden didn’t interfere in an investigation. Biden played a part in helping to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor who wasn’t investigating corruption.

                  1. He was a prosecutor his job is to investigate and charge people with crimes is it not? Is corruption illegal in Ukraine? If so it fell under his purview and even the hint of an investigation fair or not, real or not impacts Biden politically given his position and what his son was doing which was legal.

                  2. “”Biden played a part in helping to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor who wasn’t investigating corruption.””

                    What corruption are you referring to?

                2. It is illegal to do anything that might impact the Democrat Party and its candidates negatively.

                  Investigating the Biden idiot son’s sweetheart jobs, Wikileaks releasing the information obtained from the DNC server, documentaries critical of Hilary Clinton, etc. Whenever Democrats lose, it is because of illegal shenanigans, not because their candidates are crap.

              4. your attempt at mind reading is noted

                Would you post less if you knew how silly you sound?

              5. “Trump doesn’t give a shit about corruption”

                Professor X act ain’t getting it son.

            2. How do you know Trump wasn’t trying to root out corruption and try to stop corruption?

              Well, that is not the request that Trump made of Zelensky. He didn’t say “I want you to do me a favor and look into all that corruption”. He made two specific asks, both of which were tied to Trump’s personal political interests.

              Now Trump MAY have made those two specific asks because he sincerely wanted to fight corruption in Ukraine. But if that’s the case, why would he limit his request to only two specific alleged instances? Surely there’s more and deeper corruption than that in Ukraine, if Trump is so convinced it’s such a corrupt place.

              1. I’m glad we can agree that impeachment requires everyone to read the mind of the president. When will the sooth sayer get called to the stand?

              2. ” He made two specific asks, both of which were tied to Trump’s personal political interests.”

                Except of course that we can see you’re lying by reading THE ACTUAL FUCKING TRANSCRIPT.

                1. This is where Tulpa falsely accuses me of lying.

                2. Ask #1:

                  “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. ”

                  Ask #2:

                  “Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

              3. So trump merely asking about things of personal interest to him is illegal. But Biden who happened to fire a prosecutor who was by even pro biden accounts trying to shake him down had no personal interest in his firing? This is a ridiculous double standard.

      2. Here’s an idea that would clear all this up…why doesn’t someone ask the Ukrainians to investigate Burisma to see if there was any corruption?

        1. What exactly do you want investigated? Investigate “Burisma” doesn’t cut it.

        2. why doesn’t someone ask the Ukrainians to investigate Burisma to see if there was any corruption?

          But, that is not what Trump asked for in his phone call.

          1. So? What’s he got to hide? Let’s see his tax returns

            1. I would be fine if every candidate for every office were required to disclose their tax returns.

              1. I was making a false equivalence joke.

                I also hate the idea of even one more hack being hired by the IRS

          2. We have the transcript.

            1. Yes we do.

  4. White House Adviser: Trump Didn’t Actually Seem to Care About Fighting Corruption in Ukraine

    No one wants a president who wears his heart on his sleeve.

  5. Clinton Foundation Continues To Hemorrhage Money Following Hillary’s Loss

    Democrats: Distracting from their corrupt and criminal conduct while working in government.

    1. She lost her salable product.

    2. You attacked Clinton and accused her of corruption for accepting charitable donations from foreign govts. Well Trump is taking money directing from foreign govts and lining his own pocket.

      1. Poor pod. His citations always fall off.

          1. His business that he is currently not running isn’t limited in where it can do business? Shocking. Where did it say Trump PERSONALLY could do so?

            1. Constitutional scholars argue that the Emoluments Clause was designed to prevent direct gifts for favors.

              pod is too dumb to know that most of the Founding Fathers were part-time politicians. Many of the Founders operated businesses and conducted business with foreign nations. See cotton, tobacco, and other farming goods.

              Similarly, the Framers intended the Emoluments Clause to protect the republican character of American political institutions. “One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.” The Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton). The delegates at the Constitutional Convention specifically designed the clause as an antidote to potentially corrupting foreign practices of a kind that the Framers had observed during the period of the Confederation. Louis XVI had the custom of presenting expensive gifts to departing ministers who had signed treaties with France, including American diplomats. In 1780, the King gave Arthur Lee a portrait of the King set in diamonds above a gold snuff box; and in 1785, he gave Benjamin Franklin a similar miniature portrait, also set in diamonds. Likewise, the King of Spain presented John Jay (during negotiations with Spain) with the gift of a horse. All these gifts were reported to Congress, which in each case accorded permission to the recipients to accept them. Wary, however, of the possibility that such gestures might unduly influence American officials in their dealings with foreign states, the Framers institutionalized the practice of requiring the consent of Congress before one could accept “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from…[a] foreign State.”
              Heritage.org- Emoluments Clause

            2. The only reason foreign govts are patronizing Trump’s business is gain favor with Trump. Zelensky even mentioned it in the Juky 25th phone call.

              “Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower.”

              1. “The only reason foreign govts are patronizing Trump’s business is gain favor with Trump.”

                “The only reason foreign govts are patronizing Biden Jr. is gain favor with Biden.”

                1. Funny how that works. I’m sure Pod will be along to argue that’s not the same.

              2. “The only reason foreign govts are patronizing Trump’s business is gain favor with Trump.”

                Yeah, he was holding off on the purchase of the new 727 until the a Brit official rented a room at Doral.
                What a fucking idiot.

              3. “The only reason”

                Ah, the Professor X act again.

          2. Your link points out that businesses owned by the POTUS can continue to do business with foreign governments.
            You are too stupid to understand that.
            Now, please make this go away:
            “Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept.”
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-
            reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-
            to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-
            dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-
            8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_
            term=.2cbca4a77536

            Yep, she was selling political access, mush like Bill hung up the Motel 6 sign out in front of the HW and rented the Lincoln bedroom to donors.
            Fuck off.

          3. “The DOJ argued in a Friday filing that the constitutional provision, known as the emoluments clause, doesn’t apply to fair-market transactions, like hotel bills or office rent.”

            From your link. Not unconstitutional.

            If it is unconstitutional, then every president has violated that Clause. BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!

            Poor pod

            1. I see no downsides in making sure every future politician can only have a background in law. No business person could ever hold office again, and even ‘businesses’ like Clinton’s foundation would be a violation of emoluments.

              Essentially, what’s being said is that money is evil. Full stop. Only poor lawyers with hearts as pure as snow are allowed to hold office.

            2. Even funnier, Volokh lays out a decent case against the supposed emoluments clause violations.

              And he’s hardly a trump supporter.

      2. You attacked Clinton and accused her of corruption for accepting charitable donations from foreign govts. Well Trump is taking money directing from foreign govts and lining his own pocket.

        The Clintons giving the Chinese military tech in exchange for campaign donations via straw donors is pretty well-documented.

        1. Whoa! Are you implying that Buddhist monks who take a vow of poverty AREN’T great donors to political campaigns?

    3. Yet they still took in 30 million, I suppose The Clintons inherited all of Epstein’s documents.

  6. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani.

    I believe him.

    1. Didn’t want to work for Trump either .

    1. Voting? What voting? We don’t need no stinking voting!

  7. Thank God Trump has vowed to stop signing these stopgap spending bills with all the bullshit that gets thrown into them, so I’m sure the casual re-authorization of the temporary suspension of the Constitution is going nowhere.

    1. Ahhh, careful Jerry boy, they still have the surveillance powers right now to know of your disloyalty to the orange messiah.

      More seriously though, I’m quite sure not a single Trump supporter will bat an eye when he signs this into law despite having expressly stated he wouldn’t support warrantless surveillance or continuing budget resolutions, and would never sign such a bill. Indeed, even mentioning such a fact will lead them to accuse you of wanting some horrible progressive technosocialist prison camp of a state, as though it’s somehow impossible to disapprove of both those things at the same time.

  8. House votes to avoid government shutdown for a month, sending funding bill to Senate

    The bill would fund the government at current levels through Dec. 20. The chamber passed it by a 231-192 margin. Only 12 Republicans supported the measure.

    I am sure reason will have an article or two about how Republicans are exactly as bad as Democrats on spending.

    1. There’s honestly no point in taking these funding deadlines seriously unless the press starts shrieking about an actual shutdown threat. The stories always appear about a week or so before the shutdown, and it’s usually because there’s been some sort of impasse between the parties on some issue or other.

    2. I am sure reason will have an article or two about how Republicans are exactly as bad as Democrats on spending.

      https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/government-shutdown-2018-trump-republicans-345532

      Jan. 18, 2018

      The uncertainty came just hours after House Republicans put weeks of internal squabbling behind them and secured votes for a spending plan to keep the government open for another four weeks. The vote was 230-197, with 11 Republicans in opposition and six Democrats crossing the aisle to back it.

      1. I am sure reason will have an article or two about how Republicans are exactly as bad as Democrats on spending.

        Poor Chemjeffey.

        1. He’s so aggressive with his stupidity. And so many sockpuppets.

          1. Wow, that’s 100% projection.

            1. You do project like 100% of the time jeffey.

  9. Julian Assange: Sweden drops rape investigation

    Then charges dropped in the USA as protected by the 1st Amendment?

    1. It makes one wonder if Assange is agreeing to testify in the U.S. against Trump. As far as I know, nothing has really changed regarding the allegations in Sweden so the timing of dropping charges is at least curious. Perhaps this is simply to open the door to extradition to the U.S. instead of to Sweden?

  10. Iran’s Rouhani claims victory over unrest and blames foreigners

    Don’t mess with the internet and people’s porn access.

  11. Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) “rose to prominence through the marble halls of establishment courtrooms; they’ve now become an anchor dragging her down”

    Who knew the law and order winds would shift so dramatically.

    1. Would not mass shootings cause these winds to blow in favor of law and order and more police power, like thry did in 1993?

    2. Poor Kamala Rouge.

  12. ‘No one will know the difference’: studio wanted Julia Roberts to play Harriet Tubman

    Democrats and their 2020 White male Presidential candidates: “No one will know the difference”.

    1. Actually, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are women of color.

      1. Oh yeah. Kamala Rouge is red.

        Elizabeth Warren has a 1/1024 chance of winning the Democrat nomination.

    2. my favorite part of that article is how they assume that Hollywood culture parallels the rest of the country…


      when the film was in its planning stages 25 years earlier, “the climate in Hollywood … was very different”….

      “When 12 Years a Slave became a hit and did a couple hundred million dollars worldwide, I told my agent, ‘You can’t say this kind of story won’t make money now.’ Then Black Panther really blew the doors open,” Allen said.

      They just assume that everyone is as racist and clueless as they are, even though literally the only people who have done blackface in the past 100 years or so always turn out to be liberal Democrats.

    3. Well no one knew the difference with Idris Elba playing “the whiitest” of the Norse gods.

      1. Everyone knows all white culture is the same, and equally evil. Duh, Mikey.

        Just like how all black culture is the same.

        Nevermind that ‘white’ and ‘black’ mean absolutely nothing worldwide in terms of ‘culture’.

        I’ll just be over here with my Irish immigrant family, laughing over a pint.

  13. Chicago suburbs are saying no to cannabis shops.

    Soccer moms!

    1. The irony of women who’ve got their kids enrolled in soccer, tae kwon do, math, violin, orchestra, robotics, swimming, chess, *and* foreign language immersion wearing ‘opt out’ t-shirts.

    1. Oil has always been boom and bust commodity and it always will be. It is the result of both the demand and the supply curves being very price inelastic. When prices go up it takes a long time for new supplies to come on line and when prices start going down it takes a long time for it to come off line.

      1. I liked the “related article” they highlighted – “Oil Prices Hit A New Low. Here’s Why That Might Be A Bad Thing”.

        1. Ooooh, let me guess – is it global warming?

  14. Sweden is dropping sexual assault charges against WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

    Well that seemed like a colossal waist of everyone’s time. Ecuador has to be pissed.

    1. What about his poor violated victims?

    2. colossal waist! Nadler,Chris Cristie or J.B. Pritzker?

  15. “Sweden is dropping sexual assault charges against WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.”

    Assange is one of the people — along with Comey, Putin, and GamerGate — responsible for Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016. Even though she actually won by 3 million votes.

    #StillWithHer
    #LibertariansAgainstWikileaks

    1. So there’s even more reason to like the guy!

  16. Some have defended affirmative votes by pointing out that the Patriot Act reauthorization was tucked into a stopgap spending measure designed to avoid imminent “government shutdown.”

    Obviously the solution to the impeachment kerfuffle is to tuck the Trump exoneration into a stopgap spending measure designed to avoid imminent “government shutdown.”

  17. Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse

    Who at reason will get to argue that this will stop at “racist confederate” statues?

    I can’t wait until Lefties try to remove Stone Mountain.

    1. Who at reason will get to argue that this will stop at “racist confederate” statues?

      Even if it does, within a generation, we’ll be guilty of trying to scrub white supremacy from our past.

  18. a startling, shocking statement by Philly’s police union

    Someone is unfamiliar with both Filthacrapia and police unions.

  19. A reminder that Andrew Yang might be better than a lot of the Democratic 2020 presidential candidates, but he’s still full of stupid ideas.

    To be fair, you can substitute “Andrew Yang” with just about any politician ever and that would still be a true statement.

    1. This is a fair point, the current crop of Democrat politicians running for President are in a dead sprint for who can offer the most free money alongside the highest taxation. Some of them are even in favor of nationalizing vast swaths of American GNP, and they’re all in favor of granting American welfare to foreign nationals.

      But that’s totes the same as Republicans because…uhh…hmm. They say mean things about immigration? I don’t really have anything for this.

      Even Trump, the “Ultimate Pure Evil Candidate Straight From Hell™” doesn’t compare to those running against him. A Warren or a Saunders is pretty obviously worse by several orders of magnitude. I think the only reason people aren’t freaking out more than they already are about that is because most people know they can’t beat Trump, and are subliminally happy about that proposition.

      Not that this is necessarily a good thing, of course, given that Trump isn’t exactly what I’d consider one of the ‘good’ Republicans, but he’s at least a Democrat from an era when Democrats seemed much more reasonable. Trump might be proof that ‘old school’ Democrat positions still have a lot of traction with Americans, despite what the actual Democrat party thinks.

      1. It is all speculation about how much of a Democrat or Republican Trump “used to be”.

        The facts are that his family members are pretty Libertarian-ish, Trump gave to Democrats and Republicans over the years, and Trump is the most Libertarian-ish President in over 80 years.

        Me thinks Trump played people for whatever they wanted him to be and learned how corrupt these Washington insiders are that are running the USA. He then found the right time to do something about it.

    1. That’s what you get for being a wiseacre.

  20. Democrats Overwhelmingly Vote to Give Trump’s People More Spying Power

    Because the Democrats have a debilitating cognitive dissonance. On one hand they whine about Trump having too much power, and on the other they demand that his office have more power. Because ever more power in the hands of the president is more important to them than who actually is president.

    The literally want the president to be spying on Americans. They would rather have Trump with this power than Warren/Sanders/Biden without this power.

    1. There is no dissonance. They know that the people who actually exercise that power are part of the deep state and work for them more than they work for Trump and they know they will be in the White House again some day and will be able to use and abuse those powers with impunity.

      1. Your guy and literally do no wrong, can he?

        1. How did you get that from John’s post?

  21. Inside the bloody cartel war for Mexico’s multibillion-dollar avocado industry

    There will be hell to pay if Millennials don’t get their avocado toast!

    1. Luckily, Mexico has near-total, common-sense gun control, so at least nobody has to worry about the cartels shooting them.

      1. I feel bad laughing about this. On the one hand, your point is entirely apropos, but on the other a lot of innocent people are getting killed over this and they don’t really have a lot of ways to make that stop happening. Maybe the DEA can pretend they’re drug dealers and sell them some guns.

  22. “Mic offers a postmortem on the Harris presidential campaign.”

    She can still turn things around. I’m confident Democratic voters are smart enough to see through Tulsi Gabbard’s outrageous lies.

    1. “I am not dead yet!”

      “Maybe if I hit her with Tulsi Gabbard again?”

  23. At some point in this whole medical care scam, people will realize that putting govt-covered people (retirees, vets, poor, etc) thru a private insurance/financing system is nothing but a cronyist scam. Govt doesn’t need ‘insurance’. It IS the freaking payer of last resort. Govt needs to control the actual costs of healthcare for the people it covers. And the only way it can do that is to control the actual provisioning of care.

    1. Gimme a big heapin load of that govmint control! It works so well in the defense industry, why wouldn’t it work in healthcare?

      1. You want to eliminate the government control, then eliminate the government COVERAGE for people.

      2. $500 hammers ain’t nothing, wait until you see what a Medicare-For-All bandaid costs!

        1. Taping $100 bills to patients with wounds would be cheaper, I’m sure.

    2. “At some point in this whole medical care scam, people will realize that putting govt-covered people (retirees, vets, poor, etc) thru a private insurance/financing system is nothing but a cronyist scam.”

      At some point, you and your mommy will realize what a fucking idiot you are.

    1. Better learn to code.

    2. If you want to keep your coverage of local sports and local politics in a local paper, you better hope Gannet comes and takes it over. If Gannett weren’t able to leverage national efficiencies of all those small town papers, most of them would probably close. Being taken over by Gannett may be the only chance those papers will survive.

      1. I for one think the failing newspaper/news industry is ripe for new market ideas to make it viable, profitable, and marketable.

        All the old Lefty Propagandists just need to die, leave the business, or come back as contractors to operate the printing presses without any real power.

        1. It isn’t just about content. A big driver of local newspapers was the help wanted ads, individuals wanting to sell their car, furniture, or home, etc. People do that online now, and that money just isn’t coming back.

          Gannet cuts costs because every paper doesn’t need a national news desk and an international news desk. They can use the AP or have one desk that writes that stuff for every local paper.

          I think the only way forward may be a subscription model. If you’re going to cover local sports, you have to do it so well that people will pay a subscription to read it. And people are interested in high school sports. People are interested in local government.

          One of the problems with the advertising model is that you have to keep your coverage rather bland and uncontroversial in order to keep advertisers on board. Go to a subscription model, and that isn’t so much of a problem anymore. It’s hard to make that transition, though. As you lose advertisers, the ones you have left become so important.

          Meanwhile, I think Gannet is offering national advertising to advertisers. It used to be that you had to find someone who was interested in advertising in Sioux Falls, South Dakota or Lansing, Michigan, which was hard. Bring those papers into the fold, and they’re attracting advertisers who want to advertise all over the country at a one rate.

          Advertisers will pay a premium for targeted advertising, but if you can’t offer that, then at least you better have a national audience. Gannet bring a national audience to advertisers–local paper have neither one.

          1. “It isn’t just about content. A big driver of local newspapers was the help wanted ads, individuals wanting to sell their car, furniture, or home, etc. People do that online now, and that money just isn’t coming back.”

            Trudeau ran an editorial in the Sunday comix a couple of weeks back, whining that you can’t get local news without local newspapers (and he can’t get paid for his garbage besides).
            Bullshit.
            The Chron has perhaps two or three ‘reporters’, I don’t know how many ‘columnists’ and feed from AP, NYT and LAT.
            If something is actually happening in the city, it shows up on Nextdoor or the like. Forget about the paper.

            1. Part of the answer might be like what we see here at Reason, too. A lot of people come here to read user generated content–which the paper doesn’t have to pay for. I think the Chron has a really active comments section, and the content those users generate is probably particular to the interests of the people of San Francisco.

              I’ll tell you, too, that . . .

              If I were to subscribe to the Washington Post, it would only be because their coverage of the Capitals and the Redskins was so superior. I’ve been fans of both of those teams since childhood. The Chron could charge 49ers’ fans, Giants’ fans, A’s’ fans, Sharks’ fans, Cal fans, and local high schools fans, etc. for premium content if that content was monumentally superior to what they can find elsewhere.

              Local politics in the Bay Area is a riot.

              Cover the local nightlife like the free weeklies do.

              They aren’t about to make it by competing with the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post–by running feeds from the AP. That market is saturated and those other papers’ websites are entirely available over the internet in the Bay area.

              They need to think of themselves as a different kind of news outlet to do that, though. They’d basically become more like the local TV news but far more in depth.

              1. They are trying to become a driver in SJW ’causes’; last year, they trumpeted a ‘major program’ to enlist all sorts of worn-out lefties, and by tapping on keyboards and flapping jaws, they were going to END HOMELESSNESS!!!
                (One guy wrote that homelessness was a result of the capitalist competitiveness)
                Anyhow, I don’t have to tell you what sort of wonderful results they generated,

                1. Don’t have to tell us, certainly not! We can smell the rampant stink of shit in the streets – that’s the smell of progress, obviously.

        2. the buggy whips of now.

    1. 1848, 1968, Populism circa 2016 . . .

      We see eruptions simultaneously all over the word because every society is more or less subject to the same market forces, the same technological changes, and other forces that are impacting their societies in similar ways.

      Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism in France, Italy, and Germany weren’t just coincidental. Tthe expression of that populism, however, always seems peculiar to each society. American Trumpers, British Brexiters, Italian anti-immigrant people, the Yellow Jacket movement in France, etc., each of those groups imagined that they were doing their own thing for their own reasons, but it was really a reaction to one thing: elitism.

      Populism, in all its forms, from left to right, is a reaction to elitism, and when the government gets too far ahead of the people on issues that are within the proper purview of democracy, it always inspires a populist reaction. I suspect that’s what we’re seeing in Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, and elsewhere in Latin America, too.

      They’ve each got their own reasons, but they’re all probably responding to elitism.

      1. Don’t forget the Dutch farmers that just went on a bender through the countryside a couple weeks ago.

      2. Your average person, worldwide, is apparently becoming wise to the fact that globalism means they take a backseat in their own nations.

        Those in charge want to force decisions on the populace, instead of the other way around. Of course, not all of those groups see eye to eye on what ‘reform’ looks like but all of them appear to have a problem with various aspects of globalism.

        1. That’s the way we’re supposed to feel about certain things in a democracy. No, I don’t agree with the way our immigration laws are written, but I do agree that writing those laws should be done in accordance with the wishes of the voters. I suppose a proper description of elitism might have to do with trying to inflict something on the people that properly belongs within the realm of democracy–regardless of whether the people are right or wrong. If that sounds like authoritarianism rather than elitism, well can you find me an authoritarian who isn’t elitist in practice?

          Barack Obama signing onto the Paris Accords–without any input from the Senate–is an excellent example of elitism. And the reason what he did was wrong wasn’t just because it was unconstitutional. Rather, what he did was unconstitutional because it subjected the American people to foreign rules that their representatives did not agree to–which was undemocratic and within democracy’s proper purview.

          Elitists hate democracy because they hold average people in contempt–and think of their own people as being unworthy of persuasion or incapable of being persuaded. You have to be contemptuous of the will of your fellow Americans to be an elitist.

          I have a lot of respect for the gut reaction a lot of people on the right have to global warming for that reason. Why should we bother talking about science when the fact is that the elitists want to use this “emergency” to justify ignoring the will of the American people?

          People on the right should insist that the elitists make it clear that no solutions should be imposed on the American people over their objections and against their will before we start talking about science and economics and the extent of the problem and its solutions. If the left isn’t willing to commit to respecting the will of the American people, there is no point in discussing anything else they have to say.

          There are issues that should never be subject to a popularity test (See where the First Amendment starts, “Congress shall make no law”), and there are times when democracy isn’t really enough of a justification to violate people’s rights (see the income tax). But the left should at least be willing to commit to democracy as a bare minimum when it comes to issues like war, taxation, and naturalization.

          There is nothing smarter for an uneducated idiot to do in the face of an elitist who wants to force him to sacrifice his standard of living–over his objections and against his will and in the service of a cause that he doesn’t care about–than to deny the science.


          1. Barack Obama signing onto the Paris Accords–without any input from the Senate–is an excellent example of elitism.

            The Yellow Jackets are a pretty good example of that too, even while they appear to be mostly socialist workers. Those gas taxes gave them what they wanted, good and hard.

      3. The liberaltarians just want one big third world paradise but can’t grasp the idea that they’ll be in the bread line and not in the high castle.

  24. Whenever you see the Senate pass something unanimously, it’s almost sure to be stupid–and this piece of legislation is incredibly stupid:

    “The Senate bill, approved through a unanimous consent vote, would require the U.S. secretary of state to certify annually that Hong Kong remained sufficiently independent from Beijing to warrant the special status that has helped the city grow into a global financial hub. It would also task the president with placing sanctions on individuals who have suppressed human rights in Hong Kong.

    Those measures largely reflect the components of a bill that passed the House last month, though the two pieces of legislation aren’t identical. The Senate version, for example, enforces sanctions in fewer circumstances.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-unanimously-approves-measure-backing-hong-kong-protesters-11574205044?

    To whatever extent trade with China is good for the living standards of American consumers, it is good for them regardless of whether it’s good for the people of Hong Kong. Any bill that gets in the way of letting Americans pursue their own interests independent of the interests of Hong Kong is a bad bill–and that’s what this bill is designed to do.

    There are things I won’t do and don’t do because of personal ethical considerations, but I don’t want the government to impose my morals on American consumers, who haven’t violated anyone’s rights by shopping at Wal*Mart. If you don’t want your fellow Americans to buy things manufactured in China because of the way the Chinese government is treating or will treat the people of Hong Kong, I suggest you try persuasion rather than the coercive power of government. Incidentally, people shouldn’t use the coercive power of government to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow Americans either.

    P.S. If it isn’t in the best interests of the United States and the American people to occupy Syria, then we should also be free not to do that–regardless of what’s in the best interests of the Kurds. Are you starting to see a pattern here?

    1. Was wondering if Reason would touch this.
      Apparently not

      1. It isn’t necessary to sell your principles short to be a pro-trade capitalist.

        It is necessary to drop the bullshit pretenses.

        People should be free to do as they please so long as they don’t violate anyone’s rights–and that includes American consumers.

        If you find it sad that people choose their own selfish interests over the downtrodden people of Hong Kong, there’s nothing wrong with that. Condemn American consumers for their heartlessness all you want–and you’ll still be as libertarian and capitalist as anyone can be.

        You just can’t advocate using the coercive power of government to impose your mores on American consumers over their objections and against their will, and anyone who finds that fact sad is a phony libertarian at best.

        1. I sent in a question about this very bill to the reasonoids for their telethon thing. Let’s see what they say about it.

      2. Too local.

      3. MC Hammer told them they can’t.

        1. Legit.
          Maybe even…
          Too legit

  25. A 20-year-old is being charged with providing material support to a terrorist organization for allegedly writing code for ISIS.

    Exhibit A in why #LearnToCode is banned on Twitter.

    1. Oh, goodie! One more opinion piece! Thanks.
      Now go research what amounts to “evidence”, and don’t bother coming back.

    2. The walls are closing in!

    3. http://thefederalist.com/2019/11/19/volker-morrison-testimony-completely-vindicate-trump-destroy-democratic-case-for-impeachment/

      Volker and Morrison say the exact opposite. And unlike Sondland they actually talked to Trump and have factual basis for their assertions. Sondland says Guilliani demand that but no one else seems to have heard it, including the Ukrainians. And even if he did, he has no basis to claim Guiliani was speaking for the President since he never spoke to the President.

      1. So everything you just wrote is false. Sondland was talking directly with Trump. Trump was telling Sondland to work with Giuliani. Trump even told Zelensky to get with Giuliani on the phone call. Man you showed your ass with this comment.

        1. Umm… Pod… are you watching the hearings?

          Sondland: “My testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections” [By elections, that appears he misspoke and means ‘investigations.’]

        2. Whoops:

          Sondland says all his conversation with Taylor — including where he said he believed aid was conditioned on the announcement — and others were based on his personal beliefs

          This is going badly for you today Pod.

        3. OH NO POD, what is going on?!?!

          Sondland says he called Trump on Sept. 9 amid concerns from Taylor about the security assistance being withheld and had a very short abrupt call with an unhappy Trump, who was in a bad mood.

          He says he asked Trump essentially: “What do you want?”

          “I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,” Trump said, according to Sondland. “Something to that effect.”

    4. From Today…

      “Sondland: “My testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections” [By elections, that appears he misspoke and means ‘investigations.’]”

      Whoops. Maybe don’t jump the gun next time Pod.

  26. And in yet more Wottafuckingsurprise news:

    Congress sends a letter to MLB whining that MLB is using all the trust/cartel powers that Congress has specifically and uniquely allowed MLB to use in order to shut down 25% of minor league baseball.

    For over a century, Congress has taken numerous actions specifically designed to protect, preserve and sustain a system and structure for both Major and Minor League Baseball to flourish

    Translation: We’ve taken all sorts of bribes and whored ourselves out to you for over 100 years MLB – and now we are informed that there is gambling and corruption going on in this establishment. We are shocked. Shocked I tell you. Absent another series of payments, we are inclined to whine even more loudly in future.

    1. Congress gave them something and can take it away if it wants to. I really can’t blame Congress for this. Fuck MLB. If they want to be able to run their business with Congress getting involved, they should not have ran to Congress to get it from revoking that antitrust exemption. I hope Congress steps all over the stupid bastards.

      1. I wish they would do that too. But if they ‘sent a letter’ that means they are just playing let’s make a deal. Again.

        1. The only thing congress would need to do if they were serious about the anti-trust exemption or baseball is:
          a)specifically legislate away MLB’s exemption so they are covered under anti-trust just like everyone else and
          b)federally charter a nonprofit membership-based sports governing body for baseball. Similar to what they did for Little League. With initial members being the different Little Leagues, American Legion leagues, every muni that owns a stadium/field that doesn’t want to be subject to MLB’s extortion racket, and US Olympic baseball. With the mission of expanding the sport and being the only entity that is exempt from some of the anti-trust provisions (notably re organizing game schedules and league memberships yearoveryear).

      2. Fuck MLB. If they want to be able to run their business with Congress getting involved, they should not have ran to Congress to get it from revoking that antitrust exemption.

        What’s particularly obnoxious about MLB doing this is that they imposed requirements on these teams to provide a certain standard on their facilities in order to be able to have a team, particularly the stadiums. Nothing inherently wrong with this–even the bus-league, A-ball parks are pleasant places to see a game because of those standards–but it does make MLB look like Indian givers when they talk about shutting down such a huge swath of minor league teams and cutting back on the draft rounds to accommodate that change. Even those small stadiums are pretty expensive to build, and if MLB is going to be shutting the teams down, then they should probably be liable for reimbursing the bond-holders–who purchased these bonds in good faith that MLB would maintain a team in the area in exchange for upgrading the facilities–that would get screwed by leaving an empty ballpark in place.

        The overall economic concerns are just noise, though. During the mid-20th century, there might have been a case for these minor league teams being a significant economic engine for the local area, but now they are barely a blip on the radar. I’ve attended a few minor league games around the country, and I’ve never seen any indication that losing the team would be devastating to the local economy. There might be a small, temporary lull due to initial reduced traffic from the games, but things would go back to normal within a year or so.

        1. I’ve never seen any indication that losing the team would be devastating to the local economy.

          That’s because minor league teams are mere puppets of MLB. MLB controls all their players. Baseball has become irrelevant to those smaller communities because the competition of the sport itself has been stripped out of it. Fans want competition on the field. They want to see their team be able to compete for the league championship. Get some bragging rights and rahrah stuff re the nearby communities. Local potential sponsors and media would want that too.

          When MLB can just yank their best players on MLB’s whim – or order those players to ‘develop some future skill’ rather than ‘compete to win’ – well why would anyone invest anything being a fan of that. MLB has spent 100 years now turning the entire sport of adult baseball into MLB’s ‘farm’ because that is what is most profitable for MLB. Well ain’t no one interested in going to a cowcalf farm to watch the cattle ‘grow’ either.

          1. That’s why the independent leagues have been growing.

        2. Not shutting them down, just cutting them loose. They’d no longer be farm clubs.

          1. That’s just silly. MLB will still control all the best players, will control mass media exclusivity, and will be able to blacklist/kill those leagues if/when they actually find some way of thriving on their own.

            You talk about the independent leagues growing as if there is really some free market at work. Fact is they very carefully define their rules/rosters/etc so that MLB knows they will never ‘compete’ with MLB (or their minors puppets) for anything. The only one that has actually been somewhat successful (Atlantic) has been very careful to only hire way-way-past-their-prime MLBers who can clearly no longer play at the MLB level but who are ‘too big’ for the affiliated minors, with media contracts that are peripheral (like youTube not ESPN) at best, and are now ‘assisting’ MLB with potential ‘rules changes’ like roboumps/etc.

            The anti-trust exemption is not merely some hypothetical power of MLB.

    2. What is this “baseball” of which you speak?

      1. I think it’s a Latin American sport, like jai alai.

  27. >>Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.)

    the Obama Track *does* leave a clean voting record.

    1. Too local for reason.

  28. Why is it that when an unconstitutional surveillance bill is nailed to an essential (for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is essential) appropriations bill, the argument is that those who won’t pass it are playing politics? Why is the argument never that those who may have doomed a supposedly essential appropriation by nailing unconstitutional surveillance to it are playing politics?

    1. I mean, when congress critters see a “must-pass” bill their eyes alight, because that where all the best pork can be stuffed.

  29. Malcolm Jenkins, regardless of his opinions, has been a great player for the Eagles for many years. I can’t take the rest of the union’s opinions seriously if they’re going to start with that.

    We need Carson to make throws, and he isn’t. So maybe yell at the white guy next time and skip the politics altogether.

  30. “Both to blame” yet the headline only says Democrats. Way to hide that bias Reason..

    1. Well, the red team’s vote tally was 181 against and 12 for, with the blue team being roughly the opposite of that. So while both teams did contribute to the disaster, one of them contributed a lot more than the other. No doubt the red team will do their best to make up for a brief moment of sanity by fucking up something else, but in the meantime calling the democrats to account for things they were nearly alone in supporting is hardly bias.

  31. “ At the same time that Democrats are holding impeachment inquiries to determine if President Donald Trump abused his executive power, they apparently have no qualms about letting him continue to spy on Americans,” as Reason’s Eric Boehm wrote yesterday.”

    Poor deluded Eric. Democrats object only when one of their own is targeted. They have no problem at all with Trump spying on you.

  32. Democrats Overwhelmingly Vote to Give Trump’s People More Spying Power . .

    But Trump will be in power only to Jan 2025 at the most and could be only to Jan 2021 then it will more than likely not a democrat, Then the democrats will be just as bad as republicans or maybe worse if the past 8 years have taught us anything.

  33. When the Patriot Act passed is was a sad disgusting day from the Bush administration. When it was set to expire democrats had control of all 3 branches of government they renewed it as is with not a single change.
    Bipartisanship at work.

Please to post comments