Reason Roundup

Is Bloomberg vs. Sanders (vs. Trump) the 2020 Nightmare Scenario?

Plus: Virginia's assault weapon ban gets shot down, Trump's tariffs face new legal scrutiny, and why you don't want Amy Klobuchar on your bar trivia team

|

The Democratic presidential field remains one of the most wide-open races in recent political memory, but two of the top campaigns spent the weekend acting like it's all come down to them. If they're right, libertarians might want to find somewhere to hide for the next four years.

On Monday, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg posted an online ad that criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)—and his aggressive online supporters, the Bernie bros—for engaging in Trump-like campaign tactics. That ad came after days of stepped-up criticism from Sanders, who has called attention to Bloomberg's support for stop-and-frisk and accused the former mayor of trying to buy the Democratic nomination.

Sanders responded by pointing out that Bloomberg has some bros of his own.

The increasingly nasty sniping between Sanders and Bloomberg suggests that each man sees the other as his biggest rival. Sanders is coming off strong if not convincing performances in Iowa and New Hampshire, while Bloomberg's poll numbers are being carried skyward by a golden rocket of advertising. The socialist and the billionaire will square off in Wednesday's debate in Las Vegas—the first debate for which Bloomberg has qualified after his late entry into the race.

While many other outcomes remain possible, it's easy to imagine Sanders consolidating the progressive lane and centrist Democrats lining up behind Bloomberg for lack of a better alternative (assuming former Vice President Joe Biden can't pull out of his current nose-dive).

Facing the prospect of a second Trump term or Sanders' promised revolution, some voters are understandably tempted to see Bloomberg as the moderate alternative. That, as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat warns, dangerously underestimates Bloomberg's own authoritarian tendencies:

Trump's authoritarian tendencies are naked on his Twitter feed, but Bloomberg's imperial instincts, his indifference to limits on his power, are a conspicuous feature of his career. Trump jokes about running for a third term; Bloomberg actually managed it, bulldozing through the necessary legal changes. Trump tries to bully the F.B.I. and undermine civil liberties; Bloomberg ran New York as a miniature surveillance state. Trump has cowed the Republican Party with celebrity and bombast; Bloomberg has spent his political career buying organizations and politicians that might otherwise impede him. Trump blusters and bullies the press; Bloomberg literally owns a major media organization. Trump has Putin envy; Bloomberg hearts Xi Jinping.


FREE MINDS

Four Democrats broke party ranks to block a so-called assault weapons ban in Virginia. The ban, which was a major priority for Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, prompted huge protests at the state capitol in Richmond last month.

As often happens with these kinds of proposals, there seems to have been some confusion about what weapons, exactly, Northam's proposal would have targeted. In voting to shelve the bill, state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D–Bath) told the Associated Press "there are obviously a lot of questions about definitions in this bill. Definitions do matter."


FREE MARKETS

The U.S. Court of International Trade temporarily ordered customs agents not to collect tariffs on products like nails and steel cables. The court is reviewing a challenge brought by PrimeSource Building Products that seeks to overturn the Trump administration's expansion of steel tariffs onto finished products that contain steel. That broadening of the steel tariffs—announced in January and implemented on February 8—was supposed to offer some protection to American companies that make steel products. Those companies had been hit particularly hard by Trump's steel tariffs because the additional import taxes had raised input costs.

But the trade court has looked skeptically on Trump's use of a 1962 law that grants presidential authority to implement tariffs for national security purposes. When Trump tried to double steel tariffs on Turkey last year during a diplomatic dispute, the same court struck down that action on the grounds that the Trump administration offered no "rational justification tethered to" the law's national security purpose.

In light of that ruling, it is likely the court will block Trump's latest tariff actions too, Heritage Foundation economist Tori Smith told Reuters. She said the 1962 Trade Expansion Act's tariff powers are "a broken trade law that the Trump administration continues to abuse."


ELECTION 2020

If you want to be president of a country—any country—it's probably a good idea to be at least a little bit familiar with the leaders of neighboring countries that are also major economic partners. Unfortunately, both billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer and U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) flubbed on-camera interviews with Telemundo when they couldn't name the president of Mexico: Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

Steyer is essentially a presidential campaign tourist booked on the all-exclusive insider experience package, but Klobuchar serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on border security and immigration. And the interviewer did not let her off the hook. Seriously, the full video is brutal.

Being qualified to be president means a lot more than simply rattling off the names of foreign leaders, of course, but this isn't a good look.


QUICK HITS

Advertisement

NEXT: Are Laws Requiring Lawyers to Join (and Fund) State Bar Associations Unconstitutional?

Reason Roundup Michael Bloomberg Bernie Sanders Election 2020 Amy Klobuchar Tariffs Free Trade Assault Weapon Ban Virginia

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.

Please to post comments

255 responses to “Is Bloomberg vs. Sanders (vs. Trump) the 2020 Nightmare Scenario?

  1. …but two of the top campaigns spent the weekend acting like it’s all come down to them.

    The race to lose to Trump.

    1. Hello.

      Battle of the Epic Authoritarian Retards.

      Gulagzilla V. King Kongberg.

      Let’s get ready to Rrrrrrrrrrrrrumble!

      1. They are everything the Democratic party is today. Say what you want about the nomination process but it is giving the Democrats two candidates who are representative of where the party is today.

        1. That’s true. And Trump getting 97% against those two jokers in the primary is representative of where the GOP is today.

          1. That is true as well.

          2. “And Trump getting 97% against those two jokers in the primary is representative of where the GOP is today.”

            If only. It is representative of how much nominal GOP voters like Trump. I see little evidence that most of the party’s representatives will choose to enact Trump’s policies when Trump is gone.

          3. That’s true. And Trump getting 97% against those two jokers in the primary is representative of where the GOP is today.

            Yup. A party with a successful incumbent.

        2. I don’t know that it is representative. We’ll find out perhaps in November if they lose to Trump votes that would have been a lock before the end of Obama’s term.

          1. Bloomberg is a caricature of the elitist metro beltway wing of the donkey party and Bernie personifies the Occupy/Antifa wing. So they are following Trump’s example of reducing their party’s candidate to a caricature of their voters. Given these options, I suspect the few critical swing voters this election will depend on will chose to go with the devil they know.

        3. They ought end up with Mini Mike. He’s spending billions of dollars to try and buy the presidency. I can only hope his efforts completely tear the democrat party apart and splinter it for all time.

      2. + many, rufus and john

  2. Remember how Iowa was a total clusterfuck? Nevada Democrats might be preparing for a “hold my beer” moment.

    Race fixing ain’t what it used to be.

    1. True. Today’s car trunks can’t hold nearly enough ballots – – – – – – – – – –

  3. Republicans should stop making excuses for Trump’s budget deficits.

    And show weakness?

    1. Would be nice if reason spent as much time attacking entitlement growth and baseline budgeting as it did to enforce both sides arguments.

      1. A bit sensitive about any criticism of your side, eh?

        1. Mind you, Reason bitched about anything Trump ever did to cut spending if it did anything negative to their pet causes.

  4. Conor Friedersdorf on the evidence that conservative college students do self-censor around intolerant liberals.

    If they wanted diversity they wouldn’t call it university.

    1. Never once in that article does Friedersdorf criticize liberal students or progressives in general for being intolerant, even though he admits that conservatives who openly profess their views on campus. When it comes to how to fix that, Friedersdorf suddenly speaks in generalities. This is a problem that needs to be solved but Friedersdorf seems unable to figure out who is responsible for the problem or list them by name. I guess it is aliens or other conservatives who are responsible for this.

      1. You poor little baby. Get it all out.

        1. Friedersdorf is just being comically dishonest. I don’t think he is crying or anything. You should read the article before being so hard on him.

          1. Friedersdorf is comically dishonest, jeff is just completely dishonest.

    2. 1. Conservatism is intolerance.
      2. Intolerance is intolerable.
      ____
      3.

      Q.E.D.

      1. If your major premise is incorrect, your proof is invalid.

  5. Bloomberg and Sanders are the perfect representatives of the two wings of the Democratic Party. Bloomberg is exactly who the Genry Left and the big money tech barons are; authoritarian, elitist, corrupt and generally nasty. Bernie is exactly who the far left wing of the party is; authoritarian, socialist to the point of being a straight up communist, idealistic, passionate, and profoundly stupid. If the Dem nomination comes down to Bernie and Bloomberg, it will be the most representative nominee fight in my lifetime.

    1. Like Iran vs. Iraq.

    2. Please, oh please, let it be a brokered convention!

      Complete with disenfranchised Berniebros and Antifa. Promises to be the greatest show since Chicago ’68!

      1. I want a brokered convention that results in Hillary being the nominee. These people deserve Hillary one last time.

        1. It could be Bloomberg/ Hildabeast, but that would presume he has a death wish.

          1. ‘If women wanted to be appreciated for their brains, they’d go to the library instead of to Bloomingdale’s.’ — Bloomberg

            Yes, that would be an epic pairing.

        2. That would be entertaining as hell.

      2. Promises to be the greatest show since Chicago ’68!

        Good, it’s been a long time since we’ve gotten a new CSNY song.

        1. The Whole World is Watching!! CTA

    3. Bernie Bros are on video threatening violence if they don’t get the nomination. Iowa was and Nevada looks to be total clusters, making people doubt the honesty of the results.

      Steal the nomination from Bernie, do it obviously, and give it to a literal billionaire. Dem convention is going to be Lit A.F. We’re talking the sort of behavior that got Nixon a landslide.

      1. Meh, I’m not expecting much for fireworks; kids are real pussies these days. Acting tough online is par for the course.

        Unless the DNC sets up riot-safe-spaces so that the Antifa LARPers and Bernie Bros can take a break from burning down the patriarchy to grab a juice box and not be offended by police in riot gear, then I don’t think much will come from a brokered convention. Although, I think there will be a lot of crying on Facebook with plenty of calls for punishing the rich.

        1. Unless it’s the sort of assholes committing acts of violence for Antifa. Like that shitead ‘professor’ who goes around attacking people with a bike lock cracking skulls.

    4. If the nomination comes down to Bernie and Bloomberg it won’t be proof that you can buy an election, it will be an indictment of just how weak the Democratic field is. Lots of rich people have tried to buy their way in and they’ve all failed miserably because, while money is certainly a necessary component of running a campaign, it’s not sufficient to win. If Bloomberg can simply blanket the airwaves with ads to gain name recognition and thereby buy the election, hell, I’ll just go to court and have my name legally changed to Coca Cola McDonalds and waltz right into the White House.

      And Bernie Sanders is a good one to bitch about Bloomberg trying to game the system – you’re not even a fucking Democrat! Which again shows the weakness of the Dem field – your top candidates aren’t even Democrats.

      1. You would think so. I think of all the candidates Bloomberg is the most likely to cause the Bernie bros to really vote third party in large numbers rather than just stay home or suck it up and vote for him. I think Bloomberg winning the nomination would split the party worse than Bernie winning it.

        I wouldn’t pretend to have a complete understanding of what goes through the head of a Bernie supporter. But I just cant’ believe any of them would vote for Bloomberg. He is even more than Trump everything they claim to hate.

        1. Bernie had his honeymoon in Russia. His splitting the party will be absolute total proof of #RussianCollusion and invalidate the election, requiring Hillary to be installed as President.

          1. Bloomberg is counting on the superdelegates who he has bought, along with all the other tank and file. He is Hillary with a penis, and given how anti penis the dems are right now, that is not going to help him even if he does get the nomination.

            1. Bloomer is also going around buying up black endorsements. Don’t be surprised to see Al Sharpton become a $upporter.

        2. I think of all the candidates Bloomberg is the most likely to cause the Bernie bros to really vote third party in large numbers rather than just stay home or suck it up and vote for him.

          We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Bernie getting fucked out of the nomination yet again could very well cause a large number of his supporters to vote for Trump out of spite or just stay home, but if Bernie does the J-O-B and doesn’t raise a stink about it, the vast majority of them will fall in line and vote for Bloomberg or any other Dem nominee.

          The real fallout would play out a lot like what happened after Romney lost–the Republican base got tired of the RNC pushing a bunch of establishment jobbers, and began voting for Tea Party candidates and, ultimately, Trump because those guys weren’t seen as insiders just looking for a bunch of media asspats. A similar trend is playing out on the Democrat side as the former Occupy Wall Street protestors have coalesced around radical socialists, wine mom-approved candidates, and idpol politicians. There’s been a noticeable trend in particular of entitled, busy-body women running for political office at the local and state level, which in some areas is causing a lot of political strife where that wasn’t an issue before.

          If Trump wins again, expect the latter to really go into overdrive.

          1. I should revise that and say that the Tea Party candidates got a lot of attention and won the House before Romney was the nominee, but his loss in 2012 seems to have resulted in a significant chunk of the Republicans deciding that they didn’t really want to have anything to do with those milquetoast, go-along-to-get-along types anymore.

          2. It is all about turnout. Romney won independents by like 14 points. He lost the election because a significant part of the Republican base stayed home while the Democratic base turned out for Obama. So, if a significant number of the Bernie bros stay home, the nominee is very unlikely to win the nomination.

          3. If Trump wins again, I’d expect the Democratic party to do what it did after eight years of Reagan and four years of Bush Sr.–move to the right.

            Same thing happened at the Democratic convention of 1968, where the moderates in the Democratic party were nominating Humphrey– a pro-Vietnam War candidate–even as the police, controlled by Chicago’s Democrat political machine, were literally beating the shit out of the New Left in the parking lot.

            The Bernie people won’t go away from the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party will move away from them, eventually.

            Reagan Democrats went back to the Democratic Party when the recession hit under Bush Sr., and we’ll have another recession again, eventually. Trump Democrats are happy as could be in the current economy, but the economy will change, and then all bets are off.

            It won’t be Bernie they get behind, but some new Obama, and, remember, Obama wasn’t a radical when he was first elected. He was seen as being against the Iraq War, when the war started to become less popular, and he was against legalizing marijuana (raided medical marijuana facilities in California hundreds of times in his first term), and he was anti-gay marriage. He campaigned on the slogan, “Marriage is between a man and a woman”.

            They’ll get behind a candidate like Bill Clinton–who brought those Reagan Democrats back within the fold of the Democratic Party.

            I’d love to think what we see right now will be a permanent split, with the Bernie people, but it won’t be. Parties will continue to do what they need to do in order to make the elections as close as possible–and that involves finding their lost core constituency and bringing them back into the fold. Four or eight years after losing, Bernie may die from his heart condition or become so decrepit that he can’t campaign anymore. Causes under charismatics often don’t survive the charismatic who started them.

            1. “Causes under charismatics often don’t survive the charismatic who started them.”

              Which applies even more strongly to Trump than Bernie.

              Nice post.

            2. “They’ll get behind a candidate like Bill Clinton–who brought those Reagan Democrats back within the fold of the Democratic Party.”

              Clinton received a smaller share of the popular vote than Michael Dukakis did in 1988. Those ‘Reagan Democrats’ didn’t return to the Democratic party in 1992, they just split their votes between George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot.

              1. Those Reagan Democrats went back to voting for Democrats–sufficiently enough to put Clinton in office.

                Then those Reagan Democrats started voting with instead of against their unions again.

                All of this has happened before:

                “Reagan Democrats no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos and other groups. “

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

                That was written about Reagan Democrats in the rust belt in 1980 and 1984, but it might as well have been written about Trump Democrats in 2016. It may be important to remember that Trump won the primaries by beating the hell out of everybody else in states with open primaries–because disaffected Democrats who were chased out of the Democratic party by social justice warriors voted for him. The only states Trump lost in the primaries (while the contest still mattered) was to native sons–Kasich in Ohio and Cruz in Texas. People tend to only change their registration when they renew their drivers’ license or change residences . . .

                The same demographic from the rust belt, so many of who were registered Democrats, went to Clinton after the recession of the early 1990s, and then they voted for Gore, and then they voted for Obama. During the Obama administration, Obama stopped acting like the centrist he campaigned as in 2008 and started acting like Carter did–making the white, blue collar, middle class out to be what’s wrong with America.

                All the Obama era progressives seemed to care about were the interests of feminists, environmentalists, Muslims, LGBTQI+, illegal immigrants, and people on Medicaid. And, even today, if you start a conversation with a progressive about why the white, blue collar, middle class seems to think that progressives hate them, you’ll often find that the conversation quickly turns into why that progressive thinks the white, blue collar, middle class should be hated. If you convince those people that you hate them, they will not turn out to vote for you anymore.

                The problem with the social justice warriors of today is the same as the far left during the Carter administration–if hating on the white, blue collar, middle class is wrong, they don’t want to be right. It’s pretty much the whole point of being a social justice warrior. They can’t stop doing what they need to stop doing to win because what they’re doing isn’t a strategy. It’s who they are.

                Given a nice fat recession, which will come sooner or later, and the relatively unskilled workers who always bear the brunt of such things will flock to a Democrat, one who isn’t quite as obtuse as your standard social justice warrior is today.

            3. I think the Reagan democrats went to Ross Perot. Clinton lost them for sure in 94 when they voted in the Congressional Republicans.

              1. They left the Republican behind in sufficient numbers that Bush failed to win reelection, and they assimilated back into the Democratic Party–right up through the Obama administration.

            4. Maybe Trump Democrats don’t believe the DNC anymore.

              Bill Clinton signed NAFTA which left some of those Democrats behind. Then Obama straight threw them under the bus.

              A short Recession of 6-12 months because government stays mostly out of it, might just cement the GOP as the Party of American workers of any collar.

              1. We are no more than one recession away from them going back to the Democratic Party–if only the Democratic Party would shut up about social justice.

                Marx was wrong about a lot of things. Marx was right about creative destruction.

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

                When the business cycle destroys the livelihoods of the working classes, it makes them ripe for socialist solutions. In the face of economic destruction, when the capitalists quite correctly say, “The government should do nothing”, those who’ve had their livelihoods devastated by creative destruction will turn to Democrats–and the Democrats will become increasingly socialist. That is why socialism is so hard to escape. If you think reasoning with people about capitalism is hard when the economy is good, try it when the economy is bad.

        3. According to Brent Bozell, feedback from a recent focus group of Bernie supporters indicates that a significant minority of them will vote for Trump. If they feel Bernie is cheated again.

    5. Does Sanders actually advocate the state owning the means of production or are you just being hyperbolic again, because criticizing the European countries he wants to emulate policy wise just isn’t a compelling argument?

      1. Communists have their own version of Taqiya. Sanders did advocate exactly that.
        From wiki;
        In 1971 Sanders joined the Liberty Union Party, founded in 1970 in opposition to the Vietnam War[22]—a “self-described ‘radical political party'”, according to CNN.[23] During his association with the party as a leading member, he advocated for nationalization of major industries, including those in the manufacturing, energy and banking sectors. In 1974, he advocated for a marginal tax rate of 100% on income over one million dollars, saying that “Nobody should earn more than a million dollars”.

  6. As often happens with these kinds of proposals, there seems to have been some confusion about what weapons, exactly, Northam’s proposal would have targeted.

    Surprising that the bill didn’t indicate that they wanted to ban the “scary looking ones”, and then leave it up to Governor dumbass to choose which ones.

    1. I think that is exactly what they did.

    2. They want to ban all the ones that go “bang!”

  7. Although Warren is still my first choice, both Sanders and Bloomberg are far superior to Drumpf from a Koch / Reason libertarian POV. Because at least #DemocratsDontCageKids.

    #ImmigrationAboveAll
    #IMissObama

    1. Bloomberg, Bernie, Trump…..there really are no good guys in this

      1. TDS is a bitch, isn’t it?

        1. Does nobody in your cult own a mirror? Trump is not a good guy, he’s just a less awful guy than any of the alternatives. And the fact that you think anybody in high office is a good guy certainly doesn’t speak well of you or your faith in your ability to get along just fine without somebody to take care of you. You’re a grown-ass man, you shouldn’t need a nanny and you should be offended that anybody thinks not only that you need one but that they’re the most qualified to be your nanny.

          1. Trump is no saint, but do you seriously think a President Bloomberg or Sanders wouldn’t be worse than it has been under Trump? Honestly?

            1. Every subsequent President is worse than the previous one.

              1. Yeah, it would have nothing to do with the fact that one was a nanny state mayor with an addiction to banning everything and one is an avowed socialist.

              2. Trump is far better than Obama, eunuch

              3. Trump is the best President in US History (thanks to Democrats), so there’s that.

              4. So you see see Trump as worse than Obama?

          2. What is a ‘good guy’ in this context?

            Does it mean a guy who’s getting stuff you want done, or does it mean a guy that the people who want to fuck up your country like?

            Because, on that scale, Trump’s a great guy.

            And that’s the only scale that matters–Is the politician you elected doing the things that he said he would do that you thought would be good for the country?

            If the answer to this is ‘yes’, then he’s a good guy. What his opponents think is irrelevant.

  8. The Boy Scouts of America have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy as a tactic to halt civil lawsuits over alleged sexual misconduct going back decades.

    Merit badge in using bankruptcy the way everyone uses bankruptcy. To stave off creditors.

    1. I guess they had been allowing gay scout masters all along.

      1. I thought we were past that bigotry. Child abuse is about power and access, not sex. The vast majority of abusers who attack same-sex victims are not gay.

        1. Whatever. It is totally about sex. And most of the “child abuse” is young teenagers not small children. This is guy men having affairs with adolescent boys. It is what it is.

          1. Chasing the Mormons out wasn’t the smartest business tactic.

            I didn’t think bankruptcy discharged tort judgments like these, does it? Or is that only for judgments from intentional torts?

        2. I thought we were past that bigotry. Child abuse is about power and access, not sex. The vast majority of abusers who attack same-sex victims are not gay.

          Pedos don’t think they’re ‘abusing children’. They think they’re in loving relationships with people that society says are too young to consent.

          The vast majority of same sex pedos ARE gay. ‘Same sex’ should be a pretty telling clue to that fact.

          1. This gives credence to the notion that gay men have mental defects and that will never be discussed in the Lefty media.

            Gay men are just like hetero men in every way. 100% “normal”.

            If we were honest about discussing these issues, I would be curious to know if the rates of abuse between men and prepubescent girls and men and prepubescent boys are the same, greater, or lower.

            1. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
              Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
              Hebephilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent (early adolescent) children, which is typically ages 11–14.
              Pederasty is a sexual relationship between an adult man and a pubescent or adolescent boy.
              Teleiophilia is a sexual preference for adults.
              Gerontophilia is a sexual preference for the elderly.
              List of Paraphilias

        3. I thought we were past that bigotry.

          Wear your Boy Scout skin suit with pride.

      2. A bunch of the, we’re getting raped around the time I wa s being pressured to join. Good thing I’m not much of a joiner.

  9. Charles Portis, the journalist who authored True Grit, the classic Western about a teen girl seeking revenge against her father’s killer, died on Monday at age 86.

    Abandoning us to a congress of louts.

    1. That’s big talk coming from a one-eyed fat man.

  10. And the interviewer did not let her off the hook.

    Telemundo strikes again. Bet she wishes there was a wall between her and the Mexicans now. She’ll never get their votes.

    1. They really had no one representing them anyway after Castro and O’Rourke dropped out.

    2. I watched that, it was hilarious. Guy actually did some real goddamn reporting, hats off to him.

      1. I don’t know if I’d call it reporting; Telemundo reporters are notorious for getting on any American politician that doesn’t kiss Chicano ass.

        1. fair enough. But when was the last time you think Klobuchar had to answer actual questions?

  11. Klobuchar serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on border security and immigration.

    Her jurisdiction is just the Northern frontier, to protect our wild rice fields, and walleye population.

  12. Four Democrats broke party ranks to block a so-called assault weapons ban in Virginia.

    Wonder which part of Virginia they don’t have to answer to.

    1. There is a pretty strong gun culture even in Northern Virginia. Just not as strong as in the rest of the state. The Dulles Gun Show is huge.

      1. I’ve always wanted to go to it even though the timing never worked out even when I lived 5 miles away. It seems like they have it every other month and everyone who has been has loved it

    1. holy fuck this is amazing

      1. We. Are. Fucking. Doomed.

    2. Wheres the video?

  13. “Hunter Biden works for [Archer]. So we’ve got the top level politicos with us. All of my guys, is as top tier as it gets,” a businessman named Bevan Cooney wrote in text messages released in Archer’s case.

    “You don’t get more politically connected and make people more comfortable than that.”

    https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/17/hunter-biden-coalition-ukraine/

    1. Local news, Jesse.

      Trump had no right to try to investigate a local news hoax. He should be impeached for even thinking about it.

      AND HE SAYS MEAN THINGS

      1. I keep forgetting the LOCAL NEWS editorial policy on Reason, my bad.

  14. Have I mentioned how awful Glenn Greenwald is? Here he is attacking the mainstream media with DECEPTIVELY EDITED VIDEOS:

    The US news media in all its glory

    Apparently the (ridiculous) new right-wing narrative is that the media embarrassed itself by embracing Michael Avenatti. What a bunch of nonsense. Besides, attacking the media is something Hitler did.

    1. Well.. as CNN correctly stated on Sunday, Trump causes his opponents to act like him, so Avenneti is really Trumps fault.

      1. OBL has most of the same opinions as my leftist aunt.

    2. I think you have confused attacking the media with controlling the media.

  15. The socialist and the billionaire will square off in Wednesday’s debate in Las Vegas—the first debate for which Bloomberg has qualified after his late entry into the race.

    The socialist’s soapbox versus the billionaire’s gilded lift box.

    1. The millionaire and the billionaire will square off…..

      They are both socialists.

      1. So kind of like Yoda and Palpatine? Except they both act like dumber versions of Palpatine?

  16. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/358609/

    Immigration is down and wages are up. It is almost like the laws of supply and demand apply to the labor market just like every other market. Who knew?

    1. “the laws of supply and demand”

      Warren had a plan for that

    2. Yes, the economy is so simple that you can explain everything with just two factors.

      1. Weird comment since he was discussing just the labor market, not the entire economy. I know he used multiple words instead of pictures, but figured even you could have read the whole comment.

        1. Plus, you liked what John said, so why question whether it is true.

          1. Or, it’s demonstrably true.

            Flood a market with any single good or service, and the price you can get for that good or service goes down.

            ALWAYS.

            Labor is a service. Flood a market with people offering labor and the price of labor goes down–no matter what kind of labor it is.

            Make a big enough flood and you can depress several aspects of the market–or alter the baseline forever.

            But the price of labor will not rise until that glut is accounted for.

      1. Oops, Sevo’ed the link. Second try.

        1. No, you chipper your comments, imbecile.

        2. “Mass immigration always helps the economy. If the economy is doing well and immigration is down, it’s always some other factor.”

          1. That would be taking the opposite position from John. Just maybe, there are more possible truths than either of these two extreme, cartoonish economic theories?

            1. Someone missed the joke.

              1. Goddamn Honduran stoled it.

    3. Yeah, well, immigration is down and so is Charles Koch’s net worth. That’s what’s important.

      #OpenTheBordersToHelpCharlesKoch

    4. I forget… Is Reason’s position that more immigration leads to higher wages, or is their position that the workers receiving higher wages are unfairly benefiting from immigration laws that restrict foreigners from taking their jobs?

      1. Yes.

      2. The latter, I think.

        It’s their fault for not learning to code, or something.

    5. Pretty exhaustive economic analysis there, Johnny.

      1. Correlation is not necessarily causation but it usually is. It certainly is necessary for causation. And if you are claiming it isn’t, it is on you to support the claim why it isn’t. Correlation is certainly a prima facia case for causation. Moreover, if the price of any other good or service increased after reducing its supply, you certainly would see it as causation. So, if you have some explanation why the reduction of the labor supply would not increase wages, feel free to give it.

        So just what is your exhaustive economic analysis that explains how labor acts differently to reductions in supply than every other market in the known universe?

      2. OTBE, fewer manual laborers should make the value of those that there are higher than they would be otherwise.

        I think it’s wrong to assume that rising wages for manual labor is necessarily a good thing.

        Should we be glad when the price of oil goes up, too? How ’bout the price of construction materials?

        Is it good for the economy when it costs more to build things, enjoy services, and have things delivered?

        Artificially driving up the cost of things through government intervention isn’t generally good for the economy, and just because I support the idea that our immigration policies should be set by Congress and enforced as written doesn’t mean I like the policies we have.

        1. Is it good for the economy when it costs more to build things, enjoy services, and have things delivered?

          You assume that all of the price of increased labor is passed onto the consumer. And that is just not true. Some of it will be but not all of it or maybe even any of it. What this really does is reduce the profits for employers.

          You think that is a bad thing because it has never occurred to you that employers might not have any more of a moral claim on the productivity of their employees than the employees themselves. Remember, pay can’t exceed productivity. If it did, then the business goes broke and there is no job. So as long as their is a job there the wage must be less than total productivity. So, increased wages are just workers getting more of what they produce.

          1. This place has always been hostile to the idea of wages rising and simultaneously wondering why people as a whole reject free market libertarianism. It’s hilarious. Even more so now that immigrant labor has been encroaching on traditionally white/dingy collar jobs like IT, accounting, and medicine.

            The schadenfreude is great watching people who used to sneer at blue collar workers that ‘couldn’t outcompete a Mexican with a tack hammer’, now complaining that they’ll lose their severance unless they train their replacement, Pajeet from IIT, with 10 years of experience in Microsoft Office 365.

            1. “This place has always been hostile to the idea of wages rising and simultaneously wondering why people as a whole reject free market libertarianism.”

              That isn’t so in my case. In fact, one of the arguments I hit you guys with repeatedly is how much trade with countries with cheap labor is key to rising standards of living–since being able to afford to buy more for less money is what raising the standard of living is all about. If I find a way to make the things you want to buy for less, then you have more money to buy things you couldn’t afford before.

              Rising pay is actually part of the same rising standards of living process when it’s married to productivity gains. When it takes a person eight hours to sew a shirt I can sell for $20, paying you more than about $2.00 an hour doesn’t make much sense–if I want to pay my electricity bills and rent and have something left over. If you can make one shirt an hour for eight hours a day and I can sell them for $20 a piece, then I have $160 a day to pay my bills and more money to expand and offer you a salary.

              Point being that rising pay and living standards are both tied to productivity gains–whether we’re hostile to the idea or not.

              The statistics can be skewed by including results from relatively small oil producing countries, where very few people are required to pump money out of the ground, but if you compare other countries, you’ll generally find that the more productive their workers are, the more they’re paid. When you see countries where there’s a lag between the two, it generally means one country is headed towards growth or their economy is decelerating.

              In China, their manufacturing is dominated by generally unskilled workers–they could sustain their productivity amid automation because labor was so cheap. In places like Germany, on the other hand, their workers are extremely expensive relative to China, but they’re also remarkably productive compared to Chinese workers–because they also use a lot of automation. Go find any thread about automation I’ve participated in, and you’re likely to find two things:

              1) Me arguing that rising wages are a great things when they’re a function of increases in productivity.

              2) Me arguing that it’s silly to fear automation–because if we live to see an economy where the things we want are so abundant and inexpensive because it hardly requires any manual labor to create them, the last things we’ll be worried about are low wages for our labor or the cost of living.

          2. “You assume that all of the price of increased labor is passed onto the consumer. And that is just not true. Some of it will be but not all of it or maybe even any of it. What this really does is reduce the profits for employers.”

            Profits are difference between revenues and costs, and increasing them is the means to economic growth. As technology, automation, productivity gains, trade, etc. lowers the costs, businesses become more profitable. As businesses become more profitable, they grow. If companies are willing to take on more costs because profits are growing to the extent that paying more for labor is justified, that’s one thing. If you’re artificially inflating the cost of labor by using the government to restrict the supply of labor, that’s something else entirely.

            Restricting the labor pool by requiring companies to hire union workers has a similar impact. If the money you’re forcing them to pay to employees comes at the expense of profits, consumers, investment, or expansion, then you’re hurting those companies, their shareholders, and the economy. And how could the money you’re extracting from the company not be coming out of any of those categories?

            1. Not to mention that trade with China has resulted in an increase in wages there. In the $3.00 plus there compared to 0.60 in Sri Lanka for example.

              A lot of people still have misconceptions about that place. There are major civil liberty issues but as a middle class develops that is likely to improve. The problem the government is facing in trying to control everything is eventually you can’t. It is too darn big.

              Ghengis Khan said “Conquering the world on horseback is easy; it is dismounting and governing that is hard.”

              I have similar concerns here. The bloated federal government was not supposed to happen. As a result it is ineffective and not representative. It was supposed to be a republic of states with a small limited federal government.

  17. Some good graphs on the “data adjustments” made by the NOAA over the years. Excerpts from a book discussing the raw data not adjusted.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/17/extremes-and-averages-in-contiguous-u-s-climate-part-10-the-contiguous-u-s/

  18. On Monday, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg posted an online ad that criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)—and his aggressive online supporters, the Bernie bros—for engaging in Trump-like campaign tactics.

    If only Bloomie had thought to buy the bros first.

  19. An investigation into Bloomberg funding democratic state AG offices to go after Trump politically.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-network-climate-lawyers-ag

    Begs the question on how this isnt illegal based on the inferences of Ukraine/Biden allegations.

    1. Of course not, because Democrat.

  20. “That ad came after days of stepped-up criticism from Sanders, who has called attention to Bloomberg’s support for stop-and-frisk and accused the former mayor of trying to buy the Democratic nomination.”

    Being accused by liberals of support for stop-and-frisk isn’t the worst thing that could happen to Bloomberg right now. In the short term, it’s probably a wash. Over the longer term, it’s a net benefit to Bloomberg.

    From Sanders’ perspective, basically, we’re talking about splitting the difference between the benefit of appealing to the black vote to Sanders vs. the downsides of making Bloomberg more appealing to law and order Democrat types (and that is not just exclusive to first responders and their unions).

    Plenty of registered Democrats think racism is awful, but still paid a premium to live in an all white neighborhood. Because a registered Democrat thinks Trumpistas are mean and nasty certainly doesn’t mean they don’t want the local police hassling the minority kids down the street. Of course, that isn’t the way it should be, but Bernie Sanders will win or lose based on the way things are rather than the way they should be, and the way things are, bashing Bloomberg for being pro-cop and pro-law and order is as likely to help Bloomberg with suburban Democrats as it is likely to help Sanders with the black vote.

    It’s not like the black vote was turning out for Sanders anyway. I suspect that’s probably what the Sanders campaign is thinking right about now. Might as well make a play for the black vote–even if it alienates suburban Democrats–since the suburban Democrats’ first choice is anyone other than Sanders anyway.

    1. The stop and frisk thing is very bad for Bloomberg. Bloomberg is trying to take Biden’s constituency as the reasonable moderate. That includes winning the black vote. If Bloomberg can’t win the majority of the black vote, who does he have left? The few law and order suburbanites left inside the party. And that won’t be enough to overcome Bernie.

      1. Law and order suburbanites are not few within the Democratic Party.

        They are the base of the gun control movement.

        That was why Kristen Gillebrand decided to start supporting gun control laws.

      2. I don’t buy that Biden commands the black vote–certainly not just because he was Obama’s Vice President. When blacks were turning out and voting for Obama-Biden, they weren’t turning out for Biden. They were turning out for the first black president.

        Biden’s primary appeal was to pragmatic Democrats who were voting for the person they thought was most likely to win. Biden was selling himself as the one who was mostly likely to win. He can’t sell that anymore–because if he’s the most electable candidate, then why does he keep losing? He lost in Iowa. He lost in New Hampshire. If he survives Nevada, then, after Super Tuesday, he’s probably done.

        That Biden vote is probably going to Bloomberg–and plenty of those people are the same types who aren’t necessarily turned off by Bloomberg’s law and order credentials. This is why Bloomberg should stay out of the Nevada debate, too. He’ll be pummeled by Sanders and Warren on his racism, which doesn’t help him, and if he apologizes for his law and order past, that’ll hurt him, too.

  21. http://www.zerohedge.com/political/black-and-latino-males-dont-know-how-behave-workplace-bloomberg-flashback?fbclid=IwAR3nYPENy92DLauaxc-iFv_GvshcX7kWQ9Uxk8VltwtC4r_BoQwnHN1cO-8

    Bloomberg; “black and latino males don’t know how to behave in the workplace”.

    I know the charge of racism is thrown at everything these days, but it seems Bloomberg is an actual racist. He really does see blacks and latinos as inferior and not just some but all of them by virtue of their race.

    1. And yet he picked up three [3] CBC endorsements the same week the video was leaked about his belief behind stop and frisk.

      Follow the money, he has more than enough.

      1. The Black democratic leadership doesn’t have the kind of juice with actual black voters they used to have. And they certainly don’t have any juice with Hispanic voters.

    2. I do not like defending Bloomberg, but beware quotes lifted out of context. Apparently, he said that in the course of announcing a jobs training program for minorities that he had donated a considerable amount of money for. He was apparently stating the problem the program was meant to address.

      1. I see what you are saying but too bad. I am happy to throw him to the wolves.

        1. It’s fine to take the bad guys out of context.

    3. Bloomberg is a billionaire whose experience of average Americans is limited to the interactions he has with the guy that chauffeurs his limo, and most of what he hears is confined to, “Yes sir”. I suspect the reason Trump isn’t like that is because he had to regularly interact with construction guys and hotel help all his life.
      In Bloomberg’s business, he was selling terminals to trading houses on Wall Street, so his interactions with his employees were mostly technical people and finance people. It’s a working theory anyway.

      Neither one of them have seen the inside of a grocery store in 30 years, but the chances of Bloomberg connecting with everyday people . . . he’s just hoping to maintain the illusion long enough.

      Remember that time Tom Cruise fired his long time publicist and hired his sister or someone from the Church of Scientology instead? Suddenly he was on the Today Show ranting about how Brooke Shields is evil for taking medication to treat postpartum depression and jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch screaming that he’s in love . . .

      My read is that Bloomberg must have the best publicists in the world. If you put him on camera without a script, he could say anything. He can’t tell the difference between what’s embarrassing from the perspective of average people and what isn’t. People might think Trump suffers from some of that, too, but he uses things that SJWs find embarrassing but are actually embarrassing about SJWs to the minds of average people so well, it’s like he knows average Americans better than the SJWs in the media.

      That’s how he’s able to exploit things like the NFL protests. When the SJWs call Trump a racist for calling out NFL players for disrespecting the flag, the SJWs end up embarrassing themselves. Trump can’t know average Americans better than the media and be out of touch like Bloomberg. When it comes to average Americans, Bloomberg doesn’t know our head from our asses–and he doesn’t care, which is why it comes so natural for him to make choices for us about how big our soft drinks should be.

      1. “Bloomberg is a billionaire whose experience of average Americans is limited to the interactions he has with the guy that chauffeurs his limo, and most of what he hears is confined to, “Yes sir”. I suspect the reason Trump isn’t like that is because he had to regularly interact with construction guys and hotel help all his life.”

        There’s a great bit in Rick Reilly, the sports writer’s book about caddying for a bunch of famous people, where he writes about caddying for Donald Trump while playing at one of Trump’s golf courses. During the round—after taking a bunch of calls during the round—Trump hops off the golf cart and hustles over to some maintenance guys putting in a walkway or something similar. He asks them why their doing what they’re doing, makes a few suggestions, complements them on their work, and starts handing them 50s as thank yous. Then he hops back in the cart and zooms off.

        It may have been total bullshit for the book, but the impression was of a guy who had to know everything and everyone involved with his enterprises.

        In line with your observations, I think he talks to and understands ordinary people much more than Bloomberg.

      2. Bloomberg is a billionaire whose experience of average Americans is limited to the interactions he has with the guy that chauffeurs his limo, and most of what he hears is confined to, “Yes sir”.

        His radio ads ’round these parts describe him as “a middle-class kid who had to work his way through college.”

        1. College was a long time ago.

          1. The ad writers seemed to think it was relevant.

  22. That broadening of the steel tariffs—announced in January and implemented on February 8—was supposed to offer some protection to American companies that make steel products.

    The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. Erdoğan Must learn it’s riddle.

    1. If they’re smart they’ll order Rearden Metal.

  23. Anyone else think that Bloomberg is gonna turn into another Biden? Someone that doesn’t have much in the way of voter support, outside of a media pep squad trying to push him for the DNC?

  24. The media is on average left of bernie…

    https://twitter.com/MattGrossmann/status/1213876763337658369

    And of course, their own “investigation” revealed that despite this fact… they aren’t biased.

    Truly the enemy of the people.

  25. There is hope for Greta:

    “My Teenage Life After Leaving a Cult
    I spent my childhood waiting for the apocalypse. When it never came, I grasped at anything I could to feel in control, from binge drinking to suicide….”
    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/my-teenage-life-after-leaving-a-cult?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    1. There’s millions of democrats waiting for the Trumpocalypse promised to them by the media, I imagine 2021 will see record sales of booze, painkillers, and red capes

      1. And Preparation H.

        1. That’s my problem with William Barr. He’s all preparation, and no H.

  26. Is there any presidential candidate who is probable to win who libertarians should not find someplace to hide from?

    1. lc1789 has told us all many times that Trump is the libertarian … gag …

      1. poor sock troll.

        I have unreason so mad, they send in the sock trolls to complain-ish.

        1. Which idiot is this one? There’s so many of these douchebags, and their socks anymore. I can’t keep track.

  27. Bloomberg just qualified for the debate in Nevada, participating in which is probably a mistake on Bloomberg’s part.

    Bloomberg has all sorts of momentum coming into Nevada, and all he can do is risk losing that by opening his mouth. What, he thinks he’s going to create even more momentum for himself. If you already have that momentum, why risk losing it by opening your mouth? Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. Go ask Howard Dean. They drilled him on policy. They drilled him on how to answer the tough questions. Nobody ever told him, “Don’t screech like a maniac on national television”, but then nobody thought that was necessary!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6i-gYRAwM0

    Bloomberg just being a focal point of all the other primary candidates in the debate is likely to hurt him–even when he isn’t saying anything. I’m not sure how Bloomberg does with an audience, moderators, or other candidates that are against him. Did he ever face a hostile bunch in New York City? I don’t think so.

    That’s fraught with danger.

    If I were his general counsel, I’d strongly urge him not to take the stand.

    1. He’s in a tough situation there, because he’s skipped out on all the debates and Bernie is hammering him on being a billionaire trying to buy the nomination, but none of the other establishment candidates are getting the momentum they need to take Bernie on for Super Tuesday. His support is solely due to a round-the-clock ad blitz over the last 4-6 weeks, but that’s going to wear thin pretty soon, and he’ll need to show that he can actually win a contest where he’s not getting his ass kissed.

      He’d probably be better off in the short term by staying out of it, but if he wants to actually emerge as the DNC-preferred front-runner and start getting the big-money donors over to his side, he needs to get up on the stage and fight off these attacks.

      1. Yeah, after Nevada, certainly, join them in the debates ahead of Super Tuesday in California and Texas.

        When you’re trying to win Texas, you want Bernie Sanders to accuse you of being a law and order candidate.

        In Nevada, Sanders and Warren are vying for the black vote in Las Vegas, and you’re just showing up to be their target practice. Warren calling Sanders a sexist may have won Sanders support he wouldn’t have had otherwise from suburban Democrats in New Hampshire who are sick of SJW tactics already, but calling out Bloomberg for being a racist and pro-police ahead of an election where black votes matter may not hurt anybody but Bloomberg.

        And, as we all know, what’s the defense against an SJW struggle session? Denying it doesn’t help and probably makes it worse. Apologizing won’t make it better either–it’s an admission of guilt. Standing defiant might be the best course from a strategic perspective–like Kavanaug and Trump did–but I’m not sure that won’t make the black vote turn out for Sanders or Warren and hurt Bloomberg, too.

        Better skip this one. It’s a trap.

    2. “If I were his general counsel, I’d strongly urge him not to take the stand.”

      Dunno, Ken. according to his latest ads, he’s promising to do nothing less than ‘save America!’ That’s pretty important.
      BTW, I guess he’s ‘saving America’ from a really healthy economy and fewer regulations…

      1. They’re scraping the bottom of the barrel when they try to appeal to the jobless these days.

        When we’re talking about people who have been left behind by the economy these days, we’re talking about convicted felons and meth addicts,right?

      2. BTW, I guess he’s ‘saving America’ from a really healthy economy and fewer regulations…

        And large sodas. Don’t forget the important stuff!

  28. Dershowitz claims to have an FBI 302 of obama asking the FBI to go after one of Soros’ enemies.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/obama-personally-asked-the-fbi-to-investigate-someone-on-behalf-of-george-soros-says-alan-dershowitz/

    1. He should make it public. His charge is very serious. If he has proof, he owes the public to produce it.

      1. It’s Dershowitz, he’s talking shit. He might very well have evidence, he doesn’t have proof. But like any good lawyer, it’s his job to make bombastic claims on behalf of his arguments.

        1. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is true. But, he needs to show is proof, whatever that is. Until he does that, I see no reason to pay attention to it.

  29. With regards to the Friedersdorf article, “Among liberals, however, almost a quarter said they would not have a conservative friend” seriously bothered me. That’s seriously fucked up.

    I would love to see a social study of how politics are affecting dating because women are statistically more likely to be liberal and I’ve noticed quite a bit of hostility. Like, not just respectfully avoiding someone, but people outright being dumped for their politics, being told to kill themselves, etc. despite their beliefs being polite and respectable.

    1. Progressivism is a cult for a lot of them. It really is and yes it is fucked up.

    2. “I would love to see a social study of how politics are affecting dating because women are statistically more likely to be liberal and I’ve noticed quite a bit of hostility.”

      Tim Pool, youtuber, covers this extensively. The result is a lot of sad cat women freezing their eggs and complaining that there are no real men left. It’s societies fault. Always is with the left.

      1. I used to watch Pool a lot but I tuned out from all the ecelebs because of the nonstop drama. Maybe I’ll check him out again.

        Lolcows, on the other hand, I will never grow tired of. I’d love to see Kiwifarms chronicle Hihn or the Rev.

        1. I’ll check out lolcows.

          Tim, like other media, needs to hype things for content. He’s a bit of a drama queen but he also covers the cultural beat well.

          1. lolcows isn’t a channel, it’s just a term used for really stupid people who regularly make asses of themselves online and give us free material to laugh at, hence the name lolcow. Kiwifarms is a great online forum that tracks such people.

    3. I would love to see a social study of how politics are affecting dating because women are statistically more likely to be liberal and I’ve noticed quite a bit of hostility.

      And then these Woo Girls wonder why they have such a hard time finding a decent man.

      1. Then decide to have the kids anyway, with Big Daddy Government stepping in to provide for and discipline the children.

        Normalization of single-parenthood is but one more way the Left is trying to break the pillars holding up Western Civilization.

      2. You should never discuss politics until she agrees to let you screw her in the ass.

    4. I would love to see a social study of how politics are affecting dating because women are statistically more likely to be liberal and I’ve noticed quite a bit of hostility.

      Single women are more likely to be liberal. Married women are more likely to be conservative. So politics probably only affects dating among liberals, same as it ever was.

  30. “Ex-Prosecutors Press for Barr to Step Down”
    […]
    “More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials called on Attorney General William Barr on Sunday to step down after he intervened last week to lower the Justice Department’s sentencing recommendation for President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone,” the New York Times reports.
    “They also urged current government employees to report any signs of unethical behavior at the Justice Department to the agency’s inspector general and to Congress.”
    https://politicalwire.com/2020/02/16/ex-prosecutors-press-for-barr-to-step-down/

    There’s a reason they’re “ex”.

    1. And you know what they say about receiving flak – it means you’re over the target. They’re not so much worried that Barr’s the hunter, it’s that they know they’re the prey.

      1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

        Trump’s reelection and Impeachment acquittal signal avery much non-Lame Duck President Trump that’s gonna drop the hammer on these bureaucrats who have been stealing, lying, and otherwise being corrupt government employees.

    2. Now if only 1100 current prosecutors would step down, that would be some progress.

    3. “They also urged current government employees to report any signs of unethical behavior at the Justice Department to the agency’s inspector general and to Congress.”

      Aren’t intimidation attempts against Federal employees a felony?

  31. I’m looking at the Nevada polls:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/nevada/

    Two things that are interesting:

    1) About a month ago, Biden was at 28.5%. Biden is now at 15.1%.

    About a month ago, Bloomberg wasn’t in the race. He’s now at 9.3%.

    Bloomberg is eating Biden’s lunch.

    2) The guy really sticking his thumb on the scale is Tom Steyer!

    Tom Steyer is polling at 10.6%.

    He must be spending like crazy in Nevada. I don’t think Steyer is getting anywhere near that anywhere else.

    1. “”Bloomberg is eating Biden’s lunch. “”

      Sounds something more like Sanders would do. We all know Sanders won’t bring his own lunch.

      1. ”Bloomberg is eating Biden’s lunch. “

        I bet he’s got salt on it. And he’s drinking a Big Gulp.

        1. You beat me to it.

  32. But the trade court has looked skeptically on Trump’s use of a 1962 law that grants presidential authority to implement tariffs for national security purposes.

    I’m surprised it took this long. With the original steel and aluminum tariffs, Trump at least feigned that they were about national security. And there are likely some arguments to be made that they are related. With the more recent tariffs aimed at Chinese consumer goods specifically, he doesn’t even use that excuse any more because it would sound as foolish as it is.

    The onus should be on Trump to explain specifically how his executive orders are authorized under whichever act he’s using. If it’s national security, then he should explain how nails (or whatever) are vital to our national security. Otherwise he should go to Congress with his protectionist motives.

    Trump’s unilateral use of tariffs largely shouldn’t be authorized under the law any more than Obama’s tire tariffs were. The default assumption on any government action should be that it is unconstitutional and the onus should be on the specific branch to prove that it is. Most of Trump’s tariffs fail this scrutiny.

    1. The national security argument is, basically, that it’s strategically dangerous to have ANY part of your economy dependent on a hostile country. Because it gives them leverage over you, gives them the power to crash your economy at will.

      He’s not wrong about that.

      1. Better to crash their economy preemptively I guess? Go ‘Merica!

        If that’s the case, then he should attempt to make that case. Go explain how livestock, lawnmowers, spices, juices, “Candles, tapers and the like”, “Fish glue”, etc are all vital to our economy and artificially raising the price by 7.5-15% will keep our economy afloat. It sounds almost as ridiculous as saying they are directly vital to our national security.

        But that’s not what this is about and we all know it. #NationalSecurity is simply a loophole that’s being exploited for executive overreach on tariffs. Just like it’s exploited for the TSA, FISA warrant abuses, NSA spying, drone striking American citizens.

        Congress should close the loophole. In the absence of their ability to actually respect separation of powers, then I guess we’ll rely on the courts.

        1. Fish Glue is a thing?….why yes it is.

          Ya know these folks who buy the line about how tariffs protect the economy. It is not difficult to convince the crowds of anything if you know what you are doing. In fact it is easier to obtain power and keep it if there is a collective threat. Today it is China. Few decades ago it was Japan. Now Vietnam is the good partner to trade with.

          This has been known throughout history.

          “One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.” Machiavelli

  33. Charles Portis, the journalist who authored True Grit, the classic Western about a teen girl seeking revenge against her father’s killer, died on Monday at age 86.

    That novel is very good, and it’s a fairly quick read. It’s also interesting to compare it to the two movie versions.

    1. Never read it but have been rewatching westerns lately and just saw the John Wayne version. Good flick.

  34. Shikha wrote about this like a year ago, about how the left is a bunch of weak, unorganized losers who lash out, resulting in the right’s counter punch.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/05/bernie-sanders-tells-supporters-to-knock-off-the-violence/

    It’s going to get uglier as democrats continue to push their victim narratives and end-of-days ideas onto the weak and dumb.

    1. So. Let me see. Shecky honked about something a year ago. You, evidently, gleaned enough from the rant that you can recall it an entire year later and can find it relevant. Might I suggest a moderate calibre with which to shoot yourself?

  35. The increasingly nasty sniping between Sanders and Bloomberg suggests that each man sees the other as his biggest rival.

    The gingham dog and the calico cat

    1. “I wasn’t there; I simply state…what was told to me by the Chinese plate”

      I’m guessing the Chinese plate represents Google…but what about the Old Dutch Clock?

      1. Dutch, Belgians, they’re practically the same thing. And you know that we’re not allowed to do anything without the permission of our betters in the EU.

  36. Moderate Democrats have already voted with Republicans to kill a bill that would make it a felony to “recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm” in a way that endangers a minor,

    also known as “keeping and bearing arms”.

    1. “recklessly”

      What if it is done with care and precision?

  37. “Trump’s authoritarian tendencies are naked on his Twitter feed,”

    If they’re so naked, why not give some examples?

    1. Well, everybody knows…

    2. You know who else’s authoritarian tendencies are naked on his Twitter feed? If not, I’ll give you a big hint:

      “Now would be a good time to throw a big cocktail party in New York or Washington, and invite every single conservative writer you know. #RedWedding2”

      https://twitter.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12

      For those of you who aren’t familiar with Game of Thrones, the “Red Wedding” was a surprise massacre.

      Has Trump ever said that everyone he dislikes and disagrees with should be murdered? I really don’t think so, but if someone knows otherwise, please prove me wrong!

      1. Ouch. Not a good look for Welch.

  38. Thats not a nightmare.
    …just means that Trumpy gets another four years, and no Dem idiot in the WH.
    Putin would be a better choice than Pie in the sky, crazy Bernie.
    Bernie should be hung for being a socialist and trying to destroy this country.
    And Bloomberg just wants to be a bigger deal at the links than Trumpy.

  39. “Bloomberg is right that Sanders’ supporters can be awful and trollish, and that Sanders has not done enough to tamp down the toxicity.”

    Why is it the job of a candidate to police supporters?

    1. Because leadership.

      1. I would not spend much time critiquing my supporters. But his near total inability to deal with protesters trying to silence him should be disqualifying.

  40. “”Why is it the job of a candidate to police supporters?”‘

    It’s not, but the left has been very vocal about if group X supports you, then you are the reason for group X. For Trump it was white supremacist. So if Sanders can’t tamp down the toxicity, then he is the reason for toxicity by that view.

    1. Bernie also defends and incites the violence from his cultists, so there’s that.

  41. Plus: Virginia’s assault weapon ban gets shot down,

    All gun control laws are unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

    1. If only SCOTUS treated an actual Amendment with anywhere near the deference they treat a laughable ruling like Roe.

      1. +100000000

  42. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour….click here===►► Read more

  43. So, it comes down to everything the Democrat Party pretends to despise (but secretly embodies) vs. everything the Democrats USED to pretend they weren’t.

  44. Kent State ‘gun girl’ confronted by protesters at Ohio University

    Look at all those Lefties trying to hurt, Bennett, this Civil Rights supporting college student.

    1. I’d come and take it, if you know what I mean.

      1. You would have to “shoot” her full of holes, if you know what I mean.

  45. Trump fires back after Obama claims credit for economic boom: ‘Con job’

    1. Even most Lefties admit the economy is doing great from 2017-2020.
    2. Even Eric Boehm admits the economy is doing great thanks to the quantity of TDS laden shit piles that Boehm writes up.

  46. Peace deal with US to be signed by months’ end, Taliban says

    Let’s keep our fingers crossed that Obama goes nowhere near this potential peace deal. The USA might be out of Afghanistan someday soon, thanks to Trump’s desire to put America first.

    1. 2020: Negotiations with the Taliban. That didn’t take long.

      1. Trump’s been trying for awhile. Anytime the sides get close, some warlord attacks the ANA or police, or we get a green on blue. My guess is that some elements in Pakistan, getting filthy rich off ISAF’s presence, don’t really want the US to leave.

        1. I mean, if you were the local puppet gov’t, would you want the Yanks who were the only thing keeping you in control to go? Especially considering what the Afghanis like to do to each other?

      2. Pretty quick for Trump who has constant 5th Columnists in the USA undermine peace, Democrats trying to Impeach him over nothing, and bureaucrats in the federal government more interested in #Resistance than saving Americans from dying on foreign soil.

  47. Trump-like campaign tactics”

    thats real cute I guess you don’t remember the Democrat adds of Bush pushing little old ladies off cliffs.

    1. or when the democrats put out flyers in minority communities that gave a different date for voteing and claimed the adds wee from the GOP. or how about when they slashed teh tires of GOP buses that were there to take people to vote

      1. I gotta admit I don’t remember this. (I was in grade school for 9/11, so could be just me being too young). You got sources?

  48. Bloomberg getting the nomination is a nightmare scenario for the Democrats. It would be a wonder to watch how they would get behind a candidate who could be said to have “bought” the nomination. With Bernie, they would have some semblances to ideological purity to stand on.

    1. Communist or sexist plutocrat, how low the Democrats have fallen.

      (Not really, actually, as people are starting to realize, they’ve always been like this.)

  49. The increasingly nasty sniping between Sanders and Bloomberg suggests that each man sees the other as his biggest rival.

    No. Bloomberg sees Bernie as the frontrunner because he is. Bernie is using Bloomberg as the perfect boogieman to rile up his supporters and other Dem primary voters. I doubt Bernie thinks Bloomberg has much of a chance.

    1. Plus, Bloomberg is paying for anti-Trump ads that Bernie cannot afford.

  50. How can a millionaire who owns three houses be a socialist?
    He must be lying for political gain. Abuse of candidacy?

    1. Well, if one looks at the wealth of political leaders of Socialist/Communist states, it is a fit to the pattern.

    2. Communists call them Dachas.

  51. Is Bloomberg vs. Sanders (vs. Trump) the 2020 Nightmare Scenario?

    I mean, not really.

    1. Trump is going to win. I can live with that. Though I will admit I thought he was a sure loser all they way to the end last time so don’t put money down on my predictions.

    2. Sanders gets elected, he gets nothing done. You think Republicans hate Trump, you have no idea how badly the Democratic party has been trying to dump Sanders. The Bernie Bros are going to demand he seize the means of production, he’s going to try to walk a line as a ‘social democrat’ and the rest of the DNC is going to oppose him simply because he’s not one of them. Odds-on Sanders doesn’t make it through a whole term without *one of his own supporters* trying to assassinate him.

    3. Fuck Bloomberg. He’s about to find out exactly how much of an election you can buy. Clinton could have told him ‘not a whole one’ if he’d have asked.

  52. If you want to be president of a country—any country—it’s probably a good idea to be at least a little bit familiar with the leaders of neighboring countries that are also major economic partners. Unfortunately, both billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer and U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) flubbed on-camera interviews with Telemundo when they couldn’t name the president of Mexico: Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

    I live 10 miles from Mexico and I couldn’t have told you his name. Most of the Mexican-Americans I associate with couldn’t either. Yet we manage a thriving cross-border trade . . .

    Something for a libertarians to consider – if our government stopped trying to manage trade then there might not be any need to ‘be familiar’ with those ‘in power’.

    1. Something for a libertarians to consider – if our government stopped trying to manage trade then there might not be any need to ‘be familiar’ with those ‘in power’.

      Our government isn’t “trying to manage trade”, it’s trying to keep the US functioning as best it can against hostile foreign regimes like China and Iran. The fact that this sometimes involves interfering with trade is an unpleasant necessity.

  53. “Republicans should stop making excuses for Trump’s budget deficits”

    And Reason should stop pretending that a $1 trillion deficit in a $22 trillion economy is no different than a $1 trillion deficit in a $15 trillion economy.

    Trump’s deficits are bad, but in terms of GDP they’re not as large as those during the Obama or even Reagan administrations. Even Milton Friedman got this.

  54. The notion that Trump is unusually “authoritarian” or anti-libertarian comes exclusively from the propaganda of the most authoritarian, anti-libertarian corners of the far-left.

    The only way this election is actually a “worst-case scenario for libertarians” is if the Democrat wins.

  55. it’s easy to imagine Sanders consolidating the progressive lane and centrist Democrats lining up behind Bloomberg for lack of a better alternative

    I guess Boehm is tacitly admitting now that “progressive” means “communist” and that “centrist Democrat” means “plutocrat”.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

  56. I gave up on Democrats and Republicans long ago.

    The whole thing is one big crappy reality show. They just change hats every now and then.

    If you don’t vote your conscience you have given it away to grifters and con men.

    Vote Libertarian.

    1. I will vote Libertarian again once the Democrat Party is utterly destroyed.

  57. “On Monday, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg posted an online ad that criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)—and his aggressive online supporters, the Bernie bros—for engaging in Trump-like campaign tactics.”
    But, of course, when Bloomberg with his billions engages in Trump-like campaign tactics, That’ll be just fine for Democrats.

  58. Reason contributors preparing to endorse the eventual nominee in 3, 2, 1… because of tweets.

  59. So growing weed and wine in the same place doesn’t work.

    I can understand that. Napa is wine country. The weed has a strong smell and could affect soil composition and all that.

  60. I made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m aade such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve mabout it. Here’s what I’ve been doing……. Read more

  61. Home based job to make every month more than $19k by doing very easy work on laptop or Mobile just in part time. Last month i have received $16822 from this job by giving this 4 hrs maximum a day online. Very easy work to do and earning from this are just crazy. Everybody can now makes more cash online by joining this job from the website given below……. Read more  

  62. Home based job to make every month more than $19k by doing very easy work on laptop or Mobile just in part time. Last month i have received $16822 from this job by giving this 4 hrs maximum a day online. Very easy work to do and earning from this are just crazy. Everybody can now makes more cash online by joining this job from the website given below….. Read more

Comments are closed.