Reason Roundup

Democrats Still Fundraising Off Citizens United, Still Wrong About What It Means

Plus: Christianity Today rejects Trump, retirement savings restrictions loosened, Nigerian sex work decriminalized, and more...

|

It's a fine line between wine caves and constitutional amendments that squelch speech. Amy Klobuchar is ready to bridge the gap.

"I did not come here to listen to this argument," the Minnesota senator and 2020 presidential candidate tweeted Thursday night, echoing comments she made onstage during the PBS-sponsored Democratic debate as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg slung barbs about each other's wine-cave fundraisers and billionaire donors.

"I came here to make a case for progress—that means passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United," Klobuchar continued. 

Sigh.

Anti–Citizens United talking points have always been popular among the Democratic base, and they always make no sense in terms of what the ruling actually does or says. So one more time: Citizens United is not about dark money and buying elections. It protects progressive and left-leaning nonprofits, labor unions, and reliably Democratic membership associations as much as anyone else. Citizens United is a speech-expanding and pro–civil liberties ruling.

But Democrats again are rallying around the idea that we need a constitutional amendment to overturn this Supreme Court decision.

Campaign finance reform "is what unites us up here," Klobuchar said on last night's debate stage. "That means passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. It means making the first bill we pass when I am president HR1, which is the ethics reform passed in the House…"

"We must overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment to end the corruption of our campaigns and elections," tweeted Warren on Tuesday.

Over the summer, Senate Democrats introduced a bill to overturn the Court's Citizens United ruling. And Warren, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg all backed a "Reform First" pledge written by a group called End Citizens United, in which they promised to introduce legislation that the group backed and the group began fundraising for them.

End Citizens United, notes The New York Times,

has more than four million members around the country, including half a million donors, and raised nearly $9 million for candidates in last year's elections. During that campaign, it urged candidates to reject contributions from corporate political action committees, and helped persuade Democratic congressional leaders to introduce a reform bill as the first legislation of the new House majority.

The group—which takes its name from the 2010 Supreme Court decision, despised by liberals, that drastically loosened regulations on campaign funding—has also provoked consternation from some Democratic elected officials, who argue that the party should not relinquish certain streams of funding, like corporate PAC money, when Republicans refuse to do the same.

So the group raises money from Democratic donors and then uses it to endorse candidates, fund candidates, and issue communications supportive of these preferred candidates. That sure sounds a lot like the system they supposedly exist to fight against.

You don't hear much from Democrats "about how the federal government once tried to claim the power to ban books in its losing Citizens United argument," as Damon Root wrote when Democrats were complaining about the decision back during the 2016 election:

Nor will you hear much about the fact that the ACLUnobody's idea of a conservative outfitactively sided with Citizens United and filed a brief that opposed the government's censorious position (Floyd Abrams, the legendary First Amendment lawyer who previously battled the Nixon administration in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, likewise came down on the side of Citizens United)."

See also:


FREE MINDS

The evangelical Christianity Today magazine has endorsed impeachment, and President Donald Trump is not pleased.


FREE MARKETS

Retirement savings restrictions loosened. One small measure of good in the massive spending bill soon to be signed by Trump is a provision making it easier for small businesses and organizations to pool together to offer savings plans to employees. "The legislation also seeks to expand retirement plan coverage by making it easier for small companies to join together to offer 401(k) plans and share administrative costs," The Wall Street Journal reports. In addition:

The legislation paves the way for the growing number of Americans staying on the job into their 70s and beyond to continue saving in individual retirement accounts. Starting Jan. 1, it removes the age cap for contributing to traditional IRAs, currently 70½, for individuals with wage income. And it allows people with tax-deferred accounts to delay, until after turning 72, the minimum withdrawals the law currently requires starting after turning 70½. (The change applies to people who turn 70½ after Dec. 31, 2019.)…

Other features of the legislation include a provision requiring employers to allow certain part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans….

For parents and others with 529 education savings accounts, the legislation allows tax-free withdrawals of as much as $10,000 for repayments of some student loans. Parents can also take penalty-free distributions from retirement accounts of as much as $5,000 within a year of the birth or adoption of a child.


QUICK HITS

My decision to vote "present" was a decision to actively protest this zero-sum mentality that rules over our politics today.

  • Surprising no one here…

  • "A Nigerian court has declared that sex work is not a crime [and] awarded damages to 16 women who were arrested for prostitution in 2017," reports the BBC. "It is the first time a Nigerian court has ruled on the legality of sex work."

 

Advertisement

NEXT: The Cuddliest Post-Apocalyptic Tale Ever

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. It’s a fine line between wine caves and constitutional amendments that squelch speech.

    Luckily one is more difficult to pass than the other.

    1. Give me chardonnay or give me death!

      1. Why not both?

        1. That was actually funny. Good job.

    2. Hello.

      I never read Christianity Today (only First Things and I hope they don’t take such a useful idiot foolish stance). Are they part of the woke-progressive Protestant wing of Christianity?

      Protestants are pandering to the point of diluting their values. Virtue signalling isn’t a damn value.

      I speak as someone raised Catholic with a Protestant mother/family.

      1. And, curious, what was their stance on The Lightbringer taking catholic nuns to court over forcing them to offer contraception against their wishes?

        1. One of my best friends and his wife are solidly, traditionally Catholic. To the point they homeschooled their kids because the available parochial schools weren’t acceptable. I couldn’t think of someone more of a defender of family values.

          Yet, his wife is on Facebook praising Trump. I just can’t figure out how they get past the cognitive dissonance.

          1. See what I mean?

            This can’t be real.

            This is another OBL

            1. 🙁

              I was being sincere, and even thought I was staying on topic.

              OBL kinda stays on topic, but it’s mostly staying on his own topic. The same joke about the Koch brothers, every single friggin’ day.

            2. No, it merely displays how Jeff cannot distinguish politics from religion, and the secular from the sacred.

      2. Reason editors had never read it either until they attacked Trump.

        1. There’s a large possibility. They don’t strike me as a bunch who would.

          Slade I can see though.

      3. Christianity (religion) uses fictional stories to promote emotional decision making. It’s always been a leftist movement.

        1. That morality comes into play is a positive coincidence

        2. It’s worth noting, aside from the negatives we harp on, the concept of free markets (among others) and liberty come from the auspices of Christian thought. Need we not forget how many scientists were clergyman and were steadfast protectors of science.

        3. All decision making is emotional and civilization has relied on story and myth since the beginning of time. The difference between left and right lies in their belief about human nature. The left sees human nature as essentially good. The right sees human nature as essentially flawed. Christianity has traditionally been on the right but Christianity Today is on the left because it’s a media outlet…not because it’s representative of most Christians.

          1. “…The left sees human nature as essentially good…”

            Yeah, that’s the reason humans require very close supervision by the government, right?
            I think you have those reversed.

            1. It’s simplifying Thomas Sowell’s Conflict of Visions, but he basically sums up the left as believing that humans are perfectible and that some are further along the path toward perfection than others (the anointed), so they should be allowed to run everything.

              Whereas if you think humans aren’t able to reach perfection, you tend to be less trusting of centralized power because no one is good enough to wield it.

              1. “We can make humans better” is another way of saying that humans are flawed and I am better situated to tell them what to do.

              2. You can just as well turn that around and say that since humans are inherently flawed, they need a strong authority to keep them in check. Which is why conservatives love centralized power.

                1. Oh you were so close!

            2. I think there is some confusion about what role is needed for non-governmental institutions. We need strong social institutions to mitigate against human flaws: the family, the market, religion and government. But strenghthening government almost always occurs at the expense of the other institutions (i.e. the more government expands, the more those other institutions withdraw). There’s nothing non-libertarian about wanting stronger families or being for religious institutions taking a leading role in dealing with social problems or providing health care, those institutions can act without coercion, but if the roles that those institutions play in society is left to government there will be greater coercion, because that’s how government works. An-Caps will say that there is no role for government in society, but you don’t have to be an An-Cap to be a libertarian and you can still want a limited role for government and remain a libertarian. OTOH the left constantly expands the scope of government in their quest for human perfectibility-that is anti-libertarian.

          2. “The left sees human nature as essentially good.”

            Which is why the Left thinks humans can’t be trusted with firearms, no doubt.

            1. It was simply a poor paraphrase of Thomas Sowell’s ideas regarding a constrained vision of humanity versus an unconstrained vision. Broadly speaking, the left doesn’t see base human nature as a constant, which implies that any human can be conditioned to be anything. It’s not that we’re presently perfect, the main idea is that we are perfectible if only the right top men have the necessary control over are lives and decision making. the opposing view would then be that we must always contend with those negative aspects of human nature that are unchanging, and create an incentive structure to encourage as much voluntary cooperation as possible.

              1. Yes-the left sees human nature as infinitely plastic and so they can perfect the human experience if only those with “the Vision of the Anointed” (as Sowell puts it) are in charge. If you accept that humanity is flawed then it follows that those in charge are also flawed and so you should not invest too much power in them and that you should have competing institutions exercising power in different aspects of society. I think one reason that libertarians are so attracted to free markets is that markets mitigate against corruption by offering so many alternatives. Likewise one can choose a different church (or abandon religion entirely), or even leave one’s family behind, but government gets its money upfront and isn’t so big on alternatives.

                1. Thank you, well put. Incidentally, Sowell’s chapter on war and the nature of power within the opposing visions was the only portion of the book that gave me pause. Perhaps I misread it? Or maybe you found parts of it perplexing as well?

                  1. It’s been a very long time, so I’m afraid that I can’t help you with that. The basic premise of the vision of the anointed is what has stayed with me. I have always found Sowell compelling, which leads me to some uncritical admiration, so it is possible that I have disregarded parts such as the chapter you mentioned.

          3. If human nature is good, why do we need so much government power?

            1. Because humans are too good for our own good. Is that good?

              Goodie!

          4. Do they? See man as ‘inherently good’.

            Seems to me they’re pretty anti-humanist because they see man (Western man anyway) as the source of all ills.

          5. “Christianity Today is on the left because it’s a media outlet”

            Can you explain further what you mean by that?

            1. Oh, just saw where you wrote this below: “It’s a magazine full of journalists. Not a church full of Christians. Journalists tend to lean left, so it’s unsurprising that this magazine leans left.” That explains what you were getting at.

        4. Yeah… but those stories teach individualism, giving of ones self, self determination, and hard work. So anti lefty

          1. There are a LOT of stories in the Bible. You can certainly find ones that arguably teach individualism, giving of one’s self, self-determination, and hard work. You can also find ones that teach the opposite.

            1. I’m not aware of any where they teach that people should be forced to give,or face the tip of the Roman spear.

        5. No Christian religion that I know of is like Socialism. They are mostly like Volunteerism.

          Socialism/Collectivism involves force (unless you count scary afterlife threats).

          Volunteerism to follow religious teachings.

          Islam might be Socialist with the convert or be killed as an infidel thing.

        6. I hope you’re not serious. Today’s evangelicals are giant right wing hypocrites. CT is a evangelical rag.

          1. Fuck off Pedo Jeffy. Go back to your NAMBLA meeting.

        7. Christianity (religion) uses fictional stories to promote emotional decision making
          So did Ayn Rand.

          1. Sigh. Ayn Rand could have learned a thing or two about concise story telling from the Bible.

            1. Look at neutral mikey go. Reason really found a web traffic magnet.

              1. I actually like Ayn Rand, but I think we can all admit she’s a bit verbose.

        8. A large chunk of them are ruled by an absolute monarchy. I wouldn’t call that leftist.

          -jcr

        9. No, religion predates leftism. But leftism is what you inevitably get when you keep the impulses but remove the central authority.

      4. I think, in this case, the simplest answer is the correct one. It’s a magazine full of journalists. Not a church full of Christians. Journalists tend to lean left, so it’s unsurprising that this magazine leans left.

        1. +100

        2. I think you are on to something. Hack journalists could put a Lefty twist on Monarchies.

        3. There you go.

          Hence, they’re stance.

          1. their.

            Fuh.

        4. CT does not and has not ever leaned left. It is a magazine for evangelicals. You guys need to stop the delusions. Not everyone who wants Trump endorsed is on the left. …like this fucking evangelical magazine.

          1. And you’veiterally never read it. So your input on this topic is actually worse than your normal shit input.

            1. I wondered, how could that idiot possibly know when he clearly hasn’t read it.

              It’s super left wing. There now we have the opinion of two people who never read it.

  2. Sigh.

    Ya been trolled, boners.

  3. It protects progressive and left-leaning nonprofits, labor unions, and reliably Democratic membership associations as much as anyone else.

    IT WAS AN ILLEGAL HILLARY MOVIE.

    1. Which movie, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever actually watched.

      1. Hard to watch it when the FEC orders it pulled from streaming services. But I’m sure you supported that effort.

        The 2016 version reached top 10 in box offices.

        1. Thanks for making it all about me, again. Unlike the Mike Laursen that only exists in your mind, I support the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United.

          1. Sure you did buddy. Sure you did

            1. He is True Neutral you know. He could be a Druid with that alignment

          2. By the way… you’re literally saying trump should be tried and impeached because he received information (despite the fact that it was already well known), so no you dont believe in free flow of information. You actually support its criminalization. The irony of neutral mike.

            1. I already told you, someone got me a dictionary as an early Christmas present and I looked up “neutral”. So I no longer claim to be.

              1. Right, getting caught lying about being neutral had nothing to do with it.

                1. Why are you talking to yourself?

                2. Anohter instance of bignose backing up a troll. Surprise.

          3. Weird how Jeff cries about the exact same thing.

            Oh wait no it isn’t, you’re Jeff.

            1. Hey, these sock handles are not going to get banned all by themselves.

              1. As you confessed yesterday, you are only pretending to be a Trump fan as a parody of Obama fans. That kinda makes you a sock.

                https://reason.com/2019/12/19/impeachment-overshadows-obamacare-ruling/#comment-8058016

              2. Poor mikey doesnt know what a sock is.

                #NeutralMikeyNotSkyNetAware

    2. “”IT WAS AN ILLEGAL HILLARY MOVIE.””

      Ask a liberal if they would like a company to run an anti-Trump movie in Oct and Nov of 2020. They will all say yes. But complain about Citizens United.

      1. Almost ev everything out of Hollywood is Anti Trump. And all of it should be subject to federal election laws. As should all MSM news reports.

    3. MONEY ISNT SPEECH, ASSHOLE!!’nn

  4. No President has done more for the Evangelical community, and it’s not even close.

    “Why have you forsaken me?”

    1. Of all the evil Trump has done, co-opting the Gospel and setting himself up as the personal Savior of Mankind is the most evil. He is the beast the Dobson, Graham, et al, are his false prophets.

      1. Yeah, but he’s gonna hurt the right people. So we have to forgive him for his flaws. No, not buying it? Ok. How about, ‘God works thru imperfect vessels’? Still no? Ok…let’s just pretend Trump is a christian.

        1. So sad. Have you ever considered counseling?

          1. Counseling? Suicide is what he should be considering.

        2. Christ had it easy. He never had to go on trial before Pelosi and Schiff.

  5. Tucson man gets 15 months in prison for threatening U.S. Rep. Martha McSally

    I don’t think reason covered this but surely covered Gabby Giffords. This guy from Tuscon threatened McSally for supporting Trump.

    Martha McSally is now the AZ Senator.

    1. That would be a national new story if that same thing happened to Sinema.

      1. Sinema is hated by the left, the corporate press coverage would end with: good riddance

        1. Sinema is hated by the left,

          What, they didn’t like the hooker boots?

          -jcr

    2. Martan’s mistake was allowing his anger over McSally’s political choices to be mixed with alcohol, Goncalves said.

      Looks like we need to start talking about common-sense alcohol reform. Who, other than wino-sexuals, could be against universal background checks on alcohol purchases and red-flag laws to remove booze from people’s homes to ensure that those who are dangerous drunks do not pose a threat to the safety of others?

      1. The other hilarious part of this was Martan claiming that he was planning to pursue a career in nursing.

        Nigga, you’re 58 years old. No one is buying that someone who’s working as a hall monitor and on the cusp of qualifying for Social Security is going to complete nursing school.

        1. +1000

    3. Why isn’t Reason talking about liar Bill Taylor running away after the damage he and his Deep State buddies have done to Trump:

      https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-taylor-key-impeachment-witness-to-leave-post-by-end-of-the-year

      1. Why are you pretending you’re not Jeff.

    1. He’d argue the markets would have been up 50% if only Hillary had been elected. Charles Koch would be worth $100 billion, the lions would lay down with the zebras, the oceans would recede, and Chelsea would be Miss Universe.

      1. “Economists” like Boehm seems to be always state the economy would be better if they just followed what they said. Magic multipliers and everything. They never actually look at real data, just the models of what could have happened. Krugman does the same bullshit.

      2. …Chelsea would be Miss Universe

        Thanks for that. Now I long for the relief that death will bring.

        1. That would be as popular as Bezos’ dick pics.

    2. Fact: The unemployment rate is only low because everyone needs 2 or 3 jobs.

      Fact: The richest people on the planet aren’t accumulating wealth fast enough.

      So stop cherry-picking. Your attempts to spin this disastrous Drumpf economy are truly embarrassing.

      1. Dont forget the burden of choosing from 66 healthcare plans and its negative effects on mental states.

        1. Yeah, it’s been frustrating to see how badly Republicans have sabotaged Obamacare.

          #LetDemocratsFixHealthcare

    3. Remember back three and a half years ago when Dipshit Dave Weigel would be on here every other day talking about how great the markets were doing and how he was making money hand over fist?

      Funny how he doesn’t do that anymore. Gee, I wonder why that is?

  6. The legislation also seeks to expand retirement plan coverage by making it easier for small companies to join together to offer 401(k) plans and share administrative costs…

    WHO SNEAKED THAT IN THERE?

    1. Wasnt Amash, no post office were named.

      1. +1000

    2. What administration costs?

      Small companies already use things like ADP to manage tax withholding etc. Why is it a burden to connect that to fidelity or Schwab so that employees can contribute to a 401k?

      1. Found a better reference. Looks like it may have been originally sponsored by Richard Neal [D MA].

    3. It was the “SECURE Act”, which was basically embedded whole inside the spending bill. Looks like it was sponsored by Josh Gottheimer [D NJ], with about six bipartisan cosponsors.

  7. Scott’s tweet is quite disingenuous, no wonder reason chose it. From the article…

    “R Street. Free markets. Real Solutions.

    Subscribe

    DEC 19, 2019, National Review
    On Deregulation, Trump Has Achieved Little
    One of the first things Donald Trump did as president was to tell a group of business leaders that his administration would “cut regulations by 75 percent. Maybe more.” This was, surely, one of those “serious but not literal” claims, but still it seemed to signal deep ambitions. So, too, did a February 2017 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference by Steve Bannon, then the president’s favored strategist, which promised a “deconstruction of the administrative state.”

    It wasn’t just bluster, either. On January 30, President Trump had issued Executive Order 13771, which requires agencies to remove two old regulations for every new one they issue and, more demandingly, institutes a regulatory budget requiring that each agency impose zero or negative new net costs over the course of the year, with targets set annually. A follow-up order required agencies to have designated regulatory-reform officers charged with ensuring that deregulatory action proceeded. With Trump’s encouragement, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to reverse a smattering of regulations issued at the end of Barack Obama’s second term. And in June, Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

    Regulation became one area where conservatives wary of Trump allowed themselves high hopes. Trump’s experiences as a developer left him with a bone-deep skepticism of regulations. He appointed true believers in the deregulatory cause: Mick Mulvaney at the Office of Management and Budget, Neomi Rao at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Scott Pruitt at the EPA, Ryan Zinke at Interior, and, at Energy, Rick Perry, who had once called for the department’s abolition. Maybe, at least in this one area, the Trump administration could mount a genuine counterrevolution in the name of liberty and common sense.

    There have been some real bright spots for deregulators. Many of the Obama administration’s aggressive and legally dubious environmental rules have been stalled or rolled back, including the Waters of the United States rule, Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for tailpipe emissions, and the Clean Power Plan, which regulated greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants. The Endangered Species Act will be interpreted so as to make it less burdensome. Promises to scrap Obamacare may have gone unfulfilled, but the administration has quietly and constructively made the program more flexible for states and individuals. The FDA has sped up its drug-approval process, especially for generics. Agencies’ abuse of regulatory guidance will be better policed, thanks to two recent executive orders.”

    Basically the article is trump can do more. He has done way more than past presidents however.

    1. Cut and pasted more than I intended…

      1. Still good stuff. Trump has really only been able to cut what the Executive Branch can cut, which isn’t much since the House controls the Purse.

        Goes to show there were still a bunch of RINOs in the House between 2017-2019 because they barely cut anything.

      2. Yeah the point seems to be that Obama brought around $245 billion in new regulatory costs, but Trump has only cut $33 Million, so he hasn’t even started to undo what Obama did.

        I tend to agree, with two caveats. 1) If it weren’t for Trump, a Clinton presidency would likely have imposed another $200 billion in costs, so the fact that we are net negative is actually a big deal. 2) Much of the reason Trump hasn’t achieved more (as noted in the article) is that he has been facing headwinds from every direction. Every regulatory rollback is taken to court. The various mid-level aparatchiks are slow to move. Etc. And even worse, fucking ankle biters like this author are constantly demonstrating to these agencies that Trump is damaged goods, lending them cover to drag their feet. For all that the author says he WANTS regulatory reductions, if Trump were the quarterback of that drive, the author is a weak offensive line that is doing nothing to give him the protection necessary to accomplish that.

        1. We just had an impeachment over Trump not spending money fast enough (even will still in compliance with the appropriations bill). Courts have continuously shutdown reform attempts. It was a silly article after the first half.

          1. “We just had an impeachment over Trump not spending money fast enough”

            Another stellar job of summarizing by JesseAz.

          2. +100

        2. Speaking as someone who sues the federal government for a living, this is the problem right here. Careerists in many agencies have been in basically open revolt for years now. A handful of political appointees, no matter how hard working or dedicated, simply can’t force the low and mid level people to comply with the new deregulatory directives. There’s too many of them to police effectively, especially when civil service protections makes firing them extraordinarily difficult, time consuming, and expensive. It doesn’t matter if David Bernhardt is sympathetic to oil and gas producers when it’s low level employees refusing to process permit applications in an orderly fashion, providing false or misleading information to applicants, colluding with environmental activist groups to plant endangered species on private property, etc.

          1. Thats why those federal shutdowns were so exciting.

            Had McConnell and Trump gone for a few more months, the federal employees would be finding other jobs. Presto! No need to fire them anymore.

            1. Sometimes attrition is it’s own reward.

          2. colluding with environmental activist groups to plant endangered species on private property

            Whoa, whoa, whoa, are you fucking serious? This is actual, criminal behavior to trespass on private property for the purposes of committing fraud, AND contributing to the endangerment of protected species by relocating them out of their habitat. When and where has this happened?

    2. I agree Trumps been pretty good there. I do wish he’d pressure Congress on it. EOs are no substitute for legalization, see DACA. But Republicans in congress should have been all over that when they had both houses without him say one goddamn thing to them.

  8. My decision to vote “present” was a decision to actively protest this zero-sum mentality that rules over our politics today.

    Cancelled.

    1. It is not a zero-sum mentality. One Party is attempting a coup. Another Party is defending against that immoral action. Her vote is not supposed to be about “politics today”, it’s supposed to be about the Impeachment articles.

      She had an opportunity to make a real statement. Her “present” vote was meaningless. A big zero.

      1. did Tulsi just say…..

        Right – Left = Zero

        !!!?????!!?!?!?!!??

        HIHHHHHHHHHHHNNNN

        1. Ssssh, you will awaken the dark one from his slumber.

          1. I think Hihn is periodically medicated. Which coincides with his dormant periods here. It’s just a shame none of his caregivers will turn the morphine up to 11 and give us the best Christmas present ever.

      2. The constitutional process of impeachment is not a coup.

        Why do you hate the constitution?

        1. because we already had the articles of confederation

        2. A “coup” that would install Mike Pence as President.

    2. It worked for Obama.

      1. If being President and being unable to further any agenda because Congress is controlled by the other party, then go for it.

  9. “I came here to make a case for progress—that means passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United,” Klobuchar continued.

    Ladies and gentlemen, your (potentially) next attorney general. Gia help us all.

  10. Nike earnings beat, sales rise, as Jordan brand hits $1 billion

    The “Jordan” Brand carries Nike.

    But sales growth in North America comes in slightly weaker than expected.

    hmmmm… I wonder why that is?
    Woke equals broke, sooner or later.

    1. Maybe a Kaepernick shoe celebrating the date he first kneeled isnt a great idea.

      1. You guys are such emotional creatures.

        President asks Russia and China to interfere in our election on TV: totally cool.

        Some athlete kneels to protest police violence: face melts.

        1. Obama asked China too?

        2. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Now China huh? The country he is currently in a trade war with? Whose dollars all go to Democrats like Clintin, obama, and venture funds created BY Kerry and Bidens kids?

          Good luck with that dumbass.

          1. Is it wrong of me to want Oppresso/Jeffy to commit suicide in a fit of holiday depression?

      2. Nike should have marketed kneepads.

        1. CK could rock those in some bicurious ads.

  11. The hoped-for transformation of the administrative state is nowhere to be found.

    You won’t let him drain the swamp in peace.

    1. The article is about him not doing enough. It is a weird summary. Especially with various courts blocking him constantly over rule making.

      1. We had high hopes that he of all people could turn the regulatory state on its ear. No matter how much his administration has achieved so far, there’s definitely room for disappointment.

        1. If you set the bar high enough, you can attack people on anything.

          1. Corollary: If you set the bar low enough, you can overlook anything.

            1. -100

      2. Trump should have veto the budgets but they have mostly been veto-proof anyway.

        Democrats are such liars because Trump inability to cut much government without Congress’ help illustrates how he is not Hitler.

  12. Washington state representative participated in domestic terrorism, inquiry finds

    Exercising the 1st Amendment right to peacefully assemble is just not the same right if you’re not a Lefty.

    1. I’ve actually met Matt Shea a number of times. The article is bullshit. And there is an ongoing effort to destroy him, as he is a conservative activist in WA. He is also somewhat libertarian. A few years ago, he took up the cause of medical marijuana patients against our idiot governor, Jay Inslee, who was working against their rights under WA law in favor of corporate recreational cannabis interests.

      He is not a nutcase. And I would not believe much of anything written about him.

  13. A Nigerian court has declared that sex work is not a crime [and] awarded damages to 16 women who were arrested for prostitution in 2017…

    The court also asks for your bank account numbers so that it can park millions of unclaimed dollars which it will split with you.

    1. Finally that Nigerian Prince that I’ve been donating to has done something worthwhile.

      1. “I will send you five sex workers …”

        1. Might be more fun than 72 virgins.

          1. Especially since the plot twist is that every Muslim martyr gets the same 72 virgins.

            1. And they stay virgins.

          2. Funny thing about this 72 virgins thing is what happens if some of the 72 virgins dont want to be this guy’s sex slaves.

            Its like for Heaven. Supposedly you get to be ‘happy’ there. What if making you happy means that other people in Heaven are unhappy? Like forcing family members to talk to you when they dont want to.

            1. I think they’ll have VR for that.

          3. who wants virgins as a prize wtf?

          4. Perhaps, It is 72 (cross fit) vegans that watch over their diet and exercise.

  14. “On Deregulation, Trump Has Achieved Little”

    Of course. That’s why the economy is so terrible.

    Worse, he’s actively enforcing regulations where they hurt the most — immigration. Only under Democratic rule can we hope to achieve Charles Koch’s dream of an America with unlimited, unrestricted immigration and a minimum wage of $0.00 / hour.

    By the way, Charles Koch’s net worth is currently a pitiful $61.8 billion.

    #DrumpfRecession

  15. Nobody even watched the Democrat debates because Democrats are not going to get the votes they hope for.

    1. Everyone is a loser in the race to be most woke.

    2. Or because they have too damn many of them. They’d get more eye balls if they had only 2 or 3 of them.

      1. You’re probably right. I’ve been watching them, just because I don’t trust the news to give me the truth the next day. Last night was one of the only time’s its gotten legitimately interesting, with Buttigieg having to fend off the ladies. I thought he did alright at it, would have loved him to get more into WHY he’s the only non-millionaire/billionaire on the stage, and how the “public servants” acquired all those millions on a senator’s salary.

        1. It would have been a good opportunity to claim to be the least corrupt. Or it may have exposed his lack of intelligence.

  16. The ‘Afghanistan Papers’ Confirm Critics’ Worst Rears About America’s Longest War

    Fix your headline, that’s embarrassing.

    1. Something smells foul about that headline

      1. Is it the papers?

      2. Pelosi’s adult diaper?

  17. “It means making the first bill we pass when I am president HR1, which is the ethics reform passed in the House…”

    You’re going to pass a law that will make politicians ethical?

    I have to admit- I laughed.

    1. And screw the Senate.

    2. Is she saying they aren’t ethical now?

  18. The evangelical Christianity Today magazine has endorsed impeachment, and President Donald Trump is not pleased.

    neither is Franklin Graham, from his FB post:

    “My Response to Christianity Today:

    Christianity Today released an editorial stating that President Trump should be removed from office—and they invoked my father’s name (I suppose to try to bring legitimacy to their statements), so I feel it is important for me to respond. Yes, my father Billy Graham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree with their opinion piece. In fact, he would be very disappointed. I have not previously shared who my father voted for in the past election, but because of this article, I feel it is necessary to share it now. My father knew Donald Trump, he believed in Donald Trump, and he voted for Donald Trump. He believed that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation.”

    that was kind of crappy of them to claim that the late Billy Graham would agree with them when it’s obvious they had no clue what he really thought

    1. Trump should have said that Billy Graham is looking down on this publication with disdain, or is it up?

      1. Well, no one has gotten into the Good Place in like 500 years.

      2. There is no God, so who cares?

    2. Wafers and wine, must be the worst cocktail parties in DC.

    3. Saw that. Apparently, Billy Graham’s family are fighting among themselves about What Would Billy Graham Say:

      https://theweek.com/speedreads/885611/christianity-todays-editorial-sparked-family-fight-about-billy-graham-trump

    4. Franklin Graham, on his father, days before the 2016 election:

      https://www.thestate.com/living/religion/article112491462.html

      “He’s real quiet. Doesn’t say much… Can’t see. His mind is clear. … But he speaks in sentences of one word… It’s a party every Sunday when I go see him because he’s made it through another week… At 98, you count the days and weeks.”

      As for this year’s presidential race, Billy Graham “knows who’s running and that kind of stuff,” his son said, but there are no real conversations with him about it.

  19. Impeachment trial plans in disarray as Congress heads home

    Too bad McConnell wasn’t packing YUGE balls or he would have called the Senate trial/vote today.

    Senate gets to make their own rules about impeachment just like the House got to make their own rules impeachment.

    1. Pelosi et al. are poised on the starting blocks, ready to race to the Senate as soon as Durham’s report drops.

      1. I agree. Look how fast they moved for impeachment once the Horowitz report dropped.

    1. I think McConnell should just say they will not start to consider the rules for the trial until they receive the articles of impeachment.

      I think it would be pretty funny if Pelosi decided to withhold the articles until after the election, and Sanders wins. Then the fact that the dems denied an impeached president a trial because the house tried to dictate the Senate’s business will forever be in history.

      1. Yup.

        Even in the US Constitution, Impeachment does not mean much without the US Senate holding a trial and removing the official.

        Articles of Impeachment are really comparable to an indictment and Grand Juries (The House) are famous for indicting ham sandwiches.

        Speaking of sandwiches….ENB get busy!

        1. I’m pretty sure that if a prosecutor indicted an activist and then the same prosecutor tries to delay the trial we would hear justice delayed is justice denied.

          For me, the last few years has really enforced the saying that you can judge someone’s character not by how they treat their friends but how they treat their enemies.

          1. Plus, these processes of Law are supposed to be relatively impartial.

            If you commit a crime- a cop finds evidence- a prosecutor represents the state- a judge makes sure the process is fair- a jury/judge decides your guilt- a judge/jury decides your sentence.

            It was a step up from revenge justice where someone was judge, jury, and executioner.

            The House Impeached Trump, now it goes to the US Senate to decide. Pelosi doesnt like that process and Democrat actions will likely not be well received by Americans.

    2. Nancy Pelosi is threatening to withhold that which she is legally obligated to disburse unless she gets the quid pro quo of a member of the House getting to dictate to the Senate how it shall conduct its business simply for partisan political purposes and despite the fact that she herself declared that the Constitution doesn’t mandate how impeachment works and there she, as Speaker of the House, is free to set whatever rules she damn well pleases.

      This is neither ironic nor hypocritical of course, to see her doing the exact same thing she’s claiming is impeachable behavior on Trump’s part and claiming Turtle Boy doesn’t have the same privileges in the Senate as she does in the House. No, this is just the simple FYTW behavior of a dictator who will barefacedly just lie right in your face and dare you to say anything about it because she gives absolutely no fucks about what you think.

    3. I’d basically tell her, “You have until after the New Year to send them up. If you don’t get them here by then, we’re expunging it and you’ll have to do this shit all over again. Good luck with making that look good on national TV.”

  20. Expungement? GOP Leader McCarthy Just Tossed a Stink Bomb into the Dems’ Impeachment Party

    Haha. Or just expunge the impeachment from the Congressional record.

    This guy is a genius!

  21. Obama spotted golfing as Trump was getting impeached

    Well, its better than Obama drone murdering US citizens.

    Poor Obama. One of the worst Presidents ever and he didn’t even get impeached.

    1. Well, it’s never too late.
      He can still be impeached, and prevented from holding federal office, say maybe president of vice, or senator?

      1. I like the cut of your jib!

      2. He could still run in Kenya, no? UK too, maybe he’ll take on BOJO.

  22. This could be big:

    “WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

    John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.”

    —-New York Times, December 19, 2019

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/us/politics/durham-john-brennan-cia.html

    The NYT is spinning this as evidence that President Trump is abusing his office to go after his political enemies, much like supposedly did with the Ukraine, but if the Inspector General’s report calls for a full vetting of the events surrounding the Steele dossier as well as the FBI leadership who oversaw its use as evidence in a warrant application to the FISA court. Even the FISA court itself, earlier this week, asked for the FBI to give a full accounting of what happened, why, and how the FBI plans to ensure it never happens again.

    At some point, it became preposterous that there wasn’t already an investigation. Someone at the U.S. Attorneys’ office launching an investigation of the intelligence services’ use of the Steele dossier in the infamous warrant application to wiretap the Trump campaign isn’t evidence that Trump is going after his political enemies so much as it’s evidence that someone at the U.S. Attorneys’ office can see a willful misrepresentation of the evidence when it jumps out of the headlines and bites him in the eye.

    1. LOCAL NEWS STORY.

    2. The FBI’s about to have Horowitz crawl up its ass to look over 15 years of documents, and the NYT is trying to claim that the DoJ doesn’t have the authority or standing to look into the events discussed in the report that kicked off the audit.

      Eventually, these fucks are going to piss off the wrong person and find themselves on the business end of some very bad backlash.

      1. The FBI is literally a subordinate part of the DOJ and the Attorney General who heads the DOJ.

        Organization Chart DOJ

    3. “The NYT is spinning this as evidence that President Trump is abusing his office to go after his political enemies, much like supposedly did with the Ukraine”

      Of course they are. When this whole impeachment started, that was exactly what I said they were doing- laying the groundwork to say that anything Horrowitz or Durham came out with was yet more of the continued pattern of Trump investigating his rivals.

      It is the only thing that makes sense. The strongest case against trump was ALWAYS the charges of Obstruction in the Mueller papers. To this day, they are stronger on weight of wrong-doing AND on actual proof that Trump did what is alleged. (I still don’t think they were impeachable, but they were TONS more serious than this Ukraine bullshit.) And yet Congress never went forward with impeachment. Why? Because that impeachment narrative was always going to be undermined by the IG and DOJ investigations. Sure, Dems could claim Obstruction, but the GOP was going to dominate the airwaves with stories of how Trump was wrongly targeted- and how can it be obstruction to try and oppose a wrongful investigation?

      No, the reason Dems have focused on this Ukraine crap is that they knew how bad these reports from IG and DOJ are, and they needed to lay the groundwork to dismiss them.

  23. So House Dems are impeaching Trump over “obstructing Congress”…and then seek to obstruct Congress themselves by refusing to send the articles they passed to the Senate for the trial as Constitutionally required.

    Nice.

    Not sure what leverage Pelosi thinks she has. Time for McConnell and Graham to provide a summary judgment against it.

    1. I would say Pelosi using her powers to try to commit a pid pro quo in the senate over rules in order to benefit the DNC the next election is an abuse of power. And an obstruction of the Senate.

    2. Her leverage is the same. It’s the corporate press going to fight for her every day, lying to the sheeple

      No matter how unconstitutional the democrats act the narrative will always be orange man bad.

    3. Trump needs to call congress into session as soon as they break for the holidays.
      get her done.

  24. Amazon becomes its own biggest carrier after cutting ties with FedEx

    Smart move for Amazon. USPS, UPS, and FedEx are/were regularly getting packages to customers late or losing them.

    1. You really want to know how Canadians view Trump? Do you really have to ask?

      1. I am curious as I dont follow Canadian news or opinions about things.

      2. Not enough black face?

      3. Funny being that Trudeau seems to be demanding that Trump hold up finalizing a trade deal to get two Canadians released. Quid pro quo?

        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-canada-idUSKBN1YN2NS

        1. Thanks.

          Trump is an America First guy and was voted in on that.

          Canada needs to do a spy trade deal like we have done with Commies for decades. Even if the Canadian guys were not spies, that is how Commies operate. If the Commies grab innocent Western businessmen, you know that you grabbed the correct Commie spies in your country.

          1. Well perhaps Trump should tell Trudeau he’ll have more flexibility after the election.

            1. +100

  25. Netflix Users Are Divided Over The Irishman: Is It ‘Boring’ Or A ‘Masterpiece’?

    I finally watched The Irishman.

    The story was alright and the long duration didnt really bother me. It was a huge mistake to use 76 (De Niro and Pesci) and 79 (Pacino) year old actors to play themselves when they are supposed to be in their 20s to 40s. That curb stomping scene with De Niro was hard to watch because De Niro had Old man Body. It was sad.

    Who knows exactly why Scorsese didnt want to pick new young Italian and Irish actors to play young Sheeren, Hoffa, and Bufalino. I suspect since most of the movie was about the young versions, it would have ruined De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci’s chances for some ridiculous Hollywood award.

    So, I will stick with Goodfellas, Casino, and Godfather gangster movies and laugh when Scorses tries to defend this movie.

    1. Probably because there are no Irish or Italian actors under the age of 60 in Hollywood that have T-counts higher than a middle-school preteen.

  26. The Obamessiah in Singapore earlier this week: women are “indidputably better” than men, we would all be much better off with women running the world, and most of the world’s problems are caused by old men who won’t get the hell out of the way.

    Joe Biden: “Uhhh, errrr, he wasn’t talking about me, he was talking about all those OTHER old men who won’t get the hell out of the way!”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/19/joe-biden-debate-088481

    On a serious note: I say that what Obama said is more intentionally divisive and polarizing than anything Trump has said in about the last two years. And I challenge all our resident left-wing assholes, trolls, and sock puppets (most of whom are actually Reason staffers) to go ahead and prove me wrong.

    If you’re the type who doesn’t think what he said was wrong, imagine if it was reversed and some politician publicly said that men are “indisputably better” than women.

    1. No no no. It is the people who divide people into various victim groups who are the least divisive.

    2. I guess that that does not apply to him as he stole Hillary’s coronation as the Democrat Candidate in ’08, not to mention defeating a GOP ticket with a woman as Vice President.

      Spare us from people who pander in such a way after it can no longer impact their ambitions

    3. Obama tells Medvedev he will have “more flexibility” after election

      Had Trump ever been caught on video whispering to Putin’s #1 flunky that he can do what Putin wants after he’s re-elected, it would be on the front page of every newspaper of the country as proof of colluding with a foreign power against US Interests. And it would be a legit allegation.

    4. Sexism or genderism?

    5. Heh, none of the socks tried to take me up on my challenge. Because they know that they can’t and that I’m right.

      I win.

  27. Yes, Citizens United was a ruling that advanced civil and speech rights. But the Democrats hate that their opponents having civil and speech rights. They hate the idea of anyone being able to bypass the narrative gatekeepers in the major media who are their ideological allies. Look at the absolute fits of rage they have had over opposition having socially media platforms and the bullying they have done to get those companies to remove non progressive politics from rhem.

    1. Unions are the biggest spenders in politics. They are groups of people just like corporations are. In many states you cant choose to leave a union, but you can choose not to buy from a company.

  28. On Deregulation, Trump Has Achieved Little

    Might want to clue in Brookings on that one.

    But hey, you’re right, you certainly aren’t surprising anyone by being a lying dishonest cunt.

  29. Washington Post, CNN journos under fire after Trump impeachment for celebrating ‘Impeachmas’

    Hey, here’s a local story Reason couldn’t find the time to cover for some reason. I wonder why?

    1. They were probably at a similar party.

    2. Luckily, much of America already knows that they are Lefty Propagandists.

      Its why reason staff better start taking those coding classes..STAT.

    3. Misery loves company.

  30. “”Nigerian sex work decriminalized, “”

    I guess the prince has found better way to spend his money.

    1. Dear Sir,

      I am a Nigerian Princess who is owed several hundred thousand dollars for some sex work I did for Prince Andrew. If you could just assist me by allowing me to use your bank account to make the transfer of funds from my very discreet royal client, I will give you 10% of the proceeds.

  31. this made me chuckle….Jeremy Corbyn clips edited in the style of The Office

    https://www.indy100.com/article/jeremy-corbyn-the-office-general-election-spoof-9251931

  32. I have never been a Democrat but I always felt Democrats were better and more skilled at politics than Republicans. The impeachment saga is making me reconsider that. I can’t imagine how the Democras could have handled this worse. They seem to have voted on impeachment but not made it official by sending it to the Senate or appointing managers for the trial. What is the point of that?

    If you are a Trump supporter, you are still pissed off and motivated to vote for him because you feel he has been impeached unfairly. If you hate Trump, how can you not feel cheated by this? If you think Trump did all of this stuff and want him out of office, how could you be happy with all of this nonsense?

    The Democrats would have been better off doing nothing than what they are doing. They have managed to both motivate Trump’s base and demoralize their own. I honestly can’t figure out what the hell they think they are doing.

    1. It’s their own version of 4D chess.

      1. More like Tic-Tac-Toe.

        Nobody used to want to play that game with them, so they had some success playing with themselves.

        Finally Americans wanted to play Chess and elected Trump to play that game. Democrats don’t know how to play Chess. So they try to knock all the pieces to the ground or Impeach the Chess board.

      2. I knew passing Obamacare was going to be a political disaster for them but I could see why they did it anyway. It gave them a huge expansion of government power. It was worth the sacrifice. But what is a failed impeachment of Trump getting them? I can’t see how it is getting them anything. I am honestly dumbfounded by what they are doing.

        1. Technically Obamacare was a huge strategic blunder. It led to Trump being elected to rollback everything the Democrats did when they controlled Congress.

          In two years, the Democrat controlled Congress could have passed many more rules and laws that Obama signed.

          Democrats spent all that time passing ObamaCare and then that got a Republican House and Senate to shut Obama down for 6 years.

          Then Americans got so pissed at Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Hillary that Trump was elected and made sure the GOP controlled the US Senate.

          1. Its desperation all the way down John.

            Desperate people do stupid things because they are rushed as the end nears.

    2. I never felt Democrats were better at politics. Democrats have always been better at crime and corruption in government with their in-tow Propaganda arm.

      Politics are supposed to end at crime. Crime was that dividing line.

      Not with Democrats. They commit crime after crime, undermine the Constitution, steal elections…. and the media always protected them.

      FDR was a goddam cripple and the newspapers of the era never mentioned it. They even waited to take photos for FDR to have some military member hold him up. Or they hid wheelchair ramps from all reporting and photos.

      Maybe Americans would have voted for him anyway but Polio had serious stigma attached to it because that disease fucked you up for life, if you survived.

    3. I think it’s starting to dawn on some of these idiots that “impeachment” doesn’t mean that Trump is automatically removed from office. Furthermore, he retains all his authority as President during this whole process, and he remains eligible to run for re-election. It just means they’re accusing him of certain crimes and that it’s up to the Senate to determine whether he should be removed for them or not.

      The Gen-X and Boomer proglydytes are simply happy to get their dopamine hit from knowing Trump will have “impeachment” forever tied to his Presidency, and at least they (mostly) appear to understand that he’s not going anywhere. The Millennials, however, because they were taught social justice bullcrap instead of basic civics, are going to be pissed when they finally realize that the Bad Orange Man will remain in office.

      1. Plus, some Republicans are talking about expunging the Impeachment when they take the House back over.

        This is a bad time for Lefties to realize that all those years and dollars pumped into making kids stupid in school is backfiring. These Millennials and Boomers dont even understand how our system works. They have to follow the system or we have Civil war 2.0

        They didnt have enough time to get rid of all the guns nor forever alter demographic with immigrants to amend the US Constitution to suit their purposes.

        Now the GOP is a few states away from Convening an Article V Constitutional Convention and setting back Lefty strategies for the foreseeable future.

    4. “They seem to have voted on impeachment but not made it official by sending it to the Senate or appointing managers for the trial. What is the point of that?”

      John- this is not about winning against Trump. This is about the deep state protecting themselves from the fallout of the IG and DOJ investigations. Their hands were forced when they learned that the DOJ was moving on to criminal investigations. This is all defense. And they are holding onto the impeachment in order to chase the DOJ investigation out of the headlines.

      1. +1000

        Their strategy fails since Trump will be reelected. They used Impeachment in YEAR 3. That was Plan 9,999 and they used it already.

    5. >>Democrats were better and more skilled at politics than Republicans

      before twitter when the Electeds were still in charge. now they’re behind the boat.

    6. You’re not factoring in Team D’s mouthpiece: The Fourth Estate.

  33. An Ames, Iowa man was just sentenced to 15 years in prison for burning a rainbow flag he stole from a church pastored by a lesbian in front of a strip club. Behold the power of this fully operational hate crimes law.

    1. He is a thief and a vandal. He deserved to be prosecuted. But 15 years is ridiculous. That is just punishing someone for objecting to the sacred queers.

      1. Exactly. I can see imposing a hefty fine—maybe a year or two tops in the slammer—but a quarter of a lifetime in prison for what would otherwise be a relatively minor infraction is unconscionable. It just goes to illustrate the absurdity of the concept of protected classes.

      2. You really need to delve into the details.

        He got five years for an arson charge with a hate attachment (for setting fire to the flag stolen from a church, and a car tire in front of a strip club he was recently thrown out of, and had threatened to burn down.

        Most of the rest of additional ten years was for being a habitual offender (meaning multiple prior felony convictions.)

        I’m no fan of hate crime laws, or thoughtcrimes in general. Why people want to make this guy the poster boy of that fight strikes me as rather curious.

    2. I saw that story and then read what else he did.

      The guy threatened people and it was not just a simple flag burning.

      15 years is too much time and Hate Crimes are ridiculous mind crimes but this guy was wrong to do what he did.

      1. I don’t think anyone is justifying what he did. It’s the magnification of his sentence based on the status of his victims to which I object. Theft, vandalism, and threats are all illegal. The sexual preference of the victims shouldn’t factor into the calculus at all.

        1. +100

          I was just referring to the clickbait sites act like it was deservedly good punishment because he as scaring gays.

    3. Why would you pastor a church in front of a strip club?

      1. those people need churchin’ the most

      2. You mean other than the collection plate being a ready supply of undeclared small bills?

    4. geez plead out dude

      1. They threatened more time…cause HATE CRIME. I suspect.

        1. geez hope for reversible error dude. yikes.

  34. The best part about the 2020 election will be that no matter who loses the resulting freakout will be epic.

    1. What do you see in your crystal ball?

      1. I suspect Trump will win quite handily. I can imagine how much fun it would be around here if he lost though.

      2. $parkY is about the country going to shit if Trump loses, so reason will be fun.

        Classy person that $parkY is.

        1. Poor $parkY.

          He loves thinking about ass fucking 24/7. I would say its a compulsion by now.

          And dicks? Man, $parkY is obsessed with dicks and assfucking.

          Must have been his Dad.

      3. lovescontroll69 enjoys getting assfucked as long as the dick has a right-handed bend.

  35. I searched the Latest headlines in vain to see if Reason picked up on what was biggest story from the debates last night. Apparently no one noticed it.

    Biden’s promise to eliminate hundreds of thousands of fracking jobs basically delivered the election to Trump on a silver platter. It guarantees Trump will hold on to Ohio and Pennsylvania, and it gives him a yuuuge advantage in western states like Colorado and New Mexico.

    This statement is going to be played on the airwaves non-stop until the election if Biden is the nominee. If, or rather, when Trump wins in a landslide you will be able to look back to this one statement as the tipping point.

    1. Ohio and Pennsylvania, I can see that. But Colorado and New Mexico are permanently blue at this point for the purposes of national elections.

      Colorado hasn’t had a Republican governor in 12 years, and the state GOP is as neutered there as they are in California, thanks in no small part to the largest media outlets in the state, such as the Denver Post, acting as de facto mouthpieces for the state Democrats.

      New Mexico is dominated by Taos and Santa Fe, which have long been the state’s real political power centers and have been blue for decades.

      What’s more likely to happen is that the old Dem “blue wall” in the upper midwest becomes increasingly red, while the southwest and far West become blue. And at some point, with the increasing polarization issue and the fight over issues like “sanctuary counties” becoming popular, I expect states to start dividing themselves up even further in order to gain better representation.

      1. I saw some interesting predictions on Census 2020 affecting New Mexico and Colorado and Nevada. Also Colorado and New Mexico have been in the news lately for 2nd Amendment sanctuary counties, which indicates those states are not as Blue as permanently implies.

        Reapportionment Projections and the Potential Impact of New States

        After the first 50 seats are assigned, the remaining 385 seats are distributed based on the state population values and this formula:

        Essentially, this formula goes through the congressional seats one by one and allocates a seat to the state that has the largest population, weighted by the number of seats already given to them, in each stage. This process is conducted for every seat until all 385 are allocated to the 50 states. The District of Columbia and US territories are not factored into the calculations and do not receive seats based on the current apportionment process.

        So more populous states get their apportionment before low population states like Oregon. So States like Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina will be first in line after all the EC losses from California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, etc.

        1. I could not find the link for estimates of California losing 2, Nevada -1, New Mexico -1, Hawaii -1, Maine -1.

          With Georgia gaining 1-2, Virginia 1, Arizona 1, South Carolina 1, Utah 1.

      2. I’m basing my interpretation off of the resounding failure of Prop 112 in Colorado in 2018, which was a classic wealthy environmentalist initiative which would have severely hampered the oil industry in that state.

        In that election you saw blue collar voters of all races and ethnicities voting with their wallets. In an election in which one candidate would basically outlaw an entire portion of the oil industry I think you’d see the same dynamic in both states, opening the door for Trump to pull off a narrow victory.

        Biden’s statement last night was his version of Hillary’s “putting coal miners out of work” gaffe. Pennsylvania was reliably Democrat until that happened.

    2. That is a big deal. And banning an entire industry a pretty significant infringement on economic freedom. Yet, Reason seems convinced that Trump putting some tariffs on China is a much bigger deal than the Democrats wanting to ban an entire industry.

      1. You get what you pay for.

        Or, more like, we get what they are paid to write.

    3. Biden is signalling the fracking companies that Fredo, er Hunter is available to sit on their board of directors. After all they’ve got another mouth to feed.

      1. Debate question for Joe: So have you been down to see that new grandbaby of yours yet?

  36. Have the Democrats given any hints as to their rationale for holding the articles of impeachment? Are they reserving the right to amend or addend them? Or are they just holding onto one symbolic victory while staving off a certain future defeat?

    1. Another question that occurs to me: is there any constitutional reason why the Senate could not simply choose to proactively take up the articles of impeachment, effectively defying the refusal of the House of Representatives to deliver them? It’s not like the articles are secret or confidential—they have been published for all to see.

      1. The Senate gets to Constitutionally make up its Impeachment rules just like the House does.

        There is no Constitutional requirement for the US Senate to wait for anything from the House.

        1. Well, presumably the Senate cannot hold a trial without an impeachment.

      2. It seems to me the only issue is whether they have the actual articles of impeachment as they were passed in the House. I’m assuming those are in the Congressional Record, so agree that the Senate can proceed when they so choose.

    2. The main rationale is that it’s Christmas and everybody’s gone. A lot the news articles are speculation because Pelosi has only made vague responses to questions about next steps.

  37. You’ll not get anything from those Dems on stage. I won’t be reading ET again!

    Decreasing circulation by zero.

  38. “[Citizens United] protects progressive and left-leaning nonprofits, labor unions, and reliably Democratic membership associations as much as anyone else.”

    CU was a bad decision because it only applied to organizations (e.g., businesses, unions) and not individuals – which means that was anti-individual, anti-rights and anti-reason.

    Unlike corporations – which have a fiduciary duty to represent shareholder interests, good or bad – most individuals, especially wealthy, productive ones, have moral principles. It is they whose rights to support political causes via donation, should be respected. CU didn’t do that.

  39. HOW I BECOME A FULL MEMBER OF ILUMINATI
    I am hamond by name. as the going says, money is powerful in human beings life and money rules the world.I’m from a poor family in which I found it hard to feed my family
    During the end of 2006 and the early part of 2007, I was suffering from a terrible depression that led me to start thinking about suicide.All Around that time I was talking to some people on a few forums about my problems. One of those people helped me learn a little bit about iluminati I suffered before I became a millionaire via the help of iluminati.I knew here in US promised to help me give email which I emailed told them I want become a member and be protected.They accept my application and I was initiated after my initiation. I was given first money of $2,000.000.00 US Dollars and on monthly basis am now paid $20,000.00 USDollars for working for the hood. Please if you are tired of poverty and you want to change your status or you are already weathy and you need protection of life,wealth,properties and family member please come and join the help iluminati now and get what you need. Please note that joining is free of charge you don’t pay any dine to become member and to contact us here is
    our directly email iluminatihood123@gmail.com mobile number +13092795479 join one join all

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.