Reason Roundup

Justin Amash's Tenure as the Libertarian Party's First Member in Congress Will Be Shortlived

Plus: Homeland Security memo worries masks will thwart their surveillance, the feds are snatching people off the streets in Portland, Congress takes up the D.C. shroom debate, and more...


Amash isn't running—for anything. After Rep. Justin Amash's brief foray into seeking the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, many thought that Amash—a Tea Party Republican turned Trump-era independent and, now, Congress' first and only Libertarian member—might try to hold his seat representing Michigan in the House of Representatives. That's not to be.

Following a Detroit News report Thursday night that Amash's congressional campaign was inactive, Amash tweeted:

I love representing our community in Congress. I always will. This is my choice, but I'm still going to miss it. Thank you for your trust.

Amash adviser Poppy Nelson had told The Detroit News earlier that Amash "hasn't been campaigning for any office and doesn't plan to seek the nomination for any office."

The paper notes that Amash's campaign "raised only $24,200 for the quarter ending June 30—another indication he's not running for federal office. He previously raised over $1.1 million toward re-election."

Amash was first elected to Congress in 2010 and has served five terms.

Nicholas Sarwark, former chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, told The Detroit News that with Amash "as our first Libertarian congressman—I would like to keep that seat. But I understand if he thinks there's a better way for him to advance the Libertarian Party and improve the conditions of this country—that he has to do what he thinks is right."


More horrifying scenes out of Portland. Earlier this week, it was federal agents shooting impact munitions at protesters in Portland, Oregon—hitting one man directly in the head, knocking him over and putting him in the hospital. At the time, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) accused the feds of acting like an "occupying army." Now, unidentified federal agents wearing camouflage have been driving around Portland, snatching people off the streets, and taking them away in unmarked vehicles.

"Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14," Oregon Public Broadcasting reports.

Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

The tactic appears to be another escalation in federal force deployed on Portland city streets, as federal officials and President Donald Trump have said they plan to "quell" nightly protests outside the federal courthouse and Multnomah County Justice Center that have lasted for more than six weeks.


Another good reason to wear a mask. A May 22 memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explores the agency's fears that widespread mask wearing will thwart federal facial recognition programs. The memo was "drafted by the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Counterterrorism Mission Center in conjunction with a variety of other agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement," and brought to the public's attention by The Intercept.

In its own words, the intelligence memo discusses "the potential impacts that widespread use of protective masks could have on security operations that incorporate face recognition systems—such as video cameras, image processing hardware and software, and image recognition algorithms."

"Violent extremists and other criminals who have historically maintained an interest in avoiding face recognition" may "opportunistically seize upon public safety measures recommending the wearing of face masks to hinder the effectiveness of face recognition systems in public spaces by security partners," the feds fret, while noting that they have "no specific information" about this actually happening.

The Homeland Security memo also "cites as cause for concern tactics used in recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong," notes The Intercept.


D.C. efforts to decriminalize psilocybin draw interference. Yesterday members of Congress—which still has veto power over local D.C. laws—debated a proposal to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms in the District. "We certainly…don't want to be known as the drug capital of the world," said Rep. Andy Harris (R–Md.), who had introduced an amendment to forbid D.C. from putting the issue up for a vote this fall.

"We all can agree that policies that increase the availability of psychedelic drugs in the nation's capital—that's dangerous," Rep. Tom Graves (R–Ga.) said at the House Appropriations Committee hearing.

Not all of the committee agreed.

"If the district's residents want to make mushrooms a lower priority and focus limited law enforcement resources on other issues, that is their prerogative," said Rep. Mike Quigley (D–Ill.).

Harris ultimately withdrew his amendment—for now. "This is a new issue to the committee," he said in a statement. "Between now and the meeting of the conference committee this fall, the issue of whether this will be on the ballot will be resolved. Fortunately, in that time, members will also have time to learn more about this complicated medical issue."


America is seeing a dramatic shift in party affiliation. Since the start of the year, "what had been a two-percentage-point Republican advantage in U.S. party identification and leaning has become an 11-point Democratic advantage, with more of that movement reflecting a loss in Republican identification and leaning (down eight points) than a gain in Democratic identification and leaning (up five points)," notes Gallup:

Currently, half of U.S. adults identify as Democrats (32%) or are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (18%). Meanwhile, 39% identify as Republicans (26%) or are Republican leaners (13%).

These results are based on monthly averages of Gallup U.S. telephone surveys in 2020.


• Another federal execution took place yesterday:

It's impossible to reform policing without taking on police unions.

• Florida man does a few things right.

NEXT: Boulder Officials Told Campaigns They Had Until August to Qualify for the City Ballot. Now They Say the Deadline Was Actually in June.

Reason Roundup Justin Amash Libertarian Party Congress Election 2020 Third Parties Michigan

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

Please to post comments

453 responses to “Justin Amash's Tenure as the Libertarian Party's First Member in Congress Will Be Shortlived

  1. Amash isn't running—for anything.


    1. After a certain point a politician has more money than they can spend.
      The Nancy Pelosi/Chuck Schumer types stay on because of the addictive power of controlling the lives of others, the merely greedy simply retire and enjoy life.

      1. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY... MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, Iam a student and i work daily on tihis site and earn money..HERE► Click More Detail Here.

        1. Maybe Amash saw these ads and they made it sound easier than being a Congressman.

          1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home.HBf Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…

            ==================► Home Profit System

    2. Hello.

      ENB's take on riots is....


      1. Anyone here want to express some concern about reports that unidentified federal agents are driving around snatching people off the streets? I’ve heard here how BLM and Black Lives Matter are like Hitler’s goon squads; any concern about this goon squad activity?

        1. Can my reply be as vague as your post?

          1. I’m referring ENB’s post.

            1. Ask ENB to name a person snatched off the streets. It is what used to be called reporting.

              That kind of specificity will knock me out of my vagueness.

              1. Example: It was recently reported far and wide (hysterically) that a wave of Covid parties were being run by people who wanted to get the virus. To date, not a single one has been verified. Not a single party, not a single person. Not a single location. How do such stories become common knowledge?

                1. We're living through a no-shit mass hysteria episode.

                  1. In America, some of us are just waiting for the Reichstag to burn down so the Socialists can seize power from Trump.

                    1. A month back. I was like a Beggar asking everyone for money and shelter, But a really nice man introduced me to the best on-line work . This work needs no special skills . Everyone starts without investment.GRd Now I am able to earn $996/day and $12k/month easy and non-stoppable money . It helps lots financially .Everybody must try this Visit for Details.

                      ════════════► Home Profit System

                2. So, what I’m hearing is you want to make sure you have the whole story, not just jump to conclusions based on a video without more context.

                  Cool. Are we going to apply that standard to videos of supposed BLM-sanctioned thugs doing bad things?

                3. just like the clown sightings

                  1. Plenty of verified creepy clown citing. Just wait for anyone to enter or leave a local democrat party office.

        2. I'm not saying this isn't happening, it's possible. The feds have done worse than that. I would like to see a video of one of these abductions. Nothing interesting is happening at any protests without 10 phones capturing it and immediately uploading it. I'm open to seeing evidence (as long as it shows footage from the start of the incident), but this smells like non-sense.

          I would also say that protester's lies about the push back they have been getting has been pathological. I've seen several examples where you see a shortened decontextualized video from the protesters that make them look like victims and then someone uploads the longer video and shows they're full of shit. One of the videos of a protester getting run over actually begins with 10 guys stopping a car that's driving by, surrounding it and violently trying to pull the woman out. Another I saw the cops tackling a guy to the ground, turns out about 30 seconds before that, the guy runs out and punches a guy on the other side of a barrier in the face right in front of the cops. That video was filmed by protesters and you can hear them shouting "what'd he do?" as the cops cuff him.

          I'm done giving "mostly peaceful protesters" the benefit of the doubt. There is obviously a very dangerous, violent and deeply ideological far-left group using protests as cover to commit violent felonies. If they're "snatching people off the streets" after they've clearly committed a crime, I have zero sympathy. I'm not going to live in a society where normal people that don't want to participate in extremist, collectivist politics can't mind their own business and live their lives in good faith because cops aren't allowed to arrest anyone once they form a mob.

          1. Videos are posted on Twitter, and probably other places, I’d you want to view them.

            I don’t claim to know the truth of what’s going on. As I’ve said here before, everything usually gets initially misreported in modern America. It usually takes at least a week to get accurate reporting with some details.

            1. Yet you cant link to a single one.

              1. Go find us another pjmedia link.

                1. Wow, Lying Jeffy said something completely unrelated to the topic. I’m shocked!

                2. Lol, you can't so you switch socks and try to redirect.

              2. I could, but like I said above, I don't know how credible they are.

                Setting that aside, I'd say it wouldn't be hard for a libertarian to make a blanket condemnation of unidentified police picking up people off the street with no due process. Wouldn't you agree, that that can be condemned outright, if it is happening?

            2. sure, black van and somebody being pulled in. Couldn't possibly be staged and couldn't possibly be actual arrests for violent offenses. Just random people being snatched up.

              1. Claims that this has been happening that I’ve seen don’t claim that the people being snatched up are perfectly innocent. Let’s say they are not.

                Is it cool to have unidentified police snatching people up?

                1. Why is it so important to you to get people to comment on a story when they don’t have enough information to comment?

                  It’s almost as if you’re being disingenuous.

                  1. Because the argument has been advanced several times in the past few days that Black Lives Matter is responsible for the actions of any thug who does something violent or damages property while shouting "Black lives matter!" or holding a sign that says "Black Lives Matter" with no more association with any BLM organization being proven.

                    Because the argument has been advanced several times in the past few days that BLM is encouraging Hitler-like thugs to go out on our streets and take over the country for Marxism.

                    Now, we have people claiming that our own Federal government is sending out unidentified agents in the middle of the night in unmarked vehicles to round up people with no due process. That would the be genuine, no exaggeration equivalent of the brown shirts. By the logic advanced recently here, anyone who doesn't make a statement condemning any such activity is in favor of it.

                    Yes, I'm trying to prove a point.

                  2. And, so, you are saying you would like complete information about a story before coming to conclusions?

                    So, say, when the video of rioters breaking windows at a Dallas restaurant was posted on Twitter, I'm sure everyone's thought here was I want to know more! I want to know what the name of the restaurant is, I want to know when it happened, I want to know whether someone organized the rioting and the identities of the rioters if it can be known. I don't want to jump to conclusions that any official Black Lives Matter organization was involved just because some people were holding signs saying, "BLACK LIVES MATTER".

                    That was everyone's reaction, right?


            3. I don't use Twitter, so I'm not sure what to search. If you want to make the case, I would appreciate a link. That OPR article in the links also omits any videos. Again, I don't doubt that agents of the state are acting badly. That's par for the course. I'm not just going to take these "activists" word for it. They've proven to be just as, if not more, dishonest than the state actors.

              I'm also tired of hearing about the guy that got bean bagged in the face. I hope they find the cop who shot it and try him, but there has been more hand-wringing about that guy than a single one of the innocent people attacked by protesters or the people that have had their livelihoods literally burnt to the ground.

              Injustice is injustice regardless of who does it or what their motives are. I'm hospitalized or one of my family members is violently murdered, I don't care if it's a cop or a "victim" of "historic systemic racism" indiscriminately lashing out at people that have nothing to do with their oppression. They're both threats to my liberty and I won't tolerate it. However, given the choice between the status quo or the rise of the 158th failed experiment in totalitarian socialism this century, I'll take the status quo.

              1. Turns out the “peaceful protestors” were blinding them with laser pointers, probably why he could not aim better…by the way last time I checked blinding someone with a laser pointer was illegal.

          2. So, unmarked, unidentified police are cool?

            1. I'm teetering on that one. If they're inciting any violence or destruction to entrap that's obviously way beyond the pale. If they're just sitting in the crowd and taking down people once they spot them committing a felony, I'm certainly more okay with it. The only two alternatives I can really think of are worse. They can either do nothing and let looting, assualt, arson ect, go unpunished or they can dress up in in military gear and do mass crowd control where a lot of people who really are innocent of specific crimes get hurt.

              I'm speaking broadly and there's nuance with in each option, but unmarked cops seem like the best solution to both keeping the general crowd safe and making sure the dangerous people are removed.

              1. Why do the cops have to be unidentified for it to be the best solution? Why would that be necessary?

                Wouldn’t it always be a bad thing for police to be unidentified? Just categorically.

                1. I said I was teetering and I provided an explanation for why it could be better as a practical matter. When they're uniformed, they tend to line up shoulder to shoulder with shields and tear gas launchers. Once violence breaks out, protesters and arsonist/looters alike get hurt indiscriminately. If they're not in a big group, they're putting a target on their own back.

                  I don't understand why people don't get that there's no good solution and the cops are going to make mistakes and some innocent people are going to get hurt to prevent all out chaos. Doing nothing is not a viable option. It just makes the innocent people, both the ones involved in the protests and the ones who are in the area minding their own business, far more at risk than they would be otherwise. How many people have been killed by a cop since this started? How many people have been killed by the chaos the protests and the criminals that are using them as cover have created? The answer is exponentially more by the chaos. It's probably in the hundreds from Chicago alone.


                  Are we going to keep pretending like George Floyd was more tragic and preventable than multiple toddlers that have been killed by the environment that this has created? Even assuming I agreed with the ends of the protesters, it does not justify the means.

            2. Yes, they are cool. As they always have free beer and are the most awesome dudes to have at backyard barbecues. They also are awesome a pulling chicks too.

              So yeah, the coolest dudes ever. They even bring bitcoin’ mix tapes to jam to.

          3. Here's what I wrote to Yahoo's (MNBC?) coverage of the story.
            Was there a real arrest or even a crime here? I suspect a false flag. The whole thing boils down to "One protester said..."
            The video of the actual arrest (third one down) is grainy, around twenty seconds long in total, and has no sound. Two masked people in official-looking, easily-duplicated clothing with no visible (I didn't see one) shiny badges, walk away holding another masked person who appears to be handcuffed. We can the protester's eyes for about two seconds, the cops' faces not at all. No other cops were nearby or in the background.
            There's no front license plate on the police vehicle, though Oregon has required a front license plate since March 19th, 2020. Of course not displaying a front license plate might be common in Oregon. I don't live there, and I can't find any pictures that show it one way or the other (I'm still looking), but judging from pictures of cars for sale or sold in Portland since May, at least some cars don't display a front plate. A couple didn't even have a place to mount one, though every picture of the front of an Oregon cop car that I found had a front plate. I imagine that the cops would let someone slide over such a picayune offense if they noticed at all- I'm afraid to get out of the house and go to the post office because of virus and riots, things are working slowly everywhere because of the virus, didn't pay attention because of recent troubles, I didn't have money for new plates because I haven't been working, and so on. The cops have probably heard every excuse that there is, and all of them could be true, or might not notice because they're a bit busy right now. Wheeler's statement is also true , unless he's a co-conspirator. "They don't even know who's pulling them into the vans," he continued. "The people aren't identifying themselves. And, as far as I can see, this is completely unconstitutional."
            The "protestor" doesn't even seem to show any surprise or provide any, not even passive, resistance, except for a half-wiggle half-way to the vehicle and it looks like he knows where to go. Hell, it looks like he's leading the way! Then the video cuts off right before they enter the vehicle, where cops are most likely to see resistance, but doesn't show them getting in nor how many people get in the back door. Has an arrest ever gone so smoothly? I've never seen such a case of police competence. I think that they piled into the back and started laughing!

        3. Yeah, what Tom said. If, in fact, they are just randomly kidnapping protesters and taking them to some secret detention center without due process, that is bad.

          But without details I’m not giving ENB any benefit of the doubt when it comes to who are “peaceful protesters” based on her coverage of the issue so far. And leading it off with Ron Wyden’s “Donald Trump’s secret police” tweet isn’t earning her any legitimacy with me.

          I know you like to pretend that there isn’t any criminal element involved in all this but I don’t.

          1. It's just totalitarianism 101
            -deep state coup
            -manufactured pandemic
            -civil unrest
            -disarming of citizens so they can't defend themselves against leftist thugs

            Leftism is cancer

            1. Time for some chemo and radiation. We don’t reason or negotiate with cancer. We kill the tumors.

            2. Leave it to a Republican to blame the left for Trump's Brownshirts.

          2. I have never said there is no criminal element.

            There is a criminal element. There’s no question about that.

            I have spoken out against guilt by association, and spoken out in favor of peaceful protestors’ Constitutional right to peacefully protest.

          3. "A peaceful protester in Portland was shot in the head by one of Donald Trump’s secret police."

            Yeah, that tweet isn't trying at ALL to be misleading.

          4. My guess is they were tagged somehow during the riots earlier (facial recognition? ) and they waited until things calmed down to arrest them. Better all around, less chance of either side being injured. That is if this is even happening and not another hoax.

        4. Videos hier:

          Officers are likely US Border Patrol. Specifically, Bortac units. Multicam is what they usually wear, evidently. The video with the two came dudes, one black clad protester with crash helmet, and an unmarked van, has been hypothesized to be the Feds grabbing one of their own UCs.

          I'd prefer a little more overt sign of their arrest authority. Flashing lights, marked federal government vehicles, shields. Announcement that so and so is under arrest for violating XYZ federal law, etc... The whole operation is uncomfortably Third World appearing, and looks easy as hell to abuse. Especially if their targets simply disappear, and aren't arraigned in federal court.

          1. Fucking autocorrect. Camo dudes. Not came dudes. I've no idea if they like their work that much.

            1. Auto correct or Freudian slip?

              1. Only my tablet knows for sure. Thing has a mind of its own.

                1. You know auto correct is smart and it learns based on your previous typing history. My autofill assumes asian if a word starts with A, midget if a word starts with M and if it starts with a T....well you get the idea. Just saying, I'm not here to judge.

          2. "Is it really legally to use civilian marked vehicles for police/military action?"
            "Federal agents in civilian vans."

            What the hell are civilian markings? How can anyone tell if the van has enlisted or is a civilian?

          3. The vans are unmarked, not great, but not hardly worth flipping out about. The officers are very clearly marked. The only video they show of someone getting taken "without explaination" show the cops walking straight past another guy wearing the exact same thing (which is all black military garb, including a helmet and goggles. Gee, I wonder if he might be up to something less than legal) free from the context of why they stopped and singled this guy out. Call me crazy, but if they're singling one guy out even though he's dressed like the others, it would signal to me that something happened before the video started to make them go after that one guy.

            Another video shows some of the camo cops getting in their van and as they drive off, a protester hurls something at the van. The twitter thread that goes on hysterically about this particular video fails to mention anywhere that the cops assault zero people while a protester attacks the van unprovoked and they don't even try to go after him.

            The video of them going after the "medics" isn't a good look, but I didn't see the cops actually assault them, just intimidation and possibly arresting them. I assume there are active curfews and I don't see what roaming the city streets at 2am has to do with peaceful protesting. They are at the very least aiding and abetting people who are almost certainly involved in criminal activity.

            I gave this a chance and again, what I'm reading doesn't comport with what I'm seeing. These are cops, not Buddhist monks. If you put on military garb to protest, they are going to consider you suspicious and a possible threat to other civilians. If you throw shit at them they will attack back. It's not that hard. Stop trying to tell me that that these people aren't doing anything illegal.

            1. Anything filmed by an Antifag is automatically suspect. On top of that, the filmer happens to call out, "Call NLG!" That would be the National Lawyers Guild, which has been shielding commie terrorists going back to at least the Weather Underground.

            2. Andy Ngo, who's admittedly not impartial (but who's partiality does provide an alternative viewpoint), has a few interesting videos of his own depicting federal officers cloistered on federal property defending the courthouse that he claims protestors have been trying to burn down for some time. Curiously, you can hear someone on a loudspeaker shouting "You're going to fucking die!" at federal officers. I wonder if that's the guy with the speaker that everyone is saying got shot in the head? Not saying it is, but what's the precedent for firing a beanbag at your neighbor who's standing at the property line yelling "You're gonna fucking die!"? I know the guy that broke Rand Paul's ribs only got 30 days.

              Without justifying Trump's actions but the only real way this appears at Nazi-style fascism is if you assume Antifa is on Trump's side. The Stormtroopers aren't occupying beer halls or the city at large and it's not like Portland was completely peaceful and then they showed up. Don't want Federal Troops in your neighborhood? Don't allow protestors to burn down Federal property.

        5. I wish it were true

        6. If they are plainclothes officers in unmarked cars, how do we know they are real federal agents? Did anyone ask to see ID?

        7. I heartily approve of the federal government finally protecting the civil rights of American citizens unfortunate enough to live in local jurisdictions with Marxist mayors who unleash their Marxist street militia on the public with police and prosecutor stand-down orders.

    3. But when the world needed him the most
      He vanished

    4. Another Globalist "Republican" struck down by the God Emperor.


    5. Oh, no, Amash's grifting days are just starting. He was an ineffective legislator, but he has a significant Rolodex, and he's going to lobby and peddle influence like there's no tomorrow, while also being an attorney on juicy and lucrative lawsuits.

    6. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you… .ReadMore.

    7. hy my friend you can earn a lot of money by click on that link

      ………………………USA Countries

  2. "But I understand if he thinks there's a better way for him to advance the Libertarian Party and improve the conditions of this country—that he has to do what he thinks is right."

    What's left? His tweetings?

    1. He is jealous at how much the Lincoln Project people are making with their 86% overhead rates. Needs to get his.

    2. But I understand if he thinks there’s a better way for him to advance the Libertarian Party

      He's going to declare himself a Green and give them a chance.

    3. It would mean a lot more if he actually got elected as a Libertarian, rather than merely switching teams after taking office.

      I hope he eventually tries that, not because he'll win but because it might have the effect of skewing other candidates in the right direction, kind of like how Bernie drove the whole party leftwards despite being an abject failure.

      1. Except Bernie was all about things the left already embraced - he just took the mask off.
        He didn't in any way cause a change in direction, just pace

        1. I dunno about that. The Green New Deal (not Bernie's idea, but he got onboard) is directly detrimental to the union workers that the Democrats have historically relied on.

          He's one of the few Democrats that actually admitted he'd have to raise taxes on basically everyone to pay for what he wanted to do. That is a massive change in direction for the Democrats; they've rarely actually admitted to what it would take to implement their ideas. His math was faulty in his favor, but not as badly as most leftists who think billionaires are somehow going to cover the entire tab.

          He didn't push any leftists any further left, but I don't think many of the established Democrats are real leftists. The "center" of that party is further left than it has been in a long time, and Bernie deserves a lot of the blame (or credit if you're a commie) for that.

    4. Amash's future is as a #FraudRight Globalist talking head on CNN or MSNBC.

      He would have been better off without his flirtation as a #FraudLibertarian, though. Ruins the branding.

    5. What’s left? His tweetings?

      Lobbying, influence peddling, and lawsuits involving the government. His public "service" was just the prelude to his real career.

      Only losers like Biden stick with government jobs for their whole life.

    6. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

      So I started….>>>>>>>>ReadMore.

  3. Now, unidentified federal agents wearing camouflage have been driving around Portland, snatching people off the streets, and taking them away in unmarked vehicles.

    It's the federal government's turn to show you what a socialist revolution looks like.

    1. Where is the proof that they are not simply antifa in camo?

      1. If you're going to call yourself anti-fascist, you shouldn't be surprised when the fascists accept the challenge.

      2. "unidentified federal agents wearing camouflage... unmarked vehicles."

        Yeah, could be literally anyone - a false flag, counter protestors/ militia groups, etc. I wouldn't have thought the feds would be stupid enough to do something that could so easily piss people off. Outside of the far left I think most public sentiment is turning against the rioters and looters, why would you want to do something that might make them look more sympathetic? Makes no sense strategically, but then again, if they were smart they wouldn't be feds, they'd be doing something useful with their lives. So who knows.

      3. Did you read the story? It's not *quite* as bad as the Jackie Coakley story:

        A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.

        “So that was terrifying to hear,” Pettibone said.

        They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.
        O’Shea said he ran when he saw people wearing camouflage jump out of an unmarked vehicle. He said he hid when a second unmarked van pursued him.

        Video shot by O’Shea and provided to OPB shows a dark screen as O’Shea narrates the scene. Metadata from the video confirms the time and place of the protesters’ account.
        “I am basically tossed into the van,” Pettibone said. “And I had my beanie pulled over my face so I couldn’t see and they held my hands over my head.”

        Convenient for the federal officers that you were wearing that beanie that could be pulled down over your eyes!

        1. So we have video evidence...of a dark screen.

          1. Video evidence of a dark screen of a van full of people who don't identify themselves shot by a guy with a beanie pulled over his eyes who heard from some strangers that federal agents were picking people up off the street in unmarked minivians. Don't worry, his friend managed to dodge 2-3 of them his way back to... wherever... by hiding in some bushes.

        2. Who wears camouflage in an urban environment? Idiots play-acting

          1. Some kind of kinky sex thing probably.

            1. They’re hunting furries.

    2. Nice

    3. It’s the federal government’s turn to show you what a socialist revolution looks like.

      Close today's comments, we have our winner

    4. If they were "unidentified", how does she know they were federal agents?

      1. Twitter told her.

  4. "We certainly…don't want to be known as the drug capital of the world," said Rep. Andy Harris (R–Md.)...

    No matter what you legalize, it won't be what D.C. is known as the world's capital of.

    1. Unless DC legalizes spreading manure on frozen ground.

  5. Nameless post offices most distraught at the news of Amash.

    1. It is too difficult to know where post offices are when they are named after their location. Where the hell is the Partlow Post Office. Rename it after a politician and I will remember.

  6. ...reflecting a loss in Republican identification and leaning (down eight points) than a gain in Democratic identification and leaning (up five points)...

    Helloooooooooo, potential third party voters!

    1. "WHAT?! And waste my vote?!"

    2. More like "In this environment of cancel culture, I should tell the truth to a pollster, why exactly?!?"

      1. Now that we've rooted out all the Russian operatives trying to sabotage our elections, of course the polls are accurate when they say the GOP's numbers are down!

        1. I can't even imagine what they're going to make up to excuse their loss if Trump wins again. If you thought $150k of Facebook ads being the go to story for 4 years was eye-rolling, you ain't seen nothin' yet. That kind of "interference" is going to take place no matter the result, but somehow if Biden ends up just barely squeaking by, we won't hear a peep about how it may have affected the outcome.

          1. voter suppression, no doubt

      2. Don't forget the media organizations going out of their way to dox people that cross their narrative. That's not just cancel culture generally that's specifically the person taking the poll doing the cancelling with their wide reach.

      3. Holy heck, I cannot even imagine what Election Night coverage on the networks and cable news channels will look like if Trump wins again. The utter devastation. (Even though their viewership at this point will take a huge hit once Trump is out of office.)

  7. This as the county pays more than $6.3 million in private attorneys' fees defending itself before trial.

    Prince George's County voters, you deserve this.

    1. Maybe there is still some cash stashed away in a freezer. I hear their county executives have been known to keep extra money there.

    2. How many panties does it take to stuff 6.3 million in?

      (Too local, probably)

      1. 80 at the same efficiency.

      2. Did Maryland ever fix the loophole that let Johnson, and Dixon, keep their pensions because, although they committed crimes of office, their convictions were after they left office?

        1. Don't believe so, think only legislators can get their pensions forfeited.

          1. Executives can if they are impeached for the crime.

  8. It's impossible to reform policing without taking on police unions.

    Or those who negotiate with them.

    1. That's OK, the city of Seattle has come up with a great solution - just fire the white officers.

      1. God I hope they do it. The resulting lawsuit would be so big that it might finally be the thing that makes the Seattle government insolvent. If the left's current tactic is to say the most ridiculous, crowd pleasing non-sense they can think of and call it a policy proposal, I say let them have it and the reality that goes along with it. Nothing will harm the left more than letting them get their way in a few cities that are already lost.

      2. sorry, race is a protected category under federal law....

        1. "White" is not a race according to BLM. "Whites" don't even have souls according to "the movement"!

  9. Ron Wyden
    A peaceful protester in Portland was shot in the head by one of Donald Trump’s secret police. Now Trump and Chad Wolf are weaponizing the DHS as their own occupying army to provoke violence on the streets of my hometown because they think it plays well with right-wing media.

    Because the last 6 weeks of violence in portland were just peaceful protesting.

    Julian Heredia's death was the 31st shooting in Portland this month and one of three homicides in 24 hours.

    Not all lives matter, just the ones democrats can use for political gains.

    1. Well, okay. That makes federal cops shooting protestors in the head totally okay then.

      1. Poor histrionic jeffrey. So fat, so scared.

        The shooting with a non lethal munition during "peaceful" protests is the same as 3 homicides, constant destruction or property, assaults, and rapes.

        Do you ever say things not completely retarded?

        1. No no, Jesse. Do go on. Some unrelated crime that happened elsewhere totally justifies police violence against protestors. Please go on demonstrating how stupid and vile your whataboutism is, that you are content to tolerate police misconduct as long as there is some crime somewhere else to talk about.

          1. Unrelated? How fucking ignorant are you? Portland has had almost 40 straight days of rioting dumbass.


            We have the fucking videos. We have the shooting numbers. We have protestors hitting cops with hammers.

            Do you just live in complete ignorance? Is that your life?

            At a certain point the "peaceful" protestors standing right next to the violent rioters are going to be injured. This is from the non lethal police munitions dispersing the crowds but much more from the rapes, assaults, and shootings from the rioters.

            You really are a fucking dumbass.

            1. Remember this comment that you made, Jesse?


              YOUR LINK, Jesse, says nothing about Julian Heredia being murdered as a part of any protest. Why are you now dishonestly changing the subject? Why are you dissembling and lying and trying to justify your vile whataboutism that tolerates police brutality as long as there is some other unrelated crime somewhere else to talk about?

              1. My post was about the increased violence you fucking retarded piece of shit. The violence across Portland. The violence at the riots.

                Hence the last line about the only lives mattering being ones assholes like you can use politically.

                Are you even capable of rational thought?

                1. No, now you are moving the goalposts. You tried to connect Julian Heredia's murder with 'peaceful protesting'. His murder had NOTHING TO DO with riots, protests, anything of the sort. It has NO CONNECTION to police brutality used against protestors, and your attempt to use some random murder somewhere to try to excuse police violence against protestors is vile and disgusting.

                  Either you fucked up by not fully reading the article and thinking it was related to protests in some way, or you truly are stupid in thinking that every murder in Portland is related to BLM protests in some way.

                  1. I didnt move jack shit. Read my last line of the post dummy.

                    1. Did Julian Heredia’s murder have anything to do with protests? Yes or no?

                    2. Why are you focused on a single name and not the rest of the snippet I posted. That article was to focus on the second part of the snippet. Why are you ignoring the other part? The 31st shooting. You're ignoring this intentionally, why? The point of the article wasn't about julian idiot, it was about increased shootings and homicides.

                      Sorry you are incapable of admitting to increased violent in democratic strong holds.

                    3. The "increased shootings and homicides" like Julian Hereida's murder that had nothing at all to do with protests?

                      You won't answer the question because you know the answer is "No" and you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong publicly, because you are too prideful and too stubborn to do so.

                      You are using completely unrelated acts of violence in an attempt to deflect discussion about police brutality against protestors. That is why you are being called out.

                    4. Here jeff. Let me help you.

                      the 31st shooting in Portland this month and one of three homicides in 24 hours.

                      Please defend the increased violence in portland again.

                    5. LOL no one is defending "increased violence". That is lame even by your standards.

                      Just answer the question. Did Julian Heredia’s murder have anything to do with protests? Yes or no?

                    6. You can't do it. You just can't. You cannot admit the truth which you view as an unpardonable humiliation. So you run away.

                    7. You can’t do it. You just can’t. You cannot admit the truth which you view as an unpardonable humiliation. So you run away.

                      Fuck you and your commie buddies, you worthless sack of shit.

                  2. "Violent insurgents have been given free reign in Portland while the mayor has ordered the cops to watch, but it has no connection to the lawlessness and widespread violence in the city"

                2. Of course Jesse would never publicly admit he was wrong to *me* about anything, for to do so would publicly humiliate him in front of his Mean Grrl tribe of commenters here. So he'll just run away or maybe triple down and retort with even more juvenile insults. Let's see what happens!

                  1. Youd have to be right first dummy. I'm sorry you're incapable of rational thought.

                    When I need an opinion on best cookies I'll ask.

                    1. And we have our answer.

                    2. Lol. Jeff. Nobody here likes you. You've never made a good argument. When you start having honest arguments we can have honest discussions. But you're incapable as proven by this very exchange.

                    3. Yup now you're going to run away after some more insults.

                      You were wrong, you know you were wrong, but you cannot admit it and now you're going to try to blame me for all of your failings.

                      Maybe you should swallow your pride from time to time and admit when you fuck up. It's hard for me to do as well, so I get it, but it's important.

                    4. No, you misunderstood the post. It was about increased violence. Instead you created a strawman that I was only discussing protests. That was a bald assumption you made, not me. Your entire argument relies on an assumption not present in my post which was centered on increased violence. This is why I used the post on the INCREASED shootings and not a single person. You chose to focus on the single person for some ignorant reason.

                      You creating a strawman argument I never wrote doesnt make me wrong.

                      This is why you are a dishonest piece of shit.

                    5. No, Jesse, you are attempting to shift the goalposts.

                      Did Julian Heredia’s murder have anything to do with protests? Yes or no?

                      It's a simple question.

                    6. And now you're claiming my post focused on one person.

                      My god jeff. Dig deeper.

                    7. YOU posted an article about Julian Heredia's murder which had nothing to do with the protests as an attempt to deflect away from a discussion about police violence used against protestors. Why did you do that, Jesse? Does some unrelated murder somewhere in the city somehow justify police brutality used against protestors?

                    8. Jeff... I posted an article about increased shootings. You chose to focus on the single person.

                      When I make a claim all lives matter and point to increased shootings, I'm not claiming only the name mentioned in the article matters.

                      That is your ignorance, not mine.

                    9. WTF does Julian Heredia's murder have to do at all concerning police brutality against protestors?

                    10. I like chemjeff just fine.

                      It’s telling that you consider yourself a spokesman for “everybody”. Speaks to the cliquish nature of the Mean Girls.

                    11. chemjeff, the folks you are arguing with seem to have constructed a worldview where individual people have all been bucketed into groups that play simple good or evil roles on the worldview. Having to think about individuals or the details particular incidents messes with that simplicity.

                    12. It is a very simplistic black/white thinking.

                      People in the "good" pile get the benefit of the doubt.
                      People in the "bad" pile get the worst possible interpretation of their words.

                      People in the "good" pile sometimes make honest mistakes, and that's okay.
                      People in the "bad" pile are irredeemibly guilty of dishonesty no matter what, and if they admit to mistakes, it means they are insincere and inconsistent flip-floppers.

                      It is complete tribal bullshit.

                  2. Because you are the one using sophistry rather than rational arguments. You are to busy fellating the Democrats and BLM to even realize how tribalist you sound.

        2. The guy who got shot did all that?

          1. And leo goes full Jeff.

            He was literally standing amongst the people doing that. Dont go full Jeff.

          2. Honest question leo, have you even bothered to watch the riots happening in Portland? Have you watched the independent journalist videos on those streets? Have you done any leg work, or are media claims of peaceful protestors enough for you? Because this is really a stupid comment by you.

            If a riot is happening 5 feet from a peaceful protest and are being dispersed, what is your recommendation for no fall out on the peaceful protestors when trying to quell the violence? Please provide a solution. Since you seem to have some grand plan.

            1. Julian Heredia's murder had nothing to do with a riot.

              If you want to talk about violent excesses of both rioters and the police, then fine.

              But maybe you should begin by admitting that you fucked up when you tried to justify police brutality by bringing up some totally unrelated story that had nothing to do with any riot.

              1. My lost was regarding the increased violence you fucking retard.

              2. Well, at least you’ve stopped throwing out the “collective guilt” accusation at every poster who mentions riots, rapes and murders.

                Cuz, ya know, those protesters (and rioters) are pretty consumed with it.

              3. You are very invested in Julian. A friend of yours? You keep bringing him up like some kind of zombie post.

            2. I say shoot them all in the head. It's the only way to not discriminate and that's what the protestors want.

            3. Honest answer, sending in federal troops is not a solution to Portland's problems. It was certain to escalate things, not de-escalate.

              Of course local police should arrest anybody who is committing property damage and any acts of violence against people. But much like rioting only diminishes the voices of the protest, police violence against actual protesters only diminishes their side of the story.

              The existence of bad cops doesn't justify violence against good cops. You shouldn't stand for violence against peaceful protestors just because there are rioters. Individuals commit bad acts, not groups of people.

              1. The violence against the peaceful side isnt intentional and you know that leo. It is due to their proximity to the violence of the ongoing violence there. Yet you've chosen to focus on that single action.

                As for the federal troops...

                Oregon has begun asking for help since their mayors are refusing.


                It is like some of you refuse to acknowledge the 40 days of violence. Why? Murders are up. Assaults are up. Of course vandalism is up...

                Yet your focus is on...

                1. Intentional or not, it's real. And it's not garnering any sympathy for the Feds. The police have got to be the bigger people here. Escalation is not going to solve rioting. The police, feds, or whoever is in charge now have to start de-escalating.

                  1. They, *supposedly*, snatched people up in vans, charge them, and release them without serious or even necessarily minor injury.

                    I'm not saying I agree with that policy 100%, but surely you aren't saying you would prefer they go back to shooting people in the head with teargas canisters, right?

                    1. Of course not. That's what we were talking about, though, shooting people in the head.

                      Surely we could agree that police should never shoot someone in the head unless there was a danger of imminent violence. Even breaking a window doesn't deserve potentially lethal force from the police, right?

                    2. Surely we could agree that police should never shoot someone in the head unless there was a danger of imminent violence.

                      Even if we agree on the should never, that says little to nothing about the could never or could never justifiably. I think the police shouldn't ever come close to being compelled to take such action. Rioters and protesters in OR don't seem to agree.

                      Even breaking a window doesn’t deserve potentially lethal force from the police, right?

                      Deserve? Potentially? Breaking a window is potentially a violent act that potentially requires a violent response and I don't think the peaceful protesters deserve to be shot in the face any more than spectators at a baseball game deserve to catch a foul tip with their face.

                    3. I don’t think the peaceful protesters deserve to be shot in the face any more than spectators at a baseball game deserve to catch a foul tip with their face.

                      Analogously, I don't think we should ban and defund the sport of baseball nor should we stop defending private and public property, apprehending criminals, etc.

                    4. Breaking a window is hardly an imminent threat to a police officer. It *could* be an imminent threat to a property owner. There is an important difference there.

                      We have to hold police to a higher standard and more responsible for their actions. That's a good portion of what this debate is really all about.

                    5. Breaking a window is hardly an imminent threat to a police officer. It *could* be an imminent threat to a property owner. There is an important difference there.

                      I don't agree that libertarian principles relegate police to mopping up messes any more than they charge them with preventing crime. The principles do kinda charge them with preventing massive cleanup efforts or the necessity thereof. Moreover, they don't forbid them from aggression to that end and they're arguably mum on the cases where a lack of aggression causes bigger messes.

                      We have to hold police to a higher standard and more responsible for their actions.

                      Professionally, yes. Criminally, not exactly/necessarily.

                      I can certainly agree that there are policing principles that agree and align with your intentions, but implementing them at the flip of a switch and in response to specific and contemporary circumstances is pretty interchangeable with the methods we've got. Thumbing the balance in the other direction doesn't make things equal.

                  2. Intentional or not, it’s real

                    Who gives a shit? If people in Portland are fine with being under seige, then fuck them, obviously. But Trump is under no obligation to let them destroy federal property. If they want to play that game, then they can get beaned in the fucking face all night long.

                2. "The violence against the peaceful side isnt intentional"

                  Ha. citation needed.

                  1. If it is, good. Commies are slime and deserve all the violence they get.

                    1. That's the libertarian spirit! As long as it isn't my tribe, then it's not tyranny.

                    2. Yeah, all these protests certainly reveal who's the real fascists around here

                    3. Yep. And you see him every time you look in the mirror.

                    4. chemtard, given the choice between fascism and your pathetic brand of obsequious pandering to your lefty boos, I'll take fascism any day of the week.

              2. JFK you're an idiot. would you say the same thing about federal agents not being the answer if it were black people with burning crosses on their property and the local cops looked on as if nothing was wrong? Same terrorism, different victim Democrat instigated in both cases.

                1. No, I don't think feds coming into town and shooting tear gas at random people's heads would solve lynchings either. In fact, it might incite more violence and make the police look like the bad guys.

              3. It is the only solution to protect Federal buildings and Federal workers who the mayor and police chief have said are fair game, idiot

              4. If the peaceful protests are giving cover to rioters, arsonists, vandals and thieves, the good people leading the peaceful protests would cancel them. The point has been made, and most people agreed with it. The longer they go on, the weaker their support will get and the bigger the law and order voter backlash in November.

        3. Democrat: Hey, did you hear that a police officer murdered George Floyd? That's not right.

          1. Your arguments get dumber by the post.

            Please keep denying reality. Dont let reality get in the way of your cookies.

            I mean, I literally posted about violent riots in Portland regarding portland police.

            What the fuck is wrong with you?

            1. What the fuck is wrong with YOU, Jesse?
              What did Julian Heredia's murder have to do with any riot?

              1. It is like you are too dumb to live.

                1. Wait wait, do you honestly believe that every murder in Portland is somehow connected with BLM protests and riots?

                  That every murder in every city is connected to BLM protests in some way?

                  1. Again with the dumbfuck strawman arguments in order to try to win an argument.

                    You're too dumb to live Jeff. Just eat yourself dead already.

            2. Getting angrier and angrier and typing more swear words doesn't make your terrible argument any less terrible Jesse

              1. If there's one thing you can rely on Jesse for, it's that he will never ever back down in an argument against someone he hates, even when he's wrong, even when he knows he's wrong. He doesn't have the intellectual integrity to do so.

                1. Jeff. Here is what you don't understand. I dont hate you. I just have no respect doe you or sophistry. And that is basically all you do.

                  Basic education seems to be lacking on your part. You refuse to even acknowledge increased violence among all the cities that have seen the most violent protesting. You cant admit to basic facts. You're not someone worth respecting due to this.

                  Even yesterday when once again it was pointed out to you that the BLM leadership are open marxists you ignored it. This has to be over a dozen times. That is why people dont respect you.

                  1. Did Julian Heredia’s murder have anything to do with protests? Yes or no?

                    It's a simple question Jesse.

                    1. Did my post oy talk about julian? It is a stupid assertion.

                    2. Just answer the question Jesse.

                      You are functionally incapable of doing so, aren't you?

                      Are you that afraid of being kicked out of the Mean Grrlz club?

                    3. He has at length. But every time he has answered you, you ignore what he actually said and return to your talking points and sophistry. Reading the thread he has answered you. But you just state he is afraid of answering you. The truth more accurate seems you are scared if his answers so you ignore them.

                    4. Is Julian your boy-friend? NTTAWWT

              2. Oh look. Another leftist to defend the ignorance of Jeff, most likely due to his own ignorance.

                Yes. Let us all pretend Portland hasnt been rioting for 40 days lol.

                1. Now, pointing out that one of Jesse's arguments is terrible makes one a "leftist". LOL

                  1. He is a leftist based on his previous posting history dummy.

                    1. Just like I'm considered a leftist by you too, yet you nor your mean grrrls (lol) can ever link a single comment of mine that endorses leftist collectivism, or like a real leftist who is into Marxist economics and egalitarian collectivism?

                    2. To these Neanderthals, "leftist" and "progressive" are just synonyms for "doodie-head". It means absolutely nothing. It's because they do nothing but consume right-wing media all day and that is how they use the terms.

                    3. ChemJeff the same as how you and DoL describe anyone to the right of you as Trump supporters and racists?

                    4. You are a Trump supporter though. You deny reality in order to defend Trump. Remember when you spent all day defending the bleach injection comments? hahahahaha

                    5. I have told you I don't support Trump, multiple times in fact. And I voted for Johnson. Hell I even say downthread I was planning on voting for Jorgenson. Thank you for proving my point I made about how you knee jerkedly call anyone who disagrees with you a Trump supporter. You cannot help it can you?

                    6. And by all day pointing out the actual science and medical history, you mean? Not what Trump actually said and you misquoted? Yeah, I remember you denying the actual science to further your narrative. Thanks for proving my point yet again by using this example of me pointing out science and you denying it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

                    7. DOL is a dishonest piece of shit, so what do you expect?

                  2. Well, it always has, hasn't it?

                2. "Everyone who doesn't think my ideas are all brilliant is a leftist prog who wants soshalishm and hates America" -- Jesse

                  1. Too stupid to live Jeff.

                3. Everyone here knows there are antifa rioters in Portland. That doesn't mean everyone in the city is guilty by association and government thugs should be sent in to mete out collective punishment

                  1. Hey another strawman I didnt argue.

                    1. Tell us why the federal government should be "quelling protests" (their words) with the use of more violence. Did the leadership or people of Portland ask for federal intervention?

                    2. Because the "protestors" are attacking and burning Federal buildings, and attacking a federal workers, and even violently attacking and destroying the food trucks of anyone who serves federal workers lunch, and the City will not lift a finger to stop it. Got it now?

                    3. Tell us why the federal government should be “quelling protests” (their words) with the use of more violence.

                      How the fuck do you think a protest is quelled, you moron?

                    4. Well, someone here had the brilliant idea a few weeks ago of jamming all cell phone signals in the protest area. Modern people with no ability to share everything they are doing on Instragam and Facebook would probably all just go home.

                    5. red Rocks.

                      "How the fuck do you think a protest is quelled, you moron?"

                      Who gave the feds the authority to repeal the first amendment, dumb fuck?

                    6. Nash, then why aren't these protesters being charged with anything?
                      They are being abducted then released. Seems like an obvious intimidation tactic with no legal basis.

                    7. Riots are not covered by the first amendment dumbfuck.

                    8. Then why did Trump say he was "quelling protests", dumb fuck?

                      Then why aren't these protesters being charged with any crime, dumb fuck?

                    9. Several have been charged with crimes. And your side were the first to conflate riots with protests. So blame yourself dumbfuck.

                    10. Or are you only referring to an unsubstantiated story that is being pushed by the very activist who are involved in the rioting? Because if so, then that really calls into question your intellectually honesty and points to support of a single narrative and rejection of anything that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world. Buy we already knew that is how you operate.

                    11. Ah, there it is. The Trump (cult) card. "FAKE NEWS!"

                    12. Never said fake news, said the story hasn't been corraborwted yet. And once again, despite all the times I have informed you I don't support Trump, you knee jerkedly refer to me as a Trump cultist. Because you have no other valid argument except to mischaracterize anyone who doesn't prescribe to your narrow minded views.

                    13. Yes, DOL is a dishonest piece of shit, Soldier.

                  2. Nash, then why aren’t these protesters being charged with anything?
                    They are being abducted then released. Seems like an obvious intimidation tactic with no legal basis.

                    First, even local police can arrest and detain for 48-72 hours without charging anyone. Whether we both like it or not it's the case, with legal backing, and has been for quite some time.

                    Second, admittedly I haven't seen a lot of footage but what I have seen looked overtly fake and what I've read was less believable than a Tom Clancy novel and leads me to believe that it's only a matter of time until one of these 'victims' goes through an 'arrest' procedure and comes out the other side with a subway sandwich and hank of rope around his neck. Videos have been obviously edited to 'start' after 'agents' are out of their cars, no guns are pointed or even drawn, no one resists, people frequently aren't even handcuffed... people in camouflage picking up other people in vans isn't a crime indicative of a federal conspiracy any more than Russians buying Facebook ads (sadly).

                    1. But according to DoL we have to believe the narrative of the peaceful rioters. Otherwise you hate the Constitution, are a racist and a dumbfuck for questioning the narrative. And White Knight will jump in with his Whataboutism and ChrmJeff will start with his sophistry.

                    2. And all three will claim, despite almost always supporting the progressive narratives, that they are the true libertarians and everyone else is Trump fellators.

                    3. snatched by unmarked "agents" in unmarked cars, then released with no charges and no verification? Sounds like a false flag operation to generate sympathy.

          2. Democrat: "The United States is an inherently racist society and we need to force it to provide equity or we'll burn it to the ground!"
            chemtard: "Please kill me last."

      2. you mean the peaceful protester directing the violent protesters? yeah, go with that you ignorant leftist shill.

    2. I’ve been told many times lately that silence on any bad behavior is condoning that behavior, not just silence. So, that means if I do not see someone’s condemnation of unidentified Federal agents rounding people up in unmarked vehicles in the night, then they condone it. That’s the rule we use here, right?

      1. I condemn bad behavior.

        Please go away.

      2. So, that means if I do not see someone’s condemnation of unidentified Federal agents rounding people up in unmarked vehicles in the night, then they condone it.

        You realize that if you substitute the word 'Officers' for 'Agents' your issue is that people are being abducted by UFOs, right?

        1. The 'F' in UFO usually stands for "Flying", but it was kind of funny, if that was what you were going for.

          1. kind of funny, if that was what you were going for.

            Every kind of funny, yeah.

            The only video I've seen is the one Sen. Merkley retweeted from some fairly antifa-esque source and it's more clearly fake than the bigfoot video.
            Features of note:
            -agents aren't unmarked, they're selectively marked
            -despite being 'POLICE' these agents don't appear to be otherwise equipped as police officers would be (no radios apparent on their persons or their car, no flashlights, no stun guns or steel handcuffs, etc.)
            -despite a waistband full of zip ties, the 'suspect' is never actually 'cuffed' despite being put in the back of the car
            -one of the unmarked agents gets out of the car, walks to within identifiable range of the phone/camera and *then* pulls up his mask

            The other stories I've read are similarly retarded. Nobody ever gets handcuffed, 'suspects' get sorta blindfolded out of convenience, etc., etc., etc.

            I identify with an 'I want to believe' poster probably as much or more than many of the commentors here and I certainly know that the 'F' stands for flying. I can't say I believe in UFOs one way or the other, but I have seen an awful lot of fuzzy dots on grainy video spun up into patently false narratives.

            1. All of the above is ignoring the fact that the video starts after the officers are already out of the car.

              1. You racist, Constitution hating, authoritarian Trump fellator, how dare you point out the inconsistency in the narrative? Also, how dare you point out the large number of crimes and violence a by self claimed members of BLM and antifa without also stating that they aren't representative of all BLM and antifa? In fact they aren't the real antifa and BLM just like China, Cuba and USSR are not real communism.

              2. That's what I pointed out above. They just walk by another guy dressed the exact same way. There's no way the guy they're going after didn't do something like toss something at the van. I'm sure the video starts well before that, but since they want to use it for propaganda purposes, they won't release it and give full context.

      3. Of course I condemn government agents disappearing people. Why do you think I vote against socialists?

    3. [Wyden] A peaceful protester in Portland was shot in the head by one of Donald Trump’s secret police.

      Translation of Wyden's Soviet-style propaganda: "A violent radical left wing protester in Portland was accidentally hit by a teargas canister by federal agents trying to restore order in a city where the radical left wing government stopped ensuring basic public safety."

  10. The Homeland Security memo also "cites as cause for concern tactics used in recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong"

    Can't have any pro-democracy demonstrations popping up over *here*!

    1. Right, people might start getting weird ideas about having "unalienable rights" or some such gibberish. Can't have that.

    2. By 'pro-democracy demonstrations' do you mean Trump rallies?

      I've seen plenty of riots, plenty of anti-policing demonstrations, and plenty of anti-Trump (by name) rallies. I have yet to see anything from "The voters have spoken" movement.

  11. "More horrifying scenes out of Portland. "

    Yaaaay. REASON has finally decided to show some horrifying violence happening in Portland.

  12. Democrats are determined to keep are children dumb by keeping schools closed. Instead they will offer free childcare in community centers and libraries.

    In other words, democrats are going to create schools without the education.

    1. "We're going to use every conceivable space — community centers, libraries, cultural organizations, whatever we can find in communities," he said.

      "Homeless shelters, the closed bars and restaurants -- the list goes on and on!"

      1. Just not schools. Never schools.

        1. Now, Jesse. You know they're all closed for deep cleaning.

          1. Remove all the legacy white culture?

            1. We've got to clean all these schools back to 1619!

    2. In other words, they are formalizing what their schools have become.

    3. Democrats are determined to keep are children dumb

      What a bunch of moroons.

      1. Wow. Leo has gone full Jeff again. Typing on a phone never chooses the wrong word on a mistype.

        Way to go Leo. Lose whatever semblance of respect you once had.

        1. It's a joke Jesse. We all make typos. Lighten up Francis.

          1. No no. This is an actual thing with Jesse. He is so insecure that he has to use typos in order to try to claim superiority over other people. Despite the fact that it's obvious that Jesse himself is posting from some type of portable device and posts typos all the time.

            1. Dwelling on typos is the last stop before resorting to calling the other person dumb or fat.

              1. No, it is implying that anyone who disagrees with you is either racist, a secret Trump supporter or likely both.

              2. And sophistry and straw man arguments usually also follow pointing out grammatical errors.

                1. When White Knight, ChemJeff, DoL, Jfree etc stop using the above tactics (racism chargers charging everyone who disagrees with them supports Trump, sophistry, straw men etc). Then they can complain about grammar Nazis without being hypocrites.

          2. And it is funny to see Jesse hoisted by his own petard.

            1. It will be even funnier to see you get hoisted by diabetes.

              1. Haha! It’s funny because he’s fat.

      2. Bugs Bunny called everyone moroons.

        1. Didn't he say, "What a maroon!"

          Which may well be a bit racist, so Bugs should probably be canceled.

          1. it was never spelled out so? and i think most of Looney Tunes has been canceled Bugs is totes a racist caricature

            i don't care i still watch on Boomerang.

    4. In other words, democrats are going to create schools without the education.

      In other words, schools.

    5. So, they want to keep schools closed because it's "not safe" for the kids to gather in large numbers in close proximity, and instead they're going to convert community centers and libraries into childcare centers... where kids will be gathering in large numbers in close proximity.


      On the bright side this should put the lie to any arguments about them wanting to keep the schools closed "for the children." No, you fucktards want to keep the schools closed because the teacher's union wants you to.

      1. Anything to keep the teachers safe. My wife is a teacher. She tells me the panic from teachers is at least 3rd degree Karen.

        1. The teachers will only be safe if a $15 minimum wage is mandated, police are defended, and wealth taxes are instituted

          1. *defunded

            F you, autocorrect

          2. Don't forget about Medicare for All, The New Green Deal, and free ponies for all.

            What does any of those demands have to do with education or fighting the 'rona? Your guess is as good as mine.

            1. Free SUVs for all.
              Everyone deserves safe, comfortable transportation.

    6. That Warren Wilhelm Jr. (better known by his stage name of Bill De Blasio) got re-elected sure makes a strong case for disenfranchising the entire population of New York City.

      1. Seriously, if another 9/11 happened in New York, would anyone other than the coasts even give a shit now?

  13. “We certainly…don’t want to be known as the drug capital of the world,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R–Md.)

    With all due respect, Andy -- you represent part of *Maryland*, not DC.

  14. "Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off..."

    I tried, in vain, to tell those folks not to wear those yellow star patches....

    1. To be fair, those patches *are* somewhat triggering.

      1. "triggering" --- indeed.

  15. ""Violent extremists and other criminals who have historically maintained an interest in avoiding face recognition" may "opportunistically seize upon public safety measures recommending the wearing of face masks to hinder the effectiveness of face recognition systems..."

    "Homeland Security" -- the new, cool way, to spell "paranoia."

    1. Up next: masks imprinted with your likeness. Mandatory, of course.

      1. personalized with your SSN as a barcode

    2. I thought it was the new, cool way to spell "stasi."

      1. K-a-r-e-n

  16. Amash isn't running—for anything.

    Aw shucks. ~kicks rocks~

  17. "• Another federal execution took place yesterday"

    I guess if we can Sashimi innocent babies, we can off a couple of psychopathic murderers.

    1. That's different.

    2. can we not do both?

      1. That is my thesis.

        1. sorry was going for the opposite ... *not* do both

          1. Interesting grammar misunderstanding. Perhaps "not do either" works better?

            1. ya was my bad

  18. The Feds should just let Portland stew in its own juices. Let Biden defend the mess that will exist in October.

    1. Portland hates Trump so much they are going to burn down the city to prove it.

  19. Amash is a dummy and good riddance. Libertarians can't win and shouldn't try.

    I am ecstatic to see the rioters in Portland getting their heads bashed in finally.


    Up to this point in the 20th century, communism had swept across much of the world and ruthlessly engineered a mind-boggling body county. About 20 million in the Soviet Union. About 65 million in China. But by percentage of their nation’s population, the Khmer Rouge would eclipse them. In just four short years in power, the Khmer Rouge murdered 2 million of Cambodia’s 8 million people. One in every four Cambodians died at the hands of their own indigineous communists.

    You may easily guess the course of events for reporter Dith Pran, despite the heroic efforts of his American colleagues to try and keep him out of the Khmer Rouge’s clutches. He was a reporter and an intellectual. After the westerners escape, and after a scene hauntingly reminiscent of the defiant singing of the French national anthem in Casablanca, the film shifts to Pran’s perspective in a brutal Khmer Rouge labor camp. There, indoctrinated children decide who lives and dies based on one’s fidelity to the revolution. Or on their young whims. Everything is arbitrary except the authority of the Khmer Rouge. In one chilling scene, a child is shown being instructed to approach a chalkboard and draw an X over a drawing of a family.

    None of this is fiction. In fact, if you know any Cambodians born after about 1960 living abroad today, they are probably first-hand witnesses and most likely victims of what happened in those years.

    What happened was this: The Khmer Rouge reset the clock from 1975 to “Year Zero,” erasing the past. They smashed the state and replaced it with their own interpretation of reality. They replaced Cambodia’s flag with their own. They destroyed the church and replaced God with their revolution. They smashed the family. They indoctrinated the children. They forced public confessions and denunciations. They destroyed the universities. They relocated and “reducated” millions. They turned ordinary people into spies and suspected anyone who did not demonstrate ultimate fealty to them, othered and shamed them, starved them, tortured them, and shot them. Canceled them.


      “Nobody is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart,” wrote James Baldwin, “for his purity, by definition, is unassailable.” This observation has been confirmed many times throughout history. However, China’s Cultural Revolution offers perhaps the starkest illustration of just how dangerous the “pure in heart” can be. The ideological justification for the revolution was to purge the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the nation more broadly, of impure elements hidden in its midst: capitalists, counter-revolutionaries, and “representatives of the bourgeoisie.” To that end, Mao Zedong activated China’s youth—unblemished and uncorrupted in heart and mind—to lead the struggle for purity. Christened the “Red Guards,” they were placed at the vanguard of a revolution that was, in truth, a cynical effort by Mao to reassert his waning power in the Party. Nevertheless, it set in motion a self-destructive force of almost unimaginable depravity.

      With undeveloped mental immune systems, their soft skulls were fertile ground for Mao’s secular Manichaeism. Manichaeism reduces society, with all the diversity and complexity of human experience, to a blunt dichotomy: light and darkness, good and evil, right and wrong, radical and reactionary. “There is no middle way!” became a popular slogan. Ideologies like these are intellectually and morally vapid, yet their simplicity and certainty are alluring, especially to the young. Thus, Mao’s child revolutionaries could—with youthful exuberance and clarity of purpose—chain a teacher to a radiator and bludgeon him to death with an iron bar, or force a teacher to eat nails and feces, among other tortures.

      The Red Guards’ purity of mind—their youthful capacity for learning and openness to new ideas—also proved useful to Mao. Their plasticity was well-suited to the project of eradicating what was called “the Four Olds”: old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas. The Red Guards would impose a new symbolic order on an old world without the clutter or caution of life experience.


        1/2 During China’s Cultural Revolution, Mao sought to enforce his vision of Marxism and to erase history, culture, and memory. All contrary ideas and the objects representing them had to be destroyed.

        2/2 Mao’s instruments of terror were The Red Guards—a mass student-led paramilitary social movement. These violent ideologues pulled down statues, destroyed holy sites, and humiliated and murdered those who dissented.

        1. I fail to see the parallels here....

          How does this demonstrate that Trump is an evil Nazi dictator?

          1. Ask DoL I am sure he could twist it some way to get the results you requested.

          2. I thought he was warning us against the leftists

    2. But were they green?

    "We screamed from excruciating pain" - Zumrat Dawut about her forced sterilization, on BBC Newsnight. Excellent 10 minute episode. There are many TV clips on Xinjiang, but I would be surprised if you will watch this one without tearing up.

    1. Don't tell the DNC, they already thing "1984" and "Harrison Bergeron" are instruction manuals.

      1. Remind me, which party has been cheering on the deportation of American citizens, the caging of toddlers, police brutality against protests, and worships a man who said the "take the guns first and do due process later"?

        1. Pretty sure you've been told multiple times that that policy started under Obama. So, in other words it seems pretty fucking bipartisan. Keep up with the tribalism and keep claiming (though no one believes you, except maybe yourself and your Mom) that you are a libertarian.

          1. You could tell the dishonest piece of shit a million times that it started under Obama, he’ll pretend it didn’t.

            1. Wrong again. The very picture that is used to demonize Trump was taken in 2015. And yes the policy does date back to then.

            2. Also, the only "fact" referenced in the article is an Obama admin official who denies it happened.

              1. To go further, I believe we need to reform our immigration system. This is a problem that predates Trump, and goes back to at least 1986. But you only focus on the supposed evils of Trump and not the fact that the system is completely fucked up and has needed reform for decades and has been abused by members of both parties. Instead you focus only on Trump and try to clear Obama's name. But sure your aren't a leftist.

                1. He’s a dishonest piece of shit and should only be treated as such.

            3. Also, just for the record I don't support these detention centers, no matter who initiated them. But to deny Obama had a hand is just pure partisan bullshit.

              1. AP's fact check seems to disagree with your fact check.

            4. Snopes also disagrees with your fact check.

            5. Hell even if we blame Trump for only the seperation policy which has ended btw, this AP fact checks states that Obama was sued for mistreatment of illegal kids by the ACLU and that he built the detention centers.

              1. What you did DoL is try to shift the focus from locking up toddlers (which according to Snopes and the AP Obama did also,and was even sure by the ACLU for his mistreatment of children in the detention centers) to solely focusing on a single policy that has ended. We call this shifting the goal posts. Both administrations locked up families in deplorable conditions. Blaming one over the other is just rank hyperpartisanship.

                1. He can’t help himself. Being dishonest is part of his character.

      2. Hint: it's the same party who, for some reason, doesn't want foreign campaign contributions to be disclosed. So weird that they'd be interested in keeping their foreign donors and entanglements secret after that Russia thing turned out to be a hoax.

        1. Typical leftist. Find one issue in a bill that you think everyone agrees with and harp on that while ignoring everything else in the bill that people would probably object to. Keep it up, your tribalism is showing.

          1. Accountability for politicians is leftist? How is that leftist?

            1. Because you only ever focus on Republicans but always make excuses or ignore the sins of the left.

              1. Who controls most of the government right now? Might that have something to do with who gets criticism?

                1. Most? A slight majority in the Senate and the Presidency, but not the HoR. And I rarely see you ever criticize groups like BLM or Antifa. I also see you defending leftist commentors and even championing leftist causes. So your lame attempt at making this about who controls the government is pretty mendacious. But maybe you are a libertarian whose blind hatred has removed any critical thinking skills on your behalf. Or maybe, more likely, you have deluded yourself into actually believing you are a libertarian while having a strong preference for leftist ideology.

                2. For example just upthread you try to clear Obama of any misdeeds in what has happened on the southern border (despite evidence to the contrary) and instead blame it all on the Republicans. You also knee jerkedly call anyone, even when they have told you they don't support Trump, that if they don't agree with you or point out a mistake of being a Trump cultist. You ridicule Fox News and PJ media and Breitbart while never criticizing the WaPo, the NYT, Vox or NPR and frequently cite them as reliable sources. This is showing an open minded, or even a libertarian approach. This is showing a leftist.

        2. Orange Man Bad.

  22. ...Amash—a Tea Party Republican turned Trump-era independent...

    As it is likely Trump will lose in November, the Trump version of the Republican Party is going to come to a jarring course correction as the loser recriminations start flying. Had Amash known the 'Rona was coming, he could have stayed in the GOP and rode things out.

    1. Come on now. It took the Bushes two generations to do what it did to the GOP. Give Ivanka a chance if the Goya commercials don't work out.

  23. More bad economic news.'s benefactor Charles Koch only earned $31,200,000 yesterday.

    Which means he's still stagnating in the $50,000,000,000 range — barely enough to qualify for the planet's top 20 richest people.

    This is completely unacceptable. Mr. Koch (unlike, apparently, Jeff Bezos) needs a 100% open borders immigration policy in order for his businesses to thrive. I mean, what do you expect him to do? Hire people born in the US? Don't be ridiculous!


  24. "We all can agree that policies that increase the availability of psychedelic drugs in the nation's capital—that's dangerous," Rep. Tom Graves (R–Ga.) said at the House Appropriations Committee hearing.

    If members of Congress started using 'shrooms they might start making more sense.

    1. think of someone other than themselves for once.

  25. Yes, it is. If whites are responsible for everything evil, then only whites act and thus only they matter. Not my opinion, just the logical conclusion of their viewpoint.

    The written word being a tool of white supremacy is just a recasting of making it illegal to teach blacks to read.

    Is the Anti-Racism Training Industry Just Peddling White Supremacy?

    One of DiAngelo’s favorite examples is instructive. She uses the famous story of Jackie Robinson. Rather than say “he broke through the color line,” she instructs people instead to describe him as “Jackie Robinson, the first Black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.”

    1. She uses the famous story of Jackie Robinson. Rather than say “he broke through the color line,” she instructs people instead to describe him as “Jackie Robinson, the first Black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.”

      So, instead of Jackie Robinson getting credit for the hard work and determination it took for him to reach the major leagues in a time when most of his fellow players, baseball fans, and even teammates were actual racists; the credit goes to the white people who, out of the goodness of their hearts, took pity on him and allowed to play? I'm sure that's not how she intended that to be interpreted, she probably intended it to imply some kind of group guilt on the part of white people for not allowing black people to play in the major leagues until Robinson, but only white people who already suffer from a major case of "white guilt" would see it that way. To the rest of us who are sane that just comes off as racist as fuck.

      1. It's not even factual. There were black major league players before Jackie Robinson.

        1. It is sort of like how they call the 54th Massachusetts the first black soldiers. No, they were the first all black regiment in a newly segregated Army. We had black serving in the Army and Navy in every war before the Civil War. And blacks served in the Navy, even during peacetime (because 18th and 19th century sailing was dangerous and hard so they basically took anyone with a pulse).

  26. Year 0, the "four olds", continued:
    Perspective: That sound you’re hearing is classical music’s long overdue reckoning with racism

    1. That's the most content-free, vapid, article I've read this month that didn't have "New York Times" on its masthead.

    Uighurs sitting, bound and blindfolded, waiting to be loaded onto train cars and taken — somewhere.

    Drone footage from an unknown hero in China.

    1. 13-ton shipment of human hair, likely from Chinese prisoners, seized

      According to the CPB, the shipment originated in Xinjiang, China, signaling potential human rights abuses of forced labor and imprisonment. The products were worth over $800,000.
      Xinjiang is an autonomous rural region in the northwest of China and home to roughly 11 million Uyghurs, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority with a distinct culture and language. Until recently, there were many more Uyghurs in Xinjiang than Han Chinese, the ethnic majority that makes up the rest of the country.
      The US State Department estimates that over one million Uyghurs have been detained in a massive network of internment camps in Xinjiang, where they are reportedly "subjected to torture, cruel and inhumane treatment such as physical and sexual abuse, forced labor, and death."

      1. Never again, Oh never mind.

        1. The US happily did business with Nazi Germany, right up until the Royal Navy blockaded them. If in some hypothetical past, the Brits get crushed at Dunkirk and the new PM Lord Halifax signs a ceasefire with the Nazis, we'd have gone right back to trading with them. Reinhardt camps or no Reinhardt camps.

          1. Hell, despite the persecution of Jews in Germany, FDR turned a boat load away and sent them back to Germany. Many died in concentration camps. So, yeah considering FDR copied his New Deal from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, praised Hitler and Mussolini, his blatant racism he probably would have encouraged the US to resume trade with Nazi Germany.

    2. No yellow star, no crime against humanity.
      This is different.

    3. Fuck Ghyna. I don't do business with China, I won't open long positions on chinese stocks or their derivatives. If you need something made cheap, do it in India. they at least aren't putting people into boxcars, as far as I know. And they are at least marginally better to deal with, personality wise.

      1. And, politically, seem more into the 'you do you' thing. At least, I'm pretty sure you could get an 'official' NBA jersey with 'Free Pakistan' (or whatever) printed up in India.

  28. When is election day again?
    Under pressure from teachers, the Durham, North Carolina school district is now going to be online-only for its first nine weeks. Which will mean the economy has no chance of functioning normally for those nine weeks... until nearly the end of October.

    Can’t make it up.

    1. Schools here aren't opening until Spring around here. Shit will start breaking down. It can't keep going.

      1. Well, the leftists have given us the only acceptable answer now: violence

    We have lots of "major hospitals" in Houston. So cherry picking just one is not very meaningful. The latest SETRAC data, from 11 hospitals in Houston, shows 225 patients waiting in ER for a general bed to open and 56 were waiting for an ICU bed to open. So on par with last week.

    1. I track the TXDSHS page. The Q hospital region that includes Harris County(and thus most of Houston) is actually down today for the first time since June 26th for Covid Confirmed patients. Not down by much but it is down. That is at least heading in the right direction.

  30. Holy shit. We're living through a no-shit hysterical health panic.

    Policy is totally being based on fear and bad, bad science.

    This is serious.

    This is not about the virus.

    I was in Italy in March and never felt an ounce of concern. This pandemic could and should have been handled with much more enlightened care and reason.

    Instead, it's complete stupidity.

    Think of it. In the arsenal of Western knowledge the best we come up with is: Wear the mask.

    My disappointment is coupled with disgust, and depression.

    1. >>the best we come up with is: Wear the mask.

      cancel that cruise, too.

    2. People can't manage to wear a mask AND keep 6' away from other people. Those guidelines are too confusing to be comprehensible

  31. "A May 22 memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explores the agency's fears that widespread mask wearing will thwart federal facial recognition programs."

    Easy. Require that masks display the wearer's name, SSN, preferred gender pronouns, and position on BLM.

  32. Ugh, Jo can go to hell. She wasn't getting a vote from me anyway, but now she no longer has my imaginary moral support.

    1. This woman is ENB without the dye job. "Libertarian" indeed.

    2. The tweet mischaracterized what was said in the video. Jo never said she supported that woman getting fired in the video.

      1. She started off good enough, but she absolutely did endorse that firing.

        "There's a profit motive to treat people well"

        Fucking useful idiots

        1. Modern politics, you can't even have a discussion without someone reading into your words. She used that incident as an extreme example of how the private sector holds itself to a different standard than the government. Pointing that out doesn't mean she endorses it.

          Of course there is a profit motive to eliminate the perception of racism in today's world where sponsors blacklist companies at the drop of the hat. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that. That doesn't mean you endorse it.

          I'm fact she goes on to explain that this woman did this on her private social media and was still fired. You have to be looking pretty hard for an endorsement in that video to see one.

          1. *In fact...

          2. Modern politics, you can’t even have a discussion without someone reading into your words.

            Actually, it's English and goes back even further/deeper. See Plato's Cave.

          3. After her last tweet storm. And now this. If nothing else it should raise some question in anyone is truly self reflective rather than knee jerk partisan (yes you, I bet you would defend Bernie if he got the LP nomination) about her judgement and her true beliefs about liberty.

            1. And just for disclosure she was getting my vote. I'm now not certain who, I'd anyone will get it. She still has the inside track but her lead had definitely slipped. To much more and I will probably end up writing in James Holden.

        2. And overall, her message came across like it's OK that corporations can't fire black people for being black, but it's OK for them to fire conservatives for being conservative even if they only do so on private time. At the very least, no better than Gary 'Bake the Cake' Johnson.

          If that wasn't the intent of the message, she'd be better off just asking "What is an Aleppo?" and getting it over with.

  33. Black Portland police officer speaks out: ‘You have more minorities on the police side than you have in a violent crowd’

    1. Systemic racism on display.


    The media has plenty of blame here. First, they tell us it's not as bad as the flu. Then they bring out experts who tell us not to wear masks, that they won't stop covid anyway. They scare everyone away from a drug based on a report by a science fiction writer and a porn queen

    You cheer on protests where hundreds or even thousands are packed together. You downright slobber all over the guy who killed thousands of nursing home patients boosting his "I'm such a hero" posters. Then you have the nards to screech "Why aren't people following the science?"

    1. The media and progressives, but in most cases I am repeating myself, are typically the least self aware people around.

  35. We know there are more Democrats than Republicans. It's been that way for a while. The shift from a rural to an urban culture is over. The reason Hillary lost was NOT because there were more Republicans. She lost because not enough Democrats and leaners bothered to vote. (And she still won the popular vote by the very slimmest of margins).

    Biden is about as exciting as damp toast. Not nearly as hated as Hillary, but can he get enough people excited to get out and vote? It's hard to say. Enough people hate Trump that they will be in line to vote for ANYONE but Trump, but will enough people show up FOR Biden to make a difference? My speculation is that votes are won by FOR votes not AGAINST votes, but we're even more polarized today than we were in 2016, so who knows? Hate is not the driving force on both sides. I'm expecting to see guillotines set up in the public square regardless of who wins.

    1. And I expect it will be the same people setting up the guillotines rather they win or lose. In fact, I think it's more likely that they will be set up by progressives if their candidate wins. History suggests that is one of their first moved after winning control (and often the first victims are their own supporters).

  36. Amash was a car off the cliff in slow motion.


    Well. Looks like Trump is now cancelling rallies unless they are big enough to satisfy Trump's raging narcissism.

    See, the rallies aren't for the sake of the people. No no. They are for the sake of Trump. To satiate his boundless narcissism.

    1. So, like all rallies ever?

    2. Chemjeff called Trump a narcissist. Guys, he's really gone too far this time. Trump Rangers, Unite!

      1. Are you seeing them as like power rangers, or like captain planet and his gang?

        1. regardless of how they're viewed, "Rangers" triggers. immediate name change and payola required.

  38. Google is creepily good at what they do. I've been getting all kinds of Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman speeches through the YouTube algorithm over the last couple days. Despite my leanings, they've never suggested those videos to me until recently.

    Looking at the comments sections, it seems I'm not the only one. Lots of people are pointing out that they're also getting these videos now, and that they had never heard either of those men speak.

    I have to assume this is some kind of glitch in the algorithm, neither of those men would be allowed to speak on 99% of campuses today. It's a welcome glitch in any case.

    1. What was also notable about the videos was how civil everyone was. There were some obviously leftist students asking questions, but somehow managed to avoid getting into shouting matches or fleeing to their safe spaces. They even let each other finish their thoughts before speaking.

    2. Thomas Sowell is great. I always enjoy listening to one of his interviews. He's amazing and understanding a liberals real question, not what they actually ask.

  39. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====►► Click For Full Detail.

  40. It's good to see "libertarians" like ENB carrying water for violent marxists across the country. No mention of the sustained assaults and destruction by the "peaceful protesters" in Portland and elsewhere nor the feckless defense of the citizenry by the local politicians making federal intervention even necessary. No mention that all attitudes & behaviors not approved by the most radical leftist activists is now labeled "white supremacy" by media & Democrats.

    1. I'm just waiting for someone to actually defend their property and then watch Reason try to twist that into being somehow bad.

      1. The McCloskeys did that, and DOL and chemtard were on here whining about "violently threatening people who violated the HOA," despite the fact that the protesters broke in to private property.

  41. It wouldn't have mattered if Amash ran for congress again. Sooner or later, he'd have lost his seat to a Republican or a Democrat anyway.

    The opportunity was for Amash to rally libertarian voters into the Republican party and, thereby, take over the Republican party from within.

    It wouldn't have happened in 2020. It could have happened in 2024 or 2028, but now we've lost someone who could help us invade the Republican party with our message of personal freedom and capitalism--because Justin Amash committed political suicide by favoring the impeachment of a Republican president on the basis of a bullshit case.

    From a libertarian standpoint, if Amash was the kind of guy that would have deserted us on principle if we'd started become powerful within the Republican party, it's probably better that he get out of the way now when we don't have much more than potential to lose. If he'd done this at a crucial time, when we really had some influence to lose, that would be much worse.

    Oh, and it really needs to be said that being principled isn't about never doing anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. If the reason Amash supported the impeachment of Trump was because Trump made him feel uncomfortable, then that isn't being principled. Being a principled libertarian is when you do the thing that's best for liberty and capitalism even when it's hard to do so.

    What Amash did wasn't in the interests of liberty, capitalism, or principle. It was a total waste.

  42. "A peaceful protester in Portland was shot in the head by one of Donald Trump's secret police. Now Trump and Chad Wolf are weaponizing the DHS as their own occupying army to provoke violence on the streets of my hometown because they think it plays well with right-wing media."

    — Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) July 16, 2020

    How many times has ENB cried wolf in this column?

    At least once a week for years?

    I can't be bothered to go look for the wolf again. I became one of the disinterested townspeople years ago.

    1. "Secret" police is rich. They're operating in broad daylight in obvious uniforms. Trump has been tweeting about them. There's nothing secret about what those police are there for or what they're going to do.

      You can dislike what they're doing, but they are far from secret.

      1. Covering badge numbers and names, and removing identifying unit patches from uniforms is pretty shady. Not "secret police" level, but it should be noted and resisted. Accountability for police should be increasing, not decreasing.

        1. Oh I agree some of the police have been shitty and should be held accountable, I just don't like the hyperbole that a lot of leftists have been using to describe this.

          Likening everything to Nazi Germany cheapens what Nazi Germany actually was. What we have in the United States is nothing close to Nazi Germany, and I hope we never do. Constantly comparing everyone right of center to Nazis means that if we ever have any ACTUAL Nazis come along we'll have "boy who cried wolf" syndrome because the word has lost all meaning.

          1. They cry Nazi Germany because they plan on going full Nazi USA when they get power again.
            They are already Nazis, they just don't control the country completely.

            1. What is funny is Tony was arguing just yesterday that the government should be in charge of most things but should accomplish these things (healthcare, housing, climate change etc) by controlling private industry and paying them to perform these functions. I wanted to ask him if he knew what the underlying economic theories of fascism and national Socialism were.

          2. OK, I'll buy that. But is it also not OK to go around describing every rioter with some vague association with Black Lives Matter as being sent out by BLM organizers to be the literal equivalent of brown shirts, trying to take over the country for Marxism?

            1. The co-founder of BLM describes herself as a trained Marxist. No one put that on them, they do it to themselves.

              1. Yes, but let’s take an example. Rioters broke the windows of Café Millenium in Dallas. Some people among the protestors and rioters held signs that said, “BLACK LIVES MATTER”.

                Did the co-founder that you speak of break those windows? Was she involved at all?

                There have been many comments here making no distinction between that co-founder, the rioters who broke the windows, the people holding those signs, and maybe other people in the crowd neither holding a sign nor breaking windows. Those commenters claim it is legitimate to lump all these people together and call them all BLM, and assume they all support Marxist goals.

                If pushed, some of the commenters will retreat to the position that BLM organizations are responsible for the broken windows because they haven’t made a statement denouncing this particular incident of rioting. (Also, those commenters just assume there is no such statement because they didn’t actually check.)

                Was someone who protested Floyd’s death that night a rioter because other people broke windows? Was he or she a Marxist?

          3. When everyone keeps comparing your new political cult to the Nazi's, maybe it's time for a little introspection.

            1. You're talking about antifa right? Because the programs they support are very similar to fascism and their tactics are straight out of the playbook of the SA.

            2. Or maybe the people who are using that word should read a history book.

              Nah, you're right, it's my fault.

              1. If you smell shit everywhere you go, check your shoe. When Germans and Jewish historians start comparing Trump to Hitler, maybe take a moment to consider it.

                1. I can compare you to the shit you think is on my shoe, that doesn't mean the comparison has any merit. I'd even be an expert on the subject, what with it being my shoe and all.

                2. Then point out the so obvious facts we are missing? And at the same time point out how BLM and Antifa policies and tactics are different than the Nazis.

                  1. Are BLM and antifa deporting american citizens or abducting people off the streets of portland? No, they are only scary on fox news. They are a useful scapegoat to consolidate the base.

                    1. Deporting Americans or illegal aliens? Yes, a few actual citizens and legal residents have been wrongly deported (but this is the federal government so fuckups seem par for the course). There is little doubt we need to fix immigration, but blaming this on Trump and not government inefficiency seems partisan driven. These fuckups have occurred under every President since we started enforcing the border. The media just really focuses on them right now. It isn't fake news, but it is being sensationalized to push a certain narrative. And as has been pointed out there is no corroboration of the abduction stories and there are huge inconsistency in the videos. It may be happening but we only have a single source.
                      Also, I note you failed to actually answer my question but just turned it into an attack on Trump. And if you studied the history of the Nazis, especially the SA, you would understand how the Antifa movement tactics are eerily similar to how Hitler gained power. Also, a good many of their policies reek of fascism. But you only focus on a very narrow definition.

                    2. So every country that deports people is like Nazi Germany.

      2. Do we know whether arrest warrants are being issued for these people?

        Are these anti-fa groups that have been infiltrated?

        Are people being charged with conspiracy or for organizing the manufacture and distribution of Molotov cocktails during the riots?

        Are they being held for questioning for more than 24 hours?

        Are they arresting people without probable cause?

        I'm not about to come running just because ENB cried wolf for the 275th time. Somebody confirm that one of these things is occurring, and I might become interested enough to click a link. There isn't anything in that tweet to even justify clicking a link.

    2. "Now Trump and Chad Wolf are weaponizing the DHS as their own occupying army to provoke violence on the streets of my hometown because they think it plays well with right-wing media.”

      By the way, shouldn't we resent the fuck out of the implication that anti-fa is untouchable?

      Is he saying that we better not go after anti-fa--even when they do something that merits an arrest--or they'll retaliate against us with violence?

      If you don't want to be arrested for arson or destroying other people's businesses and property, there's an easy way to do that: Don't perpetrate arson and don't destroy other people's property.

      Oh, and from a libertarian objective standpoint, the news media conflating anti-fa rioting with peaceful "protesting" is a failure again.

      "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

      ----First Amendment

      The First Amendment doesn't protect the freedom to destroy other people's property any more than the Second Amendment protects the freedom to violate other people's rights with a gun.

      1. That seems to be the constant message we're receiving from the left. Every protester is peaceful. There's no Antifa and even if there is, you can't identify them or try to arrest them because you're probably infringing on innocent people's rights. Heads they win, tails you lose. Just like how they frame every game they force you to play now.

  43. "Justin Amash's Tenure as the Libertarian Party's First Member in Congress Will Be Shortlived"

    Sorry, Amash isn't the Libertarian Party's First Member in Congress. He was elected as a Republican. If he runs and wins as a Libertarian, he will be the Libertarian Party's First.

    1. Yeah, I was willing to accept the title on credit if he ran again, but spazzing out as you nose dive doesn't make him any more libertarian than it did Bill Weld.

  44. Anybody want a crazy/creepy conspiracy theory?

    The camouflaged "officers" picking "peaceful protestors" up off the streets of Portland are agents of the Chinese government.

    That one's gonna require at least 2 lunesta tonight.

    1. I look forward to it.
      But why would the Chinese government kidnap their own agents?

      1. But why would the Chinese government kidnap their own agents?

        I think you have the terms 'agents' and 'useful idiots' confused. I freely admit some of the blame as "peaceful protesters" leaves lots of room for ambiguity.

  45. "The Pentagon has presented the White House with options to reduce the American military presence in South Korea as the two countries remain at odds over President Trump’s demand that Seoul greatly increase how much it pays for the U.S. troops stationed in the country, U.S. officials said."

    This is what we're talking about when we talk about America First.

    The reason to station troops in Syria is not because it's in the best interests of the Kurds. It's because it's in the best interests of the United States. If if is not in the best interests of the United States to have troops in Syria, then we should bring them home.

    The reason to station troops in Germany is not because it's in the best interests of the Germans.

    And the reason to station troops in South Korea is not because it's in the best interests of the South Koreans. It's because stationing troops in South Korea is in the best interests of the United States.

    How dare the president even consider such things! When we consider America's best interests, should we even consider the costs to the U.S. taxpayer?

    Of course! And if President Trump weren't in office, who would?

    1. Jo Jorgensen?

      “Turn America into One Giant Switzerland: Armed and Neutral – with the military force to defend America’s shores and soil against any foreign attackers or invaders. Protected by an armed citizenry and by a military laser-focused on defending America. No US involvement in foreign wars. Bring home our 200,000+ American military personnel stationed in foreign countries. No US military aid to foreign governments. No US blockades or embargoes of non-military trade. Peace.”

      1. By the way, Jo seems to be for unequivocal withdrawal of American troops, not using them as bargaining chips. I'm glad Trump is for bringing troops home. He should just go ahead and do it and not worry about the response from Germany or South Korea.

        1. Unlike Switzerland we aren't a landlocked country and rely heavily on sea transportation for our economic welfare. The US Navy can't be tasked only with protecting our shores. We need to maintain the rights of navigation. This means we need naval vessels to patrol critical waterways, especially international straits from piracy and rogue nations. To do this, we will need to maintain some forward support bases for those ships. The US tried that approach right after the Revolution (no real Navy) what resulted was British warships impressing American sailors, French Revolutionary ships capturing American flagged merchant ships and Barbary Coast states attacking and capturing American flagged merchant vessels. The only answer was to build a Navy and base it in the Mediterranean. Our neutrality actually resulted in three wars as a result of our Navy not actively patrolling sea trade routes (the Quasi War, the Barbary Coast War and the War of 1812).

          1. No doubt defending America includes her ships. I would add defending our citizens abroad to that as well. But I don't think we need boots on the ground in Germany, as an example, to accomplish those goals.

            I don't know her specific position on that. I don't think she means literally only our shores and soil.

            1. We need bases for Naval resupply and support. That means bases in England and/or Italy and/or Japan and/or Australia. This would probably also require at least one Air Force Base or at least one Naval Air Station near these bases to provide Air Cover.

            2. Also, their will need to be some form of ground defensive forces. That could be Marines but that would require almost the entire corp, which is only two divisions, be stationed overseas (if we want a semi-effrctive fighting force for protection it would probably require at least a battalion size and the Marine Corp is abandoning it's armored units so it would only be infantry and less useful if attacked by armor). We could consolidate our bases in a few strategic locations. Have Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp all stationed together. This would shrink the number of bases and maybe even decrease the number of troops needed. Then you still run into the problem of big troop bases in other countries.

              1. I could see decreasing bases to just our closest allies. England for the North Atlantic (not sure about the Mediterranean, Israel would be our closest ally but the politics of basing US troops in Israel is problematic at best) probably have to stay in Italy. Australia for the Indian Ocean and Guam (a US territory) for the South Pacific. Although we could patrol both from Guam. North and East Pacific is already covered by bases in Washington, Alaska, Hawaii and California. We would probably need to leave a base in Okinawa for the South China Sea and the Western Pacific. If we base our southern Pacific and Indian Ocean fleets on Guam that would decrease our foreign bases overseas to three. But those bases will have to be much larger than they currently are. And it will mean longer patrols for our ships, and possibly more surface vessels.
                We could build more air superioty versions of the America Class amphibious assault carriers, to support anti-piracy and right of navigation patrols in the South Pacific, South Atlantic and Indian Ocean and have our super carriers in more strategic patrols such as the North Atlantic, North Pacific, Mediterranean Sea and South China Sea. I divided it this way based upon potential threats. I also guess that the South Atlantic fleet could he based on the US Virgin Islands. It could probably be the smallest force based upon current threats and strategic trade routes. It may have to have heavy Special Operations troops though.

      2. I don't think President Trump is ideological in that way.

        I think he genuinely questions the value to the American people of the cost of stationing troops in South Korea, and he thinks the South Koreans are getting a lot more from the American taxpayer than they're paying for.

        If you follow that thread and take it to its logical conclusion, I think you end up with very little in the way of foreign entanglements, but that isn't necessarily Trump's end goal. If you're someone who wants to see us with far fewer foreign engagements, however, you should definitely prefer a president who thinks in terms of America's best interests.

        If we had been thinking more clearly about America's best interests, we might not have been in South Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, and thinking in terms of America's best interests is what kept us out of occupying places like Lebanon under Reagan, Iraq under Bush Sr., and Rwanda under Clinton. A president who thinks in terms of American interests will be more reluctant to go to war.

        1. Besides, international trade is vital to our economy and protecting US merchant ships and shipping is a vital role of the US Navy. This requires some bases outside the US.

          1. The rest of the world benefits from the protection afforded by the US Navy as well. Seeing other countries that benefit greatly from our protection for shipping coming in and out of their ports wouldn't be such a bad things either.

            1. Yeah. We saw what happened a decade ago when the IS deemphasizes antipiracy patrols. Who did the world ask to clean it up?

  46. The government needs body parts to keep RBG alive.

    She has been undergoing chemo for months and her liver cancer is back.

    The odds of her beating liver cancer a second time drops a bunch. Trump will get to replace her soon.

    1. We are in an election year. I'm sure you'll be for waiting for the election again this time before replacing her should she resign or worse?

      1. Why would he, Leo? In the past, when the parties were more collegial, in an election year, the Senate didn't consider nominees for either a circuit court of appeals or Scotus, when the vacancy occurred past July. At least back to the 2000 election, because that's as far as the Congressional Research Service paper's footnote discussing the topic went.

        She croaks now? Give the Senate Amy Coney Barrett's name, let the Turtle ram through the nomination, and hear the lamentation of the women. In theory, this could even happen if Trump were a lame duck.

        Times have changed. Thank Harry Reid.

    2. When I saw the headline leaf Ruth Ginsberg, I thought for sure it was announcing her death. But she is like the T-1000, no matter how you injure her, her metal alloy body just remolds itself. Sorry, my son was watching TWO: Judgement Day the other night.

    3. I doubt he'll be able to get a justice through before the election.

      The Democrats will pull a Anita Hill/Kavanaugh again at the very least, and there will be massive protests--like there were with Black Lives Matter.

      I maintain that the protests and riots we saw weeks ago were really a function of the virus, the lockdowns, and the economy, and all those unemployed and angry people are just sitting around waiting for another good excuse to riot again.

      The Democrats will give them that excuse if and when Trump tries to replace RGB before the election.

      The smart move from President Trump's reelection perspective might be to make it a campaign issue. If you want to see another loopy justice on the Supreme Court from the Land of Group Identity Make-Believe, then by all means vote for President Biden. Vote for me, and I'll appoint someone who respects and believes in the principles of the Constitution.

      1. Or at least they'll ask McConnell why the change from his Garland position.

        You're right though. Trump should make this a campaign issue. But he has to be smart enough not to outright mock a dying woman. Can he?

        1. Garland was for a President at the end of his second term. A hypothetical Ginsburg death won't be.

          Even if it were Trump's second term, who gives a shit now? We are past the stage of whining that the Right is hypocritical, when the silence has been deafening when the Left pulls the same sort of shit. Flip the parties, and Schumer would me nominating a, say, Thomas replacement so fast your head would spin.

          1. No doubt. You're saying the left and right are essentially playing the same politics. I agree.

            The question is why is one justified over the other? Simply because you agree with one or the other isn't a principled answer.

            1. Because take a good look at governance over the last three years with Trump, and compare that to the prior eight under Obama. Which would you prefer to live under? Which side politicized the living fuck out of previously-thought nonpartisan institutions like the IRS, the Census Bureau, the flag ranks of the military? Which one is showing zero tolerance for any dissenting views, to the point of organizing mobs to deny those dissenters employment, the ability to conduct business, to be heard in the modern public square? Which one has organized modern day brownshirts to commit violence against anyone who disagrees?

              If the Handmaid's Tale wasn't overwrought complete bullshit, the "But both sides!" crap people say, might have a point. That isn't where we are though in America, July 2020.

              Trump mostly wants to leave you alone so you can do whatever. Hopefully get rich, provided it doesn't involve illegal labor or trade with China. Not perfect, but...Jesus. Compared to some lunatic like Liz Warren calling the shots?

              The both sides are equally bad stuff is just intellectually lazy at this point. Those fuckers over there want you and me as serfs on the new feudal manor. They hate the American middle class, its values, its culture, and given enough time, will get around to hating you, Leo. Personally.

              1. Those fuckers over there want you and me as serfs on the new feudal manor.

                And THIS is hyperbolic bullshit. Who is going to be constructing these mythical camps for enslaving conservatives? Joe Fucking Biden? Seriously?

                If the Left's screeching about "Republicans are Nazis who want to enslave blacks and women and return America to the racist 1950's" is hyperbolic bullshit - and it is - then the Right's screeching about "The Left hates you and hates America and wants to throw conservatives into camps" is also hyperbolic bullshit. That is the "both sides have lost their minds" crap that I see on a daily basis.

                1. Except several have actually tweeted they support instituting re-education camps etc. But you ignore that part.

  47. These results are based on monthly averages of Gallup U.S. telephone surveys in 2020.

    Well see, there's the problem - some of us only respond to telegraphs. Who the fuck is answering their phones without knowing who's on the other end? Quit that shit! It's what keeps telemarketers and Nigerian princes in business. I can only imagine if Gallup is basing their numbers on people who answer their phones, about 86% of their respondents are 92 year old cat ladies with nobody to talk to.

    1. Pollsters should learn to Morse code.

    2. Republican leaving voters often register as independent or cancel their registration. The truth is that Republican voters dislike the party as it's abandoned most of it's principles since Reagan left office, however, they rarely ever cross over to vote Democrat. The sad thing is people like Leo and Chipper and Fist with the visceral hatred of anything remotely Republican keeps the LP from being an attractive solution to these disenfranchised Republicans. Rather than make the case about the lost costs of drug wars, they scream about disparate impacts and call them slavers. Rather than admit abortion is distasteful and that there may be a legitimate libertatiaish argument for defending a fetus after some point in gestation they scream about a woman's right to her body and (not all of them) call it a fetus or parasite. Or and Chipper loves to call all cops and servucemembers paid killers. Rather than admit Jorgenson's recent activity has been troubling for many Libertarians and libertarian leaning voters, they twist themselves to defend her and ridicule anyone who points out what is troubling. I think they would rather belong to a small outgroup (because it is "cool") than to actually achieve meaningful reform by being more welcoming.

      1. Republican leaving voters often register as independent or cancel their registration.

        Yep, that'd describe my wife and me. Not that it matters here in California 2.0 (nee' Colorado) as you can self-identify with whatever-the-hell party you want (as long as it's one of the two parties that matter) come primary season.

        I'm at least 4th generation Republican. My wife and I are doing our part to make sure there won't be a 5th. "Stupid party", indeed.

        As for the Libertarian party: it's gone from the party of neckbearded basement dwellers to the party of LINO squishes. No thanks, never been interested, will not become interested.

        1. Yeah and the Constitution party is barely better (possibly worse in ways). What is really needed is a party of Libertarian leaning voters, small government (disenfranchised) Republicans and those who tried to create the Constitution Party to unite. And maybe even centrist Democrats who are growing alarmed at their parties direction, but I question if this latter group can find common ground with the former groups.

          1. We could call it the LCC Libertarian Conservative Constitutionalist Party.

            1. Planks will be adherence to the Constitution, smart, small government, budgetary restraint and realism, federalism, a fair immigration reform that makes it easier to immigrate to the US while making it much harsher for immigrating illegally, and reform government spending. I also propose term limitations in Congress. And expansion of the House of Representatives (to compensate for population growth, which hasn't occurred since 1920). I also would love an amendment that all federal laws sunset after a decade unless renewed and make it retroactive to all previous federal laws.

          2. I've voted Constitution Party in the past (that would be McCain's fault) but their overt religious tone is a huge turnoff. They're a non-starter with me these days.

            1. So, sadly, I'll be voting Trump! in 2020, same as 2016, just because the only real alternative is...revolting. Although this year I'll be drinking 750ml of the shittiest scotch I can find before dropping my ballot in the mailbox. I do not want to remember that vote.

      2. Leo and Chipper and Fist

        Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen anything overtly hostile from Fist or, at least, the "pro-libertary/pro-libertarian/non-partisan quip to insane leftist screed" ratio for Fist is considerably closer to 1 than it is for the other two.

        1. I'm just happy to be included.

          1. That's just what socialist scum like you would say.

  48. Testing. Nope, handle spoofing not fixed yet.

  49. Currently, half of U.S. adults identify as Democrats (32%) or are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (18%). Meanwhile, 39% identify as Republicans (26%) or are Republican leaners (13%).

    Well finally a semi-useful poll for L's.
    In 2020, the maximum possible vote for L's is 11% this year.
    But there's roughly 31% who have enough dissatisfaction with DeRp to not be DeRp but not enough to stop identifying with the DeRp agenda. That's the potential base of 2024 L voters. Just gotta increase the dissatisfaction about the DeRp agenda.

    Absent an actual voter registration drive for the unregistered - which L's can't won't and probably shouldn't do.

    1. That requires the LP to be serious about winning elections, which I am growing less certain is really the case. Based upon the purity tests and tribalism of self described libertarians like yourself and a number of others, I am growing convinced that you would rather lose and complain, rather than win and actually accomplish anything.

  50. Amash adviser Poppy Nelson had told The Detroit News earlier that Amash "hasn't been campaigning for any office and doesn't plan to seek the nomination for any office."

    Ok, well played. Now I know he's a real libertarian.

  51. America is seeing a dramatic shift in party affiliation. Since the start of the year, "what had been a two-percentage-point Republican advantage in U.S. party identification and leaning has become an 11-point Democratic advantage, with more of that movement reflecting a loss in Republican identification and leaning

    Yeah, no shit. Or maybe all this statue-tearing-down, city-block-burning, California anti-descrimination language from its constitution removing, Black Nationalism, bending-the-knee, promising-to-do-better, BLM-supporting, Marxism-affirming times has normies kind of running for cover and reluctant to say they're in opposition to any of this.

    1. That doesn't make sense. Say that you are a "normie" in fear of all those things. Someone ask you to participate in an anonymous opinion poll, where you can speak your mind freely with no repercussions.

      Why wouldn't you give your honest opinion? If anything, you'd be thrilled at the opportunity.

      1. Because the pollsters could be lying, and doxing you.

        1. Is that a realistic worry. Have pollsters ever doxxed someone?

          1. Fear doesn't have to be realistic for it to be effective. And real to the person. Given today's climate, many may very well hedge when answering questions to the media or someone not known to them.

      2. Perhaps you missed the 2016 election.

    2. Republicans are losing representation in national polls. Meanwhile firearm sales, including first time gun owners, are at levels not seen since before the Obama administration.

      It seems like, one way or the other, the revolution is not going to end the way the revolutionaries think it's going to end.

  52. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. open this link.....Click For Full Details.

  53. Earlier this week, it was federal agents shooting impact munitions at protesters in Portland, Oregon—hitting one man directly in the head, knocking him over and putting him in the hospital.

    And by "impact munition", you mean "teargas canister", something that isn't intended to impact at all.

    At the time, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) accused the feds of acting like an "occupying army." Now, unidentified federal agents wearing camouflage have been driving around Portland, snatching people off the streets, and taking them away in unmarked vehicles.

    Well, Democrats in Congress act like the Politburo. There's that.

  54. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY... MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE► Join Now.

  55. Did you know there’s a “deep detox” you can do first thing in the morning to burn more fat? And the good news is It only takes 13-seconds! Here it is—>>Read More.

  56. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online.Click For Full Details.

  57. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online HERE? Read More

  58. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page………Click For Full Details.

Comments are closed.