Reason Roundup

Half of Republicans Say New Justice Should Be Picked by Whoever Wins the Election

Plus: Trump wants to rob TikTok to pay for "patriotic education," the CDC can't confirm any cases of airplane spread, Virginia uses new "red flag" gun law, and more...

|

Democrats and Republicans think U.S. leaders should wait to confirm a new justice. In a poll conducted over the weekend by Reuters and Ipsos, 62 percent of respondents said that picking a Supreme Court justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg—who passed away on Friday—should be left to whoever wins the presidential election in November. This was the position of around 50 percent of the Republicans polled and 80 percent of the Democrats.

It is not the position of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has said the Senate will vote on a Trump replacement nominee by the end of the year.

"There are obvious incentives for the GOP to try to ram through a nominee before the clock might run out on the current president and Senate majority," points out Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy. "If they succeed, they could transform the previous narrow 5–4 conservative majority on the Court into a much more secure 6–3 margin that could last for years to come."

What do the chattering classes think should be done?

"President Trump should promptly nominate the late Justice Ginsburg's successor, but Senators should delay a final vote on the nomination until after the election," suggests Adam J. White at The Bulwark:

If Trump wins reelection, then his victory will secure not just the new justice's appointment, but also her public legitimacy. And if Trump loses, then Senate Republicans and Democrats will have an opportunity to commit to not pack the Court, and thus to not destroy it.

It's a plan so sensible that you know party bigwigs on both sides will hate it…

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf muses about something a little more radical:

Charles C.W. Cooke wonders what all the fuss is about:

​​I must confess that, while I accept that the history is certainly on the side of filling it, I have never found this debate especially meaningful. As I wrote when Antonin Scalia died, this is an entirely straightforward question, the details of which are the same at all times within the cycle. In our system, the president gets to nominate a justice, and the Senate gets to decide whether to accept that nomination, to reject that nomination, or, if it likes, to completely ignore that nomination. This was true in 2016, and it is true now. The game requires both players. If they are both willing, the vacancy is filled. If one is not willing, the vacancy remains. And that, ultimately, is all there is to it.

Since Ginsburg's death, two GOP senators—Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have said they think the decision should be left to whoever wins the election. The Senate currently has a 53–47 Republican majority.

"The looming fight over the Supreme Court vacancy so far does not appear to have given either of the two major political parties much of an advantage in an incendiary campaign season," Reuters reports. In its recent poll with Ipsos,

30% of American adults said that Ginsburg's death will make them more likely to vote for Biden while 25% said they were now more likely to support Trump. Another 38% said that it had no impact on their interest in voting, and the rest said they were not sure.

Ginsburg's death has brought in a record amount of donations for Democrats.

"Democratic donors gave more money online in the 9 p.m. hour Friday after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was announced—$6.2 million—than in any other single hour since ActBlue, the donation-processing site, was started 16 years ago," reports The New York Times. "Then donors broke the site's record again in the 10 p.m. hour when donors gave another $6.3 million—more than $100,000 per minute."


FREE MARKETS

Donald Trump is still trying to milk the forced sale of TikTok to his own advantage. The president's latest harebrained scheme on this front is to condition permission for the deal on compelling the company helping to pay for his new public-school propaganda initiatives.

More info on Trump's proposal here. More info on the TikTok deal (now with Oracle and Walmart) here.

Meanwhile, a federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of Trump's ban on the Tencent messaging app WeChat.


FREE MINDS

Don't be too alarmed about a new study purportedly showing that airplanes are super-risky for catching COVID-19.

So far, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has "investigated 1,600 cases of people who flew while at risk of spreading the coronavirus," notes The Washington Post. "But though the agency says some of those travelers subsequently fell ill, in the face of incomplete contact tracing information and a virus that incubates over several days, it has not been able to confirm a case of transmission on a plane."

In other CDC news: At least several months after scientists, media, and the general public learned that COVID-19 is primarily spread through the air rather than infected surfaces, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is changing its COVID-19 guidance to reflect this.


QUICK HITS

• Virginia has wasted no time in stripping people of their Second Amendment rights since its new "red flag" law went into effect. "At least three dozen Virginia residents have been prohibited temporarily or permanently from having firearms or purchasing them based on a new state law letting courts decide they would be a danger to themselves or others," reports the Associated Press.

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit "recently did something that is at once simple and radical," says The Hill. The court "said the usual constitutional rules that apply to normal police all over the country also apply" to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

• Thailand sees more mass protests against the monarchy.

• The Emmys were on last night, and people won things.

• "The percentage of Americans who say they have heard 'a lot' or 'a little' about QAnon has roughly doubled" since March, reports the Pew Research Center of its latest poll findings. "Democrats are somewhat more likely to have heard at least a little about these theories than Republicans (55% versus 39%, respectively)."

• Five ways that Justice Ginsburg's death will affect the Supreme Court before her successor is confirmed.

• A headline you probably didn't expect to see at the start of the year: "DOJ Designates New York City as an 'Anarchist Jurisdiction.'"

Advertisement

NEXT: Joan Biskupic Recounts "20 Years Of Closed-Door Conversations" with RBG

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. Half of Republicans Say New Justice Should Be Picked by Whoever Wins the Election

    Appeasement always works.

    1. The politicization of SCOTUS is clearly the GOP’s fault. Both sides.

        1. I have had my child laborers working over time making more tear barrels and wood chippers.

          We are going to need more in the coming months.

          1. Barrels won’t be enough. We’ll need pipelines.

            1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

              Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

        2. Fucking hilarious….and it fits her to a fucking T.

          1. I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing HERE? Read More

          2. Making extra cash by doing very easy and simple work online. Start making more than $18,000 every single month simply doing online work from home in your desired time. Easy to do online work and income from this are just amazing. Everybody can get this online job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions on this page……..

            ➙➙➙ Read More

        3. The thing that really gets me about all of these…

          These people took the video themselves. Then had a moment to consider… and then posted it online to the world.

          What in the ever-loving hell? How could anyone think that this makes them look better in any way?

          1. Millennials and Zoomers don’t do privacy, Cyto.

            It boggles me too.

            1. Some of us do.

              But we’re unknown…

        4. Wow, check out that virtue signaling. Hardcore. I suppose that’s one way to make the sea levels rise.

    2. other polls show the opposite (see below) ENB just picked the one she liked the best.

      1. What Jesse said. For many people, the whole point of appointing Trump was so that they could get their picks on the Supreme and lower courts. Why waste this opportunity? Especially since Trump has to win AND the GOP has to hold the Senate, in order for this opportunity to survive past the Election.

        The Democrats, and their pets, are throwing every argument at the wall to try and stop Trump from appointing a replacement. Why go along with them?

        1. The threats about court-packing and “nothing is off the table” even ring hollow. They’ve been threatening the former ever since Trump took office and they’re already doing the latter ever since Fentanyl Floyd swallowed his stash like the Window-Licker in Super Troopers.

          We already know they have an entitlement and authoritarian streak a mile wide, and are quite open about saying that they intend to use any power they gain to hurt people who don’t agree with them. Doorknobs like Kennedy, Swalwell, O’Rourke, and Cortez go on the record about it all the time. So what’s the point in being in denial and pretending that any of them are acting in good faith, when they’re blatantly telling you otherwise?

          1. Trump should pick Barbara Lagoa from his list.
            She has already been confirmed by the Senate 80-15 (Harris, Booker, Klobuchar, Sanders amd Warren were the 5 not voting).
            That’s about 25 opportunities for Team D to look like raving hypocrits if they feign outrage at her now after confirming her once. Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn, Virginia, and New Hampshire are among the states where the D senator voted to confirm her
            She passed the Committee on the Judiciary on a 18-4 vote (with Harris, Booker, Klobuchar voting no).

            https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00360

            1. Barbara Lagoa looks like a politically smart choice: woman, hispanic, Catholic, conservative, already vetted.

        2. To be fair. The Senate map looks good for Republicans. They’re going to hold their majority or expand it this election. All that’s left is Trump winning, and I’m confident that he will.

          The opinions of Democrats can be safely disregarded. The decision to appoint a Justice or not should not take anything the left says into consideration at all, meaning that Republicans shouldn’t do it just because it makes the Democrats angry either.

          1. “The Senate map looks good for Republicans.”

            Uh….According to RCP, the dems win the senate with 51 senators. And only 2 – 3 of those are in the margin of error. What makes you think it looks good for Republicans?

            1. The actual result vs. the polls in 2016?

              1. Yes, yes, I get that the polls can be wrong. But Moonrocks said “the Senate map looks good”. Which map? Because every map I look at doesn’t look good unless your map is “inverse of everything out there”.

                Again, it may be the polls are wrong this year again…But that suspicion is different from stating you are looking at something that says otherwise.

                1. I agree, the map isn’t favorable.
                  But the polls are probably bs too.
                  Hard for me to believe the Ds are anything but underwater in reality, as 2020 has been a particularly bad showing for them – even by their own abysmal standards.

                  1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…ASd after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                    Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

                2. Which is why you have to push it thru now, because a D Senate will probably delay and refuse to confirm any decent nominee in the 2nd Term

            2. RCP was about +4 wrong to Clinton last go around. Uses some outlier polls.

              1. Yup. Plus Alabama is having an election for its US Senate seat which will mean Doug Jones (D) will be gone.

                +1 GOP for US Senate.

            3. RCP says 46 Dems to 47 Reps, with 7 tossups. But look at the states the races are actually happening in. Many “tossup” states are solid Republican states. Republicans are likely to lose Maine and Colorado, but are likely to pick up Alabama and probably one of Minnesota, New Mexico or Michigan. If Collins can hang on in Maine, then Republicans expand their majority. This in a year where far more Republicans are up for election than Democrats, to boot.

              1. Collins is toast. No idea why, but she’s been consistently getting her ass kicked in every poll I’ve seen up till now.

                NM is not a Republican state. Nor are MN or MI. I think one of those Las two may flip, but it isn’t certain at all. Point is, the Senate lead for the GOP is in danger, and if you thought the bidding was ridiculous with a 3 seat majority, watch it in a 50-50 Senate.

                He needs to make the nomination now.

                1. Yes, it looks like Collins may lose, but it’s not a forgone conclusion. She’s a long time incumbent and Maine didn’t just become a blue state yesterday, so she knows a thing or two about campaigning in her state, and her incumbency gives her an edge.

                  As for NM, MN, and MI, only one of those are needed to make up for losing ME. All three right now are states that only lean Dem (as opposed to states like OR or CA which are ideologically Dem), and all three are states that have been left absolutely devastated by Dem leadership in the last few years (and especially in the last few months). It’s not unreasonable to expect the people of those states to be angry enough at their Dem leadership to start voting R. Of those three, NM is the least likely to flip as a state, but it also doesn’t have an incumbent running.

                  Again, in the worst case where Collins loses and Republicans don’t pick up any of those three targets, the Republican majority is cut to 52-48, and the loss is Collins who wasn’t always a reliable vote. Best case where one (or maybe even more) of those three target states are picked up and Collins manages to win her race, the Republicans expand their majority to 54 or more.

                  1. Colorado, per your earlier post, is likely flipped too.

                    1. Canceled out with Alabama.

                  2. And Arizona is going to flip. McSally already lost a bid for Senate once and is only there because the governor appointed her to replace McCain. Mark Kelly is bludgeoning her in the polls.

                    1. Mark Kelly isn’t well liked. Even the democrats i know think he is a piece of shit. His federal money into World View is not well received here.

                    2. That’s a good point. I suppose Democrats may be able to pick up another seat in Arizona, making it 52-48, but I don’t see it happening. Not in the year that Trump is on the ballot. Similar to the Obama effect where Obama on the ticket propped up Democrats down ballot, I think having Trump on the ticket will be enough to head off the “BLUE WAVE!” states to not go blue this year.

                    3. Well-liked or not, he’s got momentum. I don’t see McSally winning this one here. She’s not well-liked either. She lost to Sinema, an admitted socialist, whose only real upsides were that she dresses nice and is bisexual, thus fueling Hot Bi Babe fantasies but not doing much else.

                      Trump’s not doing terrific here, either, based on polls. They could be wrong again, of course– it’s not like the pollsters learned new tricks since 2016– but I agree with another poster… the Commifornia cancer has metastatized, and Phoenix is the newest site.

                2. Trump has a better than average chance of flipping Minnesota this year, if he wins there is a good chance he pulls the Republican senatorial candidate across the finish lines as well. The same goes for Michigan.

            4. “And only 2 – 3 of those are in the margin of error.”

              I couldn’t find this when I looked, not saying it’s wrong or that I don’t believe you, more of a comment on the poor web design

        3. The Democrats call replacing a deceased Justice “an assault on the democratic process, seeking power by any means necessary” — without a hint of irony. The Republicans are following the normal, lawful process for replacing a Justice. The Democrats are threatening impeachment, stacking the Court, a nationwide strike, and vague threats of violence (or intimidation, as the mob gathered at McConnell’s house evinces.)

      2. “other polls show the opposite (see below) ENB just picked the one she liked the best.”

        In fact, the SAME poll said the opposite. You can find it on the Ipsos website.
        https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-09/topline-reuters-rbg-supreme-court-vacancy-092120.pdf

        When they asked “Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?…The winner of the election should be able to appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement on the Supreme Court” they got the results noted above.

        But when they worded it, “President Donald Trump should nominate a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg before his term ends”, they got 46% agree (incl 51% of GOP) vs 40% disagree (13% don’t know).

        So it really was a poll where they asked in every possible way, and then chose the results they liked.

        1. Note that the poll has a 5-point advantage for Democrats as well, and still could only get a 40% disagreement that Trump should nominate a replacement before his term ended.

    3. El Presidente one B H Obama as the nominee…or better yet, one Kamala Harris.

      Heads
      Would
      Literally
      Explode

      1. Nah, that shit is lame.

        Bring the pain.

        1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      2. Trump should nominate Merrick Garland. Just for the lulz.

    4. “Half of Republicans Say”

      You didn’t care what they thought before RBG died but suddenly it matters.

      1. Hint: It doesn’t really matter now either.

        1. RGB was also against the idea of court packing.
          Let’s see if the Left honors that request of hers too

      2. It was likely a push poll badly worded to get an outcome. When I click on a polling release and it doesn’t have the actual question or link to the questions it makes me suspect.

    5. Two republican does not make half. Does ENB not know math

      1. I thought she was referring to legislature not the general public my bad

    6. Hello.

      Incompetence coupled with opportunism = conspiracy theories.

      1. Or a career in non-profits, politics, education, general administration, social work, community organizing, activism.

    7. And if Trump loses, then Senate Republicans and Democrats will have an opportunity to commit to not pack the Court, and thus to not destroy it.

      Bwuhahahaha! Who is naive enough to believe that? The Democrats are packing the court as soon as the opportunity arises, no matter what else happens.

      1. That will backfire too. Future Republican Presidents will just have more justices nominated to the SCOTUS.

        The SCOTUS is majority Republican because that is what the majority of US states are.

        The Democrat Party is losing power and it shows in the US Senate and SCOTUS makeup.

        1. But muh demographics.
          On a note, has anyone else noticed how the media is starting to admit Biden is underperforming badly with Blacks and Hispanics? That is there way of saying Trump is over performing their expectations. Guess what Hispanics don’t like illegal immigration anymore than whites and are disgusted by every Democratic outreach being about illegal immigration (almost as if white progressives believe all Hispanics are here illegally) and Blacks aren’t thrilled with white progressives destroying black and minority owned businesses and bring told their skin color defines who they have to vote for and don’t want less cops. No Trump won’t win a majority but he is on track to win over 10% of the black vote (he is doing really well with young black men) and come close to Bush’s numbers of Hispanics. He may also reverse the slide among Asian Americans that the Republicans have been experiencing (though polling on this is much less pronounced). If he does this well it offsets his decline among white suburban women.

          1. Do realize that “muh demographics” do not bode well for Republicans long term. The Browning of America is inevitable, and the Republicans have made it starkly clear Browner people and other nonwhite minorities are not welcome. As it is, more than half of the country would rather see Trump out of office. Despite that “muh electoral college” gives as much voting power to dirt as it does to American citizens in Senate and Presidential elections, there will come a time in the not-too-distant future that Republicans will simply not have the demographics to continue to wield the power of either of those two. That’s a rationale for rushing a new justice through. But even that will be useless once a Democratically controlled congress adds a few more judges. It’s a long game, and a lost battle is not the same as a lost war. Party today, because tomorrow you and your great swaths of dirt will have only each other to commiserate.

            1. The democrat party is finished as a national political party.

            2. The dirt has more long-term value than progressives.

            3. Even if it is as you say, your dumb asses are pushing civil war.
              How many of you soy boys survive that?

    8. “Shut the fuck up forever”

    9. “Half of Republicans Say New Justice Should Be Picked by Whoever Wins the Election”

      Sorry ENB, but prominent Democrats all disagree:

      “The Republicans in the senate who are calling for the seat to remain vacant dishonor the Constitution. The senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons” – Hillary Clinton

      https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/698675522956607488

      1. “I would go forward with the confirmation as Charman even a few months before the election.” – Joe Biden

        https://mobile.twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1307195979616202752

          1. Obama again insisting on SCOTUS confirmation immediately before an election.

            https://mobile.twitter.com/Coachrandymoore/status/1307468649473728512

            1. “We cannot tolerate a politically motivated, willfully negligent vacancy on the Supreme Court” – Barack Obama (again)

              https://mobile.twitter.com/MKaymama/status/1307470758382239745/photo/1

              1. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Garland’s nomination in 2016

                  1. “Attention GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS judges in election years.
                    #DO YOUR JOB” – Chuck Schumer

                    https://mobile.twitter.com/MrsQuinn775/status/1307378097428201472/photo/2

                    1. Obama on video:
                      “When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination… There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”

                      https://mobile.twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1307325966314864651

                      Watch The White Knight argue this is deepfaked

                    2. Another TWK deepfake because it isn’t notarized.

                      https://mobile.twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1307328931939471360

                    3. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

                    4. Why would I do that? I’ve never, ever made an argument that any video anyone here has posted is deep faked.

                      But, more significantly, I am of the opinion the Republicans, who have control of the Presidency and the Senate, have every right to exercise their prerogative to appoint a new Justice. I don’t agree with the idea that they have to wait until the election.

                    5. And, by the way, I’m a goddamned American and you are a Canadian, so I laugh at your attempts to school me about American politics. Go eat some poutine or something. 🙂

                    6. The White Knight
                      September.21.2020 at 12:52 pm
                      Why would I do that? I’ve never, ever made an argument that any video anyone here has posted is deep faked.

                      Fuck you you know why you’re being mocked dickhead.

                    7. And, by the way, I’m a goddamned American and you are a Canadian, so I laugh at your attempts to school me about American politics.

                      Rather than laughing, you should be ashamed that a Canadian can regularly school you on US politics.

                    8. I don’t think you have actually schooled me on anything, other than in your own mind.

                1. How dare you remember what they said four years ago!

                  Seriously, great job with the links.

      2. ‘Responses from 1,006 American adults, including 463 Democrats and 374 Republicans’ do not ‘half of Republicans’ make. Then, examining the questions, and how they were asked, one can comfortably say horseshit to all of the responses.

    10. Tim Pool has a piece out showing a poll that says that more than half of Americans think the Ginsburg seat should be filled immediately, if not sooner

      AND a poll saying that more than half of Americans think that filling the Ginsburg seat should wait until after the election.

      The polls were taken the same day.

      1. Link? Is this like a YouTuber’s poll?

        1. It is linked below dummy. The Ispos poll worded differently also showed it. Why do you keep asking for education material? We have the same damn resources you do.

          1. That ’tis more than just a flesh wound, that. You’ve lopped the silly bleeder’s tongue off, it seems. White-knighting is so much less cool than Monty Python’s Black Knight.

          2. How in the world would I know that some poll Azathoth!! refers to here is linked to below. You are a straw grasping son of a gun.

            1. Have you heard of the interwebs?

    11. A) Don’t believe it
      2) It was probably a “push” question
      iii) This is why Republicans suck. Do you think Democrats would be fretting over being “fair” if they had the White House and Senate?

    12. Open wider, bigots!

      Swallowing four new Supreme Court Justices in a matter of months will be difficult.

      But you will comply.

      1. Kirkland, I expected you to be in favor of the most immature option, comparable to a child’s tantrum. Will you claim that the action was forced upon the Democrats? You seem to like forcing things into peoples’ mouths. Even for a troll, you are pretty silly.

      2. What is up with your “open wider” obsession?

        Are you hoping that someday you’ll find someone who can open wider than you, and then you’ll finally stop being the one taking it? Nah, that can’t be, you like it too much.

    13. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I Abq earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. More INformation Here

    14. Not just appeasement but sheer stupidity. The party out of power would just want to keep pushing back the time when they can make the other a lame duck until the next election.

    15. This is Really Good oputunity for everyone who wana make a big amount at home own laptop And make your family happy so can u do….ReadMore.

    16. “Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have said they think the decision should be left to whoever wins the election.” so there are only 4 republicans in the USA????

    17. I thought Reason stood by the Constitution, under which it doesn’t matter what a demographic thinks outside of an election, or outside of the Constitution.

  2. The Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Means The Constitution Is On The Ballot

    Democrats will never be competitive in national elections again.

    Packing the SCOTUS would just mean more Republicans on the SCOTUS.

  3. In our system, the president gets to nominate a justice, and the Senate gets to decide whether to accept that nomination, to reject that nomination, or, if it likes, to completely ignore that nomination. This was true in 2016, and it is true now.

    And in our system the opposition party gets to burn the mf’er down in retaliation once in power again.

    1. the system means the senate has a role. Being in opposition in 2016 means their role was to ignore the nom. As had been done around a dozen times prior.

      Ask ENB to look up votes for when presidency and senate are from the same party. Wont find a single non vote. It only happens during times of opposition.

      ENB is either ignorant or partisan here.

      1. “ENB is either ignorant or partisan here.”

        yes.

      2. You underestimate her, she can be both.

        1. Yeah…girl power or something.

        2. Her entire raison d’etre at Reason is to remind us that anyone who says you can’t be pimp and a prostitute too isn’t trying hard enough.

        3. “Partignorant” if we were German.

      3. Wow, you are so out to get ENB you just blew past that she didn’t advocate any position. All she did was quote a poll and a bunch of people’s opinions.

        1. STFU and GFY

        2. Great. Now I have to get a notarized statement on what bias is in what reporters choose to present.

          1. You must be so used to reading alt-right media you don’t know what neutrality looks like.

            1. Such a tiresome bore.

  4. Pelosi won’t rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick

    As Harry Reid later regretted, Republicans will just use these ridiculous tactics against Democrats later.

    Republicans will impeach Breyer (If he doesnt die soon), Sotomayer, and Kagan and replace them.

    1. Half of Republicans Say New Justice Should Be Picked by Whoever Wins the Election

      More lies from the propaganda hacks.

      1. Seems more like they asked a lot of Bulwark readers and Lincoln Project fans.

      2. I’ll bet it was 80%+ of Republicans in 2016 though.

        The Supreme Court and the entire process has been perverted through politics. The Founders wanted to avoid that and obviously failed.

        1. No. The Founders did not fail. We did.

          The 17th amendment was a fatal error.

          1. “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
            ― Lysander Spooner

            1. “Our Constitution does not profess to have been established simply by the majority, but by ‘the people’ – the minority as much as the majority” – Lysander Spooner

              1. Well, he probably wasn’t technically wrong. All 13 colonies limited suffrage to white males, with age restrictions, and with various requirements for property ownership (either land or equivalent personal property). I don’t know the demographics at the time, but it’s hard to believe that those requirements would amount to a majority.

                1. Which wasn’t unusual at the time and used throughout most republics.

                2. A minority of Americans fought in the Revolutionary War too. Only about 231,000 served in the Continental Army with no more than 48,000 serving at one time.

                  There were only about 2.5 million Americans living in the 13 states in 1776.

                  8.37 years was how long the war lasted
                  •80,000 militia and Continental Army soldiers served at the height of the war
                  •56,000 British soldiers fought at the height of the war
                  •30,000 German mercenaries known as Hessians fought for Britain during the war
                  •55,000 Americans served as privateers during the war
                  •25,000 Revolutionary Soldiers died during the war
                  •8,000 Revolutionary Soldiers died from wounds inflicted during battle
                  •17,000 Revolutionary Soldiers died from disease during the war
                  •25,000 Revolutionary Soldiers were estimated to have been wounded or maimed
                  •1 in 20 able bodied white free males living in America died during the war
                  •24,000 British Soldiers were killed during the war
                  •100,000 Loyalist fled to Canada, the Bahamas and England during the war
                  •45% of colonists fully supported the war
                  •20% of colonists were outright loyal to Britain
                  •3 million is the estimated population of America in 1776
                  •1 million is the estimated population of London alone during the same period
                  •$8 is the monthly salary of a teenage drummer in the Continental Army
                  •1,547 known military engagements occured during the Revolutionary War
                  •10 was the age of the youngest member of the Continental Army
                  •57 was the age of the oldest member of the Continental Army
                  •6.5% is the population participation rate during the war, higher than any American war since WWII
                  •$151 million was the total American cost of the war
                  •$600 was roughly how much the war cost each American in 1990 dollars

                  The Revolutionary War: By The Numbers

                  1. •6.5% is the population participation rate during the war, higher than any American war since WWII

                    Damn!! People still participating in the Revolutionary War after WW2!!!

                  2. “$8 is the monthly salary of a teenage drummer in the Continental Army”. In 1958 the monthly salary of a military recruit was $ 84.00 180 years later.

                3. LC, is your point only that those who fought in the Revolutionary War had a legitimate claim in forming their government? We were talking about suffrage and ratification of the Constitution, specifically.

          2. Odd, given the ‘low’ level of education then, that they didn’t better prepare for a Congress rife with mendacity, ignorance, and hysteria, and a population to match. Then, they could not have foreseen the massive bloated carcass of the government administrations and bureaucracies.

          3. Not passing the 17th Amendment wouldn’t have changed anything. Probably 99% of the Senate would be the same people, and Rand Paul would still be a Kentucky eye doctor.

        2. The founders recognized the politics, why it is a 2 step process.

          1. And yet, whenever we talk about the Supreme Court it always comes down to X conservative vs Y liberal justices. It’s amazing that politics can cloud the reading of plain language like “Congress shall make no law…” or “…shall not be infringed.” Or most importantly, perhaps: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            Yet every liberal or conservative justice seems to read those words differently depending on the specific issue at hand.

            1. You mean people have different perspectives?

              Big if true.

              1. It’s hard for any objective observer to read the following:
                “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

                And think that the federal government has any role in regulating language on TV/radio, medicine, abortion, or gun control (as examples).

                The whole idea of judges is that they should be able to objectively interpret the law. The nine “best” judges in the country can’t even decide, generally, on what the Constitution says the government can and can’t do. The rule of law is a myth.

                1. You are missing the other side. Federal government can also modify and change censorship through federal partnerships with large corporations. This is how China acts. This is how Google acts. The correct action is to deny entities that censor or regulate speech from federal funding completely. That is not outside of the purview of your statement. Otherwise you’re setting us up for soft fascism.

                  1. Where in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to “partner” with large corporations? Where does it say they are allowed to federally fund any corporation?

                    1. I’m not saying they are, I’m saying they do.

                      Again, stop denying reality because you prefer an ideal situation.

                      Is prefer of the fed budget was slashed in half. My preference lost. Now I’m against soft fascism.

                    2. I “is prefer of” JesseSPAZ go peddle his inane bullshit to the drunks under the bridge, and stop trying to pollute the minds of libertarians!

                2. Do you have a point, or is this more of the usual world-isn’t-up-to-my-standards bitching for the sake of bitching?

                3. Lefties know what Rule of Law means and what the US Constitution says.

                  They blatantly refuse to follow it.

                4. Oh, the 9 (er, 8) Supreme Court Justices are all very intelligent and can read the text of the Constitution, and they know what it says. When it doesn’t say what they want it to say, they apply their intellect and a century or two of flawed precedents to make a case that it says what it doesn’t say.

              2. It is why I hate idealism, even with libertarians. Ideal systems don’t work because people disagree on fundamental things.

            2. The founders were well versed in politics, many extremely familiar with the classics. They divided a series of checks and balances to counter this including allowing states to maintain power from the feds. The problem was shit like the 17th devolving this power to an emotional populace, the very thing many founders feared. It is why the installed a state institution in the senate on the first place. It is why they allow for a convention of the states.

              No political system is perfect due to the imperfections of man. But the American system was well designed to counter impulses. It has just been eroded away in the last 150 years.

              1. But the American system was well designed to counter impulses. It has just been eroded away in the last 150 years.

                Refer to my Lysander Spooner quote above.

                1. Then refer to mine.

                2. Why? I’d prefer an actual argument when debating.

                  1. It seems pretty obvious. It is the Constitution that led us to where we are. It didn’t allow the creep to a bloated federal government directly, but it certainly didn’t prevent it from happening.

                    I’m not even saying that our Constitution isn’t the best in the world. It probably is. But we have ventured so far from its original intent that I feel there really is no going back to any form of limited government. And of course it’s through the very courts that the constitution has established that government has been allowed to grow exponentially. Or at least they’ve failed us by not preventing it.

                    1. Again: do you have a point?
                      If not, what’s the use of your whining?

                    2. It is NOT the US Constitution that got us here.

                      The US Constitution has numerous warnings and limitations because the Founders predicted certain things would destroy the USA.

                      Massive spending and debt, large and powerful government, states’ rights being diminished, endless undeclared wars, tyranny of the majority, giving up rights for “security”…

                      We have allowed Lefties to get away with implementing most of the warnings.

                    3. It didn’t allow the creep to a bloated federal government directly, but it certainly didn’t prevent it from happening.

                    4. Your statement was on the founders. The constitution has been amended since.

                    5. “Leo Kovalensky II
                      September.21.2020 at 2:17 pm
                      It didn’t allow the creep to a bloated federal government directly, but it certainly didn’t prevent it from happening”

                      So the constitution isn’t perfect…
                      Real big contribution there, leo

              2. The founders weren’t designing a system from scratch though. They were dealing with a union of independent states, and trying to make that union stronger (compared to the Articles of Confederation union) without making it too centralized.

    2. Doesn’t the Senate have to then have to vote two thirds in favor to remove an impeached justice? What would be the chance of getting that many to vote to convict?

      1. Yup. 2/3.

    3. I saw that article. It was strangely written. She made a vague reply that the Democrats would “use every arrow in [their] quiver” and Fox headlines the article as Pelosi would use impeachment. What would they impeach Trump for, and how would that tie up the Senate instead of the House?

      1. Oh they have been investigating Trump and Barr for politicizing the DoJ as part of an impeachment investigation since the last one failed. Not sure how that is impeachable.

      2. “Pelosi won’t rule out new impeachment to delay SCOTUS vote if Biden wins” – NBC news

        “Nancy Pelosi refuses to rule out impeaching Trump to stall a Supreme Court nomination as she accuses him of using SCOTUS vacancy to try to ‘crush the affordable care act'” – Daily Mail

        “Pelosi says Democrats ‘have our options’ when asked about impeaching Trump if he replaces Ginsburg” – USA Today

        1. Will you guys please stop proving The White Knight is lying.
          It’s not nice to show up the retarded kid.

          1. I laughed when he said Pelosi used weasel words yesterday. Was def one to talk.

          2. You have an overreaching definition of “lying”. All I said was the article was strangely written and Pelosi’s statement was vague.

            1. “All I said was the article was strangely written and Pelosi’s statement was vague.”

              No you fucking liar that is NOT all you said

              She made a vague reply that the Democrats would “use every arrow in [their] quiver” and Fox headlines the article as Pelosi would use impeachment.

              You didn’t put that in there for no reaaon, but you will definitely lie about it now.

              1. It was precisely the core point of why I thought the article was strangely written. They never quoted the word, impeachment, coming out of Pelosi’s mouth.

                1. No they quoted her as saying, in response to a question about using impeachment, that that was a possibility as they have lots of arrows in their quiver.

                  1. Here’s what she said: “We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country.”

                    That is totally a poltician’s non-answer: “I’m not about to discuss right now…” So, yeah, she didn’t rule out impeachment, but she didn’t bring it up, either, nor in any way really confirm that it is a realistic option.

                    That’s why I said it is a strangely written article, the reporting and her answer convey no actual information.

                2. Still lying I see.

            2. STFU and GFY

            3. Pelosi’s answer was vague because she’s a politician, she has a lifetime of practice. They were asking her point blank if the Democrats would impeach.

    1. Amazing lack of coverage on this attack.

      1. Its not like this is as serious as someone yelling Not True during a presidential speech.

      2. Every President since Dubya has gotten it–it’s basically “assassination attempts for retards” because no President has probably opened his own mail since Coolidge.

        1. Yeah. Mowing the grass. Ricin is just easy enough to attain that you provide enough effort to conclusively demonstrate your guilt but hard enough to kill someone with through the mail that we don’t need to worry about creating extra felony hate crime laws to prevent it.

    2. At least they’ve refrained from sending any more Biebers.

      1. They’ve also apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions.

        1. Don’t forget that bitch Anne Murray too.

        2. And yet they’re unapologetic about Nickelback.

          1. At least they gave us Stan Rogers and Gordon Lightfoot. And bacon.

            1. Rush and Gretzky carry some weight.

            2. That shit ain’t bacon

          2. No. I’m really, really sorry about that.

            1. How about Alanis? Isn’t it ironic that nothing in her song is ironic?

              1. Like rain
                On a monday

    3. Why do you think she allegedly did this at the behest of a nation state, LC?

      Interesting that they figured out who she was, and where to find her, so quickly. Dropping a letter in a mailbox should be fairly anonymous. I’d also be interested in seeing how she obtained the ricin, and in what condition was the toxic agent. Purity, particle size, special coatings, etc…

      1. Dropping a letter in a mailbox should be fairly anonymous.

        Where in the holy fuck did you get that idea? Because they couldn’t find a math genius from Berkeley? Barring that guy, they tend to find everyone else living in vans under bridges in a matter of days, if not hours. And, given the ‘mailing ricin’ M.O., I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if she put a return address.

        1. Well yeah, because half of ’em are their contractors…

          Not to mention the truly awesome capabilities of the modern surveillance state. “Give me the subscriber IDs for every device pinged by these three towers, between 9:30 and 11:00 AM, 23 August.” And so on.

          I am guessing, prior guest of the criminal justice system, DNA evidence left in the envelope/letter, and a DNA fingerprinting series that went to the top of the lab queue. That, or they asked their cutout where she went…

      2. I’d hazard that the she was known to the authorities. Probably not the first communication she sent and maybe used the same linguistic ticks. Also on the table, a friend or associate turned her in. She could be one of those special genius who think posting their crimes online is a great idea.

        Of course she could be like Richard Jewel, innocent.

      3. heck USPS keeps a record of where every post comes from down to the individual mail box. Somewhere close to the box is a camera filming the depositor.

    4. Should we blame the government?
      Or blame society?
      Or should we blame the images on TV?

      No, blame Canada, blame Canada!

    5. The ricin didn’t do the job so she was on her way with a gun. Why does Canada hate the USA?

      1. we started kicking their ass in ice hockey!!

  5. Ginsburg’s death has brought in a record amount of donations for Democrats.

    So the Biden campaign has fired up the Clinton Machine after all.

    1. If they kill Kagan they could get many millions more! What’s stopping them?

  6. STAFFER SLAIN Campaign aide, 17, for Ilhan Omar’s Republican challenger shot dead outside Minneapolis store as fellow GOP staffer hurt

    The U.S. MSM is trying to make this story go away. That this was assassination of a rival political candidate.

    1. Is there any proof this was politically motivated rather than just the kind of random violence that’s common in Minneapolis now that they’ve defunded their police?

      1. Perfect cover.

      2. Well, they’ve apparently caught the alleged shooter, so (if you’re willing to do a lot of digging for the news) we might find out.

      3. IIRC, the victims were hanging around the outside of a convenience store at 4-ish in the afternoon. Not buying something and leaving. Which is their right, but pushes the scale for me towards the reasons for the shooting being ‘not all that related to his job.’

        A long way to go before ‘robbery where the victim gets executed, and his wallet was left on him.’

    2. It was a campaign aide, not the candidate.

      And I’d hesitate to call this politically motivated, considering what a Mogadishu-style shithole Minneapolis has devolved into the last four months.

      1. Thanks. I had two articles pulled up where one said the candidate and one said staffer. I commented candidate when it should have been a possible political attack to get the candidate to quit.

    3. https://m.startribune.com/police-arrest-suspect-in-shooting-death-of-campaign-worker/572446422/

      “The shooting occurred on Monday. A second person who also worked for Republican Lacy Johnson was wounded in the attack. Both police and Johnson, who is challenging Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, said the shootings didn’t appear to have anything to do with politics or the campaign.”

      1. So, we have no political motivation and a story that is literally “too local”.

        1. Did you get a certified statement from the shooter? Or is this statement finally good enough for you?

          1. Whether it is good enough is something you should be asking loveconstitution1789. He was the one trying to turn it into more grist for the narrative that conservatives are victims of mainstream media bias.

            1. Lefties are liars, so if they say this was NOT politically motivated, it was politically motivaTed.

              The MSM is not covering it much for some reason which also tends to indicate there is something to the incident that hurts Lefties.

              1. Sure. About 40% of your fellow Americans are “lefties” in the sense that they regularly vote for Democrats. So, you are writing off all of them as liars?

                Meanwhile, the champion of the right is Trump, and that doesn’t bother your anti-liar radar at all.

                1. Trump is more honest than you, midwit

  7. Don’t be too alarmed about a new study purportedly showing that airplanes are super-risky for catching COVID-19.

    It’s nice to have a powerful lobby in Washington.

    1. “It’s nice to have a powerful lobby in Washington” Considering the amount of people in the aerospace industry earning an exponentionally higher wage than the ribbon clerks at 7-11 and target it’s easy to see why.

  8. TRUMP wants the $5 billion from the Tiktok Global deal to pay for “patriotic education” via his envisioned “1776 Commission.”

    How many times is that football going to be yanked away at the last minute before we give up taking a run at it.

    1. What would we be saying if the roles were reversed? USA makes a popular app, it succeeds in China, then the crony “capitalists” of China use government power to wrest it away from American ownership? And tax it extra to teach the young Chinese how to be GOOD, patriotic Chinese?

      HERE is a good read!

      https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gangster-capitalism-american-theft-chinese-124740130.html

      Gangster capitalism and the American theft of Chinese innovation

      1. SQRLSY One
        July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
        Port-a-potties ARE buffets

        lol

      2. What would we be saying if the roles were reversed? USA makes a popular app, it succeeds in China, then the crony “capitalists” of China use government power to wrest it away from American ownership? And tax it extra to teach the young Chinese how to be GOOD, patriotic Chinese?

        That’s been standard practice in China for decades. What’s new is that the US is actually fighting back.

    2. This is the Microsoft model- get out of hot water with the government by giving your product free to the schools. Get ready for the 1776 Commission lessons to be delivered in 15 second videos.

  9. Of course ENB would parrot the leftist talking points du jour.

    1. That’s literally her job

      1. And her feelz?

        1. Of course.

          Fortunately, ENB’s life doesn’t matter

          1. Any time that anyone disagrees with Nadless Nardless, Nadless Nardless will say that such-and-such has a life that doesn’t matter. This is profoundly arrogant, hateful, and authoritarian! But then again, Nadless Nardless takes its cues from the MOST famous fascist of our day! And that is NOT an exaggeration!

            Der TrumpfenFuhrer clearly believes in HIS genetically superior “good German genes”, and the inferiority of all who do not adore Him! This is NOT an exaggeration, either!

            https://www.salon.com/2020/09/21/trumps-eugenics-obsession-he-thinks-he-has-good-german-genes-because-hes-a-fascist/
            Trump’s eugenics obsession: He thinks he has “good German genes,” because he’s a fascist
            Trump’s “racehorse theory” of genetics is profoundly racist — it’s also why he thinks he’s a natural-born genius

            1. You prove with every post that your life does not matter either.
              I get the impression it’s actually quite the burden.

              1. Nadless Nardless (in the infallible mind of Nadless Nardless at least) is entitled to decide whose life is worth living, and who is unworthy of living in the same galactic cluster as Nadless Nardless, the Ultra-Clean Ubermensch! It is only a short leap from there, for Nadless Nardless (and Der TrumpfenFuhrer and supporters) to sterilize and then kill the unworthy ones.

                Far-right-wing nut jobs are incapable of learning ANYTHING of value from the endless bloodshed committed throughout history, by butchers who are legends in their own minds! Stable geniuses, all of them!

                Read and heed! M. Scott Peck, The Hope for Healing Human Evil, https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/

            2. It’s spelled ‘Nadler’, idiot.

            3. If you have to use a Salon article as an argument, you’ve lost. If the Salon article has Trump, fascist, German, eugenics and genes in the lede, you should likely shut off your computer for the day for simultaneous Poe and Godwin’s Laws violations. And, you’ve lost every argument on the subject henceforth. in the future, SQRLSY, at least try to use sources with journalistic integrity, like Jezebel, or Teen Vogue.

              1. The Salon article has many Trump quotes showing the fascist, eugenicist, self-styled, egotistical superiority of the Trump. You have NOT refuted a SINGLE point made by the Salon article!

                For right-wing nut-jobs, WHAT is a permissible source? The drunk under the bridge, as long as they agree with YOU? Rash Limburger? Ann Coulter? Attila the Hun? Caligula? Nero?

                Hello, do you have any neurons?

                1. Salon? The online rag that’s been trying to normalize pedophila for nearly 20 years now?

                  Welp, now we know why Shitsy reads it. Ha!

              2. If’n ye do NOT believe me about the superiority of “The Donald’s” genes, look at the following quotes from that same Donald!!!
                Quotes from The Donald in the “Anti Gravity” column in August 2017 “Scientific American” magazine follow:
                “I have great genes and all that stuff, which I’m a believer in”,
                “God helped me by giving me a certain brain”,
                “I have a very, very high aptitude”,
                “Maybe it’s just something you have. You know, you have the winning gene.”
                Google the quotes, they are real…

                Looking at the above quotes from The Orange Hitler should make his vast, overwhelmingly narcissistic ego clear to all.

                chemjeff radical individualist
                September.17.2019 at 8:40 pm
                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/04/17-issues-that-donald-trump-knows-better-than-anyone-else-according-to-donald-trump/
                Trump:
                “I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth.”
                “I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?”
                “Nobody knows more about debt. I’m like the king. I love debt.”
                “I understand money better than anybody.”
                “I think nobody knows the system better than I do.”
                “I know more about contributions than anybody.”
                “Nobody knows more about trade than me.”
                “Nobody knows jobs like I do! ”
                “Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.”
                “There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am.”
                “I know more about ISIS [the Islamic State militant group] than the generals do. Believe me.”
                “There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me.”
                “Because nobody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me.”
                Reply
                1. Echospinner
                September.17.2019 at 9:08 pm
                And don’t forget the other things he is expert in.
                Technology: I know tech better than anyone, & technology.” —December 21, 2018, Twitter
                Forest fires : There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!” —November 10, 2018, Twitter
                Airplane design: Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT
                You can go on an on, catapults on aircraft carriers, the Kentucky Derby…
                When it comes to geniuses the man is a regular Wyle E Coyote.

    2. Of course ENB would parrot the leftist talking points du jour.

      ENB learns to mimic through repetition—so saying the idea over and over again is the only way to encourage ENB to say it back.

      1. Get to Know ENB
      The first step to teaching ENB to parrot is to bond with her by inviting her to cocktail parties and using peer pressure to impress reasonable expectations on her.

      2. Choose Your Words Wisely
      The best way to encourage ENB to parrot is to choose a few uncomplicated ideas for her to start off with. Examples of good starter ideas include “that’s racist,” “that’s sexist,” and “that’s homophobic”.
      Simple concepts, when said with vehemence, seem to become more interesting to ENB.

      3. Repeat the Idea or Dogma as Often as Possible
      Once you have locked onto a concept that ENB is interested in, repeat the idea to her as often as you possibly can.
      ENB learns to parrot through repetition—so repeating the idea over and over again on Vox and Twitter is the only way to encourage her to write it in a column.

  10. Jake Gardner, man charged in Scurlock death, has died by suicide

    Dornan and Monaghan also revealed new evidence in the case, saying “Gardner was inside his bar on May 30 when he heard what he thought was a bullet coming through the front window of his business.” It was later identified as a pole that had shattered the glass. Dornan said people began climbing into Gardner’s bar, so he pulled the fire alarm, called police, and went out front. That’s where the altercation between his father and another protester began, and where Scurlock and Gardner’s struggle ensued.

    Gardner was indicted last week on the following counts: manslaughter, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, attempted first-degree assault and terroristic threats.

    This is why Trump will be reelected. If you defend your property from violent rioters with self-defense, YOU get indicted.

    Fuck that. This guy was a hero. Not only as a veteran but for defending his property from thugs.

    1. The indictment came from a special prosecutor after the local D.A. had determined from video it was self defense. It is unconscionable.

      1. Yep. Probably as a display of wokeness which they hope will carry over to the ballot box.

        BTW, if you want to see a bunch of bloodthirsty Progressives, read the comments about this death in the Washington Post.

        1. BTW, if you want to see a bunch of bloodthirsty Progressives, read the comments about this death in the Washington Post. look at a bunch of Progressives.

          Fix’d.

          1. Look at any progressive *

            1. Says the guy who openly pines for Civil War 2 because he simply can’t believe anyone would have any reason to vote against Donald Trump. This dude is up in here calling for murder of his fellow Americans on the daily cause he believes that 200 idiots in Portland represent “all Democrats” and he’s going to end up mowing down a bunch of suburban housewives to prove it.

              1. no I don’t dummy. Care to try again? Sarcasmic tried this route too. He was embarrassed.

                1. Bruh you say shit like that every damn day

                  1. Honestly, unless I am confusing you with Nardz or something, I believe you have. Many times. Perhaps I am mistaken, but in any event, both here and on Breitbart (which seems less distinguishable from Reason comment boards every day or vice versa),I see a number of people on here EVERY DAY pining for that shit. So if it’s not you, then I guess just take my comment as applicable to all those who do.

                    1. As often as not, the folks calling for violence are anti-trump, anti-cop. There is a bit of posturing from folks who believe that civil liberties laid out in the Bill of Rights are worth defending. Some trolling.

                  2. The democrat party is the party of slavery.

                    Every single person who belongs to that party belongs to a party that supported slavery.

        2. Jacobins.

        3. “BTW, if you want to see a bunch of bloodthirsty Progressives, read the comments about this death in the Washington Post.”

          Soon. Anyone still think we’re going to settle our differences by voting?

          The special prosecutor in Gardner’s case is Frederick Franklin, “an assistant U.S. attorney in Nebraska federal courts for 22 years and has served as the president of the Midlands Bar Association, an organization of black attorneys.” From here: https://omaha.com/news/local/veteran-federal-prosecutor-to-lead-grand-jury-probe-into-james-scurlocks-death/article_f2f0f66d-8400-5923-b441-d2f490c512c7.html

          I am less than convinced of his impartiality. Nothing further will happen, of course.

          1. Why eould he flee… to Oregon?

            I’m unconvinced it was suicide, but we’ll see

            1. He was not indicted until later, so he traveled to California or somewhere around that time and supposedly was going to return.

    2. as far as I know every one who has rightfully defended themselves against rioter has been charged. we may be at war with out own government since it keeps providing cover and safety to rioters.

      1. They’re definitely at war with us

        1. Interesting comment to make when your preferred President and Senate majority are in office. Kind of like lc1789 whining above about “endless wars and deficits” when both are caused by the past and current (R) admins/majorities.

          1. Uhm pretty sure both parties are responsible for both those issues you listed.

          2. Jomo, please quote where I’ve advocates for cuvil war 2 or the death of somebody. Or are you a sarcasmic/jeff sock?

            1. Honestly, unless I am confusing you with Nardz or something, I believe you have. Many times. Perhaps I am mistaken, but in any event, both here and on Breitbart (which seems less distinguishable from Reason comment boards every day or vice versa),I see a number of people on here EVERY DAY pining for that shit. So if it’s not you, then I guess just take my comment as applicable to all those who do.

              1. You totalitarian pieces of shit have declared war, and now you’re whining that someone is even talking about fighting back.
                Don’t want none, don’t start none.
                But as you persist, prepare to be ended.

          3. Deficits tend to increase regardless of the party. As for wars, a parse through history shows this to be not entirely true either. What else you want to claim?

      2. No there were several people who have not been charged. The Uber driver in Austin was not charged.

  11. Virginia has wasted no time in stripping people of their Second Amendment rights since its new “red flag” law went into effect.

    NO ONE IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

    1. Maybe not, but my gun just came.

    2. I’d lay down $100 that the racial breakdown of the three dozen red flag ‘offenders’ doesn’t match the racial demographics of VA at large.

    3. They let these dangerous people continue to roam free?

      1. Cool. If we broadly embrace the idea of locking people up because of the dangers they might pose, and since most perceived dangers are partisan, then we can look forward to mass incarcerations and mass pardons with every election cycle.

        1. You mean like with coronavirus?

        2. “we can look forward to mass incarcerations and mass pardons with every election cycle”
          One election cycle. They wouldn’t allow another.

          1. I thought the Democrats wanted to allow prisoners to vote?

            1. and ILLEGAL ALIENS, AND NON CITIZENS ON GREEN CARDS.

    4. When a government says you don’t need a gun, you need a gun.

      1. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    5. Except Mr. Robert Francis O’Rourke.

  12. 2 Supreme courts, one for abortion? Is reason really wanting people to look at the retard writing for the Atlantic? Or maby leave abortion to the states per the 10th ammendment. Is that a radical idea?
    The progressives still want to kill people over citizens united

    1. Just think…ideas this stupid and Reason writers cannot get a job there.

      1. Not for lack of trying.

    2. Remember last week when she tweeted with he fellow editors about how the readers called them fake libertarians auditioning for other jobs…. good times.

      1. The greatest thing about Libertarianism is that the principles stand for themselves.

        For example, controlling national borders is perfectly reasonable for a Libertarian. You might be pro-easy to cross borders or pro-more secure borders but Libertarians can debate that degree of security.

        When Marxists say that immigrants have a right to cross national borders it just exposes that you are not a Libertarian.

    3. Wow, and I thought it was silly hyperbole when right wing nuts said that abortion is the the sacrament of the left.

      1. Funny how all the “slippery slope” arguments of the Religious Right are turning out to be a lot more prescient than anyone will ever give them credit for.

        1. Funny how broad panic and hysteria seem to make average people more religious–and lately that has manifest in the Religious Left (assuming Marxism is a religion).

          1. Marx wasn’t exactly circumspect about his desire to do away with judeo-christianity and replace it with worship of the state.

          2. Wokeness certainly has all the hallmarks of a modern-day religious cult, right down to the mantra-like chants and self-abasement before the Designated Superior.

      2. if one wants to see landslide elections of conservative and republican candidates all it would take is to burn the abortion plank and many so called leftwingers would become GOP advocates.

    1. We’ll see if this is legit or if they’re just going to blue-ball us. The first one was pretty juicy but didn’t contain many surprises.

      Prosecutors allege that the plane was used to fly sex trafficking victims between New York, New Mexico, Paris, the US Virgin Islands and to Epstein’s waterfront mansion in Palm Beach.

      What the fuck was he flying into New Mexico for? I can’t think of any reason, other than maybe delivering orders to degenerate Hollywood scuzzbags filming in Albuquerque.

      1. Epstein had a ranch there, IIRC.

    2. This must be why the left’s been pushing Cuties, etc. so hard lately.

      1. If the Lefties can get underage sexuality acceptable by Americans like they did with homosexuality, then the pedos like Bill Clinton might not get indicted and/or convicted.

        1. Trump literally says (multiple times on camera and radio) he wants to date his own daughter, and cuties is supposed to show how sick it is that people pimp out their kids on social media. Yet here you are parroting this garbage.

          1. No Cuties isn’t supposed to show that, at least not originally. That explanation is complete gaslighting that they didn’t come up with until after the controversy began. Before that the producer and directors marketed it as a coming of age story where a girl discovers her femininity through joining a dance troupe. Pure 109% bullshit. And the multiple times is a single quote taken out of context. Again 1000% bullshit.

          2. Trump literally says (multiple times on camera and radio) he wants to date his own daughter

            Really? That’s the interpretation you’re trying to push? Is this to try and offset the photos Biden frenching his granddaughter?

              1. ‘If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her.’ This is pretty weird humor, and maybe off-putting, but, at no point does he say he wants to date her. The Religious Right were also big on mind reading and choosing meaning for words that fit with their agenda. This is one of the reasons the left and progressives are called a cult or a religion.

          3. “PAY NO ATTENTION TO OUR NORMALIZING OF PEDOPHILIA, LOOK OVER THERE!”

            1. FWIW I have an 8 year old daughter whose safety, security and well-being is more important to me than ANYTHING else so if you think I am some kind of pedo lover you are barking up the wrongest tree possible. In facdt I lost about half my FB friends list in 2016 by coming out so strongly against the “pu$$y grabber” for that very reason.

              1. Same argument. He didn’t say he did grab, or would grab women, but that he could based on the position, the power. From there, one doesn’t know if consent was or was not given, or the rest of the context or setting for any alleged grabbing. The difference is enormous, but lost when one only sees and hears what one wants due to selection or confirmation bias -that orangemanbad grabbed women.

                1. And central to my argument, then and now, was that the rush to defend that tells volumes. To me, if protecting “locker room talk” is more important to you that choosing leaders who can at least maintain baseline non-douchery, your priorities are fucked.

                  I won’t pretend I never discussed whether someone was attractive. But that was different. And the Trump/Ivanka thing is SO WELL documented that to deny it is proof of willful ignorance (at best).

                  1. And central to my argument, then and now, was that the rush to defend that tells volumes.

                    You mean like leftists rushing to defend Cuties?

                  2. Trump was merely saying how attractive Ivanka is. Any other interpretation is projection.

                  3. You’re an absolutely terrible parent.

                    1. Yeah totally. You clearly know who and what I am. And you’re definitely not a sociopath. You’re also quite polite and frequently display wisdom and nuanced thinking.

                  4. it would have been a non issue if the left wing propaganda arm hadn’t escalated the wording with a judgement call of their own biases.

              2. FWIW I have an 8 year old daughter whose safety, security and well-being is more important to me than ANYTHING else so if you think I am some kind of pedo lover you are barking up the wrongest tree possible.

                Is this some kind of argument? Being a parent does not automatically mean you’re not going to harm kids. In fact, stage parents are some of the worst about actually letting their kids get abused because the kids end up being a fame and money conduit for the rest of the family.

                Anyway, your status as a parent is just more deflection because, yes, your side is, in fact, normalizing pedophilia. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have swerved so hard to change the narrative on Cuties after people got pissed that it sexualized little girls.

                1. I agree wholeheartedly about the stage parents thing, hence why I hope that more of them get exposed for how sick they are and what their vicarious living does to their kids.

                  1. Similar to Little League and HS football/basketball dads.

                    Without as much sex abuse.

                2. I guess I look at it as people SHOULD be pissed. I WANT people to be pissed that kids are allowed/encouraged to act this way. IT fucking disgusts me to my very core.

                  Getting mad when someone shines a light on it is a close cousin to the popular tactic used so much nowadays where people say the “division” or “problem” is caused by people talking about/criticizing bad acts (like police murdering people) as opposed to being caused by the bad actions and bad actors.

                3. I agree wholeheartedly as well that the simple status of being a parent means nothing. What I meant to convey was my priorities, of which her safety, security, happiness and well-being are my foremost concern and I govern my affairs accordingly.

              3. I am pleased to hear that you care for your daughter.
                The left want you disarmed.
                Because their plans for your daughters locker room and sports team will make you want to go down to defend her with a gun.

                1. Then explain how I got a concealed carry permit in the state that everyone in the rest of the country thinks doesn’t even allow guns.

                  1. Because you’re a liar?

                    1. Oh? Which part do you assert was a lie?

                2. Sorry was just referring to the part about “the left wants you disarmed.”

                  The rest of your post: thank you for your support on that, and I have heard about such plans but they have not materialized, not yet anyway.

                  FTR I think it is BULLSHIT when a 6’2″ guy can declare himself a girl and wipe out all the girls’ track records for example, and that stance has gotten me in some hot water socially yet it remains my stance.

              4. “FWIW I have an 8 year old daughter”

                It’s worth literally nothing

      2. I think we all know who is responsible for the increase in underage pussy grabbing by pre teens. When the president himself uses his bully pulpit to advocate pussy grabbing is it really a surprise that youngsters think it’s the cool thing?

        1. “to advocate pussy grabbing”

          He said they “let you”. He didn’t advocate anything.
          And after 25 years of demanding everyone “move on” about oval office BJ’s and cigars stuck in young intern’s asses, your team shouldn’t be saying jack-shit about a little locker room talk.

  13. The court “said the usual constitutional rules that apply to normal police all over the country also apply” to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    So, very few.

    1. Most important one; qualified immunity.

      1. plus totality of circumstances.
        plus training.
        plus guns that discharged.

    1. Trump is not going to win California like Nixon did, so . . . landslide? Not so much.

      1. California does not a canceled landslide make.

        Nixon lost MA and DC and in this case it might be Commifornia and DC.

        1. Can you show any Electoral College landslide in modern history that didn’t include winning California?

          1. Winning 49 states minus Commifornia is NOT a landslide?

            Republicans only need 38 states to amend and ratify the US Constitution. That is a landslide if you ask me.

            1. You think Trump is going to win 49 states? Are you high?

              Again, can you answer my question: Can you show any Electoral College landslide in modern history that didn’t include winning California?

              “Republicans only need 38 states to amend and ratify the US Constitution. That is a landslide if you ask me.”

              And has nothing to do with winning the Electoral College vote.

              1. Define modern history?

                1. To Jerryskids and his idiot socks it is since Christ.

                  No seriously.

                2. Contemporary history, in English-language historiography, is a subset of modern history that describes the historical period from approximately 1945 to the present.

                  1. So an arbitrarily defined time set used to support confirmation bias.

                    1. FDR’s reign is probably as good a delineation as anything else.

                    2. Take it up with historians who define contemporary history.

                      A strong rationale for choosing contemporary history is due to California’s population explosion and subsequent massive gain in electoral votes.

                      So of course it’s not helpful looking at how California voted in the 1800s to determine if Trump has a shot in 2020.

                      It’s not that hard to figure these things out — if you use your brain. Those who cannot try to handflap about things they know nothing about. But muh confirmation bias! Right, bro.

                    3. Until 88 California was a solid Republican state. So yes, picking California as the hallmark of a landslide is confirmation bias , as it assumes that political leanings are static not kinetic. Until 2004 Oregon and Washington were swing states. And could become so again. Picking a single state and using it to define landslide is a form of confirmation bias bro.

              2. I don’t think Trump will win 49 states.

                Trump will win more states than he did in 2016.

          2. had we done away with winner take all state electoral votes the obama would have been defeated by the largest landslide in history. % of votes = % of electoral votes. do the math.

      2. I wouldn’t count California out. Considering how incompetent the Dem leadership in California has been this year (or just how this year has highlighted their incompetence), Californians may make a big swing this year if the Dems can’t steal it. I think an election integrity NGO recently forced the state to clean their voter rolls of over a million invalid registrations, so they’ll at least have a harder time now than they did a couple of years ago.

        Don’t get your hopes up, but then don’t be surprised if it happens.

        1. Be real. CA hasn’t gone R since ’88, and Trump’s chances are pretty much zero. https://reason.com/2020/08/15/does-trump-have-a-5-chance-of-winning-california/

          1. again had we done away with winner take all state electoral votes the obama would have been defeated by the largest landslide in history. % of votes = % of electoral votes. do the math.

        2. There’s no way in hell Trump’s winning California–hell, that state provided the popular vote margin for Hillary all on its own. Take that out, and Trump actually led the popular vote in the rest of the states combined.

          The only ones he has a chance of flipping this time are Minnesota and maybe Nevada. Florida might actually go Dem because of all the New York City scumbags that fled the Chinese Lung AIDS back in the spring. Same with Arizona, whose California Cancer is metastasizing.

          1. California needs to be broken up for fair representation in presidential elections. Most of the state is geographically red. All electoral votes in the proposed Jefferson State would go GOP. Unfortunately, SF and LA dominate the rest of the state.

            1. Yeah, but that’s the same in Illinois, Oregon, and Washington. If it wasn’t for Chicago, Portland, and Seattle, those states would probably go red, too.

              There’s so much population concentrated in these big cities that they can overwhelm the rest of the state. A lot of these places really need to just be carved off and become city-states, with their own Governors, Reps, and Senators. We’ve gotten to a point where they don’t really represent the rest of the state anymore and are just acting in the interest of their big-city voters.

              Hell, I’d be in favor of the Denver metro area from Boulder down to Hampden Avenue and Golden east to north Aurora getting carved off from the rest of the state, and then have the Western Slope and the water districts south of the Palmer Divide make them pay through the nose for the water they’re siphoning off from the Colorado and Arkansas River watersheds.

            2. yet again had we done away with winner take all state electoral votes the obama would have been defeated by the largest landslide in history. % of votes = % of electoral votes. do the math.

          2. You’re assuming that everyone that voted for Hillary will vote for Biden this time. Not only is Biden even less inspiring as a candidate than Hillary is, giving leftist voters even more of a reason to do anything else than vote, but Democrats have turned California into a hot mess. The state is literally on fire, the power is going out, a plague is wreaking havoc, crime is out of control, the economy is in freefall, people can’t even gather for a party (those police that won’t bother criminals will be there to bother you if you try), etc. etc. And while all this is going on, California Dems are busy legalizing gay sex with children and guaranteeing that illegal immigrants get even more taxpayer money. Blaming Trump for all of California’s problems can only go so far, and I can see plenty of apathetic Californians and even some Hillary voters go in and vote Republican across the ballot. If California Dems can’t steal enough votes to counter this then they could well lose.

            1. Clinton got twice the votes as Trump did in California in 2016. There is no way in hell that is going to swing far enough in the other direction to go for Trump.

              1. True love often clouds one’s sense of reality. You can’t blame them, they love them some Trump.

              2. I’m not saying it will happen, I’m saying it’s possible, and it’s more possible than you think considering how few people will get out and vote for Biden, how many people will get out and vote for Trump, how many people will vote against whoever’s fucking California up, and how much harder it will be for the California establishment to fabricate votes.

                1. It’s also “possible” that I’ll have a threesome with Japanese twins.

                  In February 2019, California had 19,978,449 registered voters. Of those registered voters, 8,612,368 (43.11%) were registered Democrats, and 4,709,851 (23.57%) were Republicans.

                  Nearly five million CA Dems would have to defect for Trump to win the state.

                  Actually, me having a threesome with Japanese twins is more likely than Trump winning California.

                  1. It’s not just about defections. In fact it’s mostly not about defections. Mostly, it’s about who bothers to get out and vote. Imagine if all 4 million of those Republicans get out and vote for Trump, because they’re all hyped up and motivated to vote for Trump, and only half of those 8 million Democrats get out and vote for Biden, because meh, he’s alright I guess. In that scenario it’s certainly “possible” for Trump to take California.

                    1. “Imagine if all 4 million of those Republicans get out and vote for Trump, because they’re all hyped up and motivated to vote for Trump, and only half of those 8 million Democrats get out and vote for Biden”

                      That takes a lot of imagination — the kind that comes after hitting a bong — as Dems hate Trump and will show up in numbers bigly vote against him.

                  2. California flipped before from Red to Blue.

                    The more Lefties that flee Commifornia to other states, this can change voting demographics in Taxifornia.

                    Plus, Commifornia will be losing at least 1 House seat based on Census 2020.

                    1. California has gone (D) for POTUS seven times in a row — the longest stretch for one party in its entire history. That’s not about to change given all the TDS in CA.

                    2. Probably not but focusing on California alone is kind of a mum’s game.

                    3. Also, Trump won’t win 49 states but I think even if he wins 35-38 states that comes pretty close to a landslide. Not in the range of Nixon or Reagan but still in landslide territory.

                    4. But it’s the conservatives who are fleeing California. The lefties think they’ve almost achieved their aims, if only they try harder and spend more.

                    5. Lefties are fleeing Commifornia too. Ask Residents of Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, oregon, colorado, and washington.

            2. You are crazy. Every single leftist that hates this state *knows* in their heart of hearts that it is the GOP’s fault. They are not going to vote for Trump EVER.

              Even the republicans here hate Trump. Orange County, traditionally a GOP stronghold, went 51% – 42% for Hillary, 4% going for Johnson. Maybe, just maybe you get some of those Never Trumpers back from the Libertarians, but there is no way in hell they are voting for Trump.

              I do not want a Biden presidency, but you really, really need to get outside your bubble, or you are going to lose your shit in November. While it is possible that all the talking heads and polls are wrong about a Trump loss, you need to admit that it is still a distinct possibility.

              1. I don’t know what it’s like in California, but I live in an extremely leftist area on the east coast, probably one of the most leftist areas in the country, and I have so far seen exactly one yard sign for Biden in my neighborhood. This in the same neighborhood that had a BLM sign on every other yard or door back in June (most of which have since been taken down). There’s simply no enthusiasm for Biden. Nobody wants to vote for him, not even Democrats.

                1. There’s simply no enthusiasm for Biden.

                  You’re definitely right about that. I live not too far from Berkeley and your ratio of BLM signs to Biden signs is about the same here. I think there’s one Biden sign in my neighborhood, with about every sixth house having a BLM sign (I live in a politically mixed neighborhood where the suburbs fade into ranch land). Hell, my next-door neighbor still has her Bernie Sanders sign up, and another neighbor didn’t take her Warren sign down until about May.

                  But even without that enthusiasm, large numbers are going to go vote for Biden anyway just to vote against Trump. People literally lay awake nights ringing their hands over what they believe Trump is up to. They believe literally everything they hear on NPR, and they would vote for Hitler himself if he were running as a D.

                  I do, however, think people are going to be shocked by how much support for Trump there is in CA even though I don’t think there’s any chance he actually carries the state.

                2. No, they just don’t see it as so important to their identity as a person that they feel they have to plaster it on their lawns and their coal-rolling trucks. Unlike, say, “”Cold Dead Hands” T-shirts won by guys with AR-15 stickers on their trucks that just HAVE to let everyone know 24/7 that their identity is tied up in outward projection of how much they love being the obnoxious kind of gun owner.

                  BTW where do you live? I’d be interested to see what you consider “leftist.”

                  1. Considering all the ad hominem a and straw men you just used, you kind of proved his point.

                    1. Although I disagree, straw man could be argued as present here*, as could caricature. But from where are you getting “ad hominem?”

                      *Then again according to half the commenters here, speaking of straw man, national broadcast of Seattle last night showed a tranquil and peaceful place yet we’re to believe that the entire west Coast is “overrun” by looting Antifa mobs

                    2. Then again according to half the commenters here, speaking of straw man, national broadcast of Seattle last night showed a tranquil and peaceful place yet we’re to believe that the entire west Coast is “overrun” by looting Antifa mobs

                      Woof, the cope in this post is off the charts.

                    3. Also, not do only you keep (misusing) ad hominem as a “rebuttal” or talisman to ward off what I am actually saying, it is ironic considering how many posts here are literally “Progressives this” “lefties that” “progtards this” “woketards that” etc,

                      You guys would be very, very surprised by some of my actual postions on things. You’d find I’m a lot of things but neither a “straight ticket voter” or “registered Democrat” is one of them. This may be mind-blowing, but it IS possible to find out what a person thinks on EACH ISSUE instead of just assuming that if they don’t like Trump, they’re a “liberal” or any other thing.

                    4. You guys would be very, very surprised by some of my actual postions on things.

                      No, they’ve been quite predictable up to this point.

                    5. Jomo’s positions are as predictable as they come – standard, irrational leftism.

                  2. Laughs in “I’m with her!”/”Coexist”/”You can’t hug your children with nuclear arms”: all on the same beat-up Prius.

                    You’re right; that kind of outward political display is restricted to the Right…

                    Do you people read your shit before you hit ‘Send’?

                  3. jomo, answer to your ad hom regarding me.

                    1. Are you asking for an answer, or asserting that someone above has given one?

                  4. DC suburbs. You know, that bastion of flyover right-wing bitter-clinger bigots. And you must have missed the part where there were plenty of Hillary signs in 2016. Or that there are still plenty of Bernie signs, more than there are for Biden. Or that there are still a couple of BLM signs left, again more than there are for Biden. Or that, now that I think about it, more Hillary bumper stickers left over from four years ago than there are for Biden now. I can go on if you like.

                    1. OK let me try another way. Have you EVER seen someone driving a truck flying huge Bernie or Hillary flags? Ever?

                      Coexist and all that chotchie crap is ubiquitous and not limited to a particular person’s candidacy or name. But Trump flags and “fuck your feelings” shirts….

                    2. Have you EVER seen someone driving a truck flying huge Bernie or Hillary flags? Ever?

                      Bernie, yes. Hillary, no.

                      Coexist and all that chotchie crap is ubiquitous and not limited to a particular person’s candidacy or name.

                      No – those are left wing things. They’re “ubiquitous” in Berkeley, certainly . . .

                3. California has no enthusiasm for Biden. I’ve seen one yard sign and no bumper stickers. Hillary signs were everywhere 4 years ago.

              2. Also, to clarify, there were far more signs for Hillary back in 2016 than there are signs for Biden now. And it’s almost October, so it’s not like it’s too early for political campaign signs to pop up on people’s yards.

                1. Not getting into the trump Cali debate.
                  In SE WI there are more signs for both Biden and trump than there were in 16. 0 Jo signs whereas in 16 there were many Johnson signs.
                  My neighborhood is pretty evenly divided. Far fewer Biden signs than BLM signs in June.
                  I see a I can’t breathe yard sign with a trump flag on it. AND a we back the badge with a Biden sign.

              3. Every single leftist that hates this state *knows* in their heart of hearts that it is the GOP’s fault. They are not going to vote for Trump EVER.

                ^ This. I think it’s increasingly likely that we’ll recall Newsom, and we may wind up with some RINO governor like Schwarzenegger in consequence, but a majority voting for Trump? Ain’t gonna happen.

            3. While every word you say is true, California has “ ranked choice “ voting.
              So the two Democrats with the most votes appear on the ballot and there is no Republican to vote for as a protest vote.
              Except for the president.
              There, they had to allow a Republican on the ballot

            4. again and again had we done away with winner take all state electoral votes the obama would have been defeated by the largest landslide in history. % of votes = % of electoral votes. do the math.

        3. California would be pretty hard for the Dems to lose.
          But Gavin Newsom has been giving it his best shot since March.

    2. “Black Lives Matter co-founder is being funded by group linked to the Chinese Communist Party.”

      No shit. It’s ripping the US apart. Why wouldn’t the Chinese be funding this? The Soviets never missed an opportunity to set up and support similar groups.

      1. Gruesome newsome in Cali just passed a decision to outlaw sales of new gas powered vehicles in commifornia. given the state of availability of the means to manufacture the needed batteries it hands the power to newsomes’ partners the chinese communists. they control 80 % and up of rare earth minerals since the obama closed all the rare earth mines in the USA as a favor to the luddites favoring solar and wind bird killer engines.

    1. But imagine what could happen if we made the Emmys and Oscars and even the Super Bowl, and other pop-culture BS, open for national voting. And we gave all citizens one vote each that they could cast in any national contest, including US President. Maybe that would help clear out some of the stupidity in political campaigns.

      1. The only way to clear out stupidity in political campaigns is to clear out the politicians.

        1. Yes, but I do think if we culled the morons from the voter pool, we would get fewer morons among the candidates.

      2. And we gave all citizens one vote each that they could cast in any national contest, including US President.

        Ingenious!

      3. they sure wouldn’t set it up to vote by mail

      4. all those award show voters and the entire industry think the general public is to stupid to select the best performers. They would never let that happen.

    2. At least Kimmel came of looking like an asshole:

      Jimmy Kimmel burns envelope in emmy bit gone wrong

      1. At least Kimmel came of looking like an more of the enormous asshole he is… Better, I think

      2. jimmy kimmel does not LOOK like an asshole he IS an asshole of the 1st order.

    3. The Patriots Seahawks game came down to a 1st and goal play with 3 seconds on the clock. Oh the Emmys also happened?

      1. Oh yeah, football…

        Nope, still don’t care.

        1. It is kind of weir faith no fans in the stadium. It definitely hindered Seattle as the league only allows the broadcast of ambient noise to be 70 dB and CenturyLink field has never had a game, even when the Hawks were losing, when the crowd noise doesn’t exceed 70 dB easily.

          1. At least Philly got it right – no fans allowed in the stadium, but the sound guy still booed the Eagles shittiness

          2. The worst part was the cut to a deserted farmer’s market. Depressing as fuck.

          3. Dallas had 20,000 fans in the stadium to witness Atlanta choke away another game.

      2. Not quite as exciting as the Chiefs OT win over the Chargers with a hugely long field goal.

        1. Good game. If the rookie QB, who didn’t know he was starting until literally minutes before kickoff, had ran for the first rather than attempt a bad throw, that game would have ended differently. That kid was impressive, looked better than last year’s Superbowl winning QB and MVP (still pissed that Wilson hasn’t gotten a single MVP vote in 8 years, how can that be, he is Seattle’s offense and Seattle is always a contender, last night he was damn near perfect and his one pick wasn’t even his fault).

          1. Herbert was great considering the circumstances. Don’t see how you can go back to Taylor after your 6th overall pick future franchise QB played that well.
            Of course, I also don’t see how you punt on 4th and 1 in overtime to the CHIEFS.
            Also, everybody in the country knew exactly where Cam was going to run on the last play. McDaniels is crazy overrated. Do something semi-creative. A tebow-style jump pass would’ve probably worked there. Use Adams aggression against him.

            1. On this, we agree. That play call was so weaksauce, I was PISSED. ANY version of R/P option play would have been better there, Seattle can’t cover three receivers that close and Cam probably would have had an easier time running in then anyway. The guy passes for almost 400 yards and for some reason they decide on that play to run the most predictable play EVER. Almost like they were afraid of reverse Darrell Bevell accusations.

            2. It had worked twice before but the Hawks were ready for it. And both teams calling timeouts definitely allowed for the Hawks to get ready for it. It wasn’t a great call. But as a Hawks fan I was ecstatic. Stuffed him for a loss.

        2. and he kicked the hugely long field goal 3 times:
          Once from 53 yards, negated by a penalty.
          Once from 58 yards after the penalty, negated by a timeout.
          Once again from 58 yards, after the timeout. It was epic.

          Personally, I think calling a timeout as the kicking team snaps the ball should be an automatic penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. It adds nothing to the game.

          1. Just gives the kicker a chance to get a practice kick in.
            If you’re gonna call it, do it as soon as they get set so they can’t get the snap off

  14. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website……ReadMore.

  15. In the coming biopics, I’m sure RBG will be portrayed as a flawed hero: right on so many things, but, at the same time, with a dark, damaged side.

    1. I have been pointing how she violated her oath of office and the lefties are freaking out because their Narrative does not even allow them to admit she messed up not retiring when the Democrats controlled the US Senate and Barack was President.

      1. As has been pointed out, she COULD have retired at 80 and let Obama replace her. This is not Trump’s fault.

        1. RBG could have retired last year or early this year when she has serious medical problems giving plenty of time before the election to replace her.

          She was a selfish bitch and as I predicted will be replaced by Trump.

        2. That’s something people aren’t really digging into here.

          Ginsberg was not a stupid person. Whether she actually used her death as a political weapon is open for debate–and I still lean on the side that says her granddaughter made that shit up entirely to get the Dems fired up–but what’s everyone is overlooking for the moment is that she stubbornly resisted efforts to get her to retire when Obama was in office, despite the fact that she was in such poor health.

          Why is that? For all of Obama’s vaunted charisma and charm, he could never persuade her to hang it up. And the only reason I can come up with is that Ginsberg saw who Obama nominated, and found his choices wanting.

          As much as we might disagree with her legal opinions, they’re at least attempts to persuade using logic and the text of the laws. Sotomayor and Kagan, on the other hand, are utterly useless in this regard. The Wise Latina is constantly appealing to emotion, and Kagan’s arguments are utterly superficial. Hell, there’s no reason Kagan should even be on the court–as Solicitor General, she actually lost more cases than she won, and never even spent time on a bench prior to her nomination. Remember when the Harriet Miers nomination was criticized for the same thing, that it was more out of political loyalty than professional ability?

          I’m pretty sure at this point that Ginsberg felt that Hillary would nominate someone more like her than Kagan or Sotomayor, and that’s why she didn’t retire when Obama was in office. After Trump got elected, she ended up having to try and run out the clock and hope he got beat, and her body finally gave up on her just a bit too late.

          1. I also think that it had a bit to do with not having the Senate. She didn’t want to retire early in Obama’s tenure. But by the time her health issues really started showing up, they had lost the senate and she figured that Obama wouldn’t be able to get a true ideologue into office.

            1. These types of bureaucrats and politicians really believe that they are needed and cannot be replaced. They are delusional.

            2. She could’ve done it in 2009-2010 with no worries about the senate.
              But it is what it is.
              Woe be the conquered.

          2. May she rest in peace.
            Also, “dying wishes” aren’t listed anywhere in the Constitution.

            1. It’s in the penumbras and emanations.

        3. Somebody needs to deep fake Ginsburg’s face onto Peter Cushing’s for that, “Evacuate!? In our moment of triumph?” scene.

      2. That’s a good point. It would be hilarious if Trump made one of his tweets and got the left to hate RBG based on this.

    2. I’m sure RBG will be portrayed as a flawed hero

      I can’t wait for the fight scene in the biker bar.

      1. Will there be a group shower scene at the sorority? And a pillow fight?

    1. And here’s his fellow #TrumpRussia denialist Michael Tracey:

      Court-packing would indisputably violate a key “norm” of American governance, with “norm violations” supposedly having been the main existential threat of the Trump presidency. Perhaps the whole “preserving norms” rhetoric was just a cover to make anti-Trumpism seem extra noble

      This is a common tactic among Drumpf supporters — claiming that it’s actually been Democrats who have behaved like spoiled children for the past few years. Don’t believe this nonsense.

      #LibertariansForCourtPacking
      #(AsLongAsADemocratDoesIt)

      1. You’re a heartless bastard for ignoring a dying woman’s last wish – it was my grandmother’s dying wish that Trump replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. How dare you!

        1. Could Trump nominate himself?

    2. Her actual last words were, spoken in March. ” I will not hide in the fruit cellar! Ha! You think I’m fruity, huh?”.

    3. It is fascinating that people who think that private individuals who die do not necessarily have the right to choose what becomes of their property when they die, argue that a holder of a public office has the right to dictate from the grave how their successor is chosen.

      1. What if she had called for a battle royal? Or an American Ninja competition to replace her?

    4. * Dying Wish Superprecedent

  16. “Democrats are somewhat more likely to have heard at least a little about these theories than Republicans (55% versus 39%, respectively).”

    The boogeyman lives in the hearts of those who fear him.

    1. And how many Republicans heard of them because of how much Dems go on and on about them?

    2. They’re basically doing the Streisand Effect on this stuff by using it as a comeback argument.

      “Eh, what’s this QAnon stuff that these idiots are screeching about?”
      ::Looks up QAnon::
      “Holy crap, no wonder they hate it so much, these guys might actually have a point!”

      1. Yeah cause it’s TOTALLY REALISTIC that Trump started palling around with Epstein for decades as a deep cover plant to expose his ring. Amirite?

        1. Discredited talking points.

        2. And jomo comes along to prove my point.

          Stop digging, you idiot.

          1. What exactly is your “point?” Are you asserting QAnon is made up by Dems? Tell that to the various candidates for office that are (R) and openly QAnon believers.

            1. That you progtards can’t help but signal-boost shit that pisses you off and inadvertently give it more attention.

              Try improving your reading comprehension, idiot, because you keep proving that point for me.

              1. Signal-boosting aside (I consider it wise to call out fucked up weirdos, does that make me strange?) you fail to deny my core assertion which is that QAnon is neither non-existent, nor “previously unknown” to Republicans. Unless Breitbart is a Dem stronghold.

                1. Or Breitbart is also not closely followed by Republicans except in your mind. It was previously unknown to the majority of Republicans a few examples doesn’t counter that point.

                  1. Steve Bannon was literally Trump’s special advisor and you claim Republicans don’t know about Breitbart? Who the actual fuck do you think posts there?

                2. Your core assertion is pretty much made up out of whole cloth.

            2. One, exactly one case of someone who has no shot at winning. Gee overwhelming evidence there

    3. Bingo.

      I never heard of QAnon until Team Blue started screeching about it.

      It’s kind of like the “OK” sign being a WhiTe SuPreMAciSt dog whistle.

      1. The OK sign even I knew was BS, cause where I grew up it was for that game. But the QAnon, you all heard about, and you knew about, and trying to retroactively edit your metadata so to speak is not gonna work.

        1. Didn’t even know what Qanon was until the Democrats brought it up. Who is refusing history to fit their narrative again?

          1. So your theory is what…that the Dems invented QAnon which happens to have Trump as its leading “savior” figure? Makes sense….

            1. Youre not a bright person.

              1. Oh really? Prove it.

                1. He doesn’t have to, you keep proving it with your attempts at sophistry.

            2. No it is my hypothesis (you are misusing the word theory BTW) that Qanon existed among s very small fringe that no one paid any attention to until the Democrats made a big deal about it. Just like Pizzagate. Same stupid nonsense. My family is extremely conservative and not one of them knee what Qanon was (and there are more than a few who buy into the conspiracies nonsense) the same is true of Pizzagate.

              1. You literally try and make fun of LC above for using rioters to (falsely in your opinion) misrepresent all Democrats and here you are using the exact same tactic of trying to paint all Republicans based upon a basically unknown conspiracy theory.

      2. Sort of like the Boogaloo Boys being some white supremacist militia, when their name hadn’t even come up before the Fetanyl Floyd riots.

        In reality, the whole Boog thing is probably nothing more than some CIA gayop.

  17. California School District’s New ‘Equity’ Curriculum Teaches Kindergarteners To Be Racist

    Piedmont Unified School District of Piedmont, California recently passed a policy in early September stating the district’s commitment to “equitable outcomes for students who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color” through new race policies. These policies use tax dollars to teach children as young as kindergarten that their nation is evil, due to “our nation’s continuing history of systemic racism, anti-Blackness, White supremacy, White privilege, and oppression based on race.”

    Ah, actual racism, where these Lefties want people to hate White Americans because they are White.

    1. Need to separate school and state.

      1. Need to separate California and USA.

    2. Well, since objective reasoning, math, and logic are white racist constructs, they have to teach the kids something.

      1. “White racist” is tautological since, you know, only whites can be racist — it’s scientifically proven! Oh, wait. Science is racist, too!

        1. Science is racist; we now follow Science!, which is woke.

        2. only whites can be racist … and all whites are racist

    3. Piedmont is in Oakland, so it’s not like this is a surprise.

      1. Piedmont is in Oakland

        Kind of. Piedmont is an independent city located in the Oakland hills and surrounded entirely by the city of Oakland (the nice parts you don’t hear about). It is quite wealthy, 75% white and 20% Asian, with its own highly-regarded (for public schools) school district, kept meticulously separated from Oakland Unified, which is a perpetual shit-show.

        IOW, this is a bunch of upper class white people, who live in a city that is specifically legally separated from “those people” in Oakland, who now want you to know how woke and totally-not-at-all-racist they are.

        This is part-and-parcel of white East Bay hill culture that runs from Oakland-Piedmont through Berkeley into El Cerrito and East Richmond Heights. It is one of the beating hearts of Wokeness, with lots and lots of UCB faculty and tech investors.

        1. IOW, this is a bunch of upper class white people, who live in a city that is specifically legally separated from “those people” in Oakland, who now want you to know how woke and totally-not-at-all-racist they are.

          Probably trying to keep the riff-raff from coming in and burning their homes down.

          1. The Oakland hills firestorm wasn’t that long ago…

            Beautiful area. I love the view from the Science Center above Berkeley.

            1. Lawrence Hall of Science. Great little science education center for kids, before they filled it up with Climate Change propaganda.

          2. Probably trying to keep the riff-raff from coming in and burning their homes down.

            I think that may be the most fundamental impulse, yeah.

  18. “DOJ Designates New York City as an ‘Anarchist Jurisdiction.'”

    First, they had too many rules. Now, not enough. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

    1. Hmm, did NYC start this by calling the DOJ a bunch of fascist pigs or something? Sounds like kindergarten level name calling (or modern American politics).

    2. Paging Mr. Plissken….

      1. He moved to portland.

    1. Clocking the amount of time until anonymous sources who are totally more reliable and legitimate than Qanon assert that Trump killed RBG to bury sexual assault story. And… go!

    2. All models are wrong, but some are useful.

      1. I only regret that I can’t upvote this comment.

        1. reason really needs thumbs up or down buttons.

  19. Ann Althouse for once sums things up quite well. She says regarding the Ginsburg replacement

    The boil-down is easy: Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a completely political event, where there are constitutionally defined powers that will be exercised to their utmost. Nothing more is needed, and nothing can be done about it, and each party will do what the other party would do if the roles were reversed. And that’s the same thing they did in 2016 after Justice Scalia died.

    Anyone who says anything beyond that is lying.

    1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    2. Trump was elected to do this. This is literally his job.

    3. The question for Collins and Murkowski should be is ACB qualified, if she was nominated by the winner from the November presidential election would you vote for her? Then why can’t you vote for her now…or is it just for political reasons?

      1. Sigh. Is there anything that most humans say or do most of the time that is not for political reasons?

      2. For Collins, it’s purely political. She’s a Republican running in a solidly Democrat state. It’s easy to understand the practical reality she lives in.

        For Murkowski and Romney, I genuinely don’t understand.

        1. Collins is not a Republican.
          She just runs on their ticket.
          I never have figured out why parties have to let non-believers run on their tickets.
          Like Bernie and the Democrats. (not a band name!)

          1. Most annoying music ever.

            1. I’m thinking phish with a really bad sitar section

          2. Collins isn’t nearly as crazy as the typical Democrat, so to her I say do what you must to keep those lunatics from taking your seat.

        2. Money and lingering butthurt at Trump, are my guesses for why. Murkowski did this for Kavanaugh too. Romney likely thinks he’s either a one term guy, or that voters’ll forget in four years.

          The worry I have is that some ‘principled Conservative,’ like Sasse, will step up to the auction block next.

        3. Collins is losing by 6 points in Maine. Irrespective of how she votes, this will quite likely be the last vote of consequence she makes as a public figure. She should just suck it up and confirm the nominee assuming Trump doesn’t nominate a total hack.

          1. If McConnell isn’t telling her that right now, he’s dropping the ball, because there’s no way any Democrat will vote to confirm. The only hope the Dems have is carving off Republican, or in Murkowski’s case, Republican-adjacent Senators.

          2. Since when does Trump nominating a total hack (ESPECIALLY for judge seats) stop any of his followers from supporting it?

            1. Yeah like Lagan isn’t a total partisan hack?

            2. And Gorsuch had voted against Trump multiple times so not exactly a partisan hack. Even Kavanaugh has voted against Trump’s interests. Are you out newest NPC regurgitating leftist trope?

              1. I’m not talking about Gorsuch, (who is not a hack IMO) I’m talking about guys like the one he nominated for a fed court seat that had literally never tried a case. But then again I think he will nominate Giuliani, or Roy Moore. I honestly would not be surprised, and at this point, I also would not be surprised if his base eats that up with nary a thought.

                1. He doesn’t like Moore and had said so multiple times and he has already said he is nominating a woman. More discredited talking points.

                  1. “Doesn’t like Moore?” LOL way to memory hole the entire Senate race involving Moore.

                    1. You do realize he campaigned for Moore’s opponent in the primary and only reluctantly supported Moore after the primary? Not memory holing anything, also not selectively remembering the events as you are.

                  2. He sure liked Moore up until Moore lost. Did you forget that part?

                    1. No he primaries against Moore and supported a different candidate. He only supported Moore after he won the primary. Someone is memory holing what actually happened, but it is not me. He also criticized Moore after he lost.

              2. He is sounding like a jeff or sarcasmic sock. Makes the same lies as both of them.

                1. Jesus Christ can you guys stop with the “every one who questions anything is a sock?” How can I “prove” to you I’m not a sock? Do I need to doxx myself or something?

            3. LMAO–dude, this is low-effort even for the standard drive-by proglydytes.

              Sad!

              1. Explain what is low effort there. I state my belief that Gorsuch is NOT a hack, I cite a true example of a judicial nominee who had literally never tried a case https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/us/brett-talley-judge-senate.html

                And I name two people with legal backgrounds who it is not crazy to think Trump may nominate.

                1. You mean like Kagan, who lost more cases as Solicitor General than she won?

                  1. Losing cases does not ewuate to literally never trying one.

                    I don’t even really like Kagan per se but come on man, really? Are you for nominees like the one I linked to?

                  2. Losing cases does not ewuate to literally never trying one.

                    She hadn’t done that either, idiot.

                    I don’t even really like Kagan per se

                    Nice use of the passive voice there.

                    but come on man, really? Are you for nominees like the one I linked to?

                    Only if it makes you mad.

                    1. So she lost cases without trying them? Interesting take.

                      “Only if it makes you mad.”
                      Nice governing philosophy you got there. Wonder where that came from.

                    2. I said she’d never been on the bench as a judge, you moron, which is a stone-cold fact. Learn to read.

                      And losing more cases than you win is an odd qualification for a Supreme Court justice.

                      Nice governing philosophy you got there. Wonder where that came from.

                      Watching your allies in action for the last 50 years.

                2. And the “two people” you named as possible nominees are sheer fanfic on your part. Reading your far-left bullshit has given you brain worms.

                3. They are completely crazy. Especially Moore. And especially as he has released his list of nominees and has promised it will be a female nominee. If by not crazy you mean entirely contrary to all evidence but extremely remotely possible, yeah not entirely craz but in reality, yes extremely crazy.

        4. Murkowski is beholden to the Alaskan Native Corporations, state government unions, and Planned Parenthood. Her daddy was the Governor of Alaska, and he was supposed to fill the vacancies but he instead sat on it for 6 weeks in order to give his darling princess the Senate seat. She lost in the primary, but she educated enough folks in rural Alaska how to spell her name. After an ugly State Supreme Court battle, she won her seat…write-ins. To most conservatives and many Republicans in Alaska, she is on their shit list and pissed off the state GOP continually endorses her. Now she’s forever beholden to those write-in groups. She can’t make any decisions about anything without getting her orders from those groups.

      3. The irony is that Collins is dead meat in the election anyway, so pandering to the Democrats doesn’t do her any good. Murkowski is safe, she’s just looking for a payoff to change her vote.

        People are saying Romney might waffle, too, but I honestly don’t think he’s going to do that. The California carpetbagger nutbags in SLC and hippies in Park City don’t have enough political sway to overcome the rest of the state.

        1. Romney is already on thin ice in Utah because of his antics and he knows it.

    4. Seriously. I don’t get the problem here. Elections have consequences. The Executive gets to pick; nay it’s his duty to do so.

      All this wait until the election is over stuff is hogwash. If the tables were turned you can bet your bottom dollar reserved for that stripper the DNC would have already put forth their Justice.

      1. The problem is partisan politics.

        1. As opposed to non-partisan politics?

          1. I enjoy discussing such hypothetical constructs.

          2. Correct. Some politics are partisan and some are not. There are politics within parties as well.

            1. This assumes that internal political aren’t also partisan but that also isn’t true. In the GOP for example you have Constitutional Conservatives, Neo Conservatives, Libertarian Conservatives, Rockefeller Conservatives, Hawks, Doves etc. These are partisan positions and thus the internal politics is also partisan as one group jockeys for influence over the other groups. Just because they have the same party letter after their names doesn’t mean their politics are any less partisan amongst themselves.

              1. This assumes that internal political aren’t also partisan but that also isn’t true. In the GOP for example you [HAD] Constitutional Conservatives, Neo Conservatives, Libertarian Conservatives, Rockefeller Conservatives, Hawks, Doves etc. These are partisan positions and thus the internal politics is also partisan as one group jockeys for influence over the other groups. Just because they have the same party letter after their names doesn’t mean their politics are any less partisan amongst themselves.

                FTFY

                1. No they all still exist to different degrees, otherwise you leftist would not be celebrating how many Republicans have announced support for Biden.

                  1. Now prove that I am a “lefty.” I’ll wait.

                    1. Maybe because all of your talking points are straight leftist tropes. And many discredited at that and only leftist still parrot them?

                    1. Funny how this got no response

                    2. No response because I was working asshole. Gee some people have a job go figure.

                    3. That proves nothing but the RNC didnt offer a platform. It doesn’t prove that there are not divisions within the Republican party. I am not sure why you even cited it as evidence of anything. Rather sophomoric attempt at a gotcha.

    5. Yep. It is crucial to get an Originalist on the court, pronto. Preferably a younger woman. Barrett is sterling. I would look at Britt Grant.

      1. I also prefer younger women.

      2. I would look at Britt Grant too.

        While she slowly tugged her black robe from one shoulder, and gave me a knowing glance…

      3. Barrett’s personal conservatism scares the shit out of me. How can anyone who speaks in tongues be sane?

        1. Probably the same type of lunacy that thinks an Iranian general getting whacked outside his home country is going to lead to their kid getting drafted.

          1. You’re right Comfort-Dental. Political assassinations rarely escalate to war. And a draft couldn’t possibly happen in our lifetime. I’ll remind my dad of that fact the next time we visit his brother’s grave at Ft. Logan.

            1. If you referring to Vietnam the draft predates Vietnam. There has been no draft for almost 50 years. What a stupid starement

              1. Because history doesn’t repeat itself? Stupid comment indeed.

                1. Anyone who legitimately thought that we were going to war with Iran after that strike has no fucking clue about the complexity of Middle Eastern politics.

                  Iran has plenty of ballistic missiles to saturate every American-occupied base in the region. Doing so would have legitimately kicked off a war–because every Middle Eastern nation with those bases on them would have declared war right back.

                  Iran’s leaders are not stupid. Their capability is built for fomenting insurrections and supporting aligned militias outside their borders, not conducting a full-scale regional war. Iran’s relations in the region are as follows: Turkey, which has the conflicting little dilemma of being part of NATO; Syria, which is still in the middle of a civil war and has its own problems to deal with; the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which are strictly local operations with no ambitions outside of their home countries; and Qatar, who has to walk a line between Iran, the US, and the GCC due to its geographical and diplomatic position.

                  That’s it. On the surface they seem to be working from a position of strength, but in reality they are really quite isolated. Iran buys all kinds of shit from China and Russia, but all those countries care about is having a customer, and they certainly aren’t going to send troops to help out Iran in the event a regional conflict actually kicked off.

                  No, we were never going to get into World War 3 over Soleimani getting waxed. That would have been utter suicide for Iran.

                  1. And Turkey and Iran aren’t exactly bosom buddies, but they put up with each other when interests align.

            2. Political assassinations rarely escalate to war.

              It didn’t in this case, either.

              And a draft couldn’t possibly happen in our lifetime. I’ll remind my dad of that fact the next time we visit his brother’s grave at Ft. Logan.

              You and a lot of other galaxy-brains were so desperate for that event to be the next Gulf of Tonkin just so you could be right, and it completely fell flat to the point that Arab nations and Israel are signing peace agreements.

              1. You forget the conversation. I truly hoped (and still do) that the assassination would not escalate and that Trump knew what he was doing. I said that and mentioned that I have a son approaching draft age. I also mentioned that I had an uncle who was drafted and killed in Vietnam. Never met him but it’s fucked up my dad (who also served in Vietnam) and Grandfather (who served in WW2/Korea/Vietnam) up pretty bad.

                1. And since the escalation never happened, all that whinging was for nothing.

                  1. “All that whinging” was a single post along the lines of “I hope Trump knows what he’s doing” …and then responding to a flood of shitposts from your cabal of Trump-fans here that attack anyone with a divergent viewpoint.

                    1. “All that whinging” was a single post along the lines of “I hope Trump knows what he’s doing”

                      You should be happy that it turned out that he did, then.

                    2. I am. Although I think it’s premature to say that it’s over.

        2. Yes, why would a Christian want to follow the example of the original Christian apostles, let alone Christ himself?

          Mark 16:17: And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;

          Acts 2:4: And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

          Acts 19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

          And of course–
          1st Corinthians 14:23: If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

          I mean, if you’re arguing that a practicing, sincere Christian should not be allowed to be a judge, it would be a stupid position, but at least it would be honest. Lord knows that cosmos and the left love them some Santa Claus Christianity.

          1. Lol. We’ll it’s a good thing to know she follows all of the rules and doesn’t cherry pick. Hopefully you won’t mind the following questions during Senate conformation:
            Will she recuse herself while unclean? Does she know which side of the altar to smear sacrificial blood?
            What’s the correct stone size to throw when punishing someone for working on the Sabbath?
            How large of a rod is acceptable for a husband to beat his wife?

            1. You obviously don’t under stand the difference between the old testament and the new testament between the old convanent of salvation by the law (old Testament) and the new convanent of salvation through Christ.

              1. Corinthians and Matthew are full of inconvenient NT quotes. Nothing as laughable as the OT of course…But here’s a beauty form Luke:

                “So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.”

                I’m guessing Barrett (and you) won’t be heading this one?

            2. That you fell so easily into mimicking the Smug Atheist meme was the best part of your post.

              1. You of all people quoting the Bible (did you get struck by lightning?) Here’s one from Matthew straight outta your messiah’s mouth:

                “But I say to you, Do not resist the evil man [who injures you]; but if anyone strikes you on the right jaw or cheek, turn to him the other one too”

                1. I’m agnostic. I just recognize when someone who doesn’t actually believe in a religion is trying to use an argument that would never work on them to get the believer to capitulate.

                  That whole perspective is why it became a meme in the first place. It also has nothing to do with your smooth-brained take on why Barrett isn’t qualified for the Supreme Court, her years of experience on the bench to the contrary.

                  1. I never said that she wasn’t qualified. I just have little respect for zealots of any stripe. Especially ones who seek to enforce their beliefs upon others. You seem to believe the same but only if said zealot has a “(D)” after their name.

                    1. I never said that she wasn’t qualified.

                      Eric
                      September.21.2020 at 3:35 pm
                      Barrett’s personal conservatism scares the shit out of me. How can anyone who speaks in tongues be sane?

                      I just have little respect for zealots of any stripe. Especially ones who seek to enforce their beliefs upon others. You seem to believe the same but only if said zealot has a “(D)” after their name.

                      Because they’re objectively worse.

                    2. “ Because they’re objectively worse.”

                      Fine. And at this juncture in history I agree with you for the most part. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to embrace the other side either. Bad is bad and should be called out for it.

      4. Ah yes, “Originalists.” I remember them from law school. The ones who would love to erase the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 14th Amendments given the chance.

        1. LAMO, you’re projecting more than a 24-screen movie theater.

        2. Another simplistic straw man.

          1. And more leftist trope also. Yeah you’re not a leftist, just post nothing but leftist tropes.

  20. Marquette University released the survey results on Saturday that showed 67% of adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred during 2020’s race, with only 32% opposition — and similar strong numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and independents, who supported holding confirmation hearings at 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/people-favor-confirmation-hearings-for-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020-poll

    Democrats think you’re dumb. They keep pointing to 2016. 2016 had an oppositional senate. There have been around a dozen no votes on nominations to the USSC when the president and senate are of different parties. Democrats are counting on your ignorance to think now is the same as 2016.

    1. Hmm. Wonder why ENB didn’t cite this poll.

      1. The world may never know…

      2. Not on Vox?

      3. Not a WaPo or NYT story = not news to her.

        1. What is CNN, chopped bat liver?

    2. “Democrats are counting on your ignorance…”

      Why not? It’s worked for them this far…

  21. Half of Republicans Say New Justice Should Be Picked by Whoever Wins the Election

    That’s pretty sad. Only half of Republicans realize we already had an election and Trump won?

    1. And the other half want to wait for the winner of the 2024 election…

  22. “Democrats and Republicans think U.S. leaders should wait to confirm a new justice.”

    The Constitution, however, is mute on delaying confirmation during the runup to an election.

    1. “Democrats and Republicans think U.S. leaders should wait to confirm a new justice.”
      At least until after one is nominated.

  23. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $56.2 billion

    Mr. Koch’s inability to hire his preferred employees — specifically Mexican immigrants — has caused his hard-earned fortune to stagnate in the $50 billion to $60 billion range. Totally unacceptable. He deserves at least $70 billion to $80 billion.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. The financial suffering will continue until Koch Industry morale improves.

    2. He could always stop wasting money on this rag.

    1. Combine that with the 150 million killed by guns since 2007.

      1. But how many are still voting, at least in Chicago? (So, does it matter?)

        1. 300 million

        2. Democrats in a landslide from the dead votes.

    2. So less than half the number of abortions?

  24. And if Trump loses, then Senate Republicans and Democrats will have an opportunity to commit to not pack the Court, and thus to not destroy it.

    Well that’s a nice compromise, both sides agree to not do something only one side is threatening to do. I can’t wait until January when Trump is re-inaugurated and he says, “You know, I think I agree with the Democrats that we should expand the Supreme Court to 15 justices. That’s a really good idea.”

    1. He could do this before the election and make the left go apoplectic. It may even induce mass heart attack/brain aneurysm/suicide among the true believers.

      1. Looking forward to a Supreme Court with more members than Congress. Though that will make seating more difficult during the State of the Union address.

        1. State of the Union Zoom call?

          1. They are usually elderly, and the population most threatened by the WuFlu.

  25. “30% of American adults said that Ginsburg’s death will make them more likely to vote for Biden while 25% said they were now more likely to support Trump. Another 38% said that it had no impact on their interest in voting, and the rest said they were not sure.”

    And just over 50% said, “There’s an election? Who’s running?”

    1. Cue the Undecided Voters sketch from SNL: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KAG37Kw1-aw

  26. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lotHere………………………ReadMore.

  27. A far more accurate headline for this anti Trump propaganda is: “ENB Says New Justice Should Be Picked by Whoever Wins the Election”.

    As I recall, Reuters polls inaccurately predicted Hillary Clinton would defeat Trump in 2016. Besides, polling mostly naive voters just one day after RGB’s death (immediately after CNN, MSNBC, Schumer and and other Trump haters demonized Trump and Senate Republicans if they fulfilled their Constitutional duties) is not an objective survey/poll.

    1. Emperor Xi would not approve the deal if ByteDance’s recommendations algorithm were transferred to the new American entity.

      That means this deal couldn’t have happened if their algorithm were part of the deal. Good thing Oracle knows a thing or two about coding.

      Anyone who wanted Bytedance to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations to an American entity and objects to this deal on that basis is either stupid or acting like a little girl.

      Ever heard of wanting to have your cake and eat it too? Did you actually want a sale, or did you just want something to whine about?

      1. Who are you talking to, ken?

        1. Why does it matter whether Bytedance retains its proprietary technology in TikTok Global?

          1. Again, who are you arguing with?

            1. He wants pats for his completely banal observations, he spammed the fucking thread with his TikTok crap and is actively trolling you over it.

              1. I mean, look at this exchange

                Nardz
                September.21.2020 at 10:52 am
                Who are you talking to, ken?

                Ken Shultz
                September.21.2020 at 10:59 am
                Why does it matter whether Bytedance retains its proprietary technology in TikTok Global?

                Wtf Shultz? Did you take a fall?

  28. Obvious partisan advantage aside, how would the logic of not allowing a sitting president (months before the election) to make nominations for the Supreme Court?

    Certainly this restriction should apply to the actions most presidents (and governors) take just before midnight on their last day, including pardons, national parks, and all the other silly stuff. But should it limit other actions in the last months (year?) of their term? What about other elected officials? Should we just shut down government as soon as campaigning begins?

    1. it would probably be to our overall benifit if we shut down government during campaign season which sometimes last for a full term. the Dems started campaigning the day after Bush was elected for his second term and I don’t think Obama ever stopped even after he was elected

      1. Unfortunately this would only apply to the elected officials, not to the armies of non-partisan bureaucrats.

  29. http://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1308045036391727104?s=19
    If you’d like to know how the US has reach 200,000 reported #sarscov2 deaths, the Milwaukee coroner’s office is a good place to start. It reports the (anonymized) death certificates of #Covid cases. Just a few of the most recent (sorry about the glare):

    1. 100% of people who died had inhaled oxygen just prior to death.

    2. To be fair though, the number of excess deaths in the country is pretty clear. We’ve had 200,000+ more deaths than we would otherwise expect. This is worse than the flu deaths (though still not worth gut-shotting the entire country) from previous years. It was a bad epidemic. If there is a real crime, it is that we economically murdered the country without really changing the number of deaths what so ever.

      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

      Also a little note that of all the states in the Union, it is New York that seems to be under-counting the number of COVID deaths. They are claiming all sorts of elderly deaths as non-covid.

      1. If the excess deaths is -200k next year it is meaningless. The age of the population largely died is well above average American death age.

      2. A better question is how many of those deaths are because of COVID and how many as a result of the stupid lockdowns that delayed medical care for chronic disease?

        1. Yup. Kinda meaningless number.

      3. Excess deaths always accompany bad economic conditions, which in this case state governments inflicted on themselves.

      4. If you look at the CDC excess deaths chart, you see nearly 3 straight years of “under-expected” deaths.

        Sooner or later, those people turn into “over expected” deaths.

        Covid killed a lot of those people, but bad policy killed (and is still killing) a lot of them as well. And the bad policy deaths we can actually do something about.

  30. The purpose of President Trump’s TikTok initiative was:

    1) Break TikTok’s U.S. operations off of the rest of the company so Americans couldn’t be subject to Chinese surveillance.

    2) Bring TikTok’s U.S. operations under majority American control.

    3) Bring TikTok’s U.S. operations within the United States.

    4) Make TikTok’s new parent pay the United States for forcing TikTok to sell itself at fire-sale prices.

    All four objectives have been met.

    1) The new TikTok Global’s operations will be split off from ByteDance’s TikTok, and all of TikTok’s data for U.S. consumers will be hosted by Oracle–here in the U.S.A. (It may be a little confusing, but TikTok’s Chinese operations are considered “TikTok”, where “TikTok Global” is actually all of TikTok’s operations outside of China.

    2) Because 40% of Bytedance is already owned by a handful of American private equity firms, Bytedance retaining 80% control of the new entity means that 32% of the new TikTok will be owned by the same American private equity firms. The partnership of Oracle and Walmart controlling the other 20% means that the new TikTok Global, based here in the USA, will be 52% owned by Americans–ahead of the IPO.

    The ultimate goal was always to take TikTok public. Why settle for annual earnings when they can probably get Facebook’s p/e of 30 times earnings or more once they go public? Point being, once TikTok Global goes public, the new entity will be far more than 52% American owned.

    3) TikTok Global’s operations will be headquartered in Texas, and they will be hiring 25,000 Americans.

    4) The U.S. getting a share is the $5 billion ENB is talking about to go to education. If what Trump did was wrong here, and it almost certainly was from a libertarian capitalist perspective, it isn’t because Trump made them support an American history narrative in American schools to counter The 1619 Project.

    Conclusion: I see that four promises were made by President Trump on this, and four promises were kept.

    If we can’t disagree with what Trump did without mischaracterizing what he did, then it makes our objections look like bullshit.

    As I said on Friday, Trump never had any intention of banning TikTok. It was a negotiating tactic. Trump’s intention was to force TikTok to accept majority American ownership.

    1. Ken…I found your posts on this Bytedance deal informative, and persuasive. Thank you.

    2. Why did you expect Reason to post something about the TikTok deal on a weekend? Covered right away in the Monday morning roundup.

      1. He wants kudos. He’s here begging for slurping.

      2. “Why did you expect Reason to post something about the TikTok deal on a weekend?”

        Where are you getting this idea?

        1. https://reason.com/2020/09/19/end-the-war-on-drugs/#comment-8470073

          Ken Shultz
          September.19.2020 at 7:10 pm
          President Trump has blessed the TikTok deal, selling itself to the Oracle/Walmart consortium–with the U.S. getting $5 billion out of the deal for education.

          There’s no thread.

          1. Why’d you leave off the rest of the comment?

            “Okay, maybe we shouldn’t expect a Padres thread, but I figured we’d at least get a food thread today.”

            —-Ken Shultz

            What I really wanted was a Baylen Linnekin food thread–so that I could talk about what I wanted. There’s always a Baylen food thread on Saturdays, but there wasn’t this weekend. That’s what I was talking about.

            P.S. I wasn’t really expecting a Padres thread either.

  31. should the president do nothing his last year in office? How about the year before the last or the year before that, maybe the president should never do anything. People don’t do nothing their last year on the job now pick a new SCJ.
    how many don’t want to pick a SCJ now since they also have to run for their office and don’t want to spend time doing their job since running for office doesn’t require real work with real results to be done.

    1. Ron, its just another step into bizarro world, where people come up with pseudo-logical justifications for feelz, and continue to construct legal restrictions on people for what they believe might happen in future.

      These people remind me of how first graders might discuss how to self-govern, and all the illogical and contradictory rules they would propose, and then make exclusions for.

    1. Can we get them to change the channel? I’ve seen this movie before.

  32. http://twitter.com/christina_bobb/status/1307988474151276545?s=19
    HAPPENING NOW. Outside Sen Lindsay Graham’s house in DC. Call to “wake him up.”

    1. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump campaign people were organizing or funding some of these amazingly counterproductive protests. What a fantastic way to piss off a bunch of Senators.

      1. Not to mention Republican voters.

  33. To the Conor Freidersdorf tweet. Not necessarily, but a large part of this has been the legacy of the pro abortion movement convincing the SCOTUS to act as a superlegistlature to remove abortion policy from the normal discourse of politics. It has been a tremendous source of corruption of the court and a stain on its reputation.

  34. 30% of American adults said that Ginsburg’s death will make them more likely to vote for Biden while 25% said they were now more likely to support Trump. Another 38% said that it had no impact on their interest in voting, and the rest said they were not sure.

    Should a Trump nominee be confirmed I wonder how the inevitable riots, and we know there will be riots, changes this math.

    1. Mostly peaceful riots.

  35. These your people?

    http://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1308042114433912833?s=19
    I guess they’re planning to shoot people now. This is on TikTok.

    1. Told you jeff was fat.

    2. No, they aren’t even waiting for the nomination. I am surprised that their protests haven’t yet devolved into full scale riots, but they’ve seemed to come close.

      1. This was meant in reply to rioting not shooting people.

    3. What a dickhead.

      Not all of them are going to be that dumb.

    4. “Bro the communists are getting arrested bro what about freedom bro go fight it out with ex-combat veterans so we can free the demiqueer anarchocommunists bro whose going to get you fired for your tweets or do drag queen story hour come on man.”

  36. I don’t recall Schumer or the Trump haters in the left wing media urging Obama to not appoint Garland (and instead to wait and let the 2016 winner make the appointment in 2017). Such insincere hypocrisy.

    Trump has announced that he’ll announce his nominee later this week.

    Even if Lindsey Graham holds the Judiciary Cmte hearing and vote in October, McConnell might wait until after the election to hold the full Senate vote (i.e. if he doesn’t have the 50 votes to confirm before the election, or perhaps if he thinks doing so will improve Trump’s chances of winning reelection and/or retaining Republican control of the Senate).

    If Kamala Harris and other lefty Democrats on the Judiciary Cmte (i.e. Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker) say/do anything similar to what they did during Kavanaugh’s hearing, their false mean spirited accusations will be on the minds of many/most voters when they cast their ballots, boosting chances of Trump’s reelection, R’s keeping control of the Senate, and perhaps the House going Republican.

    Then, several days after the election, the lame duck Senate may be even more likely to approve Trump’s nominee (with support by Murkowski, Collins and perhaps Romney) before the SCOTUS could consider 2020 election challenges, and preferably before the SCOTUS reconsiders Obamacare a week after the election.

    1. > I don’t recall Schumer or the Trump haters in the left wing media urging Obama to not appoint Garland

      This is payback for 2016. Simple as that. If Garland got through then Trump’s pick would have gotten through. But Rs blocks Garland to the Ds are going to block whomever Trump picks.

      1. If Garland got through then Trump’s pick would have gotten through.

        Assertion or fact. You decide.

        1. It’s a hypothetical. Garland did NOT get through. So it can’t be either an assertion or a fact.

      2. by the way. You really shouldn’t have skipped over the comment about nearly a dozen non votes during times of opposition. A list of all nominations is on wiki with their disposition. You should check it out some time. Your assertion is just silly.

        The difference today is there is no party opposition in the senate.

      3. The D’s can’t block anything they can only mewl and eat the L.

        1. Yeah, even if Romney, Collins and Murkowkski vote no, that still leaves the Republicans enough votes to confirm. And I think 2 of the 3 will cave and vote yes. Schumer knows this but he is hoping to delay long enough to run out the clock. There is no upside outside of possibly Collins to vote no for Republicans. And no real downside for voting yes.

      4. If Garland got through then Trump’s pick would have gotten through.

        Not even you are dumb enough to really believe that. Just shut up. Really. give me a fucking break with this bullshit. The Democrats will do whatever they have the power to do. Fuck you.

        1. And thanks to Reid they have no power.

      5. Except…..they can’t.

        That’s how “having the votes” works.

    2. If we don’t have 9 justices before the election we may not know who is President on January 20. The circuits could easily split and a 4/4 SCOTUS could leave it hanging. Total shitshow.

  37. The reaction to RBG is just creepy.

    1. The Cult of the Vagina.

    2. The dying wish thing is all the way fucked up. I don’t know that Trump and RBG ever said more than two sentences to each other, but you have to be pretty fanatically fucked up to make your dying wish a request to fuck over potential nominees in order to spite spite someone who by-and-large has absolutely nothing to do with you. It might make sense if it were a custom or a slight deviation from custom, but this isn’t Judge Dredd.

      1. But the dying wish thing appeals to those with intellects on the level of romance novels and grade school morality.

      2. It was reported by NPR, so it could just be completely fabricated. Don’t know for sure, but it’s a possibility.

        1. My wife heard the news and relayed it to me, almost certainly not from NPR. That was my same knee-jerk. She may’ve agreed to such a story months if not years ago, but the idea that she said/did as much in her final hours is almost assuredly BS.

          1. As far as I know, all the reports originate from NPR’s reporting. The news source your wife got it from got it from NPR. I have yet to see anything not using the NPR report as a source confirming the NPR report.

      3. The dying wish thing is bullshit, I’m sure. Are we really supposed to believe that an 87 year old woman and Supreme Court Justice, dying of pancreatic cancer, spent her last words hoping that the president and Congress would ignore their constitutional duties? It’s just typical leftist bullshit, designed to get the proggie cultists into a lather.

        But yes, the reaction to her death is just absurd. Condolences to her family and friends who will no doubt miss her, but I can’t seem to scrounge up a whole lot of grief for an 87 year old woman with pancreatic cancer. Dying was not only a mercy for her, but, at her age, kind of her job.

        1. Are we really supposed to believe that an 87 year old woman and Supreme Court Justice, dying of pancreatic cancer, spent her last words hoping that the president and Congress would ignore their constitutional duties? It’s just typical leftist bullshit, designed to get the proggie cultists into a lather.

          Not just that, but sweep the kids and grandkids aside with one arm so you can make sure the reporters know that you don’t want Trump to pick your replacement? I don’t know that that’s what she did and if she didn’t, RIP. Otherwise, go to hell. Your grandkids deserve a better SCOTUS.

          1. It was told to NPR by Ginsberg’s granddaughter, which makes it even more implausible.

        2. It is almost like progressive believe in a Monarchy. Because the dying wish shit is straight up monarchy bullshit..

          1. They very much do

          2. The RNC this year was mostly members of the current would-be “royal family” so…

              1. TRUE.
                A son, daughter, wife or in-law spoke every evening of the RNC.

                Do you deny this somehow?

                1. Sure, considering it’s made up out of whole cloth.

                  Claim: The RNC this year was mostly members of the current would-be “royal family” so…

                  Reality: The actual list of speakers:
                  U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn
                  Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
                  Jack Brewer
                  Sister Dede Byrne
                  Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron
                  Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson
                  Madison Cawthorn
                  White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway
                  U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton
                  U.S. Rep. Daniel Crenshaw
                  Scott Dane
                  Ann Dorn
                  U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst
                  Debbie Flood
                  Amy Johnson Ford
                  U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz
                  Franklin Graham
                  Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell
                  Kimberly Guilfoyle
                  Rudy Giuliani
                  Former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley
                  Natalie Harp
                  Clarence Henderson
                  Ryan Holets
                  Abby Johnson
                  Alice Johnson
                  Georgia State Rep. Vernon Jones
                  U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan
                  Jason Joyce
                  Keith Kellogg
                  Charlie Kirk
                  Kim Klacik
                  Myron Lizer
                  Wade Mayfield
                  U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy
                  Mark and Patricia McCloskey
                  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
                  RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel
                  Michael McHale
                  Carl and Marsha Mueller
                  South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem
                  Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez
                  Burgess Owens
                  Sean Parnell
                  U.S. Sen. Rand Paul
                  Megan Pauley
                  Vice President Mike Pence
                  Second Lady Karen Pence
                  Cris Peterson
                  John Peterson
                  Andrew Pollack
                  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
                  Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds
                  Nicholas Sandmann
                  U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise
                  U.S. Sen. Tim Scott
                  Ja’Ron Smith
                  U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik
                  President Donald Trump
                  Donald Trump Jr.
                  Eric Trump
                  Ivanka Trump
                  First Lady Melania Trump
                  Lara Trump
                  Tiffany Trump
                  U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew
                  Tanya Weinreis
                  Dana White
                  U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin

                  Again, such low effort!

                  1. Yeah he totally has a point, 4 out of over 50 is totes all the speakers. God he is worse at this than Tony and makes ChemJeff look downright balanced.

                    1. l will address this directly, along with your assertion that I do not understand the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman.”

                      Are we really going to be that down-to-the- word on every post, and does that rule apply to everyone? If so, I am not alone in needing an edit button, I will put it that way.

                      I never said that the ONLY speakers were Trump family. But it is quite true that at least one spoke every night. It is true that Donny Jr. is treated as some sort of heir apparent/political strategist. It is true that Ivanka and Jared got WH jobs.

                      Generally speaking:
                      I will admit, freely, that I used to put a lot more effort into carefully typing out longer, more in-depth posts. For years I tried this (in various forums). Then one day it occurred to me…why bother any more? Why keep putting in so much effort? I got called everything. Told I needed to stop writing “novels.” Too wordy. too verbose. Too many “big words.” Shorten it up.

                      So I started to actively suppress my vocabulary and tried more of a brevity/sarcasm style. I used to listen to talk radio (which has, always in my adult life anyway, been completely dominated by folks like Rush or Michael Savage, whose entire shtick is over the top degradation of opponents and fearmongering. And in times of frustration, I would sometimes fall into fighting back with caricatures of their positions/characterizations.

                      Pro-Trump posters consistently get away with simply labeling everyone and everything “liberal”, “commies” “progtards” etc. You yourself have made literally tens of posts just in the past two days including today that begin with some version of “Leftists…..”
                      “Progs….”
                      etc.

                      THAT is an ad hominem. Making an argument that depends on attacking the identity of the speaker as opposed to addressing the argument itself. This is an unquestionably popular tactic around here. Sevo does it. John probably does it as much as anyone or more but gets a pass because he (like Ken) types enough words to come off as sounding more “polished” despite the fact that 90% of his material is “All people who disagree with me are leftist scum that must be deported.”

                      You personally do it too, at least sometimes. This thread has plenty of it. You assume (or often write in a way that leads one to think you do) that it is impossible to disagree with anything DJT does or says without being a “progtard.” Your very posts prove it.

                      So I got sick of trying, sick of patiently typing out super careful and more nuanced posts and started co-opting some of that style, after years of frustratingly trying to be the “disciplined every time I type” guy. Did I get a lil punchy today and start throwing jabs? Sure. Don’t like that style? Check yourself as well my friend. I don’t see you policing lc1789, Sevo, Nardz (who BTW, along with Diane Reynolds is the one always going on about Civil War, so my apologies for confusing him/them with Jesse AZ)

                      As for the chemjeff/Tony jab….

                      I am no sock, I am not Tony, and I am not chemjeff. But TBH they could just as easily be used as examples to point out how much actual ad hominem goes here. Tony and chemjeff could type ANYTHING and all they get is attacked/called leftists/disbelieved/whatever. They could agree with Trump on something and get called liars for doing it. They are subjected to more frequent, more consistent, and more unrelenting ad hominem attacks than probably anyone else here.

                      Did I ever say all (or even most, or really even anyone of any stripe, except the ones that were openly, publicly marching as such) Republicans were Nazis? No. Did I ever say all Republicans are anything? NO. It is significant that the official (R) platform says what (little) it says. Adherence to Trump. First and foremost. They wrote it, talk to them if you don’t like it.

                      Anyway. On we go.

                    2. 4?
                      Donald Trump Jr.
                      Kimberly Guilfoyle
                      Eric Trump
                      Ivanka Trump
                      First Lady Melania Trump
                      Lara Trump
                      Tiffany Trump

                    3. I never said that the ONLY speakers were Trump family.

                      jomo
                      September.21.2020 at 2:08 pm
                      The RNC this year was mostly members of the current would-be “royal family” so…

                      The list:
                      U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn
                      Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
                      Jack Brewer
                      Sister Dede Byrne
                      Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron
                      Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson
                      Madison Cawthorn
                      White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway
                      U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton
                      U.S. Rep. Daniel Crenshaw
                      Scott Dane
                      Ann Dorn
                      U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst
                      Debbie Flood
                      Amy Johnson Ford
                      U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz
                      Franklin Graham
                      Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell
                      Kimberly Guilfoyle
                      Rudy Giuliani
                      Former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley
                      Natalie Harp
                      Clarence Henderson
                      Ryan Holets
                      Abby Johnson
                      Alice Johnson
                      Georgia State Rep. Vernon Jones
                      U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan
                      Jason Joyce
                      Keith Kellogg
                      Charlie Kirk
                      Kim Klacik
                      Myron Lizer
                      Wade Mayfield
                      U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy
                      Mark and Patricia McCloskey
                      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
                      RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel
                      Michael McHale
                      Carl and Marsha Mueller
                      South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem
                      Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez
                      Burgess Owens
                      Sean Parnell
                      U.S. Sen. Rand Paul
                      Megan Pauley
                      Vice President Mike Pence
                      Second Lady Karen Pence
                      Cris Peterson
                      John Peterson
                      Andrew Pollack
                      Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
                      Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds
                      Nicholas Sandmann
                      U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise
                      U.S. Sen. Tim Scott
                      Ja’Ron Smith
                      U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik
                      President Donald Trump
                      Donald Trump Jr.
                      Eric Trump
                      Ivanka Trump
                      First Lady Melania Trump
                      Lara Trump
                      Tiffany Trump
                      U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew
                      Tanya Weinreis
                      Dana White
                      U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin

                    4. I never said that the ONLY speakers were Trump family. But it is quite true that at least one spoke every night. It is true that Donny Jr. is treated as some sort of heir apparent/political strategist. It is true that Ivanka and Jared got WH jobs.

                      Fuckin’ LOL at this post hoc qualification.

            1. Again calls for facts not supported by actual evidence. But I do see a lot of Democrats running for their parents or spouses ex seats.

              1. Oh, hmm, maybe you just didn’t watch the RNC, which is understandable.

                1. You clearly didn’t either.

                2. Since most the speakers weren’t related to Trump it’s obvious you don’t have a point. Just gross generalizations and empty trope.

            2. The closest you can even come to this is the Bushes who have no power anymore.

        3. It’s obvious by now, and confirmed by what ENB posted, that this was just a fundraising ploy for the election. The DNC had been on its ass financially before all the riots kicked off, and they’ve been able to raise millions off of this and their front groups such as BLM.

    3. Incidentally, Trump dodged a landmine in his reaction when he first told of her death on camera.

      He talked about how genuinely sad he was to hear it, etc.

      He was off-script (not that he’s ever on it), and when he said he was saddened to hear it, it sounded genuine.

      It didn’t do him any good, but it could have done him a world of harm if he’d said anything that might have been construed as insensitive or glad that she was dead. That was a landmine, and he jumped right over it.

      1. Trump handled it well. Even the next day he handled it fairly well.

  38. To gin up the black vote break out the Ghana undertakers for Notorious RBG.

  39. Unless the president has a stroke (both candidates are septuagenarians) here’s no chance in hell any libertarian or classic liberal will get nominated. And if the unthinkable happened and they did, no way in hell they’ll get confirmed.

    And since Roe v Wade is a ship that sailed a long long time ago, there’s really no substantive difference between the generic Republican pick and the generic Democrat pick. While any pick is going to be better than the picker, there’s not going to be any significant changes depending on who gets seated.

    Trump has a decent short list, but Trump has also recently added some puzzling names to the list. And Biden (as opposed to Harris) is more likely to pick moderate, or at least a liberal as opposed to a progressive. So they’re both a wash up from my perspective.

    So I’m going to wait until I see a pick before I start torching businesses and stocking up on ammo. I say nominate and confirm before the next SCOTUS session. Otherwise, meh.

    1. “…And Biden (as opposed to Harris) is more likely to pick moderate, or at least a liberal as opposed to a progressive…”

      Your fantasies are of interest to you and your mom.

      1. There is a reason Biden won’t release a list.. brandy is ignoring it for some reason.

      2. Jesus, I was so busy laughing at the false equivalence assertion, that I missed that bon mot.

        Thanks, Sevo.

    2. How quickly you turned against gorsuch when politics came into play.

    3. Well Brandybuck wins the least insightful but blindly dogmatic award for the morning

      1. Tony hasn’t slept off his bender, give it time.

    4. So I’m going to wait until I see a pick before I start torching businesses and stocking up on ammo.

      If you aren’t stocked up on ammo, it’s already too late.

      1. “If you aren’t stocked up on ammo, it’s already too late.”

        Absolute Truth. Everyone is out: SGAmmo. Ammo Depot, CTD, Buds, Brownells. I had to go to three different stores Saturday to find one small box of JHP .380. LOL at finding 9mm JHP.

    5. “And since Roe v Wade is a ship that sailed a long long time ago, there’s really no substantive difference between the generic Republican pick and the generic Democrat pick.”

      LOL. You probably actually believe this, which is sad.

      Compare Gorsuch to Kagan or Sotomayor, then rethink what you wrote.

  40. “…If Trump wins reelection, then his victory will secure not just the new justice’s appointment, but also her public legitimacy…”
    Trump is a sitting POTUS; it is his job to nominate a replacement for a dead SC justice. The ‘public legitimacy’ of same is some bullshit notion which can be properly ignored.

    “…And if Trump loses, then Senate Republicans and Democrats will have an opportunity to commit to not pack the Court, and thus to not destroy it…”
    So this is extortion? Fuck you.

    1. this ^^ especially the fuck you part.

    2. Trump’s first response was to state how sad he was and condolences to the family and he praised RBG, the Democrats first response was to level threats if Trump dared announce an appointment.

    3. You know how you know someone is a lefty, proggie cultist POS? They make a straight-faced argument that the president and congress should ignore their constitutional duties in order to make people feel happy, and that a supreme court justice is only “publicly legitimate” if it makes people feel happy.

      You know when a supreme court justice is legitimate? When he or she is nominated by a duly elected president and confirmed by the semate, in accordance with the constitution.

      You know how you destroy the court? By doing everything ENB just said.

    4. FILL
      THAT
      F’N
      SEAT

  41. Incidentally, I saw Roku use the same tactics with NBCUniversal over the weekend that Trump used with Bytedance.

    The Peacock Network hasn’t been available on Roku, even though it was launched weeks ago, because of contentious contract negotiations between Roku and NBCUniversal’s owner, Comcast. Circa Friday, Roku announced that they were pulling all Comcast apps from Roku come Sunday. No, the intention was not to deprive Roku customers of those apps. The intention was to drive Comcast to finally sign an agreement to bring The Peacock Network to Roku–and guess what? Within hours of Roku announcing that NBCUniversal’s apps would no longer be available on Roku, NBCUniversal finally agreed to bring The Peacock Network to Roku.

    Trump did the same thing with his threat to ban TikTok on Sunday. It was a negotiating tactic. That’s how things are done in the business world. The person with the most leverage wins in a contested, high-stakes negotiation, and you manufacture whatever leverage you can to win. Winning lawsuits is just another way of adding leverage.

    The interesting thing here is that we don’t need to pretend that Trump’s efforts were a failure in order to oppose what he did. There are really good things about what Trump did–even if what he did shouldn’t be done. There is good reason to think that a TikTok Global/Oracle/Walmart consortium could pose excellent competition to Amazon across Amazon’s most important businesses–from consumer data collection and advertising to web services and straight-up, online retail.

    Maybe cooperation from those companies would have materialized without Trump’s deal. Maybe not! I don’t know. But if Amazon’s primary competition in some of these businesses is Google, I’m glad to see YouTube and Google get some vertically integrated competition, too. Over the long term, Google may find that the consumer data they collect isn’t as valuable as it used to be–that it’s being collected by the people they used to sell it to.

    Point is, we don’t have to pretend that what Trump did was a failure to oppose what he did. The fact is that we don’t want the president or anyone in the government centrally planning things like this, or extracting a fee from entrepreneurs for approval, and that’s regardless of whether it worked out well in this one case.

    Acknowledging Trump’s success here is the key to our credibility when it comes to criticizing his central planning here, too–and we’re hurting ourselves when we sell our credibility short. Central planning should certainly be criticized regardless of whether Trump never really intended to violate our First Amendment rights by banning TikTok and regardless of whether the $5 billion he extracted from the deal goes to doing something we like–this time.

    Central planning is a broken clock, and we earn credibility points for criticizing it–in the once in a blue moon cases where it seems to have worked. I once say a drunk at a blackjack table hit a 17 and win. Anybody who thinks that’s what blackjack players should do because he won is an idiot.

    1. Ken wants pats for his TikTok prognostication but doesn’t understand that his take was nothing novel and waa old by the time he uttered it and that no one really cares anyway.

      1. Prognostication?!

        Who said anything about prognostication?

        I was the play by play guy calling it as it happened.

        We were being subjected to bullshit narratives about what was happening and why, and all I did was talk about what was really happening and why.

        If there were any prognostications going on here, it was me shooting down other people’s bullshit predictions–not me making them myself.

        “Call me when the ban actually happens.

        Bytedance tried to skirt President Trump’s demands by agreeing to a deal that would have left Chinese investors in majority control of TikTok’s U.S. assets.

        President Trump responded by calling Bytedance’s bluff.

        I strongly suspect ByteDance would rather have a minority position in a U.S. investor dominated partnership than leave their whole U.S. position to twist in the wind.

        They’ll probably cave–and probably before Sunday.”

        —-Ken Shultz

        “Trump Administration Formally Bans TikTok, WeChat Apps from Online Stores in U.S.”

        https://reason.com/2020/09/18/trump-administration-formally-bans-tiktok-wechat-apps-from-online-stores-in-u-s/#comment-8468057

        If the only thing you remembered from that is, “they’ll probably cave before Sunday”, then you missed the point.

        The point was that they were reporting on a ban that hadn’t actually gone into effect yet as if the ban had already happened. And the point was that the purpose of the ban was to force concessions from ByteDance–not to ban the app as an end in itself.

        Pointing out that something someone else is reporting on–as if it had already happened–hasn’t actually happened yet (and may not happen) does not make me a prognosticator.

        And if simply stating well known facts is all it takes to make someone look like an ingenious prognosticator around here, then the quality control on these articles may need some calibration.

        1. And if simply stating well known facts is all it takes to make someone look like an ingenious prognosticator around here, then the quality control on these articles may need some calibration.

          To any wayward travelers who might be wandering by, welcome to Reason (*drink*)!

          1. That statement could be read in multiple ways.

            Maybe stating well known facts only makes someone look like an ingenious prognosticator in the eyes of Shrike, Tony, and Tulpa.

            1. Shrike, Tony, Tulpa, and prognostication aside, it’s still Reason “Free Minds And Free Markets.” “We save all the well known facts simply stated for the comments.” Magazine.

        2. And if simply stating well known facts is all it takes to make someone look like an ingenious prognosticator

          Who said “ingenious”? You can’t even troll without sucking yourself off.

          1. Alan C.: Your predictions are obvious and your attention seeking is deplorable.
            Ken: I make few precise predictions in earnest and simply call what I see.
            Alan C.: Oh! So now you make *precise* predictions?!?!

            ROFLMAO! Ken has his own 1-D opponent to simply do nothing an appear to be winning 12-D chess against.

            1. Alan C. – Your predictions are boring and obvious

              Ken – No they’re INGENIOUS!!!

              Alan C. – No they’re boring and obvious

              mad.tarded – GOTTEM KEN!!!

            2. Nardz
              September.21.2020 at 10:52 am
              Who are you talking to, ken?

              Ken Shultz
              September.21.2020 at 10:59 am
              Why does it matter whether Bytedance retains its proprietary technology in TikTok Global?

              12 D CHESS!!!

              (where d stands for “dementia”)

  42. Half of the republican party are basically democrats. So why listen to them. Trump’s last act should be to shove this nominee down the democrats throat. If their response is to stuff the courts and illegally threaten violence to get their way, so be it.

    1. Politicians don’t want to take controversial stands four weeks before an election. That’s all that is.

      It doesn’t mean they won’t fall in line when the time comes.

      Meanwhile, Amy Comey Barret and Barbara Lagoa both look like the suburban swing voting women that both parties need in order to win, and the radicals in the Democratic Party won’t be able to stop themselves from demonizing either one of them–like moths attracted to a flame. That will play well for Republicans.

      1. If the go after ACB’s Catholicism again, it could play very badly among Hispanic voters, who Trump is doing surprisingly well with and or Biden is doing very badly with. He also is underperforming among blacks. Most polls are assuming black turnout and support equal to Obama’s but if his numbers are closer to Hillary’s (which actually seems to be the case even the left media is starting to admit it and sounding the alarm bells, and the campaign seems to be realizing it as well as it is panicking and targeting minorities much harder) then Trump wins again. Michael Moore might be a noxious gas bag but he was right in 2016 and he says he is afraid Biden is going to lose and partially because he ignored the blue collar voters and minority voters. Even in Michigan his campaign has been targeting mainly upper class whites until recently, while Trump has been targeting blue collar voters of all races and has especially stepped up it’s ground game in minority communities. And there is evidence it is paying off. One DNC campaign focus group pollster was quoted as saying that when asked most black voters couldn’t name anything Biden would do for blacks but almost all could quote that Trump had the lowest unemployment rate for Blacks and Hispanics ever before the pandemic.

        1. And his justice reforms. Also, as polling has shown time and time again Blacks aren’t thrilled about less policing and seem to be gravitating to Trump’s law and order message. Maybe having white upper class progressives burning minority businesses wasn’t a smart way to get minorities on your side?

        2. I was looking to see whether Trump needs a lot of help in Florida, and he needs more help in Michigan than he does in Florida.

          Trump is apparently doing better with Latinos in Miami-Dade County this time than he did against Hillary Clinton.

          Latinos certainly aren’t a monolithic bloc, and what plays well with them in Florida may not play well in other parts of the country.

          Making the nomination of a Latino-American woman to the Supreme Court (Barbara Lagoa) may play better with white women in the suburbs of Michigan and Pennsylvania than it does with Latinos outside of Florida (where she’s from) for all I know.

          I don’t think President Trump can go wrong with Barbara Lagoa or Amy Coney Barrett from an election standpoint.

          1. I think ACB is the better choice. The one argument against her is her catholicism and that doesn’t play well.

            1. Though attacking Lagos is also problematic for Democrats. Conservatives have started successfully to a degree turning the racism argument against progressives (with Biden’s help) and this would help. Right now the White House is doing a deep dive on their nominee (I think they have it already made) to check to see if the Democrats can Kavanaugh it.

          2. “and what plays well with them in Florida may not play well in other parts of the country.”

            This should be painfully obvious to anyone who knows that “Latinx are not a monolithic bloc.” Especially in Florida. There are Cubans, and then there is everyone else. Cubans get special treatment due to the ease at which they can get in under “political refugee” paradigm, which most other LAtinos do not get as easily.

            1. So why do Democrats mostly treat Hispanics as if they were all illegal aliens? Because that seems to be their entire outreach to Hispanics. Also, see any of Biden’s multiple comments about black voters. Once again you a projecting your own sides weaknesses onto others.b

              1. My understanding is that Florida’s Cuban community has mostly trended Republican since the Bay of Pigs. Elian Gonzalez probably didn’t help Clinton either–and then there was Obama’s Cuban Thaw.

                Saying more than one thing that’s true about any group of people is difficult–even if they all come from countries where the language is predominantly Spanish. Their food, music, culture, and history is just completely different.

                Cubans and Puerto Ricans don’t even sound like Mexicans with the way they speak Spanish. Hell, Argentinians speak Spanish with an Italian accent. Puerto Ricans pronounce their “J”s like we do–but cut the ends off of their words.

                Incidentally, the 3rd and 4th generation of Americans of Mexican ancestry aren’t necessarily just like newly arrived Mexicans either.

                Oh, and whitebread Americans aren’t all the same either. Some are anti-fa. Some are rednecks. People used to think William F. Buckley was from the UK because of his accent. He was from South Carolina!

                Opposition to communism surely plays a lot better to Cuban-Americans in Florida than it does to Mexican-Americans in Texas, but there are plenty of MAGA Americans of Mexican ancestry in Texas, I’m sure. When the first highly publicized caravan of central Americans came into Tijuana, they were confronted by the Tijuana Chief of Police wearing a MAGA hat. Tijuana is one of the most culturally conservative areas of Mexico. And Guatemalans and Mexicans don’t necessarily see eye to eye on everything.

                Picking the Cuban American woman will probably play well in Miami-Dade county, where Trump needs to do well with the Cuban American community in order to win Florida. Beyond that, I don’t know, but picking an historical minority probably plays well with lily-white women in the suburbs, who don’t like Trump, in part, because they think he’s mean to minorities. If Kamala Harris, who sits on the Senate Judiciary committee is mean to her, that won’t play well with them.

            2. “There are Cubans, and”

              Venezuelans, Puerto Ricans, Columbians, Mexicans all with sizeable communities.
              Have you ever been to Florida?

    2. The hell are you talking about? Trump’s last act won’t be for another four years.

      1. Yup. Trump still has nominations coming up to replace Breyer and Thomas in the next 4.5 years.

    3. “Half of the republican party are basically democrats. So why listen to them…”

      Half of the self-identified R’s didn’t vote for Trump besides.

      1. Most self identified Republicans aren’t rock the boat kind of people. They tend to keep their opinions to themselves. White middle class Americans, especially conservatives still believe that it is impolite to talk politics and religion in public.

        1. Unless you are with people it won’t offend. This is especially true in the Midwest and to a lesser degree the South and Rocky Mountain West.

          1. Riiiiight. that’s why my super Trumper uncle literally stopped going to Thanksgiving because he literally could not deal with my aunt asking him not to have a gun at the dinner table and constantly call my other aunt a “pussy hat bitch.”

            1. Sure. We believe you. You’ve been wrong on every comment to this point. But this is the truthful one.

              1. First of all, fuck off. You have NO WAY to disprove it. Do I need to give you my FB account so you can see how that all played out?

                Secondly, I love getting lectured by people from a state that wasn’t a state until 1912 about how America is supposed to work.

                1. Do I need to give you my FB account so you can see how that all played out?

                  You made the claim, we’re just calling you a Lying Ass Dog.

                  Secondly, I love getting lectured by people from a state that wasn’t a state until 1912 about how America is supposed to work.

                  Not as much as he loves getting lectured by someone who supports pedophilia in films.

            2. Shitthatneverhappened.txt

              1. Are you one of those people from CO who live in a gated condo complex but are “totally country?” Just curious.

                1. Thanks for confirming your story was bullshit.

                  1. Honestly, I don’t even know what this means. How is what I said in any way even tangentially related to the veracity of my story?

                    We live in a time when armed men go to the state house to demand certain things from their legislators and you think it’s farfetched that my dipshit uncle (who is the epitome of a weekend warrior, wears the gloves and the tac glasses and all that bullshit and thinks his range acumen translates to military service but was mysteriously “unable to serve for medical reasons”) threw a shit fit because my aunt asked him not to have his gun at the dinner table? He thinks that my other uncle (who actually DID serve as both a soldier and a police officer) is a “lefty POS” and “not a real soldier.” He subscribes to the “only Trump supporters are real soldiers” POV and believes himself a “true soldier” because he is “fighting for America through Trump’s guidance.”

                    He literally went on a rant about it and the Constitution and all that BS, stormed out and has not been back to Thanksgiving since. He is also one of those people who prattle about freedom and private rights but then who forget that personal property rights exist while insisting that they somehow have a Constitutional right to go into a privately-owned store with no mask (or with a gun) in defiance of store policy.

                    Why is it important to you to try to “disprove” a personal anecdote? What next, you gonna tell me that no one like him exists?

                    1. Your fucked up white trash family is not representative of white middle class conservatives.

                      Maybe you should get therapy. Obviously, you had a difficult childhood.

                  2. No, it’s that your solipsistic enough to think that your little anecdote has any bearing on national events.

                2. Are you one of those people from CO who live in a gated condo complex but are “totally country?”

                  This was the funniest part of your “insult,” because you’ve clearly never been to Colorado.

                  1. I have been to CO three times, actually.

                    At least in the parts where I visited, I saw an awful lot of superficial trappings of being “rugged” or “country”but mostly it was like if Hot Topic had a “cowboy” section. We did go to one place that was actually legit rugged and I liked it there.

            3. I said most not all. Words have meaning.

              1. They certainly do. Now do protestor vs. rioter.
                Or, if you like, sedition vs. arson.

                1. If you are committing violence in an attempt to overthrow the government it is sedition so your point is what?
                  And yes there is a difference between protestors and rioters, again what is your point? This is just a sad attempt at a gotcha using generalization, sort of like how you backed off after accusing Jesse upthread of wanting to kill all leftist until he told you to prove it. God this is just puerile.

  43. >>Ginsburg’s death has brought in a record amount of donations for Democrats.

    something something separate a fool from his money …

    1. Yeah, the previous 6 bouts with cancer weren’t motivating enough to get them to donate, but now that she’s dead… uh… Biden absolutely needs to win?

      1. (D)s I know are freaking like 4 year-olds. the tantrum will be violent.

    2. Bloomers has spent a shit ton of his own money, and didn’t get jack shit for it. Let us hope the trend continues.

  44. POTUS Trump is striking while the iron is hot. He must. And Team R must get that nominee confirmed before the election. Why? Because litigation and contesting of the 2020 electoral result is a certainty and we must have a full SCOTUS complement to decide the questions that will come up. It is that simple.

    Please….put a rock-solid Originalist on SCOTUS.

    1. Please….put a rock-solid Originalist on SCOTUS.

      For reference see photo/bio of current SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch.

      FILL
      THAT
      SEAT
      [with another Gorsuch]

      1. Eh, I think Gorsuch gave up the ” rock solid originality” mantle with the Trannies Covered by Title IX decision. But he is still the 2nd best Justice

        1. Fvckin autocorrect

    2. This is the overriding issue. A split court will be a real constitutional crisis.

  45. https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/09/20/democrats-threaten-to-pack-court-if-republicans-vote-on-ginsburg-replacement-this-year/

    Democrats say they will pack the court if Ginsburg is replaced. They would have done that no matter how they lost control of the courts. It is good that they are having to be honest about it. Let the voters decide if they support that idea. I can’t see them doing so or this being anything but a positive for the Republicans.

    1. Absolutely.

      More reason to vote for Republicans.

      P.S. Trump should drill Biden for this in the debates. Will you or won’t you pack the Supreme Court?

      If he denies it, he’ll alienate his core support–and they may stay home. If he leaves the door open, swing voters will see it for what it is.

      1. Yes. This puts Biden in a real bind. I don’t see how the Democrats can win if the country knows they are going to pack the courts when they do. But as you say, if Biden denies it, his lunatic base will go crazy and stay home.

        1. The left doesn’t care about such things.

          They don’t do “hold people to the same standard”

          Remember Packwood? That was about 5 minutes before Clinton was credibly accused of attempted rape in the Oval office and admitted to a very one sided affair with a young intern.

          The left wants to win. That is all

          1. They’ve given up on persuasion, and impeachment didn’t work.
            They are all in on fraud and terrorism.

    2. “Democrats say they will pack the court if Ginsburg is replaced…”

      Flat out extortion.

      1. Totally. And I want to hear them explain why they wouldn’t do this anyway if they lost control of the court. Basically, they think they have a right to control the courts no matter what.

      2. If they are hell bent on packing it, in order to guarantee judicial decisions favorable to their causes, they will proceed the instant they have sufficient power to do so. Same with banning guns, implementing hate speech, overriding due process [as we have seen with much of the Title IX enforcement], etc. How else can they possibly hope to implement Green New Deals?

        FILL
        THAT
        SEAT

    3. They were talking about that with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. This threat is nothing new, it’s just being revived again.

  46. “Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity. This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

    – Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.)

    Your foot, your trap, Dems. Choke on it.

  47. “Half of Republicans Say New Justice Should Be Picked by Whoever Wins the Election”

    The new justice WILL be nominated by whoever won the election.

    1. Without the question, there’s an easily conceivable interpretation that says Republicans want Trump to pick the New Justice as a prelude to his win.

  48. Well those Republicans must be wrong. Because in 2016 the Democrats were adamant that it was he duty of the President to imediately appoint a replacement and it was the Senate’s duty to simply confirm that appointment.

    1. Leftists are being insanely hypocritical in the midst of shrieking about the Right being hypocrites. Peak prog

      1. Of course the hypocrisy of it all doesn’t even faze them, in fact hypocrisy defines the left. It’s their amniotic fluid. The ether that surrounds them.

        But maybe it’s not so much hypocrisy as it is a form of psychosis
        An egotistical imbalance serious enough to require help.
        A misplaced superiority complex of substantial proportions that negates introspection but also protects them from thought.

        1. Hypocrisy is part of the definite mass psychosis of the left

  49. If I didn’t think that it would have a considerable chance at backfiring, it would be awesome for Qanon or 4chan or whomever to get the story going that now that RBG is dead, Republicans can finally end women’s suffrage.

    1. Still the best “The Man Show,” sketch.

      1. And, IMO, RBG’s cult of personality compounds the problem. Much like the internet meme about Hitler defeating the Japanese in WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor, I think a large number of people wouldn’t bat an eye if you described her as the first female supreme court justice *and* spun some tail about how she was integral to women’s suffrage. Maybe even get by invent something like “she was responsible for ending women’s temperance” whole cloth.

      2. Yes, easily. I still LOL just thinking about it.

  50. Headline:
    Half of Republicans don’t seem to know what’s going on.

  51. Fairness is for baseball (unless you’re Houston).
    In politics, you take what advantages you can, when you can.
    The main difference between the two parties is who they appoint to the courts, why give up that edge when you have it?
    The Republicans are hypocrites of course, since the didn’t vote on Garland when they should have. But they are moving forward on a nominee now, which is business and usual and isn’t breaking any rules. (McConnell’s election year code was more of a guideline, to paraphrase Capt. Sparrow.)

  52. Biden pleas Republican Senators to stop nominating Justices that so much as even ACKNOWLEDGES the U.S. Constitution even exists.

    If the Democrats can’t keep enough corrupt “enforcement officers” in power how will they ever succeed in turning the U.S. into the most socialist authoritarian national nightmare since Hitler?
    FYI: Nazi = National Socialism. The #1 dream of the left.

    1. So if Republicans “play nice” and wait until after the election, their SCOTUs appointee would enjoy legitimacy and then the Democrats wouldn’t be as motivated to pursue a court packing scheme whereby they could appoint as many of their ilk as desired, in order to achieve a judicial outcome for their preferred policies.

      1. The appointee, if confirmed by the Senate in according with Artile III of the USC, would sit on the bench and render decisions and opinions. “Legitimacy” be damned.

      2. If Trump loses the next appointee will be a raging liberal firebrand.

      3. If Democrats are hell bent to pack the court they will do so the moment they have the power.

      FILL THAT SEAT

      1. Outright stating their intent is judicial tyranny.
        Yet Reason shills for them.

  53. Are we really going to pick a dog in this “Trump shouldn’t get to pick a justice” fight?

    The L position should unquestionably be “the president gets to appoint the nominee and the senate provides advice and consent”.

    It would be great if they could come to bipartisan agreements on nominees like they used to… but that ain’t happening. The left has been all-in on personal destruction of conservative nominees since the 80’s.

    On a practical note: Trump has been pretty good on judicial appointments so far. Not super fantastic from a libertarian point of view, but not bad either. Better than anyone in recent history, that’s for sure.

    Personal flaming hatred for Trump should not lead you to believe that a Biden nominee would be better on issues of liberty than a Trump nominee. There is every reason to believe that the reverse is true.

    1. “Personal flaming hatred for Trump should not lead you to believe that a Biden nominee would be better on issues of liberty than a Trump nominee. There is every reason to believe that the reverse is true.”

      FILL
      THAT
      SEAT

  54. Dems just want a shot. Too bad. Remember when they wanted to share power in the House. Pathetic losers. Remember Harry Reid changing rules to suit his party ? Too bad. Remember BHO? “Elections have consequences. We won.” ?? And whoever is chosen will be a well qualified judge, as was M Garland. But Republicans own the Senate and POTUS. So be it. Fight or roll over and lose.

  55. It’s kinda interesting how the Democrats say they’re “defending democracy from fascists” when they themselves are following the fascist playbook to seize permanent unchecked power: street violence combined with subverting government institutions from within.

    1. The very gigantic flaw of Democrats very core – “defending democracy”… Oh, Whoops, how about that;; the USA isn’t a Democracy at ALL! Its a Republic!

      Because the USA wasn’t founded on a “mob rules” society (i.e. Democracy).

      The USA has game rules (i.e. U.S. Constitution) and therefore the only thin-line exercise of Democracy we even entertain is but the sliver of electing (giving the job) to who will do the best JOB DESCRIBED in the U.S. Constitution (i.e. Rule book of the Republic).

      This very basic concept which has been utterly ignored since FDR will eventually be the demise of this country. Just as would be a football game played with absolutely no rule book. Chaos and POWER(“mob”) rules, death and theft is all that is left.

      This country was never founded on the principle to “crony” elect the peoples favored policy. It was founded on the U.S. Constitution which !!-non-democratically-!! puts individual freedom above the “mobs” power of dictative democracy.

      Sadly in today’s society people are blindly led to believe the opposite and until they can get their heads straight chaos will grow and a tyrant monarchy will form by whichever “mob” can shoot (OVER-POWER) decent the fastest.

      1. Simple summary; Democrats very core philosophy is to vote on the referee that will ignore all the game rules in order to allow their team (personal favorite policy) to win. They believe it’s not really cheating if at least 50% look the other way while rules are broken.

  56. It is not the position of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has said the Senate will vote on a Trump replacement nominee by the end of the year.

    I believe it’s not the position of the constitution either.

    1. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

      So yeah, Donald Trump is the president, and therefore he should appoint a judge. Whether the Senate confirms that judge is up to the playground rules they want to play by. But I don’t give two fucks what a “poll of the American people” says on this matter.

      Oh, and I suspect that poll to be entirely inaccurate.

  57. I sometimes think that if we made a
    Supreme Court II that had exclusive jurisdiction over abortion cases but no other power, then the politics around Supreme Court I would be a lot closer to ideal.

    That… comes close to the dumbest thing I ever read.

    No, Connor, “closer to ideal” would be to return the supreme court to a co-equal branch where judges could be more easily removed through the impeachment process, and making them more accountable to the political process. That’s ideal. But unfortunately, we turned them into the Nazgul Ring Wraiths with no way to get rid of them while they sit on the court for generations, turning every appointment into a life-or-death cage match.

    1. Plus, rather than viewing their job as “interpreting the law as written”, they almost exclusively view themselves as the moral compass of the country, solemnly determining good and evil, then using their immense powers of reason to back into an argument that will support the one true and moral outcome.

      There should be a crap-ton of decisions that read like “I really think this is a bad policy and this is a bad outcome, but the law as written says X. I would recommend that the congress move to change the law as soon as possible”

      1. As with Alphonse Maddin, The “Frozen Truck Driver.” The job of the judge is to respect the original intent, the text, and precedent of the law, not to take sympathy on a plaintiff [no matter how deserving his case may be] or try to contort the law to arrive at a “desired outcome.”

        FILL
        THAT
        SEAT

        1. The hypocrisy charge was probably their best argument but they doubled down on other arguments instead. Typical leftist shooting themselves in the foot.

  58. What stuns me is that nobody is pointing this out. They are refusing to prosecute rioters. They are openly persecuting political opponents using the courts. They are advocating subverting the courts, eliminating the 1st and 2nd amendments, they are blocking people from recording their “public protests” while an approved list of “citizen journalists” provide propaganda footage to a willing press that contracts exclusively with them.

    The list goes on and on…

    And there isn’t even a single voice in the darkness willing to sing forth in opposition?

    1. They’re prosecuting people defending themselves from rioters. We’re very, very close to being in a civil war, and the state is pretty clearly telegraphing whose side they’re on.

      1. So what are you going to do? Mow down a bunch of skinny hippie ladies in Vermont because they might not like Trump? Every time you fuckwads start going on about “we are so close to Civil War” I get so frustrated. Who do you actually think is “lining up” to “fight you” in this war you want so badly? You gonna just roll around looking for people with glasses to shoot? I mean seriously. Do you ACTUALLY believe that a relative handful of idiots in Portland and a photoshopped pic of a kid looting a sporting goods store justifies this Civil WAr yo keep prattling about? Did anyone threaten CIvil War when there were literally Nazis and COnfederate flag wavers marching in Charlottesville? Oh I forgot, y’all love you some Confederacy while you mewl about “sedition.”

        1. “Do you ACTUALLY believe that a relative handful of idiots in Portland and a photoshopped pic of a kid looting a sporting goods store justifies this Civil WAr yo keep prattling about?”

          They’re promising to stack the Supreme Court, add four Democrats to the Senate by bringing D.C. and Puerto Rico in as new states, and inflicting the Green New Deal on us to make our power generation completely emissions free by 2035.

          Are you really not aware of what the Democrats are promising to do if they win both the Senate and the White House–or are you being willfully blind?

          P.S. Compare the Portland arson rate in June of 2019 to the arson rate in June of 2020–and then tell me it’s just a relative handful of idiots.

          https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/71978

          1. So is that your incredibly long-winded way of justifying driving up to Vermont to mow down a bunch of shave-headed ladies in Priuses?

            1. You really need to work on that insecurity complex, pussy.

              1. Yeah, ok, I’m a pussy. Maybe I should send you a picture so you can blast me real good at the range after you get through watching the latest video from “Warrior Poet Society” or whatever.

                1. God this is just sophomoric. And you wonder why people questioned your intelligence upthread. SMH.

                2. LMAO, goddamn, but you proglydytes sure are masochistic.

                  If I did print out your picture to take to the shooting range, would that help soothe your pointless little persecution complex?

        2. So what are you going to do? Mow down a bunch of skinny hippie ladies in Vermont because they might not like Trump?

          I’m not doing or wanting anything, it’s coming to me.

          Who do you actually think is “lining up” to “fight you” in this war you want so badly?

          The people burning down businesses and attacking people in their homes in Portland and Kenosha. I presume you have internet and TV from whatever hole you live in.

          And by the way, internal revolutions are civil wars. And BLM wants one.

          How old are you? Learn some fucking history you twat.

          1. This shows who the “wussies” are. Seriously. If you’re some like 6’4″ dude with a bunch of guns that is literally afraid thinking that Antifa is like gonna come en masse and overrun your town, you are the weak one. Did you believe Osama Bin Laden was gonna come to your little town and force everyone to be Muslim too? Did the “massive MS-13 invasion” make it to you yet?

          2. Gerald Ford was President when I was born. Why my age matters to you is beyond me but there you have it.

            I was old enough to argue with you shitheads on Rush Limbaugh during my lunch breaks….

            back when y’all were all in for the Patriot Act and such, and/or arguing for “family values” whilst thrice divorced
            etc. etc.

            1. Fuckin’ LOL, no wonder you’re so bad at this. Try some talking points that didn’t reach their expiration date in 2006.

              1. Which one of those expired in 2006? Both still true. And now even more so.

                1. Magnificent circular reasoning there. About as valid as your claim regarding the RNC speakers.

            2. So you never read a history book.

            3. Gee I was born when Ford was president also, and know enough to spot that most of your bullshit is empty talking points and not well reasoned arguments.

        3. The handful of Nazis and weird identarians in Charlottesville whom folks like to inflate into a massive population? So many the police were needed to protect their civil rights from the peaceful protests of those who didn’t agree with them. As for the ‘relative handfuls’ of idiots, horseshit, people in cities don’t suffer like they are because of a handful of idiots. You are spreading a propaganda. And, don’t lie, lefties and progressives have been threatening secession, civil war each time the political deck is stacked against them. Vermont did during the Reagan years. Your argument is little more than emotion venting on your part. But you did get your ad hominem in.

          1. You are the second person today to completely misuse “ad hominem.”

            I think you meant “straw man” even though it wasn’t.

            1. No I didn’t misuse ad hominem. You called them obnoxious gun owners. That is an ad hominem. You also used insulting stereotypes in your straw man, making it both an ad hominem and a straw man argument at the same time. And the insulting nature and hyperbole and inference that conservatives all love the confederacy and are Nazis is also an ad hominem. It is an insult used to discredit the person rather than their actual argument or stance. Literally the very definition of an ad hominem and also, you are the person who keeps misusing theory when you actually mean hypothesis so I am not sure you should correct others.

              1. I already replied long form but let me clear this up for you specifically. I DID NOT say “conservatives all love the confederacy and are Nazis” or even close to that. WHAT I SAID WAS (read again) that fear of “we must prepare for Civil War because Antifa” is just as easily dismissed by saying, note the lack of widespread incidents in response to Charlottesville. In other words if there really was some fuckin secret “leftist army” or whatever the F you “here comes Civil War” guys always go on about, why didn’t it kick off right after Charlottesville? There were, ACTUAL NAZIS in the streets and that was just fine with many of you, no worries, just speech right? But idiots rioting, oh shit, we better get ready to hose all our “liberal” neighbors with bullets! I mean jesus who do you guys actually think you’ll be fighting? I live in a “liberal” state. We hear every day about how there is going to be this Civil War 2…funny thing is no one here is looking to fight in it. But we are apparently who you believe will be “coming to get you” because we didn’t go for Trump in 2016.

            2. An argument can be both an ad hominem and a straw man at the same time. Fuck where were you educated at?

              1. Would it really change anything AT ALL if I told you?

            3. You’ve used nothing but ad hominems. Your entire blathering is based on them.

              1. He obviously doesn’t even know what an ad hominem is. He thinks using insulting stereotypes to degrade his opponents rather than their actual arguments isn’t ad hominems. This is worse than Tony.

                1. See my long form reply

    2. There are a whole bunch of “they”’s you just referred to. It’s hard to see any comment with that many vague “they”’s as anything but a paranoid rant.

      1. This goes with what I am saying.

  59. OK, the question remains:
    Who gave the obligatory “orange man bad” speech at the emmys?

    1. Those who didn’t made sure to applaud.

    2. the emmys? that’s still a thing?

  60. Abortion is to the left as gun rights is to the right. Having a seperate court for abortion (a completely idiotic argument BTW) would just make gun control the next contentious topic (the right already seems to be more concerned about how the justices vote on gun control than abortion).

    1. If the left and right worked out some kind of deal that each state can have whatever abortion and gun laws they want with the Federal government leaving its hands off those areas, it could transform America’s national politics.

      1. On the gun rights issue that would put the 2A at odds with the 9A and 10A. I think that is what you were implying. However, the 9A and 10A are clear in they only apply to those powers and or rights not already guaranteed in the Constitiuton. Ergo you can’t leave gun rights up to the states, as those rights are already guaranteed in the 2A and the 14A spells out that the states can’t supersede those rights. On abortion you have a point but not on gun control.

        1. I wasn’t getting into details of how the left and right would agree to such a truce/deal. It could require Constitutional amendments.

          Doesn’t matter much, since it’s unlikely the left and right would ever cut a deal.

  61. Fuck Reason, I can’t even read this shit with your new ad format – back on the blocklist for you.

    And no wonder my data usage has gone through the roof. Its loading a new fucking ad every 2 seconds.

    1. Yeah, I had to turn adblock on for my netbook. this page has an unprecidented 107 items blocked. 107? How is that even possible? No wonder it was gumming up my little netbook.

  62. I mean, no one expects Republicans to be anything but hypocritical so of course they’ll ram through someone.

    They’ve given up on institutions- it’s power at all costs now.

    1. If only, you certainly wouldn’t be on here whining whenever you don’t get your way.

      1. He is hoping the someone who gets rammed through is himself.

    2. The Senate and the President have to agree on a nominee, it says so in the Constitution. That’s how it’s alway been and that’s how it is today. You were just as hypocritical with Garland and you know it.

      The Democrats have given up on institutions *and* the Constitution, because the Constitution limits power. That’s why the orgy of censorship currently sweeping the country is entirely led by Democrats, and you are right there at the front with your pitchfork go after the heretics. Hypocrite.

  63. “The looming fight over the Supreme Court vacancy so far does not appear to have given either of the two major political parties much of an advantage in an incendiary campaign season,”

    In a California blaze sized dumpster fire of an election one more McDonald’s burger wrapper won’t matter much.

  64. “Since Ginsburg’s death, two GOP senators—Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have said they think the decision should be left to whoever wins the election. The Senate currently has a 53–47 Republican majority.”

    Notice, they both said the the decision to select a nominee… neither said they would vote against the nominee.

  65. Luckily, there is currently a person who has the specific duty of nominating prospective SC judges.
    The constitution does not say that he “may” make such appointments, but that he “shall” make them.
    There have been 29 supreme court vacancies during presidential election years, and the president has always made a nomination to fill the seat.

  66. Thank you for sharing such information with us. Dreams About Serial Killers

  67. Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this article is very nice and very informative article.I will make sure to be reading your blog more. You made a good point but I can’t help but wonder, what about the other side? !!!!!!Thanks

  68. Trump will announce his nominee for SCOTUS on Saturday, and Romney said he’ll vote. So unless two more R Senators (in addition to Murkowski and Collins) break rank, it appears the full Senate will vote on the nominee before the election. And unless a major problem is found, it appears the nominee will be approved.

  69. Making extra cash by doing very easy and simple work online. Start making more than $18,000 every single month simply doing online work from home in your desired time. Easy to do online work and income from this are just amazing. Everybody can get this online job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions on this page……..

    ➙➙➙Click For Full Detail.

  70. I think we should focus on health problems instead of debating. Corona might rise quickly as soon as summers are over. I think this is the big problem we should worry about. Danger of pandemic is increasing so the best way is to stay safe & wait for vaccine. More Info. about corona .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.