Reason Roundup

Josh Hawley Doesn't Want Trump's SCOTUS Endorsement (Thank Goodness). But Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton Do.

Plus: The case for paying plasma donors, Joe Arpaio welcomes furries, and more...

|

President Donald Trump has released a new list of people he would nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court if given the opportunity. It's terrifying.

The list includes staunch warmonger Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), preening huckster Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), and veteran sycophant Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), among 17 others. Yikes.

Hawley—whose latest round of legislative nonsense is providing a federally funded pay raise for police around the country—has already said thanks but no thanks to Trump. "I appreciate the President's confidence in listing me as a potential Supreme Court nominee. But as I told the President, Missourians elected me to fight for them in the Senate, and I have no interest in the high court," Hawley tweeted Wednesday afternoon.

Given Hawley's penchant for lying about his record, calling for bogus investigations, and introducing unconstitutional legislation, that's probably good news. (Although to the extent that Hawley's rejection signals an intent to run for president himself in 2024…double yikes.)

No such luck with Cotton and Cruz, however. Both men indicated they may be happy to accept the job of Supreme Court Justice. "I'm honored that President Trump asked me to consider serving on the Supreme Court and I'm grateful for his confidence. I will always heed the call of service to our nation," Cotton said in a press release.

Cotton followed that up by tweeting: "It's time for Roe v. Wade to go."

"It's humbling and an immense honor to be considered for the Supreme Court," said Cruz, in a statement that neither rejects the potential nomination nor fully embraces it. "The High Court plays a unique role in defending our Constitution, and there is no greater responsibility in public service than to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," Cruz's statement continued. "In the Senate, I have been blessed to lead the fight to preserve our constitutional liberties"—fact check: false—"and I look forward to continuing to do so for many years to come."

It's hard not to notice that the three senators on Trump's SCOTUS shortlist are all folks with confirmed or rumored presidential ambitions. Some have read their inclusion as evidence that, if elected in 2020, Trump will seek a third term in office. A less paranoid spin is that Trump is trying to clear the way in 2024 for one of his kids.

The 20 potential SCOTUS nominees that Trump offered up yesterday "are additions to an original list that has been updated throughout his presidency," notes CBS News. Aside from Cotton, Cruz, and Hawley, the list includes:

  • Bridget Bade (judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit)
  • Daniel Cameron (Kentucky Attorney General)
  • Paul Clement (served as solicitor general under George W. Bush)
  • Stuart Kyle Duncan (judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)
  • Steven Engel (an assistant attorney general with the Department of Justice)
  • Noel Francisco (a former solicitor general under Trump)
  • James Ho (judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)
  • Greg Katsas (judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit)
  • Barbara Lagoa (judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit)
  • Christopher Landau (U.S. ambassador to Mexico)
  • Carlos Muniz (justice on the Florida Supreme Court)
  • Martha Pacold (judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois)
  • Peter Phipps (judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit)
  • Sarah Pitlyk (judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)
  • Allison Jones Rushing (judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit)
  • Kate Todd (deputy counsel to the White House)
  • Lawrence VanDyke (judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit)

QUICK HITS

• Trump told journalist Bob Woodward in mid-March that when it came to COVID-19, he "wanted to always play it down" because he didn't "want to create a panic." Trump also admitted to Woodward back in February that the new coronavirus was "more deadly than even your strenuous flu," although the president would continue to say otherwise in public.

• The case for paying plasma donors.

• Some perspective on Trump's claims to be an anti-war president who is bringing home troops:

• Joe Arpaio*—the notoriously racist and authoritarian former elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona—gets a lesson in furries:

• Disney's Mulan is "an extravagant mediocrity," writes Reason's Peter Suderman.

*CORRECTION: The original version of this article referred to Joe Arpaio as a pardoned felon. He was never convicted of a felony.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: September 10, 1949

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

  1. In case you were confused about Trump and the business of war:

    Obama reduced troop levels in Afghanistan by [25,000] and Iraq by [140,000]. Donald Trump has so far reduced those troop levels by zero, with hopes of reducing troop levels in Afghanistan by [4,000] and Iraq by [2,000],” Amash tweeted. “Conservatives and libertarians, like me, who repeatedly criticized Obama for not ending those wars are now supposed to praise Trump for simply promising to do a fraction of what Obama did? Why? Because Trump talks like a guy who wants to end wars? Stop talking; actually end them.”

    1. Shit, maybe I should read the links.

      1. It’s ok, we already know you’re stupid, you’re good.

        1. Time to debunk Reason/Amash/E.Brown/Libertarian BS.

          Amash says: “Obama reduced troop levels in Afghanistan by [25,000] and Iraq by [140,000]. Donald Trump has so far reduced those troop levels by zero”

          Did Amash say how many troops were left in Iraq???? 5000 troops. That’s how many are left there. Even if trump had pulled in every last one. Amash would be saying: Obama reduced troop levels in Iraq by 140k and Trump? 5K. And this is the crap you guys are swallowing.

          You need to ask yourself the question – why is Amash attacking trump on this? If it is impossible for trump to withdrawal more troops out of these countries than Obama – why is he attacking him on it????

          Lastly. Amash is no friend to the intelligent libertarian. He provides talking points to democrats, and confusion to low information right wingers. Which do you morons think is more libertarian? The capitalist republicans or the socialist democrats? You morons are working hard to get Biden and Supreme leader Kamala elected.

          1. “Capitalist republicans” are few, most are moderate socialists. Maybe an openly socialist POTUS would get a secessionist movement started, better sooner than later.

            Amash is siting facts that contradict POTUS’s promises. Obama made it easy to end the wars that Trump should have ended. The pro-war left also make it politically easy for reactionary conservatives to support ending all the wars. Why aren’t they ended? Maybe it’s all a show, a farce to give the illusion of choice.

            1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $95 however I see the way it works now. I experience masses frenedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……

              =================► CashApp

          2. More money was spent on foreign wars during Obama’s 2 terms than the 2 Bush terms. Replacing some troops with government paid “contractors” did not reduce any involvement in Iraq during Obama’s presidency. Political shell game.

        1. test

          test
          test
          test
          test

        2. It's hard not to notice that the three senators on Trump's SCOTUS shortlist are all folks with confirmed or rumored presidential ambitions. Some have read their inclusion as evidence that, if elected in 2020, Trump will seek a third term in office. A less paranoid spin is that Trump is trying to clear the way in 2024 for one of his kids.

          Ok. So who wrote this drivelous crap? Did Elizabeth Brown write this garbage? It is total speculation on the basis of zero evidence whatsoever. I might as well put on a vag hat and tune in CNN. Fuck.

          1. All four anonymous sources agree this is true.
            If you can get even one of the four to change their story – – – – – – – – –

            1. Four more anonymous sources will show up?

      2. In the rush to be first , sometimes sacrifices must be made.

    2. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink… strive it, you HERE? Read More

    3. So tell us again why reducing troops after a hot war to occupation levels is superior to deciding to remove them entirely.

      1. I can tell you when Obama removed those troops and the Republicans accused him of “founding ISIS”. You mfers are incoherent pieces of shit.

        1. I’m not a Republican. Maybe I would be if I were American, but I’m not.

          1. Sorry, I’ll try to remember that.

          2. We will get your ballot in the mail tomorrow.

        2. You mean the JV team he dismissed despite warnings?

        3. No, the killing of Khadaffy did that.

      2. Look at the verbs you just used:
        “reducing” (not “deciding to reduce” or “promising to reduce”)
        “deciding to remove” (not “removed”)

        1. Getting an English major prepares you for a career in removing wine corks and condoms from the pools of people who majored in computer science.

          1. What does that have to do with basic English skills? A five year old knows the difference between mommy deciding to give you a cookie and mommy having given you a cookie.

          2. It’s typical TWK distraction tactics. If he can’t redefine the words you’re using he’ll try to go after the grammar.

            1. He’s a squawking bird named Dee, and should be treated as such.

            2. Meanwhile, the actual point, which wasn’t about English grammar at all, is that in Mother’s comment he compared one President actually doing something to another President promising to do something. But nice dwelling on trivia as a diversion, guys.

              1. You did it guy.

      3. He criticized Trump for doing nothing but promise after 4 years. Why would you compare actions taken to actions promised? A POTUS who declares he is anti-war means NOTHING!

    4. Obama had the Bush plan to withdraw from Iraq. And shall we compare drone strikes and new wars started also?

      Fuck Libertarians DESERVE an imbecile like Amash.

        1. Not seeing his link. Can you provide it FOR him?

          1. There are many. Here’s one of the first when I googled for more info:

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/08/why-trump-wants-blame-military-industrial-complex-allegations-that-he-disparaged-troops/

            “At the same time, the Trump administration has dramatically increased the number of drone strikes in Afghanistan (with an average of three times the number each year of Trump’s presidency as occurred in 2016, according to Bureau of Investigative Journalism data), Somalia (an estimated four times as many under Trump as under Obama and George W. Bush) and Yemen (where half of all U.S. drone strikes have probably occurred under Trump).“

            1. My spidey senses start tingling when somebody says one thing and then links to something that says something a little different – in this case “Trump has increased drone strikes” versus “Trump has increased drone strikes in specific areas“. Kind of forces me to wonder if Trump has indeed launched more missiles than Obama or if he’s only launched more missiles if you only count some of them. Kinda like claiming I got more votes for President than Donald Trump did, if you only count votes for president of the eighth grade math club.

              1. Like where? Where did Trump reduce drone strikes? Please tell us.

                1. Yes, exactly like that. See, I said this link doesn’t actually prove that Trump increased drone strikes and you demand that I show where Trump reduced drone strikes. I never said Trump reduced drone strikes, I simply pointed out that the link does not prove the case that he increased them. I honestly don’t know whether Trump increased or decreased drone strikes, but I have to believe that if he had increased drone strikes over all we would have heard about it since the press is never going to miss an opportunity to attack Trump and this carefully caveated statement makes me suspicious that there’s a reason for the careful caveat.

                2. Syria

              2. Well, at least your curiosity on the topic has been stirred.

                1. Oh I think WK knows he’s wrong.

      1. Despite claiming to “put things in perspective” Amash chose to present the numbers in a way that provides the least perspective possible

        1. Lol. Facts are facts. Have you switched from a cry of “fake newz!” to a cry of “fake perspective!”?

          1. Fuck off troll.

      2. Do I have to explain the chasm between a politician making promises and a politician actually doing something.

        1. Except deals for withdrawal are actually signed…

          1. Meh, that’s not the same as actually going through with the plan.

        2. Do I have to explain the chasm between a politician making promises and a politician actually doing something.

          –The White Knight, above

          Yes. The sentiment around here that Trump is somehow better than Obama on warmongering is based 100% on his words alone. I mean, he does seem very trustworthy.

          The thing is, he campaigned explicitly on bombing more civilians (“You have to go after their families”). That’s an actual campaign pledge kept. Maybe the only one.

          So to recap, “libertarians” not only take Donald fucking Trump at his word when there are facts about his troop numbers and drone strikes out there, they selectively take him at his word and pick out only to good bits.

          Terrible, terrible government skeptics.

      3. Amash the Libertarian that supported impeachment based on an investigation that violated constitutional rights, ethics, due process and soon to be criminal indictments. Now there should be new charges for destruction of evidence by the investigators themselves.

    5. Hello.

      Amash is such a weasel. 2020 has been one gigantic fuckfest orgy of son of a bitches manipulating data that has plunged the world into a vortex of irrational fear and stupidity. He probably had his stupid mask on too tight when he wrote that.

      Here’s the problem. OBAMAS WAS A WAR MONGER having been at war every single day of his Presidency. And let’s not bring up his secret list drones killing Americans without due process.

      What war has Trump started again? Has he been as relentless with the drones?

      He may as well tweet Trump wants to defund the police.

      Fucken cocksuckers all around.

      1. And let’s not bring up his secret list drones killing Americans without due process.
        There was a process in which he personally decided whether to put people on the list. It was a deep thought process.

        1. And you think Trump tightened up the rules on drone strikes?

          1. The media hasn’t reported any assassinations of US citizens, so that is an improvement.

            1. Oh, come on, Rat! You know the media is totally in the bag for the current president, and would never level that accusation against him.

              Wait.

              1. Remember towards the start of his Presidency when the DOD released a report saying that he’d fired more missiles (maybe it was ordinance) on foreign soil than any President in the last 50 yrs. and, when you looked into the data, they were including things like .50 cal. rounds fired from US-manufactured gunships?

                It was pretty clear then that they were low on ammo.

                1. I have to admit that I don’t. 4 years of overblown scandals has been more than I can keep up with in terms of remembering all of them.

                  Honestly, at this point, it’s a “Boy Who Cried Wolf” situation. They’ve been screaming about him being Literally Hitler for every little thing for so long, I’m not sure I’d notice enough to pay attention if they tried to report something actually horrible.

                  “TRUMP GAVE A RANDOM BLACK CHILD A QUARTER FOR CANDY! TRUMP WANTS BLACK CHILDREN TO HAVE BAD TEETH!”

                2. Well yeah, after firing it all off like that . . .

            2. What about that poor 8 year old girl he droned to death?

          2. Yes, the media ignored Trump killing more people.

            The same media that bemoans the passing of terrorist leaders and the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard?

            1. Ahem Austere religious scholar

      2. Trump has accelerated drone strikes since Obama left office you barely functional retard:

        Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers
        By S. E. Cupp May 8, 2019, 2:00pm CDT
        Share this story

        https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

        1. Again, this claim is “backed up” by comparing drone strikes in specific countries. Can we get a total number of dronestrikes in all the countries collectively, or would that refute the narrative?

          1. I think your observation is pretty cogent. If the total was bad for Trump, we’d see it. I’m not sure why sugfesting that that bothers people so much.

            1. Gaslighters get mad when you call them on it.

        1. It’s Rufus. He leads the idiot Trump cult for Canada.

          1. Yes, Rufus is our Grand Lodge Steward.
            Oh, and no pedos allowed, so don’t think about joining.

            1. Grand Poobah.

              But whatever.

              I do deem to recall the Trump drone story but haven’t seen any since. It seemed to be a feature of Obama’s admin.

              Ok. One thing he kept going. Not starting a war is a pretty big thing though. He could start one still for sure if he’s re-elected but up to now? He’s ahead of Obama on the peace game.

              1. Do you have the tall furry hat with the moose horns on it like Fred Flintstone?

          2. Let me get this straight: you all call each other retarded Trump dick suckers or retarded TDS snowflakes. And use those labels to “rebut” any opinions.

            1. Yeah, pretty much.

        2. Same thing yet again, they claim Trump has escalated the drone wars “in a number of countries”, and then specifically talk only about Somalia. Has Trump actually launched more total drone strikes than Obama? Who knows? But these people aren’t talking about the total number, they’re talking about one specific subset of drone strikes.

      3. Trump has raised tensions with Iran and created an unnecessary cold war with that country.

        1. It must have been difficult to do given their warm and trusting nature.

          1. those death to America chants had started coming with a smile under Obama. And increased missile tests.

            1. you forgot the planeloads of cash

        2. We’ve been in a cold war with Iran since the Carter administration. By their choice.

          1. Well, there was that one little incident with Mossadegh and the CIA back in ’53, but that’s just a minor detail.

            1. Obviously, you’re being facetious, but the US did have good relations with Iran when the Shah was in charge, to the point that we trained their pilots and provided them with military hardware.

              When the Iran-Iraq war kicked off, Iran ended up having to ramp up their aircraft cannibalization rates and figure out how to fabricate parts. Their jets were almost all American-built F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s, and–oopsies!–they couldn’t buy spares from the US anymore.

              1. US did have good relations with Iran when the Shah once the CIA got that pesky Mussadegh out of the way for him. US support for the Shah is a big part of why they hate us so much now.

                1. More of an excuse for the current regime than an actual grievance held by most Persians. Mossadegh wasn’t elected, he appointed by the Shah (the legitimate government of Iran at the time), it was Mossadegh that staged the coup against the Shah, Mossadegh was losing popularity fast as the Iranian economy was crumbling under his leadership, and the CIA assistance to the Shah’s ‘coup’ amounted to convincing him to get on his private plane and fly back to Iran because most of Iran was ready to get rid of Mossadegh at that point (admittedly, this was quite an effort on the CIA’s part because the Shah was kind of a pussy). Oh yeah, and the Iranian oil that was nationalized under Mossadegh (you know, the supposed reason we got involved) stayed nationalized when Palavi returned to power.

                  Keep in mind that Mossadegh was communist-adjacent. Given half a chance he would have been executing trash like Khomeni. The Islamic government of Iran would have no reason to like him if his memory wasn’t somehow useful.

                  1. Mossadegh was losing popularity fast as the Iranian economy was crumbling under his leadership
                    Conflicts with Kashani and the Islamists contributed to Mossadegh’s problems.

                  2. More of an excuse for the current regime than an actual grievance held by most Persians.

                    Arguably it’s fading, but there’s still a significant portion of the Iranian population that remembers the Shah, not fondly, and that remembers that the US helped keep him in power and gave him asylum after he was overthrown.

                    In short, I certainly wouldn’t argue that their current animus is driven by enduring love of Saint Mussadegh, but more by enduring, and earned, distrust of the USA.

                    1. 40 years of religious indoctrination will have an effect on some

              2. And we were building 4 destroyers for them at the time. They became the DD-993 Class (Kidd class, aka Ayatollah Class)

        3. Trump ‘created’ it? Out of nothing? So the Iranian regime’s state sponsorship of terrorism over the last four decades, their hostility towards their neighbors, especially Israel, and their quest for nuclear weapons had nothing to do with it?

          There were no problems, then Trump threatened them. Got it.

          1. Indeed, it does have nothing to do with it, or at least it should. Libertarians have been saying for decades that the United States are not the policemen of the world. If it is true that Trump imposed sanctions on Iran because of their relationship with Israel than this is a very bad reason to absolve Trump’s policy.

        4. Yeah. We should be nicer to them. Haha.

      4. Every single troop that Trump brought home from Syria was put there by Obama. And the D’s screamed blue murder about him doing it.

        1. Every single troop that Trump brought home from Syria was put there by Obama.

          Who did so secretly and never did acknowledge that it had been done. Trump removing those troops was the first acknowledgment I saw that we even had troops there, when all of a sudden it was “we’ve always been at war in Syria!”

          1. One interesting thing in reading about the siege of Kobani, was how the Obama administration was basically shamed into dropping supplies to the Kurds there by the global press during Kerry’s visit to Egypt. Up to that point, the administration didn’t think it was anything that needed our attention.

            Fast-forward five years, people who couldn’t find Kobani without a Google search suddenly became experts in counter-terrorist operations and were crying that we were “leaving the Kurds out to dry,” despite the fact they had been pulling back from the MERV for weeks prior to that, and showed their gratitude throughout the years of operation by constantly bitching that we weren’t providing enough air support.

        1. What does that even mean?

          How is one “more” relentless?

          1. He’s the relentlessest.

          2. Rufus’ words, not mine. (Scroll way up to the comment I was replying to.)

    6. Setting aside the fact that Trump has started 0 wars (I think that’s 4 fewer than Obama), Trump has ended our war in Syria and is ending our war in Afghanistan. It’s amazing the acrobatics leftists go through to try and paint Trump as a warmonger.

      1. Also, if we’re crediting Obama for drawing down troops in Iraq then maybe Trump should get credit for ending the Arab-Israeli wars and the Serbia-Kosovo conflict. He certainly had more of a hand in those than Obama had in Bush’s Iraq drawdown.

      2. But moving the embassy to Jerusalem and killing an Iranian terrorist started WW3 by inflaming the Arabs (please ignore UAE/Israel deal).

        1. 2020 surely counts as one of the 7 years of tribulations

          1. If we’ve got another 6 years like this coming up… I’m out. Homelessness seems like a great opportunity to go find a mountain cave to hermit up in for a while.

            1. Homelessness sucks big huge hairy donkey balls and I’m sorry you’re having to find that out. Persevere however, it’s probably going to get worse.

              1. I don’t have to be homelesss, I suppose, because my father has said I can come stay with him. I’m not sure “moving back in with my dad at 43” is much better for my ego, though. Heh.

                Thanks for the kind words. 🙂

                1. At least neither he nor my mother have a basement, so I can’t become a total cliche. 😉

        2. And he didn’t even run on those policies!

          Gary Johnson, OTOH, was running on the libertarian platform while saying “I guess a 100-person federal gun violence task force makes sense.” and “Maybe bakeries do have to bake gay wedding cakes in order to have liberty for all.”

          1. As someone who has been a Gary fan since he was my governor, I was pretty depressed by his trying to cater to the mainstream on that sort of BS.

          2. Speaking of, I wonder how much trouble a bakery would get in for advertising that it explicitly will bake cakes for gay weddings, but just in a really offensive fashion.

            1. Goddamnit, Reason.

              “WE MAKE SODOMITE WEDDING CAKES! FAGGOTS WELCOME! GIVE US GAY MONEY!”

              1. Each you fifteen dollar! We bake you big gay wedding cake! Me so horny!

                1. Exactly. I mean, they’re not discriminating, right? They’re loudly proclaiming their willingness to bake the cake. They’re just doing it in a fantastically rude fashion.

              2. You got boyfriend?

    7. Start getting paid every month online from home more than $15k just by doing very simple and easy job from home. Last month i have earned $17954 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day using my laptop. I am now a good online earner. Get this job you guys also and start earning money online right now by follow detailsHere══════❥❥❥❥❥ Read more

  2. Does it matter if a Scotus is personally keen on some wars? and the rest of the list is just people ENB doesn’t like which seems like a plus to me.

    1. Possibly, I would have liked to have seen a lawsuit brought before the court stopping Obama’s illegal war in Libya. I’d like for the power to declare war to be returned to its proper place in Congress.

      1. All our wars should be zero US death “wars” like Libya. Of course only the imbecile conservative parade equates Libya with Iraq or Vietnam.

        1. Well I’m not a conservative (I voted for the asshole in 2008) and I’ve not equated it to either. Now do you think Obama had the legal authority to invade Libya?

        2. As long as it leads to a global “refugee” crisis, amirite?

        3. Libertarians (really pedos) for bombing of other countries!

        4. Yes, that was brilliant foreign policy win for the Obama administration: rewarding Kadafi for actively and verifiably surrendering his nuclear weapons program by killing him and plunging his country into the stone age, triggering a humanitarian crisis and tearing up American credibility in the process.

          1. Smart power at its best.

        5. All our wars should be zero US death “wars” like Libya.

          Christopher Stevens would like a word with you.

        6. “All our wars should be zero US death “wars” like Libya”

          Is this a parody? You are absolutely craven in your hypocrisy.

          Let’s step over the fact that, you know, there were in fact US Deaths in Libya, you Ambassador ignoring asshole.

          Let’s step aside from that because right up above that you were positively GIDDY to point out that Trump’s Dronetastic exuberance was stronger than Obama’s. So when Obama bombs people into the stone age, that’s awesome because its a Zero death war. But if Trump does the same thing, he is a warmonger? Pick one side, asshole.

          1. Pick one side, asshole.

            He has! He’s against Trump. Come on, that seemed obvious.

        7. All children should go unraped too. But then, there’s you.

        8. The pedo probably likes the Libya action because it’s provided a source of child mail-order slaves.

        9. Yes, what a smashing success Libya was.

          The destabilization, the haven for Extremists, the open-air slave markets, the refugee flotillas to Italy, the knowledge that no one will ever voluntarily walk back their Nuke program ever again after MQ being double-crossed

        10. Yes, fighting proxy wars that destabilize countries and fuel new terrorism is the right way to avoid US casualties. Other than the US casualties, generally civilians, that are killed by the new terrorist it created. Fuck that was one of your stupidest takes yet. A better solution would be none of those examples are how war should be fought. Wars should only be fought if we have a vested interest and the will to win. Avoiding casualties is actually one of the contributing factors to how we fucked up in Iraq and Afghanistan (and arguably Vietnam). This mindset usually results in longer conflicts and more casualties for everyone involved.

        11. “Only…conservatives…”? No, libertarians also note that the unprovoked attack killing countless Libyans counts because people murdered matter, even if not American. Explain how that makes us “imbeciles”.

    2. I would love to see Joe’s list of people chosen based on gender and race.

      1. That’s a fair ask. If Trump has put out a list, Biden should, too.

  3. ENB is up early to be mad.

    1. No joke. You’d think she had a crush on Hawley. It’s nice seeing Reason decide to become Salon.

    2. ENB refuses to join the Trump Cult.

      BURN HER!

      1. Is the Trump Cult political supporters, or the ones that ascribe to him the powers of a demiurge?

        1. Hey, Trump’s urges are perfectly normal size.

          1. The biggest! The best!

      2. It’s not her refusal to join the Trump Cult that makes me think she’s a witch deserving of being burned at the stake as much as her unrepentant support of near- and full-term abortions as well as her overt sympathies for mothers who murder their pre-adolescent children.

        And I said as much before Trump ran for office.

    3. Do you think she has editorial direction to write like a hysterical college sophomore poly sci major?

      1. Has she been visibly sanctioned, reassigned, or fired? No? Then she’s doing what her bosses want.

        If Reason is going to turn into Salon (L), at least bring in Cary Tennis. His columns were often entertaining, in the midst of the site’s spittle. And I see, following up on his wiki, that he got fired by Salon in 2013. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Tennis

        Where does the time go?

    4. excepting the three Senators (which is obvious political pandering and no way will they get the nod), I can safely the assume the rest of this list is full of options that range from pretty ok to great. Just based on the fact that 1. Trump’s list of nominees previously was like that and 2. He’s not Biden and 3. ENB don’t like it.

  4. And so it begins?

    A hopeful sign that people have had enough of this pandemic nonsense.

    1. Looks like a scene from Portland.

      1. ???

        Nothing was on fire.

        1. Probably because the cops know their place in Spain.

          1. Which is not kneeling to the protesters and having prosecutors who will actually prosecute crimes?

          2. You burned my building down because you have a bad relationship with cops?

        2. Speaking of which, it seems antifa-BLM is proceeding with their plan to burn everything down by lightning the I-5 corridor between Portland and Seattle on fire

          1. What Nardz said. There’s at least one riot attendee shithead in custody, and cops are looking for several others accused of setting several, by now very large, forest fires.

            Hanging would be appropriate, if it were proven they caused these fires.

          2. Wait, what? They’re setting forest fires? I thought they were generally supposed to be environmentalists.

            Gah. That’s just evil.

    2. This never would have happened under Franco.

      1. James or Dave? I didn’t even know they were Hispanic. I like their movies even better now that I know they’re persons of color.

      2. Which might help explain why its allowed to happen here. Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it, maybe these cops have learned.

    3. I was just impressed the cops didn’t draw down on the people interfering with their arrest.

      Maybe the Spaniards had read about the pregnant Australian woman.

    4. There’s been some mostly peaceful protesting in Germany, also, but it hasn’t been getting much coverage here, surprisingly.

  5. ENB’s next gig will be to write for Teen Vogue. Yikes.

    1. Too deep. Perhaps Tiger Beat’s political column.

      1. HEY!

        Tiger Beat has SOME standards.

  6. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink… strive it, you HERE? learn More

  7. The boilerplate response they’re going with now is that Trump wanted to avoid a “panic”

    “TEH CARAVAN IS COMING FOR YOU!!!”
    “TEH MOOSLIMS IS COMING FOR YOU!!!!”
    “TEH ANTIFAS IS COMING FOR YOU!!!!!”
    “I wanted to avoid a panic….”

    stevemb September 09 · 06:42:27 PM

    This guy’s comment nails it.

    1. Why am I not shocked that you find the rantings of a monkey enlightening?

      1. He thinks hanging around smarter people makes him smart, too.

    2. Based on the onerous nonsense that we had to eat even after he downplayed it, he may have been on to something.

      1. Trump gaslighted you. He thinks you’re an idiot

        1. In your case, it’s a confirmation.

          1. I knew Trump was lying and gaslighting about the virus while it was happening. I didn’t need Trump’s confession to realize it was happening.

            1. Sure you did, cupcake.

            2. At the time those comments were made estimates were 2 million dead, people panic buying guns and toilet paper, and democrats telling people trump was a racist. Prior to those comments trump shut down travel and formed a dedicated task force. Fauci is on record saying trump never lied.

              What you seem to have wanted was more focus on shitty models predicting 2 million dead and panic in the streets.

              Reality is much closer to the downplayed statements. But you wanted trump to act like JFree

              1. I don’t think he’s even thought it through enough to state what he wanted Trump to actually do. He just knows Orange Man Bad!

            3. I knew Trump was lying and gaslighting about the virus while it was happening.

              Was he lying and gaslighting when he was saying it was serious or when he was saying it was no big deal?

              Correlating question:

              Were the Democrats lying and gaslighting when he was saying it was serious or when they were saying it was no big deal?

              Correlating question:

              Was Fauci lying and gaslighting when he was saying masks aren’t effective or when he was saying everyone should wear one?

    3. “TEH MOOSLIMS IS COMING FOR YOU!!!!”
      “TEH ANTIFAS IS COMING FOR YOU!!!!!”

      But he repeats himself….sorry that was mean, at least Muslims can do math

  8. …he “wanted to always play it down” because he didn’t “want to create a panic.”

    And he wants his own news network?

    1. LMAO

  9. From the start of his term to the end, Barack Obama reduced troop levels in Afghanistan by ~25K and Iraq by ~140K.

    That better be net.

    Also, red line debacle.

    1. Rather than all the weight I’ve lost, huh?

      1. “I’ve lot a thousand pounds! Ten pounds at a time. Over and over again.”

    2. It’s as vacuous as saying “From the start of his term to the end, Richard Nixon reduced troop levels in Vietnam by ~550K.”

      Actually, more so. More Americans died in Vietnam under LBJ than did under Nixon. On the other hand, more Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama’s first term than did so under every other US President in history combined.

  10. “• Trump told journalist Bob Woodward in mid-March that when it came to COVID-19, he “wanted to always play it down” because he didn’t “want to create a panic.” Trump also admitted to Woodward back in February that the new coronavirus was “more deadly than even your strenuous flu,” although the president would continue to say otherwise in public.”

    If not for Democrats intentionally murdering the elderly by sticking sick people in nursing homes for literally no reason, the numbers would be akin to an average flu season.

    1. The Democrats own 20% of those “100,000” deaths through their own direct actions. Those people didn’t have to die, they killed them. But orangemanbad.

      1. And Dr. Birx and a few others estimates the clvid death count is 25-30% lower if you change with to of. 6k deaths direct physical deaths from things like car accidents.

      2. Way more than that. If NY/NJ had the same death rate as the USA/Sweden, we’re looking at 30,000 less deaths IN JUST THOSE TWO STATES ALONE.

    2. Is ENB an anagram for Rachel Maddow? That’s who she seems to be channeling with this “article”.

      1. ENB did a good article yesterday. She had to vent today.

        1. Maybe she’s mad at daddy, or something.

          1. He told her to make him a sandwich.

        2. Credit where credit is due, the Sturgis article was pretty good.

          Now, why can’t we get consistently libertarian articles like that on this notionally libertarian site every day?

          1. Fuck, maybe I should become a Reason writer. I can’t possibly do a worse job…

            1. Do you want a squirrel shitshow? Because this is how you get a squirrel shitshow.

              1. I mean, I already hang out here voluntarily, how much worse could it get?

                (I know, I know, a very foolish question. 😉 )

            2. SQRLSY can provide you with contact info and a repetitious pep talk to help you get going.

              1. You… make a very good point that I’d probably have to stop reading the comments here. 😉

    3. The numbers don’t work on that claim. There were about 6500 nursing home deaths in New York. That’s bad but nowhere approaching the national COVID-19 death tally.

      1. It’s also a bullshit number. NY has only reported those patients who died in nursing homes, and not those who contracted it there and died in hospitals.

        1. This is the answer. If you get that barely breathing body out the door into a hospital, the death disappears into the hospital numbers.

      2. Yeah, for you to make this statement is carrying water for Team Blue in a way far worse than the way many of the folks carry water for Team Orange.

        Just google “New York Hides Nursing Home Deaths” and you will see that New York is one of the few states that chose to label nursing home deaths as only deaths that occurred in the home, and not including people who were transported from the nursing home to a hospital before dying.

        Also, feel free to go to the CDC Excess Deaths web page and look at the “Non Covid” excess deaths since the pandemic started. For some reason, there is a spike in dementia deaths ever since the pandemic began.

  11. Pardoned felon Joe Arpaio—the notoriously racist and authoritarian former elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona—gets a lesson in furries…

    #inclusion #lovewins

    1. Judging by the requester listed on Arpaio’s Cameo, the person who ordered the video may be one of them. The username: Sir Yiffs A Lot.
      “Yiff” refers to furry-related sexual content or activity, which made Arpaio’s sign-off all the more cringeworthy. 
      “As far as what animal I would like to be, I’m kind of partial to dogs,” he says after a pause, as if responding to a question included in the video request. “But I love all animals. Thanks.”

      Noted. Arpaio is preferential towards yiffing as a dogsuiter.

  12. Disney’s Mulan is “an extravagant mediocrity,” writes Reason‘s Peter Suderman.

    #antitrans #antichina

  13. Nap’s not on the short list? He won’t be happy.

    1. “Should I be on the short list?”

    2. Nap offended El Presidente by saying he should be impeached.

    3. And no Giuliani.

      1. Thank God.

        Bad enough that crim law types have no chance unless they stay on the prosecution side, but former A.G.s, temperamentally, have no business being on the Supreme Court or in the Oval Office.

  14. Cotton followed that up by tweeting: “It’s time for Roe v. Wade to go.”

    Stacking the SCOTUS with Aborto-Freaks. How libertarian!

    1. Is your definition of “Aborto-Freaks” the ones who want to kill babies or the ones who want to save their lives?

      1. The ones who want to police a woman’s body or morality.

        Always Big Gov Police State conservatives that is.

        1. This is bull***t – you’re oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything useful to the discussion

          1. Have you not met pedo?

          2. He is, but more importantly, so is Cotton.

        2. “The ones who want to police morality”

          Not murdering babies is “policing morality”, got it.

          Isn’t murdering kids counterproductive for you though, Nuttplug? There’ll be less “delicious children” for you to creep out on.

          1. I wouldn’t put some sort of weird fetus fetish past him.

        3. The ones who want to police a woman’s body or morality.

          Is this a pro-equality, two-way street? Women stop trying to police men’s bodies and moralities and we’ll stop trying to police theirs? Or is this a rather blatant power play and you’ve deluded yourself into thinking you’ll get laid more or whatever, rather than “getting aborted” by a firing squad?

          1. In practice, much of government today is policing everyone’s bodies and morality, and most people are ok with it. Abortion is one of those leftist carve outs.

    2. Even liberal scholars admit roe is a complete mess of a ruling.

      1. Don’t think Cotton’s concern is the legal details of the ruling.

        1. Look at you Mr assumptions.

          1. Tweeting “It’s time for Roe v. Wade to go.” There’s the hallmark of what we are looking for in a learned, brilliant, impartial legal mind.

      2. As was Griswold before it.

    3. The RoevWade pearl-clutchers vastly exaggerate the importance of the case.

      Abortion was not a federal crime when Roe v Wade happened. Ending Roe v Wade will not make it illegal anywhere it is currently legal.

      About 8 or 9 states may TRY to make it illegal if Roe V Wade goes down. At the time of Roe V Wade there were only 8 or 9 states where abortion was available.

      Basically, if Roe V Wade goes down then some people will be inconvenienced with a few hours drive to go get an abortion. I’m not saying this is a good state of affairs for freedoms one should have*, but it’s hardly the catastrophe abortion freaks think it iwill be. Hell, Ireland JUST LAST YEAR voted to allow abortions and those women were stuck on an island! No one thinks of Ireland as a Handmaid’s Tale dystopia up til 2019.

      So just relax abortion freaks. It turns out theres bigger more important issues that WILL have a bigger effect on people’s lives and freedoms.

  15. Has anyone aksed Herman Cain if he is better off than he was four years ago?

    1. Dunno. Anybody ask the elderly how good they did under Democrats in NYC?

  16. So, are there any people on the Potential SCOTUS Justice list that Reason does like?

    1. Well, there will be on Biden’s list.

    2. There are over on Volokh’s side of the site.

  17. “It’s terrifying.”
    ENB only made it to the 2nd sentence today before going hysterical

    1. Terror is an individual emotion, not an absolute. She can feel terrified if she wishes. It has no impact on the real world.

      1. Yeah, but do we really want to pay to read childish rants?

          1. “Read”. Seriously, you haven’t learned to not read her stuff by now? I only do it when one of you quotes something sufficiently obnoxious that I think, “No way is that a direct quote…”, and sure enough, it was.

  18. The state department destroyed documents related to Steele after the Russian story began to fall apart.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/monammysterious-destruction-evidence-related-steeles

    1. Senate intel reports interview of Steele’s handler shows a partisan and coordinated effort by Steele and others to push the story the FBI was investigating Trump. Steele described as partisan and crazy by his handler. This is prior to the FISA warrants.

      https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/09/09/supposedly_reliable_steele_acted_crazy_his_american_handler_says_peoples_ears_were_bleeding_at_the_fbi_125142.html

    2. The Russian story has not fallen apart. The Republican controlled Senate released a report on August 18th detailing the Trump campaign’s interaction with the Russians. Among items in the the report it was noted noted that campaign chair Paul Manafort was working direct with a Russian security agent.

      1. I realize you’re still heartbroken that Mueller Claus left you a stocking of coal and that the FBI got caught lying to get FISA warrants, but you really need to tone down the cope levels in your posts.

      2. Hahahahahaha… oh wow.

        I hope you stretched before attempting that reach.

      3. The walls are closing in!!!@

      4. “The Republican controlled Senate released a report on August 18th detailing the Trump campaign’s interaction with the Russians. Among items in the the report it was noted noted that campaign chair Paul Manafort was working direct with a Russian security agent.”

        Oh, you’re just so adorable. Holding on to pathetic hope like this.

        The “security agent”, Oleg Deripaska, WAS A US INTELLIGENCE INFORMANT, you God forsaken moron. The FBI was trying to entrap the Trump campaign, as per usual. And Deripaska said, quote, that the theories on his role in the campaign were preposterous,

        The Senate report, ran by useless Burr, was a joke.

      5. hey dummy. You never read the senate report. It is 900 pages. You read a few Vox headlines about the report. The report was a bunch of hand waiving to give both parties something to parrot.

        1. Did you read it? Does it matter? If Putin gave Trump the Order of Lenin you would still vote Trump, right?

          1. Did you read it? Does it matter?

            The lack of self-awareness in this statement is hilarious.

          2. You would be a great jurist in a banana Republic.

    3. Just part of their ordinary document retention policy, huh?

      I love that spoilation doesn’t seem to exist on the government side of the aisle.

  19. Kim Jong Un told Trump their friendship would ‘work as a magical force’ in personal ‘love letters,’ new Woodward book says

    It was love at first sight. The two have so much in common.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/kim-jong-un-told-trump-friendship-would-be-magical-force-2020-9

    1. turd cites businessinsider; how…………..
      Predictable.
      Now give us a link to how kiddiediddler covers the issue, you scummy piece of lefty shit.

    2. LOL, if only–you’d be a hicklib grease spot on a Georgia rock cliff instead of this low-effort shitposting.

      1. Did this end up in the wrong spot? It doesn’t seem to relate to the comment it’s a reply to.

        1. It’s a response to the continued mantra that any non-Democrat President is just like Hitler.

          1. Ah, OK. There are just so many standard idiocies that SPBP issues that it’s hard to keep up. 😉

    3. Trump didn’t give N Korea billions in cash as his predecessor did to Iran. Just sayin’.

    4. So Trump used flattery on a potential ‘client’ he was trying to cut a deal with.
      How businessman like.

    5. If only he bowed his head to maniacal dictators, like his predecessor did.

    6. It’s definitely terrible that the leader of North Korea is feeling positively towards the American president, instead of hating him.

      1. Or feeling threatened by him, as worked so well for previous administrations.

        1. We would definitely not want the psychotic paranoia of the Norks to thaw even a little.

  20. “It’s time for Roe v. Wade to go.”

    I whole-heartedly agree, Roe v Wade was an abomination. Blackmun had to stretch to find “penumbras” and “emanations” that gave us a right to privacy as a grant from government rather than simply pointing out that the Constitution didn’t say shit about abortion and therefore the federal government had no right to regulate it. It stood the Constitution on its head; the government has the right to do anything not specifically prohibited to it rather than that the government is prohibited from exercising any power not specifically granted to it. The federal government would be about 2% of its current size if we still followed that rule.

    And don’t give me that “general welfare clause” crap, the general welfare clause put a limit on those powers granted to the government, the powers granted could only be used for specific reasons. Claiming the general welfare clause gives the government unlimited powers to do whatever is in the public interest renders the rest of the Constitution a nullity, a moot point. It’s as if I let you use my car to run to the grocery store and you run off to Las Vegas and hock my car for gambling money and claim that I said you could use my car. No, I said you could use my car to run to the grocery store, that doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you please with my car. The general welfare clause works the same way, you may use these powers for this purpose, it doesn’t grant you new powers.

    1. Why are you singling out the Right to Privacy as illegitimate?

      Wingnuts like to say our right come from “Gawd/Allah”. Where is a list of these rights?

      If wingnuts want to worship Allah or some other make-believe jackass why do we have to pretend that make-believe jackass granted us our rights?

      1. “…Wingnuts like to say our right come from “Gawd/Allah”…”
        Did you find that on kiddiediddler.com, turd?

      2. How come you only advocate for the woman’s rights but not the child’s?

        There are two people involved in every abortion decision and only one stands to die as a result.

        1. Three people, actually. There is a father, who has no rights to save his child if he wanted to keep the baby to raise himself.

        2. How come you only advocate for the woman’s rights but not the child’s?

          The child has a negative right to life, not a positive one. It’s the same reason that we don’t have a right to healthcare… you can’t compel someone else to support your “right” to life. The idea of positive vs negative rights is a fundamental principle of libertarianism, but it seems that few people really understand it.

          1. That’s the best answer I’ve heard yet. It’s still abhorrent but at least there’s some reasoning behind it.

            That said, every abortion procedure counteracts that argument by deliberately destroying the baby during it’s removal.

            Realistically that argument would only hold water if:
            1. Deliberate actions of the Mother hadn’t placed the child in her womb (i.e. rape). Everyone knows what the biological purpose of sex is.
            2. All efforts not to harm the fetus were made during its removal.

            1. 2. All efforts not to harm the fetus were made during its removal.

              OK, now you’ve got an intact 3 month fetus. No womb. What’s your plan?

              Honestly seems kind of cruel to me.

              1. Are we back to pretending the argument is only regarding the first trimester? Most of the right to life people would settle for restrictions only after 20 weeks per polling

                1. I am not making that argument. I recognize that many abortions occur after the first trimester.

                  But Mother’s Lament referred to “every abortion”. Some of them would be first trimester. I’m asking what the plan there is, should we require abortion procedures to not destroy the fetus, presumably in the hopes of a, erm… “non-lethal eviction proceeding”.

                  FWIW, if we actually had artificial wombs, my philosophical position on abortion would rapidly transition to requiring such procedures.

              2. “OK, now you’ve got an intact 3 month fetus. No womb. What’s your plan?”

                I have no plan because it’s untenable, but to sustain LKII’s argument of positive rights for the mother, the child couldn’t be hurt or impinged upon while being evicted from the womb.

          2. So leo, can we kill everyone on life support or in a coma?

            1. Well you certainly couldn’t compel someone to provide life support against his will in perpetuity, if that’s what you mean.

              No, you can’t kill someone against the wishes of the person providing the life support.

          3. The child has a negative right to life, not a positive one.

            Prior to conception, I’d agree. After, it takes effort to abort. Birth certainly takes more effort, but the real “negative right to life” is at/before conception. With some prophylactics and abortifactants, it stretches into the first few days after conception (taking a pill to upset ovulation is the same as taking a pill to abort implantation). After that, to say one is an absolute ‘negative right’ and one is a ‘positive right’ is between whimsically muddled and plain wrong.

            1. It’s really more about forcing the woman to support the life that’s within her body. It takes effort to carry a baby to term as well. That’s why I think Roe’s ultimate finding is sound, but not the legal grounds on which it was found.

              The best analogy would be to say that you had a visitor within your house, one that even you invited. Are you now required to support his “right to life” even if it means providing medical care, food, etc? No, you would be perfectly within your rights to expel the visitor at any point. Even if you invite him in, it doesn’t mean that you can’t decide later that he is no longer welcome for whatever reason you choose. His right to life is only valid (in the negative sense) so much that he himself can provide what is needed to sustain life. That’s the idea with viability, and how it applies to the fetus.

              And let me say (before this goes to emotional arguments) that I think abortion is completely and utterly, morally wrong. I also believe that each person has sole dominion over his/her body and that the state imposing morality is also completely and utterly wrong. So that’s why I’m pro-choice.

              1. It’s really more about forcing the woman to support the life that’s within her body.

                She created the life and is therefore responsible for taking care of it. In the end, the pro abortion position always boils down to allowing people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. That point might be debatable in cases of rape, but that is very few abortions. In the vast majority of abortions, the woman willingly had sex knowing that it could result in pregnancy. So “forcing her to take care of the resulting child” is just making her take responsibility for her choices.

                So your analogy is fucking absurd. The baby didn’t invade her body. The women opened her legs and created the baby by her own choices.

                The only argument for abortion is that life somehow doesn’t begin until birth. That is it. If the fetus is a life, the woman can’t kill it. If it isn’t, then removing it is just another medical procedure. So either argue there is something magical about the trip down the birth canal that creates a human or forget it. Your arguments as they are are offensively stupid.

                1. The only argument for abortion is that life somehow doesn’t begin until birth.

                  You are suffering from a notable lack of creativity.

                  Your arguments as they are are offensively stupid.

                  Considering that he stated, “I think abortion is completely and utterly, morally wrong”, you are also lacking some reading comprehension.

                2. The baby didn’t invade her body.

                  Neither did my guest. I specifically said that he was invited into my house initially.

                  The only argument for abortion is that life somehow doesn’t begin until birth. That is it.

                  In your mind maybe. But that’s because you can’t argue without creating a strawman. I believe life begins at conception. Full stop. But I support abortion rights because I don’t believe that anybody has a positive right to life. Just like you don’t have a positive right to anything because that infringes on someone else’s rights by definition. Because you can’t understand that doesn’t mean that my logic is wrong.

                  By the way, I’m glad only the left brings emotion into arguments… :eyeroll:

                  1. I believe life begins at conception. Full stop. But I support abortion rights because I don’t believe that anybody has a positive right to life.

                    Except that’s a contradictory position. If you actually believe that life begins at conception, then abortion is a murderous operation at any stage of the pregnancy. It’s literally violating the NAP against a being that has done nothing wrong that would warrant the termination of its life.

                    That’s a big reason why that abortion bill in Virginia was so controversial–Northam and the bill’s author flat-out admitted that even the Magic Birth Canal Trip didn’t necessarily convey the status of “life” upon a fully-formed, healthy baby. That a woman could literally change her mind *while giving birth* and decide to have an abortion.

                    That’s ultimately what the whole abortion debate boils down to–it doesn’t have jack shit to do with “a woman’s right to choose,” and it never did. It revolves around the vague philosophical question of when life actually begins, and as long as that continues to be an open debate, there are going to be varying laws on when and how abortion can be conducted.

                    1. Would you consider an invited guest who refused to leave to be “a being that has done nothing wrong”?

                      Totally serious question, because I’m pretty solidly on team Leo here. That’s how I think about abortion as well. And I disagree with your statement of the contradiction, because I don’t consider it murder. It’s certainly a killing, but it’s the killing of an entity that is occupying space and using resources the person providing those things does not wish to provide, and at this point, there are no alternative eviction possibilities. (Northam’s nonsense notwithstanding, because if there *is* a non-lethal eviction option, it should be taken. Thus my comments above about Sci-Fi stuff like artificial wombs.)

                      Also, holding the position you state, that the fetus is a being that has done no harm, and therefore the killing of is a NAP violation, and thus murder, leads to prohibiting abortions for women who were raped and didn’t even (referring back to John’s comment about responsibility) “create the baby by her own choices”.

                      Because even if there is no doubt at all that the fathering was rape, the fetus still bears no guilt for that.

                      It would be a consistent position, but forcing women to carry the results of rape conception seems vastly cruel.

                    2. a woman could literally change her mind *while giving birth* and decide to have an abortion

                      For those who are not aware, ^this^ is the historical common law.

                      During the second reading of the Preservation of Infant Life Bill 1928 to 1929, Lord Atkin said:

                      As the noble and learned Lord has explained, the gap is that, whereas the mother of a child who kills it after it has a separate existence is guilty of what was the crime of murder and is now the lesser offence of infanticide, yet, if she kills the child in the actual course of delivery or within such a short time afterwards that it has not had and cannot be proved to have had a separate existence, it is not an offence.

                      Abortion statues came into play in the US during the late 19th century, but there was no common law precedent as evidenced from the conversation when England finally banned it. As such, there is no reason to presume a fetus is a legal person under the Constitution or that it ever could be without an amendment.

              2. The best analogy would be to say that you had a visitor within your house, one that even you invited. Are you now required to support his “right to life” even if it means providing medical care, food, etc?

                It’s not the best analogy, it’s a selectively favorable depiction. Sticking strictly with your own analogy: if a woman (or man) invited someone over to their house, decided they were an inconvenience, and then either poisoned them or paid a doctor to extricate them by force, killing them if necessary, unless the person posed a mortal threat, they would be arrested for murder.

                1. The analogy as presented is fine for the discussion of negative rights. That you want to change it in a way that makes it absurd does not make it less relevant.

                  Try arguing without the fallacy.

                2. I see that your assumption is that the visitor to my house was completely viable on his own. Let’s amend my analogy to say that he become unviable and required life support in my house. If I were to expel him from my house he would certainly die (as is the case of a non-viable fetus, by definition.) Would I still not have the right as the sole dominion over my property to expel such an unwanted guest? What moral authority do you or the government or even the unwanted guest have to say that his “right” to life can required action on my part? That is the essence of a positive right and generally speaking is incompatible with the core of libertarianism.

                  1. Well, the CDC says you’re not allowed to evict non-paying renters because of COVID, so, apparently they at least think they have it.

                    1. So much for a career writing for Reason. You have a sense of humor and are actually funny.

              3. The best analogy would be to say that you had a visitor within your house

                You don’t even need an analogy. The fetus is a literal parasite. Any assertion that a parasite has a right to the resources of its host is abhorrent.

                1. I agree, but of course I was trying to keep emotion out of the argument as much as possible. I see by the responses above that I failed in doing that.

                2. You don’t even need an analogy. The fetus is a literal parasite.

                  Oh, for Christ’s sake–by this logic, any kid that can’t fend for itself without the help of its parents is a parasite.

                  At which point do you consider the fetus, or baby, if you will, to no longer be a parasite?

                  1. any kid that can’t fend for itself without the help of its parents is a parasite.

                    Again, saying “by this logic”, and making an absurdly exaggerated point is not an argument, it is a fallacy. Your claim is also spurious once the umbilical cord is severed. A child that is not consuming your body’s resources is not a ‘literal parasite’. It might feel like it when they ask for an allowance, but even infants are only figuratively parasites.

                    That being said, the answer to your question is obvious. A fetus is no longer a parasite once it is no longer attached to the host. Once separated, if it is viable, I would consider it disingenuous to call it a fetus. At that point, it is a baby.

                    1. There’s no more “absurdly exaggerated statement” than comparing a fetus, or full-term baby, to “an invited guest who won’t leave.”. That kind of false analogy is what makes the argument absurd. One has agency, the other doesn’t.

          4. The idea of positive vs negative rights is a fundamental principle of libertarianism, but it seems that few people really understand it.

            Thank you!

            This is simple summation of the point I was trying to argue yesterday that the COVID lockdowns have always been inherently un-libertarian. Those who want to cry ‘NAP!’ to insinuate a responsibility to participate in the ‘public safety theater’ are asserting a negative right to be protected from exposure. It is particularly insidious when they already have a positive right to stay inside and avoid any exposure.

            https://reason.com/2020/09/09/gop-skinny-coronavirus-stimulus-500-billion-dead-on-arrival/#comment-8450926

      3. He didn’t say that Right to Privacy is illegitimate. He’s saying that Roe is BS for deciding that government has to grant us a right to privacy. The Constitution is a limit on government, not the people.

        Alternately, Roe could have decided that the right to privacy is listed right there in the 9th Amendment. Of course that would require SCOTUS to acknowledge that the 9A actually exists.

        There’s no need to bring God or any creator into the discussion of natural rights. You would think a libertarian such as yourself would understand that.

      4. Why are you singling out the Right to Privacy as illegitimate?

        you have is so wrong you poor soul.

        You don’t need to seek out a hidden “right to privacy” amid the “penumbras” because there is no enumerated power to violate it anyway! But the progressives and technocrats can’t allow that kind of reading of the constitution because it would sweep away vast swaths of the federal apparatus. Hence the laughable “penumbras” and “emanations” that somehow only allow for a 3rd trimester abortion but yet do NOT allow you buy medicine you need without a permission slip.

        Think on it.

    2. You’re mixing shit up. Roe v. Wade prevents state govts or a federal Congress from regulating abortion.

      1. Roe v. Wade prevents state govts or a federal Congress from regulating abortion.

        Dumbshit Strazele doesn’t realize that plenty of states have abortion restrictions.

      2. You’re fucking retarded. Roe allowed for abortion regulations dumbfuck. See third trimester regulations.

      3. You’re missing my point – Blackmun had to find something in the Constitution that prohibited the regulation of abortion rather than simply pointing to the fact that the Constitution was silent on the matter and therefore it had no power to regulate. He took it as a given that the government is allowed to do anything it wants as long as it’s not specifically prohibited from doing so – which is the exact opposite of how the Constitution is supposed to work.

        And fuck Tom Cotton and his “we must repeal Roe v Wade” bullshit. We don’t have to repeal Roe v Wade, there’s a perfectly fine provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to set the jurisdiction of the Court, all Congress need do is pass a law outlawing abortion and add a provision that this law is not reviewable by the Court.

        Know why they don’t do that? Because #1, the majority of the American people would not support such a law and they know it, and B), the GOP has a ready-made campaign issue railing endlessly and impotently against Roe v Wade and who wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg by actually getting rid of it? This “opposition” to Roe v Wade is wholly political theater played out just for the cash and every politician knows it. They just trust that you’re too stupid to know it.

        1. OR… the Republicans could simply follow the Constitution that they claim to strictly enforce and amend it to outlaw abortion. Rather than ramming more government down our throats they could try respecting the consent of the governed and convince 2/3 of reps and 3/4 of the states.

          1. and the liberals could do the same the other way. Why blame one side?

            1. Because you have it completely backwards. The constitution limits government actions, not the people themselves. The government action in question is the ability to regulate abortion. The people action is the abortion. See the difference? So the onus is on the government to petition the people for expansion of their power, not the people to petition for expansion of their rights.

              That’s the overall point that Jerry is trying to make. Not surprisingly, you fall on the side of government power when it fits your moral worldview. Most people without principles do.

              1. And you have principles?
                Ok.
                To what extent is it the government’s role to enforce the NAP? To protect rights?
                Because abortion absolutely violates the NAP, and is a denial of rights.
                Which is not to say that it’s the government’s role to make that illegal. So are there other violations of the NAP and rights that the government doesn’t have a rightful role in protecting/enforcing?
                That answer has a strong bearing on your claim to principles.

                I’m personally pro abortion. I’ve stated it many times. I don’t value human life absolutely. But I’m man enough to call it what it is – violent homicide – and not try to pretend I have some absolute moral righteousness propping me up.
                Don’t be a little bitch hiding from the responsibility of your own positions then whine about principles

                1. It’s not a violation of the NAP, that was the argument being made above. The woman has a right to both privacy and dominion over her own body. Whose rights win?

                  So are there other violations of the NAP and rights that the government doesn’t have a rightful role in protecting/enforcing?

                  Absolutely. The government shouldn’t protect rights that require the coerced support of others… aka, “positive” rights. If the right to life is absolute, or even supreme in some manner, then shooting an intruder into your home is murder. Should the government protect that right to life over property rights? Should the government take money from the rich to provide health care to patients in a life or death situation, or compel a hospital to provide the care for free? If the answer to either of those questions is “no” then you at least can acknowledge that the right to life is not absolute, and that positive rights themselves are violations of the NAP.

                  A person’s dominion over their very body is the absolute expression of property rights. Why do you deny that side of the equation?

        2. This “opposition” to Roe v Wade is wholly political theater played out just for the cash and every politician knows it. They just trust that you’re too stupid to know it.

          Um, this.

          1. And they are probably (certainly?) right.

        3. He took it as a given that the government is allowed to do anything it wants as long as it’s not specifically prohibited from doing so – which is the exact opposite of how the Constitution is supposed to work.

          Hear! Hear! Someone gets it.

    3. “It stood the Constitution on its head; the government has the right to do anything not specifically prohibited to it rather than that the government is prohibited from exercising any power not specifically granted to it.”

      Of course the reason he did this was because Abortion wasn’t illegal at the federal level, it was mostly illegal at the state level.

    4. Blackmun had to stretch to find “penumbras” and “emanations” that gave us a right to privacy as a grant from government rather than simply pointing out that the Constitution didn’t say shit about abortion and therefore the federal government had no right to regulate it

      ^This . 100x this. The right to privacy is of course valid because the constitution doesnt’ explicitly give the federal government the right to violate it. Any powers NOT enumerated are NOT there.

      But they wanted to protect the rest of their technocratic control apparatus (see FDA, drug war, OSHA, etc) so they had to come up with a torturous reading with “penumbras”

    5. Seriously everybody on both sides of the argument needs to actually read Roe. I have and it is a complete shitshow. You can still be pro choice or pro life or whatever you want to be but stop pretending that this pile of crap is the sermon on the mount.

    1. BLM tells scientists “Ya’ll need Jesus.”

        1. Well, we all know that Jesus was a socialist.

    2. Fundie-Nuts canceled Charles Darwin a long time ago.

      1. “Fundie-Nuts canceled Charles Darwin a long time ago.”
        Did you find that on kiddiediddler.com, turd?

    3. Darwin was racist to some extent, in the same manner as most highly educated Westerners in his day. And his theory of Natural Selection (he didn’t invent evolutionary theory) was used in part to justify the field of Scientific Racism later on.

      That doesn’t diminish his accomplishments or make Natural Selection itself inherently racist, however.

      1. But the fact that Darwin was a white male is certainly enough to call Natural Selection racist.

      2. or make Natural Selection itself inherently racist

        Actually, it is inherently racist. Without NS, there are no races, with NS, race. Ergo, inherently racist.

        1. The current science on ‘race’ shows that it doesn’t exist. There are no subspecies of humans. The notable differences in ‘race’ are akin to heritable traits passed along in families and only exist due to millennia of isolation among limited breeding populations.

          Genghis Khan wins.

          1. The current science on ‘race’ doesn’t say anything of the sort; a couple of sociologists, a few media personalities and “Science Guy’s” like Bill Nye claim that.

            1. “Races” aren’t subspecies. In fact the whole species concept is on tenuous ground thanks to recent discoveries of multiple hybridization events in the history almost every “species” on the planet. Races aren’t phenotypic either, but rather endogamous groups that have been isolated from other groups for a set amount of time.

            2. There are four groups that can be considered races:

            – The first group, the Southern African Hunter Gatherers, are the beautiful Khoi and San peoples of Southern Africa who broke away form the rest of us 200,000 years ago.

            – The second split away 150,000 years ago. These are the Central African foragers, and include the Mbuti.

            – The third are the West Africans and include the Bantu. They split from the last group 80,000 years ago.

            – The forth race are the least genetically diverse, but the most phenotypically diverse. The Eurasians hybridized with the Neanderthals and Denisovans and became the North Africans and East Africans, the Australian Aboriginals and the Swedes, the Chinese and the Arabs, the Amazon Indians and the Sri Lankan’s.
            They look very different but have very little genetic variation compared to the Southern African Hunter Gatherers.

  21. Your standard dose of TDS and ***OMG!!!***, but someone made a mistake and snuck in a real issue:

    “US report warns climate change could create economic chaos”
    […]
    “CFTC Chairman Heath Tarbert, a Republican, struck a different tone on the report, emphasizing the potential disruption caused by the shift to cleaner energy.
    “The subcommittee’s report acknowledges that ‘transition risks’ of a green economy could be just as disruptive to our financial system as the possible physical manifestations of climate change, and that moving too fast too soon could be just as disorderly as doing too little too late,” Tarbert said in a statement…”
    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/09/business/climate-change-economy-cftc-report/

    Strangely enough, it took searches of 3 sources before I found one which hadn’t left that nugget out.

    1. Ironically, the truth is eventually there will likely be total green energy use across the globe and most likely it will happen on it’s own, with no disruptions, as it becomes more and more economically viable.

      No need to technocratic masters to design the transition. it will happen on its own and in fact its the only it can happen without a big disruption. Central planners can ONLY fuck it up.

      1. it will happen on it’s own, with no disruptions, as it becomes more and more economically viable.

        So why does it need to happen now? So the ‘good guys’ get to decide who reaps (rapes?) the economic rewards.

      2. Central planners can ONLY fuck it up.

        They have, consistently, by advancing green energy. From well before peak oil to nuclear to fracking and gas power, they have *consistently* fucked it up. If the regulators disappeared tomorrow the green energy revolution you seem to think is inevitable would evaporate.

        1. Plenty of people, including those around here, predicted this. Nothing meaningful, measurable, or in any way conforming to their expectations and demands would change with regard to the climate or emissions and watermelons would just declare victory and hang the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner. Moreover, in order to continue existing in polite society and as part of the conversation, they have to. Otherwise, it just becomes too easy for people to identify you as something between chicken little and your run of the mill “The End Is Nigh!” kook.

      3. Well, the people who want to take credit for saving the world just will not have it that way.

        I mean, you have to kill manbearpig, not let him die of old age. Sheesh.

  22. 04/07/2020 09:12 pm ET Updated Apr 08, 2020
    Trump Defends His Weeks Downplaying Coronavirus: I’m A ‘Cheerleader’
    “I don’t want to create havoc and shock and everything else,” the president said. “I obviously was concerned about it.”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-coronavirus-cheerleader_n_5e8d0872c5b6e1a2e0fb7aeb

    “The cases really didn’t build up for a while, but you have to understand, I’m a cheerleader for this country,” Trump said during a daily coronavirus briefing at the White House. “I don’t want to create havoc and shock and everything else. But ultimately, when I was saying that, I’m also closing it down. I obviously was concerned about it.”

    Trump, asked by @benstracy about early statements downplaying COVID-19: “You have to understand, I’m a cheerleader for this country. I don’t want to create havoc and shock…I’m not gonna go out and start screaming, ‘This could happen, this could happen’”

    — CBS News (@CBSNews) April 7, 2020

    1. https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/1303745797675192325

      He all but said he did this and then explained in detail why he did it in a series of nationally televised press conferences, I don’t get how this has all been memory holed and not just at the WH

  23. https://twitter.com/USSANews/status/1303813303097909248

    Kindergarten Principal Fired For Pole Dancing During Welcome Ceremony

    1. https://twitter.com/NewYorker/status/1303653368829747201

      “Cuties,” which has angered scandal-mongers on the right, is the story of a girl’s outrage at, and defiance of, a patriarchal order.

      1. https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1303621504601657346

        Cuties on Netflix is too moving a film to be marred by one bad-taste poster

        1. https://twitter.com/GhostJim4/status/1303843324344897537

          No more clips but here is what else happens:

          – an 11 year old girl takes a photo of her vagina and posts it online
          – the 5 young girls take a turn at webcam porn
          – a young girl tries to take a photo of a schoolboys penis
          – an 11 year old girl finds a used condom and blows it up

          1. an 11 year old girl takes a photo of her vagina and posts it online

            ARREST THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHER!

          2. So is this sbp’s favorite show?

        2. Shriek must be excited that his fetish is being pushed into the mainstream now.

          1. No, because it’s girls, not boys.

    2. Followed by a boost in fathers attending school meetings.

  24. https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1304000828303437824

    Tucker Carlson slammed CNN, Chris Cuomo and disbarred lawyer Michael Cohen Wednesday night while playing leaked audio of Cuomo coaching Cohen on what questions the network would be asking and how to answer them during scheduled interviews.

    1. I read this transcript. Tucker made a mistake. It doesn’t make a lick of sense to call this ‘coaching’. Tucker should have called it ‘scripting’.

      Cohen is not smart, but did manage to graduate from law school and practice law. He can’t possibly need advice from Cuomo to answer questions. The only way this makes any sense is if Cuomo is informing him of the only answers that will be allowed to air. Meaning that if Cohen varies from the script Cuomo is giving him, Cohen doesn’t get his free publicity and probably a check.

      Meaning that this is not journalism. Cuomo (and CNN) are exposed as pure propagandists. ‘Coaching’ implies this, but it needs to be said outright.

      1. This has been clear for years. Journalists get to the truth. These people repeat propaganda because that’s what they are paid to do.

  25. https://twitter.com/thenation/status/1304015017914839046

    Biden’s short-sighted pursuit of Republican hawks means that the only major party presidential candidate who can speak to popular anti-war sentiment is Trump.

  26. Trump told journalist Bob Woodward in mid-March that when it came to COVID-19, he “wanted to always play it down” because he didn’t “want to create a panic.” Trump also admitted to Woodward back in February that the new coronavirus was “more deadly than even your strenuous flu,” although the president would continue to say otherwise in public.

    And we’re supposed to take this as important news when obviously it wasn’t important enough to bother mentioning at the time? If you didn’t mention it then, why are you mentioning it now?

    That’s a rhetorical question, of course, we all know goddamn well why an old story is suddenly coming to light, it’s the same reason a two-year old story about Trump calling our dead veterans “suckers” and “losers” is suddenly fresh news. And it’s the same reason we’re going to be hearing fresh new “bombshell” reporting on old stories about once a week from now until the election.

    And as long as Republicans are distracted into playing defense on this obvious bullshit it will work, too. They need to just “Fake News” this obvious fake news and focus on attacking Biden and the socialists, don’t play their game. But Republicans are stupid, they’re going to spend all their time refuting obvious bullshit just as the Democrats want them to, they can’t help themselves.

    1. “…why are you mentioning it now?…?

      60 days and counting…

      1. Take your Droxy Sevo. You’re cranky again.

        1. Did you find that on kiddiediddler.com, turd?

  27. Well Peanuts, it’s been nice chatting with you in the Trump Daily Cult Chat Room but I have to go to work (unlike you SSDI soaking sponges). Later.

    1. It takes a lot to make me with the Reverend was here. At least he originated the schtick you’re copying so.

    2. checking out to spend the day on kiddiediddler.com, turd?

    3. Have a good day at the boiler room. Always nice to talk to the Biden cultists.

  28. Cotton followed that up by tweeting: “It’s time for Roe v. Wade to go.

    At least he hasn’t suggested any actual written amendments go.

  29. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/09/09/did-a-math-error-lead-to-the-never-ending-covid-19-lockdowns-n908436

    Fauci used the IFR to describe the seasonal flu and the H1N1 pandemic. He used the CFR to describe COVID-19. This error led him to estimate that COVID-19 would be ten times deadlier than the flu, which drove public policy. Brown also called out the classification error of referring to all positive tests as “cases.” This error is constant in the media. It is also misleading given recent reporting from The New York Times about the significant oversensitivity of the PCR test.

    …The conflation of CFR and IFR at the outset of the pandemic was a mistake that likely cost billions of dollars and an untold number of lives when we consider increases in suicide and deaths from undetected diseases, which will lag. The public health apparatus owes the country an answer on this and an assurance it won’t happen again.

    1. “The public health apparatus owes the country an answer on this and an assurance it won’t happen again.”

      The leftist controlled public health apparatus, and the leftist controlled “news media” did not make a mistake. This particular illness was strategically selected for the fascist revolution not because it is/was more virulent or deadly than all past pandemics, but because TRump is president and makes a better background for the massive violation of constitutional rights by leftist politicians everywhere. If it doesn’t succeed in a full take over of the legislature and executive this time, it will happen again and again until it succeeds.

    1. Not a real story. You buy into your own narrative so deep you didn’t realize that the Babylon Bee is a parody site.

      1. Everyone knows the Bee is satire, dumbass.

        1. Not Scopes, which spends a lot of time trying to debunk it.

              1. So, once, not “a lot of its time”.

                (Once is embarrassing, admittedly.)

                1. No, they’ve kept at it since then.

            1. ^this was my favorite of their recent work

              1. I laughed pretty hard at it. The one I posted above about political parties just made me sigh really hard. Funny, but too accurate. :-/

      2. Do you work for snopes?

      3. Boogerlilly then led a protest outside a nearby power station. After the power company failed to respond to 3 hours of chanted slogans, the protest turned into a riot. The angry rioters then climbed the fence and burned the power plant down.

        I’m… not 100% convinced this is satire. Need more proof.

  30. 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 here.

  31. Furries: It is a sexual fetish. Okay, not all of it, but a massive chunk of it is. I once helped set up a tech developers conference at the same time the previous hotel’s conference was packing up. That previous convention was a furry convention. The attendees has mostly left, and the exhibitors were packing up. What were they packing up? Anatomically correct animal dildos, an artist who drew custom porn portraits of your characters, etc.

    Now as long as they are getting signed consent forms from the animals they are raping, I’ve got no issues. But it’s still a weird ass sexual fetish and they should shop feeling shame and start getting proud of their kink.

    1. Shame is sometimes good.

    2. I’m sad that I know this, but there’s a difference between furries and bestialists. (Ok, I’m pretty sure that’s the wrong word, but whatever.) People into bestiality fuck animals. Furries fuck other people who are dressed as animals, generally anthropomorphized ones. While, yes, sometimes wearing strap-ons or sheathes designed to look like animal penises.

      I may have been on the internet too long.

      1. This comment is going to come back to haunt you.

        1. Nothing can possibly haunt me worse than the things I’ve seen on 4chan.

          1. Why would you do that to yourself?

            1. I didn’t know better yet.

      2. Zooaphiles is the term your looking for.

        1. Thank you! Yes. Dangit, I knew that, and just couldn’t think of it.

    3. Sounds like a gold mine for dry cleaners.

  32. https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/09/10/latest-news-130/

    As we’ve seen before in this paper, at some point epidemiologists started to define success for their predictions as “matches what other epidemiologists predict” instead of “matches reality”. This probably occurred because their theories are incomplete and produce predictions that deviate significantly from what really happens (see: BSE, Foot and Mouth Disease, Zika and COVID). But it seems nobody knows how to improve them. Dangerous virus outbreaks are rare and experiments can’t be conducted, so there are few opportunities to refine the theories. Rather than admit defeat and switch to doing something else until new ideas emerge, epidemiologists have developed a series of highly evolved (but wrong) arguments as to why they are doing useful work.

    Ferguson states: “For those who believe that discovering a fatal flaw in this code might bring the the scientific support for lockdown tumbling down, I’m sorry break it to you to that other (notably LSHTM) academic groups informing SAGE in March used completely different models to reach nearly identical conclusions to our Report 9 in March.”

    …That is indeed a nearly identical conclusion. Yet we know from counter-examples where “extreme measures” weren’t used that ICU capacity was never exceeded at all, and there was no “very large number of deaths”. So this paper is just as scientifically invalid as Ferguson’s was. It actually reinforces the point that there is no scientific support for lockdown, only pseudo-scientific support using non-validated models and theories – theories that were disproven over the summer. Actual scientists compare their predictions against the real world, and if the predictions are wrong they refine their theories. (As Richard Feynman said: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”) This last step is missing in epidemiology, where for decades academics have been declaring success regardless of observed outcomes, even though their theories/models are general and hardly altered for new viruses.

    What of his claim that the LSHTM model is “completely different”? The code is different, and of somewhat higher quality. The assumptions it makes are not really different. It’s another minor elaboration of an age-stratified SEIR model. For example, it assumes a totally susceptible population, which appears not to be true. Indeed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is “novel” seems to be at the root of many of the incorrect decisions to lockdown.

    He finishes by saying, “The key conclusion… hinged only on estimates of R0/doubling time, hospitalisation rates and IFR (mortality risk). Given those estimates, any epidemic model would give basically the same conclusions we reached.”

    This is a surprising assertion. Rephrased, his conclusions could have been worked out on the back of a napkin, as “any” model would give the same conclusions given just three variables. Therefore it didn’t require 15,000 lines of code or any particular expertise to do his job. Literally “any” model would agree. He also seems to be disclaiming responsibility for the correctness of the data he uses.

    1. Also, the lockdowns themselves seem to have actually made things worse.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890

      Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads.

    2. It’s called “SWAG” – a scientific wild-ass guess. As long as you throw enough math in there to make the average person’s eyes glaze over (which frankly isn’t much at all) you can bullshit people into believing that you’re sciencing rather than just pulling numbers out of your ass. Start mentioning coefficients and standard deviations and logarithmic functions and you might as well be playing the old “got your nose” trick on a gullible public. It’s all bullshit.

      1. The whole concept of a model is a chicken and the egg problem anyway. For the model to be accurate, you have understand the underlying phenomenon. But understanding the underlying phenomenon is usually the whole point of building the model.

        So, the way it should work is you start off with a SWAG of a model, compare it to reality and then start adjusting it to fit the results in the real world and hopefully over time come up with a model that reflects reality. So, the idea that they could accurately model the spread of a new virus immediately was always absurd. The virus was knew. They didn’t fully understand how it spread and couldn’t and still can’t answer basic questions about it like whether asymptomatic people can transmit it, how big of a virus load is required to transmit it, and a lot of other things. So of course their models were garbage. There is no way they could not have been.

        I don’t blame them for having bad models. I blame them and think they deserve to be shot for selling models that any sensible person should have known were SWAGs as some kind of the gospel truth.

      2. My initial SWAG (based on the early cruise ship data and past epidemic history) was that 20% of the country (60M) would be exposed, and 0.5% of those exposed (300K) would die. Which is turning out to be a lot more accurate than all of the epidemiologists put together.

  33. For those trying to figure out whether President Trump will be reelected, I’m looking a three factors (in no particular order).

    1) Gallup surveys on trust in the media, particularly in regards to independents.

    Two weeks before President Trump won in 2016, Americans’ trust in the media hit new lows. Because the media was talking about little else but candidate Trump at the time, it was hard to interpret that as anything but the American people’s opinion of how they were covering candidate Trump.

    As things stood in February of 2020, before the coronavirus hit, 71% of Republicans, 22% of Democrats, and 52% of independents had an unfavorable view of the news media.

    https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-2020-trust-media-and-democracy/

    As we approach the election and the news coverage becomes increasingly partisan, we should probably expect those numbers to worsen. Does anyone imagine the coverage of the coronavirus, the riots, or the Trump campaign has been such in recent weeks that we should assume the opinion of the news media among independents has improved or is likely to improve between now and November?

    2) Since 1928, the performance of the S&P 500 between three months before the election to the date of the election has correctly predicted the winner of the presidential election 87% of the time.

    If the S&P 500 does well over that period, the incumbent usually wins, which makes sense. If consumer confidence increases over that period of time, chances are both earnings and investor confidence are increasing. Swing voters are consumers, too, and if things are going well, they typically reward the incumbent. This statistic also predicted Trump’s win in 2016, when the S&P 500 was down from three months ahead of the election.

    Three months before the election would be August 3, 2020, when the S&P 500 was at 3,294. As of yesterday, the S&P 500 closed at 3,399.

    3) Trump’s performance in the debates.

    If Trump cleans Biden’s clock like he did Hillary’s in 2016, he’s likely to win, and the day before Trump defeated Hillary in the debates was the day they the “pussy grabbing” video hit the airwaves. Don’t be surprised to see them using October surprises again this time. Expect that they will throw a world of shit at Trump over the coming weeks. They did it last time, too, and Trump was unflappable.

    1. >>throw a world of shit

      the Bob Woodward Plan is borderline Weekend at Bernie’s at this point.

      1. They’re out of material. They threw everything they had at Trump in 2016, and the “grab them by the pussy” tape was the absolute worst they could find. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if they brought that back out as their October surprise.

        1. Trump has shown that the one possible “inoculation” against the current combination of wokeness and pervasive social media/recording of everything anyone of note ever does is to simply be unrepentant. Trump says and does things that no one else in a position like his has been able to get away with for the past 20 years not because he is so much worse than anyone else, it’s just everyone else pretends to be someone they’re not and gets felled by the first credible accusation of their being a big meanie head who likes boobies. Trump gives zero fucks. Once he made it through the “grab ’em…” comments and still won the freaking presidential election, there aren’t many things he could say that would shock anyone. Trump is unique among current politicians in that he is a successful white male who likes the things that successful males have always liked and behaves like they have always behaved and doesn’t apologize for it. THAT is the reason for his popularity among the working class as much as anything else- it’s not about taxes or jobs or guns. It’s the fact that he is who he is and doesn’t apologize, and doesn’t think they should have to either.

      2. Yeah, don’t get distracted by this stuff.

        Trump has a tough road to hoe because of the economy. If it weren’t for the coronavirus, he’d be cruising to a victory right now.

        If he loses, it won’t be because of Woodward’s latest book. If Gloria Allred (or someone like her) hasn’t already strung together another group of accusers to drop a bomb on him in the coming weeks, I’ll be surprised.

        If Trump loses, it’ll be because of the economy–not that the economy is his fault at this point. But life isn’t fair.

        On the other hand, the economy is likely to be better eight weeks from now than it is today.

        1. road to hoe

          It’s “row to hoe”, BTW. One does not hoe roads, but one does hoe rows of vegetables. Well, you hoe rows in order to then plant vegetables, but you know what I mean.

          1. “One does not hoe roads,”

            One can hoe roads, (or ho them, like they care about spelling) but that’s not what Ken meant. Related, when are Cardi B’s 15 minutes up?

              1. I stand corrected. 😀

        2. I keep thinking it’s going to be something Ghislaine Maxwell related. On the theory that projection is what the Modern Left does best.

          1. They’ll find something.

        3. Yeah, don’t get distracted by this stuff.

          Good luck telling that to the Republicans. This is all incredibly transparent chaff they’re throwing out here, yet the Republicans can’t help but take off chasing the chaff instead of the target.

          It’s funny because Trump is a master at trolling the Left like this, he’ll tweet some shit that just popped into his head, something he didn’t spend more than 5 seconds thinking about, and the media is off like a puppy chasing a ball that Trump only faked throwing, spending endless hours and endless amounts of print analyzing and arguing and refuting some shit Trump just threw out there as troll-bait.

          It’s the same thing here – don’t fall for the trap of trying to take a whack at the tarbaby they threw out there. It’s a ridiculous story and they don’t give a shit how ridiculous it is, the point of the story is simply to distract you from the main focus of attacking Biden and the Left. Every second you spend de-bunking this load of crap is a second you’re playing defense and you can’t win playing defense.

      3. If you don’t like the Bob Woodward plan, just wait a week or so and they’ll have a new one. Probably something involving a Trump business deal in Russia from 2004.

    2. I wonder if the S&P prediction will hold up this go around. With the covid lock-down it’s just hard to feel like your doing well when its hard to get out and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

      1. If the S&P 500 indicator were different this time, it might have been because companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google were leading the S&P 500 higher–and those shares doing well aren’t necessarily an indication that consumer confidence is returning or that people are feeling better about the security of their jobs. However, the tech portion of S&P 500 had a nice correction over the past few trading sessions.

        I think it remains the case that S&P 500 index buyers are valuing the index based on its future prospects, and that evaluation, in turn, is a function of how well American consumers are doing at the time. Surely, there’s no reason to think that Trump’s chances of reelection don’t improve if the unemployment rate continues to go down and consumer confidence continues to recover. And it isn’t just retail sales and retail stocks that recover when those things are going well–everything from home construction stocks and consumer electronics companies to oil companies and car manufacturers do better as the unemployment rate improves and consumer confidence returns.

      2. on one hand you’re right. On the other hand, most of the jobless who can’t work because of lockdowns are in D controlled states. It’s their D guvs who are screwing them and literally Trump and other Republicans are calling for an end to lockdowns.

        If you’re a worker in Michigan who needs to reopen your hair salon and you hear Trump defying your shitty governor on that, i think that’s a positive for Trump.

        In less liberal states like Utah they’ve been open since June and going gangbusters.

        1. I doubt the governors in these states are pushing lock downs and school closures because they want to tank their own economies, but I think there are plenty of pundits and progressives online who are pushing lock downs and school closures for precisely that reason.

          They want the economy to tank to decrease Trump’s chances of being reelected.

          1. Projection for Men, by Calvin Klein.

            The only metric Trump has cared about during the pandemic is the DJIA. He lied about the severity of the disease. He lied to you, and many of you are still repeating his lies after he was caught red-handed lying.

            The state of the economy is his fucking fault. I wish liberals were as strategically minded as to weigh short-term economic pain for the benefit of being rid of that cancer on humanity forever, but mostly we just want what’s best for people. Do you? No, you don’t. Not one little bit.

            1. The state of the economy is his fucking fault. I wish liberals were as strategically minded as to weigh short-term economic pain for the benefit of being rid of that cancer on humanity forever, but mostly we just want what’s best for people.

              LOL–your side literally mocked people who wanted the lockdowns to end because “they needed a haircut” or “just wanted to eat out” because they put “the economy above lives. As if barbers and salon workers don’t deserve to earn a living, or that stupid false dilemma had any credence.

              You shitheads are happy to watch society burn to the ground if it means you might come out ahead in the end. It’s been that way since the French Revolution.

              1. And you have been arguing that a certain amount of dead humans is necessary to have an economy in good enough shape to re-elect Trump.

                I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you people to wrap your mind around the fact that putting incompetent people in charge means bad outcomes happen. You’re straining to blame liberals for the incompetence of Trump.

                Well guess what hotshot, we didn’t fucking vote for him.

                1. You have no right to speak for others.

                  1. Having a bad day what with all the Trump lied to you and admitted in on tape stuff?

                2. Yes, the economy should always lockdown whenever anyone is in danger of dying of anything.

  34. >>”It’s time for Roe v. Wade to go.”

    Cotton’s non-firmation hearing shortest ever.

  35. Has someone told Josh that he can’t be on the Court unless Trump appoints him?

  36. So, no Ron Paul then? Michael Badnarik?

    1. Badnarik, being, well, dead, would not be a good choice.

        1. But I think the ruse would quickly become apparent at the confirmation hearing. RBG was still alive when confirmed, at least. 😉

      1. Badnarik sends out a lot of email for someone who’s supposedly dead.

  37. Alright, now that I’ve gotten everything worthwhile from the Roundup covered, on to the comments!

  38. Trump now in the span of a month got an Arab state to establish full normalized relations with Israel and gotten Serbia and Kosovo to sign a full peace treaty.

    https://strategypage.com/on_point/2020090910164.aspx

    Trump accomplished more on the world stage in the last month than Obama and Clinton did combined in their 16 years in office. Indeed, one of the accomplishments is finally after 21 years cleaning up one of the bigger messes Clinton created.

    1. It is quite remarkable to be honest and if he had a D after his name he’d be getting tongue baths from all the media right now.

  39. Keep in mind that Triple-L (Lizzie the Lipstick Lesbian) is terrified by anyone even slightly to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

  40. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/10/2020-election-news-voters-see-trump-biden-as-mentally-unfit-to-be-president.html

    “A 51% majority said Trump is mentally unfit to be president, while 49% answered that he is fit to hold the job. A similar share, by a 52% to 48% margin, responded that Biden is mentally unfit to be president.”

    And yet our two-party system and sheep-like willingness to settle for voting for the lesser of two evils has led directly to these two being what we are offered.

    1. Yeah the problem is the two party system not gullible dumb asses like you who think anyone who disagrees with you is mentally unfit. To the extent the two party system is the problem it is the problem because the two party system has become the expression of the complete dumb assery of people like you. Your the problem shit head.

      1. Brilliant argumentation there, John.

    2. Interesting. If a majority of people think Trump is unfit to hold office and a majority of people think that Biden is unfit to hold office, it is a mathematical certainty that there must be some overlap between the two groups, some percentage of people must hold the opinion that both Trump and Biden are unfit to hold office. The reverse of this is not necessarily true, it does not follow from the information given that there must be some group of people who think that both Trump and Biden are fit to hold office. It might be interesting to see those numbers as well.

      1. I’m one example of someone who thinks they are both unfit for office.

  41. Trump didn’t want to create a panic, which is why he’s telling suburban women that black people are at the gates about to rape them and steal their houses.

    He didn’t want the stock market to dip and reduce his chances for reelection. Only survivors can vote!

    1. You see, you are talking about Twitter Trump, who is different from Interview Trump, who is different from Press Conference Trump, who is different from Trump Rally Trump. Once you understand this it explains the paradox of all the self-contradictory things he has said.

      1. I heard one recently… The problem with Trump skeptics is that we don’t get “the joke.”

        The presidency of the US is a funny joke and we’re all morons for not laughing along.

        1. Heard that many times here.

    2. When did he say that?

    3. When did he say that?

      You sure are obsessed with black people. And rape.

  42. Clinger romance at the Cruz house:

    ‘Hey, honey, remember that guy who called you a pig, and hideous, and sent that unfortunate photograph of you around, and . . .’

    ‘Yeah, yeah, Ted, I remember.’

    ‘You know, the guy I invited to a campaign rally after he called you a pig, and hideous, and . . .’

    ‘I said I remember, Ted. What’s your point?’

    ‘He just put me on a list of 60 or so people for the Supreme Court.
    Isn’t that great?’

    ‘Yeah, great, Ted. You’re the man of my dreams.’

    ‘I made sure to thank him for both of us, darling. Hey — want to celebrate by firing up The Princess Bride and cracking a can of White Claw Cucumber?’

    [to herself] ‘What the fuck did I ever do to deserve this?’

    1. Trump wants to put the son of the guy who killed JFK on the supreme court?

      1. Well, JFK was a D.

    2. [to herself] ‘What the fuck did I ever do to deserve this?’

      Arthur L. Hicklib speaks from experience.

  43. Not reading all 400+ comments, so forgive me if someone already said this, but could ENB possibly post without the sophomoric insults and trope? I mean is it hard to just report the names, without 4thvgradeblevelbinsults?

Please to post comments