Reason Roundup

Buttigieg Makes the Democratic Case for Cutting Debt

Plus: Josh Hawley's latest terrible idea, sex work divides NOW, Gary Johnson's 2020 endorsement, and more...


"It's not fashionable in progressive circles to talk too much about the debt," said Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg at a town hall in New Hampshire this weekend, blaming this on "the way it's been used as an excuse against investment.

"But if we're spending more and more on debt service now, it makes it harder to invest in infrastructure and health and safety net that we need right now," continued Buttigieg, whose past résumé includes a stint as a management consultant in addition to his time in the U.S. military and as the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. "And also this expansion…isn't going to go on forever."

Buttigieg said it's time for Democrats to "get a lot more comfortable owning this issue, because I see what's happening under this president—a $1 trillion deficit—and his allies in Congress do not care. So we have to do something about it."

It's certainly rare for a prominent Democrat to talk about deflating America's ever-ballooning deficit, especially this election cycle. And good on Buttigieg for calling out Republican hypocrisy on this issue too. (Welcome to the club.)

But Buttigieg offered no specifics on how he would manage to cut debt while still expanding "infrastructure and health and safety net."

"Asked to back up Buttigieg's claim to fiscal responsibility, a campaign aide pointed to a recent study by the Progressive Policy Institute that says the tax revenues Buttigieg has proposed to raise would narrowly exceed his new spending," reports NBC's Sahil Kapur.

Still, at this point, even a small nod to fiscal responsibility from the 2020 candidates feels like weekend. And Buttigieg is now a top-tier candidate.

Over the weekend, Iowa Democrats finally released concrete results from last week's caucuses, showing Buttigieg with a 0.1 percent lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) in the number of state delegate equivalents earned. Voters in New Hampshire go to the primaries tomorrow.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump's proposed budget for fiscal year 2021—a $4.38 trillion package to be presented to Congress today—includes $740.5 billion in military spending, a 0.3 percent increase over this year. It also includes $590 billion for non-military spending, down 5 percent from 2020. "Trump's budget has no chance of winning approval in Congress," notes USA Today, "but it does reflect his priorities as he pursues re-election."


Remembering Victoria Woodhull. "She was the first woman to run for president, the first to address a congressional committee, and the first to own a brokerage on Wall Street. She was also a con artist, a gold digger, and a scandal magnet," writes John Strausbaugh in National Review:

When she ran for president in 1872, she sat out Election Day in a Manhattan jail, arrested on charges of obscenity. Victoria Woodhull was unquestionably a pioneer in women's rights, yet her legacy is so messy and complicated that she remains an outlier in feminist history.

More here.


More tough-on-tech posturing. Sen. Josh Hawley, endless font of bad ideas, wants to make the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a part of the U.S. Justice Department. "The FTC isn't working," the Missouri Republican senator said in a statement. "Nobody is accountable for decisions."

So far, so good. But, alas, Hawley's complaint isn't that the agency engages in too much meddling. He thinks it doesn't do enough, at least when it comes to what he calls "Big Tech's rampant abuses." The FTC "lacks the 'teeth' to get after" them, he said, and "Congress needs to do something about it."

"The FTC has been under fire from both Republicans and Democrats calling for tougher action on Big Tech," notes Axios, which also offers more details on Hawley's proposal. But "relocating the agency, created in 1914, to a branch of the Justice Department is a tall order and it's unclear if Hawley's idea will gain any support."


  • "I like a lot of what [Tulsi Gabbard] has to say," Gary Johnson tells Reason. But "my guy is Bill Weld."
  • For the first time ever, a foreign-language film—in this case, Bong Joon-ho's Parasite—won best picture at the Oscars. Bong also won best director. Renee Zellweger won best actress (for her role in Judy) and Joaquin Phoenix won best actor (for Joker). See the full results here.

  • Sex work is dividing the National Organization for Women (NOW). "Women's organizations like NOW, founded at a time when many feminists considered prostitution inherently demeaning, continue to oppose it," writes Emily Shugerman. "Internally, however, backlash is brewing."
  • "Instead of removing Trump from power, remove power from the presidency."
  • What Sinn Féin's win in Ireland's latest elections means.

NEXT: L.A.'s Plan To Solve Its Homeless Problem Is a Mess

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

  1. "I like a lot of what [Tulsi Gabbard] has to say," Gary Johnson tells Reason. But "my guy is Bill Weld."

    They're both Hillary-caliber leaders.

    1. Hello.

      "I like a lot of what [Tulsi Gabbard] has to say," Gary Johnson tells Reason. But "my guy is Bill Weld."

      "Nothing you could do could make me untrue to my guy,
      (My guy)
      Nothing you could buy could make me tell a lie to my guy.
      (My guy)
      I gave my guy my word of honor to be faithful, and I'm gonna,
      You best be believing I won't be deceiving my guy."

      /whistles tune.

    2. It's certainly rare for a prominent Democrat to talk about deflating America's ever-ballooning deficit, especially this election cycle. And good on Buttigieg for calling out Republican hypocrisy on this issue too. (Welcome to the club.)

      Buttigieg calling out Republican hypocrisy on the deficit????
      Buttigieg supports free college for lower and middle class families. Who is going to pay for that? You know who. Buttigieg supports medicare for whoever wants it. Who is going to pay for that? Buttigieg wants to "invest resources" into solving the "gun control problem."

      Republicans don't care about the deficit because it's not a winning issue. When has anyone ever won an election by saying "I'm going to balance the budget and cut spending!" Never. But "Reason" using "Buttigieg" to point out Trump's hypocrisy is laughable.

      "Reason" - Phhhhhhhhht.

      1. Democrats want as much spending as possible, and don't give a fig about the deficit.

        But they're aware that, every time an attempt has been made to reduce the deficit by raising taxes, the result has been an even larger deficit at higher spending levels; Congress anticipates more revenue than the tax increase actually yields, and then spends every bit of the anticipated revenue and then some.

        So they advocate tax increases as a way of increasing spending, not lowering deficits.

    3. Sex work is dividing the National Organization for Women (NOW). "Women's organizations like NOW, founded at a time when many feminists considered prostitution inherently demeaning, continue to oppose it," writes Emily Shugerman. "Internally, however, backlash is brewing."

      That's because it is. "Sex work," properly called prostitution before the morons at "Reason" sugar coated it, degrades women and relegates them to nothing more than a fleshy j!zz bag for money. Then later, feminists will complain that men "objectify" them and then the morons at "Reason" will pick it up and whine for legalization like it's a good thing.

  2. For the first time ever, a foreign-lanaguage film—in this case, Bong Joon-ho's Parasite—won best picture at the Oscars. Bong also won best director.


    1. Bongs have been popular in California for a long time. About time they get the recognition they deserve.

        1. Bongo Fury!!!

    2. Bong?! Someone say bong?!

  3. Renee Zellweger won back actress...

    That part took real spine.

    1. I thought that award was usually given at the AVN.

    2. ENB has Weinstein’s main vein on the brain.

  4. HIV-positive airmen fighting to stay in the Air Force in first-of-its kind case

    No service member who didnt get HIV from high risk sex wants that incurable disease because you need a battlefield transfusion.

    That is why HIV infected service members should be medically discharged.

    1. To be clear, by "battlefield transfusion", you are referring to an emergency transfusion direct from the donor to the patient - that is, both patients lying side by side connected by a tube and without the usual bagging, storage and testing of the donated blood, correct?

      When was the last time that kind of transfusion was performed? When was the last time it was even considered? Even when it was considered, are you aware that the only allowable donors were pre-cleared both for blood type and medical fitness? Are you aware that even those of us who are "universal donors" can have so many antibody proteins in our blood that we can trigger immune reactions in the recipients? Are you aware that the act of setting up the transfusion from person-to-person takes so much time that the patient will likely die before you're ready and that this is a big part of why combat medics carry so much blood and blood-replacements? Have you considered that taking a soldier off the line during a firefight to be the donor dramatically increases the odds that they will both be killed?

      In short, you're trying to justify policy based on a medical fantasy. There may be good reasons to medically discharge HIV-positive servicemembers but that's not one of them.

      1. Poor Rossami. His little fantasy to protect HIV infected people in the military creates his protective delusions.He doesn't know anything about real battlefield conditions where medical care was very limited and people survived because of emergency battlefield care thanks to medics.

        I could add that two service members who are are bleeding, the HIV infected person transmitting that to the other trying to help stop the bleeding. Its Rossami, so expect another ridiculous justification.

        This is a political move to fuck over military members for the sake of a few service members who are infected with an incurable disease. Democrats hate the military. Remember that.

        1. Bullshit. I served in the Army back before the modern blood replacements were available. Being O-positive, I was among those pre-cleared as a potential donor. I never got the level of training to perform a transfusion but I supervised combat medics who were.

          My wife was an Army Nurse. She was trained in how to do exactly what you're talking about - and retrained when the Service realized that was an ineffective and unnecessarily dangerous thing to do. Yes, even in the field under hostile combat conditions.

          Now, you do have a point about the potential for infection from an HIV-positive caregiver. It's the same risk that the caregivers take when dealing with an HIV-positive patient and it's the reason for the extensive "needle stick" protocols after a possible exposure. The research, however, shows that the magnitude of that risk, while non-zero, is small. You might get infected from cross-contamination but it's unlikely.

          1. Great so all your nonsense about dismissing what I said AS AN EXAMPLE, then you admit that it is a reason.

            The risk is NOT small. It can also be a huge moral problem. Add in all the other reasons and you have the military decision to discharge those with HIV from military service.

            Another example is that the military doesnt want to have a bunch of military people who need regular meds in the field. Its a logistical nightmare. It's called the uniform service for a reason. If need be, all miiltary people eat the same, dress the same, get the same ammo, get the hole in the ground to shit in.

            1. Again, bullshit. The service is full of people who need regular meds. Essentially 100% of female soldiers are on hormone therapy on a daily or weekly basis. Male soldiers are more varied in their medical needs but many require and receive medication on a regular basis.

              If you're going to continue with this fantasy, at least talk to someone who actually served in the military sometime. If you want to be informed, consider talking to someone who actually served in a medical capacity at brigade level or below.

              1. You already admitted to not being in the military "back before the modern blood replacements were available".

                I forgot you are still butthurt about me shredding your stupid fantasy about states having plenary powers. HAHA. I gotta remember you. HAHA.

                OMG. Now you are on this schtick and you haven't been in the military since they still used glass bottles to hold blood plasma in. HAHA.

                Anyway. Trump's in charge and this protectionism of gay people like they are special is o-v-e-r.

              2. I explored joining the reserves.
                The list of disqualifying medical conditions is extensive, and far beyond having HIV.

              3. Rossami, until an actual cure comes along (like we have for Hep C), I believe medical discharges are warranted. To me, it is a readiness issue, and a 'keeping good order in the military' issue. Additionally, there are inherent risks introduced by the presence of HIV-infected soldiers; that is a fact.

      2. They have been performed at remote combat outposts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Army trains medics and PA's to do them, and the equipment is a common piece of equipment in Battalion Aid Stations TO&E.

        1. In fact they did one in 2009 when combat outpost Keating was under attack in Afghanistan and it was to dangerous to fly in medevacs.

      3. And another thing to consider. Say the HIV positive individual is wounded in the field. Now it is possible the medic may have time to don personal protective equipment (if they have gloves and have the time to change gloves between casualties, and if it is an arterial bleed it will be squirting, therefore they would have to have a face shield also, my aid bags never had a face shield or mask and only a couple sets of gloves), but generally the medics are busy with the most serious cases. If it is less life threatening and there are multiple casualties it is likely that aid will be rendered by a combat life saver, i.e. a common soldier with some advanced first aid training. They likely will only have the wounded personals first aid kit to render aid with. The first aid pouch does not have gloves in it. This means that the soldier providing aid (I realize these are airman but depending on their MOS, they may be on patrol with the Army, and once the precedence is set, it will mean the Army and Marine Corp also has to allow HIV positive soldiers and Marines to stay in) is now exposed to HIV by rendering first aid to their comrade. Battlefield medicine is not clean, nor is it exactly safe. In 91B school we were taught to get the bleeding stopped and they can worry about infections at a higher level of care. At the field level and the BAS level there will be limited PPE and a high risk of cross contamination to other casualties, even without the need for combat transfusions (which are still used in the field). It isn't until they reach tier III support, a CSH, that they will receive anything more than the most rudimentary life saving care.

    2. From the article:

      The airmen, identified by the pseudonyms Richard Roe and Victor Voe in the lawsuit, both had years of meritorious service when they were diagnosed as HIV-positive in 2017, according to the December 2018 lawsuit, which called their discharges unconstitutional...
      Both men are taking antiretroviral medication, have undetectable HIV, and are healthy and uncompromised in their ability to perform their duties, the suit said.

      Keep in mind the Air Force had a scandal in 2017 when a bunch of Airmen were potentially exposed to HIV at Al Udeid because the medical staff weren't taking the proper cleaning precautions on their equipment. "MUH LGBT RIGHTS" and "MUH ANTIRETROVIRALS" isn't going to mean shit if people think they're risking exposure to HIV or AIDS.

      This was the real laugher:

      "The medicine has advanced so far in the past 25 years. Not only is it much easier to take care of a person living with HIV medically, but they are perfectly healthy and capable of doing the job," Schoettes said.

      No, if you have HIV you're not "perfectly healthy."

      1. Especially if the infection of HIV was from military fuck ups, these service members should be medically discharged and given near 100% VA disability or whatever just compensation is.

        These people live in fantasy land as they think having HIV is "perfectly healthy". That's like Boomers living with Hep C and being perfectly healthy. Hep C greatly increases your chances of liver damage and all associated health problems with half-ass functioning liver.

      2. No, if you have HIV you’re not “perfectly healthy.”

        Know what's worse than having HIV? Having HIV and not knowing it.

        Know what's worse than having HIV and not knowing it? Having HIV, knowing it, and pretending like you don't.

        Know what's worse than having HIV, knowing it, and pretending like you don't? Having HIV, knowing it, pretending like you don't and giving it to someone else.

        You don't have to be evil to be reprehensibly immoral, cowardice is sufficient.

    3. What about the seamen?

  5. Women's organizations like NOW, founded at a time when many feminists considered prostitution inherently demeaning, continue to oppose it...

    Back when feminists still had husbands they didn't want paying for any on the side.

    1. What happened to "my body, my choice"?

      1. "My Body, Your Choice"

      2. How else are bitches gonna keep their men in line?

        1. It's just the usual crony capitalism, if you've got a monopoly on the pussy market you're going to fight to maintain your monopoly pricing. Government is of course willing to play along, they get a cut off of the ancillary market - movies, flowers, jewelry, fancy meals, romantic getaways, they all get taxed. They legalize prostitution and allow the free-market to get its nose into the pussy market all that stuff goes away.

          1. A conspiracy set up by the patriarchy to keep us in the pocket of big vagina.

  6. Buttigieg Makes the Democratic Case for Cutting Spending

    Doesn't sound right.

    But Buttigieg offered no specifics on how he would manage to cut debt...

    There we go.

    Nobody in this election cycle is serious about cutting spending.

    1. Ironically... reason mentioned trump's meager military spending increases but ignored his proposed cuts to entitlements. They used to actually back cuts to entitlements.

    2. To be fair the headline does say 'cutting the debt.'

      But there really is no way to do that without cutting spending or increasing taxes, or some measure of both.

      1. Increasing taxes has historically had minimal effect on the government tax revenues. The % of GDP that is taxed has consistently been around 20% no matter the tax rate.

        1. More oppressive taxation just causes people to hide more of their wealth.

        2. Actually, it's less than that. We've only gone above 19% five times since the end of World War II, and one of those was during the early 80s recession. The average is about 17.5% in a very narrow range.

          If Congress set a hard line on the budget to no more than 0.2% above revenue as a percentage of GDP from the prior year, we'd still have deficits, but they'd be far smaller than what we've experienced in recent times, and we'd likely experience some budget surpluses in good economic years as well.

        3. Yeah, preaching to the choir guys. I was addressing the realm of possibility not probability.

          Because the probability is, even if there was net increased revenue from a change in taxation, spending would increase at least as much.

          Once you cross into the realm of deficit spending it is highly unlikely that the fisc will be any sort of lasting solution.

  7. "It's certainly rare for a prominent Democrat to talk about deflating America's ever-ballooning deficit, especially this election cycle."

    Elizabeth Warren is still my first choice, but Mayor Pete could join my top tier if he keeps talking like this. He has substantial billionaire support which suggests he'd be good for's benefactor Charles Koch.


    1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page

      ..................... Read more

  8. Internally, however, backlash is brewing.

    NOW struggling to allow women the right to choose.

  9. Trump To Again Propose Slashing Foreign Aid In Budget

    President Trump will propose $4.4 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade in his budget for fiscal year 2021 — a document that is expected to be quickly dismissed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.

    The proposal, set for release at 12:30 p.m. ET on Monday, will include slashing foreign aid by 21%....

    1. This is a great start. Let's hope that Trump pushes this hard on the campaign trail this summer.

  10. "Instead of removing Trump from power, remove power from the presidency."

    "But we are going to want that power later."

    1. unreason has been assuring us that illegal Mexicans pay more in US taxes than receive in benefits. US Taxes are being use dot build th border wall.

      Always seemed like Mexico was paying for the wall to me.

      1. Does spinning like that make you dizzy?

        1. new sock troll spinning its coder into a frenzy.

      2. LC, cite please? I know several idiot posters continually conflate the contributions of legal and illegal immigrants (legal: net positive, illegal: massive net drain), but I haven't seen unreason do so.

        Then again, I'm never drunk enough these days to try reading a Shikha column.

    2. "Trump’s concrete-and-metal fence is being funded by U.S. taxpayers..."

      So, in other words, Mexico and Mexicans are ***Not*** paying for Trump's wall.

    3. I for one am glad that Mexicans and Mexico are paying for the border wall through illegal Mexicans paying more in US taxes than they receive in benefits.

    1. The only real feminism is intersectional feminism. And intersectional feminism is trans-inclusive.


    2. Bloomberg says others who actually understand biology are too stupid to cheer on trans bathrooms.

      1. ""We, the intelligentsia, the people who could make it into this room, we believe a lot of things in terms of equality and protecting individual rights that make no sense to the vast bulk of people."

        "They are not opposed to you having some rights, but there's a fundamental disconnect between us believing the rights of the individual come first and the general belief around the world, I think it's fair to say, that the rights of society comes first,""

        Christ, what an asshole

        1. And yet reason seemed a bit sad he was just slightly too statist.

        2. A guy that literally calls himself part of the "intelligentsia" should never, ever be allowed near the levers of political power.

    3. This isn't very surprising. I've always thought that the only reason these people are in the same group "LGBTQUIA+" or whatever is because they have a common hatred for Republicans. This was actually justified a few decades ago when Republicans really did want most of these people to be shunned from society for who they are. Now that a lot of Republicans don't really give a shit (because a lot of the older Republicans are finally starting to die off) and are starting to adopt the whole "marry who you want, just leave me alone" attitude, the LGBTQUIA+ folks are starting to turn on each other because they have nothing in common and many of their ultimate political goals are actually opposed to one another.

      Unisex bathrooms? Strict interpretation that there are no differences between the genders? This is almost certainly diametrically opposed to what the "L" in LGBTQUIA believes. And don't even get started on the "G". The G is going to be chased out for two reasons - (1) They're men and (2) they enjoy wayyy to much sex, and sex is basically rape these days.

      1. The truth is that the trans movement is entirely driven by men for the purpose of erasing women out of society. You never hear of a woman wanting to shower with men. It is always a straight man who is derives sexual pleasure from pretending he is a woman who wants to invade women's spaces.

        The whole thing is profoundly misogynistic and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Even gay men have no real dog in the fight. And gay women are harmed by it.

        I think the trans nonsense is going to drive a significant number of gays who are not just brain dead leftists who will believe whatever the party tells them out of the Democratic Party.

        And you are right, for Republicans gays are a non issue these days. Those battles are fought and most Republicans don't want to fight them again. But trans is a different story.

        1. Yes.

          Trump could not have won the nomination in 2008, even if he avoided defaming John McCain's service, because of the former's decades-long support for gay rights.

        2. Can we even call those people trans? I know a lot of trans women and they like men. They don't have these issues with the bathrooms and society accepts them just fine for the most part.

          I have noticed that the most vocal ones are always trans lesbians and they're, well, not pretty. It's like the feminists that always advocate for prostitution. From what I have seen it doesn't seem like people would be lining up to pay them for sex.

          That's just my observation and I can be an asshole.

          1. No true tranny....

            Yes theyre trans. They say so. That it is inconvenient for you means nothing.

  11. Bernie Sanders has the perfect response to Republican accusations that he's a dictator-loving communist:

    Chuck Todd: They're going to say you will appease socialists ... Sanders: We got a president ... who's cozying up to the autocrat, Putin. Who says nice things about Kim Jong-un ... You want to talk about cozying up to communists around the world? It ain't me. It is Donald Trump.

    All patriotic, responsible, anti-communist Americans must vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination.


    1. He actually admits that North Korea is communist? Well, it's a start

      1. IDK, shedding your delusions of grandeur but picking up conspiratorial paranoia and a persecution complex sounds like a 'two steps back' situation to me.

    1. 1-2% death rate so far is a meh.

      1. You're probably correct but it does appear that the rate of infection is increasing, even after quarantine protocols were implemented.

        I am okay with government taking the lead on infectious disease pandemic threats because of the global nation but they need to accurately report the facts. Commies in China are mostly at fault with bad reporting and we can expect nothing less from Commies.

        1. *global nature...

        2. Nobody knows how accurate China's numbers are as far as both the transmission rate and the mortality rate but as the virus spreads we'll find out. The main things to remember when you look at the numbers is that outside of China the virus is more likely to be detected earlier and the transmission rate suppressed and that the number of currently infected compared to the number of dead doesn't give you a simple mortality rate. If there's an incubation period of 10 or 14 days you have to compare the number of infected 10 or 14 days ago to the current number of dead. (If a disease has a 30-day incubation period and a 100% mortality rate, everything's going to look fine on Day 29 but it's all going to shit on that 30th day. Doesn't matter how many people have the disease and haven't died yet unless and until you can see how many people had the disease and made a complete recovery.)

  12. Obama's documentary about china saving american factories left out some key facts... like obama being one of the causes for the factory failing.

    Bonus... director screaming out communist creeds last night.

    1. +10000

      I watched part of it and had to turn it off. It the same old Lefty Propaganda wrapped in a new Obama lie.

      As you point out, Obama's Lefty policies as President were part the problem.

    1. Just imagine if Buttigieg is the D candidate. Though it would probably show up as lower than usual voter turnout, not increased voters for Trump.

      1. Disagree. There is actual enthusiasm by black areas for trump. It is so worrisome Democrats are suing trump's campaign for using the same tactics they use.

    2. Well that article basically had no detail at all.

      1. If you want more detail you could do what a normal person does and google for other sites with more detail. There are plenty out there. Probably not any in the sand your head is buried. But they exist.

        1. I've already heard about this from a few different sources. I'm just commenting on how little this article had to say.

    3. What Do Black Women Want This Election Season?

      The survey finds that President Donald Trump continues to receive an ‘F’ grade for his job performance, with approximately 80% of Black women polled failing him.

      What Do Black Women Want?
      Black community priorities have shifted for some Black women. In 2019, criminal justice and policing reform....

      So 20% of Black women don't fail Trump? Hmmm... that is a higher percentage of Black women who don't hate Trump than the Lefty media would want you to know. Plus, Black men have their say.

      1. I can't help but notice that the survey asks black women about their top concerns and one of them is "Rise in hate crimes/racism" but the article keeps saying that that "hate crimes/racism" is a top concern among black women.

        I have no doubt that to a lot of black women, hate crimes/racism are a concern. That being said, how you phrase the question matters. When you put the word "rise" in there, it can make the respondent go "wait, there's a rise in hate crimes/racism? Well shit I'm definitely concerned about that!"

        Also funny how they didn't start asking the question until 2017. Something in me says that the survey designers are either rigging this survey intentionally or their bias is heavily influencing the results without them realizing it.

        1. Of course the surveys are skewed.

          Once someone says Trump is racist, asks three questions:
          (1) What is the definition of "racist"?
          (2) Name a specific situation where Trump was racist.
          (3) What race are Americans?

        2. God youre fucking stupid

  13. "The FTC isn't working," the Missouri Republican senator said in a statement. "Nobody is accountable for decisions."

    If there's anything alphabet agencies under the executive know it's accountability.

  14. U.S. Military Identifies Two Special Operation Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Combat


    Unfortunately, politically Trump cannot risk pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and the places implode months before Election 2020.

  15. ...I see what's happening under this president—a $1 trillion deficit—and his allies in Congress do not care.

    Good luck getting your allies to care.

    1. If you know it's going make you bleed out of your ass, why do you eat it?!

      Dude, it's Chipotle!

  16. How the hell did Parasite win so many awards on a night that the Oscars had no Host?

    — Pat Ward (@WardDPatrick) February 10, 2020

    Too clever, nobody is going to get it.

    1. I got it. And I'm a nobody.

  17. She was also a con artist, a gold digger, and a scandal magnet...

    I'm not saying she was a gold digger, but she wasn't running for president of no broke country.

  18. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $60.1 billion

    This represents a decline of $1.9 billion already this year and is only good enough for 12th place globally. Drumpf's high-tariff / low-immigration policies are clearly to blame for our benefactor's suffering.


    1. And yet, I’m still prospering.


      1. Ugh. You keep doing that thing my conservative brother in law does. The Drumpf economy is working for ME, so that means everything is fine! I learned in college that's a logical fallacy called "cherry picking."


        1. As opposed to the cherry picking you are doing?

          Tell Chuck to return my calls goddamnit.

    1. And 70 other obama holdovers. Trump is reducing the NSC back down to around 100 after Obama expanded it to around 200.

      1. +1000

  19. "And also this expansion…isn't going to go on forever."

    Too true; it will end the minute a democrat wins the presidency.

  20. Trump’s ‘dream scenario’ unfolds: Dem disarray ahead of 2020

    Segment: How Lefties think. Lefties know Trump will win reelection.

    1. Nope. My prediction record is better than yours and I guarantee Democrats will win the Presidency and keep the House.


  21. Not all born in American Samoa want US citizenship

    Be an American not an American't.

    1. Still not going to fault them as they have one of the biggest charities in the world.

      1. I am mostly with you but I am against the Mormon Church's influence in Utah politics. We have religious influence in Bible Belt politics too but there are so many factions that no single religious sect is too powerful, unlike Utah.

        The deal is tax free status for religions and religions stay out of politics.

        1. That's practically impossible in Utah because so many church members are concentrated there; I think it's something like half of their entire US-based membership. Even in a relatively liberal area like Salt Lake City, Utah's about as homogenous of a cultural area as you're going to find in the US, and that makes the separation of church and state there redundant because those interests are going to organically intersect regardless.

          1. I don't live in Utah so I don't have the complete 411. I get what you are saying about the intersection.

            My impression is that Mormon control over politics in Utah seems more than just Mormon members being in politics. Its like a majority of Mormons want government in Utah to reflect their Mormon ideals.

            I still crack up every time I see those 15 room giant houses on the hillside and the giant temples bigger than any other building.
            LDS tower tallest, but there's no law against topping it

    1. From Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip to reports that President Donald Trump and Melania Trump sleep separately

      Oh man, even Melania has it now!

      1. "reports"

        There you go believing Propagandists again.

  22. "But if we're spending more and more on debt service now, it makes it harder to invest in infrastructure and health and safety net that we need right now," continued Buttigieg"

    What Buttigieg would do if he were elected President is important, but it's not as important as what President Trump is proposing in his budget right now:

    "The White House proposes to cut spending by $4.4 trillion over a decade. Of that, it targets $2 trillion in savings from mandatory spending programs, including $130 billion from changes to Medicare prescription-drug pricing, $292 billion from safety-net cuts—such as work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps—and $70 billion from tightening eligibility access to disability benefits.

    The budget would lower future spending from where it would be under current policy."

    My libertarian capitalism is partially driven by my disgust with authoritarian socialism. There is nothing I want more than slashing taxes and cutting socialist wealth redistribution programs. While there have been plenty of presidents who will champion tax cuts, there hasn't been a president since World War II who has fought as hard as President Trump to slash entitlement programs--both their funding and their eligibility standards--and President Trump deserves a ton of credit for that, especially for unveiling a budget like that in an election year. And if you think our spending is a problem that can be addressed without slashing entitlement programs, you're nuts.

    No way Buttigieg or any of the other Democrat candidates would propose or endorse slashing spending and eligibility for entitlement programs. As fiscal conservatism goes, President Trump's record makes Buttigieg and the rest of the Democratic field look droopy-eyed, armless children. Even Rand Paul was against slashing Medicaid! President Trump may not be a libertarian, but he's the most libertarian president we've had since World War II.

    1. P.S.

      “But if we’re spending more and more on debt service now, it makes it harder to invest in infrastructure and health and safety net that we need right now,” continued Buttigieg”

      Buttigieg is arguing that fiscal conservatism means more socialism, here, and libertarian capitalists should condemn him for it.

      1. Right, but youre an idiot and an unapologetic liar.

    2. "President Trump may not be a libertarian, but he’s the most libertarian president we’ve had since World War II."


      1. I should have said, "the most libertarian [capitalist] president since World War II".

        If socialism is about raising taxes bigly and redistributing wealth bigly through entitlement programs, no president has fought harder to cut that than President Donald Trump.

        He embiggens all of us!

        If only he hadn't launched the trade war with China!

        Still, that ain't over yet, and if he manages to get all those tariffs back to where they were before, I'll call him the most libertarian capitalist president since World War II without any reservations.

        The libertarian part is easy considering his stance on the drug war and recreational cannabis. By this time in Obama's presidency, he'd raided state legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California hundreds of times.

        It may be that the press getting distracted by pissgate, the Ukraine, the wall, and his tweets is what makes it possible for him to pursue his capitalist agenda.

        Deregulation? Check.
        Tax cuts for corporate profits? Check
        Fights to slash spending on entitlement programs? Check

        But some people around here think he isn't a libertarian capitalist because he pushes for a wall and tweets about football players?

        1. No you ahould have said nothing because youre a bloviating liar.

    3. Agreed. Great analysis. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is not serious in writing this about Buttigieg. Socialists such as Buttigieg have no intention of ever decreasing spending. All government programs even temporary programs seem to never end or decrease in size. Let’s see if the socialists In congress agree to the 26% cut Trump proposed in the bloated and unnecessary EPA budget.

    1. I have a relative who is worried that when it gets to the U.S. cities will be shut down like in China so she is prepping by storing lots of food. I didn't think she was into that type of thing but then she is a biologist and maybe knows something i don't, but she also thinks prophecies of end times are coming so there is that. Plus I don't think you can shut down U.S. cities like they do in China.

      1. We store food and water and really stock up if some big storm is expected. We have solar, so if power is out for a few days we are the only house in the area with power. Neighbors come over and we feed them and hang out.

        I don't blame people for being somewhat prepared for an incident that will cause hardship. It's smart.

        1. Always prepared for the winter snow storms and now I'm prepared for the summer brown outs In California due to wind but i don't have the room for a months long food shortage. there is always a few deer around if things get bad though

          1. If you can get MRE's, they last for 10 years and are a great source of emergency rations and will last you a while for a box (depending on how large your family is).

      2. Ron....the 2019-nCov virus is a very serious public health threat. And we don't know jack-shit about it. But we can make some inferences based on what we see.

        First, for a virus allegedly just a tad more virulent than common, garden variety influenza, China has taken extraordinary measure I have never, ever seen in my lifetime. A quarantine of 400MM+ people? Are you serious? There is much more that we are not being told.

        Second, the bland assertion that this started by zoonotic transmission via snakes in a wet seafood market is laughable. Snakes don't contract coronaviruses.

        Third, genetic sequencing will tell us what we need to know. Namely, is the genetic sequence of this virus possible in nature? My personal belief is this virus was engineered to have enhanced lethality, and enhanced susceptibility.

        Fourth, ask yourself this question. Why would China not want our best CDC people helping them? There is no question our infectious people in CDC are among the best. Why does China prevent them from entering China and helping treat patients, find cause?

        This is not going to end well, and it will not end anytime soon.

  23. Let's play a game. An article with the headline:

    Guess and then read.

    1. Guess who the article is about before the jump?

      Is it Rachel Maddow?

      1. Who cares, youre a liar.

    2. I'll let someone else guess . . .

      In her defense, parts of southern California seem like they belong to Mexico, and I sometimes wonder whether Minnesota is a state or a Canadian province--considering their politics.

      P.S. The existence of West Virginia is unconstitutional.

        1. I'd like to believe that.

          1. No one believes you, liar.

    3. I would love to play but (1) I dont watch MSNBC (2) I dont care to know any MSNBC anchors.

    1. This must be how sex offenders feel when they realize they left DNA at a crime scene decades ago and police are reopening the case.

    1. Hey, it's a big tent!

  24. But Buttigieg offered no specifics on how he would manage to cut debt while still expanding "infrastructure and health and safety net."

    He would still kick the can down the road, but act more conflicted about it

    1. Who you callin' boy?

  25. It is nice that Buttigieg says he wants to reduce the debt. But as Ken points out above, Buttigieg doesn't have a single policy proposal that is consistent with the goal of reducing the deficit. Like all of the Democratic Candidates, Buttigieg's positions consist of one enormously expensive leftist program after another. There is no way to square his actual positions with any kind of concern about the debt. He is just lying.

    1. He's basically saying that if we didn't have as much debt, we could redistribute more of your income and more corporate profits.

      This should not be applauded by libertarian capitalists.

      Meanwhile, President Trump is actually proposing to slash entitlement spending.

      Buttigieg's argument that fiscal conservatism would mean more spending on entitlement programs is complete bullshit because he would still be spending the same amount of money--and incurring more debt. It's also BS because interest rates are at lows from a interest rate standpoint. If he projects more spending on entitlement programs and lower interests rates because of less spending, then he's talking out of both sides of his mouth--in the name of expanding the socialist welfare state.

      President Trump, on the other hand, is fighting to cut entitlement spending in an election year. He should be applauded for that by libertarian capitalists everywhere. When was the last time a president fought to cut entitlement spending or entitlement eligibility? Add this to Trump fighting to get the three senate votes needed to slash $772 billion in Medicaid spending, and he's the best advocate for slashing the socialist welfare state that we've ever had in the White House.

      Meanwhile, the socialists keep getting distracted by his tweets, the Ukraine, etc.


      Trump is grabbing the socialists by the balls and twisting.

      1. Buttigieg's statement makes me worry less about the debt. I would rather have the government hamstrung and spending all of its money servicing the debt that have it be debt free and spending it in the way Buttigieg would want it spent.

        In many ways the Reason constant bitching about the debt is really misplaced and not Libertarian. It is one thing to object to spending. That is objecting to the size of government and very libertarian. But pissing and moaning about the debt as a bad in itself rather than just foreseeable consequence of spending is awfully close to and I think in Suderman's case is just reason whining that the government might some day no longer be able to afford to do all of these great things because it is broke.

        You would think Libertarians would see the upsides to a government that is either bankrupt or so strapped with debt it can do little except service it. Reason instead sees only horror.

        1. I find it especially hard to accept the idea that we shouldn't cut taxes if it increases the deficit.

          If Sacramento could increase our property taxes, they would not use that extra money to pay down the debt. There will never be a time when the government is so flush with cash that it decides not to spend any of it. When drunken sailors are spending our money, the way to get them to stop giving them so much of our money to spend.

          Capitalism does the wonderful things it does when consumers have more money to spend in markets, businesses have more profits to invest in their businesses, and investors have more money to invest. Libertarian capitalists who imagine that cutting taxes is bad for the economy long term are ignoring the importance of market signals--especially when they're telling us to make tough choices. Inflation is something to be avoided by cutting spending, but it's also the market's way of forcing you to cut spending by making the things you don't really need more expensive.

          I see a lot of Reason staff argue against tax cuts from a fiscal conservative standpoint, and that always gets it wrong.

          1. The federal government collects right around 19% of every dollar made in this country. The idea that it couldn't be expected to get by without increasing the debt on say 18% or even a penny less is appalling. The contention that we can't cut taxes because it will increase the debt is probably the most infuriating of Suderman's many infuriating positions.

            1. "The contention that we can’t cut taxes because it will increase the debt is probably the most infuriating of Suderman’s many infuriating positions."

              Made all the more insulting by his apparent opposition to cutting Medicaid spending!

              1. Speaking of insulting, all your lying.

  26. Regarding Democrats and the debt - they don't give a shit. Until people start actually cutting programs in combination with raising taxes to pay down the debt, I don't believe a word they say.

    1. SOP the last 40 years is that Democrats raise taxes or keep them at a higher level but don't cut spending, so the deficit continues to climb, but at a slightly slower pace, while the Republicans cut taxes but don't cut spending, so the deficit continues to climb at a higher pace. The one exception was Bush I, who signed a tax increase in 1990.

      1. This seemingly ignores the fact that most spending increases is from baseline budgeting and entitlement growth, not actual spending increase requests.

      2. Destroying America's wealth and economy is a real tactic to take down the USA. Revolutions from economic anarchy works for Socialists all the time.

        The other tactic was social control. That does not seem to be working as Lefties thought. Only time will tell.

  27. Small-Business Owners Highly Engaged in 2020 Election

    Most small-business owners rate the financial condition of their business positively -- 56% say it is "excellent" and 38% "good" -- and 69% report that their business benefited from the 2017 tax reform law. More than seven in 10 say they reinvested over one-quarter of the savings that resulted from the tax law in their business.

    Trump best President in US History AND possible landslide in reelection 2020?

  28. I have a very hard time believing Buttigieg is doing anything other than paying lip service here (which in my life time is all any president has really done). I guess I'm not drawn to give lip service praise as much as the author of this article is.

  29. Over the weekend, Iowa Democrats finally released concrete results from last week's caucuses, showing Buttigieg with a 0.1 percent lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) in the number of state delegate equivalents earned.

    Will be interesting to see how the DNC tries to fuck over Sanders in the next few weeks, without pissing off the BernieBros to the point that they check out entirely and write him in or sit it out.

    Because they aren't even trying to be slick this time and do it behind the scenes, they're being completely blatant while acting obtuse about the whole thing.

    1. Bernie bros are't going to sit out the election if they get shafted; they are going to literally riot at the convention.

      1. I'm looking forward to this, but am prepared to be disappointed.

        On the other hand, a (probable) Bernie bro just tried to kill people registering to vote Republican 30 minutes from where I live...

    2. They are totally going to fuck over Sanders. And I don't think there is any way they can even be slick about it. Sanders has too many supporters and after 2016 it is too obvious what they are doing to even be discreet about it much less hide it.

      Basically, they are going to tell the Bernie Bros to go get bent and bet that the Bernie Bros will vote for Buttigeig or more likely Bloomberg because the alternative is Orange Man Bad.

      I could be wrong but I think that is a pretty poor bet. The Bernie Bros are craven and stupid but they are committed. And they hate the establishment as much as Trump supporters do. I don't think most Bernie Bros see Trump getting four more years as that big of a price to pay to ensure the Dem establishment doesn't screw their guy and get away with it. Hell, a shockingly significant number of Bernie Bros voted for Trump in 2016.

      1. I'm just stunned Bernie or AOC even have such a large number of supporters.

        That's a lot of retards.

        Plus Bernie is weak. After Hillary shoved a two-by-four up his ass he went all Patty Hearst and supported her. Commies aren't supposed fold that way. They're supposed to get stabby.

        1. That is a lot of retards and it is pretty scary. And Bernie is just a greedy old asshole. He will absolutely fall in line. But, just because he does doesn't mean his supporters will. It will be Bernie who will be pocketing the millions that will no doubt come with rolling over and supporting the nominee. I doubt old Bernie will be very socialist with that money when it comes to his supporters.

          1. Bernie is an (I) Independent yet 9/10 sides with Democrats.

            The deal is that Bernie gets to be the spokesman for Communism in the USA and he helps Democrats maintain the appearance of being Centrist.

            The cracks appeared in 2016 when Hillary fucked over a very strong Democrat grassroots campaign for Bernie. Bernie could not have beaten Trump but that fact is lost on Bernie Bros.

      2. There was an opinion article in the NYT this morning which was basically an appeal to Bernie voters for when the DNC shafts him. The commenters all pleading to Bernie voters to just hold their nose and vote team Blue was especially appalling. "Look, your candidate can't win so vote for the candidate I want - for the greater good." It's just as insulting when people say it to independents; as if my vote should go to a candidate I wouldn't want elected because it would make their constituents feel better.

        1. Vote for my candidate so my friends can get important jobs in the Administration and I can have access and influence. That is really all they are saying.

          The problem is that even if you hate Trump and his policies, the truth is that nothing traumatic or horrible has happened during his Presidency. So, if you are a Bernie bro, what reason is there to let the DNC establishment win and show that you can be taken for granted? It is not like they are going to be much or any better than Trump from your perspective. And you managed to survive four years of Trump okay. What is another four years if the reward at the end is the Democratic Party finally giving you a candidate you can vote for?

          The only thing traumatic about Trump winning re-election is that assholes at places like the NYT's friends won't be getting important jobs and said assholes won't have any access or influence. While that certainly is traumatic for them, I don't see any reason why anyone else should care.

          1. And you managed to survive four years of Trump okay. What is another four years if the reward at the end is the Democratic Party finally giving you a candidate you can vote for?

            I think you underestimate how deep the TDS runs with these types. Most of his supporters are idiot college students, hippie burnouts, and Gen-X bourgeoisie that, by and large, have well-paying jobs now. Bring up Trump in any context and you'll immediately get a spittle-flecked limpout, and they're the kind of people who have readily abandoned long-time friends and family members because they voted for Trump, or at least don't think he's Satan incarnate.

        2. Personally, I find it appalling that people want to bully people into voting for someone they don't really want to vote for. You should feel free to vote for whomever you feel represents you. People who really believe in democracy would not make you feel bad about your choice and bully you into voting their way.

      3. I could be wrong but I think that is a pretty poor bet. The Bernie Bros are craven and stupid but they are committed. And they hate the establishment as much as Trump supporters do.

        I believe about 10% of BernieBros voted for Trump out of spite, but the rest, if they didn't sit it out, readily pulled the lever for Hillary. And that's really going to be the rub this time--when Bernie does the J--O--B again, because there's no way in hell the Dem establishment wants him in charge, will they bend over again like they did in 2016? Or do they start an insurrection at the convention if Buttigieg is nominated, or there's a brokered convention and Bloomberg gets the nom? I suspect most of them will bend over again and take it, just like Bernie will.

        1. Bernie's supporters are what a third of the party? If even say 20% of them sit out the election or vote third party, that is three or four percent of the electorate. That might not doom the nominee but it would come pretty close. And if that many or voted for Trump, it would doom it.

        2. I tend to agree. I don't think a bunch of Bernie Bros VOTED for Trump. I think they sat out the election or voted for Jill Stein.

          We will see this election because the LP wont be getting 4.5 million votes this election.

          I voted for GayJay but Georgia chose Trump.

    3. Well, when you look at all of Bernie's proposals (or the MeToo proposals of Warren) you realize that these are legislative proposals anyways so I don't even know why they're both running for President - if they really wanted to try to effect these changes they should be running for Congress where they could get this stuff introduced as legislative bills. Have either one of them tried contacting their Senators and Congressmen to see if they can't get something going?

  30. "I like a lot of what [Tulsi Gabbard] has to say," Gary Johnson tells Reason. But "my guy is Bill Weld."

    Is Bill Weld Gary Johnson's guy? Or is Gary Johnson Bill Weld's guy?

  31. Help Us Decipher This Terrifying Video Of A Suicide Drone Flying Up An Armored Vehicle's Ramp

    As we found out in WWII with Japanese Kamikaze pilots, these desperate Socialist lunatics will do anything to stop freedom.

    Now they have unmanned drones that can do damage and are super cheap compared to a cruise missile.

    Lesson#1: Don't keep vehicles ramps down for longer than needed.

  32. To the surprise of the people who passed the mess (and no one else), AB5 is putting people out of work:

    "From horse handlers to tutors, California gig law AB5 frustrates contractors"
    "What do sheep shearers, rehab specialists, ventriloquists, medical transcriptionists, face-paint artists and test proctors have in common?
    They’re among the many kind of workers who are mobilizing online, in public protests, and in letters and visits to lawmakers to say that AB5, California’s controversial new gig work law, is hurting their livelihoods."

    The union rep who wrote it now promises to 'amend' it, meaning along with the other costs of doing business, you'll have to hire a lawyer to make sure you're in compliance.
    And the lawyer will probably not be a free-lancer.

    1. Well, to be fair.. the only thing they are really worried about is the journalists.

  33. Buttigieg said [...] "So we have to do something about it."

    PLEASE. Every politicians playbook on this is to propose raising taxes (NEVER cut spending of course) to pay down debt, and then once they get those sweet sweet tax revenues they all go out the window, the debt increases MOAR, and nothing changes.

    What a joke.

  34. Didn't watch; who gave the obligatory 'Trump is a big poopyhead!' speech?

    1. I didn't watch either, but I'm going to guess they all did.

    2. I read about Brad Pitt saying something stupid

  35. From that article on Ireland:

    Here in the U.S., we’re experiencing a major realignment that is stressing the two-party system, transforming the GOP into a white-nationalist authoritarian personality cult

    And that's where I stopped reading. How am I supposed to take anything the article says seriously when they write such blatant lies? Never heard of "intelligencer" or Jonah Shepp before, but at least now I know to avoid their reporting if I want to stay informed.

    This stuff is what Reason's authors read, folks. Just in case you were wondering why the quality of reporting here has declined so much.

    1. There's no such thing, it must be reiterated, as Peak Retard.

    2. Trump is going to get more black votes than any Republican President in living memory and more Hispanic votes than any nominee since George W. Bush.

      How the hell do you square that with the claim that the GOP is a "white nationalist party"? I honestly can't fathom that kind of stupidity. It wouldn't call it dishonesty. It is so brazenly stupid and contrary to the facts I don't think anyone could tell it as a lie. No, only someone who actually believed it would be say something like that.

      1. The left was pretty explicit about their intentions to try to paint republicans as racist - as an election strategy, not out of any actual evidence of any such thing.

        Russia got them away from that strategy, but post-Mueller the NYT let us know explicitly once again that they were going to use racial animus to stir up opposition to Trump. And then they began their 1619 project a month or so later.

        I get people not being able to connect a bunch of disparate dots. But why is it so difficult to take them at their word when they say they are going to do stuff like this and then you watch them doing it?

        1. Yes. And it has largely been effective. But, it also has had the effect of turning 70% or more of the white vote away from the Democratic Party. And I think it is increasingly ineffective.

          The thing about white leftists when they talk about race is that they are using race as a way to assert their moral superiority over non leftist white people. This guy says this not to convince any black people that Republicans are racist or really convince anyone. He says it because saying it and believing it gives him a sense of moral superiority over non leftist white people. They are racists and he isn't. It is pathetic.

          1. And I think it is increasingly ineffective.

            I think there are a lot of black people starting to catch on that Democrats are using them as a prop which is effectively driving a wedge between them and the rest of the American population. At least that is what some of my friends have told me.

            It has to be very annoying to hear a bunch of rich white people continually talking about and claiming to be the champions of black people. Of course, white people can learn and talk about race issues in this country just fine, but when its a non-stop thing that is always talked about no matter what?

            I have more than a handful of black friends tell me something along the lines of "you know, I am concerned about other things... not just race issues. All they ever talk about is race."

            1. I have the same experience. Also, I don't think black people are nearly as upset about Trump being President as liberal whites are. All the Democrats offer blacks is race issues and histrionics over Trump. The former is wearing thin and the histrionics over Trump never appealed to blacks.

              1. Between Democrats using black people as a prop, failing to lift historically black communities up despite all the utopian promises, continually demeaning Christianity, supporting illegal immigration which disproportionately hurts minority communities, wanting to take guns away from black people and their absolutely fanatical support for every far-left interpretation of sexuality and gender identity...

                I'm surprised black people even bother voting Democrat these days.

                1. Less and less are.

          2. John to add to what you said, Lefties talk down to non-whites as if they are too stupid to make up their own minds.

            Black Americans are less dependent on government welfare, so maybe the decades of Lefty Paternalism is finally backfiring.

      2. Its a lie, but he probably believes the lie considering that he his a journalist and the modern day journalist believes it is their job to misinterpret the world for the masses.

        1. Journalists have been more of a political entity than a fact finding entity. Look at how many people at CNN have served with the Clinton Whitehouse, DNC or some democrat's campaign.

  36. "So we have to do something about it."

    "And this is something, so let's do it!"

  37. I suspect that if Buttigieg does try to address the debt, he won't call for any spending cuts (except possibly for Defense). He'll talk about raising taxes.

    And I see he's spouting the bullshit progressive line about government spending being an "investment".

    1. It is an investment.

      An investment in his retirement plan. Slop enough pork around and they'll take good care of you after you leave office. Just look at the last two (D) presidents. Literally 9 figures in the bank shortly after leaving office.

  38. There are plenty of arguments that the FTC doesn't do enough.

    Just head down to your local pharmacy. There will be an entire aisle of products that are transparently scams. And I'm not even talking about stuff that might be a borderline attempt at making something that you thought might work but doesn't - like K-tape. No, I'm talking straight-up "I know I'm selling snake oil" scams.

    They have gone after a tiny few products in this category - including one that I was surprised at .... Remember "Head On?" You apply it directly to your forehead. They got busted for making false claims - but I recall their ads being very careful to avoid making any claims. Just saying "apply directly to the forehead". No promises of anything, for good or ill.

    So if they can go after that thing, surely spending 15 minutes at Walgreens should be able to drum up a few hundred cases.

  39. Have Republicans acknowledged the debt problem yet? Or are they still doing the Cheney and laughing at it?

    1. I think we gave up on paying lip service to worrying about the debt when Gingrich went under, even before Bush II took office. I mean, don't get me wrong... nobody was serious about it before then either, but at least they talked the talk.

      1. RINOs and non-fiscally conservatives in the GOP can blame Trump and people will take that excuse on face value.

        Plus, there were a lot of RINOs in the GOP, so that Party might sway back to some lower government spending.

        1. Ooh, but your beloved Trump, he's a REAL Republican.

          1. Actually Trump seems more Libertarian-ish than Republican but only he knows.

    2. ""Have Republicans acknowledged the debt problem yet?"'

      I believe they were when Obama was in office.

      The dems are in control of the house, they can pass smaller budgets if they choose.

      1. No... I think that once they figured out that they could just pass continuing resolutions and keep spending at the inflated "stimulus" levels without having to admit anything, they all just started ignoring the actual budget process.

    3. This isn't 1994, Buck... That kind of hard, right wing ideology is a relic of the past.

  40. So, the wife was watching the Oscars last night. And Brad Pitt decided to make a couple of anti-Trump remarks.

    And the room wasn't exactly with him. Not exactly against him either... but their definitely was not the enthusiastic anti-Trump hate that you would have seen a year or two ago.

    It seems like the Democrats have finally gone too far and have even lost the passion of Hollywood. I have no doubt that they'll still be solidly in the (D) camp this time around. But they definitely have lost their enthusiasm.

    Who cares? Well, if they've overplayed their hand enough to lose Hollywood.... where do you think the middle of the road independent is going to come down on this?

    1. Oscar Viewership Hits All-Time Low With 23.6 Million

      But the ceremony, which clocked in at 3 hours and 35 minutes — up from 3 hours, 23 minutes in 2019 — could not repeat last year’s ratings turnaround, drawing 23.6 million total viewers and a 5.3 rating in the adults 18-49 demographic, based on Nielsen’s Live+Same Day Fast National ratings ordered by ABC. That is down double-digits from last year’s 29.6 million and a 7.7 rating of among adults 18-49.

      This TDS is directly hitting Hollywood's wallets.

  41. ""Buttigieg said it's time for Democrats to "get a lot more comfortable owning this issue, ""

    And now he's in last place.

    The only time the dems are interested in owning the issue is when they can complain about team R's spending.

  42. >>"And also this expansion…isn't going to go on forever."

    Pete forgets his Leviathan.

  43. How the hell did Parasite win so many awards on a night that the Oscars had no Host?

    Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
    And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
    And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
    While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

    Jesus Christ, you people are Philistines if you don't appreciate classical poetry enough to answer the simple question of how parasites exist without a host.

    1. Yeah. It would be the fellow parasites that hand out the award for the best parasite. No host required.

  44. "the way it's been used as an excuse against investment"

    That's "Investment" because "Investmenty" sounds so much better than "pounding it down ratholes like entitlements and bicycle paths nobody needs."

  45. Remembering Victoria Woodhull. "She was also a con artist, a gold digger, and a scandal magnet,"

    Yeah, I dated her.

    1. Ah the good old days, when a woman asked if her bustle made her butt look big and the you didn't have to think hard about the answer.

  46. What Sinn Féin's win in Ireland's latest elections means.

    Ireland's new Parliament is gonna be Da Bomb, yo.

  47. Buttigieg Makes the Democratic Case for Cutting Debt Panders Shamelessly to New Hampshire Voters


  48. sex work divides NOW

    What? This is a totally new development and I can't comprehend why.

      1. Yep, but I cut old Joe some slack, he may gave meant to say "lying pony faced dog soldier" or "lying soldier faced pony dog" or some other combination.

        1. Was he just too tired to punch that bitch in the face?

  49. Missing Idaho girl’s phone reportedly found with mother Lori Vallow in Hawaii

    Real life is way crazier than fiction. Too local for unreason but weird child missing story.

    1. Vallow’s late husband, Charles, filed for divorce in February 2019 and accused her of becoming "infatuated at times obsessive about near death experiences and spiritual visions,” according to a filing obtained by Fox 13.

      I miss good "fake" news.

  50. Amazon Wants Trump To Testify About Military Contract Awarded To Microsoft

    Poor Bezos. He thought being a Lefty douche would get him everything. Now the Lefties are even turning on his company.

  51. James Carville warns of 'end of days' if Dems choose Bernie: 'I'm not interested in being in a cult!'

    The Raging Cajun doesn't realize that the Democrat Party already is a cult with a suicide pact.

  52. New Hampshire governor predicts President Trump will win the state in November

    Uh-oh Democrats. You're going to lose tens of thousands of Black American voters AND Granite State voters?

  53. The age of celebrity is dead: The internet has killed the Hollywood star

    More reason to increase government regulation of the internet to force people to watch the Oscars!

  54. Chinese military stole masses of Americans’ data, US says

    Expect the notices to help Chinese government spy or else your massive credit card debt and purchases for sex dolls will be made public.

  55. But Buttigieg offered no specifics on how he would manage to cut debt while still expanding "infrastructure and health and safety net."

    Because he's lying.

    1. +1000


    I gather Trump thinks FDA is too restrictive. It is weird having tobacco products in FDA's purview, and probably leads to worse regulation than an independent administration, even within the same HHS, would give.

    1. This is huge. While it does create a new agency for tobacco, it separates tobacco from Food and Drugs. This also implies that Trump might think that he can never get rid of the FDA because of food and drug regulation concerns. It's for Trump to acknowledge how government corruption works and the power of agencies regulating multiple products or services making it harder to get rid of them.

      If tobacco had its own agency, then you can target that one agency because its mission is based on one product or two if you count vaping.

  57. ★Makes $140 to $180 every day online work and I got $16894 in one month web based acting from home.I am a day by day understudy and work basically one to a couple of hours in my extra time.Everybody will carry out that responsibility and monline akes additional money by just open this link......Read MoRe

  58. ★I get paid over $90 every hour telecommuting with 2 children at home. I never thought I'd have the option to do it however my closest companion gains over 10k a month doing this and she persuaded me to attempt. The potential with this is unending. Heres what I've been doing.......Read MoRe

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.