Reason Roundup

Can the CDC Get Anything Right?

Plus: Trump's corruption surrounding TikTok, study supports decriminalizing prostitution, how "older people have become younger," and more...


As the coronavirus pandemic rages on, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) can't stop proving itself useless and incompetent. In the latest debacle, the agency just posted new guidance on Friday saying that COVID-19 is primarily spread through airborne particles rather than through contact with infected surfaces—something the majority of scientists and public health experts have been saying for months, and a fact that's already trickled down to many Americans as conventional wisdom.

The CDC's long lag time on sharing correct information would be laughable if the topic wasn't so deadly serious. (And if folks weren't demanding that CDC guidance get priority treatment on social media).

As it stands, the nation's top public health agency has—for those inclined to listen to its advice—helped normalize ineffective "hygiene theater" such as incessant wiping down of public surfaces while downplaying or ignoring more relevant preventative measures (like masks, proper ventilation, and air circulation in buildings). The agency has been in the business of giving people a false sense of security while ignoring disease-reduction best practices as hundreds of thousands of Americans fall sick and die from the coronavirus.

But it gets worse. A few days after finally posting information about airborne spread, the CDC took down that information and said it was posted in error.

"The agency had posted information Friday stating the virus can transmit over a distance beyond six feet, suggesting that indoor ventilation is key to protecting against" it, notes The Washington Post. But by today, "all references to airborne spread, except for a disclaimer that recommendations based on this mode of transmission are under review," have been removed from the CDC website.

"Unfortunately an early draft of a revision went up without any technical review," Jay Butler, deputy director for infectious disease at the agency, said yesterday. "We are returning to the earlier version and revisiting that process. It was a failure of process at CDC."

This isn't the agency's first unexplained flip-flop. From the Post:

In May, the CDC updated an information page that suggested the coronavirus did not spread easily from contaminated surfaces. It also edited that revision after the update received widespread media attention to clarify that the tweak was "not a result of any new science."

And last week, the CDC reversed testing guidelines to again recommend that anyone, regardless of symptoms, who has been in close contact with an infected person be tested. The White House coronavirus task force had directed the agency to change those guidelines in August, allowing that asymptomatic people did not need to be tested.

Some have read into this a conflict between impartial scientific types at the CDC and more political types who want to keep the Trump administration happy. But "experts with knowledge of the incident said on Monday that the latest reversal appeared to be a genuine mistake in the agency's scientific review process, rather than the result of political meddling," reports The New York Times.

In any event, the CDC has lately been issuing warnings and publishing data as if the virus spreads through air anyway, despite the agency's lack of official acknowledgment of this. For instance, on Friday, the CDC published a study saying 15 people were sickened with COVID-19 after a passenger on a flight from London to Hanoi had it.

Media has been spreading the London-to-Hanoi flight study as if it's evidence that flying is totally unsafe right now. But it's important to note that this flight took place on March 1, back when information about how the disease spread was a lot less known and many current precautions surrounding airports and requirements for flight passengers weren't yet in place.

While publishing information about in-flight spread that took place nearly seven months ago, the agency has also been spreading the alarming-at-first-glance statistic that 11,000 people may have been exposed to COVID-19 while flying. But the CDC also states—in what has become much less headline-garnering news—that it has not confirmed a single case of in-flight transmission on a U.S. flight.

Some have taken this as evidence that flying is much less risky than the agency is making it out to be. Others see it as evidence that the agency just hasn't tried very hard to confirm cases of COVID-19 stemming from air travel and should be stepping up its contact tracing. But whichever way you look at it—and I think a little of both is at play—the CDC, once again, doesn't look so good.


More on President Donald Trump's corruption surrounding TikTok (in which he threatened to ban the video app unless its owner sold it to a U.S. company, then insisted the federal government get a cut of whatever deal is brokered in order to fund Trump's "patriotic education" dreams):

For background, see:


More evidence in support of decriminalizing prostitution:


• "Older people have become younger," Neuroscience News characterizes a new study from researchers at the University of Jyväskylä. "The physical and cognitive health of people aged 75 to 80 is significantly better than those of that age range thirty years ago."

• An interesting thread on the politics of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation and how it might affect the current Supreme Court nomination process:

• Jacob Sullum examines the record of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is rumored to be Trump's pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

• "We're scarily seeing a repeat of the 1970s and 2000s when a falling dollar made housing the top asset class," warns John Tamny at Forbes.

Vice talks to "five women who say they underwent gynecological surgery they either didn't want or did not fully understand while detained at the Irwin County Detention Center, which is run by the private prison company LaSalle Corrections and houses immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)."

• The period immediately following this November's election is going to be nuts:

• "Florida prosecutors said Monday that they won't appeal a court's decision blocking video that allegedly shows New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft paying for massage parlor sex, making it likely the charges against him will be dropped," reports the Associated Press.

• See who's spying on you:

• Apparently there is "a non-profit that oversees emoji standards and is responsible for new releases."

NEXT: Gun Control Puts Your Life at Risk

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

  1. In the latest debacle, the agency just posted new guidance on Friday saying that COVID-19 is primarily spread through airborne particles rather than through contact with infected surfaces…

    Hey! I just bought stock in bleach.


      Liberals finally start to blame Ginsburg for not retiring. The whole Notorious RBG thing was just bizarre. Anyone remember the douchebag a couple of years ago who claimed to have tried RBG’s workout and it nearly killed him? WTF is wrong with these people?

      They created a myth that RBG was anything other than a frail dying old woman for reasons that remain a mystery. Why want an woman who can barely stay awake during oral arguments when you can have someone younger who has a shot at influencing the court? It is completely bizarre. It bought liberals nothing and just created the real risk that has now come true that she would finally keel over with a Republican President in office. Yes, they all thought that a Republican would never be President again. But why take any risk.

      I guess they did it because it made them feel good. What other reason could there be? Their narcissism and utter shallowness is their undoing here.

      1. It kind of sounds like the mythology around Joe Biden. It’s painful to watch Joe in action these days. The same holds true with RBG.

        As to the original topic, it’s getting to the point where it doesn’t really what the CDC says. WaPo ran a story today about how some scientists still believe that COVID is airborne.

        Here in Michigan, the local media ran a story about a two month-old infant who died of COVID. The story was picked up nationally to show that no one is safe from COVID.

        The child’s Mom went on Facebook later that day condemning the story as untrue. It turned out that the infant actually died from a birth defect. Rather than admitting that the story was wrong, the local media continued to do somersaults trying to link COVID to the child’s death.

        1. This has become standard. Alex Berenson had a thread yesterday where he started going through the Covid death certificates… almost all of them were terminal patients. Renal heart failure, end stage cancer, etc.

          1. The truth will take years and endure constant denials by Democrats and RINOs who advocated tyranny for Kungflu.

            1. The words “not confirmed a single case of” when referring to possible covid turnpikes have probably killed more people than any other aspect. It’s impossible to pin the blame on one particular avenue when so many coexist simulataneously in so many situations. You could use the term legitimately when referring to air transmission in a closed, contaminated room full of people because they might all become sick from physical contact instead but anyone with an ounce of conscience would know it would be a gross misrepresentation to do so.

              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…RGf 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. Just a reminder that doddering, rambling, word salad Trump Is only about three years younger than doddering, mentally declining Biden.

          1. You should seek treatment. Or not; we can hope TDS is fatal in your case.

            1. At this point Dee is just comedy relief.

          2. I know this is a troll but, just as an example, RBG was more than three years older than slow Joe is now when she was still mentally fit enough to preside over Supreme Court cases. It’s not about age.

          3. Compare Biden’s scripted interviews to Trump’s 2 recent hours long speeches. It isn’t even close.

            1. Trump’s unscripted town hall on TV was a disaster. He fumbled to answer, couldn’t stay on point, and spewed more word salad.

              1. You’re just sad

              2. …and Trump still has done better than Biden.

                That is what is so funny. The MSM and Useful Idiots like you can lie and lie about Trump with nobody believing you.

                Even with those lies, Trump will win reelection.

                1. Funny, I talk about Trump, you talk about me.

                  1. Trump and I both agree that youre a useful idiot.

      2. But RBG was going to swear in Hillary as the first woman president in a symbolic gesture that would finally equalize the sexes forever! Wages would instantly rise, chauvinists and misogynists would keel over and die, and everybody would spontaneously grant 3 years of maternity leave, abortions on demand until 5 years after term, and a mandate that all jobs applied for after taking any time away from a career to raise children consider the female applicant as having gained in-career experience for those years with exemplary performance.

        1. Just like Obama being president made racism go away.

          1. And healed the oceans don’t forget

      3. “What other reason could there be? ”

        A republican Senate was never going to approve someone as crazy as RBG. That means RBG needed to have quit prior to 2011, and I just don’t think that she was ready to quit at that point. Gay marriage and national healthcare cases were just getting ready to come up the court, and I think she wanted to be a part of that. When she realized that she was fighting a losing battle against cancer, the senate had already flipped, and she was hoping that she could outlast that.

        And it wasn’t an unbelievable fantasy. In 2016, it really looked among the elites that the GOP was a disorganized mess that would be pretty much locked out of power by 2018. They were wrong of course, but you cannot read RGB’s opinions without realizing that her whole schtick is to create fantasy worlds where everything logically falls into place.

        1. That is true. But the Democrats controlled the Senate until 2014. And Ginsburg was old and frail all the way back in the 00s. Further, the Republicans had gained Senate seats in both 2010 and 2012 and the number of Democrats up for re-election favored the Republicans taking control. There was talk that Ginsburg should retire going back to 2010. The Notorious RBG myth was created in a documentary in 2012, well before the Republicans took the Senate.

        2. And it wasn’t an unbelievable fantasy. In 2016, it really looked among the elites that the GOP was a disorganized mess that would be pretty much locked out of power by 2018.

          The problem is the people who thought that were deliberately ignoring the political trends of the previous ten years out of confirmation bias. From a leadership standpoint, I concur that the GOP looked pretty rudderless, but they had spent 2010-2016 kicking the Democrats’ ass in Congressional and state-level races. It’s a big reason Soros dumped so much money into District Attorney and various other down-ballot and low-turnout races the last four years, because it was a better return on investment.

          Now, did it mean that the GOP’s message was resonating with voters? Not necessarily, but I think what really galvanized the rank and file was the neocons pushing Jeb to the forefront as the presumptive candidate. The latter was in complete denial how toxic their brand had become because it was the Tea Party folks, not the neocons, who had been central to achieving those political gains, and putting up Jeb against Hillary was the final straw that showed them the neocons were more interested in feathering their own nest in a losing campaign and acting like controlled opposition than actually winning. Winning comes with expectations, and the neocons were a spent force in that regard, which is why they’ve migrated over to a political party that nominally stands for everything they claim to be against.

          1. Great comment. It explains – to me, at least – why the Neocons/RINOs appear to be falling in line behind Biden.

          2. The RINOs were trying to tank the GOP.

            Trump’s election pushed all the RINOs aside in the Primary and got the rest of the RINOs to out themselves by publicly aligning with Democrats.

            Once American voters started paying attention to politics they saw right through the political lies that have worked for decades. It’s why more and more Americans are voting non-Democrat.

        3. A republican Senate was never going to approve someone as crazy as RBG

          <i<She was recommended to Clinton by Janet Reno after a suggestion by Utah Republican senator Orrin Hatch. She was confirmed 96 to 3.

          That’s a whole lot of republicans. Amazing how democrat nominees used to sail right through.

      4. Eating soy makes 5 lb weights difficult?

        1. A diet of soy, quinoa and kale combined with a regimen of typing snarky things on social media makes old women’s walking pace difficult, one suspects.

      5. They did it because she epitomized the hard-line left-wing jurisprudence that they expect from appointed judges.

        It’s pretty instructive watching them try to retcon their arguments that the right cares about politics while the left cares about justice. As if. This process became politicized when they submarined Bork’s nomination, and now we have actual Congressional officials threatening to pack the courts, take power by any means necessary, and telling their fellow party members that this process needs to “radicalize” them. Over something that for most of the country’s existence had been a fairly mundane action.

        As I said yesterday, all these threats are ringing pretty hollow. They’ve been threatening to pack the court ever since Trump took office, the metro areas dominated by deep blue voting constituencies have degraded into third-world shitholes over the last four months, and you have a lot of people struggling to make a living because Science! keeps moving the goalposts in what’s now a clearly blatant effort to keep the country’s free-floating anxiety at a slow boil, particularly in the blue states. At this point, taking things any farther is just going to result in getting these extortionists thrown in a woodchipper.

        1. “They’ve been threatening to pack the court ever since Trump took office, the metro areas dominated by deep blue voting constituencies have degraded into third-world shitholes over the last four months, and you have a lot of people struggling to make a living because Science! keeps moving the goalposts in what’s now a clearly blatant effort to keep the country’s free-floating anxiety at a slow boil, particularly in the blue states. At this point, taking things any farther is just going to result in getting these extortionists thrown in a woodchipper.”

          Worthy of repetition

        2. They are utterly incapable of understanding that the Right can do to them what they do to the right or ever adopt their tactics. They hate Trump so much because he uses the tactics Obama used on Republicans against them. If these assholes do get in power, there will be a right wing response to BLM and Antifa. Republicans can riot and burn shit down and terrorize people to. But they won’t do it to other Republicans like retarded Antifa and BLM does to Democrats. They will go after Democrats. It will be a complete mess. Progs are just children completely incapable of understanding that their actions have consequences.

          1. That’s precisely why they’re trying to lay the groundwork ahead of time by calling right-wing white supremacists the greatest terror threat to the country–because they know their actions are going to eventually elicit a violent response, and they need that self-fulfilling prophecy in order to justify further left-wing authoritarianism.

            The problem is that when that box gets open, it won’t matter anymore who controls the press or the courts, because they’ll be paper institutions constructed for the benefit of whomever controls them.

            These idiots have no fucking clue what their temper tantrums are going to reap, but the elites that do see what’s coming are already preparing their escape plans. It’s not any fucking coincidence that Tom Hanks and his wife gained dual citizenship with Greece. People with that kind of money do not do such things unless they’re afraid they’re going to get caught up in a no-shit revolution, and they don’t want any part of that.

            1. Somoza thought he could run to Paraguay and be safe.

              Of course most dictators did run, and were safe. In any event, targeting one guy that pisses you off is a lot easier than targeting an entire fleeing class of people.

              Why Greece? Versus say, France or Israel. Though the latter would require conversion.

              1. Think his wife has Greek relatives or something?

          2. I forgot who said it, but for the left, violence is like a knob they can turn up or down as needed, whereas for the right violence is an on/off switch that only goes 0 or 100. The right won’t loot and burn and riot. If the right ever rises up it will be a full-on revolution to start the republic anew. Hopefully that never happens because the last thing anyone wants is another bloody civil war.

            1. The right won’t loot and burn and riot. If the right ever rises up it will be a full-on revolution to start the republic anew.

              The right doesn’t do republics when it gets caught up in large-scale conflicts. If there is a something like a no-shit civil war and the right manages to come out on top, it will look a lot more like Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile in the end, than Rome after the overthrow of Tarquin.

              1. If you get into a no shit violent revolution, you tend to install a system/personnel that you think will at least mean you won’t have to do it again in your lifetime. You may even understand it’s a less-than-ideal system, but fighting another civil war is even farther from ideal so you do what you gotta do.

                Dictatorship is not a good thing, but you can understand why it happens. If having an election almost guarantees widespread rioting and violence, well you just stop having elections.

      6. For a group composed of secularists, the Left has this odd compulsion to create saints to venerate.

        1. Not odd at all. Necessary. Religion is hardwired into us. It’s just a lot of people don’t recognize their Own very primitive fundamentalism as religion

      7. RGB was the ultimate narcissist thinking the world revolved around her and guess what her people swallowed it whole. Sounds like what the left says about Trump but its factually true about RGB since she could have gotten a like minded replacement.

        1. >>a like minded replacement

          O’s picks were idiots I might have held out for an H pick too.

          1. Dillinger’s prick is even sillier and idiotic than O’s picks!

            1. And SQRLSY still loves his shit!

      8. Back in the Clinton days they were doing the same thing with Janet Reno. She even showed up on SNL as some sort or hero. A poll in a men’s health magazine rated her among the 10 top sexiest women.

        1. There is no sexy like a woman who burned people to death sexy.

    2. Hello.

      NO ELIZABETH. MASKS DON’T WORK. Stop spreading fucken lies.


      Get off your ass and go READ THE LITERATURE on it. It’s all there. USELESS measures with marginal benefits if you’re lucky. This goes back to fucken 1918 FFS.

      Is Reason for real?

      1. Reason is no better than the CDC. If you peddle this superstition you’re part of the problem.

        Know how retarded it is? Even Quebec’s top scientists conducted their own study about masks. Conclusion? THEY SUCK when you look at the fucken trade-offs. They only join CEBM, OSHA, BMJ, CIDRAP, CDC and a gazillion other randomized, properly conducted studies.

        But there’s Reason. Wear the mask! Wear the ribbon! DERP, HERP, DERP!

        Peddlers of bad science. Bunch of peddlers.

        1. But the ribbons brought the hostages home!!!

        2. DERP, HERP, DERP!

          Herpes is a virus. Wearing a mask prevents herpes!

          I can haz Science!

      2. Can you cite a study showing masks don’t work at all? Everything I’ve seen indicates they work to varying degrees, depending on the type of mask. N95 masks and respirators are the best, stopping 90%+ of virus-laden particles. Surgical and cloth masks help a little, stopping 20-40% of virus laden particles. I haven’t seen anything I trust that indicates all masks are completely useless, so I’d love to see where you’re getting your information.

        Note: I don’t care if you wear a mask or not. I’m against mask mandates completely because they aren’t needed. If someone really needs to protect themselves from the virus they can do so without forcing anyone else to change behavior as well.

        1. The argument is masks are effective at preventing spread, not that they aren’t even 1% effective. The onus is on you to prove it.

          Prior to april of this year, studies showed no statistical evidence that masks helped prevent the spread of viruses.

          1. Jesse,

            Yes. No study worth its salt proved it.

            Plus Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Holland are proving it wrong.

          2. Prior to april of this year, studies showed no statistical evidence that masks helped prevent the spread of viruses.

            That’s just not true. Here’s a review with references going back a decade indicating that masks are somewhat effective at slowing spread of viruses depending on mask type and environmental conditions. >a href=””>Here’s another from 2004 with citations going back into the 90’s. People have been looking at this for a long time in relation to different viruses. The research is ongoing, but it certainly didn’t just appear 7 months ago.

            I don’t know where this misinformation came from. It’s really quite simple. Virus particles often travel inside water droplets and masks block water droplets to some degree (depending on droplet size and mask type). Therefore, masks block viruses from entering the mask and nose. It makes perfect sense that they would reduce the viral load hitting your mucous membranes. How could that not be beneficial?

            The same goes with social distancing. The further you are from someone, the fewer virus particles you get exposed to, thus reducing your chances of illness. And you can combine the two together to multiply one small-but-nonzero number by another small-but-nonzero number to get a really, really small-but-nonzero number. That’s how statistics work.

            Note, I’m not advocating for mask mandates or any mandates. I rarely wear a mask myself. Only if I’m going to be indoors with a bunch of strangers. But saying they are useless is just as wrong as saying people need to wear them when walking in the park. It undermines your credibility.

            1. They’re useless and you’re useful, idiot.

            2. Therefore, masks block viruses from entering the mask and nose.

              So, you’ve not read the studies that say COVID’s main point of infection is the sinuses? Those sinuses that your eyes drain into through the nasolacrimal duct? Does the mask cover your eyes?

              Are you wearing an N95 everywhere? Does it make you breathe harder? Is your mask fitted properly?

              Is any particular study just public safety theater by yet another government ‘expert’ who wants to justify their existence?

              1. Elsewhere (below) I addressed the eyes. Again, something doesn’t have to be 100% effective to still be useful under the right circumstances. Air bags don’t absolutely prevent injury during an accident, but they do reduce risk.

                Of course an N95 has to be fitted properly. This is another reason mandates are terrible policy. Most people don’t even care enough to wear a surgical mask properly, much less a respirator. And yes, when I wear mine (mainly for sanding), I wear it properly.

                Again, I never said masks were magical cure-alls or that they should be mandated. Only that evidence indicates they will reduce the risk of infection when used properly.

                1. something doesn’t have to be 100% effective to still be useful under the right circumstances

                  It better be close to justify suspension of civil rights. Last time I checked, we were not mandated to wear airbags strapped to our faces although that would certainly prevent some injuries.

                  1. Even if it were 100% effective that still wouldn’t be a reason to suspend any civil rights. There is no valid reason for mask mandates, lock downs, business closures or any of the rest of it. People should be free to wear a mask or not, as they see fit.

                    1. Then WTF are you arguing about? This is not a Science! website, it is a Libertarian website.

                    2. I’m arguing against Rufus’ original post which said, “MASKS DON’T WORK! It’s PSUEDO SCIENCE.”

                      That’s simply not true and it makes this libertarian website look bad if it isn’t challenged. Not all libertarians/conservatives are anti-mask cultists, just like not all Democrats/Progressives are pro-mask cultists. It’s possible, and I would argue preferable, to both recognize the benefits masks may have for some people while vehemently opposing mask mandates.

                    3. recognize the benefits masks may have for some people while vehemently opposing mask mandates

                      Very well then. Carry on.

                2. Reducing infection, especially in the case of young healthy people, reduces immunity and creates a greater threat to vulnerable old sick people. Our collective failure to reach herd immunity is a much greater threat than the efficacy of mask wearing real or imagined.

                  1. I would agree. But while the young, healthy people are building up herd immunity it makes sense for the old and frail to take reasonable measures to protect themselves, like properly wearing an N95 mask (and maybe a face shield/goggles) when they go to the store or the doctor or whatever. Of course it should be entirely up to them. I just hope they make the decision while fully informed and not misinformed.

                3. If masks are effective, then why hasn’t every state and every country that ordered the use of masks seen significant improvement shortly after the mandate?

            3. Something can have what seems like a physically meaningful mechanism to have this or that effect, however when that something is implemented it is susceptible to the entire system. Many times – especially in biology – that physically meaningful mechanism is overwhelmed by other factors. Happens all the time in animal models for disease and drug research. So while it seems reasonable that masks would have a measurable effect, they don’t…so far. There is no inflection point in any of the data that points to mask mandates having a measurable effect.

              1. Very true. That’s why I cited a bunch of research claiming to have measured and/or modelled the effectiveness of using masks to reduce the risk of viral infection.

                I’ve said this many times already, but I’ll repeat it again. I do not advocate for mask mandates. I never have. My issue is with people claiming that masks are completely ineffective and implying (or outright stating) that all mask wearers must be ignorant or idiotic. If you have a high risk of serious complications from covid then you can reduce your risk by (properly!) wearing an N95 mask and goggles. Gloves may also help if you can’t wash your hands very often.

            4. FWIW some guy, what you wrote makes sense to me. I pretty much do the same thing. When I am outside, socially distanced, I do not wear a mask. When I get more close in to people, I wear them. Example: Outdoor dining where distancing is not happening.

              1. Yeah, for me I’m mostly just trying to avoid getting the virus for work/school related reasons. If I get it I will be forced to quarantine until 14 days after a negative test. It means my kid can’t go to school for at least 14 days, either. I really don’t want that to happen.

                1. I got it and did the mail order test. By the time the results came back I was completely well. After a week I was back to work. I mostly work alone and rarely end up in close contact with other people. I was not on anybody’s radar screen so I didn’t have to worry about contact tracing or any of the other bullshit testing can lead to and I was not going to hole up in my house for 2 weeks while there’s money to be made. And before somebody says I want to kill grandpa, I am grandpa.

            5. It’s amazing how the people challenging ESTABLISHED SCIENCE on masks go around asking ‘I don’t know where this misinformation came from’.

              YOU’RE the one that has the burden of proof.

              Your link is broken. I can’t read the study. Secondly, a flurry of studies came in during 2020 – NONE in my view debunked the established evidence. At best it *can* work and supports voluntary action to some degree. NOT mandates. Period.

              “The research is ongoing”

              Well, then get back to us when you have PROOF. Until then FUCK OFF.

              Until then you’re in a cult. You may as well fuck a goat, sacrifice it and drink its blood.

              1. I have no burden of proof because I’m not calling for any mandatory action.

                I reposted the link, but it is stuck in moderation. You can see the second link for yourself. Just copy paste it into a browser.

                At best it *can* work and supports voluntary action to some degree. NOT mandates. Period.

                That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. I’m glad you backed off your extremist position and admit that you actually agree with me.

            6. What happens after the water evaporates?

          3. 47 years of studies.

            1. 47 years of studies have YET to identify a SINGLE (functioning) NEURON that belongs to Dillinger!

          4. “Can you cite a study showing masks don’t work at all?…”

            Sarc or stupidity?

        2. Extraordinary measures demand EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

          And the body of evidence going back to 1918 based on RANDOMIZED studies to various solid degrees conclude they’re ineffective. Those studies saying those things conduct them in ‘perfect settings’ and aren’t conducive to community settings. The vast majority of these studies are flawed and few if any flat out say a mask works on its own. Instead it can only be potentially effective from 10%-30% IF there’s MASS compliance coupled with PROPER HANDLING and with social distancing. Does that sound like they fricken work? If something needs other factors to cooperate, it’s useless.

          Enough with the damnN-95s. There are studies that even question those. These are CONSTRUCTION masks and must be PROPERLY fitted. The leakage on masks are so pourous it’s outrageous.

          The only thing that will ensure protection is a chemical gas mask or Hazmat suit. That piece of CLOTH does NOTHING. The benefits are MARGINAL weighed against the potential harmful impacts. It’s nothing more than psychological theater. Then comes the problem of proper disposal. I don’t think people realize how challenging it is to use masks in medical setting (and they’re NOT used for viruses). Imagine in a society at large! It’s an impractical, stupid NPI that should never have seen the light of day. Plus they’re ugly and retarded.

          And people asking for cites really perplex me. I spent HOURS looking into this. I mentioned some of the places up top. Do the research yourself.

          There’s no excuse. The onus is on the maskers to prove and refute the EVIDENCE. And they failed.

          Masks are manufactured consent.

          1. And you can’t wear an N-95 all day at work. Never mind they’re expensive and irritating.

            Those masks with valves? Never mind the virus is basically vapour and even if it blocks your disgusting snot or droplet, the virus can still escape through. I have no idea how one can conclude just logically they work. The ones with the valves are even worse because they *may* protect the wearer but since they release oxygen it sure as hell ain’t protecting you.

            And let’s not talking about the uneven, incoherent application and rules from government about them. Think restaurants.

            There’s no measurable positive effect.

            And YOU show me a study that CONCLUSIVELY proves otherwise.

            Until then it’s junk science.

            1. Fauci, Birx, and the CDC guy consistently say that the only benefit of masks comes from when people who already have the virus wear one. It partially helps reduce the amount of virus the wearer sprays out. If you do not have the virus, wearing a mask will not protect you.
              Sheeple think its a protective shield, so they no longer feel the need to socially distance if they are wearing one.

          2. I cited the evidence above. I never said masks ensure protection. You made that up. Your ranting, goalpost moving, lack of citations and talking past people completely undermines your argument and makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.

            I also never said I support any kind of mandate. Don’t assume other people are pro-mask extremists just because they disagree with you on effectiveness.

            Finally, you can certainly wear an N95 mask properly all day at work. I’ve done it while sanding wood and drywall before because it was worth the discomfort. They are expensive, but you get what you pay for.

            Personally, I don’t see a need to wear an N95 for this virus, but I’m young and healthy. Proper usage, under the right circumstances, however, will reduce risk of infection (not eliminate) and that may be worth it for the old and ill.

            1. Shut the fuck up mask sucker.

        3. This gives a pretty good visual representation.

    3. Promote bleach as a mouth wash?

    4. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>ReadMore.

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

      Heres what I do……………………………………………… More INformation Here

  2. Mask Fanatics Have Officially Abandoned Science To Control Your Life

    I laugh when I see these lunatics wearing masks while driving by themselves in a vehicle.

    1. So do I. Or when they are out jogging or riding a bike. It really is just a sign of submission. That is infuriating enough. What is really infuriating and scary is how many people love wearing a mask because of that. This country doesn’t need to elect a President. It needs a national dominatrix. Fucking sick weirdos.

      1. Not that we should bring the draft back but one thing about war is that these submissive Americans would go off to war and die.

        Now the submissive Lefties just elect politicians that send good Americans off to die in endless wars.

        Luckily, Trump is a consequence to that voting behavior.

      2. Don’t forget the people that masked their profile pictures.

        1. God yes. That is the lowest of the low, worse than the ones who wear them in their car.

          1. incredibly so and the women who post with mask on thinking they are so cute with a mask on. Submission is not cute

            1. well hold on there. It depends on the context….

            2. Just a mask?

          2. My kid’s classmate was having a sleepover at another classmate’s house.

            The classmate who lived at the house was wearing a mask. Inside her own fucking house.

      3. This country doesn’t need to elect a President. It needs a national dominatrix. Fucking sick weirdos.

        Just like the SCOTUS/aborto-SCOTUS proposal yesterday; the adults and free citizens choose a President, the willing subjects elect their favorite minority representative to punish them for their wicked, wicked behavior.

      4. A sign for sure, but beyond submission:

        Virtue signaling
        Tribal affiliations
        Victim status
        Voodoo talisman

      5. I stopped road biking because of this. Some of the trails that I normally ride are shared with walkers/joggers. Many wear masks.

        On the topic of people who “love” wearing masks, there was an article in the NYT a few weeks ago about people with appearance insecurities embracing the new freedom that mask wearing gives them.

        1. I have no doubt that ugly people love the masks.

    2. ENB is probably one of them. She probably wears one in the house between wine sips.

      It’s growing into an open secret. Slowly I’m noticing people on radio here beginning to question it. Our ‘cases’ have skyrocketed (c. 500 oooo scary) DESPITE THE MANDATE.

      1. Anyone else notice Europe might have a spike in Kungflu cases right now? Europe went on almost full lockdown instead of letting Wuhanvirus burnout through their population months ago, like in Sweden and the USA.

        Socialists are just gluttons for punishment.

        1. Lotsa cases but no deaths to speak of. This is likely artifacts of PCR testing. Happened in the US during the H1N1 epidemic. Had an initial rush of cases with the commensurate deaths in 08 followed by two heavy testing seasons in 09 and 10 with many more cases than the actual epidemic while having very few deaths. They eventually quit testing. Same thing is happening in Europe right now. Just PCR artifacts and almost no deaths. At this point, Europe is in the middle of a test driven Case-demic.

        2. Sweden is now reporting zero China virus deaths during the past week, while US is reporting 2.31 deaths daily per million people (i.e 759 deaths daily).

          Sweden is also now reporting just 12 new cases of China virus daily per million people (i.e. 121 new cases daily) compared to 130.8 new cases daily per million Americans (i.e. 21,164 new cases daily.

          And while many left wing lock down activists in the news media have repeatedly criticized Sweden’s decision to not shut down businesses during the past six months, very few news stories have reported that the US has surpassed Sweden’s cumulative mortality rate from the China virus, or that Sweden’s rate of new cases have been plummeting since June (while Sweden’s mortality rate from the virus has been plummeting since April).

          1. The best source of info (updated daily) comparing new and cumulative cases and deaths (and their rates) between different countries is at

          2. US death rates from Kungflu are much lower than reported because of the ~200,000 COVID19 deaths they died while infected not were killed by the virus or complications from they virus like when they count Flu deaths.

            1. The lefties use these numbers because it is nearly impossible to prove that of the ~200k COVID19 deaths, most of those people would have died anyway from the 1+ chronic diseases they already had.

              650,000 America die from heart disease every year.

    3. The problem with the mask debate is that, as usual, it’s dominated by extremists on both ends. On one side you’ve got people like the ones in your article trying to force people to use masks in situations where they will be ineffective or worse. On the other side you’ve got people claiming that masks always completely ineffective and only idiots wear them.

      The truth, as usual, is in the middle. Masks are effective to a certain degree if used properly and under the right conditions. Cloth and surgical masks block some virus-laden particles. N95 masks and respirators block more. No masks protect your eyes. The fact that they don’t block 100% of virus-laden particles doesn’t mean they are useless, though. The fact that N95 masks block the vast majority of such particles, though, means that there is no need to force a mask on anyone. If you want to protect yourself, you can do so without imposing on other people at all. Just wear your N95 mask with a set of goggles and gloves and wash up before you take them off. You’ll be nearly impervious and everyone else can still do whatever they want to do.

      The internet didn’t ruin discourse in this country. The extremists did. The internet just made them louder.

      1. Masks are social conditioning.
        Full stop.

        Fuck your “both sides” bullshit.

        There is NO justification for promoting social conditioning via mask.

        1. Citation needed.

          1. For what, bitch?

            1. The guy has been trying to reform mask wearing in this thread, and has tantrumed like that repeatedly because he gets pushback for being a mask sucking collaborator

          2. Go outside idiot.

      2. Plenty on the no mask side were all for mask at first but soon realized they were being played by the government and social enforcers to conformance. Once enough BS was cleared form the air is when the tide turned against it. Prime example is Newsom in California who keeps changing protocols, a couple of counties are now saying we are opening restaraunts and F U govnor

      3. it’s dominated by extremists on both ends

        Except it’s not. The science on masks lack of efficacy against transmission of viruses is well established. You are calling people who cite well established science extremists.

        1. Fauci in August: “We have people who may not even know they’re infected and are inadvertently infecting others. Those are the ones that we want to have masks on.”
          If you don’t have the virus, wearing a mask won’t protect you.
          If you do have the virus, wearing a mask provides some protection to others

          1. Yeah, you can’t trust anything that bureaucrat says.

            1. CDC: “Masks may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others”

              1. I mean, the CDC and Fauci, aren’t always wrong..

        2. Can you cite this evidence? Up thread I cited a bunch of research indicating masks are effective at reducing risk of infection. I’ve asked others to support their claims that masks are definitively ineffective, but they’ve yet to contribute anything more than occasionally capitalized opinions. So, can you help me out here?

          1. Why the fuck should anyone need to prove to you that something is ‘definitively ineffective’ before arguing that it is a violation of the NAP to mandate they strap a mask on their face?

            Masks are not effective at reducing risk of infection, no studies I have seen have said that. The new studies have said they are effective at reducing risk of transmission, which contradicts previous science. The main study I have seen being touted is actually a study of studies, none of which used rigorous testing methods.

            Regardless, masks are completely 100% ineffective at reducing transmission if the person wearing the mask is not infected. Statewide and potentially national trampling of the civil rights of people for absolutely no benefit? Fuck off!

            1. I never once argued that masks should be a mandated. Please read and understand my posts in full before responding.

              I’ve cited studies above that indicate masks reduced the rate of transmission for a variety of viruses. Effectiveness depends on the virus, the mask and the environmental conditions. These studies go back at least 3 decades. That is the established science. If you are aware of studies that come to the opposite conclusion please post a link. That’s exactly what I have been asking for all day.

              1. Please read and understand my posts in full before responding.

                LOL! Like that is gonna happen. If you are against mandates, I am not going get into a pissing contest over what science is definitive.

      4. Right on. The shame of the modern Red vs. Blue Team culture war is that it is making us collectively stupid as a nation. Every fucking thing is politicized, so that rational thought is shut down.

    4. This is another pernicious fall out. Whitmore is engaging in potentially killing people. I find it hard to believe one couldn’t sue her if a death happens while a child is playing sports because that cunt forced a mask on them. It’s CHILD ABUSE.

      And Whitmore can roll over and die for all I care.

      Follow science my ass. She’s just a malevolent slime ball.

      1. Probably covered by qualified immunity (or some other form) from being personally sued over her official acts as governor.

      2. Whitmer is making children wear masks in youth sports with not a shred of evidence that it’s necessary, and despite a mountain of evidence that it’s actively harmful for children. The point isn’t to “follow the science.” The point is to control. There was a massive outcry by parents that she couldn’t ignore anymore, so she “allowed” youth sports to start up again, but made the conditions to play ridiculous- just to show uppity parents they need to shut the fuck up and obey. She’s holding kids hostage by giving parents a terrible choice- either comply with the edicts no matter how unsafe or how ridiculous, or deny their kids sports for another 6 months.

        She’s using people’s children against them and it’s evil.

        1. This.

          My youngest son plays flag football and was in Boy Scouts. Before troop activities such as an outdoor hike, the Scout leaders made the parents sign COVID waivers, parents and kids undergo thermal temperature screening, and the kids wear masks on the hike. My son didn’t want to wear a mask on the hike and removed it. A kid in his troop literally flipped out at him. It was nonsensical that I withdrew my son from Scouts, at least until sanity returns.

          His flag football league requires the kids to have their temperatures taken pre-game, to wear masks during the entire game, and will not allow spectators. I didn’t sign him up.

          I’m in Michigan.

    5. How about when at home, probably alone, but part of an online meeting?

    6. This reminded me of an incident when I was in the service. We were in MOPP level 4 for a training exercise (meaning full chemical suits with protective masks sealed) and were trying to figure out a way to smoke a cigarette while in MOPP 4. Needless to say it wasn’t successful.

      1. On the old M17A1 mask, there was a tube on the exterior you could insert into you canteen cap to drink while under MOPP4 posture.

        I have seen guys take the caps off their canteens, hook up the drinking tube, and then jam the cone shaped piece inside the cap into the butt of their cigarette. They claimed that it was about 1/3 as effective as a regular drag.

      2. You burn a hole in the NBC suit, throw a cigarette in, and then tape over the hole.

    7. With all the windows rolled up. Bonus points if also wearing gloves. Extra bonus if wearing surgical/crime scene booties. Super secret bonus if they have a spit shield.

    8. The “eliminate all risk” idiots at CDC are also responsible for the massive confusion about masks (which may or may not reduce the risk of transmitting the China virus, as very little little scientific evidence exists) because the agency’s Guidances on mask wearing fails to differentiate between outdoors and indoors, and instead recommends their use in “public settings”.

      This is also the likely reason Joe Biden said everyone should be required to wear masks even outdoors, and that he would impose such an order if elected (which he subsequently has flip flopped on several times) .

      Two months ago, the PA Secretary of Health absurdly claimed that people should wear masks even when hiking through a forest.

      Since the CDC has refused to differentiate between crowded indoor areas, being alone in a car or workplace, or outdoor areas (even remote outdoor areas), nobody should be surprised that tens of millions of Americans have been wearing a mask (and demanding that everyone else do the same) whenever they leave their home.

    9. You mean Uber Drivers who are forced to take a pic in a mask to accept ride requests?

      1. Not even just ride requests.
        They have to do it for UberEats too

    10. “Restrictions such as mask mandates are like oxygen to followers of radical fundamentalist Covidianism”
      Covidianism huh. OK I’m stealing that one.

  3. The physical and cognitive health of people aged 75 to 80 is significantly better than those of that age range thirty years ago.

    Neuroscience News doesn’t normally make endorsements in presidential elections, but these are extraordinary times…”

    1. Wait until you see the study about cognitive abilities of mixed-race women, aged 50-65, raised in CA!

      1. Breaking news! Transgender surgery adds 20 years to your life while shedding 20 pounds!

  4. New York police officer charged with spying for China

    But yeah, China is super peaceful and just wants to trade with the USA.

    That’s all they want to do. Honest.

    1. That’s a weird story. Why is a Tibetan asylee fleeing the CCP spying on behalf of the CCP once he gets here?

      1. The story details this, the asylum story was bogus and, apparently/supposedly his parents were CCP party-members.

        1. But Trump 3nsing temporary asylum and looking stricter at asylum seekers is literal evidence he opposes all immigration and is xenophobic.

          1. We weren’t really keeping Beijing Protestors out before, but now that China’s taken over the city, we should totally let them all in.

            1. Ugh, Hong Kong. Where’s my edit button?

    2. “China is super peaceful and just wants to trade with the USA.”

      I’ll take Strawmen Arguments for $1000, Alex.

      1. “I’ll tmake Strawmen Arguments for $1000, Alex.”

        FTF You.

      2. So you also have no idea what a ‘strawman’ is?
        Why is that not surprising?

        1. Link to anyone here, or anywhere making a statement that “China is super peaceful and just wants to trade with the USA.” It’s a straw man.

          1. Other than Joe Biden?

              1. Hmm, lacking any statement about China being peaceful or “super peaceful”, or any statement saying they “just want to trade”.

              2. Remember when Biden said this:

                “And, honestly, I think, as tough as this negotiation was, I think our relationship with China now might be the best it’s been in a long, long time. And now it’s reciprocal. Before, we were being ripped off badly. Now we have a reciprocal relationship, maybe even better than reciprocal for us.”

                1. Forget it, dude. Arguing with the pro-Trump TDS crowd is just as pointless as arguing with the anti-Trump TDS crowd. Neither will argue in good faith and both are wrong approximately half the time.

                  1. I’m not really trying to get them to change or admit their errors. I’m trying to demonstrate to libertarians who visit the Reason comments that the CACLL commenters who have taken up residence here are not representative of libertarianism or Reason’s readership.

  5. But relatedly, I think conservatives are a little blasé about how radicalizing a confirmation here will be even for moderate Dems…

    Ha, I’d hate to see congressional Democrats radicalized during a fucking confirmation hearing.

    1. “Just do what the Dems want. They will learn their lesson this time”

      1. “Just give in this time and show some goodwill. Why risk making such a fuss? I’m sure they pay it forward if the situation gets reversed.”

        She’s basically admitting that the Dems should be given whatever they want so she, and society as a whole, doesn’t have to deal with their temper tantrums.

        This is most of the fucking problem, and why the country is eventually going to go to shit as the Millennials and Zoomers start to take charge of the country’s institutions–because these cotton-soft, spoiled-ass generations have been, since childhood, used to getting their way and being told it’s someone else’s fault when they don’t get it. And does anyone think Gen-Xers are going to keep things from tottering over? Please. They don’t have the numbers to make it work, nor the cultural influence, and they’ll get run over by the younger generations.

        1. Also, and you are really missing the key attribute, except for the walking colostomy sacks indoctrinated by the Boomer Left, we just don’t care enough typically. Gen X are generally pretty rational and indifferent, except for the whiny shitheads who got suckered into thinking the 1960s were awesome by the Boomers.

          1. “Oh yea, that’s cool.”
            “Are you being sarcastic?”
            “I don’t even know anymore.”

        2. The bottom line, Red, is that I just don’t trust those Team D bastards to hold their end of any bargain. Remember Bush the Elder breaking his pledge…Team D never delivered jack-shit.

        3. Control is going to jump Gen-X. Silents and Boomers have been holding on to power. By the time they let go, Millennials will be old enough to take over.

          1. We’ll definitely get one Gen-X President and probably 6-8 years of the politicians of that generation being in nominal control. The demographics are aligned now and this election is definitely the Boomers’ last gasp. But if there’s more than one, I’ll honestly be surprised. The Millennials have an entitlement streak the size of the Grand Canyon, their population numbers are quite large, and they are absolutely thirsty to put all their elementary school government and video game dreams into action. Remember that AOC is eligible to run for President in five years, while smoothbrains like Joe Kennedy and Eric Swalwell can, and in Swalwell’s case have, already done so.

            Overall, these politicians are just dumb and full of themselves enough that they might legitimately get us in a war because someone said something mean to them. I guarantee they’ll make Trump look like the model of reticence, maturity, and decorum once they feel they can push people around.

            1. The next 4 will be Boomer or Silent then Boomer. AOC will be 35 on 13 October 2024 in time for the next election.

              1. The Silents are pretty much all dead now, or too old to run anything without collapsing. Obama was a relatively young Boomer and he looked like shit by the end of his time in office.

                Gen-X doesn’t have a fucking hope in hell.

      2. They are doing what the Dems the want. In 2016 they specifically said that a new justice should be nominated, even in an election year.

    2. I love that this is what ENB picked. From a libertarian perspective, there is absolutely no principled reason why the GOP should refrain from promptly filling this vacancy. It is all appeals to tradition or fairness that have no place in libertarian phillosophy.

      So her only fall back is to concern-troll the shit out of this. The GOP may be within their rights to do this, but those Dems who are completely without agency may be forced into doing bad things if the GOP does so. I knew that when she finally had something to say about this, it would be something along these lines, and she didn’t disappoint.

      1. Fuck ENB, and fuck all the other whiny Reason uber-libs. They have shit for brains. Had they any sense, they would ask their respective colleges for their tuition back. They learned nothing.

      2. You really won’t be happy until Reason is an alt-right rag.

        1. I would rather it be anything but the alt-left rag that it is.

      3. It’s not even an appeal to tradition. Traditionally, open seats were filled in election years. Not voting on Garland was unfair. Replacing RBG is business as usual, and totally fair.

    3. Would you settle for a presidential impeachment?

      1. I’m holding out for a nationwide strike.

    4. It is getting bad enough that Cuomo was the voice of reason last night on Lemon’s show. When Cuomo is telling you “whoa that goes to far” maybe you out to think that it goes to far. Also of note over the weekend a MSNBC host was chastised for saying Trump’s reaction to RBG’s death was presidential.

    1. You should not be in the military if your medical conditions preclude you from military service without access to regular medicine or your condition endangers other service members.

      Sorry but that is the way it is to maintain superior military readiness.

      1. Sorry. link partial fail above.

    2. It is a fucking chronic disease that costs a fortune to treat. If you get debilitating asthma or diabetes you get discharged as well. But these assholes would make HIV different because it is associated with gays and gays are sacred and entitled to different treatment than the inferior normals.

      1. Not to mention that if I develop asthma or diabetes, it’s not like those around me could conceivably contract asthma or diabetes treating my wounds.

      2. It also makes you non-deployable. If you can’t be world-wide deployed at any time, for any duration the military needs you to be deployed, get the fuck out.

        1. But that’s so unfair!

          1. Terrible and unfair.

    3. There was a massive fucking scandal at Al Udeid a few years ago when it turned out that a bunch of people had been exposed to HIV and hepatitis because the medical staff weren’t following proper cleaning and sanitation procedures for medical equipment.

      1. Oh yeah. I remember that now.

        All the medical staff should have suffered NJP but that still shuold not allow service members to remain in the military with HIV.

  6. Question for all the experts here:

    What happens if Senators abstain in a SCOTUS confirmation vote?

    If four Republican Senators were to abstain, and the final tally was 49-47, would a plurality confirm the appointee, or does it need to be a majority?

    1. As long as there is a quorum, which is I think 2/3rds but I am not sure, the vote is a majority of those who vote not a majority of the total. So, if four Republican Senators abstained, the nomination would still be confirmed by a 49-47 vote. So, up to six Senators could just not vote and the nomination would still be confirmed on a 47-47 vote with Pence breaking the tie.

      1. Thanks, much appreciated.

        All the hypotheticals I’ve seen discussed in the news just assume that R Senators that don’t vote Yea are going to vote Nay with the Democrats. I just see that as being highly unlikely for more than two or three of them. Abstention gives up to six R’s cover for being “principled” while not derailing it for their team.

        1. Graham said yesterday he has the votes. I don’t know if that is with some voting no or some not voting or all of them voting yes. But he says he has the votes.

          1. Hope they get on with it. SCOTUS confirmation is something the R’s usually do fairly well on, in my opinion. Mostly I just don’t want to have to listen to all the screeching about it for the next six months.

            1. Rand Paul sez Romney will vote pro-life to confirm instead of I hate Trump to reject.

              GOP base will desert anyone who votes ‘no’, which is a bigger political threat than swing voters.

              1. My wife tells me Romney says he will vote yes. If Romney is going to do it, you know which way the wind is blowing.

                1. Yup. The never Trumpers are well aware Trump will be reelected.

                  Romney’s Senate seat comes up for reelection midway through trump’s second term.

                  The wind is blowing YUGELY and all these fucking RINOs know it.

                  1. The never Trumpers are well aware Trump will be reelected.

                    Or, if not that, their options are to get on board with the party they’re nominally aligned with or the party that would continue to persecute and malign them even if they jumped ship.

                2. I can’t imagine Romney not voting for it to spite Trump. No way his voters at home let that pass when Roe v Wade could be dismantled. Its one thing if he got his way and Trump were removed because you still have Pence. Its another thing all together to let SCOTUS dominance slip by because Trump is a boor.

                  1. The LDS church is very clear on abortion, it is not inconceivable that voting against a prolife justice would result in censure or maybe even excommunication by the church. Romney knows this and knows he needs the Mormon vote in Utah.

                    1. The LDS church’s official stance is apolitical.

                      That principle is enshrined in LDS scriptures.

                      You will not find a more Constitution-friendly Christian sect. It might have something to do with the governor of Missouri signing an order for their extermination. Shockingly, Governor Boggs was a (gasp!) Democrat.

                    2. I am aware of that but also know the churches stance on abortion.

                    3. Mormons are political.

                      Utah is still run a religious sect of the Mormon elders.

                      Alcohol bans and limitations really exposed how intertwined religion is with state politics. It was really bad here in Georgia too until about 10 years ago.

                    4. Mormons are political.

                      Yes. They are encouraged to be political.

                      Utah is still run a religious sect of the Mormon elders.


                      Alcohol bans and limitations really exposed how intertwined religion is with state politics.

                      Except there are no longer alcohol bans in Utah. Liquor stores are state run and they just upped the alcohol content allowed in beer in 2019.

                    5. Have they gotten rid of the Zion Curtain, Chuck?

                    6. One last tidbit. The LDS church official stance is that life begins at first breath. Not respecting responsibility for your procreative power is the sin.

                    7. State run liquor stores?

                      Who runs Utah politics again?

                      Im not huge into Utah state politics but I catch the occasional story from that state. The news usually has the same bullshit baptist/evangelical religious twist in it. Something just doesnt sound right.

                      I have been to every state and every state had some corruption thing that lingered. NE states have this Democrat/mafia controlled look about them. Like when I visited the former Eastern Block Nations.

                      Utah has those mormon temples towering over the area like Italy has the Catholic church doing the same.

                      Doesnt Utah have some law restricting building heights so the Mormon Temple can be the tallest structure?

        2. Murkowski voted Present for Kavanaugh. She’ll likely do it again, if…the price is right.

          The world kept spinning. Even if all 3 vote No (including Collins and Romney), this new pick would still be confirmed. It’s only when/if other ‘Principled Conservatives’ start screwing around and demanding goodies for their Yes vote, that Trump and McConnell might have a problem.

          1. She pulled a Barry!

          2. I think abstentions are more likely than nos.

            1. Even though, barring a conflict of interest, an abstention is not a legitimate vote it’s a political dodge.


    Liberals finally start to blame Ginsburg for not retiring. The whole Notorious RBG thing was just bizarre. Anyone remember the douchebag a couple of years ago who claimed to have tried RBG’s workout and it nearly killed him? WTF is wrong with these people?

    They created a myth that RBG was anything other than a frail dying old woman for reasons that remain a mystery. Why want an woman who can barely stay awake during oral arguments when you can have someone younger who has a shot at influencing the court? It is completely bizarre. It bought liberals nothing and just created the real risk that has now come true that she would finally keel over with a Republican President in office. Yes, they all thought that a Republican would never be President again. But why take any risk.

    I guess they did it because it made them feel good. What other reason could there be? Their narcissism and utter shallowness is their undoing here.

    Damn threaded comments

  8. Jacob Sullum examines the record of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is rumored to be Trump’s pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.


    1. Something about how much she loved the Handmaid’s Tale and wanted to make it reality. No shit. That boring ass stupid novel is going to be back in the news if Barrett is nominated. Barrett is a member of a Catholic group that someone mistakenly once said was the inspiration for A Handmaid’s Tale. That is going to be the talking point. Barrett is an evil woman who is going to ensure all women are property of their husband’s or something.

      Assuming they can’t find someone to claim that Barrett raped them, that will be the line of attack.

      1. Newsweak did a story on that which contains a self-negating correction at the bottom.

        1. Like it not being true will stop them from using it.

        2. From Newsweek: “The charismatic Christian parachurch organization, which was founded in South Bend, Indiana in 1971, teaches that men have authority over their wives. Members swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another and are expected to donate at least 5 per cent of their earnings to the group.”

          So, better to endorse the Progressive theology, where the state has authority over everyone’s lives, party members have to swear loyalty, and everyone is expected to donate 50% of their earnings?

          1. Members swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another and are expected to donate at least 5 per cent of their earnings to the group

            Shit, that’s cheaper than the Mormons and a lot of other Christian groups that ask for 10 percent.

            1. ‘Paying a tithe’ does actually mean a tenth of your increase, not ‘whatever you are comfortable with’.

          2. AOC is lobbying for 65%.

      2. John, while I agree the Handmaid’s Tale is retarded…it will be odd to see progs not reference Harry Potter for a change.

        1. No the have cancelled JK because she didn’t toe the line on transgendered women in girls sports and locker rooms.

      3. That boring ass stupid novel is going to be back in the news if Barrett is nominated. Barrett is a member of a Catholic group that someone mistakenly once said was the inspiration for A Handmaid’s Tale.

        Wasn’t the inspiration for that novel actually post-revolution Iran until Atwood retconned it after Trump was elected?

      4. It’s already the line of attack.

    2. If there’s not a parade of former Catholic schoolgirls testifying in great detail about how ACB rubbed her muff in their face against their will, I’m going to be very disappointed.

      1. Go on…

      2. Unzips pants… Do you have more details?

      3. Video?

    3. Team Blue is can’t use the typical jackasses to show up and claim sexual assault, conveniently, decades after the fact.


      Butt shots. It was all about alcohol up the keister.

  9. ENB waiting for answers from above.

  10. Try not to get burned when handling this hot take about why ‘speaking English may spread more coronavirus than other languages’

      The countryside and the language are unwelcoming but millions still wish to come…

      1. Best screenshot from that tweet: “Colonisation robbed me of my mother tongue–and my identity.”

        No it didn’t, you dumb bitch. If you’re not smart enough to learn both English and Tamil, that’s on you.

        Money quote from that article: “In my private Catholic school, lessons were taught in English and we were encouraged to speak in our former oppressor’s language, rather than our own.”

        Probably because English is the current lingua franca for international trade and diplomacy. I wonder if she’d be bitching like this if it was Chinese she was being required to know instead of English.

        1. You mean the private school her parents chose to send her to?

    2. While Japanese has few aspirated consonants leading speakers to produce little spit while talking, English has three of them. Specifically, the consonants [p] [t] and [k] are aspirated in English.
      Yeah. Those are unique English letters.

      1. How is that even accurate? I can’t count to ten in Japanese without saying roku and kyu. Ever been to Kyoto? K’s, t’s and p’s are all over japanese.

        1. In Japanese those are aspirational consonants because all Japanese people are robots.

          1. Aren’t aspirational, I meant.

      2. I thought only the Russians had cosmonauts.

    3. German must be a real killer, then.

  11. BLM And ‘1619 Project’ Scrub Radical Beliefs From Their Websites

    Good thing the internet does not allow lefty tricks of trying to #Memoryhole

  12. In SCOTUS Confirmation Fight, Expect Democrats To Embrace Anti-Catholic Bigotry

    When Democrats started the KKK, anti-Catholic bigotry was integral to their hatred.

  13. Federal judge in battleground Wisconsin extends deadline for receiving absentee ballots for 6 days beyond election.

    I mean, despite being able to mail those in well in advance, I suppose there’s something to be said for voters waiting to the last possible second in case there’s a November surprise and we find something out about these two candidates we don’t already fucking know.

    1. Wisconsin wants to make sure they are the battleground state. Suck it Florida.

      1. It is not as big of a deal as it seems. This is for absentee ballots not mail in ballots. You have to request and give a reason for absentee ballots. Mail in ballots are just sent to everyone. That makes absentee ballots much harder to fake and the danger of taking them for a few days after the election much less.

        1. No, there is no difference. Mail-in ballots and absentee ballots are exactly the same thing.

          Different states have different rules for what one must do to get a mail-in/absentee ballot.

          In Florida, anyone can request a mail-in ballot, no reason is required:

          1. The fact that you have to request it, makes it an absentee ballot. Florida just calls it a mail in ballot.

            1. You were the one who implied there is some difference: “This is for absentee ballots not mail in ballots.”

              And neither Florida nor Wisconsin requires a reason to be given to require an absentee/mail-in ballot.

          2. And John wasn’t talking about Florida you illiterate troll.

            1. You got me on that. I saw, “Suck it Florida.”, and thought we were discussing Florida.

              Wisconsin is also a state that requires no reason to be given for requesting a mail-in ballot. The only difference from Florida is that Wisconsin mailed absentee ballot applications to all voters.

          3. Mail-in ballots and absentee ballots are exactly the same thing.

            FAKE NEWS!

            But, you already knew that. People have been trying to educate you for months. You just refuse to accept that something an individual voter has to request and something sent to every single voter’s last address of record are completely different.

            1. OK, explain the difference between mail-in and absentee ballots.

              “Mail-in ballot” does not mean “something sent to every single voter’s last address of record”.

              For example, note the terminology in the link I used above:

            2. There isn’t a simple, short term for a ballot that is “sent to every single voter’s last address of record”. Partly because it is not a common practice; only a few states are doing it.

              1. Oh, so you are conflating descriptions to troll people into arguing with you. Got it!

                Oregon, a state that sends a ballot to every single voter’s last address of record, definitely calls their mail-in ballots ‘mail-in ballots’. It says that right on the envelope.

                1. Weird that you are bringing up Oregon. They’ve had exclusive mail-in voting for two decades now, which means they are not going to be one of the states that has problems counting their votes. Also, the program is officially called “Vote by Mail”.

                2. Not that it’s going to matter, anyway, for the Presidential election if a solid blue or red state has some trouble counting ballots. It’s counting the votes in the swing states that will be critical.

        2. Is there any precedent for this? Seems to me this district court judge is changing the date of the election which could affect the whole country. We’re talking about counting votes mailed after the election. This creates a whole other set of incentives. What if some of these voters were going to sit it out but WI is the deciding state and Trump or Biden are ahead by a handful of votes? They could be mobilized to change the outcome.

  14. No funeral for your mother or grandmother tho, too dangerous.

    Suck it, peons. One rule for you, another for Your Betters.

    The body of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will lie in repose at the Supreme Court this week, with arrangements to allow for public viewing despite the coronavirus pandemic.

    1. Please someone make a cardboard house with red shoes sticking out the side to put over her

    2. This is pissing a lot of people off, as it should.

      1. It enrages me. A family member of mine died from Covid-19, in a nursing home. I could not attend synagogue to say Kaddish. It took a month to get the cremains back. The funeral could only be my wife and me.

        And now we have this? Really? Fuck that.

        1. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States

          This should have been RBG’s dying request. To honor the Constitution by not treating her different from the commoners.

          Hope she is toasty warm where she is now. 🙂

    3. Will RBG be wearing a mask (as CDC mask Guidances also don’t differentiate between dead and alive people)?

  15. Florida prosecutors said Monday that they won’t appeal a court’s decision blocking video that allegedly shows New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft paying for massage parlor sex…

    They’ve already worn the tape out.

  16. Just so we’re clear, if you win the votes and offices necessary to get the Supreme Court Justice in office that you want, Democrats promise to change the entire game as reprisal?

    That sounds about right.

    Packing the Supreme Court is one of the nuttiest things they’ve suggested yet, and given that it’s an idea straight out of the playbook of the guy that invented American concentration camps…well you’d think it would give them pause. FDR was everything they fear Trump is.

    And nevermind that they’ll have to keep increasing the size of the court every time we’re in this situation, where there is the risk they might lose power. I’m sure they’re game.

    1. It is totally nuts. And I don’t think anything beyond about 30% of the country would support it. Yet, assuming the Republicans confirm a justice before the election, Biden is going to run promising to pack the court. His retarded base will tolerate nothing less. Ginsburg going tits up is a real gift to Trump and the Republicans, especially Senate candidates. Not only will Biden have to run on court packing every Democratic Senator and Senate candidate will have to run on it as well or face the prospect of an angry mob of retards showing up at their door.

      1. Riots and court packing – yep, just the Dem party platform Trump is most afraid of. Dumbasses.

        All they had to do is not go crazy.

        1. Last time, all they had to do was not go 100% corrupt and they couldn’t manage that. Of course they’ll lose this one by going 100% crazy.

      2. I’d say it’s equally likely her death will fire up the Democrat base as well, so ultimately it’s probably a wash.

        The point is that changing the rules to negate your opponents wins is the kind of thing a preschooler does. I get the urge to do so, and in some area’s it can be justified I suppose, but to think this is such an occasion is bizarre.

        You’d have to be a moron to think that a conservative court would negate Roe vs. Wade, the judges they put forward even tell people this and it’s like no one is hearing them.

        Now, are there reasons to overturn Roe vs. Wade that have nothing to do with abortion? Yes. Does that mean that any Justice will touch that third rail of politics? No. Democrats would be perfectly within their rights to impeach them, which would be the rational response from them and it’s something they can actually maybe do without nuking the whole show.

        1. It would fire up their base if the Republicans wimped out and didn’t replace her. If they replace her, the deed is done and there is nothing they can do about it except stack the court, which even a good part of their base knows is nuts.

          So, it is more likely to depress their base. Also, the Democratic Party has been losing its mind over Trump for four years now. Exactly how fired up is their base and what possible difference could it make?

          So, it isn’t a wash. It is a huge political problem for the Democrats. That is why they don’t want the Republicans to replace her before the election. Hell, they know the Republicans could do it lame duck if they had to. So she is going to be replaced before the next President. They know that. They don’t want her replaced before the election so they don’t have to run on court packing.

          And overturning Roe v. Wade would just throw the issue back to the states and the public. If abortion is so popular, why would that matter? It wouldn’t except to people who live in New York City and just can’t stand the thought someone they have never met living in a state they will never visit might have a different opinion from them.

          1. And now Slow Mo Joe (and Jill Biden, since Joe is fucking gone) is going to refuse to answer whether he would sign a bill to stack SCOTUS into law. We know what that means. He will sign it into law.

            And of course, he doesn’t have the balls to release his potential SCOTUS nominees. I wonder why.

            1. I think he’d probably love to get to appoint the first batch, regardless of what he says on the issue. I certainly won’t rely on executive restraint for that kind of thing.

              Any President from either party would love that kind of unchecked power. You’d need to be an ideological partisan to think it’s a good thing, on any level.

              If Joe says he’ll sign it, he’ll get approbation from the extremist left and opprobrium from moderate’s. Guess which one’s decide general elections, versus party primaries?

              If Joe says he’ll sign it, or won’t sign it, he’s hurting himself for no reason. Of course, saying nothing means Trump can say whatever he wants about it even if both of them are lying. Banking on people thinking Trump is a liar might be his only not-shit path forward on that issue.

              1. The Democrats are saying that is what they are going to do. Biden won’t be able to not answer if he supports it. If he refuses to answer, it will be assumed that is what he will do. Biden can’t duck out of this.

          2. Roe is an extraordinarily bad decision no matter which side of the debate you happen to be on. I really wish people would actually read it before they treat it like some book of gospel. Having said that there is no circumstance under which the court “overturns Roe” because there is no logical mechanism by which anyone, at this point, could challenge it in it’s entirety. All of the challenges involve specific state laws about parental notification, hospital privileges and other pretty mundane matters. A “conservative” court could certainly allow the states to impose regulations and restrictions in a piecemeal fashion. Some might even ban abortion entirely under certain circumstances. But no court will overturn Roe. They’ll never get the opportunity.

          3. “….. which even a good part of their base knows is nuts……”

            Do they, tho? I think the only way to find out is to have trump say he wants to do it. Then they’ll hate the idea.

        2. It isn’t about Roe v Wade, it’s about absolute, totalitarian power

          1. Well yes, but the stated reason is Roe v Wade and plenty of their support comes from morons who believe that. The fact that ‘conservative’ justices haven’t yet blown up abortion, and in fact side with the liberals on that issue, would normally be cause to keep calm and carry on.

            What State courts do has little bearing on how the Federal Supreme Court behaves, as we’ve seen with their actual votes here in reality.

      3. Mobs of retards–the foundation of democracy?

    2. The SCOTUS is about to be 6-3 Conservative and Breyer might die soon too, so 7-2 will probably be Trump’s legacy when he leaves office in 2025.

      Increasing the SCOTUS to some higher number will just mean that there will be more Conservatives someday.

      America is fundamentally Conservative to some degree. Nobody like Progressive drastic changes every week.

      1. It escapes Democrats notice that if they can raise the number of justices, well so too can Republicans.

        It’s a case of their base being actually retarded and not thinking rationally. Plus, it’s basically Democrats assuming that Republicans are more honorable than they are. This is a notion Republicans will happily explode for them.

        1. Pelosi also mentioned impeachment of any SCOTUS justice seated to replace RBG.

          Republicans can do the same thing to Lefty justices. Plus the Constitution requires 2/3 majority to remove from office, which the Democrats will never have again.

          1. They can certainly try. It’s within their rights to do so, and maybe it would even be a good thing to show people that you can actually get rid of Justices. Maybe it’s a good thing to remind the Justices that they do not rule absolutely. Roberts could use a nutcheck.

            1. Trump’s impeachment was for political reasons, so it set a precedent that criminal acts are not required for impeachment. Some of use predicted this when the House tried to impeach Trump that this would be used in future.

              1. I mean, it’s basically true that any impeachment is for political reasons. This is hardly anything new. It’s just that the common wisdom of only impeaching when you think you have a chance in hell of winning seems to have been lost.

                1. +10000

        2. The Rs can only match the court packing when they get back into power.
          I don’t see the Ds letting that happen when they get their way

          1. Luckily, Democrats will never be in power of all 3 Branches again.

          2. Point is they would be back in power eventually. At best, it’s a short term move that puts them in a worse position later. Par for the course, actually.

            1. Democrat Party is fracturing so the Party of slavery will never be competitive in national elections ever again.

              1. Odd’s that is true approaches zero. Democrats aren’t going anywhere, and even if they did they would be rebranded not disappeared.

                1. Yeah, the same narrative was applied to the GOP in 2014-15.

                2. I’m not saying the Democrats disappear. They would join other parties, like the Communists, Socialists, Green, LP, GOP, or form new parties.

                  The Democrat Party cannot win the political contests they want to.

                  The same thing will happen to the GOP after the Democrat party becomes a minor Party. Libertarians will push for fiscal conservatism and the GOP is not following that platform much. Religious elements of the GOP will likely want more religious aspects of government.

                  The two Party system in America was kept the standard for various reasons. Once one of the two major parties cracks into fragmented pieces, it will more common.

                  Democrats cant win major elections without Black Americans and blue collar workers. The Democrat Party is moving toward Communism.

                  1. You already see it.

                    Some unreason staff acted Libertarian for decades.

                    Romney acted Republican. That guy was never a Republican when he instituted RomneyCare for MASS.

                  2. Except they re-coalesce as 2 major parties. Federalist vs AntiFederalist, Democrat-Republican vs Whig, Democrat vs Republican, Conservatarian vs Marxist,….

                    1. …Antifa vs Proud Boys.

            2. “Point is they would be back in power eventually.”

              Would they?
              Pretending Nazi Germany or Bolshevik Russia can’t happen here will be our undoing.

              1. I mean, the odd’s it can happen here with more guns than residents seems improbable. Certainly changing the rules to basically exclude half the country from having any say is on that path, but then the odd’s that they will have the clout to expand the SC is pretty close to zero as well. It would need to be another perfect storm, and while that’s possible I’m just not sure it’s probable.

                Time will tell, I suppose.

                1. I’d have been a lot more confident in our capacity to withstand totalitarian measures prior to mass lockdowns, mask social pressure, and unopposed rioting.

                  1. I do have to agree on the actual lockdowns, even if I’d quibble on the other points.

                    That was something new, and it read’s like 9/11 for it’s implications on personal freedoms going forward. All the more reason to have a more originalist court when, or more likely if, any of those cases reach the SC.

                    1. The lockdowns are the big one for me. But the others are further discouragement.
                      But im absolutely horrified that there has been no violent/forceful response to the lockdowns.
                      Maybe there might have been if not for the marxist riots.
                      Either way, not a good sign.

          3. The Rs can only match the court packing when they get back into power.

            They don’t have to match the court packing, they can initiate it. Which they should do if the Democrats keep threatening to do it first. It’s like when you’re fighting someone and you’ve got him pinned down and he’s still threatening all the terrible things he’s going to do to you once he gets loose – are you going to let him up? No, you beat the living shit out of him while you’ve got him pinned down, put the fear of God into him, cripple him to the point where he’s no threat to you if you let him back up.

            1. Here’s what you don’t understand Jerry. Republicans are in power because the system is rigged in their favor. Of course they’ll continue to support the cheating. Did you just wake up? Closing polling stations in urban areas, making voting difficult, disenfranchising people, gerrymandering, benefiting from a rigged system to elect Senators, colluding with totalitarian regimes who use criminals acts to influence elections. – this and more is why Republicans are in a position to take a 6-3 advantage. You’re gonna cheat some more? Of course you will.

              1. “Republicans are in power because the system is rigged in their favor. ”

                “They outcheated us!!!”

              2. Damn, you fuckheads really hate the taste of your own medicine, don’t you?

                1. Replacing RBG with a young, committed Originalist is like jamming an ice pick in their medulla, Red.

              3. ‘Closing polling stations in urban areas, making voting difficult, disenfranchising people, gerrymandering, benefiting from a rigged system to elect Senators, colluding with totalitarian regimes who use criminals acts to influence elections.’ These are all demonstrably untrue, hyperbolic rhetoric, or have been effectively used by both parties to further their interests. And, cheating? Does argument always need to devolve to the level of preschool emotional reaction?

                1. Voting is easier in the US than anywhere else in the world

              4. Gerrymandering has no impact on Senators elections. They are elected by the state.

                1. repeal the 17th

                  1. Repeal Dillinger’s right to pollute the minds of freedom-lovers on these pages!

                    1. The 17A totally destroys the purpose of senators and the balance between popular rule and state rights. But why should I expect your take to be in support of the 17A?

              5. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

                1. “Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair”
                  When they sentence you (in your next lifetime, since you’re probably a geezer right now?), for 10,000 years in the slammer, for “rape”, for consensual sex, with you as an 18.0001-year-old, and her as a 17.9999 year-old… Or he on he, or she on she, or human on goat, as the case may be… PLUS infinity-time on the “sexual predator” list… I hope and pray that your slogan will be of IMMENSE solace to you!

            2. you beat the living shit out of him while you’ve got him pinned down, put the fear of God into him, cripple him to the point where he’s no threat to you if you let him back up

              Somebody read Ender’s Game

    3. RBG’s dying request could have been, ‘Don’t taint my legacy by packing the SCOTUS when I am gone’. Instead it was ‘Fuck Trump’.

      Sounds about right.

      1. Trump’s legacy is “fuck the Lefties”.

  17. U.S.’s Google Antitrust Suit Nears With Briefing of States

    Good thing oogle Parent company is call Alphabet.

    They are gonna need a new “G”.

  18. SunTrust Bank was sending user passwords to a 3rd party!

    4th Party Doctrine in effect!

  19. There’s No Downside To Trump Nominating Amy Coney Barrett

    Poor unreason. Trump will be reelected. Trump gets to replace RBG. Trump will get to replace Breyer. trump will get to replace Thomas. Trump is the best President in US History. Trump survived a coup attempt. Trump is causing Lefties to expose their mental psychosis….

    1. Think of all the district and circuit judges as well. There are fuck ton of them around retirement age now. Think of all the 30 and 40 year olds he would appoint to the bench. It drives the uber-libs absolutely wild thinking about that. I enjoy that part.

      1. Control of media, education, and tech still aren’t enough to openly push their policy, so they’re reliant upon judicial tyranny

      2. Trump replacing RBG is a double win for conservative judges.

        Trump puts another originalist on the SCOTUS and gets to replace that judge with another Conservative judge in the federal court system.

        1. And this may actually be more important.

          SCOTUS gets all the chicks, but the Circuit courts are where most last stands are made. Thousands of cases that the SCOTUS will never even hear are decided in the Circuit courts.

  20. Census Report Shows How Jaw-Dropping Trump’s Economy Was Before Shutdowns

    Georgians are not wearing masks or social distancing. Georgians are going to restaurants to eat. Georgians are building new businesses and homes. Georgians are making movies and tv shows….


    Assuming this is the calculus, it shows the flaw in the “burn everything down” approach to politics: no marginal deterrence. Any conservative victory is treated as an unacceptable crime; hence the criminals calculate that they might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.

    Sohrab Ahmari
    · 2h
    “The left is going to burn everything down no matter whom we pick, so we might as well get the right person on the court,” one conservative activist who plays a key role in shepherding judicial picks through the Senate told me.

    1. Democrats have a better option than court packing

      In response, even moderate liberals are proposing a variety of bold options, like adding additional seats to the court as Franklin Roosevelt once tried to do to push the court to stop overturning his New Deal programs. However, there has been comparatively little attention to the simplest and easiest way to get around potentially tyrannical right-wing justices: just ignore them. The president and Congress do not actually have to obey the Supreme Court.

      The weird thing about judicial “originalism” is that the explicit principle of judicial review is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. All of that document’s stipulations on how the courts are to be constructed are contained in one single sentence in Article III: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Actual judicial review was a product of a cynical power grab from Chief Justice John Marshall, who simply asserted out of nothing in Marbury vs. Madison that the court could overturn legislation — but did it in a way to benefit incoming president Thomas Jefferson politically, so as to neutralize his objection to the principle.

      1. As Matt Bruenig argues at the People’s Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: “All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power.” So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it’s unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say “no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed.”

        1. Moreover, simply refusing to agree to judicial review has happened before in American history. As historian Matt Karp writes at Jacobin, when the Civil War broke out, President Lincoln and Congress ignored the Dred Scott decision in a law banning slavery in all federal territories, and when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled Lincoln did not have the power to suspend habeas corpus, the president ignored him. As Karp argues, storming the citadel of reactionary court power was necessary to destroy slavery.

          It would probably be unwise for an incoming Democratic president to announce immediately he or she is done with judicial review. But it should always be kept in mind as a potential option.

          1. The Democrats will probably wait for the undemocratic, unelected, rigged, won by cheating Republican Supreme Court to do something reactionary and only then will they respond with new judges.

            1. Democrats never lose elections. Any election that Democrats don’t win is by definition rigged. But it is everyone else who doesn’t believe in Democracy not you.

              Do your talking points come directly from Tehran or Beijing these days or do they pass through an American middle man?

              1. That level of whiny self-indulgent ignorance is rampant on some US campuses. And in many US media sources. One of the interesting traits of the progressives, leftists, many liberals, they spend little to no time outside of their in-group, so they never have to support their beliefs. Beliefs they’ve become accustomed to accept as fact, and will attack any who suggest otherwise. I AM not saying conservatives or centrists flock to other viewpoints, but they are certainly very accustomed to having their ideas challenged. And some learn to debate/argue without resorting to ad hominem, strawman, red herring. It used to be more the case here, but then, there used to be fewer trolls and almost no pointless flaming.

                1. There still is debate here. THe problem is that it gets obscured by the leftists doing shit like this.

          2. So, Kim Davis need not follow Obergfell, schools don’t need to worry about Brown, cops don’t have to abide by Miranda, and State legislatures don’t need to worry about Roe or the even more odious PP v Casey.

        2. As always, it never occurs to them that the Republicans could do the same. Democrats want to ignore judicial review, great. I have a long list of activist Democratic decisions going back about 80 years that the next Republican President will be free to ignore.

        3. He’s not wrong. The courts have no army. They can’t enforce their rulings. Of course, ignoring their rulings removes legitimacy from government actions, and without legitimacy people who disagree with you have no reason to cooperate.

          1. No they don’t. If you can ignore the courts so can I. They think they are special and only they can ignore the rules. They would still expect everyone else to abide by court rulings regardless of if they disagreed with the rulings.

            They are just assholes.

      2. At least they’re finally being honest about their intentions. It’s about time they stopped even pretending to believe in the rule of law.

      3. The president and Congress do not actually have to obey the Supreme Court.

        How very Jacksonian. Everyone has already shown they don’t have to obey the Constitution. Why stop there?

  22. Apparently there is “a non-profit that oversees emoji standards and is responsible for new releases.”

    [Insert person stroking his own eggplant emoji here]

    1. The consortium announced in April there would be no new emojis until 2022 because of the pandemic.
      It’s not a computer virus.

    2. I am surprised they have not dictated that ALL emojis shall be simply replaced with the facemask emoji from here on. It’s not very socially responsible to show emojis with uncovered faces, is it? It normalizes non-mask wearing, which literally kills 10,000 grannys every day. It’s time to get used to the idea of faces not existing- it’s the New Normal.

  23. Still think it’s absurd to compare Drumpf’s America to The Handmaid’s Tale? Let Newsweek explain:

    How Amy Coney Barrett’s People of Praise group inspired ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’

    The progressive / libertarian alliance simply cannot allow Orange Hitler to replace RBG. Only President Biden gets to do that. Because it was RBG’s DYING WISH.

    1. That’s wild. Newsweek is admittedly, the most horrific dreck, but, the attempted tie-in, with the single sentence about the group never having been in New Jersey, is telling.

  24. A 1930s Communist Spy Can Help Explain What’s Motivating The Riots

    The answer that former spy Whittaker Chambers gave in 1952 still applies today. Chambers was a devout communist in the 1930s, spying on the U.S. government with others, including State Department official Alger Hiss. After Chambers defected from communism and converted to Christianity, he denounced Hiss as a fellow spy, resulting in a salacious libel trial that defined and reflected American attitudes toward communism in the 1950s as much as McCarthyism did.

    Due to his attraction to communism, Chambers saw what many Americans failed to grasp. Man, he said in his autobiography “Witness,” seeks two things: “a reason to live and a reason to die.”

    Communism, Chambers argued, gave its adherents what the post-Enlightenment West had not: a moral crusade. Never mind that the actual results of communism were death and oppression – the idea of communism offered something to fight for, in a way that men will not fight for science or reason or academia or postmodernism.

    1. “a reason to live and a reason to die.”

      Meanwhile, white 20somethings are calling the cops ‘sir’ and ‘mam’ post arrest when rioting, because they are facing consequences for the first time in their lives and are terrified.

    2. Oh they will certainly fight for science. By “fight”, I mean “tweet”. And by “science” I mean “authority”.

  25. A person tested positive for coronavirus, then tried to hop on a plane in Maine. The state’s CDC intervened

    If they did this to an HIV infected person, all the Lefties would have their heads explode.

    1. In fairness, what are the odd’s someone with AIDS is going to bleed into your mouth on a flight?

      1. The airlines and government are working in conjunction to fuck people.

        Ripe conditions from an HIV infested ass-fucking.

        1. The airlines and government are working in conjunction to fuck people.

          And that differs from any point in the past 19 years how?

          1. I linked to a Maine story about passenger being removed.

            Lifetime ban for US Navy SEAL that killed Osama BIn Laden because he wouldnt wear a mask.

      2. Even one life?

      3. In the mid 90s, under Fauci, the CDC was worried about person to person transmission from merely saliva, causing schools to shut down drinking fountains.

        1. I went to elementary school in the 60s. Every school, park, clinic or public place had a communal drinking fountain. I’m still here bitches.

  26. Secret documents show how North Korea launders money through U.S. banks

    But as an American, try to deposit more that $9,999 into a bank and see all the paperwork you have to fill out.

    1. Try to deposit $9,999 into a bank and see yourself charged with structuring.

      1. That too.

  27. Gee, for a second, there, I thought ENB had something on TikTok. All I see is a tweet and speculation!

    Two observations:

    1) It isn’t necessary to pretend there was “corruption” to oppose central planning.

    2) At this point, are you sure the owners of TikTok don’t want this deal to go through? Again, 40% of Bytedance is owned by the private equity firms that are also buying TikTok’s U.S. operations. And it’s unclear whether TikTok would get a better deal from a potential Biden administration at this point.

    Arguing to stop the TikTok deal at this point may be like ENB arguing to save “sex workers” from themselves. What if Bytedance wants this deal to go through?

    1. Where is the “corruption”. I don’t see any evidence that Trump benefits from Oracle buying this rather than someone else. Am I missing something?

      1. The likely candidates I see are 1) Larry Ellison being a Trump supporter and 2) The $5 billion Trump is making them donate to the USA (as promised) is going to Trump’s 1776 Commission–which is an initiative to promote teaching patriotism in public schools in opposition to the 1619 Project.

        Calling this deal corrupt because Ellison and Trump are friends is a stretch. Because you like the people you do business with doesn’t make it corruption–not even if they profit from your decisions. Trump didn’t profit from this deal in any way–other than to make himself seem like he should be reelected.

        I won’t defend what Trump did in insisting that they cough up $5 billion for the USA, but I understand where that comes from–and it’s not corruption.

        In commercial real estate, it’s happened to us, where just before the city council takes a vote on whether to approve your plans, one of the city council members will ask if you’re willing to make, say, a $50,000 donation to the parks and recreation department to show the depth of your commitment to supporting the local community.

        If you say no, who knows what happens? Maybe they put your plans on hold for further consideration–and back on the calendar six months from now! That will cost you more than $50,000 in interest on your land loan, insurance, property taxes, and maintenance. Wouldn’t it be better to buy them a veterans memorial to put in the city park? The local VFW, Lion’s Club, Rotary Club, etc. don’t think that’s corruption.

        It’s wrong. Trump shouldn’t have done it.

        But it isn’t corruption. It’s standard practice, and he doesn’t benefit from it–any more than the city council person that asks for money from the developer so they fund the local little league for another year. When a city council person is squeezing money out of wealthy people to benefit the city, that’s what a lot of voters think of as doing a good job. Trump has probably been subjected to that all his life. Over the course of his career, he may have been forced to put up more public art and fund more little league fields than anyone in the country.

        Regardless, Trump didn’t squeeze $5 billion out of a bunch of private equity firms and billionaires to spend on himself. He did it for the brownie points to get himself reelected. He’s not getting any of that money. It’s going to schools. It’s not corruption.

        It’s wrong, but it’s not corruption.

        1. The Democrats have made an entire industry of using DOJ to force companies to donate to Democratic causes as part of consent decrees. For them to complain about Ellison giving money to the Trump’s pet history project is rich to say the least.

          1. This is as old as the hills.

            The real reason the government makes people get their approval is so they can charge them for their approval.

            I defy anyone to think of something that requires the government’s approval and doesn’t have an associated fee.

            At best, all they’ll find is the exception that proves the rule.

            That isn’t to say it’s right. It’s wrong. The government should be small and narrowly focused because of this principle and its implications.

            1. I started listing things in my mind . . .

              Taxi medallions, short barreled rifles, customs duties, . . .

              Then I realized the list is infinite.

              Meanwhile, Trump really is being a legitimate populist here. Populism is a reaction to elitism on behalf of “the people”, and if making billionaires cough up $5 billion to teach patriotism to children isn’t populist, I don’t know what is.

              The biggest blow these people could land to populism would be to strip themselves of their elitism, but if lording over average people isn’t the point of politics, they’d rather not be involved.

              1. But for one tribe, its unpopular populism.

                1. Which happens to be a tribe of elitists!

        2. It’s corruption.

          Trump is fully aware these Chinese companies are using tech to spy on Americans.

          The Chinese agreed to this deal. Ask why they did.

          1. Hey right-wing nut jobs, read THIS!


            Gangster capitalism and the American theft of Chinese innovation

            Flip the roles please… USA software writers write a popular app, and it succeeds in China. Then the Chinese demand majority or near-majority Chinese ownership and control, AND then they add extra taxes on top of it, to fund teaching young Chinese people how to be GOOD Chinese patriots? What would conservative USA nut jobs say about THAT?!?!

            1. Because it’s wrong doesn’t make it corruption.

              President Trump did not do what he did to TikTok to enrich himself.

              He did it to give himself a leg up in his reelection campaign, and that’s why everybody on the left is suddenly defending the rights of TikTok–instead of condemning foreign interference through social media like they were in the aftermath of Trump’s election in 2016.

              I would love to believe the Democrats and the press are all about the principles of capitalism and no-interference in the economy, here, but . . . um . . . they don’t give a shit about that. I’ve condemned Trump for doing this–every step of the way. What he did was wrong, and you can’t find anywhere I’ve said it wasn’t.

              He did, however, do what he said he was going to do.

              TikTok Global’s ownership will be majority American–and even more so once they go public. TikTok Global’s headquarters will be in Texas and create 25,000 high paying jobs. TikTok Global will host all the consumer data they collect on Oracle servers here in the USA. And the American people are getting a cut of the deal.

              For swing voters in the rust belt who vote based on which candidate they think is most likely to stand up to the Chinese and wrestle American jobs back from them, all this plays really well.

              And what President Trump did was wrong. It was central planning and coercive, and indefensible from a libertarian capitalist perspective.

              All of that is true.

              If I can be honest about how wrong it was and honest about all the good things it did, why can’t everyone? The facts are what they are regardless of whether we like them. That’s what makes them facts, right? If they changed based on how we felt about them, they wouldn’t be facts. They’d be feelings.

              1. Ken, you’re correct. Many people have voted for (and will vote for) Trump, to be selfish on their behalf. We want to be wealthy without the proportionate work required to be wealthy, through honest means. So we’ll rip off the Chinese, and congratulate ourselves on how we DESERVE to rip off the Chinese! They bad? We be worse, and that is GOOD, we tell ourselves! If it is good for US, who cares about others, or about fair play?

                Here’s the (fairly) latest about Trump’s history as an arrogant, greedy-pig, selfish asshole…
                “ENLIGHTENED” self-interest is in YOUR best interest, in the long term! (As well as in the interests of others). Trump is too stupid, greedy, and full of false pride to see that…

                Mahatma Gandhi and the “Seven Sins that Lead to Violence” includes “wealth without work” (ripping others off or abusing them and keeping them down). This here is an example of it, fair and square.

                1. Golly. More “bombshells”? Will they never end?

                  That word has been watered down almost as much as racist. Haha.

            2. Will no one stand up for the poor CCP?

              1. Will no one stand up for what is right? “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander”?

                I cannot deny that Emperor Pooh-Bear treats the Islamic folks out in China’s western deserts (Uighurs) like shit, and is an otherwise repressive ogre. Not making excuses for the dude…
                However, more economic interdependence is more incentive against war! And war sucks! So what really pisses me off, is the American war-mongers who lust after trade wars, on the theory that it will fend off shooting wars! Bullshit, it will! Treating others suspiciously and badly, all them time, as potential enemies, is a quick way to MAKE enemies!
                For all of ye China trade-war-mongers… See below…

                So they don’t play by the exact rules that we’d like them to play by. When you are 15 and your little brother is 5, when you play chess with him, you give up your rook or queen (handicap yourself a wee tad) to let him catch up with your chess skills… If you treasure long-term peace in the family, that is… If you want little brother to get along with you when you are 30 and he is 20, and so on. Or, when you play golf with a business partner, and he sucks at golf, you cut him a few breaks. It’s called “getting along with others”. Do YOU want a shooting war with China? It’s where we’re headed, if The Donald doesn’t stop, and Congress doesn’t take back the powers that belong to Congress!
                Sometimes we need to have the humility to acknowledge that we cannot control others… We can only control ourselves!
                GDP per capita
                Increase $10,153 (nominal; 2019 est.)
                USA GDP per capita : 59,531.66 USD (2017)
                We are about 6 times as wealthy as they are!!! HOW MUCH MORE per-capita wealth do YOU want to have, compared to the Chinese, before you are willing to be a wee tad less greedy, nationalistic, and selfish? Maybe we should FIGHT a little less, and COOPERATE a wee tad more? And NOT try always to tell others what to do and not do? Be a little less Trump-ish, in other words? I think more cooperation and less competition would be in order here! Trump is flushing the world economy down the crapper, if there’s no stop to the trade wars!
                Really now… HOW MUCH more wealthy, per capita, are we going to have to be, before you’d consent to being more graceful, and not insisting that they play precisely by our rules?

                Red Rocks-for-Brains… USA 6 times as much GNP per capita as China, NOT good enough for you? How MUCH do you want, greedy asshole?

                1. If trade with China weren’t good for the United States, millions of Americans wouldn’t be shopping at Walmart.

                  Our standard of living, especially for the middle and lower classes, is better than it would be if we weren’t trading with China. After all, rising standards of living are about the things we want costing less. If it weren’t for trade with China, the things we want would cost more.

                  Why not leave it at that?

                  If you want your fellow Americans to stop buying Chinese manufactured goods because you think they should care more about the way the CCP treats Chinese people than they do about their own standard of living, then go out and persuade them. Don’t get the president to start imposing trade policies that hurt the American consumer and his or her standard of living.

                  Why not just leave it at that?

                  1. Ken, I agree with all that you said above.

                    But the reason that I don’t “leave it at that” is because of people like Red-Rocks-for-Brains, who say that anytime I buy something made in China (or any time that I do NOT cheer on Trump’s senseless, coercive, taxing trade wars) then I am blessing all that is done by Emperor Pooh Bear! Red-Rocks-for-Brains is therefor claiming to be my moral superior!

                    These kinds of folks need to hear some back-talk, so that they can see the perspective that trade-war-mongers are no more “morally superior” than are shooting-war-mongers!

                    1. And yet I always say these kinds of things and Mr. RRWP doesn’t say those things to me!

                      He disagrees with me, I’m sure, but it’s always civil, rational–even cordial. I suspect there’s more to it than the way Mr. RRWP is.

                      Do you go around picking fights over extraneous stuff?

                2. “MUH POOR CCP BOOS!!”

                  1. My poor TrumpfenFuhrer doesn’t get to tell us when to breathe, and what to eat for breakfast! Boo-Hoo!

                    1. You probably shouldn’t bring up what you eat for breakfast, Shitsy.

                3. “How MUCH do you want, greedy asshole?”

                  None of your fucking business, whiny bitch.

      2. Orange man bad.

        1. Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

          We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

          See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
          “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…

          He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

          All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

          Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

          Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

          We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!

          These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

          1. Don’t feed the retard, folks.

            1. That’s spastic retard.

          2. Everyone who has ever owned a business has gone bankrupt at some point. It is how businesses work. Some make it and some don’t.

            All you are doing here is showing that in addition to being a dangerous crazy fuck, you are a stupid crazy fuck as well.

            Get some help Hihn. Really, get some professional mental healthcare. If not for yourself, for those around you.

            1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

              1. You’re still retarded.

            2. “Everyone who has ever owned a business has gone bankrupt at some point. It is how businesses work. Some make it and some don’t.”

              And Der TrumpfenFuhrer has gotten RICH by abusing people this way! So He wants to do the SAME thing with the “full faith and credit” of the USA, and stiff the creditors!

              Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

              Honorable, honest people don’t abuse others by constantly stiffing them on repaying their debts! Pretty simple, really!

        2. Well, he is. Demonstrably.

          By the way, that Trump is bad doesn’t make the Democrats good, so don’t go there.

        3. Ok Pavlov, you’ve made your point.

    2. Agreed, Ken, it sounds like a politician doing something that is good for themselves, maybe, and seems to be for the good of the country. I can say, any funds to counter the 1619 Project’s damage would be a benefit. As I have not seen curricula for the 1776 Project, I reserve my opinion, but it must be better than Zinn’s history.

      So, corruption, no. Politics, yes. From a civil liberties standpoint, ENB is coming off pretty whiny on this.

    3. So, let’s say Trump does indeed secure a $5 billion dollar fund for education, and let’s also say that Biden is elected and the $5 billion has not been spent yet since the patriotic education program is unlikely to spring into existence overnight. Could it end up as a $5 billion dollar fund going to the 1619 Project and other progressive education programs?

  28. Trump’s Growing Hispanic Support Shows Cracks In Democrats’s Plans

    Poor Democrats and unreason. Trump is popular with the White men, the Ladies, Black Americans, AmerIndians, and the Hispanic Americans.

    1. What about try-racial, transgender socialists?

  29. So should an unelected, undemocratic Supreme Court take away the ACA, civil rights, etc, and if the Democrats are in a position to reverse it all with ordinary legislation, do you think for one second the Democrats wouldn’t pass the law and expand the court?

    And if the Democrats do win the presidency, senate and house, they should first focus on expanding voting access, getting money out of politics, improving access to affordable healthcare and just wait for the Republican Supreme Court to do something egregious like striking down the ACA or Roe and then in response to that they should expand the Court. Though it’s possible the undemocratic, unelected, rigged, won by cheating Republican Supreme Court destroys the ACA in 2020 in which case the Democrats would have do something about it immediately.

    1. “getting money out of politics”


      The Democrats are now the party of millionaire entertainers and tech industry billionaires. Biden has more billionaire donors than Drumpf. Why would Democrats give up one of their biggest advantages?


      1. Strazele … pwn3d by a parody lol.

        1. Dillinger… Pawned by itself! LOL at your own jokes, arrogant one, because no one else will! Pig Swillinger!

    2. And when the Republicans take back over, they will expand the court and undo all of that. What then? Are we going to have a thousand people on the court?

      God forbid you retarded fucks ever win an election and do anything legitimately. Or maybe you could even not be a complete asshole and understand that representative government is about compromise and give the other side a voice in government.

      Nah, you could never do that. Doing that would mean admitting that other people have rights and dignity and a right to have a say in their government. Since assholes like you base your entire life on hatred and viciousness, admitting that would take away your reason for living and sense of self worth.

      In my better moments, I actually feel sorry for people like you. What a terrible existence it must be to base your entire life around hatred of some designated other. No amount of “but I am doing good” rationalization could make that anything other than an awful existence. But I guess people like you are so self centered and far gone you probably have long stopped understanding there is any other way to live.

      1. ‘representative government is about compromise and give the other side a voice in government”

        Save your bullshit for someone who doesn’t know you.

        1. You don’t know me. Beyond that, you have no response to what I said or you would have made them. Truth always hits it’s target.

          1. What’s your point John, that you love democracy and compromise? You’re just liar or completely delusional. A little of both it seems. If the Republicans were to regain the ability to change the number of judges then we’d back to where we are now. There is no downside for Democrats.

            1. Democrats are the best thing to happen to Conservatives in decades.

              Democrats fail at everything.

            2. My point is that you are completely unable to accept the other side winning an election or ever having it’s way. The Republicans winning the White House and the Senate means they get to replace the justices who retire during that time. You can’t accept that because you cannot accept ever not getting your way. Any time that doesn’t happen you pretend it is not legitimate and then use that as a rationalization for throwing the result out and engaging in tyranny.

              Basically, you are just an asshole. You are a silly and ignorant asshole as well. You can’t have a Republic or even a civilization with people like you. You can’t compromise or accept anything other than getting your way.

              1. Changing the size of the court through ordinary legislation is just as legitimate by your standard and when you consider the way Republicans came to that Sup Court majority using ordinary legislation to address it is even more legitimate. The Senate Democrats represent 18 million more people than the Senate Republicans. Tge system is rigged. You can’t cheat a cheater. It’s just putting it right. The American people should they put Democrats into the position to do something about deserve to have their votes respected. If the Republican Supreme Court throws out the ACA it’s a direct assault on the American people who voted for that law and overwhelmingly support it.

                1. The Senate Democrats represent 18 million more people than the Senate Republicans.

                  Senators represent their states, not the people of those states. That’s why the prerogatives of the Senate differ from those of the House.

                  1. “Senators represent their state, not the people in the state”

                    The fuck does that even mean? What’s the “state”?

                    1. “The United States” is plural, not singular. Despite the “we the people”, the state legislatures voted to adopt the Constitution, not the people. It wasn’t the people of New York and Virginia and Pennsylvania and so on that voted for the Constitution, it was the sovereign governments of those sovereign states that voted for it. New York existed as an independent state before the United States existed, it had to vote to suborn itself to a federal government. As a condition of that, the federal government adopted a divided Congress – one house to represent the people, one house to represent the states qua states. It’s why treaties, for example, have to be approved by the Senate, a majority of the states have to agree to be bound by that treaty and nobody gives a fuck how many people approve or disapprove of the treaty, it ain’t up to the people to make that decision.

                    2. “I don’t understand basic civics but I’m going to self righteously lecture about fairness anyway!”
                      -Lord of Strazele

                    3. It’s a Republic. If you can keep it.

                  2. This is why each state gets 2 Senators, Wyoming is just as much a state as New York and the number of inhabitants of that state don’t matter. Saying that California should have more Senators than Vermont because it has more people is as absurd as claiming a 300 pound man should have twice as many votes as someone who weighs 150. The Senate is explicitly non-democratic, California has no right to tell Vermont how to run its business.

                    1. The Senate is undemocratic. No shit. That’s why the Senate should tread carefully when it uses the Senate power. The Republicans have been abusing this power but fortunately alot of the abuse can be outdone by a simple majority.

                    2. “undemocratic”

                      Oh no! You don’t like something!

                    3. US is a republic, not a pure democracy.

                      Go back to school buddy.

                  3. Civics aren’t a liberal’s strong suit.

                    1. Clearly not. This Strazele chump has the civics knowledge of a 3-year old.

                    2. This Strazele chump has the civics knowledge of a 3-year old.

                      Yet he whines like a 70-year old man about kids on his lawn.

                      Oh, must be a Boomer.

                2. Haha. Yeah. I have a right to have the government force other people to pay for my basic needs.

                  And taking away what was never mine is so terrible and unfair.

                  What a whiny bitch.

              2. Voters literally told them that was the reason many were voting for Trump, at least in part. Apparently they were not listening, and are surprised that Trump would try to do the things he actually campaigned on.

                Shocking, I suppose, in this age of unreason.

                One might think that Progressives believe the Supreme Court belongs to them alone. They have said as much in the past. Lets hope they’re wrong.

                1. A minority of Americans picked Trump and a minority of voters put Republicans in charge of the Senate. What now mfer? Anything else?

                  1. Trump won the election. Again, just because your side lost doesn’t make the election illegitimate. Fuck you asshole.

                    1. It means he doesn’t have a popular mandate or the support of the American people. That what it means. As plain as day. No fucking way around it.

                    2. ah yes the imaginary “popular mandate” Lolo

                      God it’s nothing but reaching for straws with you

                    3. Hillary also didn’t win the majority of voters dummy.

                    4. It’s also not a ‘popular mandate’ for Democrats, one might simply notice. So what leg are you even trying to stand on here?

                  2. Well, since tyranny of the majority isn’t better than any other kind I fail to really see how that figures into the calculus. Plus, since your reply amounts to a non-sequitur I’m not sure what point you’re even trying to make.

                    Should Democrats be lauded for winning a game no one was playing? Did they just not read the rules for who gets to be President, or what?

                    I guess assuming that voter behavior wouldn’t change when the game changes is totally rational, to a certain sort of person.

                  3. You lost. Everything else is you being that guy everyone hates who cries about the rules after he loses.

            3. I love when lefties use the word compromise, when compromise implies that they give up something to get something. Lefties really mean capitulation when they use the word compromise. How should the Republicans compromise here? What is the sacrifice Democrats are willing to give up to get something?

              1. You don’t compromise with liars. You don’t throw your pearls before the swine * (meaning, you don’t turn your back on liars and trash)

                1. See, this is the tactic on full display.

                  Make your opponents evil, because if they’re evil you don’t need to compromise. Works well for Republicans too, we can see examples of it right here on this thread, but few people seem to be aware of what they’re selling.

                  Democrats are listening to the most extreme portions of their base, and will suffer for it just like Republicans have done in the past when they listened to their own extremist base. Which, last I checked, was just about never given that libertarians are the Republican extremist fringe. Contrasted with actual socialists and communists, gee what a choice.

                  A party that doesn’t listen to me, but mostly doesn’t fuck with me, or a party that wants to endlessly screw with society in the name of progressivism. The lesser evil, at least to me, seems clear. And I’ll go ahead and say it: most Democrats aren’t evil, they just disagree with me. And there are a few in both parties that are actually evil, as well, for the record.

                  1. The Republicans aren’t interested in compromise. They’ve said “we have the votes, so fuck you”. What compromise are you talking about?

                    1. “The Republicans aren’t interested in compromise”

                      “We lost so we’ll pack the court!!!”

                      So compromisey!

                    2. The 1986 immigration compromise says hi. Democrats still haven’t lived up to their agreement.

                    3. Well, I mean after the Obama administration and Democrats told Republicans to go fuck themselves while drafting the ACA one might be tempted to say they learned the rules and are now playing by them.

                    4. That is correct. Team R has the votes, strazele. So fuck you.

                    5. You literally just said your side won’t compromise because reasons and you want to blame this on Republicans? Do you have any self awareness?

                    6. No, that was Barack Obama that said that. And Harry Reid. And Pelosi.
                      Obama and Reid were the first to ever say it out loud

                2. So you admit you don’t really want compromise you want capitulation so why did you use the word compromise? And thank you for proving my point fuckhead.

        2. Democrats will never be in power of all 3 Branches again.

          Thanks to Democrats, Trump is the best President in US History.

        3. “Save your bullshit for someone who doesn’t know you.”

          Stuff your bullshit up your ass so your head has some company.

        4. Save your bullshit for someone who doesn’t know you.

          Likewise. Compromise with the left is impossible because the left doesn’t want to compromise. Every time it doesn’t get its way on everything, it’s “oppression” and “disenfranchisement.” As if only getting 90% of what you want is right-wing totalitarianism.

          The lesson that’s been learned the last 20 years is that the left is a bad-faith actor, and giving in to them on anything isn’t going to make them stop making demands to get what they ultimately want.

          Since you don’t want the 90% you’re getting, you now get nothing. And if you try to get 100%, you ultimately get a free helicopter ride.

    3. “So should an unelected, undemocratic Supreme Court take away the ACA, civil rights,…”

      One of those is no like the other, but as a scumbag lefty shit, you wouldn’t know that.

      1. One would think, LoS might realize that the ACA violates civil rights on a very basic level by forcing people the buy health insurance. One would be wrong, or await the false equivalence, hyperbole, or irrational response.

        1. Dude said ACA was “ overwhelmingly supported” by Americans who “voted for” it.


    4. “So should an unelected, undemocratic Supreme Court take away…”

      I love how leftists are pivoting on this so hard they’re burning a hole in the floor.

      1. You’d think that amount of spinning would make them dizzy.

  30. Finally some good news.

    Bloomberg raises $16 million to pay off fines and fees of Florida felons, aiming to boost vote for Joe Biden

    We Koch / Reason libertarians, of course, want to make it as easy as possible for felons to vote. Because we know they’ll more often than not vote Democrat.


    1. I would have more respect if he had used his own money.

      1. You don’t get to be a billionaire by using your own money when you can use someone else’s.

  31. Dr. Heneghan from CEBM basically said this virus is low circulating and now seasonal.

    Keep wearing the fucken masks you stupid idiots.

  32. Crimes Against Morality: Unintended Consequences of Criminalizing Sex Work

    Unintended consequences of prohibition have seldom been a deal breaker.

  33. Speaking of speculation:

    “Russian President Vladimir Putin and his top aides are “probably directing” a Russian foreign influence operation to interfere in the 2020 presidential election against former vice president Joe Biden, which involves a prominent Ukrainian lawmaker connected to President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, a top-secret CIA assessment concluded, according to two sources who reviewed it.”

    —-Washington Post, September 22, 2020

    Needless to say, this is very disturbing.

    And if you can’t trust The Washington Post citing two anonymous sources who say they reviewed a top-secret assessment from the CIA, what can you trust?!

    P.S. LOL

    1. Meanwhile both the Chinese and the Iranians say they want Biden to win. But they would never interfere in the election because they are just trustworthy and moral like that I guess.

      1. Well, Iran is a primitive backwater so probably not. China on the other hand is…a primitive backwater with tons of stolen technological patents. So probably more concerning, on about the same level of Russia at the very least.

        1. The Chinese have enormous influence over American corporations and especially the entertainment industry. They are orders of magnitude a greater threat than Russia on any level.

          1. I would agree, but I’m trying to be charitable. Russia is a Siberian wasteland and would be a 3rd world country if not for oil, gas, and nukes left over from their height of power.

          2. The Chinese Commies need “legitimate” media to pimp a false Narrative when they invade Taiwan and surrounding Far East countries, especially oil nations.

            1. If I set out to parody a Republican, I would create you Lovecon1984. You’re doing good work here.

              1. Hold on. Are you trying to say that the government of China didn’t have influence on the management and editorial decisions at DisneyABC and the NYT recently?

              2. Yeah, China has no influence on American politics.

                Again, do your talking points come directly from Beijing or through an American middle man?

              3. Days the parody of the left who doesn’t realize he is a parody.

                1. Not parody when he demonstrates mainstream leftism

              4. As I have always said, the more Lefty and their bots follow me around and reply, the more I know what I am saying is right on the money.

                I’m a threat, so Lefties assign resources to try to stop the threat.

          3. So, why should I give a shit about Disney and the NBA?


    swedish ER doc has not seen a case of cov-19 in 2.5 months.

    people doing what they please.

    maybe 1 in 100 wears a mask on public transport.

    hospitals and ICU basically empty.

    welcome to herd immunity.


      #Covid burned out in Sweden. On its own.
      #Covid burned out in Florida. On its own.
      #Covid burned out in Manaus. On its own.
      #Covid burned out in Arizona. On its own.
      #Covid burned out in Japan (okay, it never really started in Japan). On its own.

      What do you need to see?

      1. Schools in Az are still being delayed in Az.. It is frustrating. Using the over replicated testing for positivity.

    2. Wait, NOBODY has the virus? Herd immunity failed! /what the media has been saying for months


    They locked us down, killed grandparents, accused a decent man of being a gang rapist on the word of a crooked lawyer, rioted, looted, burned cities, assassinated peace officers, and now they are threatening to do more, if they don’t get their way. Oh, and they want your vote.

  36. Jacob Sullum examines the record of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is rumored to be Trump’s pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

    This woman appears to be happily married with seven children and could become the next Supreme Court Justice. She is the literal embodiment of the old feminist trope “Having it all” (which by the way, has become a joke even among feminists because it never happens) I don’t know how she managed all of that and I’m sure she’s far from perfect, but she’s a conservative to top it off. I bet the left HATES that. I think it’s hilarious. I wonder how they will try to destroy her.

    1. Look to the husband and guilt by association. They’ll instantly forget about Hillary Clinton’s misadventures and double down.

      1. Also look to any religious views she may hold, as religious tests for the SC are all the rage right now.

        1. Did you see the Lefties “praying” on the steps of the SCOTUS?

          I’m glad that just enough Americans call and don’t believ Lefties on their bullshit anymore.

          1. Who were they praying to? Moloch? Mictlantecuhtli?

            1. They were definitely not worshiping Death, as they tend toward cowardice and claims that the sky is falling. See current pandemic.

        2. Well, she’s a Catholic, so that should be disturbing. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are both Catholic as well, but that needn’t disturb you because it’s not like they’re good Catholics, they just go through the motions without actually believing any of that bullshit the Catholic church teaches.

          1. this guy gets it

          2. Wait a minute, St Nancy delivers sermons whenever her opponents to spend enough government money on the poors or illegal aliens or whatever

    2. And worse than all of that, she is a conservative and not burn victim ugly. For a middle aged woman with seven kids, she is pretty attractive. Definitely punches above her weight class. Central casting could not create a woman more suited to illiciting the hatred of liberals and feminists than Barrett.

    3. She might have it all, but only because her husband allows it, right?

  37. Don’t forget that the CDC also started out recommending against mask usage by the general population, because, somehow, masks only protected medical professionals. Now, of course they’ve reversed to the position that masks should be mandatory for everyone, everywhere.

    1. Just to be boring, the CDC is not talking about masks for the general populace. Real, actually partially effective masks are still reserved for healthcare professionals.
      What the CDC is lying about are “cloth face coverings”. They are seriously pretending that a single layer of cheese cloth and a double layer of terrycloth are equally effective at stopping a virus which actually can only be stopped by an N95 mask properly fitted and properly worn.
      And, oh by the way, they STILL admit that for every other virus known to man, there is not enough evidence on real masks to make a recommendation one way or the other.
      I call hypocritical bullshit.

      1. Also it won’t help against wildfire smoke, which is much larger.

  38. As summer approaches in Australia they worry about the load on the green energy grid from people working from home.

    1. Well yeah, people were supposed to go back to the stone age for Mother Gaia. No one told them a Google search uses electricity.

      1. Everyone needs to take their turn on the bicycle generators outside the server farm.

        1. If they did that, all their programmers would probably drop dead. IT and application developers are, how shall I say it, often larger people?

  39. This is for WK who kept denying impeachment was on the table.

    Swisher: All right, but I’m going to press you one more time. What is your power to do this? I get the election, but you can get up more. You can speak out more. You can do more impeachments, things like that. Do you have enough power?

    Pelosi: Well, we can impeach him every day of the week for anything he does. In fact, for —

    Swisher: Why not?

    Nancy Pelosi: — 200,000 people dying. Well, because look, the American people want to know what we’re doing that affects them directly.

    Swisher: OK.

    1. Ah, yes. More impeachments. Because the first one was so well thought out.

      1. And was just a success and stain on the President, the Democrats never mentioned it once in their convention. No kidding, there was not single mention of it during the entire televised convention.

        1. I saw that, and it tells you how well it polled. It’s okay though, the moron class already forgot about it.

  40. Major networks spent a combined 9 minutes on the local news stories of the Isreal/ME opening of relations.

    1. Uh, yeah. Notice how many people give fucks about freeing Tibet these days? Trump could cure cancer and it would get ‘lost of the shuffle’.

      Not that I hold out much hope for peace in the region or anything, but this would appear to be worthy of the Nobel at first blush. More so than anything Obama did for the same award, at the very least.

      1. “Notice how many people give fucks about freeing Tibet these days?”

        That has everything to do with China making Hollywood its bitch. Seen Richard Gere in his Free Tibet! shirt lately? Me neither. He and his agent probably had a great conversation about it.

        1. That, and it turns out that oppressive regimes bludgeoning monks is A-Ok as long as the price on your TV comes down. I mean, that is the actual argument.

          It remains to be seen if cheaper prices on consumer goods are worth China owning the ocean out past Japan and major trade routes, to boot.

    2. As an aside… reason has spent more time on TikTok than they did the ME deals.

      1. They spent more time on an Eastern European dictator from a country that probably half of Europeans don’t even know exists than on the ME deals.

  41. The agency has been in the business of giving people a false sense of security

    Including mask wearing.

  42. “Health care law faces another Supreme Court showdown, this time without Justice Ginsburg’s vote”

    Please, take it out behind the barn and kill it with a pitch-fork.

    1. And throw millions to the wolves basically killing and bankrupting them. Fuck you old man. You’re evil.

      1. And here you have it, spending can only ever go one way because to do otherwise is to kill grandma.

        Thanks for going directly to the hyperbolic argument so we can shine a flashlight on it.

        1. Even Trump, though his word is meaningless, acknowledged recently that millions of people with preexisting conditions would not have the means to afford health insurance without the ACA. There’s no bullshiting or gaslighting that reality because people need medicine that the ACA helps provide and if you’re one of those people or related to one of those people you damn well know the score. Sure, you dumb as shit Republicans could try to reinvent the ACA like y’all did with NAFTA and call it something else but at the end of the day it comes down giving money to poor and sick people to help pay for insurance that works. Anything less would be noticed.

          1. “Even Trump, though his word is meaningless, acknowledged recently that millions of people with preexisting conditions would not have the means to afford health insurance without the ACA…”

            Which is but one more reason to take it out behind the barn and kill it.

          2. Even Trump, though his word is meaningless, acknowledged recently that millions of people with preexisting conditions would not have the means to afford health insurance without the ACA.

            Ah yes, the old fallacy that access equals care. Last I checked, even if you have insurance you don’t necessarily get care when you need it. In fact, vastly expanding the number of people with ‘insurance’ ensures longer wait times and less immediate access to healthcare. No insurance market will survive a pool that includes tons of people who are absolutely certain to draw benefits. That isn’t insurance, it’s something else. This is a certain fact.

            Also, this just in, you can not insure against a certain thing. It is not possible. So just be honest and say you’re for a state-run, tax financed system of indigent healthcare akin to the VA. It’s what you’re asking for, after all, even if you’re probably too dumb to know it.

            1. Yep. What good is insurance if you can’t afford to actually get sick?

          3. Solution for America’s medical needs:
            1. Lower taxes overall.
            2. Get rid of Social Security, Medicare, ObamaCare.
            3. Federal Taxpayers save $2 trillion+ per year.
            4. Americans pay cash for minor medical needs and get cheap catastrophic health insurance for major medical stuff.
            5. If Americans decide to keep some permanently disabled fund around, then it would cover the most helpless and be relatively cheap for taxpayers.

            1. 6. Charities, private donations, and families cover any remaining gaps.

          4. millions of people with preexisting conditions would not have the means to afford health insurance without the ACA

            A million times bullshit. Spoken by someone who has very little understanding of health insurance. Pre-existing coverage was already mandated if you maintain continuous coverage and switch policies. Don’t let you insurance slip and you would never have a pre-existing condition. It wasn’t too much of a problem until Obamacare drove coverage prices up over 100%.

      2. “And throw millions to the wolves basically killing and bankrupting them.”

        Do you have to be brain-dead to be a lefty shit, or do your brains leak out after you become one?
        Hint: No one is keeping anyone from buying insurance, and all O-care did was make it more expensive.
        But brain-dead lefties see a government program and suppose it actually accomplishes what it claims; they’re pretty fucking stupid that way (and many other ways).
        Go back to your video games and leave the adults alone.

        1. The fact that the ACA did the literal opposite of what Democrats stated the goal was, to get costs under control, is the primary reason to kill the damn thing.

          We’re in the position where Democrats are shilling for the more expensive status quo and saying their opponents are for the more expensive status quo which denies all evidence. Go figure that they rely on metrics that have nothing whatsoever to do with the stated reasons for creating the ACA to support the ACA.

          A thinking person might be tempted to think their stated reasons had nothing to do with their real ones, or they just really are that incompetent. I suppose both is always an option.

  43. “The agency had posted information Friday stating the virus can transmit over a distance beyond six feet”

    So what? An infinite number of things “can” happen. This type of thinking, characterizing something as “possible” but not distinguishing the rare, including the vanishingly rare, from the probable, is yet another way that common people misunderstand reality and risk.

    How many people were afraid of flying last year? And how many decided to drive across country because it was “safer”?

  44. “Media has been spreading the London-to-Hanoi flight study as if it’s evidence that flying is totally unsafe right now.”

    Umm, wouldn’t totally unsafe mean that every person on that flight died at least once?

  45. Senate Republicans are, one by one, confirming that the ruthless drive to power is their deepest and possibly only true belief. Monday night, Sen. Lindsey “use my words against me” Graham told Fox News that Republicans have the votes lined up to confirm Donald Trump’s choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Graham’s latest lie is that he changed his mind on confirming a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year because Democrats were mean to Brett Kavanaugh (by asking him about the credible sexual assault allegations against him). Except that Graham said “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term and the primary process has started, we’ll wait till the next election” after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. The man lies. Constantly and shamelessly, as if he’s apprenticed himself to the latest powerful figure he follows around like a lap dog.

    1. (by asking him about the credible sexual assault allegations against him).

      Well, that’s one stolen base. Really two in one.

    2. Yes, the ruthless drive to power that can only come from selecting a justice who doesn’t legislate from the bench

      1. The ACA was legislated by Congress and even a Republican controlled Senate refused to undo it. Do you even know up from down? Legislating from the bench is the only way you undo the ACA.

        1. Really? So, Congress and the Senate can do nothing about the ACA? That’s news to just about everyone. And everyone noticed that the Republicans didn’t have the votes to undo the ACA in Congress and the Senate, so saying they ‘refused’ to undo it is…not really the truth now is it?

          They literally couldn’t do it with the votes they had, but assuming that will always be true is just as absurd as thinking Congress and the Senate will never try and rejigger the entire health industry, one might think.

        2. “…Legislating from the bench is the only way you undo the ACA.”

          Finding a law unconstitutional =/= “legislating”, but lefties aren’t real bright, are they?

    3. A link to the fucking Daily Kos, Strazele?

      Couldn’t find anything to post from the Daily Worker or the DNC newsletter?

      1. You would well to read DailyKos.

        1. The lefty equivalent of Stormfront? No thanks.
          When I want vociferous ideological rants, anti-religious bigotry and untenable conspiracy theories I’ll look up your posts instead.

        2. Isn’t DailyKos where all the laid off Pravda writers went?

        3. Yes the same can be said for you to read right wing journalism. Stepping out of the echo chamber is good for everyone.

        4. Kos is a sure bet to be inaccurate, so in one sense you are correct. If reading the DailyKos, one can take their story, flip it 180 degrees, check other sources, and be pretty certain to have an accurate picture of the facts. This does explain where you get your light-on-facts screeds from, though.

        5. Why don’t you stay over there

    4. You cited the kos as a source? They are up there with Jezebel and Salon in their fair and unbiased, factual reporting. So, not even slightly so. If Graham lied, hold it against Graham, not as a justification for infantile rhetoric, riots and court-packing.

  46. Here’s some LAWN ORDER for ya right here.

    1. chemtard shilling for Democrats now.

  47. “Federal judge in battleground Wisconsin extends deadline for receiving absentee ballots for 6 days beyond election.”

    We are well into the phase where partisans will claim any advantage based on how they think people meant to vote.

    Next will be the phase where partisan elites will claim legal justification for deciding elections on how they think people SHOULD vote.

    1. Ya know maybe you should actually read the article.

      A federal judge ruled Monday that absentee ballots in battleground Wisconsin can be counted up to six days after the Nov. 3 presidential election as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

      Still think it’s a bad idea?

    2. It’s not exactly some wild partisan crazy idea to count ballots that were actually mailed on time.

      1. Nor is it a partisan idea to close balloting at the end of Election Day. Grown up voters who want to vote by mail should be able to take that into account.

        BTW, lots of states have been doing just that for years.

        1. Here’s a radical idea: Let Wisconsin run their voting how they see fit.

          If there’s a perception that there will be an unusually high level of mail-in voting this election, maybe do something to *help* make sure the Post Office delivers them on time and they get counted accurately.

          1. Here’s a radical idea: Let Wisconsin run their voting how they see fit.

            Are you telling this to the judge? Because you should be telling this to the judge. He is the one changing the rules.

            1. You make a good point.

              1. Thank you.

      2. If they were mailed on time, they would be counted. Retroactively changing the ‘on time’ part doesn’t really change that. If I show up to a polling place a day after the election, it also doesn’t count.

        I guess even a solid date for ending counting is a bridge too far. It’s only a matter of minutes until someone declares this a racist plot. In fact, it’s probably already happened.

        If voters didn’t understand when they needed to vote, that’s a failure of the people holding the elections getting accurate communications out. Will they be held to account, or is COVID enough of an excuse? COVID measures are massive opportunity to cheat, given what all the proposed solutions seem to be. Maybe cheating won’t happen because Americans are such good people, but the past few years have disillusioned me on that point.

        Also, I don’t put much faith in last minute ad hoc government solutions to government created problems. I guess I’m alone in that, even here.

  48. “Florida prosecutors said Monday that they won’t appeal a court’s decision blocking video that allegedly shows New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft paying for massage parlor sex, making it likely the charges against him will be dropped,”

    So, a happy ending?

  49. Okay this is a little old, but it’s new to me:

    1. ???

    2. ::stuffs face with pumpkin-maple donuts that have been sitting under the bed for a week::

  50. Meanwhile, the Republicans in the Senate are poised to release their report on Joe and Hunter Biden’s adventures in the Ukraine.

    The spin on this is kind of amazing:

    “Republicans are preparing to release a report in a matter of days on their investigation focused on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, a move they hope will put fresh scrutiny on the Democratic nominee just weeks from the election.

    The controversial probe, spearheaded by Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), is focused broadly on Obama-era policy and Hunter Biden’s work for Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings.

    . . . .

    No evidence has indicated criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens. A narrative, seized on by President Trump, that Biden worked to oust Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokin to protect his son has been widely discredited, though Hunter Biden has said joining the board was “poor judgement.”

    “No evidence of criminal wrongdoing”?!

    So, when Joe Biden bragged about having shut down an investigation of his son by refusing to release U.S. aid to Ukraine unless they shut the investigation down–is that not “evidence”?

    When they say that the story, “has been widely discredited”, does that mean Joe Biden was lying when he bragged about shutting down Viktor Shokin’s investigation into his son by withholding U.S. aid to Ukraine?

    I haven’t seen a rationalization this silly since they were telling us that Hillary Clinton was exonerated for accepting donations from foreign countries while she was secretary of state–because she reported the “donations” in public before the fact.

    1. Joe Biden bragged about having shut down an investigation of his son

      But he didn’t do that.

      The investigation was not about his son. It was about the company in its entirety.

      You know there is plenty to criticize Joe Biden on. Why not pick something that is at least truthful?

      1. No one ever said the investigation was about his son. The investigation was about Burismo. Burismo hired Biden’s son to a job that paid over a million dollars a year, required nothing of Biden and for which Hunter Biden had no qualifications for even if it did. Then Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burismo.

        Even someone as dense as you can see how bad that looks. There has never been any explanation for why Hunter Biden got the job. And Biden brags about getting the prosecutor fired. So, we know he did that. But somehow, we are expected to believe Burismo giving his son a highly paid do nothing job had nothing to do with Biden’s sudden interest in getting the prosecutor fired.

        1. Jeff believes that!
          I’m sure Jeff also believes that tampering with subpoenaed evidence it legal so long as HRC does it.
          And he’s probably certain that we can make energy from unicorn farts.
          Lefties are like that.

        2. Of course it “looks bad”. It is called trying to purchase influence. It happens all the time. Look at a lot of university presidents. Many of them have ex-politicians as presidents. Do you think it’s because they are really competent at running universities? No it’s because they “know the right people” to keep the gravy flowing to the university. Is it illegal? No. It is shady? Yes. But that is how the game is played evidently.

          But somehow, we are expected to believe Burismo giving his son a highly paid do nothing job had nothing to do with Biden’s sudden interest in getting the prosecutor fired.

          It wasn’t a “sudden interest”, it was literally part of Biden’s job as VP to look into Ukrainian matters as a foreign policy matter.

          If this was all a part of some corrupt arrangement between Joe and Hunter Biden, why did Western agencies, and Ukrainian anti-corruption organizations, also want Shokin fired? Were they in on it all too?

          Why would Joe Biden want Shokin fired for investigating Burisma, when part of the reason why Shokin was considered corrupt was because he WASN’T investigating Burisma, he was (probably) taking bribes from Burisma so as to slow-walk the investigation? If it was all some corrupt deal between Joe and Hunter Biden, why would Joe want to upset the apple cart like that?

          And, if it is your principled argument that an “appearance of corruption” is really the same as corruption itself, then how can you continue your support for the current campaign finance regime in this country?

          1. “Of course it “looks bad”. It is called trying to purchase influence. It happens all the time…”

            See? It’s OK. Jeff says so.

          2. Of course it “looks bad”. It is called trying to purchase influence.

            They didn’t try to purchase influence. They got influence. Biden did exactly what they wanted him to do.

            If this was all a part of some corrupt arrangement between Joe and Hunter Biden, why did Western agencies, and Ukrainian anti-corruption organizations, also want Shokin fired? Were they in on it all too?

            THey had their own reasons. THe fact that other people wanted him fired doesn’t preclude Joe Biden wanting him fired because Burismo paid him off. Moreover, those people wanted him fired long before Joe Biden demanded it. If Biden didn’t do that because he was paid off, why did he not do it before?

            All you are saying here is that it is possible there is an innocent explanation. Sure it is possible. There is just no reason to believe it.
            Biden is a fucking crook. This wasn’t the only time he did this. He did the same thing in China where Hunter Biden was amazingly hired to manage this enormous portfolio of state owned business investments despite having no qualifications to do so.

            I have no doubt you find that entirely innocent as well. Just admit it, nothing Biden did was ever corrupt because no Democrat could ever be guilty of corruption in your eyes no matter how obvious.

            You are pathetic.

            1. All you are saying here is that it is possible there is an innocent explanation. Sure it is possible. There is just no reason to believe it.

              Well, except for that whole “innocent unless proven guilty” thing. Or does that standard only apply to Kavanaugh?

              1. Well, judging by your comments over the past four years it certainly doesn’t apply to Trump. In fact, you demanded an impeachment over essentially the exact same thing, then when Trump was found not guilty you maintain that he was.

                So if you want to get some intellectual consistency, start with yourself.

              2. Innocent until proven guilty means you don’t assume someone guilty without evidence. It doesn’t mean you ignore evidence and presume them innocent as long as there is any possible innocent explanation.

                My God you are fucking stupid. You don’t know a single thing.

                1. Oh there was absolutely evidence that Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault. You just chose not to believe it. And when you really break out the insults I know I’ve hit a nerve. Yes you do have a double standard, you never actually believed in “innocent until proven guilty” as an operational standard of behavior outside of a court of law, you supported Kavanaugh only because he is a Republican who was making the libs cry, and you oppose Biden only because he is a Democrat whom you are absolutely certain is guilty even though the evidence is weak. That’s the truth John.

                  1. Oh there was absolutely evidence that Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault.

                    “This one woman cried to Congress about it, even though no one she claimed was there backed up her story, so that means he did it.”

        3. It’s very simple:

          – prosecutor initiates investigation of Burisma
          – Burisma hires Hunter Biden
          – Hunter Biden’s father Joe, VPOTUS, threatens to withhold US money if prosecutor isn’t fired
          – prosecutor fired
          – investigation into Burisma ended
          – US money released

      2. The investigation was not about his son. It was about the company in its entirety.

        You think prosecutors were interested in the janitorial staff?

        If they were investigating the company, they were investigating the company’s board of directors–of which Hunter Biden was one.

        “Biden, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with corporate governance best practices, and a consulting firm in which Biden is a partner was also retained by Burisma.[35][36][37] Chris Heinz, John Kerry’s stepson, opposed his partners Devon Archer and Hunter Biden joining the board in 2014 due to the reputational risk.[33] Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019,[36] receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months.[36][35]

        Not only was Hunter Biden on the board of directors, he was the one in charge of corporate governance best practices–to avoid corruption. Hunter Biden’s position in that firm was worthy more than $50,000 a month–if, by being the one in charge of corporate governance and best practices, that meant that Ukrainian prosecutors couldn’t go after Burisma without going after the Vice President’s son. As an insurance policy against prosecutors, he was worth his weight in gold–and that value was demonstrated when his father withheld foreign aid until the prosecutor was fired.

        Meanwhile, the claim that, “No evidence has indicated criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens” is false. I just linked to persuasive evidence that there was criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens. Even if the evidence weren’t 100% convincing, it would still be evidence. Evidence doesn’t need to be 100% convincing in order to be evidence. We found your fingerprints at the scene is evidence–and this evidence of corruption by the Bidens is a hell of a lot more persuasive than fingerprints.

        Meanwhile, regardless of whether Biden withheld foreign aid until the prosecutors were fired because they were investigating his son or because they were investigating Burisma, why is it okay to withhold foreign aid on the basis of whether a criminal prosecution is shut down? I’d ask why you think Biden cared so much about shutting down a prosecution into Burisma (apart from his son’t position on the board of directors), but the bigger question is why you think it’s okay for the Vice President to shut down a criminal investigation by withholding foreign aid?

        Captain Obvious suspects you’re only defending this because you want Biden to be elected president.

        1. Ukrainian prosecutors couldn’t go after Burisma without going after the Vice President’s son.

          Except the investigation was about what happened at Burisma long before Hunter Biden joined the board.

          Sure, there is “evidence of criminal wrongdoing” in the same sense that any campaign donation is “evidence of bribery”. Sure, a corporation could have donated $1 million to some politician’s cause because the corporation really likes the politician’s position on some issue, or the corporation may be trying to corruptly purchase influence. Someone with a cynical bent is inclined to believe that it’s all corrupt. Cynicism is not equivalent to rational analysis however.

          why is it okay to withhold foreign aid on the basis of whether a criminal prosecution is shut down?

          Umm… that didn’t happen? Biden never said “I am withholding aid unless you stop investigating Burisma”.

          Captain Obvious suspects you’re only defending this because you want Biden to be elected president.

          And this is how I know that campaign season has started to rot your brain. Since when is being opposed to lies being spread about Biden, equivalent to an endorsement of Biden’s politics?

          Lots of people claim that Trump is a Nazi. I don’t, and I don’t think it’s right to claim he’s a Nazi. Does that somehow make me a Trump supporter now? No, it makes me someone who doesn’t like it when claims like that are casually thrown around even against people I dislike.

          Likewise, I am tired of these campaigns being run on nothing but narratives and smears and fear and innuendo, like it’s some fucking episode of TMZ.

          And by the way I’m not actually defending what Biden did, either one of the Bidens. I’m only pointing out what they *actually* did, not what some right-wing conspiracy theory claims that they did. I don’t think it was right for Hunter Biden to take that kind of job because it put his entire family in a difficult position. I don’t think it was right for Joe Biden to use the threat of foreign aid as leverage to achieve some domestic goal internal to Ukraine. That smacks too much of the US bully throwing its weight around trying to dictate to every other nation how to run their own nations. If the US doesn’t like how a nation is run, it shouldn’t give foreign aid in the first place, but it shouldn’t try to use foreign aid as leverage. Perhaps we can have a discussion on that level, rather than this conspiracy-addled nonsense that it was all about protecting his son?

          1. ‘Biden never said “I am withholding aid unless you stop investigating Burisma.”’ Crikey, this is convoluted, even for you. He said that he was leaving in six hours, and that if Shokin wasn’t fired Ukraine would not get usd 1 billion. You can claim this wasn’t entirely about his son, and I agree, I suspect it was as much about Biden himself. But to claim it had nothing to do with them, that it was based on corruption from earlier that Shokin was tasked with rooting out, is asinine and partisan.

      3. Yes, an investigation into Amazon won’t negatively impact Jeff Bezos either.

        Wait, I realize how unfair that is. Hunter Biden didn’t start Burisma and build it from nothing. He was just the foreigner who knew absolutely nothing about their business and didn’t speak their language who they decided to throw millions of dollars at. In an unhappy coincidence, he had a relative somewhere in the US government that had some dealings with Ukraine on a governmental level.

    2. For those of you who’ve never seen a presidential candidate plead guilty to withholding foreign aid unless a foreign leaders shut down a prosecution into his son, here it is:–dj2-CY

      1. There was never “an investigation of his son”.
        There was never “a prosecution into his son”.

        There was an investigation into a corrupt company, Burisma, about corrupt dealings that the company engaged in before Hunter Biden joined the board. The investigation was itself led by a corrupt prosecutor, Shokin, who was condemned as corrupt not just by Joe Biden but by plenty of Western organizations and by Ukrainian groups themselves who had absolutely no connection to Hunter Biden at all.

        I understand that the truth is unhelpful to the right-wing narrative, but if you actually want to distinguish yourself from the right-wing fluffers around here who will spread any lie or rumor or conspiracy theory if it means boosting Team Red and hurting Team Blue, maybe you should stick to truthful, factual criticism of Joe Biden and not lower yourself into the muck with those useful idiots for Trump.

        1. It is not about his son you half wit. Hunter Biden never did anything criminal except accept bribes for his father.

          1. “…you half wit…”

            Entirely too generous.

            1. By About 48%

          2. It’s “not about his son”, but you think he accepted bribes?

            Look, get your story straight. If you think that Joe and Hunter Biden were in on some conspiracy to milk bribes from Ukraine in return for… what, exactly?… then both Joe and Hunter are the corrupt ones.

            But if all Burisma did was hire Hunter Biden into some sinecure, that is not illegal, companies are free to hire whomever they wish for whatever salary they wish even if it’s just to pick their noses all day.

            1. Burismo hired Hunter Biden’s son to a do nothing job. In return Biden pressured the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating them.

              It is that simple. Do you think Burismo hired Hunter Biden out of kindness? No, they hired him because it gave them access and leverage on Biden. And don’t tell me Biden would have done it anyway. If that were true, Burismo would have had no reason to hire Hunter Biden.

              That is the only reasonable explanation for the facts we know. It is not reasonable to think that Burismo hired Hunter Biden for charity purposes or not because they saw it as a way to get something from his father. And it is not reasonable to say that Biden forced the prosecutor to be fired for any other reason than Burismo asked him to do it. If he was going to do it anyway, Burismo would have never had a reason to hire Hunter Biden in the first place.

              Now stop playing stupid and insulting people’s intelligence by pretending you can’t understand what went on here. It is pathetic even by your low standards.

              1. Burismo hired Hunter Biden’s son to a do nothing job. In return Biden pressured the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating them.

                And that’s the conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence. That is right-wing “connecting the dots” based on a presumption of corruption.

              2. That is the only reasonable explanation for the facts we know.

                Here is another reasonable explanation:

                Burisma hired Hunter Biden for the same reason that lots of companies hire lots of ex-politicians and hire lobbyists: in order to gain favorable treatment for themselves in the halls of power. It is shady but that is how the game is played. It’s not bribery because there is no explicit quid pro quo.

                And it is not reasonable to say that Biden forced the prosecutor to be fired for any other reason than Burismo asked him to do it.

                No, there is a very reasonable explanation for why Biden asked for Shokin to be fired: because Shokin was a corrupt SOB, not just according to the US government, but according to lots of Western organizations and to lots of Ukrainians themselves. That is another very reasonable explanation.

                1. Because something can be explained in another way doesn’t mean it should be.

                  Maybe people from the future used a time machine to come back and frame Joe Biden for murder!

                  Or maybe the reason Biden is standing over a dead body with a smoking gun–bragging about having shot the dead man–is because he shot him.

                  1. Because something can be explained in another way doesn’t mean it should be.

                    Well, sure. If you want to interpret current events through a Team Red tribal lens then go see John’s comments above.

                    1. Oh, taking Biden at his word when he brags about shutting down a corruption investigation and firing a prosecutor by withholding aid isn’t a skewed view. That’s what he did, and you can see it in the video.

                      You trying to rationalize what Biden did and said by talking about what you believe was really in his heart, on the other hand, that’s skewed view partisan bullshit. I have never seen anyone in my life who couldn’t tell the difference between facts and feelings like you.

                      It’s embarrassing to watch.

                    2. he brags about shutting down a corruption investigation

                      He didn’t do that. He bragged about getting a prosecutor fired. A prosecutor who himself was corrupt because he WASN’T prosecuting corruption at Burisma.

                      You trying to rationalize what Biden did and said by talking about what you believe was really in his heart,

                      No, Ken, you are the one who is playing “connect the dots” and indulging conspiracy theories instead of looking at the straightforward facts.

                      None of the conspiracy theorists can put forth a non-ridiculous answer to this straightforward question: If Biden really was trying to get Shokin fired only because Shokin was (allegedly) investigating Burisma, then why did so many other Western institutions, and many Ukrainians themselves, ALSO want Shokin fired, for being a corrupt SOB? Were they ALL in on Biden’s grand conspiracy to protect his son?

                      It is entirely possible to oppose Biden’s candidacy, to not want to see Biden elected, while still not believing untrue things about Biden. You should try it, Ken.

                    3. “He didn’t [brag about shutting down a corruption investigation]. He bragged about getting a prosecutor fired.”

                      —-chemjeff radical individualist

                      This is buffoonery, and you’re being a buffoon.

                      And that is not an ad hominem fallacy.

                      buffoon (noun)
                      1: a ludicrous figure : CLOWN
                      2: a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person


                      chemjeff is acting like a ludicrous figure.
                      A ludicrous figure is called a buffoon.
                      Therefore, chemjeff is acting like a buffoon.

        2. Now explain the video in the post you just replied to, Jeff.

    3. If there wasn’t any wrongdoing, why did Hunter Biden admit taking the board position was “poor judgement”. They paid him a hundred thousand dollars a month or whatever to do nothing in a job he had no qualifications for. Sounds like pretty good judgement to take a job like that. What is Hunter Biden so embarrassed about?

      And of course Hunter Biden made huge money managing money for the Chinese after he went on a state trip with his father. Hunter Biden just happened to make all of this money from the Chinese and the Ukrainians in jobs he had no qualifications for and for which there was no rational reason he should have ever been hired to do.

      Hey, we have never found a video of Biden saying he got the Chinese and Ukrainians to pay him off through his son. So, anyone who thinks Biden is corrupt is just some Q anon conspiracy theorist. No evidence of wrong doing here.

    4. You gonna believe the trustworthy, award winning media, or your lying eyes?

    5. But the Hillary lie worked for the true believers. It gave them a flimsy little excuse to grasp, as long as they didn’t really think about it. It also worked for journalists, allowing them to pretend that the evidence was “controversial” and “challenged”.
      The lie will work for Biden too.

      1. Yep.
        Just look at chemjeff shilling it

  51. Oops, sorry about that. Pressed enter a little bit too quick.

    Okay so this is a little old, but it’s new to me:

    This IMO ought to point the way forward for the liberty movement. Create its own coalition from the disaffected nonvoters and from those for whom the two party system has left behind. Don’t try to get Republicans or Democrats to join. They are tribalists through and through. They aren’t going to drop their team any more than a diehard Yankees fan will stop supporting his/her team. Create a new coalition based on electoral reform and speaking to those whom the two party system screws over.

    1. Because a new tribe is the solution to tribalism: film at 11.

      1. Thinking is HARD!

      2. If you want to call it that, I suppose. It is more of a coalition in my mind anyway. I think there is a difference: a tribe has a connotation of a type of emotional connection between its members and the tribal organization itself. I would hope that the liberty movement does not have that level of emotional commitment to a particular organization that a lot of Team Red and Team Blue members seem to have to their respective parties, where they treat politics like it’s a sports game. I would hope that they are passionate about the cause of liberty, but not to a specific institution per se.

        In any event, the point here is to note that there are a lot of potential voters out there who are completely put off by the status quo and they represent potential voters for a cause that could interest them.

        1. If you want to call it that, I suppose.

          I’m glad you agree, since it’s what you said.

          Of course, it obviously isn’t a solution at all. Given how emotionally invested you are in your politics, well, you appear to be skewering yourself here.

          You are the king of own goals.

          If such vast tracts of Americans are disillusioned with the two major parties, they show that by forming around no other parties whatsoever which speaks to their apathy more than their ‘disillusionment’.

          1. Read the study.
            It is more than just apathy that causes people not to vote.

            1. No shit, but the fact eligible voters not only don’t vote but don’t ally themselves with any other 3rd party or political organization sure isn’t because they’re simply ‘disillusioned’ with Democrats and Republicans. One doesn’t need to be a genius to figure that out. One just needs to know a little history.

              If creating a new tribe was a solution, it would have already happened. Go ahead and ask Ross Perot how that theory worked out. Or Teddy Roosevelt. Or the Whig party. Same thing, different moments.

              Or were all of these common college level political science lessons things that you did not receive in your education?

        2. I think the reality is that you’re not going to have any strong political movement unless you can convert Democrats and/or Republicans. Without taking the people in those two camps, you’re going to end up with twelve aspies (basically us) in a room, griping about anarcho-capitalism, with a couple of committed Bernie Sanders voters talking excitedly about Socialism.

          The two party system is, in my opinion, an effect of the structure of our winner-take-all system. Unless we converted the entire US federal system into a parliamentary system, I don’t think the duopoly is going away any time soon.

        3. You should definitely join up

    2. Create a new coalition based on electoral reform and speaking to those whom the two party system screws over.

      So a conversation mainly with Bernie Sanders voters?

      1. And never-trumpers!

      2. A coalition of people who fundamentally disagree on just about everything, sure. Those coalitions get stuff done when there’s a great satan or axis of evil, which is why they try to paint Trump as a tyrant, but ultimately if the ‘tyranny’ is mostly mean words and a few policy differences it’s super hard to make a Hitler out of a Trump. He hasn’t even invaded Europe yet, let alone cleansed the Mexicans or Muslims from society.

        And I’m forced to notice they seem to hold up LBJ as an example of good governance, and he actually did both those things.

        Clearly, the issue at hand is they want to be the only people who can do those things. Some moral authority unique to their race, perhaps? It was certainly the progressive belief of yesteryear.

    3. It will never happen, but at this point, I’d like to see political parties banned by Constitutional amendment.

      1. I would like to see running for office banned by Constitutional amendment. Hold an election, anyone who shows up is arrested.

        1. Just fill offices by random lottery? Worth a try. Probably work as well as what we have now.

  52. More on President Donald Trump’s corruption surrounding TikTok (in which he threatened to ban the video app unless its owner sold it to a U.S. company

    Just stop ENB. You’re making a fool of yourself.
    There’s no personal gain for Trump in any of this.
    You don’t get to redefine what “corruption” means just to suit your political prejudices. And no, political gain doesn’t count or literally everything would be “corruption”, including your column.

  53. “The agency had posted information Friday stating the virus can transmit over a distance beyond six feet”

    I am shocked, shocked, to find out that the distance from China to the USA is greater than six feet.

    It’s a virus, it replicates in the same way as all other viruses. Damn, whodathunkit? It also does not need any more precautions than any other virus. So end all the unconstitutional, fascist, rule-by-decree bullshit, and get back to work. No one needs to be prevented from wearing a blankie if it makes them feel better, but reasonable people who can read and think should have their constitutional right restored.

  54. Some have read into this a conflict between impartial scientific types at the CDC and more political types who want to keep the Trump administration happy.

    Yeah, the political types at the CDC are pro-Trump. Right.

  55. >>The CDC’s long lag time on sharing correct information would be laughable if the topic wasn’t so deadly serious.

    even with the bullshit numbers i’m not certain on the “so deadly serious” part

  56. ✧✧✧✧Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $9564 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    ===========➤➤➤ Click here.

  57. Trumps corruption? when its out in front in the open and benifits the U.S. and not his own pocket book, that is some form of corruption. You may not like it but it is not corruption, fascism maybe but not corruption

  58. Can the CDC Get Anything Right?


  59. CDC’s Guidance recommends people wear masks in all public settings
    “CDC recommends that people wear masks in public settings and when around people who don’t live in your household”
    while acknowledging there is no evidence that masks can reduce the risk of contracting the China virus.
    “However, the protective effects—how well the mask protects healthy people from breathing in the virus—are unknown.”

  60. Can the CDC Get Anything Right?

    Of course they can. It’s all a Trump plot. The commenters at the Washington Post know all about it, and will tell you in infinite detail.

    If I had to list the number one thing that will keep me voting for Democrats, it’s the Democrats who comment at the Post.

  61. As a public health policy advocate (at local, state, national and international levels) for the past 35 years, I’d be surprised if even 10% of career staffers (i.e. deep staters) at DHHS, state and local health agencies are Republicans.

    I also suspect that far more government health agency employees voted for Bernie Sanders than for Joe Biden during the primaries.

    Don’t know if anyone informed Trump that most people in public health are far left wingers (who insist upon controlling others).

    Will never forget the 1994 American Public Health Association’s annual conference (my last), where many/most attendees booed during presentations supporting Hillary Clinton’s healthcare reform proposal, while cheering all presentations that demanded single payer healthcare (i.e. socialized medicine).

    The socialists at that conference insisted that Clinton’s proposal was a huge gift for the health insurance industry.

    1. I also suspect that far more government health agency employees voted for Bernie Sanders than for Joe Biden during the primaries.

      I think it’s safe to say more Democrats voted for Sanders than Biden during the primary.

    2. Please post more.

    3. “The socialists at that conference insisted that Clinton’s proposal was a huge gift for the health insurance industry.”

      Which isn’t wrong. (Not an endorsement of socialism, but ACA has set up health insurance companies as embedded, perhaps with lower potential for big profits, but also low risk of failure or competition.)

  62. as hundreds of thousands of Americans fall sick and die from the coronavirus

    The author regurgitating this bullshit talking point is sufficient reason to conclude that she either has no idea what the hell she’s talking about or that she’s lying…or both.

    1. The toll is about 200,000, so how is that inaccurate?

  63. Open letter by 435+ doctors and 1434+ medically trained health professionals regarding pandemic.

    5 minute easy read at the link below to their website:

    “After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore. The current crisis management has become totally disproportionate and causes more damage than it does any good. We call for an end to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil liberties.”

  64. The answer is still, not really.

  65. “ineffective ‘hygiene theater’…”

    Sort of like airport security theater. It’s one of the things government does best.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.