Reason Roundup

Twitter Fact-Checks Trump. Trump Threatens To Shut Down Twitter.

Plus: Police brutality protest in Minnesota ends in more police brutality, and more...

|

Slouching toward autocracy. President Donald Trump has been threatening to crush a private company for mildly questioning his authority.

On Tuesday, Twitter tacitly called out Trump's baseless, fearmongering tweet about mail-in voting by posting a small blue exclamation point beneath it with the words "Get the facts about mail-in ballots" and a link.

It was the first time Twitter has used this new fact-check option. A political statement? Surely. But in no way an illegal one. As a private company, Twitter does not owe anyone—even the president—a platform, and has no requirement to stay mum or neutral about anything that users post.

Likewise, as a private company, it can "censor" government officials however it wishes, with no imperative to do so in a way that is unbiased. Just as Saturday Night Live can be biased in who it skewers, a bookstore can be biased in what material it stocks, or a bakery can be biased in what messages its cakes carry, Twitter can be biased in what accounts it chooses to allow, what messages it chooses to broadcast, and what addendum to these messages it chooses to post.

This is the beauty of the First Amendment: It provides broad protection and leeway for private actors, be they individuals or corporations. Under the First Amendment, a government official can't legally censor a private corporation or individual.

Yet that's exactly the unconstitutional move Trump is now threatening with Twitter.

Following a perverse and nonsensical allegation that Twitter is somehow stifling his "free speech" despite regularly providing a platform for him to instantaneously reach a global audience, Trump last night tweeted:

I, as President, will not allow it to happen!

This morning, Trump took it one step further, directly stating that he would close down social media companies that use their First Amendment rights in a way he doesn't like.

"Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices," Trump tweeted Wednesday morning. "We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen."

Trump has absolutely no authority to do this, and any attempt to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional and basically laughed out of court. That's the good news.

The obvious bad news is that we have a leader who thinks—or wants his supporters to think—that he has unilateral authority to decide which private businesses may operate, as well as to compel speech from private actors and to decide what permissible bounds of communication on the internet are.

Trump's addled tweets and more rabid fans routinely champion all sorts of fascist and autocratic claims, and this latest round is no exception. It's still unnerving to see self-professed champions of constitutional limits and free enterprise so eager to defend abandoning the First Amendment to soothe the president's ego and a government takeover of private business.

Following Trump's outburst last night Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) once again tried to confuse people into thinking Twitter is acting illegally. "The law still protects social media companies like @Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers," tweeted Rubio.

This is not correct. The First Amendment protects Twitter regardless of what word Rubio uses to describe it.

If social media companies "have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher then they should no longer be shielded from liability & treated as publishers under the law," Rubio continued. He's referencing Section 230, which some have referred to as the internet's First Amendment. You can find out more about it here and here. The important points for our purposes are:

• Section 230 says no such thing, no matter how many times conservative politicians insist it does.

• Even if Section 230 didn't exist, private social media companies (no matter what you call them!) would still have a First Amendment right to make decisions about speech.

In short: It's illegal for Rubio, Trump, or anyone else in power to censor Twitter and it's perfectly legal for Twitter to censor Trump, Rubio, or any other government official.


QUICK HITS

• Four Minnesota police officers involved in the killing of George Floyd have been fired, the city announced yesterday. "Floyd died Monday after a bystander video showed him begging for air while a police officer held a knee to his neck," as Reason's Zuri Davis reported. More here.

• Cops fired rubber bullets and shot tear gas at people protesting Floyd's murder:

NEXT: Brickbat: Stakeout

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. On Tuesday, Twitter tacitly called out Trump’s baseless, fearmongering tweet about mail-in voting by posting a small blue exclamation point beneath it with the words “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” and a link.

    TAKE AWAY HIS BLUE CHECKMARK.

    1. what is the libertarian answer to the question of suffrage? should children be allowed to vote in your home for more candy and television time?

      1. If they’re not landowners they can’t vote.

        1. Nor should they. It should, incidentally, be clearly stated that an incredible amount of outrageous “speech” is constantly emitted via the “Twitter” device, including vicious assaults on the reputations of distinguished university presidents all over this country, deceitfully presented as if they were “statements” being issued by those honorable academicians themselves. Such lies are tolerated, and the innocent alternative truths of our nation’s leader are subject to correction!

          It thus stands to reason that law enforcement authorities and legislators alike should indeed look into ways of limiting the claimed “freedoms” endlessly attributed to this dangerous device by the “first amendment community” (ha-ha-ha). There is ample precedent, both in other countries like Russia and China, and in America too. See, for example, the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “parody” case at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        2. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had .VDs Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . WAs I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

          Heres what I do……………… Online Cash Earn

    2. Why did De Opresao Liber start socking as this new idiot jph123?

  2. Fact checking only the GOP is basically giving the Democrats free ads.

    1. Based on the Democrats theory of election contributions based on the trump tower meeting… this would seemingly be an in kind contribution to democrats.

      1. “Based on the Democrats theory of election contributions based on the trump tower meeting… this would seemingly be an in kind contribution to democrats.”

        On one hand, you have a campaign official attending a meeting with a foreign operative on the promise of illegally obtained info on a political opponent.

        On the other hand, you have an American website fact-checking an American politician based on publicly available info.

        These are the same to you.

        1. What exactly was “illegal”? Nothing was stated as being offered illegally.

          Consider your answer carefully.

        2. Still pushing the debunked Russia/Trump meme, jackhole?

          “publicly available info”

          When has CNN and WaPo ever published honest information, fucko? This is one hard leftist outfit claiming other hard leftist outfits are “accurate”. Fuck that shit.

          Go die in a fire, slaver.

          1. Wowie finrod, such a brave widdle boy you are.

            1. Hahhaaha CRY MORE DOL AHAHAHAHA

              1. So childish.

          2. The Mueller Report found over 200 examples of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and led to 37 indictments.

            1. The Mueller report found no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even Rosenstein admitted that no American was involved in the the silly #RUSSIAN “interference” in the 2016 election. The SCO also violated multiple laws going after Flynn.

              Yeah, very much debunked.

              1. Nope. Not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt was found to prove Trump conspired with Russia, but Mueller also said Trump was not exonerated. Trump obstructed Mueller’s investigation, which is why not enough evidence was found.

          3. Nothing debunked about it, NIMrod.

          4. Very rational reply. Not at all triggered.

        3. How is being told of information ever illegal dumbfuck?

          1. No one mentioned it was illegal to do so – dumbfuck

            1. Wrong thread – apologies

          2. I did not say “being told information” was ever illegal. I said that Don Jr. attended the Trump Tower meeting on the promise of receiving illegally obtained information, referring to hacked e-mails (hacking e-mails is, of course, illegal).

            Whether Don Jr’s actions would have constituted illegal “election interference” had he actually been given what was promised him, and what he attended the meeting to obtain, is a question on which reasonable people can disagree.

            Whether that is anything like a website fact-checking content posted by users on its own property is NOT a question on which reasonable people can disagree. It is an absurd, dishonest, and desperate comparison. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The latter is, by no reasonable definition, “election interference.”

      2. JesseAz, you are such a shameful idiot.

      3. BTW, JesseAz, since you excuse Trump’s zero accomplishments because “Congress passes veto proof budgets” (which is not entirely true; Trump signed a non-veto proof budget in 2019), what do you have to say about the fact that Trump hasn’t ended any wars? As the CIC, he does have the power to end wars. So why hasn’t he?

      4. Jesse Ass, the protectionist “libertarian.” Lol.

        1. Tell us again how Obamacare must be protected. Tell us again about how illegal government surveillance of a campaign should be protected.

          Unsurprising that you set the standard for “libertarian.”

          1. Who said either of those things?

    2. Or is it giving the GOP free advertising? Trump used that strategy during the first campaign quite effectively getting tons of free airtime.

      1. Many of these media companies (especially CNN) have literally built their entire business models on giving Trump free airtime. Nothing has been a better advertisement to undecided swing voters than watching the entire media class show their hand by spending every waking moment myopically obsessing about orange man tweets and completely ignoring any issues that actually matter to people. Make no mistake, no matter what they say, they want him to win. At this point Trump leaving the political scene means bankruptcy for all but a few of them.

        1. At this point Trump leaving the political scene means bankruptcy for all but a few of them.

          They might even start to push for the repeal of Amendment 22. Not directly, but they’ll practically dare Trump and congressional Republicans to push it all while screaming “No, please don’t throw us into that briar patch!” Even if it has no shot at being ratified they’ll still jizz all over themselves at the thought of all the click-bait they can generate from that.

        2. That’s what I think. Big media companies thrive on controversy, and in a country where half of the population has TDS to some degree there’s nothing more controversial than every little thing Trump says. (Focusing on that is pathetic but to some people it’s like oxygen.)

          Likewise a lot of the “screaming at the sky” crowd are living large in the Days Of Trump. Whatever will they do with themselves when Orange Man Bad is gone? Their self-image as heroic resistance fighters will evaporate.

          1. Of course, libertarians are too busy in their elected offices right? You could run for mayor in Athol, South Dakota.

            1. AHAHAHAAH Hahhaaha CRY MORE DOL AHAHAHAHA

              1. Grow up.

            2. What does that have to do with what I said?

        3. “Nothing has been a better advertisement to undecided swing voters than watching the entire media class show their hand by spending every waking moment myopically obsessing about orange man tweets and completely ignoring any issues that actually matter to people.”

          The fact-checks were about vote-by-mail. You don’t think that’s an issue that matters to people right now?

          1. I don’t think for one second that the media actually cares. This is another issue where the parties blatantly and shamelessly switched positions out of convenience. When it was helping the elderly vote to get them the numbers they needed for wins, the GOP was all about mail-in voting and the Dems were suspicious of it. Now that it will make it too convenient for immigrants to vote for Dems, the GOP hates it. As I’ve said before, no one actually likes democracy or gives two shits about what people actually want when they vote or what motivates them. It’s a cynical numbers game of manipulation. If you can make the rules by figuring out who’s votes count and who’s don’t, you win. Then they have a “clear mandate” to piss in the soup of the other 49%.

            1. ^ This. It wasn’t so long ago that mail-in (i.e. ‘absentee’) ballots tended to skew conservative, heavily weighted to older and overseas-military voters. Back then, Republicans loved them and complained that Democrats refused to count them, while Democrats were suspicious of them and thought they were racist.

              1. My broader point was how politicians disingenuously change positions on a whim speaks about how little they care about principles or shaping policy to the voters preferences (theoretically the biggest selling point of democracy). They’re pretty much wall to wall narcissistic sociopaths who will say anything to get their prestigious dream job.

                1. 100% agree.

              2. Absentee ballots are way different than printing millions of ballots and sending them to everyone without regard to any requests

          2. I can answer this one. These are the same people thatimply and/or directly argue that the problem with police brutality against black citizens is not the brutality itself, but the so-called “divisiveness” of people complaining about it and reporting on it. Then in case like this they use similar logic….they fail to see the idiotic Tweets (and time spent making them) by DJT as an issue, and instead complain about the fact that journalists…wait for it…”divisively” cover statements by the POTUS. They see the problem as the reporting, while failing to acknowledge the ROOT problem the problem of the tweets/time spent Tweeting.

            1. I don’t follow Twitter. But I suspect POTUS tweets are a distraction tactic. Most TDS responses tend to go overboard and reflect worse on the responders.

        4. Of course, what would you say if they didn’t cover them?

          1. HE’D SAY Hahhaaha CRY MORE DOL AHAHAHAHA

    3. It will be if they just check for facts.

      1. Hahhaaha CRY MORE DOL AHAHAHAHA

  3. I bet cops are kinda regretting pissing away conservative support by arresting people for cutting hair and going to church:

    Report: Protestors moving riots to homes of fired officers. Other cops attacked with paintball guns, bricks, more.
    https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/report-protestors-moving-riots-to-homes-of-fired-officers/

    1. Police station surrounded, vandalized as rioting breaks out at Minneapolis that mayor encouraged people to attend
      https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/police-department-vandalized-as-massive-riots-break-out-in-minneapolis/

      1. Officers attacked, widespread vandalism, extreme anarchy – everything you need to know about the Minneapolis riots
        https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/police-department-vandalized-as-massive-riots-break-out-in-minneapolis-3/

        1. Quandary for High Flyers: How to Travel Safely to Your Yacht
          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-22/dilemma-for-high-flyers-how-to-travel-safely-to-your-yacht

          It’s a modern quandary for the ultra-wealthy: a yacht awaits at harbor, but how to safely reach it without risking exposure to the germ-ridden masses?

          Global aviation company VistaJet has a solution. Spurred by member demand, clients can reserve a freshly sanitized jet to fly them to a yacht moored in Malta (where, as it happens, VistaJet is based). Lest anyone be worried that the island nation itself is germ-ridden, a press release notes that “The World Health Organization singled out Malta as a role model for other countries in the fight against Covid-19.”

          1. Next Phase Of Tyranny: Dem Governor Orders You MUST Present ID To Eat But NOT To Vote
            https://newsthud.com/next-phase-of-tyranny-dem-governor-orders-you-must-present-id-to-eat-but-not-to-vote/

    2. Great links — pretty damned funny. I had to read for a while before I realized it was pro-po-po and they were upset at the rioters, at cop cars being spray-painted, at cops getting shot with paintballs.

      Go Minneapolis Go! Four cops fired, cops being targeted, all upset about legislation elsewhere which “puts cops lives in danger” because it forbids strangleholds … yes, it probably does. And maybe if you thugs hadn’t lorded it over people so much for so long, the people you hate wouldn’t find such joy in turning the tables. About time it sucks to be a cop.

      I’m probably over-reacting to their evident over-reacting discomfort at being the bad guys. Oh well, still some great links.

      1. “If you keep voting for the Democrat mayors of these cities, then you ain’t black.”

        1. brilliant! i’m stealing this one.

      2. Go Minneapolis Go! Four cops fired, cops being targeted, all upset about legislation elsewhere which “puts cops lives in danger” because it forbids strangleholds … yes, it probably does.

        Maybe eventually they’ll have to ask themselves “Are we the baddies?” I doubt it though. That requires a level of self awareness the average cop just doesn’t possess.

    3. You should start an aggregator site for these stories and make it easy for the general population to find them all in the same place. I believe it would be a great civil service. May I suggest http://www.covidcops.com?

    4. Good. The government should and must fear the people.

      1. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Why do “libertarians” have such a psychopathic worldview?

        1. Because everyone in the world should fear the consequences of acting like a tyrant?

      2. Yea, but only if they’re Racist.
        If you take away everyone’s civil rights, it’s totally cool

    5. Shooting and killing that Australian woman who had called 911 didn’t help either, I’m guessing.

  4. Under the First Amendment, a government official can’t legally censor a private corporation or individual.

    I was really looking for censorship all the way down.

      1. you gotta trick the censor into attending your televised death sentence oh wait this *isn’t* the Twilight Zone?

    1. More simply, ban all speech.

    2. a government official can’t legally censor a private corporation or individual

      Unless money is involved, but that goes without saying.

  5. I, as President, will not allow it to happen!

    He’s going to Gab.

    1. Twitter imploding!

    2. He should hold out for a Spotify deal. Joe Rogan evidently is a better businessman.

      1. I can’t help but think the timing of Rogan’s move to Spotify may have something to do with Youtube starting to get a little too censor-y. So Rogan takes his ball and, like an absolute boss, goes to Spotify for $100 million dollars, causing Spotify’s value to increase by $1.7 billion.

        I’d love to see Trump go on Rogan’s podcast. I might even sign up for a Spotify account just to listen to that one podcast.

        1. Youtube has become no different than cable TV. They even cut Michael Moore’s new environmental movie because of copyright claims. When liberals start jumping ship to another platform, I would be really worried if I was Susan Wojcicki. Waiting for a good alternative, personally.

          1. bitchute’s looking like it could be it, even if it isn’t quite there yet.

  6. Cops fired rubber bullets and shot tear gas at people protesting Floyd’s murder:

    That’ll show them for thinking the police are needlessly violent.

    1. It’s just another COVID death in Minnesota (Cop Openly, Voluntarily, Inflicting Death)

      1. A+

    1. The numbers are likely higher than that because there are a few states that haven’t broken out those numbers in their reporting. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s between 50-60%.

  7. Four cops fired that fast, maybe there is a little bit of chance of soem bad cops being arrested.

    1. Don’t worry. The union will get them their jobs with back pay as soon as people forget.

      1. They’ll probably even negotiate a raise, early retirement at 42 and a few extra vacation days.

        1. Well deserved, all this bad coverage has likely caused a great deal of emotional distress for them. Someone get them a puppy to shoot to cheer them up.

        2. Good point. Last few I read about not only got back pay, but seniority raises as well.

    2. When cops get fired that fast, it means they were not afforded due process.

      1. Maybe we should pin them on the ground with a knee in their neck until someone can locate the due process for them.

  8. https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1265376663069691905

    REPORTER: “You can see here, nobody’s wearing [masks].”

    GUY ON STREET: “Including the Cameraman.”

    1. I saw that video. It’s hilarious. Another example of journalists caught being dishonest.

    2. Mwahahahahahahaha. Too bad the reporter is wearing a mask so you can’t see how fast the smug gets wiped off his stupid face.

      1. But noted Karen Katy Tur powered thru unfased.

        1. Karens never let facts or truth get in their way.

  9. It’s illegal for Rubio, Trump, or anyone else in power to censor Twitter and it’s perfectly legal for Twitter to censor Trump, Rubio, or any other government official.

    You know, it was at one time perfectly legal to own slaves but not legal to free them. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY HERE?

    1. The ship has already sailed on my being on the wrong side of history.

    2. Youtube was just found to be censoring anti-chinese comments, and Google has been caught censoring private information inside google storage. Seems to me Trump & Rubio aren’t the problem here.

      1. Bingo. Fuck Google and their Chinese kowtowing.

      2. Then don’t use Google or YouTube. Problem solved.

    3. History is written by the winners, so as libertarians we’re always on the wrong side of history.

    4. I thought our surpreme overlords declared twitter a public forum

  10. Four Minnesota police officers involved in the killing of George Floyd have been fired, the city announced yesterday.

    There’s no way their union contract allows for this.

    1. Will be reinstated once the heat is off.

      1. I point this out to liberals who otherwise will fight to the death for government employee unions, and heads explode. They just lose their shit.

  11. New England Journal of Fucking Medicine, bitches:

    Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR1EoJkVn0xxmfBb6RNhasEb2XXM6E2Lr-p7YOMrvMFl9iMBwKPQLl96lIo

    We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

    1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/social-distancing-coronavirus.html

      Given the increased danger from new strains of influenza and the reality that existing antiviral drugs like Tamiflu did not work against all contagious diseases, Drs. Hatchett and Mecher and their team began exploring other ways to combat a large-scale contagion.

      It was about that time that Dr. Mecher heard from Robert J. Glass, a senior scientist at Sandia in New Mexico who specialized in building advanced models to explain how complex systems work — and what can cause catastrophic failures.

      Dr. Glass’s daughter Laura, then 14, had done a class project in which she built a model of social networks at her Albuquerque high school, and when Dr. Glass looked at it, he was intrigued.

      …Dr. Glass piggybacked on his daughter’s work to explore with her what effect breaking up these networks would have on knocking down the disease.

    2. It seems that people who are asymptomatic are little or no threat to spread the virus. Worse, the masks don’t really do much to stop the virus from spreading if you are contagious. I think the obsession with masks is likely counterproductive because it gives people a false sense of security. The answer to this is for people who are sick to stay home and away from public spaces. But, the obsession with masks and the media convincing people they are some kind of panacea has likely caused people who are showing symptoms to go out in public thinking it was okay because they were wearing a mask. Lets get rid of the mask obsession and tell people who are sick to stay home.

      If there is one positive thing that can come from this, it would maybe be that this society finally gives up the idea that it is somehow noble or dedicated to go to work sick. No, it isn’t. It is stupid and irresponsible to go to work sick no matter what you have.

      1. Kinda like gloves – people wear the same gloves all day instead of washing their hands. The gloves get just as dirty as your hands would have, but you’re safe because you’re wearing gloves.

        1. My favorite is going to the store and here you are with the big plastic screen between you and the clerk, everyone in their masks and standing six feet apart, and then going up and using the same pen a thousand other people have used to sign their credit card receipt. It is something straight out of Kafka.

          1. don’t use the pen! don’t touch the buttons!

          2. One reason I wear a glove and throw it away when I leave the store.

          3. They put saran wrap over the POS terminals. They never change it. WTF is that supposed to do?

            The smarter grocery stores have someone spraying and wiping the self-check out stations after every use. It’s overkill, but at least it’s something that could be effective.

      2. This is on purpose john it’s a placebo to get people back out.

      3. Yeah, I said this in another thread, but as far as I’m concerned, Masks are just a face-saving way for the lockdown promoters. They know deep down that this lockdown was a complete over-reaction, and every time they see people out mingling, it rubs that fact in their faces. So instead, they want to see everyone out mingling WITH MASKS ON. They don’t want things back to normal, they want a NEW NORMAL because that will justify the nut punch they gave to our economy.

        1. Yeah, I think there is a lot of that going on. The masks are away to end this without the people who demanded it having to admit they were wrong.

    3. But anxiety can be just as deadly, right? And if the government does not step up to cure social anxiety (after creating it in the first place), who will?

      If it saves just one sad face…

  12. “NY Gov. Cuomo says ‘there will be winners and losers in this new economy’ as state begins reopening.”
    https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/05/26/cuomo-says-there-will-be-winners-and-losers-in-this-new-economy.html

    He has ‘a plan’ for the economy, perhaps in 5-year increments. And like every ‘planned’ economy ever, “winners” will be thin on the ground.
    Losers will be legion

    1. Winners …. losers …. it’s all relative. Literally!

      1. Hey now! At least Fredo has a job. Kinda.

    2. When they say winners and losers, all I can think of is November.

    3. ““winners” will be thin on the ground”

      If history is to be believed, with people like Cuomo running the show I suspect the losers will be 6ft under it.

    4. “Losers”? Is that what Cuomo is calling nursing home residents now? Huh.

    5. Does he know his state is a loser?

  13. Cops fired rubber bullets and shot tear gas at people protesting Floyd’s murder…

    All nonlethal measures, just like a knee to the neck.

    1. They use the term “less-than lethal” for those weapons. After several people throughout the country got killed by rubber bullets PD’s around the country changed the term. Seriously.

      1. “sometimes lethal”

  14. //As a private company, Twitter does not owe anyone—even the president—a platform, and has no requirement to stay mum or neutral about anything that users post.//

    Are we forgetting that Twitter is actually a public forum, per the Second Circuit Court of Appeals?

    1. Hey dude, this could do you a lot of good.

      1. You’ve fallen so far you now use lmgtfy… wow. Even when not being asked on how to do something.

        1. You should change your handle to CondescendingAsshole or ArrogantPrick. It would be much more fitting. Just trying to help, even though you didn’t ask.

          1. //You’re one to talk about condescension, asshole.//

        2. It’s funny yesterday squirrel told me to go to google as a joke.

      2. Burning me with that first class sarcasm, there.

        1. No, I was trying to help you use html tags instead of your stupid //Look at me! I’m to doopid to use basic html! I’m dumber than a third grader!// quotes. Geez. Way to piss on someone for doing you a favor.

          1. //Fuck off//

          2. But you were actually helping yourself since literally no one else cares.

    2. Maybe, but they haven’t denied Trump a forum.

      1. My point was that it is inconsistent to treat Twitter as a private company, offering a private service, and, therefore, beyond the reach of any regulation while at the same time claiming it is a public forum.

        If Twitter is a public forum, it can be regulated (time, place, manner). All Trump has to do to justify regulatory intervention is cite Knight First Amendment v. Trump (2019).

        1. You misunderstand the case. The Second Circuit did not declare that Twitter itself was a public forum. The Second Circuit held that Trump created a public forum on his Twitter feed by using it for official purposes.

          1. If Trump’s Twitter feed is a public forum, it is subject to regulation. If Twitter insists on manipulating Trump’s tweets, he is well within his rights under Second Circuit to impose time, place, and manner restrictions. Again, you cannot have it both ways. If Trump’s feed is a public forum (that is, effectively government property), all the rules of public forums apply.

            Trump is right. Twitter is wrong.

              1. I’m really curious what you think in that article supports your position.

                1. If Trump’s account is “government controlled” then it can be regulated, and part of that regulation can be in the shape of excluding “fact-checks.”

                  Either Twitter owns the account, or it is government controlled. It cannot be both.

                2. If Trump’s account is “government controlled” then it can be regulated, and part of that regulation can be in the shape of excluding “fact-checks.”

                  Either Twitter owns the account, or it is government controlled. It cannot be both.

                  1. “If Trump’s account is “government controlled” then it can be regulated, and part of that regulation can be in the shape of excluding “fact-checks.””

                    Nothing in the article supports that interpretation. Excluding fact checks is a content-based restriction.

                    “Either Twitter owns the account, or it is government controlled. It cannot be both.”

                    Right. The government can never rent property. Genius!

                    1. //Excluding fact checks is a content-based restriction.//

                      Incorrect.

                      It is neutral.

                      No fact checks, regardless of what they say. That would be direct and easy.

                    2. You really have no idea what you are talking about. How would a court know whether a post was a fact check or something else? Why, they would have to check the content of the post. Neutral comes in for viewpoint restrictions, which are even worse than content-based restrictions.

                    3. //How would a court know whether a post was a fact check or something else?//

                      You are the one who does not understand the difference between a content neutral regulation, and one based on content.

                      We can even make it more general: “No affixations, links, warnings, or other supplemental sources can be placed next to any tweets.”

                      There’s your neutral manner restriction.

                    4. Ooh, now we’re getting something that could actually be considered a content-neutral restriction. But even actual time, place, and manner restrictions need to be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. Pretending that Trump could convince congress to pass such a law restricting fact checking on Trump’s twitter account, what significant government interest is served by the law?

                    5. My point was this: the government has legal precedent to support regulating Twitter.

                      Worst of all, by trying to screw Trump with a half-baked decision, the Second Circuit gave the government power to enact for more onerous restrictions upon Twitter users than they would otherwise have been able to do.

                      By treating Trump’s feed as a public forum, they opened it up to a bevy of possible regulations.

                      Imagine if Republicans win back the house, and keep the Senate, and Trump wins.

                      How hard would it be to pass a law against Twitter then? And, to boot, they can point to binding precedent.

                    6. “My point was this: the government has legal precedent to support regulating Twitter.”

                      No, it doesn’t.

                      “Worst of all, by trying to screw Trump with a half-baked decision, the Second Circuit gave the government power to enact for more onerous restrictions upon Twitter users than they would otherwise have been able to do.”

                      No, it didn’t.

                      “By treating Trump’s feed as a public forum, they opened it up to a bevy of possible regulations.”

                      No, they didn’t.

                      “Imagine if Republicans win back the house, and keep the Senate, and Trump wins.

                      How hard would it be to pass a law against Twitter then? And, to boot, they can point to binding precedent.”

                      Very. Because as pathetic as the current crop of Republicans are, even I don’t think they are that craven. Plus, they would need 60 votes in the Senate.

                    7. //No, it doesn’t.//

                      It does, any many legal observers have made the same point, including Professor Feldman.

                      The Second Circuit’s decision has been roundly dismantled, by everyone with any interest in free speech, as a backdoor license for government regulation born out of a desire to screw Trump.

                      You are completely wrong on this, and you know it.

                    8. “It does, any many legal observers have made the same point, including Professor Feldman.”

                      Why don’t you post a quote from Professor Feldman saying what you claim he says.

                  2. Guzba, according to your logic, Twitter can’t ban Trump’s account because it “belongs to the government.” You are an idiot. The regulations are on Trump, not Twitter. Trump, as government, cannot block people from viewing his Twitter account (first amendment violation) which still belongs to Twitter.

            1. Thank you for the laugh. It’s nice that you’ve learned important sounding words like “time, place, and manner restrictions,” but just learning the words isn’t enough if you don’t actually understand what they mean. And you clearly don’t.

              “If Trump’s feed is a public forum (that is, effectively government property), all the rules of public forums apply.”

              You realize that the people who sued him, and won, were people he tried to block from posting on his feed, right? How, exactly, would a decision that held that Trump could not block people from his feed for hurting his poor little feelings justify him from preventing Twitter from fact checking him?

              1. In order to qualify as a public forum, it must be established that the space in which the speech is taking place is “government controlled.”

                If the space is government controlled, Twitter has no right to restrict people’s access to the space, or manipulate their speech (including Trump’s speech), with “fact-checks” or anything else.

                I hope that clarifies it for you. His account cannot both be government property, and private Twitter property.

                1. “or manipulate their speech (including Trump’s speech), with “fact-checks” or anything else.”

                  Twitter didn’t manipulate anyone’s speech. They added their own speech. Which they are totally allowed to do on their own website. And which they are totally allowed to do on a public forum.

                  1. //They added their own speech. Which they are totally allowed to do on their own website.//

                    But it’s not their website, at least not as far as Trump’s feed is concerned. Trump’s feed is a government controlled space, per Second Circuit precedent.

                    You keep trying to have it both ways.

                    1. No I don’t, because I don’t have to. The result of the lawsuit was that Trump couldn’t exclude people who hurt his feelings from his feed. Why would the result of that lawsuit allow him to exclude Twitter?

                    2. //Why would the result of that lawsuit allow him to exclude Twitter?//

                      He would not be excluding Twitter.

                      It’s like saying is somebody has a sign up with a message, other people in the public forum are prohibited from running up the sign and blasting spray paint on it. It doesn’t matter what they are spray painting.

                    3. Except it’s not like that at all. Twitter did nothing to obscure Trump’s tweet.

                      What you are proposing is that nobody else be allowed to stand next to the person with a sign of their own.

                    4. Standing next to a person with a sign of your own would be another post.

                      A “fact-check” is like spray painting somebody else’s sign.

                      And, in a public forum, the government can tell people with signs to, for example, stand apart from one another.

                      The government would be well within its rights to even relegate all others posters to a separate feed if they want to publicize their objections. Neutral. Manner.

                    5. Twitter did nothing to obscure Trump’s tweet? Those liberal bastards keep limiting him to 220 characters!! 🙂

                  2. //They added their own speech.//

                    Irrelevant.

                    As long as the restriction is content-neutral, the feed can be regulated.

                    “No fact-checks, of any kind.”

                    1. It most certainly is not irrelevant, and you really need to learn what constitutes a content-based restriction.

                    2. Through no fault of the source, nothing in that link comes remotely close to establishing that a ban on fact checking is content neutral. I mean, it’s mostly about parades, so it’s not like they were even trying.

                    3. It is content neutral. I even gave you a more general example above.

                      “Nothing can be affixed to posts, other than the content posted by the user.”

                      Goodbye fact-checks.

                    4. “It is content neutral.”

                      You keep saying that, but it’s clear that you do not know what it means.

                    5. //“Nothing can be affixed to posts, other than the content posted by the user.”//

                      You are just being stubborn. There is nothing in the above that even remotely hints at content.

                    6. That’s not a ban on fact-checking, your original claim.

                    7. It would eliminate the fact-checks.

                      It is not hard to structure a content-neutral restriction. Aren’t you glad the government now has the power to effectively commandeer a private social media company?

                      I think that is a bad idea, but the lefties wanted to really stick it to Trump, and ended up fucking themselves (and, everyone else) in the process.

                    8. “It is not hard to structure a content-neutral restriction. Aren’t you glad the government now has the power to effectively commandeer a private social media company?”

                      Unlike the conservative crybabies, I’m glad it still doesn’t.

                    9. When Twitter becomes an arm of Trump, Inc. after November 2020, you will remember the ridiculousness of your post.

                      This gambit will come back to bite you in the ass. It already has.

                    10. “When Twitter becomes an arm of Trump, Inc. after November 2020”

                      Hilarious. Delusional, but hilarious.

                    11. CRY MORE DOL AHAHAHAHA

                      We know its you bitch lololo

                    12. You seem to be confused about what the word “cry” means. And many other words, for that matter. Really, you come off as kind of a moron. Another failure of the government schools, I guess.

              2. As Professor Feldman concluded:

                “This doctrine shouldn’t have been applied to Trump’s Twitter account at all. The court had to slice and dice Trump’s feed into different parts to make the decision fit. It said that what Trump tweets himself is government speech, not a public forum at all. And it said Trump is under no obligation to listen to comments. He could, for example, mute any followers he wishes.

                But the court said that the component of Trump’s account in which followers reply to his tweets and comment on the replies amounted to a designated public forum for speech. Never mind that Trump didn’t create this “space” – he only opened a Twitter account that included replies as a feature.

                To get to this conclusion, the court had to say, among other things, that Trump was in control of the account, which isn’t really the case. Twitter creates the features that allow blocking, and it could change them at any time. What’s more, Twitter can also ban people from its platform for any reason, whenever it wants.

                That’s where things get weird. If access to Trump’s account is a constitutional right, why should any member of the public be blocked from participating on it? Suppose I am blocked from using Twitter altogether for hate speech or other abuses of the terms of service. I can now go to court and claim that Twitter is barring me from a designated public forum.

                A court faced with such a lawsuit – and I expect such suits will be filled soon – could do one of two things. The most cautious route would be to bar the suit by saying that Twitter isn’t the government, so blocked users don’t have free-speech rights against it. What’s more, Twitter has free-speech and free-association rights that allow it to block statements it doesn’t want and users it doesn’t like.

                This conclusion would be legally right, I think. But it shows the absurdity of the court’s holding regarding Trump. How can his account be a public forum if Twitter has the right to bar people from gaining access to it? The bottom line is that it makes no sense to say that Trump controls a space that is actually controlled by Twitter.”

                https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/if-trump-can-t-block-twitter-users-twitter-can-t-either-1.1082632

              3. And, like any other government controlled public forum, time, place, and manner restrictions can be imposed.

                1. Restrictions on fact checking is a content-based restriction, not a time, place, and manner restriction. This is why I said it was important to learn what the words mean, not just what they are.

                  1. Again, incorrect.

                    “No fact-checks” of any variety would be neutral. Posts must be permitted to be posted in the original iteration, without any external manipulation.

                    That is a straightforward manner restriction.

                    1. “That is a straightforward manner restriction.”

                      No, it really isn’t. And even actual time, place, and manner restrictions need to be (1) content neutral, (2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and (3) leave ample alternatives. Pretending that this was a manner restriction, and that Trump could convince congress to pass a law restricting fact checking on Trump’s twitter account, what significant government interest is served by preventing Twitter from fact checking Trump’s tweets?

                    2. //(1) content neutral//

                      No affixation of any sort to an original tweet. That is content neutral on its face.

                      //(2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest,//

                      Permitting each post or statement to be assessed on its merits without undue interruption. The purpose is to provide each person the freedom to speak, without having their message manipulated or distorted.

                      //(3) leave ample alternatives//

                      If people want to make posts disagreeing with the original post, they are free to do so.

                      The significant government interest is to ensure that participants in a public forum are permitted to speak.

                    3. “Permitting each post or statement to be assessed on its merits without undue interruption. The purpose is to provide each person the freedom to speak, without having their message manipulated or distorted.”

                      The link came after his tweet and didn’t interrupt it in any way. Nor did the link manipulate or distort his message in any way. Keep trying.

                    4. //The link came after his tweet and didn’t interrupt it in any way. Nor did the link manipulate or distort his message in any way. Keep trying.//

                      You can make that argument in court.

                      The point is by hating Trump so much, you gave the government the power to regulate Twitter.

                      Roll the dice if you want, but we didn’t even have to be here if the deranged Second Circuit hadn’t tried to fuck Trump.

                    5. And you are also lying about the Tweet. The “fact-check” link is in the body of the tweet itself.

                    6. “You can make that argument in court.”

                      Sweetie-pie, if I thought there was any chance in hell a ridiculous law like this could get passed by Congress, I’d be more than happy to argue that in court.

                      “The point is by hating Trump so much, you gave the government the power to regulate Twitter.”

                      No I didn’t.

                      “Roll the dice if you want, but we didn’t even have to be here if the deranged Second Circuit hadn’t tried to fuck Trump.”

                      Oh yes, having to mute people instead of blocking them is really fucking Trump.

                    7. //Sweetie-pie, if I thought there was any chance in hell a ridiculous law like this could get passed by Congress, I’d be more than happy to argue that in court.//

                      Again, you are missing the point. You wouldn’t even have to be in a position to argue if the Second Circuit hadn’t twisted itself into a pretzel to turn a private Twitter feed into a “public forum.” The decision was beyond illogical.

                      You do understand that government officials can now completely take over Twitter by virtue of simply creating accounts, right? And, they can then regulate those accounts by virtue of them being “public forums.”

                      If you think having government get involved in regulating Twitter is a good thing, fine. Just say that. But don’t pretend like the Second Circuit didn’t open the door for that type of intrusion.

                      I get that you despise Trump and want to fuck him at every turn, but this one really backfired on you lefties.

                    8. Again, you are missing the point. You wouldn’t even have to be in a position to argue if the Second Circuit hadn’t twisted itself into a pretzel to turn a private Twitter feed into a “public forum.” The decision was beyond illogical.

                      “You do understand that government officials can now completely take over Twitter by virtue of simply creating accounts, right? And, they can then regulate those accounts by virtue of them being “public forums.””

                      No, they really can’t.

                      “If you think having government get involved in regulating Twitter is a good thing, fine. Just say that.”

                      I don’t. I’m not one of the conservative crybabies whining about how mean silicone valley is to them.

                      “But don’t pretend like the Second Circuit didn’t open the door for that type of intrusion.”

                      It didn’t. Under the modern version of the Commerce Clause, Congress could already pass the kind of law you are suggesting because Twitter is an interstate business.

                      “I get that you despise Trump and want to fuck him at every turn”

                      I don’t want to fuck him at any turn, much less every one. Have you seen the guy?

                    9. This is the last time I try to argue with a 1L.

                    10. I just want to thank you for being so willing to repeatedly demonstrate your complete and utter ignorance.

                    11. CRY MORE DOL AHAHAHAHA

                      We know its you bitch ahahahahahaj

                    12. Who is crying? The only one I see throwing a tantrum is you.

                  2. Seems like you have no idea what a “content based” restriction is. If you’re going to be a sarcastic ass, having the brains to back it up would be helpful.

                    1. Seems you’re a fucking retard who supports big government.

              4. “For some time now, this president and conservatives in general have complained that social media companies possess a bias against and censor conservative speech. The long used and obvious answer to such arguments has been, so what? These are private companies that have the ability to control their own forums or freely associate in whatever way they see fit.

                However, this decision out of the Second Circuit is fodder for anyone trying to claim that social media involves “First Amendment implications.” Such a claim used to be a complete joke; that it now contains a grain of legal truth is not only sad, but disturbing.”

                https://abovethelaw.com/2019/07/twitter-is-not-a-public-forum/

      2. Sticking their favorite party’s messaging in front of a hated client’s isn’t exactly permitting speech.

        1. Of course, it is free speech. They let Trump say what he wanted to say, then they added more speech.

          Trump is free to tweet in reply why he thinks there fact check is incorrect. Maybe he could cite some sources on past voter fraud involving mail-in ballots, or cite an analysis of why he thinks mail-in ballots will lead to fraud. Maybe he could explain why he, himself, voted by mail. Maybe he could be constructive and suggest ways to make mail-in voting, which is clearly a boon to the voting public, more secure and fraud-proof. Maybe he could point to examples of states that are doing a good job with mail-in ballots.

          Maybe then others could counter whatever arguments he makes.

          Hell, maybe partisans on both sides might learn something if there was enough free speech.

          1. If you secure a permit to hold up a sign in a public forum that reads “Trump is a Nazi,” is somebody else entitled to run up to your sign and spray paint a footnote that reads “Actually, he’s not … and here’s why”?

            That is what Twitter is doing. It is manipulating Trump’s speech. It has no right to do so.

            1. Twitter owns the forum, you retarded piece of shit wetback.

    3. Are we forgetting that this is clearly another example of Trump bloviating about something he has no intention of actually doing? Are we forgetting that every time he does this he gets the one two punch of getting the blue check marks to clutch their pearls and spill a bunch of digital ink drawing all the attention to himself and getting his base (who despite being “stupid” actually seem to get the joke) to love him even more. Maybe if you stopped falling for it EVERY SINGLE TIME it wouldn’t be so effective. ENB, I’m looking at you.

      1. it is funny how anyone who supports him is “stupid”, yet studies show that its moderates and conservatives that will read/watch multiple media sources across the political spectrum, while liberals will only read/watch liberal media sources.

        1. “DUH, it is the non liberal sources that make those people stupid!”
          -Every prog ever

        2. It’s utterly unbelievable the shit that people write about him and not one journalist has actually been sued or jailed for a word of it. How many journalists did Obama prosecute?
          I honestly don’t even like Trump, but you have to admire how someone that is as clueless as they claim he is can so easily manipulate all of the “intelligent” class into running around screaming like their head is on fire every time he tweets. YOU’RE BEING TROLLED. I think people like like ENB keep falling for it. Jeff Zucker on the other hand is completely in on the joke and is laughing all the way to the bank.

  15. Give the Dems state $$ and all your contacts, please:

    Emails Show Democrat Gretchen Whitmer’s Office Gave ‘Green Light’ To Give Taxpayer Money To Democrat Groups For Contact Tracing, Report Says
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-emails-show-democrat-gretchen-whitmers-office-gave-green-light-to-give-taxpayer-money-to-democrat-groups-for-contact-tracing-report-says

    1. So Antifa will now be coming to your home demanding a list of your friends and associates. Lovely.

      1. They will also ‘help’ you fill out your mail in ballot, and by help I mean threaten you with violence if you don’t vote the way they like.

        1. The Republicans in CA just gained a House seat in a majority mail-in election. Narrative imploding?

          1. Or is it the proof in the pudding? How could a (R) in California possibly win back a (D) seat without cheating?

            1. Illegals voting Republican because of abortion views is a possibility.

          2. You mean a seat the Democrats stole by cheating in 2018?

      2. Is the taxpayer money going to buy them all the bike locks they’ll need to beat non-compliers into submission?

      3. I think Antifa just like being special by wearing masks and now everyone has stolen their thunder

  16. Democrats are terrified that Americans might go back to work and the economy not sink into a depression.

    Politico reports that Barack Obama’s former economic adviser, Jason Furman, has been terrifying Democratic colleagues with predictions that the next few months could bring “the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country.” The downside of millions of Americans rejoining the workforce, Democrats fear, is that President Donald Trump could take credit in the final weeks of his reelection campaign.

    Furman has been making his case to Democratic policymakers who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, as well as senior members of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. Many are understandably panicking at the thought of the American economy starting to rebound.

    “This is my big worry,” a former Obama White House official told Politico, adding that positive economic data heading into November was a “high, high, high, high,” concern among Democratic Party leaders. The official said a growing economy was the biggest challenge for the Biden campaign and said, “If they can’t figure this out they should all just go home.”

    https://freebeacon.com/democrats/democrats-hate-jobs/

    That puts the various Democratic governors’ demands that the economy remained closed and people locked in their homes until it is “safe” in a bit of context. As long as these idiots think closing the economy is beneficial to their election prospects, they will keep the economy closed no matter what the cost or how spurious the justification.

    1. Don’t forget voting by mail because of the lockdown.

      1. Or Biden’s vote-by-telegram, goes right along with his podcasts on 45 rpm singles.

        1. with his podcasts on 45 78 rpm singles

          FTFY

    2. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/21/how_fear_groupthink_drove_unnecessary_global_lockdowns_143253.html

      “Even by conservative estimates, the odds of COVID-19 death are roughly in line with existing baseline odds of dying in any given year,” Weiss wrote. “Yet we put billions of young healthy people under house arrest, stopped cancer screenings, and sunk ourselves into the worst level of unemployment since the Great Depression.”

      1. My guess is the stopping of cancer screenings will end up killing just as many or more people than the virus does.

        1. Babies aren’t getting the vaccines we do have because everyone is afraid because of the lack of one for ChiCom Lung Aids.

          1. And, of course, blaming China for anything is racist AF.

    3. It is clear that everyone needs to be voted out of office.

    4. I really don’t think they have to worry about that unfortunately.

      1. I think they will. This is not 1929 or even 2009. This is an economic downturn caused not by the business cycle but an artificial condition created from the outside. End that condition and the economy will turn around grow. It will take a while to get back all that was lost, but it will grow. Markets adjust and markets bounce back. They always do when left to their own. The only time they don’t is when governments step in and prevent it.

        1. Exactly right.

    5. “…The official said a growing economy was the biggest challenge for the Biden campaign…”

      I’m sure he learned a lot from Obo, who started from historic lows and should have presided over a rocket-propelled recovery:

      “Is anemic growth the new normal?”
      […]
      “America’s economy has now slouched into the eighth year of a recovery that demonstrates how much we have defined recovery down. The idea that essentially zero interest rates are, after 7½ years, stimulating the economy “strains credulity,” says James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. But last month he and other members of the Federal Reserve Board understandably felt constrained to vote unanimously to continue today’s rates for an economy that created just 38,000 jobs in May, and grew just 0.8 percent in the first quarter, after just 1.4 percent in the previous quarter…”
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-anemic-growth-the-new-normal/2016/07/08/5567d9b6-4463-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html

    6. As long as these idiots think closing the economy is beneficial to their election prospects, they will keep the economy closed no matter what the cost or how spurious the justification.

      I think this strategy will blow up in their faces. I’ve said in a previous thread that the more Trump talks about the need to “re-open the economy” the better he’s going to look to a lot of those ~40 million people who have lost their jobs because of the lockdown bullshit. Many of those people may not even be “Trump supporters” per-se, but I know if I was one of those people and I had a choice between one candidate who wants to get people like back to work and one who wants to continue the lockdown indefinitely (but don’t worry your pointy little head about how you’re going to pay the bills – I’m from the government and I’m here to help!) I know which one I’d vote for.

      1. I think you are right. Blowing up the economy only works if you can somehow blame it on the other guy. In 2008, the Democrats were able to blame a credit bust they largely created on the Republicans and get the Black Jesus elected because of it. But you can’t blame an economic downturn on Trump when the public sees your governors are causing it and Trump is the one trying to prevent it.

        1. Does the public see it? The only people I see getting it were already at least vaguely right-wing conservative. My perspective is that from center right to far left most people are overreacting to this. The lefties were already beyond insufferable but are now taking it to new heights. They refuse to contemplate anything outside of panic and orangemanbad

  17. An Open Letter to the D.C. Right
    You’ve shrugged off Obama’s culpability. And in doing so, you’ve set yourself against liberty and justice. The scales have fallen from my eyes, and the sight before me is a sorry thing indeed.
    https://amgreatness.com/2020/05/23/an-open-letter-to-the-d-c-right

    1. That is a great article but the guy wimped out and didn’t name names. It is like he still holds out hope that they will come around and let him back into the cool kids’ club consistent with his integrity.

      1. Yeah, name names. Goldberg going from “Liberal Fascism” to mass Karening is greatly disappointing to me.

    2. Your linked article is total nonsense.

  18. This is the leading indicator 2020 deserves.

    They’re welcome to come pump out my septic tank if rural America interests them at all.

    1. Septic tank pumper was my nickname on FarmersOnly(d0t)com

  19. Sadly, gab.com, whatever that is, keeps begging Trump to move over to their platform, but he’s sticking to Twitter.

    1. Twitter will never ban Trump or his tweets because of the threat he’d be forced to move to, and thus create, a competitor.

      1. Reddit took a huge hit when the donald sub moved. And now theyve destroyed other subs with the release of the list of power moderators and their documented bias in moderation. Twitter isnt long as a platform given their actions the last few years.

        1. The only reason Reddit was ever relevant or interesting or had anything special to offer was because it would cater to anyone saying anything. Take away the trolls and the conspiracy theorists and the stolen Hollywood Starlet nude picks from Reddit and what is left? Not much and certainly not something very many people are going to want to read or be a part of.

          1. Hollywood Starlet nude picks you say?

            1. The whole “frapening” thing where they hacked the apple accounts of all of the famous actresses started on Reddit.

          2. If you take out the porn and conspiracy theories Reddit is just unfiltered autism. Like LSD it can be fun in small doses, but too much of it will rot your brain.

            1. Yeah. It is a bunch of socially awkward dorks arguing about the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars.

            2. That might be the best description of Reddit I’ve ever seen.

          3. fetish porn. I mean *cough* that’s what I’ve heard. From people. Yeah.

        2. Free markets at work.

          1. Yup. And more than anything else, woke culture is boring. It is never going to sell or appeal to anyone beyond a very small subset. There is no quicker way to kill a social institution or form of entertainment than letting the woke idiots gain control of it. They destroy everything they touch.

            1. Worse than that, they never learn and keep destroying other things until they are stopped.

        3. Reddit took a huge hit when the donald sub moved.

          Really though?

      2. Yes, Trump drives a lot of traffic to Twitter. No doubt there are people at Twitter who want to kick Trump off, but I’ll bet there is senior management at Twitter who would nix any attempt to kick him off.

    2. I don’t think any social media platform would want to host Trump as a user given that simply positing makes Trump’s feed a “public forum” by operation of law and, as such, subject to government regulation.

      1. *posting, not positing

  20. The 9th strikes again:

    “Big Oil loses appeal, climate suits go to California courts ”
    […]
    “LOS ANGELES (AP) — Big Oil lost a pair of court battles Tuesday that could lead to trials in lawsuits by California cities and counties seeking damages for the impact of climate change.
    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by energy companies and ruled state courts are the proper forum for lawsuits alleging producers promoted petroleum as environmentally responsible when they knew it was contributing to drought, wildfires, and sea level rise associated with global warming…”
    https://oklahoman.com/article/feed/10052665/big-oil-loses-appeal-climate-suits-go-to-california-courts

    1. The Republicans need to take the House this fall and just occupy the field and put an end to this nonsense. This is a straight up commerce clause issue if there ever was one. The State of California does not have the power to control interstate commerce via made up tort law.

      1. …or just stop providing ANY oil to CA for any reason.

        1. Or any water.

        2. There is one possible upside to this. If they ever got some kind of giant award against big oil like they did against the tobacco companies, it would end any possibility of Progs ever banning oil or trying to end or even limit the world’s use of petroleum. Once Progs and their state governments got their filthy paws on the profits that come from oil through a tort settlement, the last thing they would ever do is try and kill the golden goose by reducing the world’s dependence on oil.

          The whole thing is what pretty much every Prog action is; a thinly veiled attempt to steal money other people have lawfully earned. That is all leftism is; a bunch of people who never could earn an honest dollar rationalizing stealing money from those who have.

          1. It’s like when cigarette taxes do what they are supposed to do (reduce demand for cigarettes) and all of the sudden we are LOSING REVENUE!

            1. That is exactly what I was thinking of.

    1. YouTube says it was totally a mistake (that they got caught doing it)

      1. Weird how these mistakes all go along with lefty narratives…

        1. Every. Single. Time.

      2. that is a very specific mistake. Maybe Youtube itself didn’t authorize it, but that would mean they had someone working for the Chicoms in their HQ.

    2. So? It’s their site, dipshit.

  21. MSNBC hilariously gets called out by passerby for cameraman boy wearing a mask during a report shaming people for not wearing a mask.

    https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2020/05/26/passerbys-own-footage-of-no-mask-shaming-msnbc-reporter-cal-perry-makes-msnbcs-faceplant-even-more-spectacular-video/

    1. The worst part is the newsroom anchor saying “striking images” simply because people are out in public without masks. And of course, she wasn’t wearing one either.

  22. Will Twitter be equal in its use of fact checks… say like blaming trump for the Michigan dam failure despite the feds decertifyjng the dam in 2016 making it a state issue and then the Michigan AG threatening the dam operators if they dont raise water levels above safety provided levels?

    https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/05/26/joe-biden-praises-michigan-gov-gretchen-whitmer-while-trying-to-blame-president-trump-for-dam-failure/

    1. No, and the TDS crowd will cheer their publisher/not publisher unique legal status that allows them to skirt laws against corporate ads other corps have to obey.

      One law for you, one law for them.

      1. Please educate yourself a little bit. “platform”, “publisher”, etc are made up terms in this context that have no meaning. Stop spreading fake news.

        1. Yet those exact terms are in section 230 and treated as different things with different rights and privileges.

          Hmmm….who to believe, legislation or rando on Reason?

          1. A new rando at that who just started today to push proggie bullshit. Anyone missing a sock?

          2. The word “platform” does not appear in the text at all. The word “publisher” appears once in the following sentence:

            “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

            Too lazy to at least look it up before spreading your Nanny State bullshit?

            1. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

              Do you not know how to read? What does that mean. It means I can run a platform for other people to speak and no matter what I do, no matter how one sided my moderation, I will never be a publisher and never be held responsible for the content placed on my platform. It gives me the freedom to censor anything I like that goes on my platform without any concomitant responsibility that comes with that freedom.

              If I control everything that goes on the platform and claim the complete right to ban any content I don’t like for any reason, how am I any different than any other publisher? I just publish a social media platform rather than a conventional magazine or newspaper. A third party content provider doesn’t get a newspaper out of liability for slander or copyright, why should it a social media platform who is exercising the exact same level of control and freedom to control that a newspaper is?

              1. I’m glad you asked.

                The difference with an online platform is that when I hit the Submit button below it is immediately is visible to everyone. To put something in the newspaper I have to submit it to them, and they have to publish it on my behalf.

                That is the ENTIRE point of section 230. To allow user-submitted content with no middle man. Something that was impossible prior to the advent of public computer networks. If Reason was liable for anything illegal you or I post, then they would have to review our posts before they appeared publicly to avoid getting sued. Does anyone want that? I don’t think many people do. Because when you ask to remove section 230, that is what you are asking for.

                By the way, section 230 was not intended to create any new rights or privileges. It was simply to clarify legally what is common sense to most people: If someone posts something illegal on my website I’m not liable for it, unless I am made aware of it and refuse to take it down.

                If you need an old-timey analogy, consider the bulletin board on the street corner on a college campus. Should the college get in trouble if someone puts something illegal on it? Common sense tells us no, as long as they remove it when made aware of it. Section 230 was to make that common sense notion clear in the law so that there was no uncertainty, and people were free to innovate without worry about getting sued for everything.

                1. The difference with an online platform is that when I hit the Submit button below it is immediately is visible to everyone. To put something in the newspaper I have to submit it to them, and they have to publish it on my behalf.

                  That is because the platform chooses to do that. There is nothing that says they couldn’t moderate and make it being visible only after it has gone through a moderation process. Indeed, some platforms do that.

                  That is the ENTIRE point of section 230. To allow user-submitted content with no middle man.

                  You are correct. And when Twitter or whomever decide they have the authority to regulate such content in any way they choose, they have become a middle man and their platform is no longer serving the function that the immunity was granted to enable. They have become publishers. The immunity was granted to enable free expression not to allow publishers to avoid liability by calling their fully controlled and moderated publication a “social media platform”, which is what they are doing.

                  By the way, section 230 was not intended to create any new rights or privileges. It was simply to clarify legally what is common sense to most people: If someone posts something illegal on my website I’m not liable for it, unless I am made aware of it and refuse to take it down.

                  No, it created a new right and privilege. If it didn’t, there would have been no reason to pass it. Under the old law, these platforms were responsible for illegal or tortuous content posted there. The law was passed on the assumption that in return for these platforms providing a platform for free expression, they would receive immunity from liability provided they took tortuous or illegal content down when it was pointed out to them.

                  By assuming full editorial control over the content of their platforms and engaging viewpoint discrimination, these companies have defaulted on their side of the bargain and should no longer be entitled to the immunity that was granted to them. If they want immunity, they need to get out of the business of viewpoint discrimination.

                  1. There is a huge, enormous difference between moderating before and after the post. You are dismissing that as some trivial detail, when it is the complete and total point.

                    A social network where you know everything you post will be reviewed by a human before it appears would suck complete ass, and would have never taken off like Facebook or Twitter. This is a very well understood aspect of user behavior. Likewise for most other internet applications.

                    1. But censorship is totes cool, because special legal protections for the politically connected is libertarian as fuck

                    2. The fact that it would be hard to run such a platform does not entitle them to special immunity. Tough shit. If assuming the responsibility for their content is too hard, then they shouldn’t try and exercise the right to control it. They can always go back to being what they originally claimed to be and get their immunity back.

                      You have basically conceded the argument. All that you have left is “but that is hard”. And that is not an argument. It is a bitch.

                    3. “But actually complying with the law is haaaaaaaaaaard!”

                      Would you like a block of cheese and some crackers to go with that fine whine?

                    4. No one has special immunity. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

                    5. Yes they do. If I run a bulletin board or publish a newspaper and someone uses my board or buys an advertisement in my newspaper to violate someone’s copyright protections or slander someone, I am liable for that. That is the default position. If you own the medium, you are responsible for the content. Section 230 changed that and said if you were a social media platform, that rule was no longer true and you received immunity where others in similar situations had not.

                      What about that do you not understand?

                    6. Christ you incredible dummy, I already wrote a long post above explaining that. If you can’t understand it, maybe take a break from commenting on policy surrounding subjects you know nothing about?

                    7. “Section 230 changed that and said if you were a social media platform”

                      It applies to ALL INTERNET SERVICES. Maybe you need to go read it again?

                    8. Yes it applies to all internet services but we are not talking about all internet services. And the principles behind not hold AOL responsible for the emails they carry is the same as the principles for not holding Twitter. Both would have been responsible under the old rule and were granted an exemption from being so.

                      You don’t explain anything,. You just keep making the same point over and over without any regard to the multiple times me and others have explained to you why what you are saying is wrong. You seem to take pride in being stupid and completely lack the ability to improve your understanding of anything or your reasoning skills. It is okay to be wrong. What is not okay is to see being wrong as a point of pride the way you do.

                    9. You have the basic facts wrong. I am not making an argument, I am correcting your misconceptions about what the facts are. There is nothing to explain or discuss as long as you stubbornly refuse to accept the facts about the actual text of the law and its history and intent.

  23. “On Tuesday, Twitter tacitly called out Trump’s baseless, fearmongering tweet about mail-in voting by posting a small blue exclamation point beneath it with the words “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” and a link.”

    How the fuck do you “fact” check a conjecture on future fraud? This is beyond stupid even for Reason to defend. And fact checked against Wapo and CNN while ignoring a 2012 NYT article stating the same conjecture as trump and a 2005 congressional report with the same finding? The florida AG literally stated last week that 80% of their voter fraud cases are absentee ballots.

    How is this a valid fact check??

    1. “This is the beauty of the First Amendment: It provides broad protection and leeway for private actors, be they individuals or corporations. Under the First Amendment, a government official can’t legally censor a private corporation or individual.”

      Why the fucking dishonesty here? All the tweets against this fact check called for the removal of liability protections Twitter enjoys for being a platform, not to censor them with criminal threats.

      A bit of honesty goes a long way if you’re trying to make an argument.

      1. JesseSPAZ telling us about honesty! That’s rich!

        Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480
        “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

        Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
        With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
        “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

        I say again, this is important…
        “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
        We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
        Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

        1. Go away ABC. You’re less amusing than the pedophile.

          1. You will never, ever, ever, EVER apologize, or take back ANYTHING that you have written, no matter HOW over-the-top your lusting for the Absolute Power of the Trumptatorshit has gotten to be… Because Your Ego and infallibility, together, are larger than the observable universe!

            Infallible egos end up in EVIL, is what happens here! Check out M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, for your own good!
            https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/

            1. I hope one day you realize how useless you have been at life.

            2. The fact that evil people like YOU, JesseSPAZ, did NOT listen to me (or to M. Scott Peck or Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. …) YOUR failures in listening to wisdom, and YOUR failures to see your obvious lies, and YOUR lusting after dictatorial powers… YOUR failures make MY life meaningless? You WILL be woken up some day, and it will NOT be a pleasant experience!

              1. Every word you say is a lie SQRLSY. You are the very definition of evil. You calling someone else evil is pretty epic projection.

              2. “Evil” according to the Gospel of John (John the Reasonoid commentor that is):

                “Evil” is one who does NOT agree with John!

                1. Right but you told us you eat shit

              3. Why would anyone listen to a person who munches on their own shit as a morning snack?

                1. Why would anyone listen to the writings of a mucus vampire, with rocks for its brains?

                  So… You mucus vampire you… Who LOVES to suck the snot out of the noses and other orifices of people, animals, and slime molds, whether living or dead! Do you REALLY get any joy out of that? No? Then WHY do you keep on doing it?

                  1. Right but you still eat shit, you told us you did.

                    1. You told us you like to mix maggots in your yeast-infected twat juice, and gargle with it. Is it still fun for you?

                    2. Right but you still eat shit, you told us you did.

                  2. Hoes mad.

      2. JesseAz spreading lies again. There are no liability protections for being a “platform” vs a “publisher”. That is made up bullshit.

        1. You got smacked down for thos already dummy.

          1. Go ahead and post the part where it talks about the difference between a platform and a publisher.

    2. How is this a valid fact check??

      What’s the difference between fact checking and trolling? If I had to guess, I’d say trolls can meme.

      Seriously, do you remember when you stopped paying attention to Snopes? How about when you realized that not everything on Wikipedia is factual and any given ‘fact’ had to be sourced or triangulated yourself?

      I wonder how much longer it will take for the leftist media to recognize that they write ‘fact check’ and that *everyone* recognizes that it’s a lie to make their selective rebutting arguments they don’t agree with seem legitimate. Nobody, but nobody, would go around saying “It’s a fact, Twitter said so.” but here’s Jack “I’m a retard.” Dorsey trying to get Twitter into the fact-finding business without doing even the least bit of actual investigating.

      1. I figured out very early on that Wikipedia could only be trusted on obscure nerdy subjects that in no way involved or implicated politics.

        If you want to know about the Battle of Towton in 15th Century England, Wikipedia is a good place to start. If you want to know about anything that the woke masses might possibly find important, forget it.

    3. JesseAz is crying. Lol.

  24. Well, I guess the Flynn case is not something Reason finds worth covering.

    At all.

    Volokh isn’t technically a part of Reason and they did a whole post on it. But Reason doesn’t care about a rather blatant violation of rights.

    1. Hey, the government spies on people and railroads them all the time, nothing to see here. Orange Man Bad.

    2. Too local.

    3. Flynn? That lying traitor and Russian butt-boy?

      1. He is too old for you.

      2. Hmm, leftie using homosexuality as an insult.

        Shocking.

    4. There was also a tweet asking congress to vote no on the FISA renewals they somehow missed.

    5. Everyone here should give Shackturd plenty of grief every time he goes on with his “I’m the world’s biggest 4th amendment supporter” bullshit.

    6. Why would they cover it? I checked multiple sources like I’m supposed to (NBC, NYT, Vox ect…) and they all reassured me that it is a GOP conspiracy. Obama was scandal free, which I found out by checking those very same aforementioned sources.

      1. Yeah and Dear Leader didn’t conspire with the Ukraine to subvert and election and didn’t obstruct justice to undermine and investigation into his douchebaggery with regard to Russia. Tell us something we don’t know.

        1. That dead horse got beaten past hamburger a long time ago. It’s too bad Trump didn’t collude with the Russians, it would certainly be the karma the Democratic party deserved.

        2. I don’t like Trump and of course he’s done things to “manipulate elections”. Everything in the political sphere is for that purpose. The only principle anyone cares about in term of what “manipulation” should be allowed is whether or not it gets them what they want.
          The “Steele Dossier” was political manipulation. Your favorite celebrities using their visibility for #resistance and giving deeply moving political speeches about helping the poor while wearing a $20,000 dress is political manipulation. Every word either party says when they go on Meet the Press is calculated manipulation. Every dollar that is given out to other nations for foreign aid or $1200 check given to every American to tell them they’re helping main street is manipulation. If it touches politics, it is self-serving propaganda for the political class.
          The reason that you’re a dipshit, isn’t because you can only see this when it’s the side you like doing it. You’re a dipshit because you believe that giving the other half of these monster more power actually gives them the slightest incentive to do something helpful for you. Once they have all the money and all the guns, why do they have any reason to do anything you ask?

        3. Hillary wasn’t elected. That’s the only Ukrainian conspiracy. And the SCO violated multiple laws going after Flynn. There, that’s clearly something you don’t know.

  25. This thread is my everything:

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/KarenGoneWild

  26. Trump should seize Twitter via eminent domain because the government doesn’t have a good way to reach people. He could get a good price on it and buy it with fiat money. No need to shut it down then. Make it a utility.

    1. Oddly… anyone remember net neutrality?

      1. Everyone has to wear a hairnet now?

      2. I remember rock and roll radio.

      3. Something something, PEOPLE WILL DIE! At least, I think that was the bullshit the left was saying at the time

      4. I remember when it didn’t pass. Now my ISP charges me $1.25 every time I enter any domain name that isn’t on their list of websites that are paying for fastlanes. Yep, now that we did away with that super important piece of legislation that was totes solving actual real world problems, the internet is a complete wasteland where only Comcast and Facebook get to determine what is and isn’t real.

        We need to reinstate it so politicians can create their Ministry of Truth that will restore freedom of speech and freedom of the press to the rightful people with blue check marks!

  27. Trump has absolutely no authority to do this, and any attempt to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional and basically laughed out of court. That’s the good news.

    “The governor has absolutely no authority to do this, and any attempt to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional but basically not laughed out of court. That’s the bad news.”

    1. I’m pretty sure the government has no power to stop church services yet the 9th circuit isnt so clear on that.

    2. Reason hates totalitarianism… but only from one side

  28. Wait….It just comes out that Governor Andrew Cuomo traded immunity for campaign contributions? But somehow missed the notice of ‘Roundup’. This is incredible.

    I wonder if Phailing Phil Murphy did the same thing.

    1. LOCAL NEWS.

    2. so, that would change this from negligent homicide to preplanned murder then, right? He knew what he was doing. Seriously, can we arrest this motherfucker already?

    3. Don’t forget, he’s basically also granting himself immunity. Win-win.

  29. “or a bakery can be biased in what messages its cakes carry”

    As long as that bakery can withstand eternal lawsuits and continuing government harassment.

    Trump is just suggesting ‘common sense speech control’ consistent with the constitution. You know, fingerprinting, full criminal background checks, arbitrary denial by the county sheriff, annual renewal fees, etc.

    1. It’s only attempt 3 on some bakers. Mann and NRO are still going after a decade and Reason never mentions them.

  30. The most important news event of the day left off the quick hits.

    https://spaceflightnow.com/

    Astronauts set to launch into orbit from U.S. soil for the first time in nearly a decade. First ever manned, orbital launch by a private company.

    1. More money goes up in flames

      1. True, but at least they’re burning through much less money than they otherwise would via conventional cost-plus government contracts and manned launch programs.

  31. Trumptatorshit strikes again! Constitution?!? Schmonstitution! Trump has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do whatever he wants to!

    Demented Pro-Trump commentors here (like JesseSPAZ) think themselves to be Constitutional Scholars, and bless the idea that the Trumptatorshit has “absolute rights”. ‘Cause Trump says so!!!
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/president-trump-absolute-rights/607168/
    Donald Trump’s Strange and Dangerous ‘Absolute Rights’ Idea
    This is a profound misunderstanding of the American constitutional system.

    END TITLES IMPORTS

    Yet Trump can’t bring Himself to go on a much-needed head-chopping (douchebag-firing, layoffs) spree at the FDA, until such time as the USA has as much freedom as ALL OTHER NATIONS ON THE PLANET have, to blow on OTC cheap plastic flutes! Super-Trump, where are you now? North Koreans have more cheap-plastic-flutes freedoms than we do!

    1. You’ll have to speak up, I’m wearing a towel.

    2. You have shit in your teeth.

      1. You have nothing but yeast-infected twat juice in your skull!

        1. I’m sorry you constantly cry because I remember that you told us you eat shit.

  32. “Twitter tacitly called out Trump’s baseless, fearmongering tweet about mail-in voting by posting a small blue exclamation point beneath it with the words “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” and a link.”

    Just for the record, stuffing the ballot box has been a great American tradition since before the Constitution was ratified, and to whatever extent a sea of mail-in ballots makes that easier, it is what it is.

    Meanwhile, the left have been denouncing mail-in ballots as racist for years because minority ballots tend to be disqualified at much higher rates for being mailed late, not signed and dated by the registered voter, etc.

    In other words, ballot stuffing probably isn’t President Trump’s primary concern. The Democrats want mail-in ballots because as it becomes increasingly clear that COVID-19 isn’t ruining Trump’s reelection chances, they want a means to delegitimatize his win.

    1. “Gwinnett County, located northeast of Atlanta, now faces two federal lawsuits and accusations from voting rights activists who say the rejections disproportionately affect minority voters, particularly Asian Americans and African Americans.

      The county has rejected 595 absentee ballots, which account for more than a third of the total absentee-ballot rejections in the state, even though Gwinnett County accounts for only about 6% of absentee ballots submitted in Georgia, according to state data analyzed by CNN Friday. More than 300 of the rejected ballots belonged to African Americans and Asian Americans.

      Officials tossed out the ballots due to missing birthdates, address discrepancies, signatures that do not match those on registration records and other issues, according to the data.

      . . . .

      Michael McDonald, a University of Florida associate professor of political science, tracks state voter data and found that Gwinnett County tossed out 15% of absentee ballots submitted by Asian Americans, 11.4% of those submitted by African Americans and only 4% of those submitted by whites.

      “It’s not the fault of the voters. It’s the fault of the elections officials for creating a confusing ballot,” McDonald said.

      McDonald believes part of the problem stems from the design of the county’s absentee ballot. He said because a comparatively high number of Latinos live in Gwinnett County, election officials there are federally mandated to include both English and Spanish instructions on the ballots. He said the absentee ballots now contain long strings of bilingual text that could appear confusing.

      —-CNN, October 2018

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/20/politics/gwinnett-county-absentee-ballots/index.html

      This isn’t unusual. It’s typical, and it’s a typical argument from the left that mail-in ballots disproportionately favor the preferred candidates of whites for that reason.

      There are any number of legitimate explanations for this–and legitimate racism may be one of them. It could be that African-Americans voters are disproportionately poor (because of racism) and/or that they’re more afraid of the police coming to get them for outstanding tickets or warrants if they confirm their presence at a particular location with their signature because they’re disproportionately targeted by the criminal justice system (because of racism).

      Regardless of the reason, the fact is that African-American voters do not enjoy an equality of outcome with white voters when it comes to mail-in ballots, and the chances of the Democrats using this fact to challenge the legitimacy of Trump’s 2020 reelection on the basis that the mail-in system is inherently racist is 100%.

      1. There are any number of legitimate explanations for this–and legitimate racism may be one of them. It could be that African-Americans voters are disproportionately poor (because of racism) and/or that they’re more afraid of the police coming to get them for outstanding tickets or warrants if they confirm their presence at a particular location with their signature because they’re disproportionately targeted by the criminal justice system (because of racism).

        That is possible. If it were true, however, it would be very easy to confirm. Just go out and poll actual black people and especially poor and ask them if that is true. It would be very simple to do. Yet, I have never heard of such a poll ever being conducted. Have you? All I have ever heard was bare assertions about this being the case made by leftist organizations without any actual evidence or data to back it up.

        Maybe no one has ever bothered to go and collect data on what actual black people think because they just haven’t thought of it. Or maybe they haven’t done it because the assertions that black voters are terrified of showing ID at a polling place for fear of being arrested is just complete bullshit.

        I am going with the latter. I would also point out how appallingly racist it is to assume black people have outstanding warrants in such numbers that fear of being arrested for them would depress black turnout enough to affect an election. White progs seem to believe or at least act like they believe that every black person is a criminal of some sort. But, somehow it is everyone but white progs who are racist.

        1. I wasn’t trying to make the case for racism, here. I was really just trying to point out that this has been the traditional Democrat take on mail-in balloting. It isn’t just that mail-in voters tend to be older, whiter, wealthier, and more conservative. It’s also that mail-in voting typically disqualifies African-American voters at much higher rates–and the difference in those rates tend to be consistent nationally and across decades. That’s their case!

          So, why are they suddenly so in favor of mail-in ballots?

          What changed?

          It may be that they think Democrats are less likely to come out to vote in November because they’re afraid of the virus. It may be that they want people to vote as soon as possible–while the recession is still at its worst. Or it may be, like with everything else, that they’re willing to abandon everything they ever claimed to believe in because their hatred of President Trump deranges them so much that they actually want and will facilitate a racist outcome–just so that they can smear Trump’s reelection as racist in the hope that they can delegitimatize his reelection.

          Maybe it’s all the above to some extent, but they’ve definitely changed their tune on mail-in ballots. They’ve opposed mail-in voting as pro-white and pro-Republican for decades.

          1. I think it changed because the ID requirements have made ballot harvesting more difficult. So, they are now turning to mail in ballots to get around that.

            You are mistaken to attribute anything but cynical motives behind their actions.

            1. If my assuming that they’re facilitating a racist outcome just so they can call President Trump’s reelection racist isn’t cynical enough for you, then I don’t know why you mean by cynical.

        2. “White progs seem to believe or at least act like they believe that every black person is a criminal of some sort. But, somehow it is everyone but white progs who are racist.”

          This is the penultimate John comment, it really is. It checks every box. Sanctimonious, well-written enough to sound smart until you think about it, utterly tone-deaf, and evidence that he is either literally that naive that he believes it or is (more likely) making a calculated effort to move a goalpost.

          The reason is not that “white progs believe” you insipid wretch. It’s that black kids get actually arrested and charged for shit that white trash people do all day long and only get told to go home and cut it out. Therefore the number of black kids with a record (for shit that small town white boys get away with as just “clowning around” is disproportionately higher. I’ve seen it first hand from several sides.

          1. Hey look its ANTOHER DOL sockpuppet.

            1. Not true, but does the fact that LC1789, John, and Ken “the brain” Schultz always agree along with JesseAZ and SEvo make them all sockpuppets for Nardz?

              1. Ahahahaha I got you DOL you sad stupid sockpuppet fuck

                1. Yeah, you got me. I’m DOL. You’ve proved it beyond doubt.

          2. The reason is not that “white progs believe” you insipid wretch. It’s that black kids get actually arrested and charged for shit that white trash people do all day long and only get told to go home and cut it out.

            So black people are just like “white trash” but also get arrested a lot. Why don’t you just go back to Stormfront or wherever it is you came from. People disagree on here but this sort of garbage racism isn’t really done here or much tolerated despite the general free wheeling nature of the board.

            1. OMG learn to read or stop faking that you actually thought that’s what I said. Your act is so tired.

              Let me spell it out for you one more time.

              You assert the following: “I would also point out how appallingly racist it is to assume black people have outstanding warrants in such numbers that fear of being arrested for them would depress black turnout enough to affect an election. White progs seem to believe or at least act like they believe that every black person is a criminal of some sort.

              FULL STOP. YOU are the one who, instead of looking at the actual problem (which is that an unfair just ice system disproportionately targets and actually arrests/prosecutes black kids for shit that small-town white boys like myself could easily get away with for a warning and a “go home and cut the shit, boys,” somehow twists that reality into an assertion that boils down to “it’s because white progs, in a racist manner assume all blacks are criminals.”
              There is a distinction here, between being an actual bad criminal and just being the person who gets singled out for punishment (to a disproportionate degree all over the place and for a long time).

              Back to your post:
              “But, somehow it is everyone but white progs who are racist.”

              So how is my post racist you absolute tool? Your parlor tricks might work on your friends but anyone with half a brain doesn’t fall for your sophistry and the follow-up “aw shucks” act.

              The irony of a Trump bootlicker thinking I’m the one from Stormfront is just amazing.

              1. Ahahahaha I got you DOL you sad stupid sockpuppet fuck ahaahaaahah

                Busted!!!

              2. FULL STOP. YOU are the one who, instead of looking at the actual problem (which is that an unfair just ice system disproportionately targets and actually arrests/prosecutes black kids for shit that small-town white boys like myself could easily get away with for a warning and a “go home and cut the shit, boys,” s

                White kids who are criminals. Most people I know black or white are not criminals of any kind. You seem to think that every black person is the same as the worst most criminal white person. Even if the police targeted someone like me, I still wouldn’t be arrested because I don’t do anything. The entire assumption behind your post is that huge numbers of black people do. And that is racist as fuck. It just is. And it has no place on here.

                So how is my post racist you absolute tool?

                Because you say in so many words that black people are criminals at the same rate as the worst white people. That is completely racist. I don’t know what kind of black people you know or if you even know any actual black people, but you need to get out more. I live in a majority black city. I have worked and served in the Army with hundreds of black people. And I can tell you they are not criminals. And none of the ones I know have warrants out for them or criminal records. They are college educated a lot of them, are professionals and to a man hard working respectable people. If they were not, I wouldn’t have them as friends or colleagues.

                So take your bourgeois white generalities and racist patronizing bullshit and stick it up your ass. Black people are not inferior to you. They are not these poor criminal souls in need of help from enlightened white men like you.

                So go to hell you white supremacist, racist, ignorant fuck.

                1. You missed the point, again.

                  The point in its most simple terms is this.

                  I did not assume that black people are criminals. I asserted quite the opposite: that black people (unlike white people) are effectively MADE into “criminals” by getting arrested and charged at a disproportionately high rate, for behaviors that white kids are excused/covered up for. Saw it in real life many times. And because so many black people have a record (that white people would ALSO have if the system went after them with the same gusto) for minor offenses that would not be prosecuted if the “perps” were white, there are proportionately more of them, who (let me spell this out one more time) are TREATED like bad criminals and have a record and are therefore more afraid to interact with any form of government official.

                  How many times can you a) not understand this or b) pretend not to so you can carry on with your delusion?

                  1. no reply now that you have no way out and no wiggle room for your usual parlor tricks? Sad.

                  2. I did not assume that black people are criminals. I asserted quite the opposite: that black people (unlike white people) are effectively MADE into “criminals” by getting arrested and charged at a disproportionately high rate, for behaviors that white kids are excused/covered up for. Saw it in real life many times.

                    And those behaviors are known as “crimes”. Again, it is very clear that your actual experience with black people consists of binge watching the Wire. The vast majority of black people are not criminals and have never been arrested. The fact that you think otherwise is just proof of how racist you are.

                    And because so many black people have a record

                    Being a convicted felon means you can’t vote. I think we are getting close to the problem here. You don’t understand the terms that you mean. And it is true that black men have a higher rate of felony convictions than other races, they can’t vote anyway. And that fact doesn’t mean the ones who do not have felony convictions are all running around with outstanding warrants or afraid to show an ID at a voting booth.

                    My advice to you and stop hanging around racist whites and get to know actual black people. It is a real shame the image you have in your mind of how black actually are. It is fucking damn shame that people like you still exist in the 21st Century.

                    1. You couldn’t possibly dodge the issue more. If I do a stupid prank and the cops come, they leave again and nothing happens. In too many places, that same behavior gets black kids arrested or shot. NEver at any point did I assume, imply, or assert that black people actually commit more crimes. I only assert that they are takedn to the point of arrest/prosecution for often minor behaviotrs that white people are magically not subjected to arrest, prosecution, or being murdered in the street by cops for. Keep twisting and doging though. and BTW if you are playing the “I know more black people than you” card it is not only pathetic virtue signalling, but also belies the fact that YOU assume that you “know all black people” which is silly, and statistical evidence also does not rely on which of us knows more black people. God you are bad at this. But I am sure in your circles you are considered “smart” and therefore don’t often face opposition to your statements.

                  3. Jesus you are one dense motherfucker.

                    The vast majority of black people have no criminal record and the fact that you keep asserting that they do shows everyone here what a racist piece of shit you are.

                    It’s called the bigotry of low expectations, look it up.

          3. Do you even know what “penultimate” means without googling it?

            1. I misused the term, no argument there. The idea was to say that is is a perfect example of John’s time-tested method for writing posts that sound great but ultimately make no sense, dodge the actual argument presented, and then resort to ad-hominem and claims of superiority, and as always are followed by an “aw=shucks” act.

              I’m sure your critique ends there though (although you forgot to call me a libtard) and you, like him, won’t directly address the actual issue. You guys are all too busy arguing that an un-deleted, unrestricted, viewed by millions-of-people Tweet that is still alive and well is evidence of “censorship” and the quote “TOTAL SILENCING OF CONSERVATIVE VOICES.”

    2. I’d think Dems need mail in ballots because of all the shrieking that going outside means you’ll die from corona cooties.

      Would have a major turnout hit in big cities in particular.

      1. Sounds like the Democrats in places like New York trying to treat the rest of the country like it’s Chicago, Philadelphia, or New York City again.

        They would absent-mindedly feed Democrats in districts that voted for Trump to the lions if no one bothered to tell them it was a bad idea.

    3. Because DJT “totally hasn’t” tried at least three rhetorical methods to set the stage for arguing that his potential defeat was “rigged” amirite?

  33. This graph is amazing. It shows that measuring #SARSCoV2 levels in municipal sewage almost perfectly predicts forthcoming #COVID19 cases with a full week’s notice (R=0.994).

    On the plus side municipalities should now have a fairly easy way to track where they are on the curve and if they should expect new cases to increase, plateau, or decrease. Just regularly test sewage for virus RNA.

    COVID-19: It’s the shit!

    1. Not entirely agreed. However, it once again demonstrates the banality with which COVID infects. If the association translates mechanistically, you’re clearing/shedding the virus in your stool a week before you show up to the hospital or testing center to test positive. As opposed to something like spanish flu or smallpox which started showing up in your stool a couple days before you were dead.

  34. TRUMP DON’t LIKE NO FACT CHECKS!

  35. ENB with the suicide pact form of libertarianism. A social media company grows into de facto monopoly on public political speech, and if anyone complains, they’re the “totalitarian.” Of course it goes without saying that if the shoe were on the other foot, she and others who make this argument would suddenly discover the ill effects of market power and the bracing spirit of antitrust regulation.

    1. Just because nearly all of mass communication is owned by a few companies who act as a cartel and more often than not agents of one of the worst police state’s on earth, the Chinese Communist Party, doesn’t mean anyone should be worried about their freedom. The real threat to your freedom is Trump saying something about this.

      This is what passes for Libertarian thought these days. “Meh principles” demand that all of America’s media and mass communication be subject to Chinese censorship. If you don’t like that, start your own Twitter.

      1. “If you don’t like that, start your own Twitter.”

        That’s called the free market, or, free people spending their own money (THEIR money, not that of the Collective Hive) to spread their own ideas! Here are the conservative commentors at Reason.com, spreading their ideas FOR FREE (on Reason). Since they don’t seem to be spreading their ideas efficiently enough for the vast majority of voters to agree that YES, we SHOULD have a Trumptatorshit… For the failure of their ideas to take over everything, they like to make up fictions such as, Chinese commies are taking over our media, or, JesseSPAZ-like, that a “platform” is different than a “publisher”, because JesseSPAZ or Der TrumpfenFuhrer says so…

        But YES, go ahead and buy yourself a “platform” or a “publisher”, John, and spread your ideas! Come bitching to us when Government Almighty shuts you down… Don’t come bitching to us because “merely” Reason.com (and many others) will spread your ideas for free, and you (Poor Baby!) are not allowed to enslave EVERYONE in sight, to MAKE them publish YOUR ideas!

        1. Sure, nothing says free market like a cartel of giant corporations who either destroy or buyout any competition.

          You called it dumb ass. And I am sure you have no concern whatsoever for a few corporations controlling what is said and what information is passed in this country. People like you always need and want a power top to take control of things.

          Well, the rest of us don’t share your proclivities.

          1. “…buyout any competition.”

            Put up your publisher or web site! If they BUY it from you, and you like the money better than your soapbox, then WHY would you bitch about THAT?

            If you like your soapbox, then DON’T sell it!

            If you haven’t the time or money to do that, make yourself content with on-line commentary, like millions of people do! But, JesseSPAZ-style, making up rules that don’t exist, and then bitching about it… Or making up Chi-Commie control of our media, which doesn’t exist… I did NOT get Chi-Commie permission to write this… THIS kind of vitriol and lies is what consigns some conservative voices into the “ignore the ideologically blinded idiots” bin!

            1. I could. And when it reached the point of being a threat to the big media companies, they would just buy me out to maintain their monopoly. But chances are I would never get that far because of the barrers to entry into the market.

              Your argument is the same as claiming that one entity controlling every newspaper and television station in the country in say 1970 would not have been a problem because people would still be free to yell out of their back doors and write on truck stop bathroom stalls.

              Your stupidity is just comic. It used to annoy me. Now it just amuses me.

              1. “…they would just buy me out to maintain their monopoly.”

                If they put a gun to your head to FORCE you to sell, then go to the police! Short of that, quit yer bitchin’! Did you READ what I wrote, before dismissing it? Here it is again, for your reading pleasure:

                Put up your publisher or web site! If they BUY it from you, and you like the money better than your soapbox, then WHY would you bitch about THAT?

                If you like your soapbox, then DON’T sell it!

                FREE MARKET, free individuals, freedom to do and not do, with your property, as YOU please! Hello?!!?

                1. There is nothing about a monopoly that is consistent with a free market. Moreover, no one is talking about doing anything to these companies beyond enforcing existing anti trust law and depriving them of immunity from the legal consiquences of their actions.

                  You are so stupid and so dishonest you manage to believe that granting special legal protection and exemption from anti trust law to the social media corporations is somehow the “free market”. This is because you like the fact that they censor and oppress people you don’t like and every opinion you have ever held is just a half assed rationalization for whatever it is you want. Your entire intellectual existence can be summed up in the phrase “I want”. It is a comical as it is infantile.

                  1. “There is nothing about a monopoly that is consistent with a free market.”

                    So WHO has a publishing or web-sites monopoly in the USA today? In ANY form? Citations? The drunks under the overpass, or who?

                    And at the end of the day… WHOSE GUNS are preventing YOU from breaking these imaginary monopolies, anyway?

                    1. Right but you said you eat shit.

                2. They don’t buy out competing alt-tech that gains

                  They collude to deny services…no more hosting, no more DDOS protection, no credit card transactions/banking, no advertising, no merchandise

                  1. They are a cartel and violating any number of anti trust laws. That is not the free market by any reasonable definition. But, like I say above, “I want” is all idiots like this understand.

                  2. From the article:
                    “Following a perverse and nonsensical allegation that Twitter is somehow stifling his “free speech” despite regularly providing a platform for him to instantaneously reach a global audience, Trump last night tweeted:

                    I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”

                    Trump is NOT going after Twitter for violating anti-trust! If Twitter was SINGING THE PRAISES OF THE DONALD all day long, there would be NO issues raised by Trump, regardless of HOW many anti-trust laws Twitter supposedly breaks! The REAL issues here aren’t so much about anti-trust, as they are about Der TrumpfenFuhrer turning the media into HIS lapdog! He HAS repeatedly lusted after using the courts to silence his enemies, real and perceived!

                    1. What does that have to do with anything?

                      I’m talking about notion of starting up a competitor to twitter/facebook/google

                    2. OK then…

                      “They collude to deny services…no more hosting, no more DDOS protection, no credit card transactions/banking, no advertising, no merchandise”

                      no more hosting… Buy your own server hardware and software!

                      no more DDOS protection… A problem of Government Almighty I suspect. Is the Donald talking about fixing it in a fair and even-handed fashion, or just trying to punish his enemies? If you give Donald this kind of power, it WILL live on for the OPPOSITE-party POTUS!!!

                      no credit card transactions/banking… Has been a problem in the past, yes! Government Almighty micro-managing “racial fairness” in lending, and sometimes trying to NOT allow lending to gun sellers. AND, for SURE, denying banking services to “pot” dealers / growers, in states where pot is legal! But again… Is the Donald talking about fixing THIS in a fair and even-handed fashion, or just trying to punish his enemies? If you give Donald this kind of power, it WILL live on for the OPPOSITE-party POTUS!!!

                      no advertising, no merchandise… You want Government Almighty to “fix” this for you? Sellers don’t want to associate with you? Say, for instance, you advocate for genocide, and sellers find you so abhorrent, they don’t want to tarnish their names by advertising with you? Or selling through you? Do you want Government Almighty
                      to FORCE them to like you? If people boycott the products that you advertise, you want Government Almighty to FORCE them to buy this stuff?

                      Government Almighty fucks up more stuff than it fixes, generally, except to protect our rights in an even-handed fashion! The Donald isn’t talking about all these things above, he just want to punish his enemies! The more power that we give Government Almighty, the more the powers will be abused!

                    3. I never said anything about wanting gov to fix it.

                      I’m just talking about the reality that you’re up against.

                    4. Hi DaveSs,

                      Ye are absolutely correct that a lot of “natural monopolies” (or semi-same) are a real bitch to break into.

                      I’m no crazy libertarian extremist. Railroad lines, gas pipes, telephone lines, electric power wires… They DO deserve regulation, because competition is too hard! What, 5 parallel RR lines for 5 different railroad providers? Ain’t gonna happen!

                      Facebook, Twitter etc. ain’t in THAT list, so we should leave them alone! IMHO…

                      Thanks for your thoughtful inputs, minus name-calling as is too common here!

                    5. Of course you hate being known as a shiteating misogynist

                  3. The “free marketers” here ignore all negative market actions whether it is China or one of these giant corporations. It is amazing watching stupid people who dont understand shit yell free market. Yet this site is full of them. Sqrsly/abc, sarcasmic, brandy, boehm. All the same. They ignore every negative anti market action while screaming at any reaction the US might take. They seemingly support favored entities.

                    1. “…ignore all negative market actions…”

                      Markets do bad things… Go ye and use PERSUASION to convince people not to buy and sell stuff you do not like! NO libertarian is wanting to stop you from using PERSUASION to tell willing listeners that they’re doing bad things! Go ye and do it! I won’t bitch! I promise!

                      It is when you are forever lusting for yet MORE power for the Trumptatorshit to “fix” things with Government Almighty FORCE, that we disagree with you!

                      WHEN are you EVER going to learn, as soon as you give power to YOUR fave TrumpfenFuhrer, that same political power will be passed on to your political enemies, sooner or later? Do you think that the Trumptatorshit will live forever?

                    2. Right but you’re insane and evil and you told us you eat shit.

          2. “Sure, nothing says free market like a cartel of giant corporations who either destroy or buyout any competition.”

            And in 2008-2012 when everyone was arguing about Occupy Wall Street and deregulation I’m totally confident you weren’t out there beating the drum in support of the all-powerful “job creators” that deserved their oligarchy cause they were the “bold risk takers” and had “put in the work” to deserve monopoly, tax breaks and the right to keep all their money in offshore accounts. Right?

            1. My position on this has been entirely consistent. The fact that I don’t think all of the bankers should be shot and the country turned communist really has nothing to do with it.

              You really are incapable of understanding what is going on or the points anyone is making or making a cogent response, Right?

            2. Ahahahaha I got you DOL you sad stupid sockpuppet fuck

        2. Ok can John get access to hedge fund money or “free fed money” like Twitter and the “social media” bolsheviks did? Come on…its all about being in the “group”..that is why they are so far left..the hedge fund boys get their Ivy League NYC socialist “gender studies majors” friends jobs at these firms as “head of content standards” of what not. This guy in Twitter who manages content comments show him to be a very far left type who hates Americans (you know Irish, Italian, Catholic and the types the far left from NYC has hated for generations). As far as a “private” company…last time I checked private companies could not discriminate with customers…Trump is a customer…

    2. The must-read column that Reason as a so-called “libertarian” should write, but never ever will because it accurately portrays their Obamessiah as the Nixonian outlaw that he truly is:

      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/27/what_the_obamagate_scandals_mean_and_why_they_matter.html

      1. “Reason” stopped being libertarian about the time it gained a certain purple-haired editor.

        1. You don’t like their services? Don’t come here! Also, try asking for your money back!

          1. God damn cry more shiteater.

            1. I’m not crying… Jerks and authoritarian wannabes are crying because not everyone agrees with them, that there should be a Trumptatorshit!

              1. Ahahah you cant stop crying because everyone knows you said you eat shit AHAHAHAHAHAH

                You even lie to avoid being mocked for it old mex ahahahahahaha

  36. Is there anybody here who thinks the Democrats wouldn’t stoop so low as to advocate for something–because they want it to hurt the country–and then blaming the president for the damage when their policies are implemented? They do it all the time!

    Denounce the president for criticizing their efforts to make the 2020 election about mail-in ballots–only to turn around and claim the election was illegitimate because it was won on the basis of racist, mail-in ballots–that’s nothing! Take a look at what’s really scaring the left these days:

    “We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country,” he said.

    “Everyone looked puzzled and thought I had misspoken,” Furman said in an interview. Instead of forecasting a prolonged Depression-level economic catastrophe, Furman laid out a detailed case for why the months preceding the November election could offer Trump the chance to brag — truthfully — about the most explosive monthly employment numbers and gross domestic product growth ever.

    Since the Zoom call, Furman has been making the same case to anyone who will listen, especially the close-knit network of Democratic wonks who have traversed the Clinton and Obama administrations together, including top members of the Biden campaign.

    Furman’s counterintuitive pitch has caused some Democrats, especially Obama alumni, around Washington to panic. “This is my big worry,” said a former Obama White House official who is still close to the former president. Asked about the level of concern among top party officials, he said, “It’s high — high, high, high, high.”

    —-Politico

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/26/2020-election-democrats-281470

    When the second quarter numbers come out, they’re likely to show the worst quarter we’ve ever had. April, May, June of 2020 will probably be even worse than at any time during the Great Depression.

    Economic growth for July, August, and September, on the other hand, are likely to be the best we’ve ever seen–and the economy doing really well in the three months leading up to the presidential election in November, that is the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

    Expect the Democrats to do everything they can to make the recession last through November of 2020. Yes, 35 million unemployed Americans getting their jobs back as quickly as possible is their worst nightmare. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they have no shame. Can anyone find me some evidence of shame in the news media or the Democratic party in regards to their criticisms of President Trump?

    1. Expect the Democrats to do everything they can to make the recession last through November of 2020.

      to be fair, they are always doing everything they can to cause a recession.

      1. I’ll give them some credit. Often times it isn’t malicious. It is purely out of economic ignorance or delusion.

    2. Expect the Democrats to do everything they can to make the recession last through November of 2020.

      6 weeks ago my wife said that was what was going to happen. At the time I thought no one could be so shitty as to crash the economy and cause millions to loose their jobs just to win the presidency.

      Now…I’m not so sure how low the party of slavery (and Ron Jeremy lookalike pedophiles) could actually go.

    3. Hey I know you’re like, super smart and stuff…but did it ever occur to you that “the economy doing better in the second half of the year” and “Trump still doing a terrible job at many things including but not limited to the government’s COVID-19 response” are not mutually exclusive, right? So say the market rebounds well, which I hope it does. That doesn’t mean I owe Trump a vote.

  37. How is “Obamagate” going, you fucking Peanuts?

    Has it hatched into another Pizzagate, Jade Helm, or Benghazi fake scandal yet?

    Well goddamnit keep trying then!

    1. I wouldn’t boast too loudly yet, Dipshit Dave Weigel. There’s a pretty decent chance some of your buddies will be getting indicted sooner or later by Durham.

      1. Get back on your Trump approved Droxy, Mikey.

        It’s like something from a sci-fi novel – a drug the Feds give you Trump-sheep to make you all compliant.

        1. Give in to those “sad clown” urges and put yourself out of your misery already.

    2. Great, if how upset you are is any indication lololo

      Flynn owned your bitch ass ahahhahhaaa

    1. Love watching the media beg to have speech suppressed. Makes their caterwauling over their loss of jobs all the more fun.

  38. Mail in ballots. Just ten years ago the Republican Party, repeat REPUBLICAN PARTY, was promoted vote by mail. Partly because of overseas veterans who tend to vote GOP, but also because it’s an easy and convenient way to vote for many seniors (also likely GOP voters). Other reasons as well. In short, the encouraged it.

    Five years ago mail in voting was still hunky dory with Republicans. Four years ago it was fine. Three years ago no one cared. Etc. Then suddenly one tweet last week out of the blue and the the entire GOP is up defending Trump’s paranoia about mail in ballots.

    WTF?

    Are you guys literally unable to see that the man is fallible and can sometimes make mistakes? That this is one of them? Geez.

    Mail in ballots are SAFE. Only one ballot gets sent out per registrant. The sealed envelopes of returned ballots must be signed. One may drop the ballot off at the registrar of voters if one does not trust the Post Office. The security around the ballots is as high as polling place ballots. There is literally no rational argument against them.

    But yet, Orange Man said something so all his fanbois gotta change their brains so they don’t see that he’s wrong. Sad.

    1. Just give in and join the Cult of Trump. You can’t fight it anymore.

      1. Just because people on here find your taste for child pornography to be offensive and disgusting doesn’t mean they are in any kind of cult. They just don’t like you. Most people don’t like guys into kids. It is just how the world is.

        1. But is his post wrong?

    2. You are intentional conflating absentee voting in which the state sends a ballot to a person who requests it with what the democrats are advocating sending out ballots to all registered voters. This being done of course without making sure whether the voter rolls are still accurate. This time I’ll attribute your error to inbred retardation instead of active malice. But please tell your parents to stop fucking already. They are brother and sister.

    3. Right but you told us you eat shit.

    4. I’m not opposed or against. But here’s a problem with mail in votes.
      A few times in the 90s I worked at the polling booth in NYC. You were handed a card to sign, then you would present that to the person with the book of registered voters in that precinct and their signatures from when they signed up. That person would compare the card signature to the book signature. If the signature did not match we could deny them entry into the booth. No matching signature, not vote. Now here’s the difference. If I denied you because of that, the voter could go to a judge and if the judge decides I’m wrong, then the voter gets an order to the judge which they can bring back, present it to me and will be allowed to vote. Lots of judges on hand and I have dealt with a couple of people that brought back the judge’s order.

      In mail voting, what is your recourse if your vote is tossed because the signature didn’t fully match? Do you even know?

  39. ‘Has He Lost His Mind?’: Cuomo Provision Would Charge Police With a Felony for Sharing Info About Illegals
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2020/05/26/gov-cuomo-provision-would-charge-police-with-a-felony-for-sharing-info-about-illegals-n2569439

  40. This graph is amazing. It shows that measuring #SARSCoV2 levels in municipal sewage almost perfectly predicts forthcoming #COVID19 cases with a full week’s notice (R=0.994).

    Considering that, unless they had to-the-minute RNA results *and* case numbers, the graph is fitting precisely 4 datapoints with God knows how many parameters.

    If this moron is amazed by that, he should’ve seen the things von Neumann could do with 4 parameters.

  41. Without reading the comments, I bet there are some foaming at the mouth about this… always odd to see people reading a libertarian website expecting it to be supportive of a shambling belligerent would-be authoritarian.

    1. “…always odd to see people reading a libertarian website expecting it to be supportive of a shambling belligerent would-be authoritarian.”

      How in the world would a fucking lefty ignoramus like you know *anything* about libertarianism?

      1. Perfect example, conflating criticism of Don Orange with “leftism”, and blind support for Don Orange with “libertarianism”.

        1. You have articulated in one sentence the foundation of every post by John and his buddies.

          1. Ahahhaahah shut the fuck up DOL AHAHAHAHAH

    2. always odd to see people reading a libertarian website expecting it to be supportive of a shambling belligerent would-be authoritarian

      Did somebody say they’re backing Biden?

    3. Fuck off JFree.

  42. I do believe if a company lies enough the government can shut it down.

    1. Why yes. Any criticism of Trump should warrant shutting down the source.

      1. only if the criticism is found to be a lie in itself. teh article is claiming he can’t but he can in certain situations now it would be hard to prove just like in libel cases when a politician is involved but companies are shut down or pay a fine all the time for lying in fact right now VW is being required to buy back all the diesel VW’s it sold falsely to the public besides the multi million dollar fines. Blanket statements by writers and commenters only show their own ignorance or personal bias in this case, a case of TDS

  43. I hope twitter puts a fact check on every one of Trump’s tweets just to piss him off. Watching all the conservative blowhards plaguing the comment section here stamp their feet and demand the government force private citizens to stop doing things they don’t like is hilarious.

    1. What is hilarious is how the resident lefty sock puppets can’t understand that taking away their immunity from the responsibility for the things on their platform is not forcing them to do anything.

      Your stupidity never stops being funny. It is like chimps in suits.

      1. taking away their immunity from the responsibility for the things on their platform is not forcing them to do anything.

        Good point. Free speech is for chumps.

        1. Nah. Internet companies should have no privileges TV networks do not get.

        2. Dumb ass. You have a right to say anything you like. But with that freedom comes the responsibility of the consequences of what you say. If you want to run a platform and exercise iron fisted control over what get’s posted on there, that is absolutely your right. But when you assume the freedom of doing that, you automatically should assume the responsibility for whatever is posted on your platform. If you don’t like that, then don’t take the freedom of controlling what goes on the platform and just post everything. It is one or the other. The social media companies want the freedom to control at their discretion but refuse to take the responsibility that necessarily should come with that.

          What about that do you not understand? And how can you possibly think freedom means being free from responsibility? Don’t you understand you can’t have one without the other?

          1. “But when you assume the freedom of doing that, you automatically should assume the responsibility for whatever is posted on your platform. If you don’t like that, then don’t take the freedom of controlling what goes on the platform and just post everything. It is one or the other”

            Says who? That is your opinion. And a pretty damned stupid opinion at that. How about I keep my freedom and you fuck off with your caveats and demands about what I must do to earn my freedom?

            1. YEah says me. Where do you get off thinking that people should have freedom without responsibility?

              You don’t earn your freedom you fucking half wit. But your freedom necessarily comes with responsibility. You can’t shirk that responsibility off on other people. If you do, then it isn’t freedom. It is welfare or if they can say no, it is their freedom not yours.

              To put it in terms even someone as dim witted as you can understand, you have the freedom to say anything you like. But holding you responsible for damage done by your slander is not making you “earn your freedom”. It is just holding you responsible for your exercise of that freedom.

              You seem not to understand what freedom actually is. You think it is just doing whatever you want and avoiding any consequence you want. No, that is called being a bum. That is not freedom in the sense we are talking about here.

              1. But holding you responsible for damage done by your slander is not making you “earn your freedom”.

                There is no such thing as slander when it comes to politics. That’s a slippery slope that leads to people with the “wrong” politics being thrown into mental institutions or prisons.

                1. There is such a thing as slander. Opinion is not slander. But if I say something that is factually wrong about you and that statement damages you, I am and should be responsible for the damage my lie has done to you.

                  And that has nothing to do with politics. You are free to rant and rave and call the President all the names you like. That is your absolute right. But you are not free to lie and make false factual statements without bearing the responsibility for the damage caused by that.

                  You don’t understand what freedom is. For you it is just “I Want”. It is more than that. It is also assuming the responsibility for your actions. If you don’t bear the consequences of your actions, you are not a free man. You are either a bum or someone’s child.

                  1. There is such a thing as slander.

                    You’re going to omit “when it comes to politics” and then admonish me for something I didn’t say? My respect for you just went down a notch.

                    1. There is no “but it is politics” exception to it. Nor should there be. Why is it okay to lie and slander people over politics? It is not. Do you have that big of a problem with telling the truth?

                    2. Why is it okay to lie and slander people over politics?

                      Because policing political speech will always be abused by people with power. Me today, you tomorrow. Get your head out of your ass. You’re only mad because it’s your guy. You used to be mostly principled, but you’ve become no different than the retards calling everyone racist when Obama was president.

                  2. “And that has nothing to do with politics. You are free to rant and rave and call the President all the names you like. That is your absolute right. But you are not free to lie and make false factual statements without bearing the responsibility for the damage caused by that.”

                    Yet here you are supporting a President, who, just a tad bit ironically, makes FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT EVERY DAY AND THAT IS WHAT CAUSED THIS DEBACLE.

                    1. If Trump slanders anyone, sue him. You really have no idea what we are talking about here. All you know is “Orange man bad”.

                    2. Whats with all your sockpuppets today?

                    3. John
                      May.27.2020 at 4:05 pm
                      If Trump slanders anyone, sue him. You really have no idea what we are talking about here. All you know is “Orange man bad”.

                      No, John, actually “all I know” is that less than 4 inches above this you said: “And that has nothing to do with politics. You are free to rant and rave and call the President all the names you like. That is your absolute right. But you are not free to lie and make false factual statements without bearing the responsibility for the damage caused by that.”

                      Then I said “Yet here you are supporting a President, who, just a tad bit ironically, makes FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT EVERY DAY AND THAT IS WHAT CAUSED THIS DEBACLE.”

                      Then your reply, as is your custom, is ad-hominem followed by total dodge. “If Trump slanders anyone, sue him. You really have no idea what we are talking about here. All you know is “Orange man bad”.

                      I directly addressed the specific statement you made, and your reply is an utter failure to counter that. You are the one that brought up false statements and liability for them. So I immediately demonstrate how your standard if applied would immediately hurt Trump because he actually does lie every single day. Twitter didn’t censor him or block him or anything. The “consequence” was that he got called out. For lying.

                      You played the “freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences” card in favor of a guy who lies every day. Tone-deaf and un-aware, with some condescension, goal-post moving, and an “aw shucks” thrown in. Peak John. Absolute classic John.

                    4. AGain, not every untruth is slander. A slander is a lie that causes someone harm to their reputation or economic prospects. If Trump has done that to someone, then he is libel to be sued over it.

                      You can’t understand the difference between an untruth and a slander. And frankly, I am not optimistic you are intelligent enough to ever understand such a distinction.

                2. “There is no such thing as slander when it comes to politics”

                  What a fucking clown take.

            2. You have free speech but not freedom from the consequences, no?

              Twitter wants freedom from consequences.

              1. ….and Trump wants to lie all day on an account used as the official information feed from the President of the United States, yet you don’t want any “consequences” for that.

                1. AHAHAHAJ SUCK MY DICK DOL AHAHAHAJAJAJ

          2. The social media companies want the freedom to control at their discretion but refuse to take the responsibility that necessarily should come with that.

            What about that do you not understand?

            Let’s see. It’s their platform. They can control at their discretion because it’s their platform. What part of that do you not understand?

            And what responsibility do they have for controlling what is on their sites? That makes no sense. Especially in a political context. Unless you mean they should be punished for going against your politics. If that is the case the only difference between you and a progressive fascist is… well… I can’t think of one.

            1. If a newspaper publishes something defamatory, the paper is liable.

              Why is Twitter different?

              1. You think Reason should be prosecuted for things you say on this forum?

                1. Reason doesn’t police these forums.

                  Also why your cell company isnt liable if you plan crimes on their network.

                2. This and the Woodchipper Incident are two completely different scenarios. If some autistic tranny Twitter admin is going to go the trouble to “fact-check” everything Trump tweets, why not do the same thing for every elected politician in the country?

                3. This has been explained to you and the other progressives multiple times. There is NO liability risk if there is NO moderation of comments. The fact that you and the Uterus willfully misrepresent this point shows just how dishonest you are.

                  And Section 230 special pleading protections (funny how you “libertarians” love you some big government) go away once the forum starts not only curating but actively publishing content like the “fact check.”

            2. nd what responsibility do they have for controlling what is on their sites?

              The responsibility is that if someone on their site slanders someone or steals someone’s copyrighted material, they are responsible for making good on that. They control the platform and get the freedom that comes with that, they also should be responsible for the consequences of the damages done by that content.

              1. Talk about taking things out of context so you can burn a straw man. You’re turning into a raging Trumptard. I’m starting to reconsider the nice things I’ve said about you.

                1. What are you talking about? I answered your point. What about my post do you not understand? It is not a straw man. It is explaining to you what they should be responsible for.

                  Either tell me what you don’t understand and let me explain it again or make a cogent point in response. What you said makes no sense.

                  1. I’ve got to take my cat to a vet appointment. I may not be taking him home. So we can continue this another time.

                    1. I hope your kitty is okay.

                    2. gack! sorry man that’s awful.

                    3. Pleaae dont you made a fool of yourself again you fucking drunk.

                  2. It’s a straw man, you fool, because there is no slander here, It’s just someone pointing out that he lied. You are the worst lawyer ever.

            3. and not to totally blow John’s mind…but should Twitter be “legally responsible” for allowing Trump to spout literally a torrent of misinformation and threats every single day? Are they liable for “allowing” his content? Oh wait I forgot, no one is even bothering to laugh at his claim that “all conservative voices are totally silenced.” In a Tweet seen by millions. “Totally silenced” though.

              1. What’s with all your stupid sockpuppets today DOL?

              2. None of that makes any sense. You are dumb as post. Twitter is not liable for any content on their platform so long as they remove illegal content when it is pointed out to them. That is what this entire thing is about. Do you not understand that? Are you too busy worrying about the evil black criminals that live under bed to give this any thought?

          3. “Dumb ass. You have a right to say anything you like. But with that freedom comes the responsibility of the consequences of what you say. ”

            Now apply that to Trump’s daily absurd statements you fool.

            1. Maybe, JUST MAYBE having the president of the United States on the daily voluntarily pushing conspiracies, personal grievances, and threats of using his power, should be subject to some of those consequences you speak of? Did you ever think of that?

              1. What’s with all your stupid sockpuppets today DOL?

              2. “should be subject to some of those consequences”

                IT’S CALLED AN ELECTION RETARD

                And why are you running so many socks today?

          4. John
            May.27.2020 at 4:59 pm
            AGain, not every untruth is slander. A slander is a lie that causes someone harm to their reputation or economic prospects. If Trump has done that to someone, then he is libel to be sued over it.

            You can’t understand the difference between an untruth and a slander. And frankly, I am not optimistic you are intelligent enough to ever understand such a distinction.

            Learn to read bro. I did not ask for Trump to be sued for libel. I merely pointed out that the “consequence” for his lie in this case was a fact-check. Nothing more nothing less. And on the other hand YOU are among those asserting that Twitter is “blocking and censoring conservative views” while we talk about a Tweet that millions freely saw by a man who freely posted it.

      2. I’ve been posting for 5 years under this name alone. Stop making wrong assumptions about every single thing and fuck off back to Breitbart with the rest of your SoCon Nanny State cheerleaders.

        1. I can’t find any posts that old with this name. If you have been posting that long, show some links proving it because I can’t find any.

          1. fact. check. lol

          2. He’s not a daily commenter, but he’s definitely been here a few years.

            1. No he isn’t. I have never seen him. If he is, show me a link. Prove it.

              1. Sorry, I don’t care enough to do your research for you. I don’t really care about your little spat. I’m just saying I’ve seen the name around for a while, and generally engaging in good faith. If you don’t believe me, you don’t believe me.

    2. >>I hope twitter puts a fact check on

      dude go outside. without your phone.

      1. that’s practically a death sentence.

    3. “Watching all the conservative blowhards plaguing the comment section here stamp their feet and demand the government force private citizens to stop doing things they don’t like is hilarious.”

      Amen and well put!

      1. Go cure your migraine headaches with a power drill.

        1. Gasbag Blowhard,
          Please listen!
          You don’t know,
          What you’re missing!
          Donald’s ass, don’t be kissin’!
          Trump won’t love you,
          He’ll push and shove you!
          He’ll take your vote,
          Then call you a goat!
          He’ll tax your money,
          Then steal your Honey!
          Your pussy, He will grab,
          Your back, He will stab!
          His-victims-routines, He’s iterating,
          Shit about YOU, He’ll be Twitterating!

          1. Right but you told us you eat shit.

    4. But, but, but it’s different when they do it! Because…. Trump or something!

      1. We get it already you’re drunk and a prog.

    5. Conservative blowhards here? Name two. (I’ll even give you the first: John.)

      Typical simplistic soy-boy thinking: “Anyone not with me in supporting Bernie Sanders must be a conservative.” Got news for you Bucky: most here subscribe to a form of political thought not taught in your high school. It’s called “libertarianism”. Check it out — you might like the pot and ass-sex parts.

      1. Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
        Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
        He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
        Totally regardless of whereever He sits
        Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
        He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
        He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
        No matter the words, however absurd!
        He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
        Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
        They say He’ll be impeached by June,
        Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
        So He sits and jiggles His balls,
        Then He Twitters upon the walls
        “Some come here to sit and think,
        Some come here to shit and stink
        But I come here to scratch my balls,
        And read the writings on the walls
        Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin’
        Giving birth to another Texan!
        Here I sit, on the pooper,
        Giving birth to another state trooper!
        He who writes these lines of wit,
        Wraps His Trump in little balls,
        He who reads these lines of wit,
        Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”

        1. Wow i guess you ate so much shit you couldnt answer him lololol

      2. LoveCon, JesseAz, Nardz, and others routinely calling for the government to make the mean old Corporations stop doing things that they don’t like. There’s not many of them, they just shit out low-effort troll posts at an incredible rate.

        1. Guess you’re right on JesseAz. Don’t know about the others.

        2. Cite it, leftist shill

  44. The Trump administration’s efforts to get us out of Afghanistan continue to bear fruit.

    In the last episode, Pompeo was withholding American financial support for the government of Afghanistan until they started following through on their commitments to engage with the Taliban, specifically in regards to the early commitments on prisoner exchanges. The Afghan government has now finally relented and is starting to release Taliban prisoners again.

    “KABUL (Reuters) – The Afghan government said it was in the process of freeing 900 Taliban members from prison on Tuesday, the biggest such release yet, and urged the insurgent group to extend a three-day ceasefire set to end at midnight.

    The release was part of a prisoner swap under a deal struck by the Taliban and the United States in Qatar in February, as a precursor to peace talks between the Islamist militants and an inclusive Afghan delegation aiming to end a two-decade-old war.”

    —-US News and World Report, May 26, 2020

    https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-05-26/afghan-government-will-free-900-taliban-prisoners-tuesday-afghan-official

    Other sources are now reporting that many of these prisoners have now been released.

    The agreement the Trump administration negotiated with the Taliban for the U.S. to leave the country in 14 months is now two months down that road, and so far, things are going about as well as can be reasonably expected. The Taliban continues to abide by the terms of their agreement with the Trump administration. The only party that has been a problem is the U.S. backed Afghanistan government, which will only negotiate prisoner exchanges and a power sharing agreement with the Taliban in good faith when the Trump administration gives them no other choice–something the Trump administration has continued to do. 12 months from now, we may be out of Afghanistan, and if we are, it will be because of the efforts of President Trump.

    1. We have seen this movie before in Vietnam. In Vietnam, we pretty much got everything we wanted in the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, the war ended, and we went home. The North Vietnamese only respected the peace for as long as there was a threat of our returning. As soon as Ford said we would never got back to Vietnam in January 1975, the North invaded the South and by April of 1975, South Vietnam was no more.

      The same will be true here. Trump is going to negotiate a reasonable peace that will allow the US to leave. That peace, however, will last only as long as there is a credible threat of the US returning. When that threat no longer exists, the Taliban will break the agreement, take over and murder as many people as possible.

      How long that threat remains, I would not wager to guess.

      1. Just as it was during Vietnam, the question never should have been whether what we were doing in Vietnam was in the best interests of South Vietnam. The question should always have been whether what we were doing in Vietnam was in the best interests of the United States. I maintain that remaining in Vietnam in 1974 was not in the best interests of the United States.

        The question of whether we should leave Afghanistan can’t be addressed properly with answers about whether our leaving is in the best interests of the U.S. backed Afghanistan government. Making these decisions based on what’s in the best interests of the United States is what I’m talking about when I talk about “America First”. What we should have done in Syria wasn’t a question of taking the best interests of the Kurds to heart, and if it’s in the best interests of the U.S. to leave Afghanistan, then that’s what we should do.

        Over the long term, withdrawing from Vietnam was in the best interests of the United States. Even in the shorter term, it wasn’t the U.S. that toppled the Khmer Rouge. It was Vietnam, and they couldn’t have done it if we hadn’t left.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War

        Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced that our absence will create more impetus for anti-American terrorism than our presence does now–never mind the question of whether our leaving is in our best interests regardless of whether leaving gives the terrorists more of a free hand than they had before.

        1. I do not think it was in the best interests of the United States to allow the North to invade, subjugate and commit genocide over the South and for the Khmer Rouge to do the same thing and much much worse in Cambodia. For all of the mistakes of Vietnam including getting involved at all, the fact remains we had won the war and only the smallest of deterrents was required to secure that victory. Had we done that and made it clear that we would return if the North invaded, the North would have almost certainly not invaded and South Vietnam Cambodia would be a free and prosperous nations today and been spared some of the most brutal regimes in history.

          Afghanistan is nowhere near of the strategic importance of SE Asia. That being said, I do not think it serves our interests to walk away and allow once again everyone in a nation who took our side be subject to murder and genocide when the mere threat of intervening is all that is necessary to prevent it.

          1. who’s this “our interest” you’re talking about? I have no interest in Afghanistan. None.

          2. everyone in a nation who took our side

            They didn’t take our side, we took their side. They don’t care about us, even a little bit.

        2. I maintain that remaining in Vietnam in 1974 was not in the best interests of the United States.

          We can just go ahead and include 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973.

          1. You can start with 1950 if you’d like:
            “…Then the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, plus the flow of aid from China and the Soviet Union to the Viet Minh, prompted Truman to reexamine Vietnam in a Cold War light.
            Fearing that Vietnam, too, would become a communist state, he sent over transport planes and jeeps, along with 35 military advisers, as part of a multimillion-dollar aid package.
            U.S. involvement in the conflict would only deepen from there. By the end of Truman’s presidency, the United States was funding more than one-third of France’s war costs, a number that would soon skyrocket to about 80 percent…”
            https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-vietnam-war-escalation

            1. yeah i was being generous and treating Gulf of Tonkin as a pivot point but you are not wrong.

        3. And also, it’s not like the Afghan government is exactly blameless innocents here. From my understanding, the difference between them and the Taliban is that they had “legality” in killing whoever they wanted. I don’t doubt that the Taliban will probably wait until we’re good and gone to start taking control again, but as long as we’re out, that’s less our problem, and more theirs. And hey, maybe this thing will actually work out peacefully, though I doubt it.

          1. I don’t know that the public mood in Kabul for the U.S. backed government is as bad as local support for government as South Vietnam. The people of South Vietnam largely hated the U.S. backed government. They were horribly corrupt.

            If the Vietnamese hadn’t murdered so many so called “collaborators” during the Tet Offensive and afterwards, they might have gained more popularity than they did–and not so many people might have fled for their lives after the fall of Saigon.

            They launched the Tet Offensive assuming that the government of South Vietnam was so unpopular that invading North Vietnamese troops would be greeted as liberators–and the South Vietnamese government was so unpopular, that wasn’t necessarily an unreasonable assumption.

            Why does it seem like those who use foreign wars to spread democracy always seem to end up trying to inflict an unpopular regime on people who hate it. It’s almost like you can’t force people to do things against their will without creating more problems than you solve–not even when what you’re trying to do is for their own good.

      2. This will truly infuriate lefty peace-niks who thought Obama was the chosen one.

        oh wait, no it won’t. Principals over principles. Ever. Single. Time.

      3. Does it really matter though?

        Could stay in Afghanistan for another 60 years and the end result will be the same. The US puppet gov would be overthrown shortly after all US forces leave, and more generations would know first hand that the US gov is an invader.

  45. https://twitter.com/aginnt/status/1265501468381118464

    1/ Norway cancels its mass COVID testing program:

    “Norway’s health agency has abandoned plans to test broadly for coronavirus after judging that the spread of infection in the country is now so low that doing so would be pointless.”

    2/ Norway is more concerned about false positives:

    “If 12,000 random people were tested in Norway today, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health estimated in a press release issued on Monday, 15 would test positive, of which only one would have a real coronavirus infection. “

    1. “If 12,000 random people were tested in Norway today, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health estimated in a press release issued on Monday, 15 would test positive, of which only one would have a real coronavirus infection. “

      Norwegian ‘public health experts’ are getting out in front of the wave of resentment so they can ride it in safely. Desperate and hopelessly out of work young men have a tendency to go looking for the people who ruined their lives.

      1. Norwegians would never resort to violence, right?

  46. More bad economic news.

    Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch only earned a little over $1,000,000,000 yesterday.

    “Wait — that’s bad news?” you ask. Well, it is when you consider he’s still down almost $11 billion this year, putting his net worth barely above $50 billion. Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration agenda is preventing Mr. Koch from enjoying his twilight years.

    #OpenTheBordersToHelpCharlesKoch

  47. >>President Donald Trump has been threatening to crush a private company for mildly questioning his authority.

    cute how you carry his agua.

    1. KarENB demands to speak to the manager!

    1. >>“You panicked about the market, panicked about covid, panicked about the ventilators, panicked about PPE, panicked about ever going out again,”

      pwn3d

    2. Nernen is one of those Trump dick-suckers who constantly predicted 5-6% GDP growth if we just elected a white Republican POTUS.

      #Trump30%UE

      1. not sure what race has to do with it, unless you’re some sort of anti-white racist. You a racist, Buttplug? It’s ok, you can admit it, we already know you’re a pedo so you can’t go any lower in our eyes.

        1. It’s a “progressive”, darkflame. Why would you need to ask if it’s racist? The answer’s inherent.

  48. “”First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a “To” and a “From” line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “From” line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.””

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-fbi-document-confirms-the-trump-campaign-was-investigated-without-justification/ar-BB14FhrQ?ocid=spartanntp

    1. “”On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire.””

      1. hm… Why do I have the feeling that Petey wasn’t working alone in the FBI leadership, and is merely being given up as the scapegoat here?

        1. I mean all his cohorts had their names redacted so I think you’re right on the money. Shit rolls downhill and Pete’s at the bottom of a very shitty hill.

          1. We’ve killed off the FBI and remade it twice before (both times due to drug corruption), Hoover’s FBI is the 3rd iteration. We can do it again.

      2. I’m so used to a left leaning bias in all media. It’s weird to see a reporter so blatantly point out the corruption all along the process without a single attempt to mitigate blame.

  49. So Twitter published information directly under one of Trumps tweets. Let me repeat that they PUBLISHED, not one of their user, but Twitter itself published a link directly under one of Trumps tweets. Thus directly endorsing any information within.

    How exactly does Section 230 protect against that? Or is NY Times not liable for defamation because they have a comments section too?

    1. It does seem odd that unilaterally editing posts means one is not a publisher.

      1. Even more odd that somebody put a picture of a guy on Twitter, thought he was the wrong person, had a bunch of blue checks condemn the guy for nothing…and Twitter never saw the need to fact check that.

        Weird.

    2. I’m still confused as to how the blue checkmark works wrt section 230. Seems like either Twitter owns/controls/is responsible for the authentication and badge assignment mechanism or they don’t. Seems like section 230 creates an oxymoronic carveout to make it acceptable for Twitter to lie.

      1. Leaving aside Section 230, why do you think you would be able to sue Twitter for giving someone a blue checkmark?

        1. Leaving aside the fact that the blue checkmark is a (proxy) identification mechanism, why do you assume that I wouldn’t be able to sue Twitter for anything under the sun?

          Civil law is a primary, even primordial, function of government. The 1A explicitly states a right to petition, no such similar statement regarding free speech is as clearly stated. McDonalds can be sued for selling coffee that it advertises as being hot but Twitter can’t be sued even if there are circumstantial or systemic flaws in its identification mechanism?

          1. “why do you assume that I wouldn’t be able to sue Twitter for anything under the sun?”

            You can, in the sense that crazy people sue Bill Gates for not making them Jesus.

            “Twitter can’t be sued even if there are circumstantial or systemic flaws in its identification mechanism?”

            Who is suing, what is the cause of action, and what are the damages?

            1. Who is suing, what is the cause of action, and what are the damages?

              Without knowing any of that you should be able tell me if section 230 applies or not. That’s the whole point of Congress passing it into law.

              1. Not really. Section 230 provides certain protections against certain claims. You haven’t described what Twitter is doing wrong or how it is harming anyone, making it difficult to establish whether Section 230 would apply. What is Twitter “lying” about?

                1. No one cares what you think because youre wrong and stupid DOL.

                  1. Well you seem nice. Where am I wrong?

                    1. You thought we wouldnt recognize you you pathetic fucking loser.

                    2. Well you seem nice. Where am I wrong?

                2. Section 230 provides certain protections against certain claims.

                  So then it’s not the broad protection of free speech, peaceable assembly, and right to petition like the 1A is (supposed to be)?

                  1. No. It also doesn’t prohibit laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

                    1. So the statement ‘section 230 is the 1A of the internet’ is somewhere between inaccurate hyperbole and outright falsehood? That if any anarco-capitalist or minarchists around these parts were looking for inconsequential and meaningless laws to repeal, section 230 would be towards the top of the list? Even relative to less fundamental legislation or judicial decisions?

                      Because for a fundamental protection essential to the internet it sounds like benefit offered by the law is exceedingly narrow and highly circumstantial. That the same effect could easily be achieved by a less broadly burdensome and chilling approach.

                    2. “So the statement ‘section 230 is the 1A of the internet’ is somewhere between inaccurate hyperbole and outright falsehood?”

                      No, it’s an analogy.

                      “That if any anarco-capitalist or minarchists around these parts were looking for inconsequential and meaningless laws to repeal, section 230 would be towards the top of the list?”

                      No, it’s neither inconsequential nor meaningless.

                      “That the same effect could easily be achieved by a less broadly burdensome and chilling approach.”

                      You’ll have to explain how Section 230 is either burdensome or chilling.

                    3. You’ll have to explain how Section 230 is either burdensome or chilling.

                      OK, so we’re clear, you’re not libertarian in the slightest.

                      You’ve said that section 230 is both analogous to the 1A and, simultaneously, not near as broad. You’ve said it’s both fundamental/not inconsequential and highly circumstantial with niche applicability. You acknowledge that it’s a law passed by Congress and then hold it to a judicial evidentiary standard for repeal.

                      When I called you the dumbfuck that you are, you don’t have to worry about whether I was making an inapt comparison or a disingenuous analogy. If you weren’t such a disingenuous shitbag, you could’ve just started off the conversation with “I think Congress is innocent until proven guilty.” and saved us all a lot of trouble. Instead of playing like you give two shits about liberty.

            2. Who is suing, what is the cause of action, and what are the damages?

              Moreover, when it comes to Congress passing a law, the specific answer to “Who is suing?” is no more/no less than “A United States Citizen.” anything else (and possibly even that) is a violation of Equal Protection. Again, when it comes to Congress passing a/the law, any answer to “cause of action and damages” that constitutes ‘peaceable assembly’ is off limits.

              1. Well no. There are all kinds of things that I can’t sue about because they don’t affect me that other people can sue about because they affect them.

                And I thought the lawsuit was about Twitter and its blue checkmarks, not congress passing a law.

                1. Ahahah look at you realizing youre wrong ahahahah

                    1. Ahahhayou sad wrong sockpuppet fuck lololol

                2. There are all kinds of things that I can’t sue about because they don’t affect me that other people can sue about because they affect them.

                  First, you’re conflating a suit resolved on a finding of lack of standing, a suit resolved in favor of the defense, and a suit resolved because Congress said so.

                  Second, the type of suits that fall in to the latter categories are near unanimously regarded as Congress or other municipality protecting/legally shielding that entity. We can sue our local power utility for powering white supremacist facilities or the local telecom for giving them phone service, the government regulates them to make sure they are providing service fairly and equally. In exchange for the regulation, they are preferentially protected from such allegations. The arrangement is unequivocally acknowledged as such and a big part of the problem with section 230 is that it simultaneously and selectively offers and revokes such protections and does so preferentially and with known and widespread chilling effect.

                  And I thought the lawsuit was about Twitter and its blue checkmarks, not congress passing a law.

                  If I mention in passing that the lawsuit might have something to do with you fucking goats, do you go fuck a goat to prove that Twitter can’t be sued because you posted how you like to fuck goats? I understand the allegations and associated confessions of goat fucking come a bit out of left field so I want to be sure I’m not going too quick for you. I can understand how your reading comprehension would suffer while you’re distracted by your goat fucking. I want to be clear that I, the courts, and Congress are totally OK with you conceptually and factually fucking goats. The issue is that Congress shouldn’t be in favor of your prolific goat fucking by law and a priori.

                  Also, once you’re done fucking around with the goats, you can also stop pummeling your Mott-and-Bailey straw men you mendacious dumbfuck.

                  1. What does any of this have to do with your original post? This is what you said: “I’m still confused as to how the blue checkmark works wrt section 230. Seems like either Twitter owns/controls/is responsible for the authentication and badge assignment mechanism or they don’t. Seems like section 230 creates an oxymoronic carveout to make it acceptable for Twitter to lie.”

                    1. What does any of this have to do with your original post?

                      So you apparently didn’t read the part that was about you being a mendacious, goat-fucking dumbfuck. No surprise that your selective reading skills are on 24/7.

                      I know what I said. So, through the lens of Section 230 is Twitter responsible/liable for the veracity of the blue checkmarks and any damages associated with any misrepresentation or not?

                      If the answer is “It depends.” it’s a vaguely written (and unconstitutional and repealed) law that needs to be outright repealed in favor of the judicial discretion it was designed to replace.

                      You ask the very question that’s the heart of the issue. If it’s a judicial matter, why does a law need to be written? If it’s a legislative matter than why does it concern itself with civil law?

                      But, I don’t need your clarification. It’s plainly clear that you’re a shiftless lying scumbag and you’d sell out pretty much any principle to defend your position no matter how thin and indefensible.

                    2. “So, through the lens of Section 230 is Twitter responsible/liable for the veracity of the blue checkmarks and any damages associated with any misrepresentation or not?”

                      Responsible to who? For what? Regardless of whether Section 230 is involved, you can’t just ignore these questions.

                      “If the answer is “It depends.” it’s a vaguely written (and unconstitutional and repealed) law that needs to be outright repealed in favor of the judicial discretion it was designed to replace.”

                      You can’t throw out an incomplete hypothetical then whine that you don’t get an answer. I mean, you can, in the sense that a crazy person can sue Bill Gates for not making him Jesus, but it’s just silly.

                      “You ask the very question that’s the heart of the issue. If it’s a judicial matter, why does a law need to be written? If it’s a legislative matter than why does it concern itself with civil law?”

                      You seem very confused about the way the law works. Very few laws have to be written and that a law didn’t have to be written is not a strike against that law. But neither the American system, nor the English system that is at the foundation of the American system, were ever exclusively common law systems. Both have included heavy doses of civil law from the beginning.

                      “It’s plainly clear that you’re a shiftless lying scumbag and you’d sell out pretty much any principle to defend your position no matter how thin and indefensible.”

                      Aren’t you a little cutie.

                    3. Responsible to who? For what? Regardless of whether Section 230 is involved, you can’t just ignore these questions.

                      Responsible for the veracity of the claims it makes. I’m not dodging the question. These questions aren’t going unanswered. They’ve been long answered and are frequently answered in contradiction to section 230. You need to pretend that they aren’t answered and that the answers depend on section 230. Your idiotic ploy is obvious.

                      You can’t throw out an incomplete hypothetical then whine that you don’t get an answer.

                      People can and do. Congress throws out incomplete hypotheticals and then passes laws based on it all the time. Moreover, I’m not whining that I don’t get an answer, I’m pointing out that the a priori answer is assumed to apply despite being self-describedly narrow. If I said I know the answer to your question and, when you asked a question, said, “That question’s too broad. I need more details to answer your question.” if you called me a liar who couldn’t answer your question, you’d be right.

    3. “How exactly does Section 230 protect against that?”

      Protect against what? What, exactly, do you think that Twitter did wrong and could be published for?

      1. Right now, nothing. They are just editorializing someone else’s post, but I’m pointing out that they are editorializing. They, not their users, are directly publishing under Trumps tweets. Anything they post there, they should be liable for.

        1. And they are. Section 230 does not provide any protection for their own posts.

          1. Bro no one cares aboutvyour WORTHELSS sockpuppet legal failures

            1. You seem to care.

    4. To be liable for “defamation”, the alleged victim has to prove the accused uttered or published a falsehood, and knowingly did so.

      As with 99.9% of Don Orange’s threats… good luck with that.

      1. Bro no one cares aboutvyour WORTHELSS sockpuppet legal failures

  50. Note: Biden is walking back his apology. He now claims Charlamagne tha God was being a “wise guy” in their interview.

    So, yes, he REALLY believes minorities OWE him their vote. Never ever forget that.

    …also NM Governor (guess the party, kids) had a jewelry store briefly opened so she could buy something.

    Know your place, proles.

  51. He’s also the one that changed the wording in the FBI report to protect Hillary from being indicted.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html

    1. Supposed to be a reply to Darkflame.

      Damn threads.

  52. What would happen to Twitter stock if Trump just moves over to GAB or something? After haranguing GAB as Alt-Right, white supremacists, all the reporters would have to sign up to follow the Orange Man and be exposed to Alex Jones…LOL

    1. Not just Twitter, but media in general. The narrow simplicity of the ‘The Blacks!/The Jooz!’ filter relative to the ‘SJW morality/geopolitical virtue signal’ filter(s) means general truthiness will likely increase.

      Don Lemon talking up what a paradise Baltimore and Wuhan are will be replaced by somebody like Don Rickles talking about what rat-infested shit holes Baltimore and Wuhan are. You’ll know he’s exaggerating because he’s a racist but it will be less of a lie than the alternative.

    2. This is the humorous thing about this whole debate.

      The platforms that refuse to censor and ‘mitigate’ voices get branded by the OTHER companies quick on the trigger to do so as ‘alt-right’. It’s quite brilliant when you think about it. Hammer, censor, ban, shadow-ban, fact-check, deplatform, demonetize conservative voices at 10x the rate of other ideologies. Then when a competitor platform pops up that refuses to do so, those right-of-center voices naturally gravitate to it. Dismiss alternative platform as a haven for right-wing ideology.

  53. @Elizabeth Nolan Brown

    As long as Twitter is ONLY doing this fact checking on those posting viewpoints Twitter disagrees with then we’re all good right? After all we can’t be questioning any anti-Trump/pro-progressive comments right.

    As for the Publisher versus platform argument goes, that’s where you’re wrong. Twitter must decide to be one or the other, it can;t ride the middle and reap the rewards of both no matter how much you believe they are entitled to. Are you this pro-private business when the viewpoint is pro-Trump or is this just something you cheer for when its anti-Trump?

    1. So tell us WHAT law or laws out there make ANY such differentiation between a “platform” and a “publisher”? Citations please!

      If I tell a lie in the letter-to-the-editor of a local hardcopy rag, do you REALLY think it is fair to punish the NEWSPAPER for what I wrote?

      Just sue whoever has the “deep pockets”, is THIS your idea of justice?

      “Government Almighty loves me”… True or false? You want a jury to decode that?

      1. Aahahahaah you told us you eat shit ahahahhha

        1. Citations please, yeast-infected twat!

      2. So tell us WHAT law or laws out there make ANY such differentiation between a “platform” and a “publisher”? Citations please!

        TItle II of the Communications Act of 1934.
        15 U.S. Code CHAPTER 22—TRADEMARKS

        Over and over and over and back into antiquity, both the government as well as the public capably distinguish an entity typified as a publisher from the technology that offers them a platform but, for some reason, section 230 comes along and part of the population is falling all over itself and undermine their own principles in order to auspiciously forget how it all works in support of the last vestiges of an illegal law passed by Congress.

        There are dozens of examples from domain seizures to the blacklisting of Wikileaks that demonstrate that section 230 isn’t a protection of content providers from the consequences of their content. It’s a law that is overtly written and in practice just a thinly-veiled cover for social media websites to block deplorables as long as they come and prostrate themselves before Congress.

      3. Just sue whoever has the “deep pockets”, is THIS your idea of justice?

        Is Congress passing a law your idea of justice?

  54. Question: If the internet regulations the “Net Neutrality” fans pushed at the FCC had stayed in place could the government then use them to go after Twitter?

  55. LOL!

    5 hours late, 500 comments. Standard GOP cucks hardest triggered.

    You couldn’t get a stronger response with “Obama: Best President Ever” on this site.

    Private company, they can do what they want.

    Maybe if we lived in a world where people didnt burn down 5G towers because of shit they heard on the internet. But we dont live in that world. The most powerful man in the world (and one that legit lies every day, almost every time he talks) should probably be fact checked more. Because low intellect mouth breathers hang on his every word, and are sold on what he says. Plenty of examples of the cult followers on this site.

    Fact check Pelosi or the hag next time they talk on twitter if it makes the GOP cucks feel better (it would be easy, they lie as much if not more). Or blow up demntia biden for something he did, would be just as easy. Fuck all of these wanna be top men.

    If it pisses you off, feel free to boycott twitter; or go pound sand, either way

    1. Ahahaha cry more bitch ahahahahah

  56. Next up from the reason comments section:

    “Libertarians” call for sanction and punishment of private company by nanny-govt for saying bad things about their favorite politician…

    1. It’s almost as if there’s a segment of the political spectrum that uses a *CLAIM* of libertarianism as a fig-leaf to cover something ugly.

      I guess according to them, restrictions on the power of politicians and “elites”, such as preventing a foot-stomping petulant man-child from using the power of the state against those who say “mean” things about him, are “left wing” and “ignorant”.

      1. Its almost like youre talking to another of your sockpuppets lolololo

      2. Replying to your own sockpuppets is pathetic even for you, Jeff.

  57. Trump’s tween girlishly hormonal abuses of any “mean to him” private sector actor(s) is even worse and more capricious and uncertainty inducing than were Obama’s ideological and institutional abuses. Again Obama lowered the presidential bar to an unprecedented and un-American height; and, now, Trump slithers beneath it.

    Trump is Obama’s third term.

    1. Cry more SHITGUN JIMBO AHAHAHAHAAJ

    2. Agreed! All the crying here is from lovers of the Grand Trumptatorshit!

      Good read here!
      Trump… Biggest wuss-puss crybaby POTUS evah!!!!

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/donald-trump-the-most-unmanly-president/612031/

      1. ” the Grand Trumptatorshit!”

        Aahaa CRY MORE SHITEATER AHAHAHAHAHAHAAJ

        YOU

        CANT

        STOP

        CRYING

        AHAJAHAJAJAHAHAHAHHAHAAAHA

      2. “Trump… Biggest wuss-puss crybaby POTUS evah!!!!”

        True, but Trump falls below even the spoiled little rich boy that never grew up. It’s genetic or hormonal – Trump is a perpetual high-pitched screaming tween girl. My friends that have those, take their phones and tablets away and send them to their rooms for a tiny percent of similar behavior.

  58. “Fin” outs itself at last, to be none other than Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan !!!

    “Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:

    Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
    My life is a mess,
    Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
    I whinny seductively for the horses,
    They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
    My real name is Mary Stack,
    NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
    On disability, I live all alone,
    Spend desperate nights by the phone,
    I found a man named Richard Decker,
    But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
    Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
    I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!

    So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/11/farmers-kept-refusing-let-him-have-sex-with-their-animals-so-he-sought-revenge-authorities-say/#comments-wrapper
    Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
    Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
    Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
    Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
    Pause…
    Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
    And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!

    So Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!

    So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!

    But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
    Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!

    Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!

    Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!

    What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?

    -Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
    Yours Truly,
    Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan

    1. With Hihn being unable to post (he was probably using a library computer), I guess you’re filling in as “Reason”‘s resident dipshit? In that case, thank you for your service.

      1. If Hihn at least knew how to use a library computer, that makes Hihn a damned sight more smart and benevolent than one who is PROUD to declare itself to be a jerk!

        You’re gonna go off and jerk off to the imagined pain that you’ve inflicted on others, now, right, jerky jerk-off?

        Guess what?!?! Those of us who have genuine and unassailable (HUMBLE) self-esteem, do not give ONE tiny bloody shit, WHAT jerks like you, say or think about us! Rail away some more, asshole, and see if it makes ANY difference!

        (Clue: Machs Nix! Get a life!)

        1. You just wasted a lot of electrons for someone who supposedly doesn’t care what I say.

          1. Freddy the Jerk = asshole = jerk = evil = irresponsible = antithesis of virtue! Freddy the Jerk is PROUD to be a jerk (evil, asshole, malevolent, Satanic, Evil One, child molestor, torturer, necrophiliac, etc.) EVERYTHING that Jerk-Evil-One says, should be INVERTED if you want to live a good and virtuous life! So I THANK YOU for being and portraying the essence of Evil!

            THANK YOU, evil jerk, for showing us exactly what NOT to be!

            (But now you’ve DONE your job; could you PLEASE leave us alone now, to practice being the EXACT opposite of YOU, Evil One!)

            Read this if you have a clue, oh slave to the Evil One! M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

  59. Freedom of speech allows one stand on the sidewalk and claim they are God. Freedom of speech does not allow anyone to jump in the car of another and demand the car owner to drive one somewhere. Social media is private property used by the masses. They do not have to allow anyone to spread hate, lies or anything societal unpleasing to the masses. That is why Fox News was created for cable. There is a segment of the society that does not study or research information. They rather listen to what they like to hear from others. Thus, Fox News created its own platform with its own resources to do so. That is what people with phony information and conspiracy theories need to do. Fox News is the example.

    1. Bless You, my child, for a voice of sanity in the midst of the blood-thirsty wilderness!!!

      Conservative blowhards: “Ye MUST spread MY messages, or ye are utter savages, to be tamed by the civilizing forces of Government Almighty!”

      The REAL savages can also go and listen to Michael Savage, Rash Limburger, and Ann Coulter, and leave the rest of us alone! PLEASE?!?

    2. No one is demanding you drive anyone anywhere. You can drive your car wherever you like and pick up whomever you like. But, when you hit someone or your paid passenger commits a crime, you are responsible for the results.

      Using a million sock puppets to say the same fallacy doesn’t make it any less of a fallacy. Do what you like but you are not entitled to avoid responsibility for it.

      1. All who do NOT worship Der TrumpfenFuhrer and His Trumptatorshit have thoroughly EARNED the Wrath of the Conservatard GODS Almighty, AKA, the Conservatard Government Almighty!!!

        Be ye hereby WARNED, oh ye Government-Almighty-less, unchurched HEATHENS, ye! The WRATH will be upon YE, unbleevers!!! REPENT NOW!!!

        1. Now post your Tim/Dear Reason writer copypasta.
          It’s just as retarded and no more relevant, but I want to give the new folks an opportunity to mock you too.

          1. REPENT NOW!!! Ye mother ye! ALL must bow to the Trumptatorshit! ALL HAIL!!!

      2. Sites are not and should not be held responsible for comments made by their users. That would destroy social media if it worked that way.

    3. Lol, somebody’s been reading his Vox like a very good citizen. Those independent thoughts aren’t just going to stifle themselves, amirite?

      Two things;

      One, libertarians should oppose censure regardless of whether it comes from a government, a giant multinational or some asshole down the street.
      It shouldn’t be illegal for a company like Twitter to censor speech, but it should be regarded as immoral.

      Two, Twitter needs to decide if it’s going to be a publisher or a utility, and stick with the choice.

      1. Why should it be regarded as immoral for me or you or Twitter to censor speech on its own property?

    4. If you offer a customer’s own content/opinion as the product can you tell them what they can say? Isn’t that discriminating by the Civil Rights act of 1964?

      1. No, moron.

  60. Incorrect. According to Wickard v Filburn, Twitter responses to Pres. Trump CAN be regulated.

    Pres. Trump uses Twitter in an official capacity to talk to the citizenry. Twitter then allows others to respond. HOWEVER, as soon as someone posts a link in the response that takes someone to a media website that receives money based on ad revenue or “clicks,” it becomes interstate commerce. Likewise, if someone posts a fact-check or a link to a fact-check site that does NOT receive revenue based on ads or “clicks,” they are affecting the media market by denying that ad revenue, thus, they are taking part in interstate commerce. Either way, any response to Pres. Trump is considered interstate commerce and can therefor be regulated.

    I’m pretty sure I SCOTUSed correctly there…

    1. If’n ye blow yer nose, it affects the interstate commerce in booger-rags! Therefore, Congress DOES have the power to tell YOU, when you may, and when you may NOT, blow on your big fat red honker-schnonker!!!

      So has it been written, and so must it be done…

      Government Almighty giveth, and Government Almighty taketh away, Blessed Be the Holy Name of Government Almighty!!!

    2. Statist.

  61. the social media companies are a threat to liberty..the cosmo fake libertarians don’t seem to understand that. They were funded by a financial system that any competitors would most likely not have access to. And they are discriminating against certain customers based on their opinions…if they are allowed to selectively allow customers posting (which is their product), then ALL companies can discriminate for any reason in terms of customers to serve. I honestly am disgusted by the same type of folks at YouTube, Facebook, Twitter who have a hatred of salt of the earth Americans just like the bolsheviks in Vienna or Munich or St Petersburg did after WWI. Its time for libertarians to recognize their threat to liberty and the Republic. Sorry Twitter you are not a sovereign country but a den of bolshevik activists pretending to be journalists Time Reason cosmo libertarians stopped by fifth columnists and supported liberty again!

    1. Oh, no, they understand it all right. Reason exists to gaslight any potential libertarians into walking the gentle path to full progressivism.

      1. We understand it’s BS, bs.

    2. Can Twitter make you do anything? Can it send you to prison? You are being absurd and unlibertarian. This is populist nonsense you are spouting.

  62. Big government Trump.

    1. Nothing says small government like:

      Supporting Obamacare and opposing any entitlement reform
      Favoring higher taxes
      Open borders because we need the workers to support the welfare state
      Special pleading protections for online forums and ONLY online forums
      Unpredicated government “investigations” because they can exonerate you
      Censorship of US citizens (unless they’re progressives)
      Complete indifference the the gross abuse of power and the breaking of multiple laws involving the party in power spying on the opposing party
      Complete abandonment of due process of presumption of innocence when abortion is at stake (and a newfound respect for it when abortion is at stake)

      All positions advocated by Reason in the last 4 years.

      There are no bigger hypocrites than “libertarians.”

      1. To pick just one…

        “Favoring higher taxes”

        Citation please, on WHEN did Reason EVER call for higher taxes net-net? For ANY higher taxes, that are NOT counterbalanced (and more) by bigger tax-cuts elsewhere?

        It is the anti-free-trade conservatives who are ALWAYS calling for higher taxes, in the form of tariffs! Anti-free-trade conservatives want to enable Der TrumpfenFuhrer to pass out special trade-tax-exemptions to “special people”, = whichever top executives buy him the most banging sessions with the likes of Stormy Daniels!

  63. “we have a leader who thinks—or wants his supporters to think—that he has unilateral authority to decide which private businesses may operate”

    we have a great many of them. isn’t that what “shutdown” of “nonessential businesses” really is?? government should be specifying safe (saf-ER, given our continued limited data gathering on SARS-COV-2 – test & trace, people!!) public practices, and letting businesses act accordingly rather than picking winners and losers in any given circumstance.

  64. First Amendment: It provides broad protection and leeway for private actors, be they individuals or corporations. electricians alexandria va

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.