Reason Roundup

The Kamala Harris 'Case' Against Tulsi Gabbard Doesn't Make Democrats Look Good

Plus: Laura Loomer loses again, no refugees resettled last month, and more...

|

The Democrats debate again. "I rest my case," Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted following Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate, her words hanging over a Trump 2020 campaign tweet quoting Tulsi Gabbard.

On stage last night, the California senator and the Hawaii representative got into another lively confrontation, tangling over foreign policy (kind of) and Gabbard's purported lack of party loyalty. It started when Gabbard said the Democratic Party had been captured "by the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests" on foreign policy.

Debate moderators ("in a moment of manufactured drama," as Christian Britschgi correctly called it) then turned to Harris and asked her simply what she thought about what Gabbard said.

Harris responded to the pseudo-question by accusing Gabbard of having "buddied up to Steve Bannon to get a meeting with Trump" and failing "to call a war criminal what he is, a war criminal" (presumably referring to Gabbard's meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad). Harris also called out Gabbard for criticizing the Democratic Party at all, and for criticizing former President Barack Obama on Fox News. All of this, Harris suggested, made Gabbard unfit to be seeking the Democratic nomination for president. If people want someone who can "rebuild the Obama coalition and bring the party and the nation together," said Harris, "I am that candidate."

Afterwards, on Twitter, the Trump 2020 campaign pulled one sentence out of Gabbard's critique of the foreign policy establishment and the Democratic Party's role in it and used it to take a dig at the Democratic Party.

Harris then used this as "evidence" that Gabbard isn't fit to call herself a Democrat.

The tone-deafness here is so extreme that it's almost funny. Harriswhose biggest liabilities involve her questionable prosecutorial past"rests her case" against Gabbard on the flimsy fact that her opponent retweeted Gabbard's words? That's exactly the sort of cockamamie conception of justice that has earned Harris her reputation as a shady cop in the first place.

Harris' attack demonstrates exactly the sort of party-over-people and uphold-the-status-quo-at-all-costs mentality that Gabbard was trying to critique. It should not be considered a mark against a politician that she tries to influence people not already on her side. You can't "bring the nation together" by refusing to talk to anyone who isn't already on your political team.

And if questioning endless war calls one's commitment to Democratic Party values into question, that's a pretty sad comment on the state of the party.

These sorts of weird accusations and insinuations about Gabbard have gone way beyond Harris. Gabbard has had her loyalty questioned by fellow Democrats in a number of ways, with various folks suggesting she's a secret Republican, or backed by Russia, or only running as a Democrat right now to gain traction for an independent presidential bid.

If Gabbard would go independent (and she has denied that that's her angle), Democrats would have only themselves to blame. Despite her support for a huge host of Democratic positions, slight variations of opinion or simply asking questions about Democratic orthodoxies has gotten Gabbard labeled a pariah by her peers.

In an earlier Democratic debate, Gabbard slammed Harris' record as a drug warrior; Harris and her campaign hit back by insinuating that Gabbard was too cozy with Russia and by dissing Gabbard as a bottom-tier candidate with low poll numbers. (This was back when Harris was still flying high from her debate-stage attack on Joe Biden.) These days it's not uncommon for Gabbard to poll near or above Harris.

In other debate-related coverage:

And that's a wrap. Only seven more of these things to go!


FREE MINDS

Professional troll Laura Loomer loses another lawsuit. Loomer has been banned by Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Medium, PayPal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Uber, and Lyft, and she subsequently filed a number of lawsuits protesting decisions to deplatform her or deny her service.

If nothing else, it "seems like a good way to get many lessons in how Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act works," writes Mike Masnick at TechDirt:

In one such lawsuit, she also sued CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, arguing that CAIR's "reporting" of her Twitter account to Twitter violated all sorts of laws.

Spoiler alert: it did not. It does not violate any law whatsoever to report an account to Twitter.

The court dismissed a variety of claims for procedural reasons, leaving just a claim of "tortious interference of a business relationship," but that has also been dismissed for a bunch of reasons.


FREE MARKETS

International student enrollment at U.S. colleges and universities has been declining. Between the 2015–2016 and the 2018–2019 school years, international student enrollment fell by more than 10 percent, according to new data from the Institute of International Education.

This still leaves us with more international students than we were seeing in any of the school years from 2009 to 2014. But it comes at a time when international enrollment is rising in other countries, including Canada, which suggests that "new immigration restrictions are likely to blame for the poor performance of U.S. universities in attracting international students relative to other countries," writes Stuart Anderson at Forbes.


QUICK HITS

  • The Philippines plans to start rounding up people who vape.
  • Missouri's attorney general said yesterday that out of about 7,000 "rape kits" the state has stored, only about 830 were ever tested.
  • Now do the same for non-military members next, thanks:

  • You're welcome:

NEXT: Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Lacks Needed Reform

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. Give us your poor, your… wait, never mind

    works for me. import the shitholes and you get shitholes in your own country.

    1. Hello.

      The harder Harris tries the stupider she looks.

      /flashes ‘L’ on forehead.

    2. Europe was a shithole when most immigrants from there came.
      Though I don’t think the original poem was about refugees, but about people just working hard to make a better life in a new place.

      I’m all for much more open immigration (especially making temporary immigration to work easier), but I don’t think we have any obligation (outside of any treaty obligations) to settle any refugees.

      1. Europe was a shithole when most immigrants from there came.

        lolwut?

        1. Why do you think so many people left?

          1. Space and a lack of class limitations.

          2. Class issues, primarily.

            Europe was still the greatest continent on Earth at that time, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

            1. Ireland

              1. its a new troll.

                Dismiss nonsense posts by it like Tony, SPB, wearingit, etc.

      2. “Europe was a shithole when most immigrants from there came.”

        Retarded. Literally in order to be this wrong you have to be a retard.

      3. Europe was a shithole when most immigrants from there came.
        True and looking at muckracking photos of the lower east side and parts of Chicago then some brought their shithole ways with them.

        1. Europe was a shithole when most immigrants from there came.

          Yup. Kings. Fucked up elitist politics whenever they pretended towards something vaguely democratic. Rampant classism, anti-Semitism and that weird euro-racism where the closer you are to the mythical uber-whites(and I don’t only mean ‘Aryans’) the whiter you are.

          It was a pretty fucked up place.

          True and looking at muckracking photos of the lower east side and parts of Chicago then some brought their shithole ways with them.

          That they did. It took some time to get them to give up all the shitty stuff they’d brought with them in favor of only keeping the good stuff. It’s a process that’s still going on today. We’ve still got soft-brained morons who believe that they’re ‘upper class’.

  2. The Philippines plans to start rounding up people who vape.

    The dumbest moral panic yet.

    1. Until the next one.

      1. They still haven’t solved the menacing clown epidemic from a few years ago.

        1. Haven’t they? Have you seen Crusty lately?

          1. It’s so pathetic that yiu still pine for your mean girlfriend lololol

        2. Sent some to the house, some to Ukraine

    2. We all know that jet fuel doesn’t get hot enough to melt steel, but vape pens do.

    3. Oh, I read that as ‘rape’, and Bill Clinton was shaking in his boots.

  3. “I rest my case,” Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted following Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate, her words hanging over a Trump 2020 campaign tweet quoting Tulsi Gabbard.

    The tweet quoter of my enemy is my friend.

  4. There is a meme running around of a guy in a Sheriff Woody outfit break dancing with the heading of “Buttigieg trying win over black voters.”

    I think that wins the internet for the week.

    1. Did you see his #getbugged campaign?

      it’s exclusive to bug-chasers.

      1. Wow. That is better than “Meth, I am on it”.

  5. Harris also called out Gabbard for criticizing the Democratic Party at all, and for criticizing former President Barack Obama on Fox News. All of this, Harris suggested, made Gabbard unfit to be seeking the Democratic nomination for president.

    What is your fitness level then after criticizing a fellow candidate for the party’s presidential nomination?

    1. Are they going to investigate her for damaging a political opponent?

      1. For personal gain!

  6. Gabbard has had her loyalty questioned by fellow Democrats in a number of ways, with various folks suggesting she’s a secret Republican, or backed by Russia, or only running as a Democrat right now to gain traction for an independent presidential bid.

    You are right – they are all bat shit crazy. Tulsi is Bernie Lite, and you can bet that once she drops out of the race she will throw all of her support to Sanders.

    1. Gabbard is far left in every aspect. She should be their golden child. She is young, attractive, can act like a normal human being in public, and makes even whackjob left views seem normal. Instead she is a pariah because she dares question US intervention abroad.

      The Democratic Party’s treatment of Gabbard is pretty conclusive proof they are the party of perpetual war now. Otherwise, what explanation is there for how they have treated her?

      1. you’re close, John. oh so close

        1. The Republicans are too. The party establishment’s treatment of Trump for the crime of questioning intervention is proof of that.

          1. The deep state, aka the military-industrial complex or the bureaucracy or the media-political complex, is the party of perpetual war. It’s good for THEIR business.

      2. To say the Democratic establishment hates Gabbard for her non-interventionism paints an incomplete picture. They also hate her for blowing the whistle in 2016 on the corruption of the DNC being blatantly pro-Hillary and sabotaging Bernie.

        1. I didn’t know she did that. But that doesn’t really help the DNC. If that is true, and I am not doubting you that it is, then the DNC hates her for objecting to wars and corruption. So the Democrats are the party of perpetual war and corruption.

          1. That they are, my friend.

            1. “my friend.”

              Ahahah how sad!

              1. Yeah, what kind of idiot has friends?

                1. What does that have to do with a loser on a website thinking another anonymous commenter is his friend?

                  Gotcha denied bitch.

                  1. We get it Ugh, you’re lonely, and you lash out at anyone who’s doing better socially then you. We understand, you don’t have to be so edgy. I can give you a hug if it would help.

      3. Gabbard and Amash are the two ‘longest-serving’ millennials. I don’t see much difference at all in how either one of their parties has treated them. That is a generation that hasn’t yet bought into and surrendered to the DeRp mentality. Not quite yet. And if there is one thing that DeRps share it is the notion that ain’t no one – EVER – gonna successfully ‘change’ their tent from the inside. So they – and whoever is ‘next in line’ in that generation is gonna get hammered for their unorthodoxy until they do the right thing and just surrender to the dark side of the force.

        1. Gabbard conforms to the party line Amash really doesn’t. So there is a difference.

          1. Nah, Gabbard is sympathetic to a lot of the party platform, but the fact that she refuses to toe the line on some issues is what’s getting her blasted by establishment folks (like Hillary, for example). So I wouldn’t say she “conforms” – just that she happens to be ideologically similar in some respects to the party’s platform.

            I mean, I hate most of the stuff she wants to do, but I will allow her some points for sticking to principle despite the blowback from her own party.

      4. She also occasionally speaks as if there are actually limitations on what government can accomplish. Which apparently is right out in today’s Democratic party.

    2. Kitten fight.

      1. Pick your pussy! Two pussies enter, one pussy leaves.

        1. But one is a calico, the other is an ally cat.

          I’ll leave it up to you to decide who’s who.

        2. FUNNY!

  7. http://nypost.com/2019/11/20/when-the-villain-is-obama-not-trump-news-suddenly-becomes-not-worth-reporting/

    So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.” Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.

    Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished. If they could have used one of those Men in Black memory-zappers on us, they would have. Sheepishly, the two news organizations explained that, you see, the UN data was from 2015 — part of a border crackdown that had begun years earlier.

    We all know who the president was in 2015. It wasn’t evil, child-caging monster President Trump. It was that nice, compassionate, child-caging monster President Barack Obama.

    Zap. The story made Obama look bad. Hence the story was removed. Not updated or corrected, removed.

    It is just a mystery why no one trusts the media anymore.

    1. if you believe in a secure border, children will need to go in cages.

      it’s as simple as that. if you’re going to force me to choose, I’ll take the secure border.

      1. See, Leave Trump Alone Libertarian. This is how you parody the trumpistas

        1. Trump is a border cuck. he cares more about black unemployment and Israel than what his base wants.

        2. Oh, if only, man. If only this were parody.

  8. “The U.S. Air Force is now allowing female service members on Beale Air Force Base in California to obtain birth control directly from pharmacists at the on-base clinic. This is a good policy that more states and lawmakers should consider.”

    Funny how this policy was supported by “women’s advocate groups” until a Republican, Cory Gardner, proposed a bill to allow it, and then all of a sudden there were serious health concerns about getting BC pills that weren’t signed off by a personal physician first.

    1. I’d like to know why we have women in the military at all.

      1. See “The Forever War” by Joe Haldenan.

      2. Some women are badasses. Many more want welfare. The military, compared to being a single mom, is a cake walk.

      3. Well, for practical reasons, if they aren’t getting enough recruits, you don’t want to rule out half of the potential pool. There are plenty of jobs women can do just fine.
        Whether women should be eligible for all positions is another question.

        1. Please name one job that should be categorically denied based solely on sex.

          The general problem on the left is an unwillingness to accept skewed ratios…the whole equality of access vs. equality of outcome issue.

          1. Infantry.

          2. Special forces.

            I would note that every military branch already has two fitness standards. One for men and one for women.

            Women can do most of the jobs in the military that men can do. But not all.

            1. The special forces command isn’t gender-segregated. They just have a single physical fitness standard, and very few women can meet the bar. Relatively few men, too, for that matter.

          3. male prostitute. female prostitute. male model. female model. female breast cancer exam demonstrator. see the pattern here? sometimes the plumbing disqualifies you. NOTHING anyone can do can change that fact anymore then we can repeal the law of gravity. this is why folks that think it can be changed are so frikkin’ annoying.

    2. Access was good, free is better – how can you not understand that?

      1. Yes, I don’t remember “women’s advocate groups” supporting OTC birth control pills, they supported “free” birth control pills. Cheap OTC cuts Planned Parenthood out of the loop, expensive “free” pills keeps the funding flowing.

    3. “My body, my choice,” or is that only after they get pregnant?

      1. My body, my choice, your bill.

      2. No better way to get out of sea duty for female sailors than get pregnant.

    4. Republicans realized it was a hook for universal health insurance* Democrats realized the same.

      *If you have to go to a doctor and get a prescription for birth control, you’ll probably want insurance, but if women can just go buy their own birth control that’s one less big reason they’ll need insurance if they are otherwise healthy

      1. ladies, condoms are a buck…if you cannot afford the cost have the fella buy your birth control for you. unless your lady bits aren’t worth a buck, but that’s a WHOLE other matter

  9. International student enrollment at U.S. colleges and universities has been declining. Between the 2015–2016 and the 2018–2019 school years, international student enrollment fell by more than 10 percent, according to new data from the Institute of International Education.

    It’s still the highest percentage of total enrollment we’ve ever had.

    I can’t come up with a reason why we should have over 1 million international students in our colleges. Those are spots that should go to White Males, who have been systematically disenfranchised from enrolling in college, particularly elite institutions.

    1. The reason why we do is that they are generally full pays. The children of rich Chinese, Russians, and Arabs pay the full sticker price at American universities. They are nothing but cash cows for these schools.

      1. I know. I still don’t want them here.

        1. Most who come here are here because they want to be like Americans, learn the American way, or want to become Americans. We do need to worry about the stealth IP thieves, however.

          1. according to the left that means they want to be patriarchal, racist, coloialist, misogynists… so why allow them to come here and learn those things?

          2. That’s not the progressive way
            They must be segregated, I mean – made safe, into their multicultural unit!

      2. +1,000

      3. “we” don’t do anything.

        A lot of these are private universities btw.

        1. We actually do in the form of granting the student VISAs. One of the reasons so many of them are granted is because of the money involved and political pull of universities.

        2. we can just stop these students from coming here altogether.

    2. Oh look who escaped from Daily Stormer and found his way over here.

      1. It’s probably just Tulpa. Set to ignore.

        1. Too coherent for Tulpa. Plus, not enough caps and gratuitous insults.

          Either an edgelord shitposter or a true believer. Either way, setting phasers to ignore seems like a good plan.

          1. Is it possible to set your phaser to ‘ignore’ while you still have it maxed out on ‘gratuitously virtue signal’?

            1. It never occurred to them that they’re both roundly despised, and fuck buddies simultaneously.

              1. “setting phasers to ignore”

                I mean, Jesus Christ, that’s max incel right there.

                1. Aktually….

          2. When I get TWO of you to cry about me, and then admit you pretend to ignore me, it makes fucking with you seem like a great use of time.

      2. Seems like a subtle parody. Could just be Poe’s Law though.

        1. It’s getting pretty damned hard these days to tell who’s trolling and who genuinely believes some heinous shit. I can’t keep up. I find it’s easier for my mental health to assume they’re shitposters, because the alternative is depressingly likely.

    3. Yeah, it’s impossible for a white male to get into college now. WTF?

      Affirmative action sucks, but international students aren’t part of that problem (and they are also usually there to learn, not to be idiot activists and party). And you just seem to be calling for more affirmative action in the other direction, which still sucks.

      1. “And you just seem to be calling for more affirmative action in the other direction, which still sucks”

        +1

        This is a great topic to bring about cognitive dissonance on both sides. From the left: why would all these immigrants come to such an awful racist place? From the right: why would white men apply to attend such an awful racist place?

      2. btw, in the long run, this won’t matter. College has become a day care for the obedient (esp. women). Eventually innovation will find new places to thrive, which will create new wealth and opportunities. And if history repeats itself, guess what demographic will be leading that charge?

      3. And you just seem to be calling for more affirmative action in the other direction, which still sucks.

        Just advocacy for true Americans.

        look at enrollment numbers for Whites at elite institutions. they’re WELL below proportion.

        1. You still consider this a bad thing when I don’t think that’s true. Many people who graduated from college work jobs that have nothing to do with their degree but are now in debt to the man.

          This system is only going to further hurt women. Progressives always have the best intentions and the worst policies.

  10. You can’t “bring the nation together” by refusing to talk to anyone who isn’t already on your political team.

    Harris plans to bring the people together like in gen pop.

    1. Americans will be brought together, either by riding upon the glorious bulldozer of progressive orthodoxy, or being crushed beneath it.

  11. Despite her support for a huge host of Democratic positions, slight variations of opinion or simply asking questions about Democratic orthodoxies has gotten Gabbard labeled a pariah by her peers.

    Once they smell blood in the othering waters, it’s hard to restrain themselves.

  12. International student enrollment at U.S. colleges and universities has been declining.

    Script writers can no longer have ME terrorist villains with ironic American educations. HOLLYWOOD HARDEST HIT.

    1. …because Hollywood is constrained by reality?

  13. I wouldn’t want Yang to be President, but I like him. I will give him credit, he does seem to actually think about shit and have ideas. This stands in stark contrast to someone like Buttigieg or Harris who just repeat the Prog party line like zombies.

    1. ” he does seem to actually think about shit and have ideas.”

      Never mind the fact that they are stupid totalitarian ideas.

      1. Yes they are. That is why I would never want him to be president. But, he seems like an actual live human being which is more than I can say for the rest of them.

        1. He can learn. The others, not so much.

        2. And he doesn’t have a stated goal of destroying capitalism, which is sadly remarkable.

        3. I’d vote for Tulsi. Her policies would hurt our economy less than the others, she could continue to piss off the establishment, and maybe even end some wars.

        4. Hmmm, yeah, I dunno? Buttigieg seems decent, but he also seems to be pretty good at politics, which suggests he’s virtually certain to be some kind of monster. The real question is whether he’s the sort of monster that matters in terms of policy, which I kinda doubt. Of the current field I think he’d probably be the least damaging, but I think he’s probably the most status quo of them all, excepting maybe Grampa Grabby. I appreciate that Tulsi seems dedicated to principle, which is good news on the forever war front, but the rest of her policies are pretty damned socialist so I’m not digging it. Yang definitely does seem to be thinking about stuff, but in the worst conceivable way, so it doesn’t buy him much credit with me.

          The rest of the blue team’s field is all quite terrible, from a freedom perspective. As opposed to ranging from somewhat to mostly terrible for these three. None are really worth voting for, though.

  14. After last night, I’ll bet Hillary is hearing even more voices calling for her to jump in and end the shit-show. “Hillary-Michelle 2020” coming soon to a comedy theater near you.

    1. At this point, it is probably too late for someone to jump in and get on all of the ballots. For that to happen, you would have to have a brokered convention and then a unity ticket that emerges from it. That is possible, but it hasn’t happened in a very long time and certainly not in a political environment in any way modern.

      I still find that a long shot.

      1. But it would be hilarious nonetheless.

        1. I think you mean hilaryous.

          1. Hillaryous. 😛

      2. If Hillary becomes the nominee again, it will destroy the party. The activist left hates her, the establishment Dems hate owing her favors, and the Clinton Foundation’s ability to build “pay to play” networks was nerfed after Trump beat her.

        A bunch of broken wine moms and Beltway white knights would be happy to see her run again, but even the DNC would prefer to see her go away forever.

        1. I cannot believe they would ever nominate her. But, I couldn’t understand how they nominated her in 2016. So, anything is possible. The Clintons seem to have an almost unbreakable hold over the Democratic party.

        2. Not to mention part of the reason the DNC’s finances are as shitty as they are (they have something like $7m cash on hand, and $7m in debt) is because the Clinton campaign “assisted” the DNC with the finances, and basically emptied the DNC’s war chest into Hillary’s campaign and foundation. And no one realized until afterward that she had taken everything

      3. Whether she jumps in or not, it’s too late for the Democrats’ nominee to get any more than their base vote. Less than a year before the election, and nobody’s showing consistently more than 20%. By now if they had someone who had appeal to independent and swing voters, that candidate would have emerged and be doing well in polls. So all they can hope to do in 2020 is get great turnout of their base and somehow suppress Trump’s. Or he drops dead.

        1. Even a full turnout of literally all their voters wouldn’t be enough to compensate a typical turnout among the independents going against them. But I don’t think it’s too late yet, by a long shot – most voters aren’t even paying attention to the race until like, February or March. Doubly so for the independents that a re less party affiliated.

          I think the progressive wing got a little too high on its own smug and turned what probably would’ve been a cakewalk into a close election, by shutting out a lot of centrist candidates and pushing the whole field radically leftward. I’m not sure how I feel about that; on the one hand, they can go fuck themselves because they’re filthy statists, but the other would prefer that the Donald’s ranting on twitter be the amusing antics of a senile old man rather than public policy declarations. I hate both sides too much to actually vote for either of them, which sadly makes me a lot like the rest of our electorate, I guess, just with a little extra hate.

    2. I’m imagining Hillary last night reprising her “Why the hell am I not up by 50 points?” moment, drunkenly pitching forward off her chair as she attempts to hurl a highball glass at Bill’s head while screaming about the unfairness of these lightweights not fit to carry her jockstrap getting more fawning attention from the media than she did in 2016. And then, as she lies there on the floor weakly thrashing about attempting to hoist her bulk vertical and yelling at Bill to give her a hand, her colostomy bag bursts. Bill guffaws, waves his hand dismissively and walks out of the room, telling her to call somebody who cares about her fat beetle ass.

      1. Thankfully, your fiction narratives are a lot less traumatizing than Sugarfree’s.

        1. Inspiring, actually.

        2. Sugar free was fucking trash

            1. I’ve already met you.

      2. That’s the best thing I’ve ever read on this site.

      3. Except for rare occasional photo ops, Bill is generally hundreds of miles away. I imagine Hillary is like Miss Havisham, sitting around in the same pant suit and underwear she wore on election night, one shoe missing, a mouse nibbled congratulatory cake on the table and grooming Huma to take revenge on all men.

      4. If she uses a jockstrap that explains a lot.

  15. “Professional troll Laura Loomer loses another lawsuit. Loomer has been banned by Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Medium, Paypal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Uber, and Lyft, and she subsequently filed a number of lawsuits protesting decisions to deplatform her or deny her service.”

    You HONESTLY see no problem with this? None at all?

    1. Thank you.

      This is where I started to exit the libertarian train: we are favoring corporations “freedom” of association over the individual’s right to participate in the public square.

      1. This right here. Yes, corporations and private entities have the right to set their own rules and blah blah blah. But the public square nowadays exists almost entirely online, and the online platforms are controlled by a very small number of private entities who are allowed to set biased rules about what ideas are acceptable and who gets to participate. What we essentially have is not a robust marketplace of competing platforms with different sets of rule that consumers can choose from, but a whole bunch of platforms all owned and operated and governed by the same handful of people- there’s not really any choice there. This tiny little group of people gets to decide who gets free speech and who doesn’t.

    2. Loomer has done nothing except express views the left wing finds objectionable. If you put all of those platforms together, it is now impossible for her to get her views out or for her to make a living doing so.

      Reason not only doesn’t see a problem with it, they snicker at it. Even beyond the whole “its their property” defense, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right or above criticism. Reason of course magically remembers this if the victim is someone on the left. If the Christian conservatives ran those platforms and Loomer were a transgendered activist being subjected to this, Reason would be having a fucking stroke. Their hypocrisy on this is epic.

      1. Well here’s some more info on why Laura Loomer was banned from Uber and Lyft.

        https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/laura-loomer-banned-uber-lyft-after-anti-muslim-tweetstorm-n816911?icid=related

        Loomer launched into an anti-Muslim rant on Twitter Wednesday, calling for a new ride sharing company to be created that didn’t employ Muslims, after it was revealed that Sayfullo Saipov, the suspect in the New York terror attack, was a former Uber driver.

        “Someone needs to create a non Islamic form of Uber or Lyft because I never want to support another Islamic immigrant driver,” Loomer tweeted, tagging both companies in the post.

        The tweet marked the beginning of a daylong anti-Islamic social media attack that blamed all Muslims for ISIS terrorism. Loomer also posted a photo of two women wearing hijabs near the intersection where Tuesday’s attacks occurred, writing “I bet they’re loving this.”

        Hours later, she re-tweeted reports that she’d been banned from both ride-sharing services. The 24-year-old has responded to the ban by announcing that she will be taking legal action against both companies.

        I think her discourse goes beyond merely criticism of left-wing policies. Wouldn’t you say?

        1. She says things people don’t like. As usual you are completely missing the point. I don’t care what she says, a bunch of corporations forming a cartel to deprive her of the means to say it is wrong. You think it is great because you don’t like her and are not bright enough to understand “freedom” means people saying things you don’t like.

          1. No one is depriving her of means to say what she wants. She is free to go to the public square and yell her heart out. But no one owes her a platform. Or did you suddenly start believing in positive rights?

            1. No one is depriving her of means to say what she wants. She is free to go to the public square and yell her heart out. But no one owes her a platform. Or did you suddenly start believing in positive rights?

              Just build your own bank amirite?

            2. So, if every gun corporation banded together and made it impossible for you to buy anything but a flintlock, your freedom to bear arms wouldn’t be infringed?

              If the government banned you from the internet, that wouldn’t infringe your freedom of speech?

              The point here is that it is wrong. The fact that it is legal doesn’t change that. Not everything that is wrong should be illegal. Do you not understand that?

              1. the gun example doesn’t really work, some basic metalworking tools and a quick google search will put you in business real quick.

                But I get what you’re saying, and its not just social media. It seems to me that more and more non-conforming media groups are either getting bought out or are being pressured to toe the line that ABC and the rest want

          2. At least we’ve established that she was kicked off of Uber and Lyft not merely for disagreeing with left-wing policies, but for saying genuinely bigoted and offensive stuff.

            And John, suppose that someone that you invited onto your property, in your own house, started spouting stuff that you found deeply offensive. You would kick that person off your property immediately, and rightly so. Why would you deny that same liberty to others?

            1. Who is the judge of “genuinely offensive”? It doesn’t matter what she said. She has a right to say it. And engaging in a cartel to make sure she can’t work or say it publicly is wrong.

              You continue to completely miss the point.

              1. Who is the judge of “genuinely offensive”?

                The property owner.

                1. And when that property owner receives favorable legislative treatment from the people?

            2. You constantly say offensive and bigoted things, jeff.
              Are you going to ban yourself?

              1. I’ll start a crowd fund if it helps get the ball rolling.

                Do it for charity Jeff.

            3. But she didn’t say anything offensive on Uber’s property, she did on Twitters property.
              How many Uber rides has she caused a problem on?

              1. Well, true, at least in the particular incident that I cited. This is more a question of freedom of association.

                1. I thought about stating John’s point in a different way so maybe you’d get it, but then I remembered you’re Little Jeffy and once you decide you’re not gonna get something, there’s no reason to bother.

                  1. In other words, either I agree with you and John, or I’m just an obstinate troll. Got it.

                    1. Proving the point that he doesn’t get

                    2. Oh look It’s Little Jeffy with another false dichotomy!

                    3. Little Jeffy is Cathy Newman’s sock!?

        2. I think her discourse goes beyond merely criticism of left-wing policies. Wouldn’t you say?

          So, if she’d say we need an anti-Islamic green energy company we ban her from all sources of green energy?

          If enough people get banned from green energy markets do we give up on them entirely?

        3. Her commentary was offensive. Does Uber or Lyft have a specific rule regarding comments made on services that are not theirs?

          Should Uber or Lyft be able to mine your social media to see anything you have said in the past to see if you have said anything offensive in the past?

          These tech firms can make life extremely difficult (guess what? I’m now ROOTING for NY and all to fuck Uber over royally. Good job CA doing so) and they have rules that are, to be as generous as possible, nebulous.

          Break them the fuck up OR charge them for colluding with one another. Because they undoubtedly are doing so.

          1. Chemjeff and eunuch are leading the charge of “libertarians for social credit systems”

            1. And it so weird how they get tarred as progs…

          2. Should Uber or Lyft be able to mine your social media to see anything you have said in the past to see if you have said anything offensive in the past?

            You mean, should a person be permitted to use publicly available information about an individual in order to make a determination on whether or not to associate with that individual? Sure, why not?

            What is it that you actually want from Uber and Lyft, or from any company for that matter? That they should be coerced into using their property against their wishes for the sake of…?

            1. That you think this is OK is a truly horrifying thing.

              “I don’t like this review of a book you wrote on Amazon. Therefore….NO BANKING WITH MY FIRM!!!”

              1. So provide me with an alternative that doesn’t shit all over everyone’s property rights and freedom of association. Can you?

                1. So provide me with an alternative that doesn’t shit all over everyone’s property rights and freedom of association. Can you?

                  We can, but you don’t want that one.

                  That one lets people not bake the cake, not accommodate the illegal, not accede to the delusion.

          3. Break them the fuck up OR charge them for colluding with one another. Because they undoubtedly are doing so.

            So if I refuse to serve Nazis in my store because I find Naziism to be offensive, and if you refuse to serve Nazis in your store because you find Naziism to be offensive, does that mean we are colluding? Are we a cartel just because we share similar views on the offensiveness of Nazis?

            1. If you and I both went back and forth to our firms, we’d be undoubtedly colluding.

              The number of people at these firms isn’t infinite and they frequently go between firms.

              1. So, in my hypothetical example, someone looking in from the outside at our two businesses might conclude that we are colluding, because hey, there aren’t an infinite number of people working at our two firms.

                If you’re going to make the case for “collusion” then I think you’re going to need stronger evidence besides “oh they both don’t like anti-Muslim bigotry”.

                1. “ So, in my hypothetical example”

                  Blah blah blah.

    3. Bake the cake?

      1. small, independent bakeries and artists are exempt.

        common carrier rules should apply. telecommunications service providers are common carriers. Facebook and Twitter should be, too. You can kick someone out of the post office for being unruly, but you can’t kick them out just because they’re a conservative.

        if they want to stop being common carriers, then they can disgorge their profits.

        1. Your ISP is the common carrier in this example, not Facebook.

          1. Not true. Section 230 affords Facebook protections akin to those granted a common carrier without the obligation to serve everyone impartially.

            Without section 230, it would be more clear that Facebook is not a common carrier and more beholden to any contracts it entered into with users and/or content generators.

          2. Facebook should also be considered a common carrier.

            besides, you don’t believe in common carrier rules anyway.

            1. Okay, so what is your standard for online platforms that SHOULDN’T be considered a common carrier?

              How about, say, a platform that caters to Christians? Should they be considered a “common carrier” and forced to accept content from atheists?

              1. Facebook and Twitter don’t cater to anybody in particular. Explain why Loomer is off but ISIS is on. You can’t. It makes no sense.

      2. If you are cartel that gets together and ensures no bakery anywhere will bake a gay wedding cake, yes, bake that fucking cake. If that ever happens, let me know. As it is, it is just a bunch of fascist assholes like you going after independent businesses trying to ruin people’s lives for disagreeing with you.

        1. Cartels don’t last. That’s basic economics. Cartels don’t last for the same reason that artificially low interest rates cause malinvestment. Sooner or later, someone gives in to temptation.

          1. Cartels absolutely can last. The fact that they will some day end doesn’t mean they won’t last long enough to screw a lot of people or make that fact okay.

            Again, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. I understand why you would not want a law passed to prohibit this. What I don’t understand is why you can’t come out and say it is wrong. You can do that without demanding a law. Why do you and others keep repeating that it is legal when everyone knows that and even if they don’t you have already made the point? Why not just condemn the conduct?

          2. OPEC made billions for decades and was only put in its place by fracking. how long should we be expected to wait for the cartel to “not last”?

            1. DeBeers is still going pretty strong as well.

              1. Less and less people are buying diamonds, IIRC.

            2. Chipper is stupid, and believes economics is “simple” like he is. It’s why, when confronted with counter examples, he resorts to the same meaningless platitudes.

              It’s because he doesn’t actually understand any of the economics behind the arguments. He needs shorthand or its gibberish to him.

          3. Tell that to the American family murdered by the cartel in Mexico

        2. Okay, John. So what is your limiting principle on how far you would abridge a person’s freedom of association?

          1. Can AT&T decide that you don’t get phone service because you tweeted an obscenity three years ago?

          2. Thick as a brick.

    4. it she *trying*? it’s laudable.

    5. As usual, these claims that “Big Tech Censored Conservatives!” instead end up being “Big Tech kicked off an offensive troll for being an offensive troll, not over political views”.

      1. what’s wrong with being an offensive troll?

        1. You’d think Jeff would want to have his life’s passion supported.

      2. As usual, these claims that “Big Tech Censored Conservatives!” instead end up being “Big Tech kicked off an offensive troll for being an offensive troll, not over political views”.

        Being anti-Muslim isn’t a political view? Does this mean that the “God” twitter account, which is run by a hardcore atheist, should be banned for slamming Christians?

      3. Well, it looks like she’s being kicked off for being an offensive troll that has the wrong political views. There seems to be plenty of offensive trolls with the correct political views that are not banned from any of these websites or services.

        1. Exactly. And the problem is not anyone platform. It is all of the platform acting in concert that is the problem. The people who refuse to see that are just happy it is happening to her and don’t think it would ever happen to them.

          1. Isn’t it terrible that so many people share the belief that bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric is unacceptable?

            It’s not a “cartel” to share similar values.

            1. Yes it is. I understand that is because I am not a moron and understand that what happens to them today will happen to me tomorrow. You are so fucking stupid you can’t grasp that. The mob will never turn on you. You are a loyal member of the party.

              1. John, do you support Nazis? I will assume the answer is no.
                I don’t support Nazis either.

                Are we now a cartel?

      4. ““Big Tech kicked off an offensive troll for being an offensive troll, not over political views”.”

        Do they hold these same standards for EVERYBODY who uses their service? Are they opining that Loomer made the most offensive comments of anybody who EVER used their service?

        That seems to be your argument.

        1. Do they hold these same standards for EVERYBODY who uses their service?

          I don’t know. Maybe? People are allowed to be arbitrary you know.

          1. what you are allowed to do is not the same thing as what you should do.

            irrespective of that, these platforms cannot be arbitrary if we take their “right” away to do so. which we should.

          2. Companies can ARBITRARILY refuse service even with public accomodations law as they are?

            Sounds unlikely.

            1. We aren’t talking about anything that falls within anti-discrimination laws. Laura Loomer wasn’t kicked off Uber for being white or female or straight.

              1. Can they prove that? The “offensive” thing seems suspect as, with a bit of sleuthing, you can find OTHER users who said dramatically worse.

    6. Who are you addressing? ENB?

      Reason has a history of seeing and pointing out the problems with de-platforming.

      1. No, they really do not. They are of the “MUH PRIVATE PLATFORMS” brigade, ignoring that they are getting platform protections without honoring platform obligations.

        Cell phone carriers are platforms. These tech firms are not.

      2. No they don’t. They have a history of defending it in the name of “it is their property”.

        We all read the magazine. It is pretty stupid of you to lie like this to people who know the truth.

        1. And he cries that all I do is kick his lying sockpuppet ass.

    7. When Reason gets called a nazi mag, and can no longer find a host for their web page, they’ll say that those companies that did so have every right to, and their last post will be “we had this coming”

      Is it libertarian to roll over and take it up the ass?

      1. So propose your alternative, that doesn’t shit upon everyone’s property rights or freedom of association rights.

        1. You want to use the internet we all pay for? Either you be a platform or a publisher. Behave accordingly.

          1. Here’s a better idea. Privatize the Internet. That way, the government doesn’t get to dangle public money in order to coerce individuals into a particular course of action.

            1. No.

            2. And when those firms start to use communal goods, like our entire financial system?

        2. Your idea of privatizing the internet is worth pondering. We already have countries like China creating their own, why can’t companies do so? Why Can’t a company create many internets and sell them?

          The problem is that solution will never happen, just like welfare will never go away. Look what they did to silk road.

      2. along with Mexicans and pot its the reason way. Getting it from a Mexican smoking pot is the most reason thing to do.

    8. The alternative is using force to make some private citizens who would rather not publish her speech do so. Seems like a pretty clear NAP violation to me. If you don’t like private property, there’s two large political parties in the US who would be happy to make you lick the government’s boot.

  16. Fauxcahontas not hear herself when she says “even if abortion is illegal it will go on” and “I want opportunity for every American” in the same breath?

    1. My heart will go on…oops, no it won’t.

      /fetus

      1. Are those the lyrics from “Can’t Abort My Love,” by Cletus The Fetus?

        1. You’re as funny as you are economically astute.

        2. Boooooooooooo

      2. eddy i love your sense of humor.

  17. I wasn’t able to watch the debate. Which Democrat made the most passionate case for unlimited, unrestricted immigration?

    #ImmigrationAboveAll
    #OpenBorders

    1. I heard that Klobuchar was so passionate she was literally shaking.

      1. Apparently she knows this is her last stand.

      2. I can’t stand looking at Klobuchar or hearing her voice.
        She is amazingly ugly

      3. The chair throw seemed excessive

  18. >>>It started when Gabbard said

    true stuff.

    1. You are right.
      Democrats could learn to be more anti-interventionist.

      There have been far too many foreign policy mistakes, just in the recent past, that ought to give any sentient person pause as to why the US needs to get involved in yet another foreign quagmire.

      Furthermore, Trump and his MAGA crowd have soiled the reputation of anti-interventionism to mean “paranoid xenophobic isolationism”. That isn’t what anti-interventionism means, but that is how it is unfortunately interpreted by a lot of people.

      1. >>Democrats could learn to be more anti-interventionist.

        everyone should. peace >

      2. Furthermore, Trump and his MAGA crowd have soiled the reputation of anti-interventionism to mean “paranoid xenophobic isolationism”.

        Oh, come on. Anyone who advocates non-interventionism is going to be called that. They said that about Ron Paul. They say that about Tulsi Gabbard.

        1. But it’s Jeff in a nutshell. Looking good to his prog buddies is more important than doing the right thing.

        2. Tulsi Gabbard was on the Rubin Report (YouTube show) a few weeks back and had a great line about this. I’ll paraphrase:

          “So when I talk about ending regime change wars or not intervening in every conflict on the planet, members of my own party are like, ‘Why are you such an isolationist, Tulsi?’ – As if the only way you can interact with other people is by dropping bombs on them.”

        3. Man, Ron Paul was awesome. What ever happened to that guy?

      3. Furthermore, Trump and his MAGA crowd have soiled the reputation of anti-interventionism to mean “paranoid xenophobic isolationism”. That isn’t what anti-interventionism means, but that is how it is unfortunately interpreted by a lot of people.

        Well, at least Trump has brought our troops back home from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and a dozen or so other far-flung outposts of civilization. Or so I’ve been told. At least he intended to bring them home, which we’re all agreed that intentions matter more than results. Talking a good game is paramount and nobody in history has ever talked a more fantastic, powerful, gooder game than Trump. Many people have said so. Smart people, people like you wouldn’t believe.

        1. When he did bring them home from one single country, Syria, the very people who claim to object to interventions had a stroke and attacked him for it.

          But, he hasn’t put them anywhere new, which though a low bar, puts him above the last four Presidents.

          1. He hasn’t actually brought them home yet, though. He just moved them to Iraq. Which, sure, they’re somewhat less likely to get shot at, and that’s progress, but it’s a long way from what he’d promised on the campaign trail.

            And I do specifically want to give him grief over this issue more than others. It seems clear he doesn’t really believe in foreign adventurism, and the president has all this ridiculously unconstrained war making power that Congress has let the executive have, so there’s no reason he couldn’t unilaterally end this war, and all the others.

      4. “Furthermore, Trump and his MAGA crowd have soiled the reputation of anti-interventionism to mean “paranoid xenophobic isolationism”.”

        I’m still waiting for your address so I can send border crossers to your house.

        1. or even your neighborhood. Got kids, they’re about to have a lot more friends at school. If they don’t know knife skills now, they’ll learn quickly.

          We all keep watching what’s happening is Sweden but only about half of us seem to care.

          1. Actually there’s plenty of people who refuse to even watch what’s happening. It’s just right wing propaganda, don’t ya know?

            1. Truly bizarre. Grenades are a thing now… wonderful

  19. Have I mentioned how much I hate discredited #TrumpRussia denialist Glenn Greenwald? Here he is being obnoxious to Julia Ioffe, a far more respected journalist who made an honest mistake:

    The Russian quotation marks have been defused. All is clear. Close call.

    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. Unlimited immigration from Russia!

      1. For single women between the ages of 18 and 28!

        There must be somthin’ in the water.

        Also on that list: Poland, Ukraine, and Sweden.

      2. and Czech Republic.

      3. Honestly, unlimited immigration from Russia would probably be a good idea.

  20. “And if questioning endless war calls one’s commitment to Democratic Party values into question, that’s a pretty sad comment on the state of the party.”

    —-Elizabeth Nolan Brown

    I hope ENB can see this in regards to Trump and the Republican establishment, but I fear she can’t.

    The thing that brought John McCain and Hillary Clinton together was their hatred of Trump for daring to promise, on the campaign trail, that he’d work with Putin (and by extension Assad) to defeat ISIS within Syria–without a U.S. invasion. That is what made them Never Trump. This is why William Kristol was the King of the Never Trumpers.

    In terms of their pragmatism in foreign policy, Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard are almost perfectly aligned–certainly in opposition to the neoconservatives in both of their parties.

    1. “If Gabbard would go independent (and she has denied that that’s her angle), Democrats would have only themselves to blame.

      If Gabbard went independent, that would be the end of her political career.

      She repeatedly won with about 80% of the vote in Hawaii. That’s because she won the Democratic primary. If she’d run as a Republican or as an independent, about 80% of the vote in Hawaii would have gone to the Democrat running against her.

      Hawaii is as partisan or more partisan (wider spread) Democrat than any state.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

      If Gabbard went independent, the only chance she’d ever have to be relevant again is if Donald Trump appointed her to a position of national significance. While that is highly unlikely, it’s more likely than Gabbard winning state wide office as an independent or some Democrat appointing her to a position of national significance a la Nikki Haley.

      1. Wasn’t supposed to be a response, but . . . there it is.

        1. >>that’s a pretty sad comment on the state of the party.

          i love this milquetoast bullshit. hey ENB your party is a fucking mess run by sociopaths. look at that stage good lord.

    2. Harris’ attack demonstrates exactly the sort of party-over-people and uphold-the-status-quo-at-all-costs mentality that Gabbard was trying to critique. It should not be considered a mark against a politician that she tries to influence people not already on her side. You can’t “bring the nation together” by refusing to talk to anyone who isn’t already on your political team.

      And if questioning endless war calls one’s commitment to Democratic Party values into question, that’s a pretty sad comment on the state of the party.

      ENB, who ghosted this for you? You’ve never been this thoughtful before. Is Suderman your babysitter?

      1. She can see this clearly when it comes to Democrats.

        Why can’t she see the same principles at play on the same foreign policy issues when we’re talking about Donald Trump?

        1. T

          D

          S

          1. I think that was a rhetorical question.

  21. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $61.3 billion

    By the way, the top 11 richest people on the planet all lost money yesterday. As Koch / Reason libertarians, our primary objective is to increase the wealth of these people. And that simply cannot happen during this high-tariff / low-immigration #DrumpfRecession.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

  22. “While it is true the Open Doors report showed the total number of international students in America rose slightly in 2018-2019, that is only due to the continued increase of students on Optional Practical Training (OPT), including the two-year extension for students with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. Once one removes students working on OPT and STEM OPT from the overall calculations of international students, the data show a decline.”

    So, if you take out enough international students from the data, then you’ll see a decline? Makes sense.

    Anyway, I’m sure there’s a reason for not counting OPT, but my real question is why are we comparing percentages with other countries? Percentages can be totally skewed.

    Headline:
    San Marino University Sees International Student Growth of 100%. American Universities Falling Behind.

    Subhead: San Marino University adds new international student.

    1. Well, I’ll be an uncle’s monkey, check this out:

      https://www.unirsm.sm/

    2. In my experience, the OPT program is used for students who have very recently graduated, and so have used up their student eligibility for their visa and are looking to find employment. So it’s fair to not really count OPT recipients as “college students” anymore, IMO.

      1. Makes sense why you stan for unlimited illegals jeffo, you are one who overstayed his visa.

  23. “Gabbard said the Democratic Party had been captured “by the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests” on foreign policy.”

    What if the “moderator” had turned to Bernie and asked if *he* agreed?

    What would Bernie say – “not, the big corporations may have hijacked our domestic policy, but our foreign policy is run by simply the best people.”

  24. Still think the patriarchy isn’t real? Listen to Feminist Frequency.

    Am I extremely tired or is there not a single female speaking character in the first episode of #Mandelorian?? I’ve gotta have missed something right???

    And I thought Disney was progressive. How can they allow something like this to happen? It’s 2019!

    #DiversityAboveAll

    1. It’s because all the female Mandelorians were are the primary victims of war.

    2. At the risk of sounding speciesist, how can you tell what sex some of those aliens are?

      1. The actor playing the alien may be male, but that doesn’t automatically tell us what sex the character is, or even if the concept has any meaning to the alien species concerned.

        1. Didn’t the *Alien* series give us strong alien characters?

          1. Alien female characters

            1. Alien Black female characters

    3. This is pretty stupid. If trends hold true to form, they’re going to rip off Metroid and do some kind of Samus Aran reveal at the end when the Mandalorian takes off xir helmet.

  25. Last month, for the first time since records began, the number of refugees resettled in the US hit zero.

    Nothing says non-interventionism and peaceful global prosperity like perpetual tides of refugees.

  26. ENB could exploit Biden’s reversion to urine-testing, mandatory-minimums, asset-forfeiture plant-leaf prohibitionism (as in 1987-88) a little more. I distinctly recall from childhood being suckered into believing the Dems would legalize weed if McGovern won. Reading the platform, however, there was not a word about repeal. They parroted the GOP men-with-guns approach, only less gleefully. How about a list comparing “features” of looter party candidates, like in software ads?

  27. “Department of these-are-weird-times: The U.S. House of Representatives ‘is simultaneously advancing bills that would legalize marijuana and ban the vast majority of vaping products.'”

    Big Zig Zag!

  28. Now do the same for non-military members next, thanks:
    “The U.S. Air Force is now allowing female service members on Beale Air Force Base in California to obtain birth control directly from pharmacists at the on-base clinic. This is a good policy that more states and lawmakers should consider.”

    Funny, this patriarchy we have, we seem to suck at it. My work is currently doing open enrollment for insurance, and as I was looking in the booklet I noticed,

    Women’s Contraceptives – Covered 100%, deductible waived.

    Woman’s Contraceptives drugs and devices not obtainable at a pharmacy – Covered 100%, deductible waived.

    Tubal Ligation – Covered 100%, deductible waived.

    Vasectomy – Fuck you dude, pay for your own god damn healthcare yourself.

    1. What part of “My body, my choice” don’t you understand?

      1. The part I have to pay for. Premiums for individuals are over $3500/year for some “unknown” reason.

    2. Define, ‘dude’ Mr. Cis-het.

      1. Sorry, forgot wymins can have testicles too.

  29. Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder to embezzlement of state funds

    Can you believe nothing about this was brought up in last night’s debate?

    1. It’s not so odd that they would pass on an opportunity to point to even more proof of how corrupt Trump is that he’s got his puppet/stooge in Ukraine widening a “probe” into “corruption” (iow, manufacturing dirt) on Burisma just to slander straight-arrow Joe Biden – nobody else wants to boost Joe Biden and Joe Biden’s too stupid to boost himself.

      Or, I suppose, it’s technically possible, however unlikely, that they think there might be something to this “corruption within Burisma” thing that involves somebody other than Donald Trump and don’t want to poke that hornet’s nest.

    2. John posted a similar story yesterday, which referenced the Reuters story. It said that (a) Burisma seems to have engaged in even more illegal practices than previously accused of; (b) Hunter Biden benefited from Burisma by being paid to be on its board. What it didn’t seem to establish is that Hunter Biden engaged in any of the illegal practices; please correct me if I missed that in the article.

      1. I think we should have a bunch of hearsay testimony about it until we’re convinced Hunter did engage in something illegal, don’t you?

        1. Hear something? Testify to something.

      2. It said that (a) Burisma seems to have engaged in even more illegal practices than previously accused of; (b) Hunter Biden benefited from Burisma by being paid to be on its board. What it didn’t seem to establish is that Hunter Biden engaged in any of the illegal practices; please correct me if I missed that in the article.

        Did it say that Hunter Biden was hired and paid enormous sums of money in exchange for his dad threatening to cut off funding to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the prosecutor who was uncovering all that corruption?

        Of course not. Because that would be a textbook quid pro quo for personal gain–and everyone knows that only the bad orange man does that.

  30. The more desperate Kamala gets, the more embarrassing she becomes.

    1. That was a well rehearsed attack. Not s fair debate.

  31. Harris then used this as “evidence” that Gabbard isn’t fit to call herself a Democrat

    Yet another reason to vote for her.

    1. That movie sounds awful! Where is it playing, again?

  32. San Francisco Recycled Water Program Pushing Wastewater Towards Drinkability

    San Francisco: Where you are forced to drink someone else’s piss and shit water.

  33. Thanks for giving a reasonable analysis of Tulsi’s performance and the Harris stitch up. It’s horrible what is happening to Tulsi and the democratic party.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.