Reason Roundup

Lawsuit Against 'Shitty Media Men' List Creator Can Proceed, Judge Says

Plus: Tech giants will testify in Congressional antitrust hearing, Seattle police clear out CHOP, and more...

|

A case against the creator of the "Shitty Media Men" list can move forward, per a federal judge's ruling this week in a lawsuit brought by one of the men named on the list. The next step in the case will involve an interesting dilemma involving the controversial federal law known as Section 230.

The lawsuit—brought by writer and director Stephen Elliott, best known for The Adderall Diaries—alleges that "Shitty Media Men" spreadsheet creator Moira Donegan and 30 "Janes Does" who contributed to the sheet are guilty of defamation due to claims made about him.

In 2017, Donegan created a Google spreadsheet where users could anonymously create reports about "shitty" men who they accused of behaviors ranging from rude comments to rape. The list circulated privately among a group of (largely) New York-based media women until word got out to the wider media industry. Eventually, the spreadsheet was covered in the press. On Elliott's entry, it said "rape accusations, sexual harassment, coercion."

Federal Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall decided Monday to allow Elliott's case against Donegan to proceed, overruling her motion to dismiss.

The issue at stake this round was whether Elliott is a public figure. If so, the standard for proving defamation is higher, and the chances for Donegan's motion to dismiss would have been much greater. Hall ruled that Elliott is not a public figure for purposes of this case.

His "degree of involvement in a controversy surrounding sexual assault, sexual harassment and consent in the workplace, if any, is de minimis. Defendant directed the Court to only a few tangential references to sexual harassment or lewd jokes in the workplace in Plaintiff's writing and interviews," the judge writes. "And the Court is not willing to find that Plaintiff's more extensive writings and interviews about sex, BDSM, and sexual assault—unrelated to workplace issues—transforms him into a public figure with respect to the controversy here."

Donegan's motion to dismiss was denied and Elliott's case against her continues. Next up: figuring out what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has to say about all this. The judge asked both Elliott and Donegan to "proceed without delay to narrowly tailored discovery to address factual issues related to Defendant's CDA immunity defense."

Section 230 says "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."

Donegan argues that Section 230 applies here because she, as the creator of the list, is the provider of an "interactive computer service" and should not be held legally liable for potentially defamatory shitty-men allegations made by others.


FREE MINDS

To house a generation of unwanted or unaffordable children, [former Romanian communist dictator Nicolae] Ceauşescu ordered the construction or conversion of hundreds of structures around the country. Signs displayed the slogan: the state can take better care of your child than you can.

Melissa Fay Greene looks at what's become of Romania's orphans 30 years later.


FREE MARKETS

The heads of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google will all testify before members of Congress later this month in an all-day hearing about antitrust law. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) "said that the yearlong congressional investigation has included eight round-table discussions, 93 requests for information, 43 experts testifying, and five hearings," notes New York Times opinion writer Kara Swisher (who appears positively gleeful about what she's deemed the coming Techopolypse, writing "No surprise that I prefer public grillings with a side of shame"). The date for the hearing has not yet been announced.

"A committee spokesperson declined to comment on…whether the CEOs have agreed to appear in person or virtually," reports Politico. "It's also unclear whether the two sides have come to an agreement about the committee's demand for additional documents from the companies, which lawmakers have said are key to completing their investigation."


QUICK HITS

• Economists are looking at links between credit card spending categories and COVID-19 outbreaks:

The study also found that "that higher spending in supermarkets predicts slower spread of the virus, hinting that high levels of supermarket spending are indicative of more careful social distancing in a state."

• Nick Sibilla explores the push from Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) to overhaul federal civil asset forfeiture laws through the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act.

• A New York county is now subpoenaing info from people who won't give it voluntarily to contact tracers.

• A new California "privacy" law could be a big burden on businesses already crushed by COVID-19.

• Seattle police yesterday cleared out the Capitol Hill Occupation Protest that protesters in early June had declared an autonomous zone. After promising she wouldn't do so, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan issued an executive order sending police into the area to clear it out. Thirty-one people were arrested.

• Republican-led states can't seem to stop passing abortion restrictions that have already been declared unconstitutional.

• Confederate leaders will finally leave Richmond, Virginia:

• Protecting and serving:

• Contrary to Republican claims that the push for D.C. statehood is driven by Democratic Party elites, "the people of Washington, D.C., want congressional representation. They have wanted it for a long time, and have said so in explicit terms," Sarah Jones writes at Intelligencer.

Advertisement

NEXT: Americans Get Paid To Donate Plasma. Everyone Else Should Too

Reason Roundup Defamation Free Speech First Amendment Section 230 Media Lawsuits Federal Courts

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

Please to post comments

474 responses to “Lawsuit Against 'Shitty Media Men' List Creator Can Proceed, Judge Says

  1. Economists are looking at links between credit card spending categories and COVID-19 outbreaks…

    I knew forgetting to sanitize my Discover card was a mistake.

    1. Hello.

      The science is ahead of the government now. Problem is the sheep follow orders from the government.

      Stay scared and thirsty my friends.

      1. It’s such a weird concidence that Jeff and DOL are always absent then show up at the exact same times.

        1. ● Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy j0b 0nline! I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MOR DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS.
          go to this SITE for more INFO just copy and paste…… Home Profit System

    2. People who use discover are already dead.

      1. Start generating extra cash online from home more than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time..cxc.. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get start………..Money90

  2. Nick Sibilla explores the push from Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) to overhaul federal civil asset forfeiture laws through the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act.

    Can he not be a racist Nazi for two seconds?

    1. Hey, give him a break. He’s doing pretty good for a guy from Kentucky.

  3. Who fucking cares what DC residents want?

    1. Constitution bitches.

      1. But the Constitution is racist! (And under modern rhetoric rules, calling anything racist makes it moot.)

      2. The Constitution says if you live there you don’t get to have a local government. So, who cares what they think? If they want a say in local government, they should move.

        1. It just shows how bad our modern education system is. D.C. was never supposed to be as populated as it is. There is a reason it was denied all normal powers afforded to states.

        2. You don’t even understand what the Constitution actually says do you? You just wrap yourself in it.

          Congress has the exclusive authority to grant statehood. There MAY be legitimate constitutional reason (but not a legal obligation) for a state in what is currently DC to ‘lose’ the seat of government. And again it would be entirely up to Congress to determine exactly what comprises ‘seat of government’ and draw those lines.

          I personally think that that is the case – that any ‘seat of federal government’ not be part of any state but be exclusively federal territory. That certainly includes the White House and Congress – and the Pentagon, every military base, every federal office building, etc. And that that particular territory also not include ANY permanent residents – who by the constitution would be an permanently inferior class of citizen without the privileges and immunities of other citizens.

          That Republicans are making statehood a partisan issue – rather than either a mere technical issue of line drawing – or, even better, an opportunity to let existing dysfunctional states break up and reform into more cohesive legal units of governance which would also enable a long-overdue expansion of the House of Representatives – is really repugnant. Nothing but a repeat of the antebellum bullshit of the slavocracy. Who also wrapped themselves in the Constitution in order to perpetuate and EXPAND slavery.

          1. The Democrats are pushing DC statehood as a partisan issue, as they always have.

          2. NO they don’t. The Constitution says there shall be a federal district. Unless they want to create another one to replace it, they can’t make DC a state. And they can’t cut off part of it and create a state either.

            The Constitution, however, draws no distinction between “the Seat of the Government of the United States” and the “District” in which the government is seated. In fact, the District just is the seat of the government. As the Enclave Clause of Article I, Section 8 says in relevant part: “The Congress shall have Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” To be sure, the Framers did not set a minimum size for the seat of the new government. Seizing on that fact, statehood proponents claim that they can carve out a tiny enclave from what for over two hundred years has been the seat of the federal government, call it the (new) District of Columbia, or whatever else they might want to call it, and turn the rest of today’s district into a new state—all without amending the Constitution.

            As usual JFree you don’t know a God damned thing about what you are talking about. You always know just enough to be dangerous.

            1. You’re wrong. There is a reason the clause is written the way it is and there is a distinction between the land area that both MD and VA ceded and the ‘seat of government’. They were distinct events

              The Constitution (with that clause written in future tense) was approved by the Constitutional Convention Sept 1787. Ratification by the nine states sufficient to put it into effect occurred from Dec 1787 to Jul 1788.
              Maryland ceded todays district land on Dec 23 1788. Virginia ceded what is now Arlington County and the city of Alexandria on Dec 3 1789. Those were both permanent cessions. That became federal territory. Just like the ‘Northwest Territory’ – also a result of cessions of colonial charter claims and the Treaty of Paris where the King ceded his claims east of the Mississippi.

              The ‘seat of government’ was established by Congress via the Residence Act of 1790. But the original House and Senate versions of that act (approved in Sept 1789) had two different locations. Neither of which were on the Potomac – one on the Susquehanna near what is now Columbia, PA; one on the Delaware at Germantown PA. Ultimately they compromised via the third location on the Potomac and the federal assumption of state debt.

              Municipal govt – for the ‘cities’ of Washington and Georgetown was created by Organic Act 1801. ‘The city of Washington’ however was then much smaller. The rest of the district was called Washington County on the DC side and Alexandria County on the VA side. Municipal govt for the entire district did not occur until 1871.

              The VA area was retrocessed back to VA in 1846 was because BOTH the residents on that side wanted to rejoin VA (from very very early on) and pro-slavery majority in the VA legislature wanted to offset an abolition movement in the mountains with pro-slavery residents of Alexandria.

              The residents of DC have never said they wanted to rejoin MD. Though they have always been frustrated at Congress not giving a shit about the residents there. Nor is MD interested in changing the balance of power in that state by adding the residents of DC. Nor however is retrocession the only ‘constitutional’ means of resolving that. It is entirely constitutional for Congress to amend its own legislation re ‘seat of government’ and in fact there is no reason why it even needs to be on the Potomac where it is.

          3. Roll them into Maryland or Virginia. Boom! Representation problem solved.

          4. DC residents are US citizens; they can move anywhere they want if they want more representation.

            And statehood for DC is a partisan issue: it’s a blatant attempt by Democrats to snatch two more senators. Conservative parts of CA, WA, and OR have been trying to leave for decades and Democrats have told them to go eff themselves.

            You’re right: this is a continuation of the slavocracy… by Democrats, as usual.

            1. DC residents are US citizens; they can move anywhere they want if they want more representation.

              Only because the Federal – and only while the Federal – government allows them this freedom.

              Freedom of movement is part of the ‘privileges and immunities’ clause – it applies to the states. The Federal government has not been invested with the authority to protect it.

              Even then there are significant restrictions on it.

              The Mann Act, for example, restricts movement for certain ‘immoral’ – not, not necessarily illegal – purposes. Its been used to prosecute unmarried couples, inter-racial couples, socialism/communism supporters, etc.

            2. it’s a blatant attempt by Democrats to snatch two more senators. Conservative parts of CA, WA, and OR have been trying to leave for decades and Democrats have told them to go eff themselves.

              Seems to me that it is the Republicans who have told those conservative parts to eff themselves. They sure as hell aren’t advocating for them.
              Either they can’t figure out that 6 senators is more than 2 senators.

              Or what they REALLY oppose is upsetting a century old bunch of bullshit that has frozen the House at 435 because the Senate is frozen at 100 and R’s don’t want to change the electoral college ‘ratios’ between the House and Senate and don’t do ‘change’ anyway even if the ratios were to remain the same by expanding the Senate (more states by breaking up existing units) AND the House (restoring representation to citizens).

              1. I’ve been all for blowing up that dumb 435 cap for many years now, personally.

        3. I wouldn’t mind if they made D.C. a state, and then moved the Federal government somewhere, oh say, more in the middle of the country. Omaha?

    2. If they want proper representation, there are 50 valid choices that they can move to.

      1. For two of those choices, not much in their lives would change.

    3. I assume that D.C. statehood would have to be paired with admission of a red state.

      History is trying to repeat itself.

  4. A New York county is now subpoenaing info from people who won’t give it voluntarily to contact tracers.

    AND SO IT BEGINS IN EARNEST.

    1. I just don’t recall.

      1. “YOU CAN PLEAD THE FIFTH TO MY TASER.”

        1. “I CAN’T BREATHE!”

          “Ah, HA! Infected with COVID!”

          1. Tasers are no longer deadly weapons until that cop is convicted.

      2. Your phone does. Its made by Pepridge Farms.

    2. That strategy, along with testing, is critical to mitigating future spread, officials say.

      “Officials, in the meantime, are continuing to develop a final solution.”

      1. They really want to steal our body fluids? I guess farce has become reality.

    3. Nice of them to pretend that they actually have to go through a legal process rather than just ask Apple to send them the tracking information.

      1. Isn’t it the Android that tracks people? I thought there was an article a while ago (right after the fight between Antifa & Proud Boys in NYC, so at least a year) that stated that when the cops went to the phone companies, Android passed over the info without fighting, but Apple told the cops they didn’t track location.

        1. Bold of you to assume anyone would have helped evacuate her

          1. oh wtf, this was supposed to be a reply to Adans down below

        2. No, Apple does it, too.

  5. After promising she wouldn’t do so, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan issued an executive order sending police into the area to clear it out.

    The first time in history appeasement didn’t work.

    1. Also, the first politician that told a lie.

    2. At least she’s not French. They’d have broke out and the government would have to be evacuated from Puget Sound.

    3. Like socialism, real appeasement has never been tried.

  6. Richmond mayor orders removal of all Confederate statues standing on city land.

    In the pocket of Big Statue Removal.

    1. Crane companies clean up.

      I said, “I need some riggers over here, what did you think I said?”

      1. Rigger please.

        1. FWIW, my feeling is that statues of men who are solely famous because of their Civil War associations should be moved to locations where those associations can be explained. OTOH some figures have associations within a larger national context EG Speaker of the House etc. These paintings or sculptures should have labels explaining any negative aspects of their lives attached.

          If this is not sufficient I think that anyone who objects should have it explained to them how immature they are.

          1. Seems very reasonable.

    2. Trump will eventually flip-flop on removing Confederate statues, just like he just flip-flopped on wearing masks.

      That’s the problem with making a guy with no actual principles your conservative champion.

      1. Not a problem if you just refuse to acknowledge information that challenges your biases. *Taps head*

        1. Yes we are aware of how you operate.

          1. He’s definitely the pot.

  7. “After promising she wouldn’t do so, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan issued an executive order sending police into the area to clear it out. Thirty-one people were arrested.”

    NIMBY

    1. Or front yard.

    2. There was something like three protests in the city last night–one in the former SPAZ area, one in front of City Hall, and one in Durkan’s neighborhood.

      The dumb bitch tried to goad Trump into sending in the military to clear it out, and not only ended up with egg all over her face, she’s essentially got a civic revolt on her hands now because she indulged the city’s emotionally stunted progressive residents instead of treating them like adults.

      This is a textbook example of why entitled liberal women shouldn’t be put in charge of a lemonade stand, much less a complex society.

      1. Seattle ha had a rash of bad mayors. The last one was beloved, but turned out to be a rapist. He was beloved because he was a gay man who’s first act as mayor was to order the police uniforms be redesigned. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

  8. The issue at stake this round was whether Elliott is a public figure.

    Oh, FFS! Isn’t *everyone* a “public figure” at this point?

    1. I mean, if George Zimmerman is a public figure just because the news reported on him it seems a bit absurd that Elliott is not. Especially since, well, the news has reported on Elliott as well.

      ‘Public Figure’ is how they decide to either completely fuck you, or let you off the hook, in advance of any trial.

      There are logical reasons for some of those carve outs, but I’m starting to suspect it might be better for a one-tier approach to defamation and such when the powerful end up not being considered public while the everyman on the street somehow is.

      It’s been turned on it’s ear, I think.

    2. Never heard of this guy.

    3. In the future everyone will be a public figure for 15 minutes.

  9. Fort Lauderdale police officers thought their body cameras were off when they laughed and joked about shooting protesters with rubber bullets.

    To be fair, a few months ago it wouldn’t have mattered.

    1. Why would it ever matter? Is it substantially better when they take shooting people with rubber bullets very seriously? Isn’t the shooting people with rubber bullets the real problem?

      ‘I know the forest is around here somewhere… maybe if I climb one of these trees…’

      1. Yeah, I think the reaction might be different if they were caught taking it seriously…. “Man, I didn’t want to pull the trigger but when that Antifa guy came at me with the molotov cocktail, I didn’t really have any choice…It is a decision that will haunt me the rest of my life”

        1. This criticism is 100% pearl clutching. They’re shocked that the people who are paid to and have sought out a career that involves violence are comfortable with violence? Ever heard of gallows’ humor?

          And shooting people with less than lethal stuff is hilarious. Obviously there can be real damage done to people, and I’m not saying cops should or that I would get a kick out of that. But when you shoot someone off of a bike (just for example) with a foam 40mm projectile, you can’t help but feel a certain sense of satisfaction. Or when I’ve used simulated munitions in training, it’s a party. The new 5.56 simuntions allow you to have fake firefights with real point of aim accuracy out to 50 meters. The most expensive and high stakes paintball match you’ll ever be in. Of course it’s fun.

          1. The Proggie Revolution has found its Che!

            1. While I’d look good on a T-shirt, I don’t think the rest of my platform would be appealing to proggies.

              1. Why not, it’s exactly the same as their platform

                1. He likes to lie about his beliefs.

                2. Dol’s platform is a little to the left of what even to most venomous proggerts find acceptable.

    2. Are we sure they were “protestors”?

    3. Good. I would like to share a chuckle with them

  10. “The heads of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google will all testify before members of Congress later this month in an all-day hearing about antitrust law.”

    Fine, but I’d rather hear them testify about immigration. I’m sure they’d agree with the Koch / Reason open borders position.

    #BillionairesKnowBest

    1. They do agree. They are heavy users of h1b and often fire americans for the cheaper (I mean market rate) foreign workers.

      1. If the cheaper workers are ‘market rate’ then maybe the problem is the American workers want above market compensation?

        1. Yes, but note which of those two groups can vote themselves higher wages directly.

          Indian or Chinese labor might have a tough time voting themselves wage floors, but here in the U.S. we’re more than willing to cut off our nose to spite our face.

          I can tell you a U.S. politician won’t be elected on a platform of pay American’s less. In fact, one of our two major parties believes in doubling the labor wage floor.

          I’m sure that won’t directly harm American labor in an international market…but the reason why it might not is ironically because Democrats would likely include a host of ‘tariff reform’ that would make Trump look like a restrained conservative.

  11. Big news on Wall Street, this morning, is about the jobs report. Listening to the way the news is spinning it, seeing 4.8 million jobs come back in June isn’t really good news. Not even considering that it was good news when 2.7 million jobs were created in May. The unemployment rate has now fallen to 11.1% from 13.3% in May.

    Part of the concern is that the latest numbers don’t reflect the newly reimposed lock-down rules that are coming back in various parts of the country.

    The markets see past the bullshit. The S&P 500 is up 1.5% on the news.

    P.S. Jobless claims are down this week compared to last week.

    1. Listening to the way the news is spinning it, seeing 4.8 million jobs come back in June isn’t really good news.

      It’s all about the “alarming spikes” in cases, Ken, for which no one is answering the “So what?” question.

      1. Political conspiracy fans might say its all about knee-capping any economic recovery.

      2. But Jeff if frightened. He is fast so at higher risk. We must do everything we can to protect him, or else he will force government to force us to.

        1. Fat, therefore, not fast.

          1. Egg on my face for that one. Very much fat.

            1. Now I’m picturing a fat guy eating an egg of someone’s face. I didn’t realize Jeff is fat, that’s awesome!

    2. I would love to see Mayors like Durkan and Governors who are preposterously reimposing lock downs be led away in handcuffs or straight jackets.

      1. Definitely would prefer handcuffs. Actually, I’d prefer they get theirs from their own leftist mobs, apparently a group with actual pitchforks showed up at Cuomo’s mansion the other day, demanding higher taxes on NY’s billionaires. Another group brought a guillotine to an anti-Bezos protest. YGWYFD

    3. This is just proof that we need to continue 600 a week bonuses to not work as Schumer said.

    4. lol, are you trying to claim the market is reflective of the economy right now? Because it isn’t, at all. Check interest rates and m2 growth for the reason the SP isn’t at $2000 right now.

      1. I’m saying that the S&P 500 spiking on the unemployment report means that they think the data in the report is good news.

        And I have far more confidence in market signals than I do in the reporters who talk about the markets. Don’t you?

        1. I follow the markets because I want to maximize returns and minimize risk. So yes, I pay more attention to what the market “says” vs reporters. But I also acknowledge that the market and the economy are not aligned right now. The SP500 price would be telling us that today’s economy is just as good as the pre covid economy, and we know that is not true. The Fed is forecasting a 6.8% GDP reduction this year from last, and most other forecasts are worse. The mantra on the street is “don’t fight the fed”, so good news makes the markets climb, and bad news makes the market also climb, but by less.

          So, look at interest rates (near 0%, even for junk bonds now), and look at m2. Interest rates will give you the opportunity cost or risk free rate, as it is known in finance, and m2 will give you some measure of possible inflation, or how much cash is chasing the (roughly) same amount of goods.

          Today’s stock prices are all closely correlated, to the point that stock picking and trying to beta weight a portfolio of equities is mostly an exercise in futility. And forget bonds, as the Fed has completely amputated the risk/return relationship that every institutional investor calculates using very similar equations.

          We are all getting our return based off the latest Fed minutes release, and how much money the Fed is pumping into bonds, not by how well a particular company or the aggregate performs. P/E ratios are well, well above average across most sectors.

          https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/default.htm

          1. I suspect we are benefiting from a flight to safety mentality, where $U.S. dollar denominated assets are valued more highly than assets in other currencies because we’re the prettiest horse in the glue factory. That may change the kinds of multiples we’re seeing on assets that are considered safer and the general market itself. Good news on unemployment, however, isn’t like that. When the S&P 500 moves up because the number of jobs created was higher than expected and the weekly number of new unemployment claims is down, that’s the direction the market would go under those circumstances even if the Fed weren’t propping up the market and international investors weren’t putting what they have in $U.S. denominated assets. OTBE, that was good news for the economy.

            1. Yes. A lot of ink is being spilled over the demise of USD. But not a one can name a better currency to hold going forward. USD and USD denominated equities are still the best thing going.

          2. “The S&P price would be telling us that today’s economy is just as good as the pet Covid economy….” You seem to think that the movement of the S&P index reflects the current state of the economy. They are related, but they are not nearly the same. The index is a discounted view of many years of projected performance. The state of the economy is a point in time. More importantly, companies making up the index are able today to generate more profit from any given level of revenue than they were pre Covid, due to Covid-related cost cutting and restructuring. So it doesn’t take as good an economic environment to justify any given level of the index.

  12. Contrary to Republican claims that the push for D.C. statehood is driven by Democratic Party elites, “the people of Washington, D.C., want congressional representation.

    Any other parts of the Constitution they’d like to toss out?

    1. 1A, 2A, 3A…

    2. No shit, if they want representation they should move to MD or VA.

      OTOH, another solution is, simply draw a boundary around the White House, the Capitol and the Navy Yard and return all the residential area to MD. Former DC residents get a Representative and get to whinge to MD’s Senators. The Feds already got rid of the VA portion of the DC, why can’t they get rid of the MD portion the same way? I cannot see any way that this would impair FedGov operations in any way at all.

      After all, Canada has no “Federal District” at all. The City of Ottawa, Including the federal House of Parliament, the Bank of Canada, the residences of both the Viceroy and the Prime Minister and all the foreign embassies are all within the border of the Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s Province of Ontario and no one has any problem at all with that.

      1. I will add for the record, what the fuck is so important about having a Member of the House of Representatives or a couple of Senators anyway? It hasn’t done any of the 300M or so of the rest of us fuckers who don’t live in DC a hell of a lot of good, has it?

      2. John’s solution from a few days ago makes the most sense–keep the capital and federal areas as the district, and roll the residential areas into Maryland and/or Virginia. As he pointed out, the Constitution requires a federal district, so making a state out of DC is a no-go short of an Amendment–which would be impossible in this climate.

        1. Yes, I agree with both you and John and it not the first time in spite of whatever differences we have had. I’m pretty sure that what you identify as “John’s solution” is pretty much identical to what I offered above (“Great Minds” or “Fools seldom differ”). 🙂

        2. Since it’s impossible in this climate, though, one can spin the yarn as ‘Republicans hate black people and are obstructionist’ as opposed to ‘this is something they never intend to happen anyway and is mostly a symbolic waste of time’.

          If D.C. residents want senators and congressmen, then move out of the D.C. zone. Problem solved.

          Why should any particular state have a primary say in what occurs in the Federal capitol that is under Congressional control?

          Obviously, there are about a thousand other ways to fix the issue of not having senate or congressional reps that don’t involve a lengthy and partisan fight over statehood. They choose the most impossible option out of the available options on purpose to make sure they get a fight and funding narrative.

      3. How can you be part of the nobility if you don’t have special districts where there are special rules for the nobility? And what’s the point of having those districts if there aren’t non-nobility people you can flaunt your special status at?

        1. For a different approach, consider Australia.

          At Federation in 1901 they carved the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) out of New South Wales. About midway between Sydney and Melbourne (fuck the Queenslanders, Tasmanians, South Australians and West Australians, everyone knew that New South Wales and Victoria were where it was at. God only knows where the capital would have been if they had persuaded New Zealand to join in.

          Anyway, the Australian Constitution, which borrowed heavily from the COTUS (for one thing providing for equal representation for each state in the Senate), differed from the US in that they granted representation to the territories with full representation by population in the House of Representatives but with only half the number of Senators.

          The result is that the ACT is today proggie/greenie central in the parliament.

          So, no thanks. No statehood for DC, let’s go with the Fedgov vacating the territory of DC and letting it revert to MD.

          Who else votes yea?

  13. Fort Lauderdale police officers thought their body cameras were off

    You mean body cameras can be turned off?

    1. nothing wrong with police enjoying their work. Isn’t that what they say if you love your job you will never work a day in your life.

      1. Apparently gallows humor is no longer allowed as a stress reliever.

        1. There’s a difference between gallows humor and getting a hard on from fucking up your fellow citizens.

  14. A bit more detail, please, about how spending three weeks ago predicts the increase of a virus with a two week incubation.
    Is this another mask-not-needed to so-damn-good-its-mandatory flip?

    1. Also how do they differentiate dine-in orders from delivery and takeout?

    2. Detail.

      In march everyone started buying Toilet Paper on credit in massive quantities. Eventually covid deaths started to decrease. 2 weeks ago people stopped buying TP because they already bought a warehouse full, and covid infections are spiking.

      Keep buying TP people.

    3. OMG longtobefree has discovered a flaw in this peer reviewed study without even reading the text of it! Honorary degrees now!

      1. Did you ever figure out the flaws with meta data studies you present as fact? Because there are dozens of papers describing the issues with them.

      2. There is no honor in a degree these days; no thank you very much.

      3. You seem upset.

  15. After promising she wouldn’t do so, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan issued an executive order sending police into the area to clear it out.

    “Massive Protests For Recalling Durkan”

  16. Finally some good news.

    Billionaires are spending more on political contributions, here are the three biggest spenders

    “America’s billionaires are now spending 20 times more on political contributions than they did a decade ago, according to a new study.”

    As we Koch / Reason libertarians know, one of the biggest problems with this country is that billionaires don’t have enough influence. But things seem to be moving in the right direction. This will become clear when Joe Biden — who has more billionaire support than Drumpf — wins in November.

    1. So the 1% are the good guys now?

    2. I know OBL is a parody account but it should probably be noted that some of that increase is simply due to the fact that there are more billionaires now than there were a decade ago. A bit over double, actually. So contributions per capita rose but not as much as that quote implies.

      It’s also worth noting that in that time, Congress aggressively vilified those billionaires – until they stepped up their contributions. Giving in to extortion may be cowardly but usually we consider the extortioners to be the villains.

  17. A case against the creator of the “Shitty Media Men” list can move forward…

    Read the mood of the country, courts. #MeToo is what was.

    1. SCOTUS really needs to shorten up their lead times and get their programming schedule in line if they’re going to continue to be relevant in the post-Trump era.

  18. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/07/01/armed-militants-patrol-as-seattle-police-break-up-chop-antifastan-n596009

    Antifa is now threatening the cops in Seattle for ending Antifastan. Considering that the cops rode in on their bikes and cleared the entire place out arresting several dozen people without so much as using a knight stick or pepper spray, I doubt the cops are too worried. Pantifa are some real bad asses I tell yeah. Real bad asses.

    1. Wokadishu fell without a single intersection blocked by burning tires.

    2. eh, I’d be more worried about any of the inhabitants who speak up afterwards about how bad it was. Cops can’t protect you all the time.

      1. The Chopsters have very little sympathy left in Seattle.

        1. One might hope that the whole exercise is a useful demonstration of what the “demonstrators” (my term for them might be something more like “thugs”, but who am I to judge?) have to offer in the way of governance. The major problem is that it should not take the loss of two (possibly three) lives to provide such an object lesson.

          I’m going to say it, right up front, I will take “Black Lives Matter” seriously when I see the people saying it address the problem of the 6,000+ black murder victims every year at the hands of other blacks.

          If you say, “you’re a racist”, I’m going to say, “Fuck you, I don’t care what you think of me.” Show me that you do care about those 6,000+ black murder victims.

          1. There are no good groups in this. BLM, as you’ve rightly stated, have a bevy of issues that prevents me from aligning with that group, even if I agree with them about police brutality, and lesser so, systemic racism. Cops and their supporters are typical authoritarians and yes, some real racists.

            However, I don’t think that any protest or political action group has to address every single problem in order to be taken seriously. If BLM is about police brutality and police lack of accountability, then great. They don’t need to also address black on black crime or lack of black fathers, etc.. Although it may be a much better course for them to take. And it is going to cost them support, as you said.

            1. Here here.

              1. When’s the wedding?

                1. You’re not invited. Sorry.

        2. True. Even my quite liberal Seattle relatives were disgusted with CHOP about two weeks ago.

    3. The Seattle cops were smart about clearing out CHOP before any of the occupiers had their morning coffee.

    4. Hey, stop talking about my stick!

    5. That’s odd…when some of your previous comments in other threads depended on them to be this massive well-armed and well funded threat to America in order for your arguments to make sense, you painted them as the second coming of al Qaeda with tentacles everywhere and massive destructive capabilities. I guess a week changes everything, huh?

      1. Elsewhere, today, John has painted antifa as a looming violent threat to American’s in their own homes. I think in this very comment section — search for “Scott Adams”.

  19. More cops behaving badly:

    Miami-Dade police officer relieved of duty after video shows woman hit in face

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/miami-dade-police-officer-relieved-of-duty-after-video-shows-woman-hit-in-face

    In this case it looks like the cop just couldn’t control his temper.

    1. Bitch deserved it.

      1. “You acting like you white,” the black woman said to the Latino officer prior to being struck, the Miami Herald reported.

        Some stories don’t have a hero.

        1. Bitch was talking a lot of shit for someone within smacking distance

        2. Nice of a Cuban officer to show her what life is like for black people in his ancestral homeland.

          1. Che would be proud.

      2. Uh, no she didn’t.

        1. #TalkShitGetHit

      3. Bitch deserved it.

        Wait, wat? Are you nuts?

    2. Didnt you just say yesterday you cant blame rioting protestors foe the actions of a few rioting protestors?

      Did your sophist rules change that quickly?

      1. Quote the collectivist sentence from his comment, Jesse. Do we really need to break out the dictionary here and give lessons?

        1. Jeff probably would fuck you. Nice to see he has one friend.

        2. IK, R? JesseAz and the rest of the Trumpista gang don’t seem to have the capacity to think of people as individuals.

        3. I mean even the silly “X is a sock puppet of Y” accusations they throw around all the time show the same inability to recognize individuals.

  20. And Donegan would be right in her assertion. She’s covered under section 230. So is the New York Times for their articles. That’s why people think Section 230 is load of shit meant to get around defamation laws by allowing people to be publishers with the protection from defamation lawsuits of platforms.

    1. No she is absolutely not right. Google is the provider of the interactive computer service in this example, they are not responsible for the contents of her spreadsheet. She is.

      And NYT is liable for the content of their articles. Section 230 has nothing to do with NYT publishing articles.

      1. Why would the NYT be liable for the content of their articles? Editorial control doesn’t matter when determining section 230 protection, as section 230 is explicitly about allowing platform to edit or delete content.

        NYT has a platform. They choose to let certain people use it to post articles. Under what circumstances could they be sued for defamation? It’s not illegal to pay someone to write something defamatory. It’s only illegal to share it with others, and section 230 covers their asses for the sharing part.

        1. They are sued all the time. You clearly dont understand 230.

        2. “Editorial control doesn’t matter when determining section 230 protection, as section 230 is explicitly about allowing platform to edit or delete content.”

          There is a difference between “published” works and “user generated content”. Roughly speaking, if an employee or person under contract with you writes and/or sources and posts content, then they are a publisher. For example, a journalist on the payroll of NYT. Or an editor going to someone, and asking them (or paying them) to write an article as a part of their editorial process. These are typically acts of publishing, though there are attempts by publishers to disavow responsibilities for OpEds.

          On the other hand, User Generated content is just that- non employees, and non-agents of the company being given a space to publish their own content.

          I can see an argument in both cases here. The spreadsheet is indeed Google’s. But there is an argument to be made that she repurposed it to create another platform for other people to use. (This happens a lot with enabling software. For example, imagine you licensed blogging software to a company which then used that to run a forum on their website. Both the software publisher, and the blog company would have 230 protections for the comments sections).

          What will kill this woman’s argument is not who was publishing, but the fact that she and other women were spreading this information around and acting on it. So whether she wrote the offending content or not, she was continuing to distribute it and act on it, which probably makes her culpable.

        3. Because NYT themselves posts the articles. In the comments section on the other hand, users are making the posts and therefore NYT is not liable for them.

      2. Google is the provider of the interactive computer service in this example, they are not responsible for the contents of her spreadsheet. She is.

        Bullshit. Taking Google out of it: she’s the admin of the bulletin board, the people who posted are the users.

        But, of course, you’re wallowing in the ephemeral shifting shitty nature of section 230. Who’s a platform? What constitutes good faith moderation? Who gets the speech? Ask Congress.

        Which is why the other story, Google, Amazon, et al. are in front of Congress trying to figure out what constitutes good faith moderation and what constitutes anti-trust.

        1. `Taking Google out of it: she’s the admin of the bulletin board, the people who posted are the users.`

          How can anyone other than Google be interpreted to be the provider of Google docs?

          1. How can anyone other than Google be interpreted to be the provider of Google docs?

            There’s a reason why I said “She’s the admin of a bulletin board,” and not “She’s the creator of a Google doc,”. Dumbass.

            Any policy that shields Google should also shield her. The only way it doesn’t is if you think editorial culpability has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and don’t believe in Section 230 as a blanket policy.

  21. A committee spokesperson declined to comment on…whether the CEOs have agreed to appear in person or virtually…

    They all insist on using their own meeting platform and Congress will have to bid the job so… It will be a while.

  22. Economists are looking at links between credit card spending categories and COVID-19 outbreaks:

    Oh, look, more people drawing erroneous conclusions using inappropriate data. Here is a common sense conclusion: other patrons in restaurants aren’t touching the food that I get, while other patrons in grocery stores are, therefore restaurants should be much, much safer in terms of virus transfer unless a staff member is the source.

    If people just wash their hands and don’t cough and sneeze on each other, the public is getting all the benefit it can possibly get. Get over it.

    1. They’re really running full-bore with the “it was restaurants and bars opening up, not thousands of people packed side by side and spewing snot all over each other when they got tear-gassed” line, aren’t they?

      1. And they are desperate to shut the economy down again and keep it from recovering before the election. If the economy keeps recovering and unemployment is down below 10% and growth back by the November election, people will consider Trump to have done a good job getting the country through the pandemic. And all that work the media did to panic people about the pandemic will turn around work against them by making Trump look all that much better for getting the economy going again and getting the country through it.

      2. This is really turning into a ‘Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes scenario.’

        The media downplayed the ‘Chinese Virus’.
        The media covered the Ds all calling Trump a racist.
        The media played up that we are not safe because ‘Pandemic, millions could die!’.
        The media inflamed the world with the murder video.
        The media breathlessly covered the protests.
        The media carried water for the Ds platform Protest > Pandemic.

        Now the media has to backpedal like hell to keep up with the narrative that the protests were not inappropriate in a pandemic that could still kill millions if we open up, even though it might not be as bad as we thought, but STATUES!, except there will be a second wave and the virus could mutate, and it may be giving young people strokes and have eternal consequences, so don’t go out to a bar, but millions are unemployed, but JOE BIDEN HAS A PLAN.

        Hang on, I forgot to take my Adderall this morning.

        1. Nah, just keep going.

        2. You forgot the “RuSsIa!!!” part

          1. I usually just log that under ‘Fuck Trump, that’s why’.

    2. Yeh, it’s a specious correlation.

      They won’t stop. If they’d stop and actually THINK for a second they’d see the data and truth and staring them in the face.

      Notably, we can live with this virus.

      1. And the “best” correlation has an R-squared factor of only 0.38? I am sure we can find other spurious parameters with higher correlations. Number of Mexican restaurants? Mean elevation? Alphabetical order?

        1. Go earth friendly; phase of the moon.

    3. The virus is mostly transmitted by air, not from touch. Why do you rubes keep insisting that you personally need to be convinced in a 1:1 session from a virologist, or it just isn’t real?

      Study after study, whether from the medical side of things, or now the economics side of things, keeps showing the same consistent patterns: viral spread is mostly from prolonged indoor contact, masks greatly reduce transmission, death and risk rates are far higher than with flu or cold.

      I know these facts aren’t the ones you would prefer, but they are the ones we get. Put your mask on so the US stops being the laughing stock of the civilized world. We are travel banned and have an outbreak level 10x that of the EU. They were able to control it with masks and social distancing, we could too.

      You want back to work? You want back to normal? Me too. Wear a mask and stop going to the bar until shit cools down a little, for fucks sake.

      1. stop going to the bar until shit cools down a little, for fucks sake.

        That’s what people did. People waited until it cooled down a little, then went to the bars, and the media had a shit fit.

        1. Bar goers in Florida and Arizona are at it right now, while in the peak of their local outbreaks.

          1. And deaths are down

            1. Arizona reported their highest death rate yesterday (or today, depending on the source you use).

              https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php

      2. “”The virus is mostly transmitted by air, not from touch.””

        Really? Can you cite that? That is contra from what I am hearing from doctors I work with.

        1. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857 is the latest study, but there have been others coming to the same conclusion. It is confusing because this is, once again, directly counter to the information first passed on by CDC and others.

      3. Hey, shitstain, just maybe the company I work for actually does COVID-19 cleanings. Maybe I have informed myself of how it is transmitted, how long it lingers in the air in expectorated droplets, how the particles interact with various surfaces, how temperature and humidity affect the virus, what cleaners are effective, and a bunch of other pertinent info that I don’t have time to educate you on.

        Regardless, any 1st year medical student can tell you that your eyes drain into your nasal cavity. Some studies suggest that this virus enters the body through the nose or even the tear ducts themselves. If it is in the air, it will get in your eyes. Masks don’t cover your eyes. Ergo, masks are ineffective at preventing transmission of the virus.

        Calm the fuck down, Karen, I don’t drink and I don’t go to bars.

        1. Damn you scorched him.

        2. The aggregate conclusion from many studies on this topic disagrees with your folksy wisdom and hypothetical 1st year med student.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

          1. Now do global warming

            1. Now slide to the left! Criss Cross!

          2. When you back that tow truck up to move the goalposts, the other team is going to notice.

            1) your ‘aggregate conclusion from many studies’ includes the following gem:

            9 subjects with confirmed influenza, Australia
            Medical mask N95 (participants coughed 5 times onto a Petri dish wearing each device)

            Science!

            2) you linked a study of other studies of transmission of viruses out through a mask and claim its conclusion disagrees with my comment about masks not preventing infection through the eyes despite the fact that the study does not actually contain a conclusion

            3) my original comment was about restaurants, which you responded to by talking about bars, which, while often found in proximity, are not comparable environments based on the average distance maintained between groups and individuals within groups

            4) The virus is mostly transmitted by air, not from touch. – which is patently false, it is transmitted in expelled water droplets, which travel through the air.

            And then the droplets settle on surfaces, which can be touched. When you touch your face, those droplets can then be transferred to your eyes which drain into your nose or directly to the nose if you are a picker. Since I don’t eat food with my eyes and nose, I am not, in fact, worried about getting COVID from food, nor have I ever claimed anyone should be.

            5) you are an asshat

          3. I’ll just leave this here:

            https://reason.com/2020/07/01/covid-19-herd-immunity-is-much-closer-than-antibody-tests-suggest-say-2-new-studies/#comment-8329534

            You didn’t address Sonja’s response there and in at least one other post where you provided that link. Good job.

  23. https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/07/01/this-is-quite-sincerely-insane-new-york-times-compares-americas-enduring-caste-system-to-india-nazi-germany/

    New York Times compares “America’s enduring caste system” to that of India and Nazi Germany.

    But hey they don’t hate America or anything. It is not like they want to tear down Mount Rushmore or anything. Right?

    1. There’s no question they’re anti-american. 2020 saw to it.

    2. You know, maybe you should actually read the article. Yes the comparison to Nazis was obnoxious. But it also made quite a few good points. Namely that what a lot of people call ‘racism’ is really just a form of caste-ism, and skin color is too often a proxy for caste standing.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/magazine/isabel-wilkerson-caste.html

      1. The comparison to India was obnoxious. To the extent we have class issues in this country, to call them a caste system is to render the term meaningless. The article took a valid point, that the US does have a class system like pretty much every other society in history, and then used it to engage in absurd hyperbole by comparing it to India and Nazi Germany. To the extent the US has a class system, it has less of one than about any large nation on earth or in history. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have one. It does. It is just that every other class system is about a hundred times worse.

        You should actually read the article and understand what it says. If you did that, you would understand the sophistry she is engaging in.

        1. To the extent the US has a class system, it has less of one than about any large nation on earth or in history. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have one. It does. It is just that every other class system is about a hundred times worse.

          What is the basis for this claim?

          1. Reality and history. Have you ever traveled overseas? There are so many examples of class systems much worse than the US that it is difficult to know where to begin.

            But you stated above India is a valid comparison. India has an entire class of people called “untouchables” who according to the dominant religion in the nation must be restricted to only the most menial and harsh jobs in the society and cannot ever be considered equal or allowed to socialize with the higher casts. It is a system that goes back thousands of years and is fundamental to the religious belief system of hundreds of millions of people.

            Now if you think that is somehow analogous to whatever you think the class system in the US is, you are so ignorant as to be beyond help or certainly any rational discourse.

            1. From the article:

              “Anything that causes the Negro to aspire to rise above the plow handle, the cook pot — in a word the functions of a servant,” said Gov. James K. Vardaman of Mississippi, elected in 1903, “will be the worst thing on earth for the Negro. God Almighty designed him for a menial; he is fit for nothing else.”

              Things are better than that now, both here and in India, but the quote above sure sounds like relegating “Negroes” to the untouchable class.

              1. Hey look, a dumb guy said something in 1903.

                1. Right? And even if there are some fringe racial assholes who believe this shit today, they are very few in number. The only power they have is that they can create outrage and draw a disproportionate amount of attention when they say edgy things online.

                  1. It sounds like what progressives like Jeff actually believe

              2. You got him good with a 120 year old reference.

                And you wonder why people call you a sophist.

                Do you ever think things through?

                1. He’s as dumb as he is dishonest.

          2. Holy fuck the ignorance you exhibit.

            It is called income mobility. Do some research.

            Only 21% of millionaires received any inheritance at all.

            Yes, if you stopped buying all the cookies you could work your way up.

            US is founded on opportunity, not handouts. You have the opportunity to be successful. I know that’s racist to say these days, but fuck off.

            1. Funny you bring up income mobility. I wonder why that metric is better in Canada and the UK, and actually most of europe now than the US?

              https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s-does-poorly-on-yet-another-metric-of-economic-mobility/#623787306a7b

              1. Because the government can’t keep its knee of the economies neck like that piece of shit Chauvin.

            2. Because all those places were super shitty.

          3. Human History

        2. Every accusation from a leftist is a confession.

          The NYT wants a caste system more like India and Nazi Germany

      2. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

  24. Still think WHITE SUPREMACY isn’t real?

    We’ve been through stay at home orders with everyone itching to get outside. But outdoors spaces and our national parks are not free from the systemic racism and inequity that exist in other parts of our society. 77% of national park visitors are white.

    Seventy. Seven. Percent. Of. National. Park. Visitors. Are. WHITE!!!!!!!

    Clearly we need a comprehensive affirmative action plan to rectify this appalling lack of diversity.

    #LibertariansForRacialQuotas

    1. Stephanie should have tweeted photos of the “No Colored Allowed” posted at the entrances to all national parks.

    2. I love follow-up tweet about how they’ve remained “stubbornly white spaces,” despite the fact that those numbers match the percentage of white people in the population (if you count Hispanic people as white, which the black Hoteps always do).

      1. That tweet hasn’t gotten a single like yet, which is hilarious.

    3. #BlackBearsMatter

      1. Bears of Color, you vile bigot.

        1. Fuck it, might as well give up all pretense:

          #PolarBearSupremacy

          1. Down with elk supremacy!

            http://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1278592095222067201?s=19

            Bonus points for the “real journalist” bitching about retweets without asking permission

        2. Polar bears need to check their privilege.

          1. Polar bears actually have black skin. The white is from their fur.

    4. The level of stupidity on display here hurts. It is physically hurting me.

    5. Maybe we need to relocate more prisons to the parks.

      1. Maybe we need to relocate more instigators of riots to prisons.

    6. Can we force black people to visit the parks?

  25. The House Democrats revealed their version of the Green New Deal yesterday.

    “[It] calls for setting a price on carbon dioxide pollution, eliminating pollution from cars by 2035 and from power plants by 2040 and achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It also aims to make environmental justice a focus and says marginalized communities that often suffer the worst effects of climate change and pollution must get “the tangible benefits” of climate action.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/30/democrats-unveil-sweeping-plan-to-tackle-climate-change-345503

    Just like the Green New Deal proper, it implements completely unrealistic goals to slash emissions and largely serves as an excuse to redistribute wealth. It’s basically a socialist wealth redistribution program masquerading as action on climate change. Their goals would crush the economy and would be quickly unwound if President Biden were to implement them. Again, this is why it’s so important for Joe Biden to lose. The Republicans may well lose control of the Senate come November, and if President Trump loses, there won’t be much standing in their way–not that the principles of Mitch McConnell are likely to save us from progressive socialism.

    Oh, and to add insult to injury, the Democrats in the House passed an $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill yesterday, with $130 billion going to schools that educate low income children, $100 billion for affordable housing, $100 billion for mass transit, $29 billion for Amtrak, and $100 billion to give high speed internet access to poorer communities.

    President Trump has promised to veto the legislation if it makes it to his desk. I shudder to think what will happen if he isn’t there to veto such things come 2021.

    1. I look forward to finding the text of this puppy and having a good laugh, like with the old GND.

      1. Here it is.

        *** gets coffee ***

      2. Here’s the report.

        https://climatecrisis.house.gov/report

        It’s 500+ pages, but they have summaries.

    2. Oh, and to add insult to injury, the Democrats in the House passed an $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill

      Pish-posh. That’s cheap compared to what some are proposing.

      https://thehill.com/homenews/house/490462-infrastructure-bill-gains-new-steam-as-coronavirus-worsens


      The coronavirus and its devastating effect on the economy is giving an old idea new traction with leaders in both parties: trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending.

      President Trump on Tuesday called for $2 trillion in new public works programs as a national economic lifeline, backing an idea promoted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) just a day earlier. Rank-and-file lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have quickly joined the chorus, framing infrastructure as a commonsense strategy for creating jobs amid mass layoffs sparked by the fast-spreading coronavirus pandemic.

      “I think the Speaker’s right that infrastructure would be a good place to start because that’s something that’s the responsibility of the federal government to begin with,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said Tuesday on Fox Business, pointing to a bipartisan highway bill that a Senate committee advanced on a 21-0 vote.

      1. I think you’re engaging in some odd counting there. The Democrats have also already passed a $3 trillion bill that Trump won’t even consider. Trump’s $2 trillion plan is his response to both bills.

        “House Democrats unveiled a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan Thursday that calls for a huge increase in funding to repair roads and bridges while expanding broadband access in rural areas.

        Though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he does not want to include infrastructure with coronavirus relief, passage of the House measure could put added pressure on the upper chamber to take action next month. House Democrats have passed their $3 trillion HEROES Act and Senate Republicans have yet to draft their next COVID-19 relief package.

        —-The Hill, June 18, 2020

        https://thehill.com/homenews/house/503427-democrats-unveil-15-trillion-infrastructure-plan

        That would mean the Democrats have passed $1.5 trillion + $3 trillion = $4.5 trillion in two separate bills, while President Trump has considered proposing and additional $2 trillion in infrastructure spending and COVID-19 relief.

        Once again, wherever you’re reading these things, just because they’ve been printed doesn’t mean they should be believed.

        1. I think you’re engaging in some odd counting there. The Democrats have also already passed a $3 trillion bill that Trump won’t even consider. Trump’s $2 trillion plan is his response to both bills.

          Dude, Trump proposed his $2 trillion plan back in March. Democrats passed their $3 trillion HEROES Act in May, and Democrats proposed their $1.5 trillion plan just yesterday.

          Trump’s $2 trillion plan from March cannot possibly be ‘in response’ to Democrats’ proposals that occurred subsequent to that.

        2. Jeff doesnt understand that the 1.5 trillion green plan is on top of the 3 trillion infrastructure plan. This is because Jeff is dishonest.

          1. If they had put $4.5 trillion in nine different bills, would he have thought they were only spending $500 billion?

          2. You’re right, Jesse. In reality Trump is a time-traveler who proposed $2 trillion in infrastructure spending in March in response to what he knew would be the proposed $4.5 trillion spending that Democrats would propose in the future. It’s the only logical explanation!

            Other than the other logical explanation that Trump is not fundamentally opposed to big spending sprees. No that can’t be it. Gotta be the time travel.

            1. You always react poorly to having your stupidty exposed.

    3. President Trump has promised to veto the legislation if it makes it to his desk.

      If he does veto it, it’s only because (1) Democrats proposed it and (2) the proposal wasn’t his idea.

      Remember Trump’s endless “infrastructure weeks”? Trump isn’t beyond spending big bucks on infrastructure.

      1. “If he does veto it, it’s only because (1) Democrats proposed it and (2) the proposal wasn’t his idea.”

        Is this something you feel? Are you telling us about your feelings?

        Another explanation is that he opposes all that unnecessary extra spending because all that extra spending is unnecessary–even though spending more money might increases his chances of being reelected in an election year.

        1. Another explanation is that he opposes all that unnecessary extra spending because all that extra spending is unnecessary–even though spending more money might increases his chances of being reelected in an election year.

          Right, just like Trump opposed all that unnecessary extra spending in all the budgets he signed, and he opposed all that unnecessary extra spending in all the coronavirus ‘stimulus’ he signed. Right?

          When has Trump EVER opposed ‘unnecessary extra spending’ on principle?

          1. Are you or are you not saying that spending $2 trillion is the same as spending $4.5 trillion?

            I am saying that one is better than the other–even if neither of them is desirable.

            1. I am saying that Trump has never opposed ‘unnecessary extra spending’ on principle, so your claim that Trump opposes the Democrats’ infrastructure plan because ‘it’s unnecessary’ is, well malarkey.

              My hypothesis is that Trump opposes it because (1) Democrats, and (2) he can’t claim credit for the idea. Because he’s a narcissistic clown and he scores more points among his base by ‘going to war’ against Democrats even if Democrats are proposing the same things that he would ordinarily do.

              1. “I am saying that Trump has never opposed ‘unnecessary extra spending’ on principle,”

                And yet the HEROES Act was passed by the House May 15th–seven weeks ago–ostensibly to save us from COVID-19, and President Trump has refused to sign it.

                Both President Trump and Mitch McConnell in the Senate have said they won’t consider it at this time–because they didn’t think it was necessary.

                You’re claiming otherwise? Are you telling us about your feelings again?

                1. Dude, Trump just last week said he is in favor of a second round of stimulus checks.

                  https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2020/06/second-stimulus-check-coming-soon-trump-says-will-be-very-generous.html

                  He is in favor of infrastructure spending. He is in favor of the expanded unemployment payments.

                  Where exactly is he drawing the line at this ‘unnecessary extra spending’?

                  1. And he is against the HEROES act–in large part because it’s a bailout of the states. It gives $1 trillion to states.

                    https://taxfoundation.org/heroes-act-state-budgets-soar-economy-suffers/

                    That has nothing to do with infrastructure or with stopping the spread of COVID-19 and everything to do with bailing states out of their pension crises.

                    It’s a giveaway to the government employee unions that run California, Illinois, New York, and elsewhere under the guise of infrastructure and COVID-19 relief, and the both President Trump and the Republican controlled Senate oppose using federal taxpayer funds to bail out state pension crises that were created by the same Democratic Party machines that make local police unaccountable in places like Minneapolis.

                    I repeat, your ignorance is astounding, and I’m starting to suspect that you’re impervious to facts.

                    I opposed using federal taxes to bail out the the bloated and out of control state pension plans in that link you quoted me on in April, and I oppose giving them $1 trillion in bailout money under the guise of infrastructure and COVID-19 relief now. President Trump doesn’t oppose spending on infrastructure or COVID-19 relief like I wish he did, but he is against bailing out the states and has refused to do so every day for seven weeks since the Democrats passed that bill in the House.

                    Because you think bailing out the states is the same as not bailing out the states doesn’t make it so. It just means that you’re a tool. The Democrats could add in bailout money for the KKK, and you might fault Trump for being the same as the Democrats for opposing that because he also supports spending on COVID-19 relief and infrastructure. It just isn’t so. Your lack of knowledge and common sense isn’t persuasive–and even less so when you get so emotional you can’t tell the difference between bailing out the states and not bailing out the states.

                    1. And he is against the HEROES act–in large part because it’s a bailout of the states.

                      Where has Trump said that?

                    2. Go educate yourself, Jeff.

                    3. I think you are projecting what you believe onto what Trump believes.

                      But hey I’m willing to stand corrected.

                    4. But hey I’m willing to stand corrected

                      aAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      AAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      HAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAHAHA

                      AHAHAJAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAAH

                      HAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHHHAHAHA

                      AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA

                      HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

                    5. aAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      AAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      HAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAHAHA

                      AHAHAJAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAAH

                      HAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHHHAHAHA

                      aAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      AAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      HAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAHAHA

                      AHAHAJAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAAH

                      HAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHHHAHAHA

                      aAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      AAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      HAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAHAHA

                      AHAHAJAHHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAAH

                      HAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHHHAHAHA

                    6. Damn Lying Jeffy that was brutal.

          2. Are you still unaware that every budget he has signed was veto proof?

            Budgetary blame is on Congress, yet you seem dead set to blame it on the executive.

            You really are uneducated.

            1. Umm I do believe that both the legislative and executive branches are responsible for bills becoming law. Don’t you remember your Schoolhouse Rock?

              And if the budgets were veto-proof, if Trump was so so concerned about the spending, then what did Trump have to lose by vetoing them? His vetoes would be overridden, the budgets would have become law anyway, but he would not have put his signature of approval on them.

            2. So are you admitting that the shutdowns were all just theater?

    4. Oh and let’s see what Ken’s comments were on Trump’s $2 trillion infrastructure proposal.

      https://reason.com/2020/04/07/trump-wants-2-trillion-pelosi-wants-1-trillion-for-next-coronavirus-spending-bill/#comment-8199430

      I’m against both o them, but I’m not about to say they’re both as bad as each other or that one is worse than the other because it costs more–until I see what they do.

      Hmm, a much more measured and reasonable approach.

      But now, Democrats propose a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill? It’s OMG THAT’S SO OUTRAGEOUS. Trump, save us from those free-spending Democrats!

      Oh, and to add insult to injury, the Democrats in the House passed an $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill yesterday, with $130 billion going to schools that educate low income children, $100 billion for affordable housing, $100 billion for mass transit, $29 billion for Amtrak, and $100 billion to give high speed internet access to poorer communities.

      President Trump has promised to veto the legislation if it makes it to his desk. I shudder to think what will happen if he isn’t there to veto such things come 2021.

      Well we know what happens when Trump is there. He proposes something BIGGER!

      1. From what I can tell, the Democrats have proposed $4.5 trillion to Trump’s $2 trillion.

        “I’m against both o them, but I’m not about to say they’re both as bad as each other or that one is worse than the other because it costs more–until I see what they do.”

        —-Ken Shultz

        I’ll stand behind that.

        If the Democrats’ proposal were just a giveaway to the states of California, Illinois, and New York, states with big pension crises that are really meant to bail those states’ pension funds out, then I would have opposed a package with a smaller number on that basis.

        Since the Democrats Heroes act is $3 trillion, compared to Trump’s proposal, it actually costs more.

        It should also be noted that the Heroes Act gives states and local government $1 trillion in bailouts–which is exactly what I opposed in that comment you spliced. Here’s what I actually wrote in that comment you linked:

        “I’m against both o them, but I’m not about to say they’re both as bad as each other or that one is worse than the other because it costs more–until I see what they do. The package that helps states like California, Illinois, and New York replenish their out of control pension systems the most, that’s the one I oppose the most. The coronavirus should not be used as an excuse for states to continue to make outrageous pension commitments.

        If an economic collapse isn’t enough to entice to Albany, Sacramento, and Springfield to address the man made catastrophe that is their state employee pension systems, then what will? There will never be a time when those states are so flush with taxpayer revenue that they make cuts to their pension system. The only solution is to leave them to twist in the wind, and that is what we should do.”

        —-Ken Shultz, April 7, 2020

        If the states of California, Illinois, and New York need to prioritize COVID-19 relief over other things, then they should cut spending elsewhere or raise taxes on their own people. There is no good reason why taxpayers in other states, that manage their pension systems better, should bail out states they don’t reside or vote for making bad choices. You see, there’s this thing called moral hazard, and if you don’t already know what it means, you should go educate yourself. The world seems to be full of things you should already know about.

    5. Destroy everything to save everything.

    6. eliminating pollution from cars by 2035 It’s nice how they think it can be done if they simply say it has to be done. I wish I lived in a world that simple-I could just tell people they need to stop being violent and violence would all end.

      1. It would never get that far.

        It would exactly like what happened in Australia. They implemented a carbon tax that seemed like it wouldn’t be completely unpopular–right up until people received their electricity bill and started paying for it at the pump.

        They voted that PM’s party out of power, and the first thing the new government did was get rid of the carbon tax. By implementing that carbon tax, they set the cause of environmentalism way back!

        It will be just like what happened with ObamaCare. It wasn’t especially popular with anyone but the elitists in the Democratic party and their cheerleaders in the media, but when it turned out that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, and if you like your plan, you can keep your plan was a bald-faced lie in practice and premiums kept going up and up–not in spite of ObamaCare but because of it? The first thing the next government did was systematically dismantle the fucking thing.

        I don’t think it’s meant by anyone except the activists at the top to actually be implemented–which doesn’t mean it won’t be implemented. It just means that if they actually implement it, the push back will be severe. I hope we can avoid the pain because unnecessary suffering is to be avoided. And I’d like to think that reasonable people who can see that the Green New Deal is a terrible idea before they suffer the negative consequences can come together and defeat it before it’s ever implemented.

        1. The first thing the next government did was systematically dismantle the fucking thing.

          I surely hope the Trump admin can finish it off. Haven’t got there yet.

  26. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/02/jobs-report-june-2020.html

    Record jobs gains in June. Clearly the Democrats need a new pandemic or a second wave of this one.

    1. What’s interesting here is the implicit argument by the media that mass gatherings don’t spread the coof as long as you’re wearing a mask. By that logic, businesses could simply require everyone to mask up and still keep operating.

      On a related note, I ended up ordering one of those Shamwow masks and look forward to many laughs as I morph into one of Vince Offer’s consumer minions.

      1. What is a Shamwow mask? I might have to order one.

        1. It’s basically Shamwow material with a cloth backing. Could probably just make one yourself and save the money if you already have one of the cloths, but I figured the order is keeping people working, and the commercial was funny as fuck, so I ordered one.

      2. And yeah. If wearing a mask is so necessary and effective to be in the grocery store, then why can’t we have baseball and football games back and just require masks?

        1. A couple months ago, some media outlet put out some pathetic piece of scare-mongering that droplets could waft over into the next aisle and infect you. Shit like this is why the pandemic became so politicized–because the media keeps playing Calvinball in its reporting of what’s going on in their desperate attempt to get clicks.

        2. “If wearing a mask is so necessary and effective to be in the grocery store, then why can’t we have baseball and football games back and just require masks?”

          I honestly get the feeling that if the Governors said “You can do football as long as you wear masks”, you and others here would be telling them to fuck off.

          1. Eh, I’m at the point where I honestly don’t give a shit if sportsball ever comes back. It’s been a nice break.

            Every lockdown that’s happened, I’ve found that I don’t actually miss watching it all that much, and that I actually like the shorter seasons–there’s more at stake and my TV isn’t constantly bombarded with ad hype for some game or another. These long seasons don’t really benefit anyone but the media companies and the owners, anyway. They sure don’t benefit the players, as far as their health is concerned.

          2. You have a problem with that, overt?
            I’d hope you’d tell them off too.
            It’s fucking totalitarianism based on fraud.
            Anyone who supports it can get a bullet in the head

      3. Yes! That’s what I’ve been saying.

        Wear a mask and let everything else get back to normal. It’s is the smallest concession that can get us through this without more mandates and shutdowns. You can stomp your feet and yell about those mandates, or you can come to the conclusion that the population will demand that someone do something to protect them, and that wearing a mask is the simplest and easiest thing to do to assuage them and their politicians.

        1. I get what you’re saying, but the narrative that the media keeps pushing won’t allow for such a simple compromise. Trust in these people is at an all-time low because they keep moving the goalposts, so the free-floating anxiety never gets a chance to settle. It doesn’t help when the scientific community goes full retard and posits that protesting during a pandemic is a public health necessity.

          I agree that the best solution would be to require businesses to operate as long as their customers wear masks, on the premise that it at least helps mitigate the spread. You could even require it in schools and daycares this fall for the purposes of protecting kids. You open up the economy more, get people back to work and school, assuage some concerns that places are going to turn into super-spreaders, and at least have a semblance of normalcy and stability.

          But this became too politicized because the media can’t help their chimpouts about anything Trump says or does, and Fauci hasn’t been any help with his hyper-autistic focus on beating the virus rather than figuring out how to live with it. Because the simple fact is that this is a coronoavirus, and it’s going to hit everyone eventually, the question is to what degree it will affect them.

          1. And science being politicized has been a problem long before Trump, but we must acknowledge that he has not been helpful at all in that regard. And of course proggies will take advantage of any situation like this to participate in their favorite pastimes of shaming and self-congratulating.

            This was a new virus with a lot of unknowns, so information and guidance has changed because of changing levels of information. Perhaps people could have adapted behavior as new information came in, if their political identities weren’t intertwined with whether or not they believe the virus is a democrat hoax, or if mask wearing signifies weakness, or if going for an unmasked jog outside during this is tantamount to killing grandma.

          2. Masks keep the lie going, and are a social signal of submission

            1. “and are a social signal of submission”

              And the Illuminati put tracking chips in them.

        2. Hey, that’s cool if that’s what will do it. Burden of proof’s on you. No “computer models” with GIGO assumptions. No “meta-study” of 172 unrelated studies. Lay out the proof.

          1. Make sure you cover both mask effectiveness and asymptomatic spread.

            1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

              Quoted:

              Abstract
              Background

              The pandemic of COVID-19 is growing, and a shortage of masks and respirators has been reported globally. Policies of health organizations for healthcare workers are inconsistent, with a change in policy in the US for universal face mask use. The aim of this study was to review the evidence around the efficacy of masks and respirators for healthcare workers, sick patients and the general public.
              Methods

              A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials on use of respiratory protection by healthcare workers, sick patients and community members was conducted. Articles were searched on Medline and Embase using key search terms.
              Results

              A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts.
              Conclusion

              The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.

              1. You made a decent attempt. Here are the 8 community studies and why they’re not relevant.

                Mostly they don’t isolate mask wearing as a factor, but some found no effect or studied participants that lived together.

                Cowling 2008: preliminary report, no results
                MacIntyre 2009: low participation
                Cowling 2009: Masks + Handwashing
                Aiello 2010: Masks + Handwashing
                Aiello 2012: Masks alone not protective
                Larson 2010: Masks + Handwashing + Education
                Simmerman 2011: No difference wearing mask
                Suess 2012: Household contacts (i.e. live together)

                1. So you think it is appropriate to wait for 100% confirmed, double blind studies before taking a precautionary measure with no side effects and extremely low cost/risk burdens? Or do you take action as it becomes quite evident that there is a benefit to be had, even if we can’t measure the benefit to the 3rd decimal place?

                  How do you feel about FDA restricting dying people from using experimental drugs?

                  1. Let em take whatever drugs they want, studies or no. Let em wear masks, I don’t care.

                    If you want to convince me that masks prevent community spread from asymptomatic persons, there should be some evidence.

                    1. And there is. Apparently not to your standard, but there is. Your most common objection is that the study also included at hand-washing. They didn’t isolate just mask wearing! Hersey!

                      Cmon, it’s ridiculous. It costs nothing and the best data we have now is that there is benefit.

  27. The U.S. Department of Justice has defended nonjudicial civil forfeiture as “a useful tool because it allows the government to avoid burdening the courts.”

    WTF?! Why not “avoid burdening the courts” by abolishing all laws?

    1. For that to work, you keep the laws but eliminate the courts – arrested, fined or jailed, all in one smooth efficient step. We can do it faster and better than Cuban war crimes trials. Those take 15 minutes.

      1. We don’t need laws or courts. Just give out (or sell) badges, and let the local cops confiscate as they please. I am sure we can get advice from happily retired Mexican LEOs.

      2. Judge Dredd, bruh.

  28. The pandemic changes election 2020–no doubt about that–but the ways it changes the election are more unpredictable than people think.

    Check out the primary election results in Colorado for a house seat that came in yesterday.

    “Lauren Boebert defeated five-term Rep. Scott Tipton on Tuesday night, winning by about 9 percentage points. Ms. Boebert, 33 years old, owns gun-themed Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colo., a small town about a three hours’ drive west of Denver . . . .

    An outspoken supporter of President Trump, Ms. Boebert dismissed the president’s endorsement of her opponent by telling local media she wasn’t sure Mr. Trump knew Mr. Tipton’s voting record. Her restaurant sells shirts that say “God, guns, Trump” in all capital letters . . . . She defied orders to close her restaurant during the pandemic until she was served a cease-and-desist order.

    . . . .

    A Colorado Republican familiar with the primary said Mr. Tipton’s internal polling before ballots were mailed out had the incumbent up by nearly 30 points. Turnout was unusually high: Generally 60,000 ballots are expected, but more than 100,000 Republicans voted this year. The person attributed the loss to people being upset over the pandemic and related closures, of which Ms. Boebert was a vocal critic.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-politics-fueled-challenger-in-colorado-house-gop-primary-11593638290?

    Colorado may not be a bellwether state, but if its trended blue in recent elections, but if 66.7% more Republicans than expected show up to vote in November, the Democrats better watch their backs. That would be a pro-Trump landslide.

    1. Every poll I have seen shows Republicans much more motivated to vote than Democrats. And the Presidential Primaries showed this. Trump got enormous vote totals even though he was running unopposed and Republicans had no reason to show up and vote for him.

      1. In 2016, it only took a small portion of the Republican party to be enthusiastic about Trump to get him a win in the primaries–and as I’ve detailed here so many times before, he won the primaries in open-primary states, where disaffected Democrats could vote for him. He won the general election with the help of union types in the rust belt, which had been the Democrats’ bread and butter since FDR.

        I have been a principled non-voter since I voted for George W. Bush in 2000–I supported him because he promised to replace the welfare state with private charity and to repudiate the awful corruption of the Clinton administration, in which Al Gore played a big part. I’ve maintained since that just because we get to pick our own masters doesn’t mean they won’t treat us like their slaves, and how can I tell my friends and family that the bus is broken no matter who the driver is–out of one side of my mouth–and then vote for one jackass over another? I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016, but I can’t wait to vote for him in 2020–and for people who could possibly vote for a Republican candidate, I’m about the most reluctant voter in the bunch.

        The tax cuts, the deregulation, I’ve haven’t forgotten about that, but the opposition to socialism in the form of the Green New Deal, the opposition to Medicare for All. He had me with that. Then you add in his success in getting us on a plan to pull out of Afghanistan, his reluctance to shut down the economy nationally with lock down orders, and the Democrats support for crazy things like looting and arson by way of calling it “protesting” . . .

        I’d bet the Republican turnout for this election will be monumental–pandemic or no pandemic.

        1. I think it will be too. I thought that before this year. But after the riots and the Democrats going insane and wanting to erase the entire nation’s history, how could Republican turnout not be enormous?

          1. Don’t be too sure = Team R will turn out in droves

            Mind you, I want huge turnout. More than anything, I want anyone but Brain-Damaged Biden and Team Blue.

            1. I see no evidence that they won’t. We will find out but I have yet to see any poll or turnout in other elections that says otherwise.

              1. https://www.oddsshark.com/politics/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures

                Not looking good for ol’ dumpster. November is a long way off, though.

                1. The futures market is just a measure of the conventional wisdom among the doofuses who gamble there. It has no track record of ever being right about anything.

                2. Everyone knows the futures market is skewed.

  29. Is there a web site for evil bitches? Asking for a friend.

    1. It’s called Jezebel.

  30. https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/harvard-grad-claira-janover-lost-deloitte-job-over-tiktok-stab-threat/

    So dumb girl gets fired from her new job at Delloite after posting a TikTok stating that she would stab anyone who says “All Lives Matter” to her.

    I had seen her video earlier in the morning, and then my wife told me last night she had been fired. I know I should feel vindicated, but I just feel sorry, like I am watching the Shepherdsons and Grangerfords in Huck Finn.

    The appropriate result of this girl’s stupid video was for an adult she respects (or perhaps her future boss) telling her how stupid, insensitive and inappropriate it was- with consequences if she doesn’t straighten up. But our society has moved too far beyond that.

    Cancel Culture needs to stop, but it will not because nobody wants it to stop. Oh, sure, we want it to stop when it comes for something we hold dear, but when it comes for the enemy, we feel vindication. We even lie to ourselves that if it gets the other side enough, it will stop. But it won’t stop. It might ebb and flow, but we have seen too easily that Cancel Culture is a tool that too many cynical assholes will employ to destroy people they have zero interaction with. It is truly sad.

    1. She has a degree from Harvard in politics and psychology. No hope for her anyway.

    2. A) Says a lot about the standards at Harvard.
      B) No sympathy here. Her ilk helped create this toxic atmosphere….swim honey.

      1. “toxic atmosphere”

        Yes, that is why I said, deep down most people don’t want cancel culture to stop. If you look at someone you dislike being canceled and say “Serves them right” you don’t want cancel culture to stop, and you shouldn’t expect anyone to give a shit when it comes for people you respect.

        But I do think this atmosphere is toxic. And it will only stop when people stand up for the people they hate just as much as they stand up for people they respect.

        1. I’m sorry, I wouldn’t qualify this as a #cancelculture case. Cancel culture is when you dig up an old tweet where someone made a racist joke or something and then call for them to be shunned and shamed. One statement not meant to be offensive taken out of context later does not warrant negative attention.

          When someone is saying, “I want to stab people who disagree with me,” they’re telling people they don’t belong in polite society, and what happens to them is a result of their own failures. That’s clearly something you should not be expressing in any medium to be shared.

          1. There is no way anyone in their right mind could take this vapid woman-child seriously. If you felt she really thought you should be knifed, you have a serious problem. She was mouthing off, just like boys and girls have done for thousands of years. In the past it might get you smacked in the back of the head. Today it costs you your job.

            Cancel Culture did not start as “trolling through ancient posts”. That is what it eventually became as it was weaponized. However when it started, it was about people making a stupid tweet and it ruining their lives.

            A good history is here:
            https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html

            1. I skimmed the article, and the vast majority of those incidents were people who made an insensitive joke. Not the same as “I want to stab these specific people who interact with me.” I think it’s completely sensible for someone to decide they don’t want the latter person as an employee. There’s a clear distinction there.

              Now, I might chuckle if people are calling out Jimmy Kimmel for having dressed up as Karl Malone, but that’s merely me recognizing that he’s a fucking hypocrite. I don’t think he should be canceled, but until he recognizes that he’s wrong about what #cancelculture is, he should continue to reap what he’s sown.

            2. There is no way anyone in their right mind could take this vapid woman-child seriously

              Which is irrelevant but you do you

            3. For fuck’s sake, if she didn’t want people thinking that she wanted to knife them, maybe she shouldn’t have said that she wanted to knife them.

        2. This woman would have smugly celebrated if she got someone fired. I have no sympathy for her. I just watched the crying video and she has zero self-awareness and zero empathy for others who also “worked so hard” to get their jobs or build their businesses. *shrug* You said some dumb shit and lost your job too. Welcome to the revolution.

        3. No, it’ll only stop if those pushing get it turned back on them

    3. Equally, it would be nice if people would stop broadcasting to a billion people around the globe how they want to kill people of a certain color or demographic.

      1. I know, right?
        I think this example is not a great one for criticism of ‘cancel culture’. It’s not like she just posted an insensitive joke or something. She threatened people with death. Probably not a serious threat of course. But different qualitatively than just saying something off-color.

        1. Leave it to Jeffy to respond to:
          Cancel Culture is a tool that too many cynical assholes will employ

          with:
          She threatened people with death.

          Talk about a lack of self-awareness…

        2. I think it’s both. I read a book recently which touched on this subject and talked about how we’ve lost our capacity for forgiveness in the social media age. I think that a young person who does something impulsive and stupid on social media should have a pathway to redemption. But Millennials and Zoomers especially need to fucking think before they blast every passing thought to a billion people around the globe.

          I’m beginning to think social media should institute a 7 day waiting period on every tweet or post.

      2. Totally agree- but just a few minutes ago, I read someone say that a woman should have been punched for mouthing off to a cop. People make stupid statements all the time. That statement damn well will get someone canceled if it is ever attributed directly to them.

        1. The biggest problem for this bitch is that she demonstrated quite clearly that she’d be a nightmare in any group setting.
          Nothing but HR complaints and a lawsuit waiting to happen

    4. The post-firing video she put up was incredible. “Trump supporters” this and “Trump supporters” that. Typical passive-aggressive progressive mindset–puts out a video acting all hard that she’s going to stab people who tell her All Lives Matter, then puts up a weep-fest complaining about all the hate she got in return. No self-awareness AT ALL.

      I agree that, in a sane world, her boss would have pulled her in, told her to get the fuck off of social media and stop saying you’re going to stab people who disagree with you, and then moved on. But that’s not the world we live in.

      I can’t stress this enough–nuke your social media accounts. If you have kids, don’t let them set up accounts; once they’re adults, they’re on their own, but as long as they’re dependent on you, you have to set hard rules about this. It’s FAR too easy for complete strangers to ruin your life because of some throwaway comment you or your snot-rocket made on social media in the heat of the moment.

      And TikTok is a fucking Chinese media app, so these idiots are enabling the ChiComs to data harvest them whenever they log on. You shouldn’t use social media in general, but you DEFINITELY shouldn’t use one that’s tied to the bat-munchers.

      1. In a sane world, a sane boss would want nothing to do with that entitled nutcase, who is trouble waiting to happen for him

        1. The problem is that entitled nutcases are the only product the nation’s colleges are producing now, and you have to fill manning somehow. I agree that they’re nothing but trouble, both inside and outside the workplace, but what are you going to do? The factories churning out these woke-tards aren’t going to change their ways, short of the entire university system being blown up and the current deans and professoriate blacklisted forever.

          It’s a fully captured system for radical leftist ideology, and it’s gotten progressively worse since the Boomer liberals took over the schools in the 1970s and 80s.

          1. What are you going to do?
            Open up hiring to all applicants.
            Interview those who catch your eye and make a decision based on your assessment rather than someone else’s (credentials/degrees).
            But the corporate world is just another bureaucracy.
            Companies are living off their brand, not competence.
            They’re seeking obedience, not ability

      2. The other thing that is amazing about that video is who she cannot seem to put together a complete sentence. She seems legitimately stupid and unable to express herself in any kind of sophisticated way.

        Good to know Harvard produces such erudite graduates. Beyond the issues with her wanting to stab people, why would anyone hire someone that poorly spoken?

        1. why would anyone hire someone that poorly spoken?

          The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporarity into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural tonalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

          –Judith Butler, Gender Theorist.

          1. No dumb ass, the rules of grammar and informal logic are not strategies to enforce hegemony and power. You can pretend they are all you like but it won’t change the truth or make you look any less stupid.

        2. “What do we get for ten dollars?”

          1. “I’m not going to start a war for a twenty point bump in the polls… *thinks* what can I do for ten points?”

      3. I think people should consider looking at Slack for kids.

        The only people on it are the people you invite. If you make a Slack iteration and just have close friends and family, you’re as good as the assumption that the people you invite won’t share data with people outside the group. Meanwhile, neither your kids nor anyone else can say anything that will be hidden from you the administrator. You can use any kind of program you want attached to Slack–with photo sharing apps, for instance, that are restricted as to who can see the photos. Nothing online will ever be 100% safe, but you can get a lot of the feel of social media without anywhere near the risk by using a walled garden like Slack.

        1. I don’t think that’s what most people want. I think most people want the widest possible audience at all time, so they can get the widest adoration, retweets/reposts and the highest number of likes.

          1. I was reacting to where he wrote this:

            “If you have kids, don’t let them set up accounts; once they’re adults, they’re on their own, but as long as they’re dependent on you, you have to set hard rules about this. It’s FAR too easy for complete strangers to ruin your life because of some throwaway comment you or your snot-rocket made on social media in the heat of the moment.”

            A walled garden like Slack can be the answer to a kids’ social media itch–while giving you ultimate control.

        2. The problem is that a “little bit of social media” is sort of like being “just a little bit pregnant.”

          1. Give Slack a try for your benefit if you want sometime.

            The really great thing about Slack is all the hundreds of programs and services you can plug into through Slack. You might be surprised how many interactive things you can do in a walled garden with Slack.

            If you create a small community of people you trust within that walled garden family environment, you’ll probably find that the people who come there behave a lot like they would if you invited them to your house for a dinner party. If you don’t trust your kids’ cousins, don’t invite them, but their uncles and aunts and a few close friends from church or school, etc? I’ve got a thriving community of family, friends, extended family, and others–and it’s more engaging that you might think. Not quite the thrill of talking to strangers, but . . . I don’t necessarily want to have conversations with friends and family in an environment where the Marys, Tonys, and Shrikes are free to observe either. Maybe it’s not the solution you’re looking for, but maybe it’s more than adequate and better than nothing, too.

      4. “I can’t stress this enough–nuke your social media accounts…”

        Does this place not count? In theory, we’re anonymous, but I doubt it would be terribly hard to doxx someone here.

        Right, Mary?

        I totally get your point though, RR. It’s got to be really tough for those of you with kids.

        1. Theoretically, yes. But unless someone stupidly leaves their email visible in the screenname, like McGoo or Mary did, or someone excessively power-levels themselves, the likelihood of getting doxxed on this site is almost non-existent short of someone hacking Reason’s account database, and even then, you can just use a burner email.

  31. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/02/fbi-arrests-jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-sex-case.html

    The FBI has arrested Ghislaine Maxwell. She knows everything Epstein knew and maybe even more. And she is the daughter of a very rich family with a lot to lose and certainly no desire to spend the rest of her life in prison.

    This could be very interesting. Could she somehow hang herself the way Epstein did? If not, there could be some very important people who are in a lot of trouble.

    1. Odds are zombie epstein hangs her.

    2. I can’t help but feel like we are being set up for disappointment again.

      1. But enough about your sex life

    3. So, did they not know where she was or did it really take this long to craft a case against her?

      1. She has been on the lam around the world for well over a year.

        1. Right, that was my understanding. In this day and age, I can’t imagine she was able to cross back into the US, go through customs, and nothing popped up on a terminal screen saying, “Please detain”.

          According to the article she, “Slithered back in” to the US. Unless she’s traveling with false papers (and if she is, there’s a story right there) I just don’t see how she got in or out of the country.

    4. All of Reason’s left wing Obamatards and Slick Willie dick suckers are freaking out right now, big time.

      What this woman knows can bring down half the globalist “elites” and most of the democratic party, the natural home of perverts and pedophiles.

    5. Nah, we’re gonna get blue-balled on this, too. It’s way too close to election time for anything to come out unless it hurts Republicans. Anything that legitimately would damage a Democrat is going to get suppressed until after November.

      1. They might throw Prince Andrew out there then call it a day.
        “Even a royal isn’t above the law! NOTHING ELSE TO SEE HERE.”

    6. Drowning seems to be the cause of death du jour. Trendy in her family, too.

    7. I wonder when Ghislaine’s funeral is?

  32. “If Colin Kaepernick winds up being awarded a Nobel Prize, will that beef up his resume enough to get him a job as an NFL quarterback?
    Sorry, that’s a silly question, beneath the dignity of one man’s campaign to see Kaepernick honored by the Peace Prize folks in Oslo…”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/ostler/article/If-Colin-Kaepernick-snags-Nobel-Prize-he-ll-15380310.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    No, he still can’t hit an open receiver more than 5 yards down-field, but give him Obo’s ‘prize’; he’s not using it.

    1. If they even considered giving a Nobel to the autistic girl doing her impression of Dwight from the Office doing his impression of Benito Mussolini, the prize clearly means nothing. She didn’t even take her shoe off to pound it on the podium.

      1. Getting a nobel prize is easier than making a roster in the NFL

      2. The Nobel Peace Prize jumped the shark when Arafat was awarded it decades ago.

    2. HE’S GETTING A NOBEL PRIZE?!

      THAT DEGENERATE CLOWN?

      1. Naah, he’s not gonna get close.
        But why not take Obo’s away and let him have a used one?

    3. #nobelbesowhite

  33. “Men’s makeup goes mainstream with CVS rollout”
    […]
    “With this move, CVS likely has potential customers such as Max Belovol in mind. The 23-year-old grew up wearing dazzling eyeshadows and foundation for figure-skating competitions but didn’t become truly comfortable with wearing makeup during work until the coronavirus lockdown.
    “It’s a Zoom effect,” said Belovol, a law student based in Atlanta, who prefers concealer and its subtle look. “People don’t have to worry about how they look at work. You can paint your nails, and nobody on the Zoom call is going to know.”…”
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/30/mens-makeup-goes-mainstream-with-cvs-rollout/

    “Mainstream” it ain’t. Even “fringe” is questionable…

    1. I thought men’s makeup was commonly referred to as camouflage paint.

      1. Eyeblack.

        1. The beginning of the slippery slope to blackface.

      2. the world does not need a prettier me.

    2. In fifty years, we’ll all be James Charles.

  34. “The issue at stake this round was whether Elliott is a public figure. If so, the standard for proving defamation is higher, and the chances for Donegan’s motion to dismiss would have been much greater.”

    It may be my lack of book lernin’ but I have never understood this flexible standard. In many ways public figures are more damaged by defamation.

    1. The standard was invented out of thin air by the Supreme Court in the early 60s in a case called NYT v. Sullivan. The thinking was that people should have more leeway to slander public figures because being held to the ordinary negligence standard would inhibit public discourse. Now, the US had had a functioning Republic for going on 175 years at this point without this standard. But the Supreme Court decided it was somehow magically necessary where it hadn’t been before.

      The truth was, the Court didn’t want the New York Times to go bankrupt paying what was an outrageous and stupid judgement for running an advertisement that slandered an Alabama sheriff. The Court didn’t want to step in and say it could interpret Alabama state law contrary to how the state courts did. But it didn’t want the precious Times to go bankrupt. So, they invented the bullshit public figure doctrine.

      1. Qualified immunity for the win!

  35. No link to Tucker Carlson shattering ratings records?

    1. That’s a sign of his evil influence.

      If the people support you, it means you’re evil–because, after all, people are misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, and racist. That’s why we need progressive government to force us to do things against our will.

      1. You left out TRUMP!!!!!

    2. They didn’t cover this on CNN.

  36. Confederate leaders will finally leave Richmond, Virginia:

    Finally…FINALLY!

    1. When can we dissolve the New York Times, named after slave holders and built on indigenous land, afterall?

    2. Wow, this long? I didn’t realize the city was still under occupation. I thought the war ended a long time ago.

      1. It’s been a long, tough 160 year fight

  37. First of all, that fucking lady who is Mayor of Seattle is a damned hypocrite. She did not do jack-shit until her precious 5K ft2 home was in the line of sight of the rioters. Period.

    Second, the Rockland County Health Department is no better than the fucking KGB of the old Soviet Union. I cannot believe we could ever tolerate this kind of government abuse of authority in my lifetime.

    I am done with the People’s Republic of NJ. This shit is now completely out of hand. We have a dictator, and a rubberstamp for a legislature. After my experiences with suppression of my free exercise rights, and grossly negligent conduct by the Dictator Murphy and his little Harpy Health Commissioner in killing nursing home patients….I am done. FUCK THEM AND FUCK THIS GODFORSAKEN STATE.

    1. It’s pretty astonishing.

      Public health officials have proven to be little shits.

    2. Murphy’s an asshole. But he’s mid-term, and people are stupid. Nobody’s going to remember what he did when election time rolls around.

      1. I’ll be gone. I won’t care. Fuck Murphy, fuck NJ. They deserve everything they get.

        1. Burn that bitch down

    3. You can be in Orlando in less than 18 hours.
      (personally, I recommend one of the less infected (politically and virus) areas)

    4. Come to Texas, XY. We need Libertarians. I’ll even settle for Goldwater Republicans.

      Just never let slip from your lips, “Well, back in…” We don’t care.

      1. I hear Austin could use help.

  38. “WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. prosecutors late on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to seize the gasoline aboard four tankers that Iran is shipping to Venezuela”

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-iran-gasoline-suit/u-s-files-suit-to-seize-gasoline-in-four-iran-tankers-headed-to-venezuela-idUSKBN24329Z

    Iran and Venezuela are the two members of OPEC that always vote to lower the oil quota for each country. It’s because their state owned oil companies are so mismanaged by authoritarian cronyism, they’re the only two countries that can’t pump their quota–so they want to decrease the amount of oil on the world market so they can get more money for each barrel they manage to pump.

    Venezuela is so fucked up. How fucked up is it?

    Venezuela is so fucked up that despite being an oil-rich nation, they can’t even pump enough oil to serve their own economy, much less export it for cash. They’re so fucked up, they have to buy refined gasoline from Iran.

    Meanwhile, there are people–right here in the United States of America–who say we need socialism in our own country. Some of them even serve in the House of Representatives! It’s amazing.

    1. There are two things in the ocean; US submarines, and targets.

      1. What about when I’m in the ocean?

    2. “They’re so fucked up, they have to buy refined gasoline from Iran.”

      Not surprising, if you’ve seen that sludge they call crude oil in Venezuela. Aren’t there only something like 2 or 3 global refineries that can even work with that crap?

  39. And they say it’s the Democrats who are crazy.

    Scott Adams: Republicans will be “hunted” if Biden wins

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-republicans-will-be-hunted-if-biden-is-elected

    1. Given how they dox and march on people’s homes or harass people in restaurant’s, it’s not a stretch they’re gonna up their game.

      1. “The Hunt” is a fictional movie, not a documentary.

    2. Had to look a long way for that, didn’t you? Does cherry picking pay a living wage?

      1. Scott Adams is an obscure person?

    3. scott adams likely funded sufficiently to escape to his island

    4. It is crazy. It is not like a football coach in Oklahoma didn’t almost lose his job for wearing a T-Shirt, or BLM protesters didn’t shoot and try and murder someone in Provo Utah who just happened to drive by, or that Antifa doesn’t claim about every day how they plan to go into people’s homes, or there are about a million other examples of people’s lives being ruined or nearly ruined or being assaulted by Democrats or anything.

      Yup, Jeff, that is just crazy. Everyone knows it is white supremacists who are doing all this stuff.

      1. Didn’t you, just above, try to claim that Antifa was a bunch of wimps who meekly submitted to the police in Seattle? Now they are a bunch of scary murderous terrorists? Please get your story straight.

        1. They are. But that doesn’t mean that they are not capable of harm. They are not starting a revolution, but they absolutely do and will assault and murder people. And it isn’t antifa who is destroying people’s careers for wearing the wrong T-Shrt. That is Democrats who are doing that.

          1. They are which? A bunch of pansies, or a bunch of terrorists?

            1. Collectivizing again I see.

          2. …and so conenct the dots now, please. ‘Antifa’ has done x bad things at riots, then Biden gets elected…?…Republicans are hunted down like vermin.

            Fill in the blank for us.

            1. As everyone knows, Biden is both a semi-senile milquetoast moderate, AND a firebreathing Marxist radical.

              1. “As everyone knows, Biden is both a semi-senile milquetoast moderate, AND a firebreathing Marxist radical.”

                Do you pick a strawman art random, or is there a certain order?

              2. Yes jeff that is exactly how Biden’s dementia works. Good job

              3. After a “respectful” 6-12 months, President Harris will take the helm, and that’s when the shit show really starts. Former President Biden will then be sent back to his abode in Delaware, where he can resume walking around naked while making creepy, prolonged eye contact with female secret service agents misfortunate enough to be assigned to protect his worthless ass.

      2. You mention two different things there:
        – People getting fired for not being politically correct -> real problem, worth worrying about
        – Liberals invading your home -> not a real problem, not worth worrying about

        1. Tell it to the St. Louis couple who had those “peaceful protesters” directly threaten them with invading their home.

    5. A proven pants-wetter opining that engaging in a bit of hyperbole makes one crazy. Sigh…

      I would vote for Scott Adams for president over any current candidate.

      1. No no I get it, when a Republican says something crazy, it’s obviously hyperbole. But if a Democrat says something crazy, it’s proof that the entire Democratic Party is bonkers.

        1. Many years ago I made the mistake of putting a political sticker on my car. It had to do with opposing some new taxes. After a week I removed it because I got tired of people yelling and shaking their fists at me. One person literally screamed at me in a parking lot, about how terrible I was because I hated the children or something. That was over opposing new taxes. I can only imagine the venom directed at people with Trump/Pence stickers on their bumpers.

          1. My neighbor had a huge Trump/Pence flag hanging from his balcony. It said “No more bull shit” underneath, which surprised me and struck me as tasteless. (The guy is an eagle scout, nice and square. Don’t think I’ve ever heard him use the word “shit”, let alone drape his house in it.)

            The BLM marches came right down the street in front of his house (our backyards face each other). Every time, they would stop and scream profanities at him. I went out once because they were banging on drums and such, and I thought they may be working themselves up to actual action, but nothing happened. My neighbor’s adult kids wrote “all lives matter” and such in sidewalk chalk in front of the house, which was also noticed.

            They took it down and knocked off the chalk after a week of that routine. Credit to everyone that there was no actual violence, but that level of confrontation can get old fast, especially at/in your own house.

        2. As someone who is correct in his assessment that ‘DeRp’ is a major problem, why is that the only label you can seem to attach to people. Other than ‘Trump-humper’, or whatever stupid label you are throwing at anyone who doesn’t buy into the Progressive agenda today, of course.

          Even if your past history of histrionics were not enough proof, you have shit yourself up and down the threads since February over COVID calling for lockdowns and masks in the name of ‘Science!’. You are a sad, scared, little man and you promote policies that protect you and yours at the cost of others freedom.

          I can absolutely imagine you standing in a crowd, watching a soldier weld shut the door of a house with a family inside screaming and crying and thinking to yourself, ‘Wow! If only that family had understood that this is what must be done for the public welfare and promised to stay inside, it wouldn’t have come to this.’

          And, yes, dumbass, Adams is engaged in hyperbole, HE IS A SATIRIST BY TRADE.

          1. Did it ever occur to you that Adams isn’t the only one engaging in hyperbole? You know, that stuff you like call histrionics and stuff?

            1. Yes. Is that relevant?

            2. Except it’s Jeff bro.

          2. Even if your past history of histrionics were not enough proof, you have shit yourself up and down the threads since February over COVID calling for lockdowns and masks in the name of ‘Science!’.

            LOL I have barely commented at all here since February. You are just making shit up at this point.

            Just pointing out the obvious double standard around here. When some Democrat says something insane, it is proof that we all must vote for Trump in order to stop the insanity. But if some Republican says something insane, then well it’s just hyperbole or to be excused away as irrelevant.

            There are a lot of radicals and crazy people on all sides, but, quelle surprise, only the crazy people from one side are referred to in ominous tones around here. Gee I wonder why.

            I can absolutely imagine you standing in a crowd, watching a soldier weld shut the door of a house with a family inside screaming and crying and thinking to yourself, ‘Wow! If only that family had understood that this is what must be done for the public welfare and promised to stay inside, it wouldn’t have come to this.’

            Of course you can imagine it, because the person you imagine in your head conforms perfectly to your biases and assumptions. I can imagine a lot of things too. That doesn’t make them real.

            1. “LOL I have barely commented at all here since February. You are just making shit up at this point.”

              He probably believes that you, me, Alphabet, and a half dozen others are all the same person.

              1. Yeah probably.

                There’s just people he respects (Trump cultists), and then there’s everyone else, a big amorphous blob of ‘librul soshalishtic proggies’.

                1. There’s a lot of that going around, and it’s gonna approach (but never reach) Peak Derp the closer we get to the election.

                2. There’s just people he respects (Trump cultists)

                  Anyone who is not a coward posing as a moralist or a raving fucking socialist is in a Trump cult? Fuck off and die gasping for air.

                  1. There are several **self-professed** Trump fans who post here, voluminously, every day.

              2. If chemjeff, JFree and DoL didn’t white knight for each other constantly, I might be able to tell them apart (and there was even a White Knight this week). They all use fallacious arguments and exhibit a similar level of pants-wetting. Easier just to assume they are the same Proggie idiot, who is commonly referred to as Baby Jeffy.

                1. Libertarianism does intersect with some of the policies currently being promoted by the left, just as it intersects with conservatism here and there. Someone who sees politics as linear will accuse libertarians of being proggies or conservatives, sometimes in the same breath, depending upon what is being talked about.

                  That said, chemjeff is not a proggy by any stretch of the imagination. He (and myself depending upon who you ask) appear so because Trump is no libertarian on trade or immigration, and Democrats are coming around to some ideas libertarians have been preaching for decades.

                  That doesn’t mean libertarians are proggies.

                  Tune back in when the left regains the White House, and libertarians will suddenly be accused of being raging conservatives.

                  1. Back when Obama was in the White House, John’s stated positions on the news of the day didn’t stand out that much from anybody else’s in the Reason commentariat.

                  2. Libertarians are not proggies, I am not conflating those things.

                2. We’re white knighting for each other? But the 100’s of Trump cultists participating in the grossest circle jerk since those raucous early nazi party beer hall gang bangs are enlightened political debate, or what?

                  1. Ah yes the “we do awful shit but look over there” defense.

                3. Where do you think I got the name, White Knight, from? I kept getting accused of “white knighting” for Reason, so I’m embracing it, since I see no problem with “white knighting” for people and causes I like. Like the Revolutionary War soldiers and “Yankee Doodle”.

                4. Shorter Chuck:
                  Because I’m a lazy fuck, I’ll just deny their individuality rather than attempt to engage in their arguments.

                  1. Shorter Chuck:
                    Because I’m a lazy fuck, I’ll just deny their individuality rather than attempt to engage in their arguments.

                    Except the part where I actually do. And I try to educate because I have been able to raise 2 sons who don’t expect other people to submit to their wishes or believe they can save the world, so I know it can be done despite the propaganda.

                    It is hard to identify individuality in cookie cutter positions backed up with fallacious reasoning. I engage the arguments, you shift the goalposts. You do realize that you have a voice, a style that identifies you regardless of the handle at the top of the post? JFree’s style comes across as chemjeff trying to appear reasonable and DoL is angry chemjeff. Other than that, there are zero differences in rhetorical style, no backstory that separates them other than things that are easily faked, consistent ad hominem attacks about fellating Trump, and the aforementioned white knighting for Jeffy.

                    I have never suspected sarcasmic was Jeffy because there is a perceptible level of ‘I don’t give a fuck’ in his style that shines through in contrast to Jeffy’s obvious need for attention and ‘thought experiments’. And sarcasmic is funny.

        3. Scott Adams, Political party, Independent.

    6. A guy who’s well known as an author/creator of a comic strip that is a dry wit says something. People write article assuming he’s being completely literal.

      And fuck me, maybe he is, but given who he is, I might lean a little toward tongue-in-cheek.

    7. My nephew, who has the dubious honor of working the gun counter at Walmart, told me about a guy who came in wearing a MAGA hat and ranting about how he had to stock up on ammo because the liberals are gonna invade his home.

      Has the dude met your average liberal? They are way too busy hanging out on their laptops at Starbucks to bother invading your home.

  40. I am herein in this sub thread asking as a platform and interactive online experience allowing you all to comment on Tony, Mr Buttolug, Rev Artie Lee, Pedo Boy,mans other ‘Shitty Commentariat Men’

    1. I can never tell who’s who. There are a lot of anonymous ones that show up. They always show up on Saturday threads especially. I don’t know if that’s Mary, Shrike, Tulpa, or someone else, and I don’t really care. They’re like gnats at a barbecue. Just ignore them. I see their comments, but I never even bother to read them, so it doesn’t even rank as irritating as a commercial break.

      1. This place is a complete shitshow on the weekend. Good thing though, I dont feel the need to get on the internet for anything other than work.

    2. ACTING – if I were a publisher this would have an edit feature

    3. i am entertained by all.

    4. You forgot MICHAEL HIHN and his many iterations. I probably would never have posted a second time on Reason if he hadn’t torn into me like a pack of rabid weasels over the 2A the very first time I posted. His insistence of promoting particularly insidious reinterpretations of the plain language in the Bill of Rights incites me to the point of violence.

      Baby Jeffy does the same by his imitation of Hihn in the cowardly invention of a right to be free from risk or offense.

      1. LOL! An all bold post about Hihn. Unintentional, but talk about meta.

        1. i love that dude.

      2. He’s been persona non grata since late March. I wonder if his sockpuppets all got banned, because it’s not like he ever changed his posting style.

  41. >>Republican-led states can’t seem to stop passing abortion restrictions that have already been declared unconstitutional.

    ya is a flip of the coin if you can get it in front of Roberts.

  42. Economists are looking at links between credit card spending categories and COVID-19 outbreaks:

    I thought only the lockdowns were responsible for everything bad that has happened to the economy since the delusions of February?

    1. No, the democrats are responsible for everything bad that happened, INCLUDING the lockdowns.

    2. Did your mommy say it was safe outside today?

  43. Well well well. Trump has finally come around on the issue of face masks.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-says-a-face-mask-makes-him-look-like-the-lone-ranger-one-problem-with-that-2020-07-01

    “Actually, I had a mask on. I sort of liked the way I looked, OK? I thought it was OK,” Trump told Fox Business. “It was a dark, black mask, and I thought it looked OK. Looked like the Lone Ranger. But, no, I have no problem with that. I think — and if people feel good about it, they should do it.”

    Someone should tell Trump that if wearing a mask makes him look like the Lone Ranger, he’s doing it wrong.

    1. why would the president alienate everyone *in* a mask?

    2. Uhhhhh, he’s mocking and trolling frightened pussies like you,

      And you’re too stupid to realize when you’re being ridiculed, which makes it twice as funny.

      1. “I don’t kid.”
        -Donald Trump

        1. so wait THAT you believe

          lololololol

    3. To make people feel at ease I go shopping in sunglasses with a bandanna over my nose and a cap screwed down over my eyes. It’s kinda Lone Ranger ish. Or is it the guy he chases?

    4. Breaking news: Man is poisoned by mask and his wife barely survives, says Trump irresponsibly told them to wear masks covered in bleach

    5. “…and if people feel good about it, they should do it.”

      Yep, that’s really “coming around”, isn’t it?
      Pathetic piece of lefty shit….

    6. I am so happy that the president has you around to make sure the conversation is always about him. Even when he is not the topic of the day, you adoringly provide the nudge to get us back to the really important things.

      1. chemtard’s more autistic about Trump than Rick Wilson or Louise Mensch.

  44. El Oh El.

    Judicial watch suing DC for first amendment right to paint message on DC street.

    On June 5, 2020, after days of protests and riots in Washington, DC, led by the Black Lives Matter organization, Mayor Bowser authorized the painting of “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street NW, and later authorized or allowed “Defund the Police” to be painted alongside it.

    On June 10, 2020, Judicial Watch sent a letter requesting permission to paint “Because No One is Above the Law!” in the identical size and coloring of the “Black Lives Matter” painting on another DC street near its headquarters near Capitol Hill. Judicial Watch offered to pay for the cost of the painting and, citing the timely nature of the issue, asked for a response in three days.

    Instead, after three weeks of emails with the Mayor’s office, Judicial Watch has yet to receive a substantive response to its street painting request.

    1. Why the request? Just do it.

      1. Forcing DC to acknowledge and participate in the rule of law vs mob rule.

  45. Big News!

    https://abc13.com/harris-county-district-attorneys-office-harding-street-botched-raid/6289529/

    Finally, more charges were dropped on additional officers for that no-knock raid in Houston. It only took a year and a half, but there’s been four more officers indicted for falsifying documents.

    1. Good for them.

    2. When you said “dropped”… it made me think the opposite of what actually happened.

      1. Agreed, poor word choice.

    3. “The new charges show a pattern and practice of lying and deceit,” Ogg said. “There are mountains more evidence to review, and more charges are likely as we push into the next phase of our investigation.”

      Notably, the four new officers who were charged were those who were supervisors in the narc unit. And Kim Ogg claims she’s not done yet! Good job.

    4. It’s a good start, and great news.

  46. “the people of Washington, D.C., want congressional representation. They have wanted it for a long time, and have said so in explicit terms,”

    Congratulations! You are now a constituent of the 4th or 8th districts of Maryland or the 8th district of Virginia. Take your pick.

    1. But they don’t want it badly enough to move a few miles?

      I call bullshit.

      What they want is more dependable socialists in the federal legislature.
      Of course, there is that pesky constitution thingy that says the federal government can’t be in a state. So we should all get this done, so the feds will disappear, and it won’t matter is DC is a state or not.

  47. Contrary to Republican claims that the push for D.C. statehood is driven by Democratic Party elites, “the people of Washington, D.C., want congressional representation. They have wanted it for a long time, and have said so in explicit terms,” Sarah Jones writes at Intelligencer.

    So I was right, they don’t teach civics at all, and even if they did, Journalists either failed or skipped the class.

    Oh, yes it IS Democrat Politicians that want congressional representation for DC. What the fuck does ‘contrary to Republican claims’ even mean? It’s a verified fact that Democrat elites want statehood. It may be true that the Democratic voters inside the district also want it because they’ve been convinced by the Democratic elites that the money will finally start flowing into DC once they get representation.

    1. I think I speak for a lot of my fellow flyover rubes when I say that I fail to see much difference between “Democrat party elites” and “people of Washington DC”

    1. That’s old news. That was always in their TOS. It was commented on weeks ago. I remember commenting on it myself, because I didn’t know what it meant but I suspected I knew what they were at least trying to do.

      And say what you will, as odd as ‘based on the fcc and supreme court” is, it still seems much better than the usual silicon valley fare such as Reddit’s bizarre incantations which declare people “in the majority” are not subject to their hate rules.

      1. Have you heard the latest? They’ve quietly changed the language from “the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority” to “it does not protect those who … try to hide their hate in bad faith claims of discrimination”. It’s not going to be different in practice, it’s just a more explicit statement of their intent that conveniently eliminates a word (majority) with an objective definition. Anyone who complains about hatred directed at whites or men will obviously be deemed to be making claims in bad faith.

    2. Indeed, under Supreme Court precedent, very little speech is outside of the 1st Amendment these days, and we pointed out that Parler’s terms of service did not reflect much understanding of the nuances of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the 1st Amendment. Rather, it appeared to demonstrate the level of knowledge of a 20-something tech bro skimming a Wikipedia article about exceptions to the 1st Amendment and just grabbing the section headings without bothering to read the details (or talk to a 1st Amendment lawyer).

      Talk about being a ‘tech bro’. I don’t know what Parler is attempting to say with their terms of service, but I’ll reiterate. It’s possible that this is modern Silicon Valley’s attempt to say that your speech would be allowed if the SCOTUS declared it to be protected speech. That’s my best guess. I still don’t get the FCC provision, but I’m guessing that since the FCC can ban some speech in public broadcasting that has passed SCOTUS muster… maybe that’s what they mean. But it’s vague. for instance, can you cuss on Parler? I suspect so, so I don’t know what FCC provision they’re talking about.

      Also, it seems that we all have a very, very short memory. Which side of the aisle wanted the FCC to be involved in regulating the internet? Just thought I’d throw that out there.

      1. Elsewhere, Parler’s CEO says that “if you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler.” Or this nugget of nonsense:

        Oooh ouch. I think I get it. I think the author of the article is hostile to free speech. I get it. Fair enough.

        Look, I have no idea if Parler will put into practice what it preaches. We know Google Didn’t, and Facebook et. al. never even tried. It seems that the tone of this article is happy that we might have another wobbly free-speech zone.

        Guardians of the first amendment indeed…

        1. I think the author of the article is hostile to free speech.

          Yeah, either willfully malicious or willfully retarded to the point of being a danger to themselves and others, I don’t care enough about their lack of opinion to tell the difference.

      2. I still don’t get the FCC provision,

        IMO, it’s a pretty clear reference to NN and Title II. ‘As long as we aren’t a public utility and the speech on the platform doesn’t constitute a specific threat of violence…’ I.E. Congress and section 230 can go fuck themselves.

      3. Which side of the aisle wanted the FCC to be involved in regulating the internet? Just thought I’d throw that out there.

        Yeah, the idea that the FCC doesn’t control speech on the internet is an exceedingly narrow one especially for a tech magazine in the age of 5G.

        Even in another age it would be like the EPA having a rule that says no industrial machinery, including printing presses, will consume more than 100 watts or 1/8 hp and then pretending like “Well, they aren’t actually regulating content so free speech has not been infringed.”

    3. Our content is moderated based off the FCC and Supreme court of the United States


      Of course, that’s nonsensical. The FCC’s regulations on speech do not apply to the internet, but just to broadcast television and radio over public spectrum. And, of course, the Supreme Court’s well-established parameters for 1st Amendment protected speech have been laid out pretty directly over the last century or so, but the way this is written they make it sound like any content to be moderated on Parler will first be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and that’s not how any of this works.

      I was going to read the article and critique but after reading this sentence, I quit. It’s not fair or sporting to disparage the mentally disabled.

      1. Exactly. It’s like the analysis was done by a 20-something tech bro.

        1. A lot of that going around.

          1. Yes you do post a lot.

  48. Get a load of this:

    “As one of San Francisco’s designated Front-Line Worker Housing (FLWH) hotels, it’s reserved for health-care and public-safety employees working on Covid-19 related matters. But San Francisco is surreptitiously placing homeless people in luxury hotels by designating them as emergency front-line workers, a term that the broader community understands to mean doctors, nurses, and similar professionals.

    . . . .

    The Department of Public Health manages the controversial free alcohol, cigarette, and cannabis program for homeless people placed in the hotels. It originally claimed that money for the service came from private donations, which are not allowed by law. After multiple requests to provide the names of the donors, the DPH conceded that “No such record currently exists.” A public-records investigation into the matter has revealed that, as of June 16, DPH approved $3,795.98 to buy the homeless guests vodka and beer (cigarettes have been scrapped). The funding came from the public treasury, after all.

    —-City Journal, June 24, 2020

    https://www.city-journal.org/san-francisco-hotel-motel-plan-for-homeless

    I am in favor of keeping alcohol and cannabis legal. I am not in favor of the government providing homeless people with luxury accommodations, free alcohol, and free cannabis at taxpayer expense–all in the hope that they will shelter in place and therefore abide by the lock down order.

    The progressives have gone batshit insane.

    1. The Democrats in the House effectively want federal taxpayers to finance this shit in the form of the HEROES bill.

    2. >>San Francisco is surreptitiously placing homeless people in luxury hotels by designating them as emergency front-line workers

      tells you Front-Line-Workers are myth

      1. They’re giving them free alcohol and cannabis, too!

        . . . all to entice them to stay locked down?

        They’re fanatics. The people running things in San Francisco are religious fanatics in that there is nothing they won’t do in defense of their beliefs.

        1. “Please use the toilets and showers provided you.”

    3. Unreal. We live in bizarroworld. It is a time of madness.

    4. The Department of Public Health manages the controversial free alcohol, cigarette, and cannabis program for homeless people placed in the hotels. It originally claimed that money for the service came from private donations, which are not allowed by law. After multiple requests to provide the names of the donors, the DPH conceded that “No such record currently exists.” A public-records investigation into the matter has revealed that, as of June 16, DPH approved $3,795.98 to buy the homeless guests vodka and beer (cigarettes have been scrapped). The funding came from the public treasury, after all.

      By the way, I fucking knew it. Every time Mike Riggs did an article assuring everyone that this kind of shit was private, there was always a lack of identified donors. I tried to look into it myself, and all I could find was a nebula of NGOs which were ostensibly funded by public entities, but no clear direct path to the money.

      I even remember one article where some public official was assuring that all the money was 178% private without identifying from whom, and I darkly joked “Put me and him alone in a room with a couple of car batteries, and I’ll figure out where the money’s really coming from.”

      1. “…I tried to look into it myself, and all I could find was a nebula of NGOs which were ostensibly funded by public entities, but no clear direct path to the money…”

        In SF, there’s a good chance the taxpayer money has been laundered through one (or more) NGOs before it gets to the final destination, everybody getting some baksheesh as it travels along.

    5. “…San Francisco is surreptitiously placing homeless people in luxury hotels…”

      SF has ‘rent control’, which, in order to work, means some form a ‘eviction control’.
      So anyone establishing long-term residence is thereby protected from eviction at the current rental rate, plus some minuscule percentage each year.
      The SF mayor instituted this mess, and it seems she did not bother to come up with a plan to get them out ‘after’ (whatever that means).
      Pretty sure some (former) hotels are going to be on the market at a much reduced value.

  49. the pop-up side video promises more Beavis & Butthead. sweet.

  50. Republican-led states can’t seem to stop passing abortion restrictions that have already been declared unconstitutional.

    ENB is just shocked that some governors object to unborn-baby-murder being conducted in their states. The nerve! The SC is clear on this: despite no mention of a guarantee to abortion (indeed, no mention of abortion at all) in the Constitution, the states need to shut the fuck up and let women kill their unborn babies. When will they learn?

    1. Clicking past ENB’s saucy take, the law species a 24-hour waiting period.

      The horror. Women simply cannot take a day. Baby murder now, or give me death.

      1. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour on net. he has been job less for six months. However he earns$16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. Immediately join from the source……

        1. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour on net. he has been job less for six months. However he earns$16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours.

          Immediately join from the source…… Click Here

  51. Since I started with my online business I earn $90 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. Click For Full Details.

Comments are closed.