War on Drugs

Trump Uses Clemency To Help Drug War Victims, Reward GOP Donors, and Spite James Comey

Plus: China boots three reporters, megacities are getting a smaller share of growth than they used to, and Dems gather to debate in Las Vegas..


President Donald Trump granted clemency to 11 individuals on Tuesday, including former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was serving a 14-year prison sentence for a variety of political crimes including a scheme to sell an appointment to the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

While much of the media coverage focused on Blagojevich and some of the other high-profile names on Trump's clemency list (more on that in a moment), there are others whose names you don't know but probably should.

People like Crystal Munoz, who spent the past 12 years in prison for a nonviolent drug offense. Munoz was convicted in 2007 of assisting a marijuana smuggling operation because she drew a map of a dirt road near Big Bend National Park in Texas. That map was used by drug smugglers, and the Drug Enforcement Administration eventually traced it back to Munoz, who got a 19-year prison sentence despite the fact that she never possessed or sold any of the drugs.

Nothing about Munoz's case suggests that the 40-year-old mother of two girls is a danger to society who needs to be kept in a cage—she's just another person in an endless line of drug war victims. Thankfully, Trump's clemency order will allow her to return to her family.

People like Munoz are "are the forgotten majority of the country's crisis in mass incarceration, a crisis that disproportionately impacts lower-income communities and communities of color, and they are every bit as deserving of a second chance," said Holly Harris, executive director of the Justice Action Network, a criminal justice reform nonprofit that advocated for Munoz's release. In a statement, Harris said she hopes Trump will "use this executive power to grant more commutations and clemencies in due course for any of the thousands of deserving individuals who are neither rich, nor famous, nor connected."

Being rich and famous does seem to help, though. Blagojevich, a former contestant on Trump's Celebrity Apprentice, seems to have ended up on Trump's radar after Patricia Blagojevich made several appearances on Fox News to plead for her husband's release. Trump also granted a full pardon to Michael Milken, a financier who served two years in prison in the early 1990s after being convicted by then-federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani is now Trump's personal attorney and Milken is a top Republican donor who reportedly watched the 2018 election results at the White House. Another pardon went to Paul Pogue, the owner of a Texas construction company who spent three years in prison for filing a false tax return. Pogue has also donated hefty sums to the Trump campaign.

While some of yesterday's clemency recipients were forgotten people, Trump is clearly using his power to settle some political scores too.


China ousted three Wall Street Journal reporters in retribution for what the Chinese government said were racially discriminatory and slanderous opinion pieces. In a column published on February 3, Journal opinion writer Walter Russell Mead referred to China as "the real sick man of Asia"—a phrase with historical connotations unflattering to China.

Three journalists booted from the country work for the Journal's news-gathering operation, not its opinion section. Recognizing that distinction, however, would first require a healthy respect for a free press—something that China's government seems uninterested in cultivating.


"Rich places are getting richer, but economic activity isn't becoming more concentrated in a few dominant places. In fact, economic activity—as measured by total income—is less concentrated in a handful of top metro areas today than it has been during most of the past half-century," reports The New York Times in a deep dive into population and economic growth.

Despite the perception that economic growth is clustering in a few megacities, the real concentration is taking place in mid-sized-to-large cities, the Times reports. The share of economic activity taking place in America's five largest cities has actually declined in recent decades, but the share of activity taking place in metro areas ranked 11th through 50th has grown.

In general, places are either getting bigger but not richer (like Las Vegas and Phoenix), or richer but not bigger (like the Connecticut suburbs of New York City). The places that are growing their wealth and their population are more like Austin, Texas, rather than San Francisco or New York.


Tonight's Nevada primary debate will be the first to include former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has blasted into second place in some polls after an expensive advertising blitz. He's not likely to get a warm welcome from his fellow candidates, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), in particular, is ready to go on the attack.

There will be plenty of fodder for the anti-Bloomberg crowd. Expect his longstanding support for (and explicitly racist defense of) stop-and-frisk policing to be a factor. And his track record of making demeaning comments about women. And the fact that, as recently as last year, he was caught on tape referring to transgender individuals as "a man wearing a dress." Indeed, if there is any political capital left in the so-called "woke primary," Bloomberg can expect to be on the receiving end of all of it.


NEXT: The FBI's Sloppy FISA Surveillance Is Exposed

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

  1. NHS staff can refuse to treat racist or sexist patients under new rules
    The NHS will soon bar discriminatory patients from non-critical care - powers that currently only cover aggression or violence.

      1. I guess the new Social Score gives that rating of how sexist and racist you are.

      2. Easy litmus test. Upon arrival at the hospital, anyone not apologizing for being a white male is denied service.

      1. The little boy had the courage to say the King was naked. I choose to have the courage to say that a transgender “woman” with a swinging dick is a man.

        At least he got that right.

      2. Just clear up the ambiguity, do you mean "bad-news man" or "bad news-man"?

    1. What the progressives pearl clutch about the private sector doing they accept from the public sector.

      1. “ What the progressives pearl clutch about the private sector doing they accept from encourage in the public sector.”


      2. They think they have a chance of controlling the government and public policy, but have no idea how to achieve (and even distaste for) equivalent success in the business world.

    2. It does happen that a black or Asian doctor for example will show up to see a patient and racist comments will ensue. It is a tough situation ethically because you are supposed to be nonjudgmental and neutral as a medical professional but you are still a human being. The proper thing might be to find someone else to do the job.

      Don’t see why the NHS needs to get involved.

  2. President Donald Trump granted clemency to 11 individuals on Tuesday, including former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich...

    Who immediately sold it to another inmate.

    1. How much do you want for letting me take the credit for creating that joke?

        1. Son of a bee sting. I knew that was too obvious for me to come up with it first.

    2. The other inmates will miss his fn gold thing

      1. They can always have fun time on erotik chat

  3. It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president


    1. I never in my life could have ever hoped these people would ever tear their masks off in the way they have the last 4-5 years.

      1. Social media has destroyed the left. It amplified their usual bubble; they have no idea what they sound like to outsiders after all the outsiders have been banned from Twitter and FaceBook. They spend their days whipping each other up into a frenzy of hate online.

        1. And it has destroyed the media along with the left. Journalists have no idea how hard their editors and producers have to work to make them seem smart and reasonable. Journalists actually think the world needs to hear their unfiltered thoughts. Needless to say, that is not a good look for them.

          1. This has been the greatest and most clarifying realignment of political commentators we'll probably ever see in our lifetimes. If Trump did nothing else we should be thankful for that.

            1. Disinfecting the party of most of the neocon punditry by his mere presence will do more good in the long run than anything else he might have accomplished.

              Like their friends on the establishment left, they're mired in a mid-2000s mindset and haven't been able to figure out why their old tropes haven't made any headway with the people they're trying to influence. That article in Bulwark advising a Romney/Bloomberg ticket epitomizes how utterly clueless they are about the current political landscape.

              1. "That article in Bulwark advising a Romney/Bloomberg ticket epitomizes how utterly clueless they are about the current political landscape."

                Holy shit. You're not kidding. Or reading from the Babylon Bee. How fucking deluded do you have to be to write that? Or to think Bloomberg would take a VP position? Romney may get primaried out of his Senate seat, and this clown thinks the nation is clamoring for him to take Trump's job?!

          2. As I noted yesterday, the average journalist is to the left of Bernie Sanders. They should be mocked and scorned and reminded daily that they are scum.

            1. They just might whip themselves into a violent mob at the Dem convention if they don't get their way. A mob has a mind of its own.

              1. Pure projection. You rightwingers are so fucked up in the head. Trumpism is a mental disorder.

                  1. I've noticed almost anytime when someone accuses another of projection, it reads more like a self-diagnosis.

                    Also, the idea that 'Trumpism' is a mental disorder is so far removed from simple critical thought that it's probably closer to an actual mental disorder. One could hate him with every fiber and still understand that other rational people might not without just lazily assigning 'mental disorder'.

                    1. "I’ve noticed almost anytime when someone accuses another of projection, it reads more like a self-diagnosis."

                      I dunno. The Left projects. A lot. I don't advocate violence, and I abhor the politicization of seemingly everything these days, along with the attendant polarization of discourse. I used to get along fine with Leftists---they dominate the population of people who share many of my interests---but it's hard to get along with people who increasingly feel free to tell you that they want you subjugated or dead.

                      That said, I truly don't understand the vehemence so many feel towards Trump. Obama was far more authoritarian and officious, not to mention incompetent and ignorant of basic economics, and people didn't express this kind of constant hatred for him.

                    2. at Gray_Jay,

                      yes but Obama didn't post mean or childish tweets.

                    3. It’s a purity instinct. Humans have a strong bent towards purification, probably from cave days, when it had survival advantage. This is expressed in most religions - washing hands, baptism, etc - and Trump is seen as impure due to his vulgar, crude manner of speaking. The revulsion is visceral, and runs deep.

                    4. "The Left projects. A lot."

                      Definitely, it like their standard operating procedure at this point.

                      "I used to get along fine with Leftists—they dominate the population of people who share many of my interests- but it’s hard to get along with people who increasingly feel free to tell you that they want you subjugated or dead."

                      yuuuuuppppp for real.

                1. The Whole World is Watching...again.

                2. Which party actually has a history of riots at their conventions? Hint it ain't the GOP.

      2. I know, right? Locking up Central American and Mexican children in cages and isolated from their parents! They really jumped the shark.

        1. Obama locked up the most in 2012. FYI

          1. It’s amazing they keep using the kids in cages example. When the initial picture came out that started the whole outrage was exposed as being from 2014, I assumed that they would just take the L and push it down the memory hole.

            Well, they pushed the picture itself down the memory hole, but still kept up with the narrative, that had already been exposed as bullshit.

            It really is a sign of mental illness.

        2. This program was a result of a court ruling which required separation to protect the kids from "sexual predators" and "sex traffickers". The court ruling predates Trump's Presidency. The original lawsuit was brought by immigration rights activist and the ACLU to "help the kids". Once again their good intentions blew up in their fucking face and here you are idiotically blaming Trump for something the courts ordered done before he became President.

          1. Educate yourself, man. Trump admin officials described the policy as a deterrent against border crosser in their own internal memos that got leaked. Don't be such a dupe.

            And all you other morons saying "but Obama...", first who gives a shit about Obama, second, the family separation policy was 100% a Trump invention. Family separations at the border were rare during Obama's presidency. They became required during Trump's presidency.


            1. first who gives a shit about Obama

              "Please ignore our double standards while we limp out about the Bad Orange Man."

  4. "Trump Uses Clemency To Help Drug War Victims, Reward GOP Donors, and Spite James Comey"

    So like he did good?

    1. Objection, argumentative.

      You know there's not a court in the land that wouldn't sustain that objection - you can't just argue that you can correctly ascertain the motives for the actions. It's why the Senate impeachment failed - there was no smoking gun of Trump actually being recorded saying the only reason he was threatening to withhold the aid from Ukraine was to force them to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and that the reason he wanted an investigation of Joe Biden was to knee-cap his most likely political opponent. Assume all you want about the motives, without proof of the motives you got nothing any court is going to accept as evidence.

      1. I kind of doubt you meant to respond to me. But I'll take it.

        1. Well, just responding to the quoted part, not your comment on it.

      2. Are you seriously suggesting that Trump would have been convicted if there was proof of his motivation?

        He could have bragged about it on twitter and never been convicted.

        1. He could have bragged about it on twitter and never been convicted.

          Uh, pretty sure we have historical precedent for what happens when a President self-incriminates like that.

          1. Idiots like to make up shit and present it as evidence.

          2. "Uh, pretty sure we have historical precedent for what happens when a President self-incriminates like that."

            Yes, the Senate votes to acquit.

    2. FTA: "While some of yesterday's clemency recipients were forgotten people, Trump is clearly using his power to settle some political scores too."

      Do you think Reason would take this tact for pardons related to people J Edgar Hoover went after?

    3. Unpossible. Trump is bad. Always and everywhere bad. All bad things are Trump. From even before he was born. Bad, bad, bad.

  5. Why didn’t Jesse Jackson Jr. get 14 years too?

  6. Trump Uses Clemency To Help Drug War Victims, Reward GOP Donors, and Spite James Comey

    TRUMP: Best President in US History (Thanks to Democrats).

    1. You're pathetic. If we ever get a dictator it'll be because of people like you. I bet you have a Trump flag in your house.

      1. ...says the guy who would happily vote for Bloomberg who actually had NY State law overturned to give him an additional term as governor.

        1. and is an actual bona-fide racist who pushed actual, bona-fide racist policies in New York. Unreal.

        2. He's right in the fact that the left never has "dictators", instead they have messiahs, prophets and god-kings.
          Look at how his ilk saw Obama, how they called him the "light-bringer", and how they pissed themselves with pleasure because he directly ruled with a "pen and a phone".
          Look at all their authoritarian leaders; Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Xi Jinping, Castro, Mussolini, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Hoxha, Krenz, Zhivkov, ad nauseam... They weren't regarded as simple dictators by their acolytes like Pinochet or Franco were. They were messiahs and god-men.

          White left-wing political ideology today has a sacral and religious function to its folks like A Leftist, and that why he's blind to the authoritarian nature of his faith. The "dictators" can only be on the devils side to him.

      2. Almost every single dictator of the 20th century were progressives and many were some form of socialist. Even Fascism was a form of progressivism. So much so that the progressive hero FDR sent his advisors to Italy to copy Italian fascist programs as part of his New Deal.

        1. They also liked Adolf, at least until he attacked the Soviet Union.

  7. Why South Bend residents are warning America about Pete Buttigieg

    Buttigieg is getting some South Bend Butt action rather than him always screwing South Bend over.

    1. Can anyone explain to me how a so obviously manufactured candidate is in the top 5? Anyone else find it strange how someone who has 0 credentials, 0 name recognition and 0 accomplishments is being elevated to the level he has?

      1. He has a lot of big money gay donors is the only thing I can figure. Buttigieg is the least qualified person ever to contend for a major party nomination.

        1. There isn't a single more qualified gay candidate in the entire country? seems odd.

          1. Yes it does. The other funny thing about Buttigieg is that he isn't attracting much support from the gay community. He is just too normal and middle class for them.

          2. Maybe other gay politicians dont want that kind of scrutiny that you get when you run for President.

            That and losing to Trump clearly takes its toll on people. Look at Hillary.

            Maybe a strategy is to wait for 2024 to run.

            Different strokes for different folks.

            1. Butt is merely raising his profile for 24, obv.

              1. Probably but getting beaten badly by Trump will not help him in 2024.

                Doing well in a Democrat Primary and then bowing out gracefully might.

                1. The "Romney in '08" strategy.

          3. David Geffen comes to mind as more qualified, and openly gay. Doubt he wants the hassle. I'm sure there are others more qualified than Mayor Pete.

            Hell, ex-Houston Mayor Annelise Parker is a lesbian, and dealt with a much bigger city's issues than Buttigieg ever dreamed of. No way would she get past the giggle stage of running for President.

        2. He has a lot of big money gay donors is the only thing I can figure.

          That fiasco with the Shadow app in Iowa shows that he's a lot more connected with the inner circle of the party than most people realized. Keep in mind that he ran for head of the DNC recently, and even though he lost, kept his name relevant enough to get sufficient media attention to justify a Presidential run.

          And then there's his connections to the spook community (he was an intel officer in the Reserves), which mirrors the large number--around 60% in 2018, if I recall correctly--of former military intel officers and CIA/NSC employees that the Democrats ran for office.

          I don't doubt that he has a lot of wealthy donors from the gay community, but I don't think they make up the bulk of his support. They're going to be more likely to support someone like Bernie.

        3. I dispute that. That record belongs to Obama.

          1. I am eagerly awaiting the revelations, 20 or so years from now, where it comes out that he was at least bisexual, if not mostly homosexual, and that the White House press corps collectively decided not to mention it. I mean, would anybody really be surprised?

            Still, you wonder why Hillary wouldn't have used that knife in the 2008 primary fight if it was true. Maybe because it could have been turned right back onto her?

          2. Cough cough Lincoln, cough.

            1. Well James Buchanan probably was gay. Go look at his correspondence with Rufus King. Andrew Jackson calling King, 'Miss Nancy', is one of the more hilarious parts of the whole thing.

              The more things change...

      2. He was made in a McKinsey lab. They have massive datasets on the population and can fine tune all the talking points to hit emotional triggers.

      3. Look at who his dad was. pete looks like he was groomed to be the candidate of cultural marxists who have now largely taken over large swaths of both Hollywood and Universities. Pete has Harvard, the Military, and many connections to corporate elitists as well as Hollywood. His comments are basically non answers. He is taking non controversial stances on virtually everything (except abortion).

        1. he is the gay white Obama.

      4. Because he has 0 credentials, 0 name recognition and 0 accomplishments. Have you seen the other candidates who do have credentials and name recognition and accomplishments? If your choice is among a poke in the eye, a punch in the nose, a kick in the crotch, or a mystery bag, you're going to be tempted to go for the mystery bag. It's a large part of how Trump won - we don't know how bad he might be but we damn sure know how bad Hillary will be.

        1. This is a solid point. Difference with Trump is he was all name recognition though.

          1. +1000

            Plus, nobody who was married to or friends with Trump said anything bad about him.

      5. The CIA wants to try their hand at king making? You've got me.

        Mayor to President. Not to Governor, not to Rep or Senator, not even to mayor of his state's largest city: Nope, straight to President. Seems a bit much. At least Obama gave a keynote speech at one of the Party Conventions, which I thought was the signal that this guy/gal was an up and comer. Buttigieg came out of nowhere.

        1. BTW: No group wants to make the King unless they know that they can control him.

  8. Trump will get zero political gain from commuting Blagojavich's sentence or pardoning Milken. He seems to have done both because he genuinely feels the two were screwed by DOJ and they were.

    Trump is the first President in my lifetime who seems to have an actual interest in using his pardon and commutation power to right wrongs rather payoff donors and score political points. Yet, in the upside down world of Washington DC, it is Trump who has the bad character not the people who created those wrongs or refuse to fix them.

    1. I disagree with this. He is doing this just to poke his finger in the eye of his political opponents. He just happens to have all the right enemies.

      1. Maybe, but how does commuting Blagojavich do that? He is a Democrat. And Guilliani was the guy who prosecuted Milkin.

        1. Didn’t Blagojavich shake down a children’s hospital?

          1. I mean, how many politicians haven't wanted to shake down a children's hospital?

            Those kids sit around all day and do nothing. The kids wont be future Democrats. They rake in millions in donations from sympathetic Americans.

          2. No, that was Michelle Obama.
            Michelle had a $350k public relations no-show job created for her, that strangely went infilled after she left. One of the many under-reported stories about your favorite Democrats

          3. I don't know about that.
            But he was shitty as a corrupt Chicago politician. Not only did he get caught on tape being too honest, but he also failed to get any money or take any action.
            8 years was probably enough

        2. It should also be noted that Giuliani supports the pardon of Milkin.

        3. Blagojevich appeared on Trump's reality TV show.

          1. And was convicted of various things related to political corruption. Trump sees a fellow traveler in Blago.

            1. What political corruption was Trump convicted of?

              1. He just likes to make up shit and use it as evidence.

                1. And blame Trump for shit that happened/started long before he became President.

              2. Trump lies to you too. You're not in on it; you're just a pathetic toady.

                1. Tell us more about those dedicated public servants who have to lie to get the Bad Orange Man.

    2. I forget the details about Blagojevich. But didn't he claim he was railroaded or that Barry was somehow indirectly involved with his arrest? That it was all 'understood' how things were done in Illinois? I forget.

      He was wrong but 14 years? Retarded. Meanwhile, Hilary walks free for all the mayhem she has caused.

      1. Governors give Senate appointments to big donors and in return for political favors all of the time. It is not like any of them review resumes and conduct an interview process. The only thing Blagojevich did was say in so many words what he was doing.

        1. Plus, it appeared that Blagojevich was a the sacrificial lamb to keep the feds from looking into all the other illegal stuff that happens in Chicago.

          Maybe Trump thinks Blagojevich might talk openly about who did what, now that he's out of prison.

          1. I would love to hear what he has to say. But, given the history of organized crime involvement in Chicago politics, I doubt he would live long enough to say much.

            1. "But, given the history of organized crime involvement in Chicago politics, I doubt he would live long enough to say much."

              We could put him in protective Federal custody! Someplace with guards, controlled access, 24 hour surveillance: where no one could get to him!! Just like Jeffrey....

              Oh yeah. Sorry.

              1. “ We could put him in protective Federal custody! Someplace with guards, controlled access, 24 hour surveillance: where no one could get to him!!”

                An office in the WH!!

                1. I don't want Trump to die. I voted for him, and will vote for him.

                  But, as I've said before here, the schwerpunkt of Trumpism is Trump. There isn't a replacement Trump waiting in storage if something should happen to this one. There also doesn't look like there's widespread support in the GOP to keep Trump's ideas going. The reciprocal tariffs would go away instantly, for example. Ditto the emphasis on border security.

                  A lot of the problems Trump's enemies have with the current situation, go away if Trump does. I can't be the only person this has occurred to.

                  1. I agree and hope the Secret Service does their job.

                    1. The biggest danger to Trump's life will start on November 4th if he is victorious. The left has already shown the past couple of years their willingness to use violence to "resist".

          2. That would be awesome, but he’d probably get suicided.

        2. See: Kelly Loeffler
          (And the hit job by Club for Growth on Doug Collins)

      2. The idiot was selling government seats. How is that somehow up for debate for not being wrong? Ask Illinoisans- they hate the guy. He's a piece of garbage just like the pres.

        1. No one says it is right. But the fact that every governor in both parties does the exact same thing does argue against him being sent to prison for 14 years.

          1. I don’t think it’s a good look to free this guy, especially with all the other travesties of justice that go on in this country. Why does this guy get a pass?

            1. Trump's also making a point that all those other travesties of justice you mention are potentially being allowed by that same corrupt DOJ that went after these examples.

              You and I might want more politicians prosecuted for their illegal acts. The DOJ bureaucrats might have other targets in mind and turn a blind eye to other criminals.

              Trump cannot really fire bureaucrats, so getting them to leave by making their work lives unbearable is paying dividends.

            2. He didn't get a pass. He still is a felon and spent over a decade in federal prison.

              1. He didn’t have to serve the full term like so many others have to.

                I like a lot of what Trump does, but this one sends the wrong message. Blagojavich got a pass that a lot of other people don’t get, and his case is not sympathetic at all. He should’ve been left to rot just like a lot of way more sympathetic Illinois citizens are.

                1. But his term was outrageously long. He didn't deserve what he got. The fact that he is not the only one doesn't make commuting his sentence less worthy. Every bad sentence that is commuted is a good thing.

                  1. I agree John here. The guy did 8 years in prison. That's good enough for most crimes.

                2. Most politicians dont get prosecuted for the corrupt shit they do.

                  Even if they get indicted, some skate when average people dont get that luxury.

                  Even if they get convicted big names dont always get hard time like average people do.

                  Trump is playing another game of chess with this round of Executive mercy and Lefties dont even see what coming.

          2. "But the fact that every governor in both parties does the exact same thing "

            I'll appreciate your source on that.

            1. Again,
              See: Kelly Loeffler

        2. The idiot was selling government seats. How is that somehow up for debate for not being wrong?

          In Trumpworld, outright corruption is only wrong if Democrats are punished for it as well. If Democrats aren't punished as much as Republicans are punished, then corruption is a-ok!

          1. Blogovich is a Democrat you fucking moron.

            1. He can’t stop saying shit that’s either dumb or dishonest.

            2. Yesterday he said that Hillary Clinton was executed, lol.

          2. “ In Trumpworld, outright corruption is only wrong if Democrats are punished for it as well. If Democrats aren’t punished as much as Republicans are punished, then corruption is a-ok!”

            Equal justice under the law. You agin it??

            1. No, I'm for it. But the proposition that is constantly floated around here - either equal justice, or no justice - is also untenable.

              1. Executive officials have the power of clemency. Trump wanted to undermine the Lefty bureaucrats who think they are invincible in the DOJ and FBI.

                That's equal justice in my book.

          3. Fuck you're a dishonest idiot, Chemleft.

            Governor Blagojevich was your average hypocritical Democrat politician:
            "While in office, Blagojevich signed much progressive legislation such as ethics reform, a state Earned Income Tax Credit, a statewide comprehensive smoking ban and expansions of health programs like KidCare and FamilyCare. Blagojevich signed a Gay Rights bill in 2005. Blagojevich originally campaigned against pork barrel spending, but eventually used it himself to gain more votes for bills."

            1. Fuck off.

              1. You seem stressed.

                You should take a cruise around East Asia.

              2. After Hillary Clinton was executed, was she resurrected, or did she have herself cloned?

              3. Why? Because he made you look like the idiot you are? Almost everyone posting today knew what party Blago belonged to. Yet here you come, without even taking half a second to Google the facts, claiming Trump did this because Blago is a Republican. You get corrected and your response is to say "fuck off"? Oh he cussed at you also, but you were the one who was so fucking wrong.

              4. Hahaha, that's all you have left in your big bag o' cheap lies? Media Matters didn't supply you with a Blagojevich cheat sheet?

                Fucking dishonest fifty-center.

    3. He seems to have done both because he genuinely feels the two were screwed by DOJ and they were.

      Uh huh. Sure.

      It's because he is rewarding his friends.

      1. One of his friends is a former Democratic governor of Illinois?

        Why don't you just stop for a while. Even I am starting to feel sorry for you.

        1. Yes. Trump isn't a republican. He only switched to R when the D's rejected him for being an obvious grifter. Trump couldn't believe his luck when he found out how gullible R voters are.

          Blago appeared on his shitty reality show. Mrs. Blago went on Fox and bent the knee. Trump is not interested in fairness.

          1. You're link fell off that Trump was a registered Democrat.

              1. Poor sock troll. The link lists 5 times he changed party registration.

          2. You wonder how Trump won but your entire post drips with contempt for anyone who identifies as Republican. Gee and you call conservatives close minded and judgemental.

            1. I am contemptuous of anyone who still supports this obvious grifter. He has had judgements against him for fraud WHILE IN OFFICE. You guys are delusional, and our republic will soon be over because of you.

              1. our republic will soon be over because of you.

                Haha, yeah, Trump's corruption is going to be what ends the republic, not the decades of the same that took place prior to him.

                Stop being such a drama queen.

        2. One of his friends is a former Democratic governor of Illinois?

          Blago was on Celebrity Apprentice. So, yes.

          1. So every contestant that appeared on Celebrity Apprentice must be his friend? Because that can be the only inference one can draw from your reply.

        3. Chemjeff is short circuiting. His Narrative instructions never allowed for Trump helping Team Blue members.

          I suggested Chemjeff take an East Asian cruise to relax.

  9. Kickstarter Employees Vote to Unionize in a Big Step for Tech

    Another tech company that will fail. I refuse to give Kickstarter any more money. Fuck Unions.

    1. what a bunch of morons.

    2. What have unions done to you? You are against free association? I suppose that makes sense, for a sycophantic bootlicker.

      1. What have unions done to you?
        UFCW 1360 took my dues for 2 years and made damn sure I didn't work more than 34 hours so they didn't have to give me benefits.

        You are against free association?
        No. I fully support right-to-work laws.

        I suppose that makes sense, for a sycophantic bootlicker.
        Sua Sponte, asshole.

        1. "Sua Sponte, asshole."

          Wrong SOF unit, but you got the spirit of it.

          Free association includes the freedom to unionize. Libertarians should support workers outside of the public sector who wish to unionize, just as they should support employers who decide it is in their best interest to fire unionized workers. Can't have it both ways.

          Not buying a product or service from a company because their workers choose to form an association for increased bargaining power is absurd.

          1. Not buying a product or service from a company because their workers choose to form an association for increased bargaining power is absurd.

            "Freedom of association only applies when I say it does."

      2. USW rejected a contract without a raise from Gulf Resources at Bunker Hill Mining company. My father and grandfather were both employed and union members. Silver prices were set to drop like a rock, as were lead and zinc. My Dad suggested they accept the contract because it was already a good paying job and demanding a raise wasn't supported by the industry. The union rejected it. Demanded the raise, about five years later all 3000 plus people employed at Bunker Hill were laid off and we lost everything.

        1. USW did a similar thing to the employees of Kaiser Aluminum in Spokane.

  10. Study: New York, New Jersey Face Largest Population Decrease In The U.S.

    Uh-oh, New York and New Jersey. Looks like your serfs are fleeing the estate.

    1. A state that doesn't permit someone to pump their own gas has a crisis of existentialism.

      Can't stand whenever I have to gas up in NJ.

      1. I can’t stand being in NJ.

    2. Most of Oregon counties wants to join Idaho and break away from Salem and Portland. If they could actually get it done, I wouldn't be surprised to see Eastern and Central Washington to follow suit and possibly Virginia outside of the beltway and tidewater. It is a ballot initiative asking Congress for permission to do so.

      1. Not gonna happen. And all those Oregonians and Washingtonians will be very unhappy to find themselves back under cannabis prohibition in Idaho; up to 5 years just for possession. Idaho: the choice for militia members and drug warriors!

        1. Dumbfuck Liber doesn't seem to realize how many "educated" Californians are working contract jobs for California firms while living in Idaho.

  11. Amsterdam officials consider building a "sex hotel" to give sex workers alternative options away from the city's crowded red light district.

    Why would the prostitutes want to move away from where the crowds are?

    1. They wouldn't. This is to keep them out of the way of tourists who only read the brochures and didn't do any actual research and find it all just so icky.

      1. They are just pretending they find it icky.

  12. Hey Ken, did you see this about that Ars Technica writer? His jury trial is deadlocked as of yesterday in federal court SNY.

    New York journalist charged with soliciting child sex online in FBI sting

    Peter Bright, 38, covered Microsoft and other tech-related subjects for Ars Technica before being arrested on May 22, according to the Daily Dot. Bright posted his last story at the outlet on May 21.

    1. Did they say how much money the FBI had to offer him before he'd agree to go along with their plans?

  13. Secession in the Pacific Northwest? Some Oregon residents petition to join Idaho

    Unfortunately for them, the Constitution makes that more difficult to rearrange state boundaries.

    Article IV, Section 3.
    New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

    1. The problem with their Greater Idaho is that Eastern Washington would also want to join it. State of Jefferson has been a long timing coming.

    2. Is this really a problem? Also, the ballot initiative is aware of the constitutional question since part of it is to ask Congress to authorize them to break away and join Idaho.

  14. Pompeo takes veiled swipe at China on final leg of Africa trip

    “Countries should be wary of authoritarian regimes and their empty promises,” Pompeo said in his speech at the U.N. Economic Commission for Africa in the Ethiopian capital. “They breed corruption, dependency and instability, not prosperity, sovereignty and progress.”

    1. Does that somehow include speedy accusations?

  15. So Ms. McSuderman will vote for Bernie over Trump.

    That's all you need to know about the Reasonoids and their spouses.


    I'll vote for the guy anyway, because Trump. But this does not require me to pretend that he is something other than what he is, or that I will be anything other than horrified by having to make that choice.

    1. Are there any columnists, even just one, at the NYT or WaPo that are for Trump?

      Pretty shocking that guy who got half the votes in the country doesn't have one supporter at one of the two largest papers in the nation.

      1. It’s not shocking.

      2. I would settle for a writer who is as unbiased as possible.

        None of those at NYT and WaPo either. All these fucking traitor writers have agendas and America is the target.

      3. He did not get half the votes. And the portion that he did get was overwhelmingly from people who are far less educated than people who write for a living.

        1. It's that unwarranted snooty attitude that guarantees your loss.
          And a journalism degree requires far less intellectual firepower than the engineering, pharmacy and business admin degrees that the deplorables favor.

          1. "'guarantees your loss"

            Strange talk from a guy who has spend his entire life getting beaten by his betters in the American culture war; watching his rural and southern communities empty and decay while modern, educated, accomplished communities prosper; and watching our electorate become less white, less rural, less religious, less bigoted, and less backward.

            1. You are uneducated hick who likely has never made more than minimum wage in your entire life. You need to stop talking about people's 'betters'. You really do.

            2. Strange from a guy who spent his childhood getting literally beaten by the bigger, stronger boys.

            3. Again, winners don't have to keep telling the losers how much the winners are winning. If you are having to do it as much as you do, you are not even close to winning.

            4. What I find strange is that Democrats, rather than asking themselves "Why did we lose the Heartland of America? What can we do to regain their trust, and their votes?" when they lost the last Electoral College election, instead decided to double down on their bigotry against the Heartland, and strive to appeal to the cities, apparently so that they can win the popular vote again -- because, hey, once they do that, they can ban the Electoral College, right?

              Ironically, they further end up demonstrating that, in order to win in the Electoral College, you have to appeal to everyone in America, not just those living is major cities. (Who, incidentally, believe that because they don't have to get their hands dirty, they are superior to those who are plowing the fields. Which, incidentally, requires these days a lot more technical know-how and science savvy than the typical journalism degree.)

          2. So NYT should hire a pharmacist to write for them? Excellent display of that special brand of Trump-cultist intelligence. Got another hot take?

            I also dispute your opinion that more science degree holders would vote for Trump. All the studies show that Trump won because of the uneducated.

            Here: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/18/educational-rift-in-2016-election/

            Clinton won nearly every state with higher than average degree attainment, and Trump won nearly every state with less than average degree attainment.

            That says all we need to know about whom and how Trump appeals to.

            1. "So NYT should hire a pharmacist to write for them?"
              Sure, particularly about pharmaceuticals and drug innovation. They should also hire anthropologists, zoologists, engineers, Md's, climatologists and artists to write about their respective fields.

              Anyone skilled at writing can put together a news article. A journalism degree should be worth fuck all.

            2. Funny how you white-knight for unions, which have been largely filled with marginally educated members for decades, while bragging about how your lefty boos have all the "smart" people.

              If these people were so fucking intelligent, how did they get beat by $150,000 in Facebook ads?

        2. I can tell you from personal experience that the large number of Master's degree holders in Journalism and Social Justice are not particularly educated. I would prefer the opinions of a plumber, which have been refined by hard experience in the real world.

          1. "I would prefer the opinions of a plumber"

            Still wondering why your preferences have been stomped in the culture war, clinger?

            1. Have they, though? I would propose that it's too early to tell.

              First, I would observe that during the Obama years, Democrats lost a lot of Governorships and State Legislatures. Governors are important as a pool for future Presidents, as well as for dictating State directions, and State Legislatures are important for establishing State law, and for redistricting. (This is why the Democrats are now crying "Unfair" about Gerrymandering, despite having used it so effectively for decades -- it's all fun and games until it's turned on them.)

              Second, I have seen zero evidence that Democrats have learned their lesson: indeed, they are doubling down on their anti-Heartland bigotry. Not only that, but candidates like Bloomberg are sucking out all the advisory talent from local campaigners in his bid to win the Presidency. Or should I say, attempt to buy the Presidency?

              Third, while Democrats were busy pushing Impeachment, Mitch McConnell was busy pushing Trump nominees through to the court system. The decisions these judges will make will have an effect on law for decades to come.

              The situation is so bad that one libertarian who has no love for either Democrats or Republicans pled with the Democrats to step back and pay attention to what's going on: if the Democrats lose a sufficient number of State Legislatures (and it looks like they will continue to do so), certain Constitutional amendments all of the sudden become viable. Amendments like providing the States the ability to regulate abortion.

              So, are Democrats winning the culture war? It's hard to say, but the position that the Democrats are in isn't nearly as solid as you seem to think it is....

            2. Also: so you admit that the Democratic Party isn't the Party of hard-working blue collar Americans, then?

              Because this is why Bloomberg, et al, have problems with farmers and coal miners. And if Democrats don't come to terms with this, it's hard to see them winning elections in the near future.

              (And as someone with a PhD myself, I'll value the opinion of a farmer, or a coal miner, or a plumber, before I value the opinion of an egghead. The only exceptions I'm willing to consider are those who have STEM degrees, and even then, if the Associate's machinist running the lathe says that the design of a part designed by a PhD engineer is impractical or even impossible, I would be foolish to dismiss the machinist's opinion out of hand.)

        3. people who are far less educated

          Education and intelligence are not the same thing.

        4. Education does not equal intelligence or wisdom. Who is the wiser, a man who apprentices for 3 years as an electrician, gets his journeyman, gets a $50-70k a year starting salary with no student loans or the barista selling him overpriced coffee who has a master's in gender study, can't find a job that pays more than minimum wage and is sinking in student loan debt? The funny thing is that barista probably looks down her nose at that electrician, who goes home in his new car, to his large house in surbabia while she goes home to her parents house because she can't afford anything better, on the city bus.

      4. "Are there any columnists, even just one, at the NYT or WaPo that are for Trump?"

        Did you miss the great American sifting?

        No one at the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the most popular news broadcasts (major networks) supports Trump.

        Everyone at RedState, FreeRepublic, InstaPundit, and StormFront supports Trump.

        1. It is so telling of your binary mindset that you can't help but group any right of center publication with a fringe group such as Stormfront. You have such a narrow, simplistic view of the world it is just laughable. Oh and please tell me again how much you are winning. Because everyone knows winners have to tell people they are winning.

        2. In the case of the NYT, the Washington Post, and the most popular major networks, it wasn't so much as a "sifting", as it was the mask coming off.

          The reason RedState, FreeRepublic, and InstaPundit took off, is that they gave voice to people that the NYT, et al, have been ignoring for decades.

          The reason StormFront doesn't take off is that StormFront supports most of the same things that NYT, et al, support, but they didn't get the memo that it's no longer ok shill for certain ... German ... totalitarian regimes. (Everyone else got the memo back when the German totalitarian regime turned against the Russian totalitarian regime, which, at the time, and even to a certain extent still today, was the NYT et al's favorite.)

      5. Less shocking when you consider the demographics of where the votes came from vs where the papers recruit. Trump supporters were disproportionately from the middle of the country and without college degrees.

        All that aside: Who would you suggest they bring on to the NYT? Cause it's not going to be a nobody, so who would be your pick?

    2. Face it. Every time you vote, you have to choose between a party that is for more individual freedom and a party that is for less individual freedom.
      Deal with it.

      1. lol good luck with that. Reason editors live in libertopia, a land far from reality.

        1. I mean The Jacket still wears Nick Gillespie around like its 1962.

      2. you have to choose between a party that is for more less individual freedom and a party that is for more less individual freedom.

        That’s better.

      3. a party that is for more individual freedom

        Which does not describe either Team Red or Team Blue.

    3. "...I’ll vote for the guy anyway, because Trump..."

      The very definition of TDS.
      Doesn't matter that Trump is presiding over the strongest economy in decades (at least), that he's appointed people like DeVos, has trimmed regulations.
      Nope. He's Trump and therefore this brain-dead shitstain will vote for Bernie.
      Tee Dee Ess.

      1. She was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. She gives zero fucks what Bernie's policies would do to the rest of us.

      2. No, it is the definition of being a conformist moron. McArdle says this because she knows saying anything else would cause her to lose her social status and membership in what she sees as the upper class. She quite literally would vote to send millions of Americans to the gulag if doing so was necessary for her to maintain her social and class status.

        People like McArdle are when living in different times and places a large part of the reason why things like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany happen. McArdle won't stand up and tell the truth when the price of doing so is losing her beloved social status. What do you think the chances that she would stand up if doing so involved actually risking her life? Zero. She is a carreerist social climbing coward.

        1. EXACTLY THIS.

          She should go educate herself. Start with The Gulag Archipelago.

          It's the unprincipled, wishy-washy squashy 'centrists' who are the problem. Their cowardice opens the door to the very things they claim to hate.

        2. The Nazis needed their Socialist Propagandists like McArdle.

          Who else is going to tell Jews to make their way to the train stations with 15kg of property?

      3. Honestly, I think she just doesn’t think for herself. A lot of people are sheep and most people aren’t strong enough to stand up to their friends.

        1. That is what it is. It is a combination of cowardice, conformity, insecurity, and her being a shallow person. McArdle is not a deep thinker and doesn't bring much to the table and I imagine deep down she knows that. All she has is her social status as someone worthy of having an opinion. So, she will say whatever is necessary to maintain that.

        2. She does think for herself. But you honestly won't ever work again in a mainstream journalistic capacity if you endorse Trump in anyway. It's been made repeatedly clear by basically everyone who finds him so beyond the pale that they can't ever do anything remotely associated with supporting him and expect to work at a legacy outlet. Also I live in DC and it was made abundantly clear repeatedly that if you worked or jumped ship to his administration you would never work in this town again.

          1. Yes, I have seen that too Idle Hands. I suspect that if Trump wins re-election that will change. A lot of people in government will just give up and take their retirement. There will be such a changeover that there will be no way to enforce that.

            The fact that such a thing exists shows you how disgusting and depraved Washington is. They don't care about the country or really anything except their own power.

          2. Mainstream journalism is a sinking ship. Anyone sacrificing what they believe in for a spot on the titanic is stupid. She’ll be forgotten because she’ll never have the courage to stand out.

            1. She has nowhere else to go. If she did, she would have left being a journalist a long time ago or not become one in the first place. So, this is her only choice. And since she married a husband in the same position, being a whore for the establishment is their lot in life.

            2. It's not just mainstream journalism either. Look at this publication, basically Gillispie is the only guy who isn't scared and properly identifies the value of Trump to libertarianism and really to our system, and he has to caveat it everytime. Everytime with how despicable he finds Trump and he still gets shit from the staff about it. Because you know behind the scenes he doesn't caveat it. It's just so tiresome to read the same wrote screeds with every article associated with are Cheeto and chief. Fucking boring.

              1. The ironic thing is that their conformity is the biggest reason journalism is dying. If they were not so conformist and boring, people would be willing to pay for their product and they wouldn't be in so much trouble.

                1. If I remember correctly you don't watch Fox *News* but if were to you see conformity on steroids. They can't say anything bad about Trump no matter the facts.

                  1. I know, right?
                    It is ironic seeing these right-wingers talk about the conformity of journalist.
                    Post any article on The Federalist, and suddenly you will have every conservative on every website spouting the exact same narrative.
                    Donald Trump tweets something, and it becomes conservative canon.
                    Like yesterday, when it was claimed that the Roger Stone prosecutors lied to the DOJ about their proposed sentence. That was based on one anonymous story in Fox News but it became gospel truth nonetheless, not even worthy of skepticism.

                    It isn't inherent to journalists or conservative, it is just tribalism. Tribal members conform to the conventions of the tribe if they want to remain in good standing. For right-wingers nowadays, that means turning off their critical thinking centers of their brain and believing credulously every scurrilous rumor about their perceived enemies no matter how thinly sourced. What else explains the nonsense of things like Pizzagate or Q-Anon?

                    1. Fox news employs people like Shepherd Smith and Juan Williams who hate Trump. I don't watch cable news but I at least know what it is and who is on what channel.

                      You don't even know that. You are just a fucking moron who spews 10 year old out of date talking points about Fox News. Jesus Christ, doesn't being this stupid and uninformed embarrass you at all? Just a little? My God, what is wrong with you?

                    2. Shep Smith is gone, and Juan Williams is the token liberal.

                    3. I don’t watch Fox much, but I do watch Kennedy. She’s a pretty consistent libertarian, who criticizes Trump when he does some things, then supports him when he does other.

                      Lying Jeff probably never heard of her.

                    4. Token liberal...
                      Except for Donna Brazille (former DNC chair)
                      And Marie Harf (Obama State Press Secretary)

                    5. Jessica Tarlov...

                      Poor Lying Jeffy foiled again.

                    6. I find it funny that Fox News allegedly employs "token liberals", but NYT et al don't even have conservatives anyone can call "token".

                2. People like unreason writers think they are so smart yet they have learned one of life's greatest life lessons.

                  Nobody remembers Lemmings. Martyrs are remembered. People who stood out from the pack. If you dont care to be remembered, then so be it. People in the media want to be remembered, its why ignoring them hurts them so deeply.

                  Anyone remember who Stalin's right hand man was? Nope because that dude was a yes man.

                  Georgy Zhukov was remembered because that dude stood up to Stalin and was one of the few people that could do something to stop the Nazis from taking over the USSR.

    4. I’ll vote for the guy anyway, because Trump. But this does not require me to pretend that he is something other than what he is, or that I will be anything other than horrified by having to make that choice.

      She thinks Trump is worse than a self professed communist. That is what she is saying here. The question is what about Trump causes her to say that?

      What this shows is that when it comes down to it McArdle is and always has been a phony. Yeah, she claims to like reducing the power of the state and all things being equal wouldn't object if it happened. Ultimately, all of the things that Trump has done to reduce the power of the state like reducing regulations and taxes are not important enough for McArdle to overcome her objections to Trump not being in support of total open borders and foreign trade at any cost and most of all her class loyalty and snobbery against Trump's supporters.

      McArdle's snobbery wouldn't both me so much if it wasn't so undeserved. She somehow got herself into Wharton Business school and rather than taking advantage of any one of the enormous opportunities in business such a degree gave her, ended up a third rate pundit talking out of her ass about things she barely understands for a living. She isn't doing that by choice. She is doing it because that is all she can do.

      All of these people need to go away. McArdle needs to become the dingbat soccermom housewife she no doubt wishes she was. And the rest of the world needs to be spared of knowing who she is.

      1. "She somehow got herself into Wharton Business school and rather than taking advantage of any one of the enormous opportunities in business such a degree gave her, ended up a third rate pundit talking out of her ass about things she barely understands for a living."

        She doesn't need the money, it was handed to her. That degree might as well be a gucci bag.

      2. In fairness Sanders is probably the best democratic candidate available for a myriad of possible reasons(the media hates his guts, he's antiwar and antiestablishment, likely couldn't get anything done). And the most hilarious part of McCardle's objections on trade and immigration are the two areas Sanders would be either way worse than Trump or roughly the same. Also he(Bernie) has good things to say about terrible dictators which is another thing that seems to bother the Journo crowd about Trump. So like all the biggest negatives associated with Trump would be on steroids in a Sanders admin except with a no holds bar communist in charge and somebody who uses nicer rhetoric but whose goals and agenda would lead to horrific real world consequences that would probably make us way worse off as a country.

        1. *definitely breadlines, blackouts and death panels.

      3. The amazing thing is that she thinks that acknowledging that communism is not great makes her vote better. No, honey. That's way worse. That is the same as admitting you are voting for death and starvation. If you really thought Trump was worse than that you would kill yourself.

    5. I'm surrounded by people who don't really mind that Bloomberg is a gigantic authoritarian turd. He isn't Trump, and the imaginary Trump they despise is far more dangerous than the proven authoritarian Bloomberg who will force people to behave in a manner approved by correct thinking people. It's all for the good of the unenlightened fools who may make the wrong decisions if left to their own devices. How can you argue with progress like that?

      1. And on top of that Bloomberg is the racist they all imagine Trump to be. Bloomberg said in so many words every young minority male needs to be disarmed. If you are a black man who is 25 and a veteran with a college degree and a good paying job, fuck you give up your guns because you are young and black and can't be trusted with these things. This is what Bloomberg actually believes.

        But, I suspect the people you are talking about are just as racist as he is. They just don't think of themselves as being so because it is different when they do it. They mean well.

        1. To be fair, he doesn’t think most white people can be trusted with guns either. Just the ones protecting him and doing his bidding.

      2. Bloomberg is objectively everything the biggest critics accuse Trump of being. Conniving, racist, misogynist, self-assured hubristic, little man syndrome and evil(anyone who thinks they can legislate people to behave the way they want with criminal penalty and tax burdens is evil).

    6. "I’ll vote for the guy anyway, because Trump. But this does not require me to pretend that he is something other than what he is, or that I will be anything other than horrified by having to make that choice."

      Trump being Trump is worse than the prospect of socialism-caused famines and death camps. Damn, if he's that bad maybe you should just end it all?

    7. "Free Minds, Free Markets" ladies and gentlemen! Because nothing says Free Markets like an actual Socialist.

      What a complete joke. But, the Atlantic pays better than here, so you go girl.

  16. And the fact that, as recently as last year, he was caught on tape referring to transgender individuals as "a man wearing a dress."

    That statement is factually true. Where's the problem?
    Oh, right - facts and democrats do not play well together.

    1. "Caught" on tape stating something that people who've been naked before seem to know.

    2. Gender identity is complicated thing. The fact that so many people are genuinely gay should clue you in to the fact that human beings are complicated creatures. Is it really so crazy to believe people are born into bodies that don't conform to their mental situations?

      1. This is why it is a disorder.

        1. Further:
          You can't be born into the "wrong" body.
          That's a nonsensical claim.
          If you're brain thinks you're body is "wrong", it's your brain that is erroneous

          1. Social conventions are not the same as genetics.

            For example, at formal events, there is no genetic imperative for men to wear ties, and women to wear skirts/dresses. That is an entirely social convention.

            1. Social conventions are not the same as genetics.

              Actual, empirical biology is a lot different than one's choice of clothing. Men who think they're women and wear dresses, makeup, and other traditionally feminine accouterments aren't "flouting convention," they're literally trying to conform to the established social conventions of the opposite sex.

              1. I feel bad for cross dressers.
                They used to have a place in the world.
                Like Dennis Rodman - very much heterosexual and normal gendered, but a weirdo who liked to wear dresses on occasion.
                Now you can't just be a weird dude who likes to wear dresses and bang chicks, you've got to be "transgendered" and conform to the narrow minded dictates of America's neopuritan alphabet people and white knights

                1. Heck, I remember a time when gender was a social construct -- and that it was perfectly ok for a girl to play with trucks, and boys to play with dolls, because to say otherwise is merely enforcing convention!

                  Nowadays, if a girl plays with trucks, or a boy plays with dolls, we're supposed to seriously consider them to have the wrong gender....

      2. Is it really so crazy to believe people are born into bodies that don’t conform to their mental situations?


        1. The problem is that our ability to imagine -- heck, our ability to believe -- is well-known to have absolutely no connection to reality.

          Heck, the entire purpose of the scientific method is to try to filter out the beliefs that don't conform to reality, and even then, it fails a good portion of the time!

  17. Jars of preserved human tongues were found in a home in…Florida, of course.

    Florida man has a lot to say.

    1. Cat got your tongue?

  18. "Covered California enrollment grows slightly amid nationwide Obamacare decline"

    This is because the CA population is more woke than most, right?
    Bullshit; check the bottom of the 3rd paragraph:
    "California has recently adopted a mandate requiring people to buy health insurance, and is providing new state-funded financial assistance to help middle-income earners pay for premiums."
    Yep, CA makes it illegal to NOT buy insurance and pays you to do so anyhow, and all that got CA a YUGE rise of 1.6% in enrollments.

  19. "Trump also granted a full pardon to Michael Milken, a financier who served two years in prison in the early 1990s after being convicted by then-federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani is now Trump's personal attorney and Milken is a top Republican donor who reportedly watched the 2018 election results at the White House."

    A few facts are in order.

    Milken plead guilty after prosecutors threatened to go after his son. Milken was railroaded. He did some things that were technically illegal, but Giuliani was just going after him to make him do the perp walk. The mood at the time was such that they wanted to go after Wall Street scalps, and Milken's was quite a trophy. That prosecution led to Giuliani becoming the Mayor of New York City. That Giuliani also advocated for clemency of Milken isn't scandalous. It's telling.

    Imagine if the prosecutors in the McMartin preschool trial came to president Trump and asked that the accused be exonerated. That wouldn't be scandalous. It would be appropriate.

    It should also be pointed out, to those who don't know, that Milken served his time long ago. President Trump isn't letting Milken out of prison. President Trump is effectively just expunging Milken's record.

    It should also be pointed out that the reason Milken was hated by so many people was because he was an especially innovative capitalist, who used market and his intelligence to bring Drexel up so that it could offer financing to new and distressed companies, where it wasn't possible before. Sometimes when people hate capitalists, it's perfectly appropriate--like when Ivan Boesky or Bernie Madoff just rip people off and it has a devastating impact on innocent third parties. Sometimes, however, people hate capitalists because they're capitalists. That was probably the case with Charles Keating. And it was almost certainly the case with Milken.

    The markets Milken invented continue to finance all sorts of American companies that couldn't get access to that financing otherwise. If we were looking to carve a tribute to capitalists a la Mt. Rushmore today, we might put Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison on it. I don't know if Milken belongs up there, but he's definitely in the conversation far as I'm concerned.

    1. It's not even all that clear that Milken did anything illegal, as others have documented elsewhere.

      I would propose that what Bernie Madoff did wasn't capitalist -- any good capitalist worth their salt would oppose getting rich via fraud -- but I would also propose that what Marx meant when he used the word "capitalist" as an epithet would almost certainly include -- and even emphasize -- people like Madoff.

      After some time, I realized that what makes "capitalist" countries work isn't that they are ruled by people who own capital -- which is what Marx insists -- but that so-called capitalist societies actually protect the rights of individuals, among which is the right to protect society, and it is this that makes these countries flourish. Thus, I have come to call them "Individualist", in contrast to the "Collectivist" societies of National Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Monarchists, and so forth.

      Indeed, to the degree that "Collectivist" societies prosper, it is because they recognize the importance of freedom (however begrudgingly) and enable the people to prosper on their own.

  20. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is getting accused of trying to buy the Democratic presidential nomination...

    Few things more American than that.

    1. Rich men have been buying the Democratic Party nomination for themselves or their favorites since Andrew Jackson

  21. Will Trump's tweets drive Attorney General William Barr out of a job?

    Trump tweeted back in the early 2010's that no AG of his would ever have a problem with his tweets.

    1. Tweet precedent by the tweet President!

  22. China ousted three Wall Street Journal reporters in retribution for what the Chinese government said were racially discriminatory and slanderous opinion pieces.

    At least the Chinese didn't tweet that they were fake news.

  23. It's a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate.

    He needs to get onto the Democrat Primary debate stage the old fashioned way, by promising taxpayer-funded giveaways.

    1. It's a poor politician who has to spend his own money.

  24. Where are all the articles on the dangers of China? They enslave millions. They harvest people's organs, They create biochemical weapons in labs and lie about it, resulting in its spread around the world. Their economy is run by the communist government.

    Reason cares so much about libertarian principles, where is the article condemning the chinese for their blatant violence against their own people and the rest of the world?

    All I see are articles claiming how much better we are for buying their shit steal and plastic. I guess I'll wait around for that article like I'll wait around for the coronavirus.

    1. Did you see Pelosi sounding the alarm on China?

      1. I did not but I think she's right

      2. The same Pelosi who had a Chinese chauffeur for twenty years, who has been exposed as a Chinese spy?

    2. Those Americans who are willing to sacrifice their standard of living by not buying good that are manufactured in China should be free to do so.

      Those Americans who are NOT willing to sacrifice their standard of living and buys goods that are manufactured in China should also be free to do so.

      Using the government to force the American people to sacrifice their standard of living for the benefit of third parties is what being a progressive is all about. To the extent that this isn't a progressive website, I'm glad for that.

      1. I'll put you down for "yes" to the question:

        Should I be allowed to buy harvested slave body parts from china?

        1. Do you have permission from the slaves?

          1. I have no contact with the slaves. I'm buying them from "China" as they control the means of production.

            Just like cheap steal made by slaves, I do not have their permission either.

            1. Yeah, um, steel in China, to any extent I'm aware, isn't made by slaves.

              If you want to buy people's body parts even with their permission, the answer might still be no, but if you definitely don't have their permission, then, no, buying their body parts without their permission would make you in receipt of stolen property, an accessory after the fact, or something.

              Rights are choices, and when you choose to violate someone else's right to choose not to have their body parts removed against their will, you're committing a legitimate crime. Rape and theft are crimes for the same reason--because you violated someone's right to make a choice.

              What you seem to be expecting the government to do on a massive basis is also, ultimately, a crime. IF IF IF you want to violate the right of average Americans to choose to buy imported steel, then that would be a crime--it's just that when the government perpetrates a crime, we typically call it an injustice rather than a crime.

              Just because something is legal doesn't mean it doesn't violate anyone's rights, claro? Gun control violates the rights of Americans to own a gun--regardless of whether the legislature and the courts say it's okay. Right?


              1. Everyone in a China is enslaved, if not actually owned by the Commie gov. My mainlander friends and family have been afraid to return for several years b/c they may be detained indefinitely.

                1. And yet plenty of people in mainland China work in factories that make things for Apple willingly and with enthusiasm.

                  Meanwhile, people who don't share your morals or your religious beliefs shouldn't be forced to abide by them--so long as they aren't violating anyone's rights.

                  1. P.S. No, taking advantage of everyday low prices at Walmart isn't violating anyone's rights.

                    1. A lot of people believe in myths about China as if it were still in the days of Mao.

                      Actually average wage in China is higher than in parts of Europe.


                      There are cheaper places to find labor. China has advantages in infrastructure, supply chain and transportation.

                      The government is authoritarian and there are human rights issues but it is not unique in that respect either.

                      Not doing business there is not helpful to anyone including the Chinese people. The best way to effect change is to engage, not isolate.

                  2. You're sounding a lot like Bloomberg in this thread...

                  3. work in factories that make things for Apple willingly and with enthusiasm.

                    Considering the alternatives, near slave labor looks good to them. A close colleague was getting a tour of several Chinese industries. At the first stop there were hundreds of workers rushing about, hard at work. At the second, similar. At the third, he recognized that several were the same ones he had seen at the first two stops. Everything in China is fake news.

                    North Koreans display enthusiasm as well.

              2. "Rights are choices, and when you choose to violate someone else’s right to choose not to have their body parts removed against their will, you’re committing a legitimate crime. "

                And what of the people perpetuating said crime through "free trade"

                Seems like sitting back and not participating doesn't do anything to solve the problem so long as evryone else sits back and participates. At some point the government will get involved, I'd rather have it now through trade practices than through war.

      2. I'll put you down for "no" to the question:

        Should there be repercussions for the Chinese government creating deadly viruses that threaten the globe, and lying about it, and making the problem much worse?

        1. Even if this were cooked up in some Chinese bio-weapons lab, I have a hard time believing that the Chinese government would willingly do this to themselves.

          This is like arguing that the CEO of Coca-Cola invented New Coke as a conspiracy to make people demand the old Coke the way it used to be--except this outcome isn't in the best interest of China, at all.

          This virus is hurting them more than Trump's tariffs did, comparing them on a day to day basis. They didn't subject themselves to this willingly anymore than we did, and they seem to be doing everything they can to stop it.

          Incidentally, people should be free to do things that harm other people--just so long as they don't violate anyone's rights. If I weren't allowed to do anything that might harm someone else in some way, I wouldn't be allowed to do anything--including fart or exhale if the climate models are accurate. I'm not here for other people's benefit and neither is China.

          1. The full extent of the outbreak is not known, maybe it'll fizzle and China will be the hardest hit. Maybe it was a test for future use on other people. They're competing with other third world nations and a great way to solidify their position is for some virus to take out another nations slaves.

            Perhaps we should be cautious about relying on governments who treat their people this way, especially when said governments control their economy. Perhaps it's not a bad thing to limit trade with people willing to test weapons out on their own people.

            If you let me trade with China, knowing full well who they are, and the result is that American's get the coronavirus, is that promoting freedom?

            1. The conspiracy theory regarding China doing this to themselves is absurd. Xi is always worried to death about an uprising and discontent, and the most powerful people in China are the ones who benefit most from exports to the United States. And this isn't even the first time China has been subjected to one of these viruses in recent memory! I didn't know how big this would get, but I knew it was a threat to China's economy the moment I saw it. I'm sure I mentioned the virus here in comments before anyone else did. I think it was TripK2 who said at the time it was a buying opportunity.

              Xi capitulated to Trump's demands on trade--despite the appearance of weakness--because he was so afraid of what the trade war was doing to his economy. He pledged to buy so much in the way of agricultural products from the United States that analysts aren't even sure it's possible, just to get rid of the negative impact some of Trump's tariffs were having on his economy . . .

              Once that was over, he unleashed a virus that's hurting the Chinese economy even more than the tariffs were?!

              Does not compute.

              1. Here's the loop for Xi

                If EconGrowth X, then "Head NOT on Pike"

                Nobody know what that X value is. Suffice it to say, Xi wants that X value as high as he can get it in real terms.

                1. The website thinks my less than and greater than signs are HTML tags or something.

                  If EconGrowth is less than or equal to X, then "Head on Pike"

                  If EconGrowth is greater than X, then "Head NOT on Pike".

                  That's the loop, and, yeah, Xi wants growth in real terms more than he wants to test any slave virus.

                  1. Agree with all that. More likely an accidental release of bio weapon. Chinese industrial standards are shit.

              2. "He pledged to buy so much in the way of agricultural products from the United States that analysts aren’t even sure it’s possible, just to get rid of the negative impact some of Trump’s tariffs were having on his economy..."

                Well that, and about 80-90 percent of their pigs died (something like over half of all global swine) because of a swine disease they still don't have a handle on. And Chinese eat a lot of pork.

                They were and are desperate to sign Trump's trade deal, not just Phase 1. Had it not happened, I think we'd see open conventional warfare with the PRC within the year. Knock on wood it would stay conventional. As it is? We'll see. Xi isn't going to willingly lose power, no matter what it takes.

                Trump needs this deal too, if he likes this bull market continuing, the economy growing, and him remaining President. Probably why we've not seen more overt public pressure by Trump to get China to be more forthcoming about this bug. Or why we've not heard any leaks from people looking at China about things like increased crematoria use, burn pits, radio/cell transmission about how bad things are there.

                1. Point being, trade is in their best interest, and the impact of this virus on their economy wasn't only foreseeable; it was also foreseen.

                  1. "trade is in their best interest" Agree.

                    "...the impact of this virus on their economy wasn’t only foreseeable; it was also foreseen." And disagree.

                    Unless by 'foreseen', you mean that they would have predicted things would be Really Fucking Bad. Nobody is able to predict the effect on China's or the US's, or the global economy at large, that this bug is going to have. Other than a lot of companies are going to seriously question having a lot of single points of failure in their supply chains involving companies within the PRC.

                    The economic effects could be catastrophic---particularly if I'm wrong that this is a disease that will primarily affect elderly Asian men, who smoke and live in bad air pollution, and have other significant co-morbidities. If this turns out to be a game the whole world gets to play, even with an 'only' 2.5% percent death rate, things are going to slow down in a giant fashion.

                    Everywhere. Because the best way to avoid catching this thing is to hermit yourself for about two-three weeks somewhere you don't have to see anybody else. If we're sitting at home for 2-3 weeks, not eating anything beyond preps---and hopefully the utility workers are still coming in---not much economic activity will be accomplished.

                    On the other hand, it might just be like a bad flu season here, with the problem that a lot of our made-in-China stuff won't be available to buy until it burns itself out there. Which could take awhile.

                    So, no. The effects from this aren't foreseen in the slightest, IMHO.

                    1. Correct we don’t even know if it will just go away like SARS, we still don’t know why, or stick around like the ones that cause the common cold. We don’t even know the vector. There are a lot more unknowns than knowns.

                    2. The extent of how bad the virus would be was always in question, but there wasn't any question about whether the impact would be bad.

                      The ruling class, who benefits most from trade, and Emperor Xi, who's all about getting trade going again, released a weaponized virus into the wild--which everybody and anybody knew would have a negative impact on trade and the Chinese economy?

                      Does not compute.

                      Because no one knew precisely how bad it would be doesn't mean that the impact of the virus wasn't foreseeable or that it's negative impact wasn't foreseen. That it's impact would be negative was as predictable as anything needs to be.

                    3. P.S. Drawing conclusions by looking at who benefited from the actions of bureaucrats is always fraught with danger--because government bureaucrats often do stupid things for stupid reasons.

                      The assumption that government bureaucrats released the virus into the wild because they're stupid and thought it would help the economy is just as valid as the assumption that they released it on purpose because they're smart and wanted whatever happened afterwards.

                      The entire Chinese economy can be reconstructed from a secession of stupid events. The reason China's economy has grown so quickly is because their labor was relatively well educated, compared to other peasants, and because their labor was so cheap. The communist bureaucrats who went out and taught the peasants how to read and do some basic math weren't preparing them to become factory workers for manufacturers to supply Americans consumers with consumer goods. They thought if they taught the peasants how to read, it would make it easier to indoctrinate them.

                      Rarely does government policy have the intended effect, which is one of the reasons our policies should be driven by market forces rather than policies of bureaucrats. Sometimes your relatively educated labor is so cheap that the world will beat a path to your door--in spite of the stupid policies of the bureaucrats. That's what's happened in China. Of course, the government takes full credit for everything good that happens. If the bureaucrats were subjected to performance metrics like people in privately owned companies, they'd be fired. Bureaucrats everywhere are a laughing stock for good reason.

                      And there is no reason to think China's theoretical weaponization of a virus would be any different.

            2. Doubt they did it intentionally, but doing research on globally spreadable, harmful pathogens like bat coronaviruses, is the kind of inherently hazardous activity you don't get to say, 'Oops!' too, and escape liability. They'd unintentionally let SARS out twice, while they were fucking around with it. The globe's leading researcher on bat coronaviruses worked at the Level IV lab 8 miles away from the alleged ground zero at that wet market. Her CV is filled with papers concerning her research into modifying coronaviruses, analyzing their binding affinities, looking at what could make one zoonotic, etc... The PLA had an infectious disease research office about 200 yards away from the market. The same PLA put out a quarantine alert for some of those local units in either late November or early December, well before the bug's potential was publicly known. The bug seems to have an affinity for Asian men, something about increased ACE2 receptor expression in their respiratory tree. Oh, and severe attacks dramatically lower CD4 immune cell counts.

              I think they might have made the bug, either to see how they could immunized their population against a similar bug, and/or as a preparatory treatment for Taiwan. I think they accidentally let it out. An amusing tangent off that is if one of their laboratory workers sold infected test animals to that market as a side hustle? Alternately, maybe they had an ELF or a Uighur working for them who really wanted to do a number on the local Han population? Who knows?

              All I know is with the above set of facts, with apologies to Cormac McCarthy, I've heard of coincidences, I've just never seen one.

              1. Precisely!! Thanx for the details.

              2. I think it is possible that it was spread by a lab accident. That it was bioengineered or intentionally released is highly unlikely in my opinion.

            3. Perhaps we should be cautious about relying on governments who treat their people this way, especially when said governments control their economy. Perhaps it’s not a bad thing to limit trade with people willing to test weapons out on their own people.

              If YOU want to be cautious about relying on the Chinese government, and if YOU want to limit YOUR trade with the Chinese government, then go right ahead. No one is stopping you.

              1. Well now I want to trade with China in the hopes that YOU buy my product and get the coronavirus.

                Then what? Oopsies?

        2. Should there be repercussions for people who believe ridiculous conspiracy theories about coronavirus?

          1. Yes, Jeff, those people should be put in re-education camps, natch? It would be for their own good, to correct their wrong-think.

            1. Everyone that doesn’t think like the “individualist” is wrong.

        3. That is a myth conspiracy theory. The virus has been studied and sequenced here and elsewhere. There is no evidence of that. Like other coronaviruses, SARS, MERS, the cold viruses, it has jumped naturally from an as yet unknown animal vector.

      3. If you think a tariff/tax on Chinese goods is a horrible affront to freedom, you've got a lot more to answer for: income, payroll, excise taxes and loads of regulations.
        Why should Chinese production be artificially propped up?

        1. I oppose income and payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on corporate profits, and property taxes, too.

          The idea that Americans shouldn't be free to buy what they want because of your morality about the Chinese government is fundamentally no different from the idea that Americans shouldn't be free to use fossil fuels because of someone else's morality about climate change.

          If you don't want to shop at Walmart, feel free to not shop at Walmart. If other Americans don't share your values, then try to persuade them. If they can't be persuaded, tough titty. It's a free country, and that means people should be free to buy things imported from China whether you like it or not.

          1. "It’s a free country"

            China isn't though. If we collectively decide slavery doesn't matter as long as we don't see it, is that promoting freedom?

            1. If America is a free country and China isn't, one of the important differences it that in communist countries no one is allowed to much of anything unless it's in everyone else's best interests--according to the CCP.

              In the United States, it doesn't matter whether Falun Gong, Scientology, pr0n, criticism by the Wall Street Journal, smoking marijuana or buying inexpensive imports from other countries is in the best interests of the American government or the American people. I am not here for your benefit, and neither are my rights.

              If you want to sacrifice your standard of living for the benefit of the Muslims in Xinjiang, you should be free to do so--even if you doing so isn't in the best interests of the American government or the American people. After all, it's a free country!

              1. The gov is instituted to protect our rights, including most of all our property rights (your body is your property). China has been stealing our intellectual property for decades. We must fight back to protect our citizens’ property. Just like a physical invasion.

                1. I'm not sure how violating the right of your fellow Americans to choose to buy Chinese manufactured imports is a justified and effective way to protect the intellectual property rights of third parties.

                2. Yes but according to the recent US government report they are one of a long list of countries including India, Switzerland, Russia, and Greece.


              2. There are negative externalities that you're not accounting for that the law cannot reconcile. I guess we'll just have to wait til something pops up and return to this conversation.

          2. I don't really care about the morals of China.
            My concern is the priorities of US government policy in regards to US citizens vs other peoples/nations.
            But, if you "oppose income and payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on corporate profits, and property taxes, too" - what's your plan to fund the government?

            1. User fees.

                1. Yea, that's not bad.
                  Tariffs, it should be noted, would qualify as a user fee...

                2. I’ve marked the date and time on my calendar.

  25. "Apple said Monday that it does not expect to meet its quarterly revenue forecast because of lower iPhone supply globally and lower Chinese demand as a result of the coronavirus outbreak."


    They aren't the only ones, I'm sure.

    Between the trade war and the virus, you'd companies that sell to American consumers have all the incentive to diversify their supply chains they need.

    1. I’ll buy on the coronavirus dip.

      1. The problem with dips is that you don't really know whether they're dips ahead of time--until they start going up again later.

        The problem with buying dips in Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google, Tesla, etc. is that those stocks are so flooded with frothy investor expectations, it only takes a small dose of reality for people to cut back their growth expectations on a more permanent basis. Are you buying Telsa on the dips, and if not, why doesn't the same principle apply to Apple, too?

        Are you familiar with covered calls? They're part of the solution to the greater fool theory--which is the idea that you should buy things at market prices now because market prices are going up in the future. I know there is a lot of money to make in tulip mania, but there's more than one way to make money in that environment than the greater fool theory, too.

        1. Duh. It’s always a gamble, Ken. That’s nothing new.

          1. Covered calls are much less of a gamble, and effectively buying stocks at less than their market price isn't anywhere near as much of a gamble as the greater fool theory.

        2. Also comparing Apple to Tesla is laughable.

          1. Or at least acting like they have the same risk profile is laughable. We can compare fruits of course.

            1. Because one is a more extreme example than the other doesn't mean they aren't both suffering from the same disease.

              1. Fraudulent CEO?

        3. I’m not smart enough for all that. I just try to invest in great companies with long term growth prospects at a good price. If one is underperforming sell it and put the money into a better prospect.

          Boring but it has worked for me.

  26. I watched American Dharma, that Errol Morris Fog of War treatment for Bannon.

    I speculated in that thread from the other day that the reason Morris was getting such a bad reaction from the cancel culture folks over Bannon's movie relative to McNamara in The Fog of War was because McNamara's movie was released 30 years after the Nixon election of 1972, where the Bannon movie was released in an election year. The issues Bannon brings up are as relevant in this upcoming election as they were in 2016. Why would people get upset about McNamara 30 years after the fact?

    After seeing the movie, I'd add the following: Morris got pwned by Bannon.

    Morris tries to paper over how bad he got pwned by Bannon in that conversation using cheap tricks like showing video of a someone plowing their vehicle into a crowd at the Charlottesville rally while Bannon is saying that neo-Nazis were few, unwanted in his movement, and weren't especially important in the big scheme of things. Watch the whole film, however, and you get a sense that Bannon is running circles around Morris.

    At one point, Morris confesses that he's scared of Bannon and his movement, and Bannon looks at him the way the viewing audience would look at him, too. There just wasn't anything particularly scary about what Bannon was saying. He couldn't even edit it to make what Bannon was saying at the time to be more scary. It's supposed to be a horror film? I guess some people find average Americans frightening.

    I have no sympathy for cancel culture, but in their claim that Morris' film gives Bannon a platform for his views, they're absolutely rights--and Bannon gets his views across really well in that film and makes Morris and the people who are supposed to be scared of him look like silly people who are afraid of their own shadows. If I were a social justice warrior, I wouldn't want people to see that movie either. It's an embarrassment to social justice warriors to get pwned like that.

    1. I think the best part of the documentary and Morris's followup was just how much it frightened Morris how much he agreed with Bannon. I honestly think a big part of the cancel culture mentality is many of the people involved are sheep that would definitely fall for a Hitler or racial hegemonic leader and know this hence why they are so scared of even possibly encountering one. Steve Bannon is an incredibly smart and adept guy I don't agree with him on many many things but It's very clear he is not a racist in anyway. Also he correctly identifies the right architects of some of our ails and has the right enemies imho.

      1. When you listen to him talk one on one, Bannon certainly doesn't come across as the monster he's supposed to be.

        McNamara's movie may have been better because it was mostly McNamara explaining himself. McNamara was another one of these guys who's probably almost always the smartest guy in the room. Morris didn't get pwned by McNamara because Morris didn't really try to argue with him.

        Morris tried to argue with Bannon, and he got pwned. Yeah, getting pwned by Bannon probably scared the fuck out of Morris. And when Bannon asks him why, Morris doesn't really know. I bet you're right. I bet it's because he found Bannon so compelling.

        Conrad wrote about elitist liberals who imagine they're fighting for the common man back in the days of British imperialism. It's always the fashionable thing for thinking people to do in polite society. Bannon is the real deal. He's not just posing to look good, and, worst of all, his concern and affection for working class Americans appears to be genuine. Proper elitists are supposed to care about average Americans in spite of how much average Americans are to be despised. Bannon genuinely cares for average Americans--because they're Americans.

        The shit got real, and I'm sure that's frightening to a lot of people.

        I'm sure there were a lot of average liberals who were cheering on Castro as he took over Cuba. Then he won and shit got real. The first time Che Guevara lined a bunch of civilian land owners up against the wall and ordered his men to shoot them dead, I bet he scared the fuck out of them, too. Socialism for Warren and Bernie backers is probably like that. They think it's all a game--like playing D&D. Let's all play communist for a while! Then someone comes along and starts marching kulaks up against the wall.

        That's probably how Morris sees Bannon. This guy doesn't realize it's supposed to just be a game, and then he went and got Donald Trump elected. Oh Jesus, what if he's right about us!

    2. Now do Breitbart.

  27. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours…… Read more  

  28. If kung-fu movies are any guide, the Chinese *really* don't like being called the sick man of Asia.

  29. The little boy had the courage to say the King was naked. I choose to have the courage to say that a transgender "woman" with a swinging dick is a man.

  30. I'm no fan of Bloomberg but :

    And the fact that, as recently as last year, he was caught on tape referring to transgender individuals as "a man wearing a dress."

    .... and? "caught" speaking a plain fact. wtf. Eat your own woketards.

    1. It's truly amazing how fucked in the head the woke people are.

    2. I think being "caught" on this stuff is as likely to help him as it is to hurt him.

      The woke vote is already in Bernie and Warren'ts camp.

      The other 70% are undecided on who the nominee should be, but they all agree that it shouldn't be Sanders or Warren--and I'm not convinced that being so woke isn't a fat part of the reason why so many of them don't want Sanders or Warren.

    3. I find it interesting that people get all worked up about the whole transgender issue. Who cares? If someone is causing no harm it is no business of mine. If you want to be referred to as a Klingon, OK how are things going with the Romulan conflict?

      1. I agree with you completely. Except for the areas they are causing harm: forcing female sports at all levels to allow biological males into competion and forcing schools to allow boys into girls locker rooms in high school, for example.

        A couple years ago, a transgender "boy" wanted to wrestle against boys in Texas high school competition. The state said, well, you're not a boy so you have to wrestle girls. Ok, she still should have been disqualified because she was taking performance enhancing drugs to bulk up like a boy. Nope. She won state.

        1. I think those are legit issues. There could be separate facilities in schools. In sports it is just unfair. We are not talking about a lot of people here. In public facilities they have been going to the bathroom somewhere all this time right?

  31. It’s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate.

    Elizabeth Warren is right. He should have gotten to the debate the same way she did - by creating a false identity and continually lying to cover it up.

  32. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours........ Read more

  33. I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site............THISMONEYWEBSITE

  34. Easy way to earn every month an extra amount of $15,000 just by doing very simple and easy work online. Last month i have received $17593 from this work hare ...bit.ly/2SIyDNt

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.