Reason Roundup

Nevada Supreme Court Becomes the Latest To Reject Republican Election Fraud Lawsuit

Plus: State legislator considering tax on online shopping for residents of New York City, how cops really caught the Golden State Killer, and more...


In a unanimous vote, Nevada Supreme Court justices ruled against a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's presidential election results. A federal district court in Nevada had ruled against the challenge—brought by Nevada Republican electors—last week. They appealed.

The Tuesday decision from the Nevada Supreme Court affirms the lower court's ruling, writing that the Republican challengers had not identified any flaws in that earlier decision.

"Despite our earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue, appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none," write the justices.

The "Nevada lawsuit included baseless allegations that more than 61,000 people voted twice or from out of state," notes The Washington Post. "Although Trump campaign lawyer Jesse R. Binnall said last week a 'robust body of evidence' supported his claim that the state's six electoral votes were 'stolen' from the president, Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford (D) had challenged Trump's attorneys to present any evidence supporting the unfounded allegations."

Ford tweeted yesterday that he and members of his office had "met Pres. Trump & surrogates in court a lot. They never once presented sufficient evidence of widespread fraud. Yes, they spouted nonsense in the media. But they NEVER backed it up in court. That's why they always lost. And that's why they lost again tonight."

Ford thanked the lawyers on the case for "defending Nevada's elections from meritless claims of widespread fraud."

The Nevada decision came on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene in a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania election results.


New information challenges the official narrative on how law enforcement caught the Golden State Killer. "Investigators and prosecutors said the investigation relied on genetic information people voluntarily made public, though with little reason to suspect it might incriminate members of their families in crimes," notes the Los Angeles Times. "The actual investigation was broader and more invasive, conducted without a warrant, and appeared to violate the privacy policy of at least one DNA company."


Legislator proposes that New York City levy a tax on online shopping to pay for the city's public transportation system. Since the start of the pandemic, shopping online has become more of a necessity—and some officials apparently want to either discourage this safety measure or see that the government profits from it. A new bill proposed by Robert Carroll, a state legislator from Brooklyn, would add a $3 tax to purchases made online, exempting goods like food and medicine. "It's to nudge people to shop local and incentivize that," Carrol said in November. "It's also to say 'hey there's a cost to online delivery, there are multiple trucks, delivery trucks on my block every single day, there are tons of cardboard and plastic."


• California sheriffs are still rebelling against the state's latest pandemic restrictions.

• The problems with America's pandemic response go way beyond President Donald Trump, argues Matthew Yglesias.

• For once, a positive update on the prosecution of former Backpage executives:

(More on the judge's potential conflict of interest here.)

• A Los Angeles judge panned the county's decision to ban outdoor dining, in a preliminary win for those challenging the order:

NEXT: Brickbat: Ignoring the Experts

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. Don’t punish criminals because of the ‘rona?

    1. I get paid over 9000 dollars every hour telecommuting with 2 children at home. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my closest companion acquires over 1000$ a month doing this and she persuaded me to attempt. The potential with this is interminable. This is what I’ve been doing══════❥❥❥❥❥USA PART TIME JOB.

      1. Hey, Elizabeth Nolan, seven to ten states are expected to join the Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court against the four states who cheated in the election and your headline is about Nevada? Y’all part of the Google plan now? “The company then said that it will ‘guide’ people to ‘authoritative information’ provided by corporate news outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN. Over the past month since the election, those news outlets have provided little coverage of lawsuits or allegations of election fraud.” THANKS FOR THE GUIDANCE!

        1. Hey Reason. It’s now up to 18 states including Texas who are suing.
          You want me to write an article about that? Or are you censoring it?

          1. JOIN PART TIME JOBS
            Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. JOIN PART TIME JOBS
            Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE…..
            Visit Here

            1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have receiveded $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to d and its earnings are much betters than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..work92/7 online

    2. More like #EmptyThePrisonsToHelpCharlesKoch.

    3. Hello.

    4. Jail is a death sentence. It is better to send them to nursing homes.

    5. No, don’t punish criminals because of Slavery! and it makes me sad.

  2. The problems with America’s pandemic response go way beyond President Donald Trump, argues Matthew Yglesias.

    It’s also Don Jr.


    Global debt is expected to soar to a record $277 trillion by the end of the year, according to the Institute of International Finance. Developed markets’ total debt—government, corporate, and households—jumped to 432 percent of GDP in the third quarter. Emerging market debt-to-GDP hit nearly 250 percent in the third quarter, with China reaching 335 percent, and for the year the ratio is expected to reach about 365 percent of global GDP. Most of this massive increase of $15 trillion in one year comes from government and corporates’ response to the pandemic. However, we must remember that the total debt figure had already reached record highs in 2019, before any pandemic and in a period of growth.
    The main problem is that most of this debt is unproductive debt. Governments are using the unprecedented fiscal space to perpetuate bloated current spending, which generates no real economic return, so the likely outcome is that debt will continue to rise after the pandemic crisis is ended and that the level of growth and productivity achieved will not be enough to reduce the financial burden on public accounts

    1. There is an even darker part. Many interventionists have welcomed this proposal as an opportunity to wipe out the debt. It all sounds nice until we understand what it really entails. There is an enormous risk that governments will use the excuse of canceling part of their debt with a decision to cancel a large part of our savings. We must remember that this is not even a conspiracy theory. Most proponents of the modern monetary theory start their premise by stating that government deficits are matched by households and private sector savings, so there is no problem…Well, the only minor problem (note the irony) is matching one’s debt with another’s savings. If we understand the global monetary system, we will then understand that erasing trillions of government debt would also mean erasing trillions of citizens’ savings.

      1. You didn’t built that savings.

        1. The end of money.

          1. Use your social credit to enhance your lifestyle.

            1. Like North Korea’s Songbun system, but for corporatists.
              All part of building back better.

              1. ‘Build Back Better’ implies something being torn down. Pretty sure it is the Constitution.

                1. ⇧This

                2. Not just the Constitution, but the classical liberal thinking behind it. Reason has made it clear that their vision of globalism is just fine with censorship by corporate media, as long as it’s not the government doing it.

      2. War is historically used to cancel debt.

        The National Socialists in Nazi Germany did it.

        America gave Billions (Trillions in current dollars) to war torn nations after WWII with Marshall Plan. Supposedly loans but never collected.

        The U.S. government did not give money directly to the participating countries so that they could buy whatever they thought they needed. Instead the U.S. delivered the goods and provided services, mainly transatlantic shipping, to the participating governments, which then sold the commodities to businesses and individuals who had to pay the dollar value of the goods in local currency (“counterparts”) into so-called ERP Special Accounts that were set up at the country’s central bank

    2. But global debt is just debt we owe to each other 11!

      1. That’s the best part: THEIR debt is balanced by YOUR savings!

    3. This is great and all; I’m glad you are talking about it.

      But you guys are 100% matching my prediction of pivoting to caring about debt as soon as Trump the great debtor is on his way out.

      Carry on.

      1. Most people here do care about the debt regardless of who is in power.

        Pelosi has more responsibility regarding the money spent in the last couple of years than Trump. She help create the bills that spent the money. She wanted to spend 3.3 Trillion this time and complained when others wanted to trim it back.

        1. DOL has created a caricature in his mind of every one that he doesn’t like. He does it to dehumanize them, so he doesn’t have to feel bad about wanting them mowed down by an Apache helicopter.

          It’s one of the many reasons he’s a sociopath.

          1. He does it to dehumanize them, so he doesn’t have to feel bad about wanting them mowed down by an Apache helicopter.

            You’ve described several regulars here, but not DOL, from what I’ve seen.

            1. Okay Jeff.

              1. Stunning rebuttal. Truly you have wounded me.

            2. DOL is the only poster I’ve seen fantasize about people getting mowed down by Apache helicopters.

              1. You repeatedly fail to mention that anytime I have brought up an attack helicopter mowing anyone down, it is in response to one of Nardz’s calls to murder and insurrection over some twitter post he finds plausible.

                Funny how that kind of commenting behavior goes unnoticed by you, but my response of bringing reality into focus for him does upset you.

                Seems disingenuous, but then again, you are of low intelligence, so this is probably all over your head anyway.

                1. It doesn’t upset me, I just like pointing it out dumbfuck.

      2. So, the people who were complaining about debt continue to complain about debt and this is a great prediction of yours?

        1. Do we need to rehash the whole conversation had here when Trump cultists were crowing about his tax cuts?

          I have not heard one criticism of Trump’s contributions to the debt or deficits from any of the cult. All I heard about was economic growth and record black unemployment.

          You guys endorsed Keynesian deficit spending as stimulus without even realizing what you were doing.

          Not the brightest bulbs.

          1. So are we saying that the math doesn’t actually matter, deficit spending actually works, and the libertarian position on this isn’t rooted in reality?

            Because we haven’t actually paid down the national debt since 1957. Every year since then, we’ve been deficit spending. The biggest impact I’ve seen on that is inflation in certain areas such as various consumer goods, college tuition, healthcare costs, and housing. So what’s the truth–that the national debt is pointless and the MMT folks need to be trusted going forward, that we’re eventually going to hit a wall because the debt service will finally break us, or something else?

            1. Maybe? I was at one time a Ron Paul goldbug. My thinking on this is in no way fixed. Economics is not real science, and (or because) the aggregate outcome of trillions of decisions made by billions of people is unpredictable.

              MMT works until it doesn’t. That is to say our debt can rise indefinitely, as long as our creditors have faith that they will be repaid and that their earned interest matches their perceived risk of nonpayment. If either of those conditions fails to be met, then you get currency implosion, hyper inflation, what have you.

              But as you correctly identify, inflation hits much sooner. The MMT guys like to frame that as a distant and improbable outcome, but I, and I think you, can see that that is not true. Inflation in housing especially undercuts the MMT proponents’ arguments.

              My preferred monetary and tax policy would be balanced budgets in times of normalcy to allow for deficit spending in times of crisis. I see this as the most cautious and conservative position.

              1. “”My preferred monetary and tax policy would be balanced budgets in times of normalcy””

                Who does that? Bill Clinton is the only one in my lifetime I can think of who even tried. Bill was use to negotiating with a republcian held legislature from his days a gov. Arkansas requires a balanced budget.

                I find it odd that you say that yet don’t seem to understand it the house who has the power of the purse.

          2. Soooooo…….. tax cuts are bad cuz politicians are wasteful douchebags?

            Got it. You’re an enabler and a resentful useful idiot.

          3. De Oppresso Liber to a T, ” WE NEED MORE TAX-SLAVES!!! “

  4. A Los Angeles judge panned the county’s decision to ban outdoor dining…

    His old lady has been nagging him to take her out to eat.

    1. I think he intentionally misheard her.

    2. 3 cheers for the nag!

      /things I never thought I’d say

    3. California politicians: “Risk/benefit analysis? What’s that?”

  5. Legislator proposes that New York City levy a tax on online shopping to pay for the city’s public transportation system.
    They should tax cars to pay for the horse feed.

  6. Students at Howard University Law School spent the last 3 months observing the casual cruelty of local criminal court. During a pandemic. Still prosecutors ignored humanity. Still judges caged hundreds. They just released a report.

    This will read like a report on factory workers callously throwing widgets on the conveyor belt.

    1. Really lose their minds in a meat packing plant.

    2. That’s an odd place for that sentence, “…During a pandemic…”. Do they mean the students did their observations “during a pandemic” or the only reason that the courts were considered casually cruel is because they continued to function normally “during a pandemic”.

  7. California sheriffs are still rebelling against the state’s latest pandemic restrictions.


    1. The problem is that the sheriffs mean dick-all to this whole thing. Sheriffs may not arrest you and your patrons, but the Health Department will issue a closure and pull your operating permit. And the state will pull your liquor license.

      Now what do you think will happen if you try selling booze without a license? Will the sheriff ignore that?

      1. and in LA, the city will cut your power and your water. for your health.

      2. They can’t take your license away if you don’t have one to begin with.

    2. Until these sheriff arrest state employees for violating constitutional civil rights of their state residents, they are tyrants who know the water is boiling around them and dont like it.

      1. Wow. For someone who claims to care about constitutional rights you are seem very willing to shit on the constitution. Police and sheriffs may only arrest people for violations of criminal law, and that is a core constitutional right.

        1. I wouldn’t mind seeing some criminal penalties applied to politicians who violate the constitution. But, yeah, right now I don’t know what they’d arrest them for.

  8. Why should I give two fucks if NYC wants to tax online orders. I hope they do so.

    Fuck NYC. Morons could always move elsewhere if it bugs them so much. If you refuse to do so, stop bitching.

    1. Morons could always move elsewhere
      Please don’t. I prefer the morons stay concentrated where they are.

    2. they all moved to Georgia for Christmas for some reason.

  9. In a unanimous vote, Nevada Supreme Court justices ruled against a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s presidential election results.

    It’s unanimous: all three branches find Trump’s presidency an affront.

    1. More proof of the deep state.

    2. Only 42 more day of this to go.

      1. and then the countdown to 2024 begins

      2. And then President Harris, Yay!

        1. Hey, how is Justin Trudeau working out?

          1. Building walls again. Good for you.

          2. Terribly. Why?
            Are you a fan?

            1. Probably. While she hates Canadians in general, especially Canadian children, she likes Nickelback and Beiber.

              1. “she likes Nickelback”

                You take that back!!!

        2. President Harris is 2023.

          1. I’m betting they find a reason to either make Biden a non-factor, or just outright remove him well before 2023.

            1. They need to wait until 2023 for her to be able to run for reelection twice.

  10. “The problems with America’s pandemic response go way beyond President Donald Trump, argues Matthew Yglesias.”

    Precisely. Of course Drumpf deserves most of the blame for ignoring the pandemic in January and February, when we in #TheResistance were insisting it was an emergency. However there are other villains in this tragedy. Specifically the Republican governors of states like Florida, Georgia, and South Dakota.

    But as bad as things are, they could have been even worse if not for the heroic performance of Democrats like New York’s Andrew Cuomo.


    1. Don’t forget Trump’s master plan to distract Congress with impeachment during January and February, so he had time to execute his do-nothing pandemic agenda.

      1. Trump is always the victim. Nothing is ever his fault. Got it.

        1. Whoosh!

        2. In the words of Willy Wonka – “Strike that. Reverse it.”

  11. Legislator proposes that New York City levy a tax on online shopping to pay for the city’s public transportation system.

    Classic. Because Amazon you’re not riding the bus with a bunch of packages in your lap? You’re going to pay for that.

  12. Fuck those lazy judges. The courts are broken. Judges deserve nothing but ridicule and disrespect for the institution as a whole.

    1. The judges dismissing the legal actions helps Trump. Its gets that evidence to the SCOTUS faster.

      If Democrats really wanted to hurt the Trump campaign, the Democrats judges would bog election litigation down in a state court with a trial. The Trump campaign would have to request removal to higher court.

      The media, including unreason, are full of idiots who have zero what is happening to their crowning of Biden.

      1. Prepare your “TRUMP 2024!!!” ASCII art. Just in case we end up in a timeline that follows the tiny probability that you are wrong about how this is going to go.

        1. Trump cant run again for President after his second term 2021-2025.

      2. Dems don’t need to hurt the Trump campaign, Trump already lost. And it is important that none of these baseless claims get any level of respect. There is no need to bog them down because SC won’t take the cases anyhow.

        1. “And it is important that none of these baseless claims gets any level of respect.”

          Haha. Revealing.

        2. “these baseless claims get any level of respect.”

          Are you living under a rock? Something like 70% of Republicans and even 30% of Democrats think the outcome of the election was effected by fraud.

          These claims already do have respect because enough people believe them. AND YOU WILL BE FORCED TO DEAL WITH US FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. So you need to start thinking how you Democrats will earn back the respect of about half the country that looks down on you morally.

      3. Good god you’re delusional.

        Bunch of jackasses who can’t seem to accept reality- YOU LOST. Get the fuck over it you snowflakes.

      4. Holy Shit! I just figured you out. I mean, I was focused on OBL as the big fake troll all this time, but that was SO absurd that you skated in just under the radar.

        Kudos sir. You had me fooled for the last couple years. It was only the last couple weeks of truly unhinged pleading that outed you.


    It’s like Invasion of the Body Snatchers all over again.

    The nation is being overtaken by an alien threat that invades bodies, alters minds, and transforms freedom-loving people into a mindless, compliant, conforming mob intolerant of anyone who dares to be different, let alone think for themselves…

  14. “Asserting these claims two months after voting started, three weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable,” Gildea wrote.

    The Ancient Times Sculptures HD Images You Want to See

    1. Had the GOP tried to stop the changing of the rules as it was happening during 2020, people (and Reason) would scream show us proof.

      Here, they had to cull and gather the evidence. It takes time. So it’s not unreasonable. Literally, the system is set up to allow for fraud.

      If this is left to stand, that’s it. A precedence is set. NO way in hell Democrats will fix it. They no incentive to do so since they benefit from it.

      1. “Had the GOP tried to stop the changing of the rules as it was happening during 2020, people (and Reason) would scream show us proof.”

        So? Did they have a valid case? If they had filed a lawsuit, they’d have something to point to now as an argument that the law of laches doesn’t apply.

        (Also, Baby Rani, was that the link you meant to include?)

        1. Yes. It’s a bot that has posted the link multiple times.

          1. No different than the leftists.
            Less annoying maybe

        2. There were many pre election lawsuits dummy, many struck down as no standing as no harm had yet been done.

          I also like how you ignore the fact that the hard evidence is controlled by the various state offices, so Trump has to sue in order to get access to discovery. These judges are saying he has no hard proof, controlled by the state entities, and not allowing discovery to find it. It is an increase in the required evidence usually needed for initial discovery. Yet you happily clap along.

          1. I have asked you to link to these pre-election lawsuits before, and you didn’t respond. Please link to one or more pre-election lawsuits that were rejected for lack of standing, as you claim exist.

          2. I notice you talk a lot in hand wavy statements that don’t speak about any specific state. And when you do, you get confused about which state you are talking about.

      2. Going to be interesting next election, lots of mail in ballots from an empty farm in rural PA, an ice fishing hut in WI, a tree farm in the UP of MI, and the LTVA south of Quartzite AZ.

        If you can’t beat them, join them.

  15. Nevada Supreme Court Becomes the Latest To Reject Republican Election Fraud Lawsuit

    Poor unreason. They dont know how national election cases work.

    The Supreme Court of the United States will hear ONE CASE about massive Democrat election fraud and violations of constitutional law. ONE CASE.

    All these other lawsuits are used to enter evidence into the record, so the SCOTUS can use that to find against Democrats and Biden. The SCOTUS can effectively review anything they want and consider what they wish, as in Bush vs Gore.

    unreason was so busy sucking Hillary’s dick, they didnt see Trump winning. Now unreason staffers are so busy sucking Biden droopy balls, that they dont see the Biden loss coming.

    1. “All these other lawsuits are used to enter evidence into the record”

      Unfortunately, the Nevada lawyers…ya know…never entered any evidence into the record…so….

    2. You are starting to sound like Linus, hanging out in the pumpkin patch, explaining The Great Pumpkin to Sally.

    3. “unreason was so busy sucking Hillary’s dick, they didnt see Trump winning.”


      1. unreason support bots demands cites but provides none.

      2. You really need a citation to verify that? Are you new here?

    4. Fever dream.

    5. Wait, if SCOTUS is going to hear just one case the what’s up with your assertion that their not showing evidence is a tactic to get those other cases on front of the SCOTUS faster?

      Which, you know, is not how appeals work, but that’s a separate issue.

      1. Who is NOT showing evidence?

        Trump campaign is being helped by their evidence supporting filings being dismissed and then sent up the appeal ladder to the federal courts. All those election 2020 cases will be consolidated in one way or another into one case that the SCOTUS hears.

        Same thing happened in Bush v gore in 2000.

        If I didnt answer your question, please rephrase question.

        1. Just curious, how many serious head injuries have you had?

          1. I’m fully convinced this person is either a troll or REALLY in need of medical attention.

            The level of delusion to 1) believe any of the garbage they spit or 2) become THIS invested in it is just not healthy at all.

            1. Jeff, you’re the second biggest troll here. Pretty gutsy of you to try and piss on Lovecon because he disagrees with your narrative.

            2. He claimed in a previous thread near the start of the “plandemic” that he owns several armored personnel carriers, and was taking advantage of the negative oil prices to fill them up on the cheap.

              That is not trolling. That is mental illness. I really should not pick on him. In my defense, his delusions seem contagious.

          2. Why? Because you want one of your lefty jackbooted thugs to give him another one for not complying?

            1. This level of projection is unprecedented.

        2. Except that that is not how appeals work.

    6. No. SC won’t hear any of the cases.

  16. “Legislator proposes that New York City levy a tax on online shopping to pay for the city’s public transportation system.”

    And then ponders how to apply this to all US transactions, regardless of location of buyers and sellers.

    1. Does the transaction involve a bank that has a branch in NYC?

    2. I have a wild idea: why not just charge more for the public transit system if it’s currently underfunded?

      1. The MTA is a bloated agency. You can’t raise the fare high enough to cover its spending.

        1. The same can be said for any government agency and their revenue sources. Implementing a new tax so they get more revenue isn’t likely to solve that problem.

          In any case, New Yorkers voted for politicians who favor this kind of thing and I hope they get what they voted for good and hard.

          1. Yeah, new taxes will not solve the problem.

            Politicians do not raise the fares. The MTA board votes. The peasants can do little about that. There was a politician once that threatened to force the MTA to open their books if they raise fares. The MTA backed down. That politician was Rudy Giuliani.

  17. Biden’s first order of business? Mass mask mandate for 100 days. He promises only for 100 days. How they arrive at 100 days is how they think masks work: They plucked it out of their shitty assholes.

    1. Science!

      1. It’s blinding.

    2. But Saint Fauci is saying we’ll need masks even after the vaccine is administered. Why isn’t Biden listening to the experts? Why is he ignoring Teh Science?

      1. I believe it was Redfield that said that, but I can’t tell the public health experts apart any more either. They contradict themselves as often as they contradict each other.

    3. Wearing a piece of cloth over your mouth, the horror! It might even protect people around me instead of the most important thing in the universe: ME!

      If only you guys would get this indignant every time the government misplaced a Mexican child.

      1. Yeah, the constant goalpost shifting and hard data wherever it’s actually been collected showing the vast majority of COVID cases are in prisons and nursing homes–not malls, not small gatherings, not churches, not grocery stores, not restaurants–surely doesn’t have anything to do with it. And fuck those people whose businesses have been destroyed when they had nothing to do with those outbreaks, right?

        Your claim of solipsism on the part of people you’re criticizing is sheer projection.

        1. He’s a sociopath. Of course he not only doesn’t care about people losing their livelihoods and liberty, he doesn’t even understand how others could care.

          1. Selective reading, R Mac. I am often the one asking you and your cult to practice some empathy. A more intelligent person would have noticed the mention of government-lost Mexican children, and might have addressed that before lobbing accusations of sociopathy or lack of empathy. Else you open yourself up to your accusation of lack of empathy or even hypocrisy.

            Additionally, I have gone into some detail over the negative effect the pandemic and the response to it has been to my business, and my efforts to procure PPP grants to keep my staff on. Of course this was used to mock me as a leach and a liar.

            1. A more intelligent person would have noticed the mention of government-lost Mexican children

              Why should anyone address that stinky red herring you tossed out?

              1. Seems pretty relevant to accusations of sociopathy, doesn’t it?

        2. How is taking and endorsing a costless precaution to protect other people solipsism? Really, define the term and then break it down for us, if you please.

          I get the sense that this line of reasoning will be more tortured than some essays on intersectionality I had to read in college.

          1. How is taking and endorsing a costless precaution to protect other people solipsism? Really, define the term and then break it down for us, if you please.

            Besides the fact that you’re practicing emotional manipulation based on nothing more than fantasias on community spread? Do I really need to point out again where most of these outbreaks are taking place again? Despite all your protestations about “wearing a mask is protecting others!” it’s pretty obvious that you’re a lot more worried about yourself than anyone else.

            I get the sense that this line of reasoning will be more tortured than some essays on intersectionality I had to read in college.

            How much of a dopamine rush do you get telling people to “just wear the fucking mask!”

            1. I don’t know, none I think. But I’m not a good observer.

              I’m not for more restrictive responses like what is going on in California, and even my own state of Washington. I do think that masks are effective. I don’t really want to rehash all of that argument again, but suffice to say that I find the research convincing. At best, masks save many lives. At worst, the masks do nothing. On balance, I see that wearing masks, and even requiring masks, is essentially costless and the cost if wrong is also zero. On the other hand, the cost of going maskless if wrong is possibly causing someone’s death.

              It’s simple risk vs reward analysis. I think anyone coming to a different conclusion is thinking politically.

              I could also draw a lot of analogies to war rationing, war black outs, etc. in which government asks or forces us to act for the common good, and there is no room for selfishness. I could also point out that it is not un-libertarian to consider conflicting rights in this case, and come to the conclusion that willfully or negligently spreading a potentially deadly virus when costlesss precautions are available is violating the NAP.

              1. Except these aren’t “costless precautions.” If the government wasn’t doing anything else other than recommending that we wear masks, you might have a point. But they’ve empirically fucked the economy with these lockdowns and restrictions, to the point that up to half of all small businesses could be in the tank by the end of the year. THAT has its own social harms that extend well beyond just a business going under. We’re starting to see reports on significant degradations in the mental health and intellectual development of children because we’ve kept them isolated and mostly online for schooling for most of the year. Child abuse and domestic violence has gone up.

                And despite all these mandates and restrictions, it didn’t do shit to stop the most recent spike. Everywhere the data has been tracked, the vast majority of cases are still coming from prisons and nursing homes. The CDC claimed this was all the fault of restaurant patrons and people gathering with their families, without a lick of evidence that this was the case, but the state governors decided to fuck over a broad swath of small businesses while providing special exemptions for others, irrespective of whether those places had been a source of outbreaks or not.

                It’s not a simple risk-reward analysis when the overall policies are starting to cause far more harm than good. Screeching “wear the fucking mask!” at people is utterly pointless when it’s FAR more than just the mask mandates that are setting people off. Anyone not acknowledging the arbitrary, inconsistent rules and recommendations being enacted–rules that a lot of these fuckers won’t even follow themselves, mind you–is quite simply being obtuse.

                1. That’s all well and good. I agree with most of your take, other than that the current outbreak is a sign that precautions do not work. Making everyone stay at home, while onerous, illegal and not something that should be done, would absolutely stop the spread. People still dying in car accidents does not mean that seatbelts do not work. Also some states have required 0 precautions, and we have no actual borders within the US.

                  I agree with the cost to the economy being dire. I think that this is one of the few scenarios in which I think direct stimulus is a must. (If lockdown, then you must replace people’s income. Either both or none.)

                  But you did not really address masks. You addressed your objections with the entirety of the mandates. When you isolate mask usage, it is not much to ask, and has great potential upside.

      2. What other supplication are you okay with? Bowing to your elected officials? I mean, it i just a slight movement.

        Also masks don’t do anything dummy. 40 years of research. models don’t change actual studies using actual data. Masks may also increase the viral load (hint, if you say masks stop the viruses, you’re just inhaling them back in the next breath)

        1. Source?

          Oh nevermind- this is Jesse who spits bullshit every twist and turn as if any of it is real.

          Fuck off idiot.

          1. Jesse who spits bullshit every twist and turn

            No, that’s you.

            Now fuck back off to Salon.

          2. The source that masks don’t do anything is Dr. Fauci himself, back in the spring.

            “People should not be wearing masks, they don’t do shit.”
            – Dr. Fauci

        2. “(hint, if you say masks stop the viruses, you’re just inhaling them back in the next breath)”

          Jesse, I’m gonna have to end this.

          You could have been a worthy sparring partner. I tried to warn you about your media consumption habits, but you just would not listen.

          It’s not you, it’s — well yes, it is you.

      3. “”It might even protect people around me “”

        Or it might not. How comfortable are you around infected people who are just wearing a cloth over their face?

        1. Much more comfortable than being around infected people who have nothing but air between their mouths and mine.

          1. Really?

            I have yet to meet one medical personnel that would agree.

      4. Or you could try freedom and knowledge, and let people make their own choices. What does “de oppresso liber” mean anyway?

        1. To free the oppressed.

          And I am all for freedom and knowledge.

          Simple libertarians have a hard time with conflicting rights and negative externalities. This is a prime example.

          1. You seem to be someone who thinks freedom is the deference to authority.

    4. They are tying to pick an easy to communicate public health goal for the public that has prove itself too stupid to follow anything else.

      1. Where have most of the case outbreaks been again?

        1. Now? Everywhere.

          1. Well, no. Every state. Possibly every county. But that’s far from everywhere.

          2. Wrong.

    5. To be fair, he also said he would take credit for the distribution plan already in place to distribute the vaccine.

    6. “”Biden’s first order of business?””

      Pardoning his son?

  18. Texas files an audacious suit with the Supreme Court challenging the election results.

    I warned you Lefties what was coming. As of Dec 8, 2020 Democrats cannot produce any more votes in any state. Their total vote count is set. Now comes the illegal ballot tossing. As millions of illegal mail-in ballots get tossed (both Democrat AND Republican) we are left with in-person vote totals.

      1. (Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina).

    1. Well, good luck.

      Maybe you can answer me this: let’s assume that Texas can successfully show that it is damaged by another state modifying its election laws by non-legislative means. How does the remedy of throwing out the other state’s votes logically follow from that? Doesn’t that seem a bit extreme remedy-wise?

      1. Not extreme at all. The 12th Amendment is the remedy and I told you Lefties that. Biden nor Trump will get 270 EC votes and it goes to the House under the 12A vote.

        Or the SCOTUS tosses millions of illegal mail-in ballots and GA, WI, MI, PA recertify in-person voting totals to see who won those states. trump had more people vote in person, BTW.

        Democrat election fraud got smacked down in FL with Bush vs Gore and same will happen in Trump vs Biden. I warned you dummies.

        1. Not. Going. To. Happen. Bush v. Gore was an entirely different legal case. There’s simply no way the Supreme Court will toss out the votes of entire U.S. states or any other scenario where they are deciding the 2020 election. Come back after the inauguration and be prepared with the next round of crazy ass excuses.

          1. Maybe..Maybe not.

            Trump won the legal vote count. Democrats are trying to use illegal ballots and violations of constitutional law to cheat. This is a main role of courts to make sure elections are fair as possible.

            The SCOTUS has an Ace card and that is the 12th Amendment. The SCOTUS didnt decide anything, Congress will.

            Notice MSM also tried to prevent states from sending their own Electors no matter what the state vote results are. Which is perfectly constitutional and even the MSM admitted that.

            Clarence Thomas sided with Bush in Bush vs Gore and Thomas has not announced retirement so Trump can replace him. Do you really think Thomas (who the Lefties hate) would risk pulling a RBG and “President Harris” gets to replace him? Not a chance.

            I’m sorry Lefties dont see what’s coming. They were warned with their election fraud in 2000 and same for Election 2020.

            1. You do realize that the electoral college votes on Monday. Enough states have signed off on their electoral votes for Joe Biden that he’ll win easily. If the Supreme Court is going to throw out all these mail in ballots like you claim then they’ll have to do it in the next five days.
              Next Tuesday will you finally face the reality that Joe Biden is the next president?

              1. Ginsberg herself said in Bush v Gore that the real date is Jan 6th. Go read her comments.

                1. OK, will you and lc1789 finally accept the election results on January 6th?

                  1. Just as soon as you make all your posts here from 20ft away from any input device.

          2. Bush V Gore was based on equal protections for the most part, the fact that Gore wanted different counts in different areas. Texas has shown how in at least 2 states this applied in their rules. Texas is also adding the fact that the election laws were changed in violation of the constitution itself. Which is a secondary argument.

            1. Have you read the Texas lawsuit. In addition to the two claims you just repeated, it is another instance of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. They have claims from a statistician that the election results in some states were “less than one in a quadrillion”, they’ve got the shaky affidavits where witnesses swear they think they saw something suspicious — the whole Sidney Powell conspiracy shooting match.

      2. Doesn’t really matter how extreme it is, IF they end up proving it in court. That’s the whole point of hashing things out there.

        1. Soap Box, Ballot Box, Witness Box, Ammo Box.

          1. Except they aren’t entering any witness testimony into evidence.

            “This case is not about fraud” (repeated 46 times)
            -Trump’s legal team.

            1. There are over 1000 affidavits from witnesses idiot.

              1. Wow such a big number.

                1. You can’t count to 1000? Typical liberal can’t do basic math.

            2. You are also quoting a single case that was about a different topic than just fraud. It doesn’t mean all the cases are the same.

              God you are dumb Stolen Valor.

              1. They all end the same though, don’t they, Jesse?

                What was that? Oh, they’re 1 and 46.

        2. It’s a lot less extreme than a bloody revolution against a corrupt and tyrannical government, which is the only other remedy.

          1. blah blah blah *murderous impotent rage* blah blah blah

        3. You don’t buy into this, do you?

          1. Who gives a shit whether I buy into it or not? I’m not the one running the court case.

            1. Shiiieeett. Just askin’ is all.

  19. Still confused why so many Reason writers endorsed Biden?

    Charles Koch earned $76,700,000 yesterday.

    Biden was the clear choice of Wall Street, billionaires, and Koch-funded libertarians because they knew he’d reverse the disastrous economic policies of the Drumpf years. The market has responded very positively to Biden’s historic landslide victory, and things will get even better after he’s inaugurated.


    1. There is a difference between earning and making.

    2. I used to be skeptical of Mr. Koch, but once he started hanging out with the wonderful Mr. Soros, and he damned the deplorables, I really started to admire him.

    3. He was also the choice of China. Who had a professor tied to the CCP say on video how China had operatives at the highest levels of government. And per swalwell and Feinstein, they seem to be mostly on Biden’s team.

  20. The problems with America’s pandemic response go way beyond President Donald Trump, argues Matthew Yglesias.

    You can see Yglesias is almost starting to wake up a little lately. He’s still wallowing in proggy muck but at least he’s cognizant of a shoreline now.
    Maybe if he spends a good six months surrounded by regular humans rather than gentry liberals.

    1. He’ll still be a dull thinker and terrible writer.

    2. Awaken from Wokedom

      /good album title.

  21. Why Does Corporate Media Amplify John Brennan’s Neverending Lies?

    Biden had to win to protect a bunch of Democrat criminals from federal indictment, Brennan included. Too bad Trump won.


    1. I don’t know if there’s been a public official since Kissinger who deserves to be arrested as badly as Brennan.

    2. Except that that didn’t accomplish anything regarding holding these people accountable.

    3. This is the most obvious case of projection I have ever seen.

      Remind me of this when Trump goes on his pardon spree.

  22. The Republicans in the senate confirmed a Trump nominee to the FCC yesterday. Most of the media is reporting this as if it were meant to deadlock the FCC in a 2-2 tie once Biden takes office, but the ramifications may be larger.

    “Simington’s confirmation makes it possible that the FCC will implement Trump’s Section 230 reinterpretation before Biden’s inauguration. The FCC still has a 3-2 majority as Simington replaces O’Rielly, but now all three Republicans are on record as supporters of the Trump administration’s Section 230 petition.”

    In pure libertarian terms, the status quo on Section 230 is far better than Trump’s reform of Section 230, but the choice is no longer between the status quo and Trump’s reforms. The choice is between Trump’s reform or Biden’s reform–and Trump’s reform is far superior.

    As always, because neither alternative is ideal doesn’t mean one isn’t superior to the other, and using the government to force platforms to tolerate conservative views is superior to using the government to force platforms to purge conservative views from social media.

    1. Option 3) Give to the IJ (or other libertarian law firms) to get either of these two “reforms” struck down by the courts.

      I’d rather fight then submit.

      1. I really hope this gets across:

        The objective of an antitrust case is a consent decree. They’re trying to force the social media companies to sign a consent decree.

        In this case, the social media companies genuinely want to sign a consent decree that looks like Biden’s reform of Section 230.

        There is no constitutional challenge to a consent decree that is willfully signed, and Biden’s reforms will be designed to force all social media companies to sign onto the consent decree–if they want any kind of protection from having to respond to frivolous lawsuits over the speech of third parties.

        If they want to be subjected to a bankrupting slew of never ending frivolous lawsuits, then they don’t need to sign onto the consent decree.

        This is based on case law that goes way back before the consent decrees that blew up the studio system and the tobacco industry.

        This is why this Republicans appointment was such a high priority.

        1. And if not signed? Then there is. And I’ll back the IJ for when a startup or some malcontent needs their help fighting for their economic rights. Those who submit will get what is coming to them good and hard. May not be today or tomorrow but it will happen. Look at the taxi cartel, jumped in bed with the government, services suffered and then their customers found alternatives in Uber and Lyft – I’m fighting for those alternatives.

          1. You don’t seem to be getting the part where Facebook and Google want to sign Biden’s consent agreement.

            Support for a border wall is xenophobic, opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, opposition to abortion is misogynistic, opposition to affirmative action is racist, and those are just four examples of hate speech.

            Meanwhile, supporting the Second Amendment as an important check on oppressive government is making violent threats, and alleging that Hunter Biden is a crook is a conspiracy theory–and those just two examples of that, too.

            Facebook and Google want the government to “force” them to eliminate all that speech in a consent decree–in exchange for the government continuing to protect them from having to respond to frivolous lawsuits over posts written by third parties. And the consent decree will be open for other social media companies to sign onto it–just like what happened with the consent decree for tobacco.

            That way, when Section 230 is repealed, either every social media company will need to sign onto the consent decree and abide by it–or face a slew of lawsuits. Every Shrike troll will find a lawyer to take him on contingency and sue every website or forum because John called him a pedo, and all those platforms and websites will either abide by the consent decree or have to answer in court for a zillion Shirkes. There’s nothing unconstitutional about a platform having to choose between answering lawsuits or signing a consent decree.

            It’s been this way in the tobacco settlement for 25 years. They started out with the big give tobacco companies, and eventually 100% of the other 41 tobacco companies signed onto the consent decree to protect themselves from liability claims–because that was the only way. There are a whole world of things that are both wrong and entirely constitutional, and this is one of them.

            And the worst part of it is, that once the consent decree is in place, there won’t be much that can be done to change it. If some new president in the future decided to sue Facebook and Google for not complying with the consent decree, that might be one way–but Facebook and Google (and Twitter) want to filter out all that content because advertisers don’t want it.

            The world isn’t the way it should be, and the consequences of our choices are real whether we like them or not. The consequences of bringing an antitrust case against the social media companies was one thing if Trump were negotiating the consent decree with the social media companies and the consequences are something else entirely when Biden is negotiating the consent decree. If we didn’t want that under Biden, then we should have reelected Trump.

    2. “As always, because neither alternative is ideal doesn’t mean one isn’t superior to the other, and using the government to force platforms to tolerate conservative views is superior to using the government to force platforms to purge conservative views from social media.”

      You really believe that once you give the government the power to regulate speech on private websites, that that would be the end of the story?

      1. “You really believe that once you give the government the power to regulate speech on private websites, that that would be the end of the story?”

        This question should only be asked in alternative universe where the alternative to implementing Trump’s reforms isn’t implementing Biden’s reforms.

        In that universe, Trump was reelected.

      2. Repeal of 230 doesn’t do that idiot.


    How can anybody doubt the Democrats would commit major election fraud if they could pull it off when they’ve corruptly run an almost senile man for president, pretending he’s moderate, and we already see leftist puppet masters are controlling him — ALREADY, right out in the open?

    1. How do you see all these problems with the Democrats, but when you look at the Republicans and Trump your eyes see no similar problems?

      1. Morning White Knight. I just realized that I haven’t told you to go fuck yourself yet today. My bad.

        Go fuck yourself, you dishonest DNC shill.

        1. Dee really is an annoying cunt.

      2. There are problems with Rs and Trump.
        They pale in comparison to the early stage Nazi-Soviets of the left.
        You ready to die for them?

        1. I do not legitimize Team Red / Blue duopoly nor their attempt to drive the country into a culture war by giving either of them my vote nor approval.

    2. But you don’t understand.
      Sure Trump increased his vote total by another seven million over 2016, but a dementia patient hiding in his basement instead of campaigning still kicked his ass.

      And yes, Trump increased his support remarkably among Hispanics, Blacks and women, but for some reason large numbers of straight white men suddenly decided to turn out and vote for the woke progressives.

      And it’s totally not suspicious because the Democrats went door to door helping people vote or something.

      1. Won Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and 17/18 “bellwether” counties, improving among every demographic but white males along the way…
        And it’s AT LEAST 7-10 million more votes he received in 2020 than 2016…

      2. When your opponent is a bloviating, moronic, incompetent, offensive, selfish asshole, just sitting back and not being relatively sane can be quite an effective campaign strategy.

        1. Sane and senile aren’t the same thing.


    3. That’s funny, if you go to places online wherre democrats hang out, they are all complaining he is GWB 2.

      1. Well we’ll see who he invades.

        1. The new American empire is corporate. Why invade when you can force submission from a distance? Once he pledges fiscal support for NATO again, he can just bomb and drone into compliance like the last 2 Democrat presidents.

      2. Pfft, big fucking deal. These people are the biggest jobbers and group of kept voters on the planet. Just because the Democrat isn’t talking like a literal commie and promising to turn the US into some Demolition Man-style dystopia, doesn’t mean they won’t vote for them.

  24. Gavin Newsom’s COVID Tyranny Is Suffocating California

    Meanwhile Georgia is wide open for fun and business. We have out-of-staters come from all over, including Commifornia.

    No mask or social distancing state mandates, no lockdowns, and businesses are not shutdown. GEORGIA.

    1. And everyone in the whole state is dead now right?

    2. And you celebrate that Georgia residents are selfish pieces of shit who won’t take even basic precautions to slow the spread of a pandemic?

      1. The goal was to ensure your hospitals weren’t overwhelmed.

        Going into flu season you wanted as much of your curve as possible in the past. Lockdowns prevented that. Now California “must” lockdown again because they stopped people from getting sick during the summer. Now CA has more covid hospitalizations per capita than GA.

        I know where I’d rather be.

  25. Good morning. Students at Howard University Law School spent the last 3 months observing the casual cruelty of local criminal court. During a pandemic. Still prosecutors ignored humanity. Still judges caged hundreds. They just released a report.

    — Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) December 9, 2020

    I’m trying to think of a more biased group of people than law students at Howard University. Are they self-described activists?

    This might be like asking the National Women’s Law Center for an unbiased assessment of Title IX or asking the Trump campaign about which ballots should be counted in Pennsylvania.

    P.S. Including the link sends the comment to moderation hell.

  26. GA Gov. Kemp Awarded $107 Million Contract to Dominion Two Weeks After Meeting With People’s Republic of China Consul General

    Funniest thing is that Texas will now get to explain the reasons they rejected Dominion voting equipment for security concerns.

    1. Electronic voting with a paper backup sounds great, right?

      Millions of Georgians voted via absentee ballot.

      2,694,763 in person early votes.
      1,320,154 absentee ballots by mail.
      2,689 absentee ballots rejected.
      917,881 in-person voting election day.
      4,935,487 total votes counted.

      Georgia early voting statistics

      Probably 1.3 million absentee ballots getting tossed in Georgia.

    2. Which is great. If they bring up some real concerns about Dominion voting equipment, the information can be used to improve voting systems for the next big election.

      A couple of lessons that should be learned from this election are:
      a) Voting machine software should be open source.
      b) The few states that still don’t require paper as part of their voting system should change that.

      1. c) The SCOTUS rules against Biden and Democrat fraud and violations of constitutional law. Biden loses.

      2. So you’re ok with this election being unauditable by design – because that’s just something that can be dealt with at some point in the future?

        1. Of course he is.
          And no need to question why the system is designed with some curious features…

      3. I don’t think open source is the way to go. Too vulnerable to sophisticated hackers.

    3. Bigger point I’m making is that a non-partisan, grown up looking at this election should be thinking, “What can we learn from this election to make the next one more secure?”

      1. Nice concern trolling, because you’re anything but a non-partisan, grown up.

        1. As a Canadian, you literally cannot register as a Republican, yet you are a Republican, pro-Trump partisan and dedicate hours of your day every day to promoting their politics. That is just friggin’ weird.

          1. hours
            Lol, what?

            I’ve said this before, but I’m going to turn this reply into copypasta for the next time you try and use your “weird” accusation.

            1. They used to sell Reason Magazine at Canadian newsstands. You can still get a subscription in $CA. I’ve been reading it for 15 years.

            2. There was no good Canadian libertarian magazine. For the last 4 years there hasn’t been a good American libertarian magazine either, but that’s a different story.

            3. I still follow Canadian politics to a greater extent than American politics.

            4. American politics are vastly more important than Canadian politics. Everything that happens in the States impacts Canada massively.

            5. I also follow French and UK politics to the same extent as US politics. Is that “weird” too?

            1. It is weird for people like WK who can’t imagine that citizens of the other countries that comprise North America, like Mexico and Canada are willing and able to effect the outcome of US elections.

      2. A nonpartisan grown up would also look at this election and say trash it and do it over.

        1. Lol. Yeah sure.

          There were non-partisan, international election observers in the US. Basically the exact type of person you are using in your example.

          Guess what? They all said no evidence of fraud and that Joe Biden won.

          I’m sure you will explain how they are part of Zombie Chavez’s conspiracy too.

  27. Is every election from now on going to spur wave after wave of baseless lawsuits? Lose the election? Sue!

    What’s next for the Republican Party? Will they literally attempt a coup? I see no evidence that they have the restraint not to.

    1. Why would Republican attempt a coup? Biden lost.

      Democrats threatened violence when they lost. Await Lefty violence and propagandist hacks like unreason staff to cover for them…again.

      1. You serve as a useful demonstration.

    2. Yes, aren’t lawsuits preferable to riots?

      1. Never mind that courts demanded that the election 2020 happen before election lawsuits would be heard.

        Literally, courts rejected Trump trying to stave off foreseen massive Democrat election fraud schemes before election 2020.

        1. “Never mind that courts demanded that the election 2020 happen before election lawsuits would be heard.”

          That was a very hand wavy statement. Cite to what you are talking about?

          1. Yes, and we want it certified by a notary.

            1. It’s hilarious how asking for a citation is something you cultist see fit to be mocked. Not, you know, pulling stuff out of your ass.

              1. Especially since they ask for citations all the time. But it’s OK when they do it.

                1. I haven’t seen another commenter here that uses cite requests as a way to cast aspersions on other people’s arguments, as much as you.

                  You’re a low-information fraud who tries to “win” rhetorically by demanding cites to the point of harassment. What a dishonest piece of shit you are, White Knight.

                  1. What’s the allowed daily quota for asking people to back up their claims with sources? Do you adjust it at all for days when, say, JesseAz or lc1789 is making an unusually high numbers of questionable claims?

                    1. How about you try and keep it under 1500 cite requests a day.

      2. Yes they are. But you keep losing your lawsuits. You lost in SCOTUS. So what you do now? You are unable to admit you lost the election, so when do your riots start?

    3. I guess they learned it from Governor Abrams of Georgia.

      1. She is listed as a Democrat elector for Georgia. HAHA.

        She is gonna be so sad.

    4. You can thank the Democrats for setting the precedent in 2000.

    1. there are strong thematic components linking CT, CLT, and CRT. Among these are:

      The Marxist analysis of society made up of categories of oppressors and oppressed;
      An unhealthy dollop of Nietzschean relativism, which means that language does not accord to an objective reality, but is the mere instrument of power dynamics;
      The idea that the oppressed impede revolution when they adhere to the cultural beliefs of their oppressors—and must be put through re-education sessions;
      The concomitant need to dismantle all societal norms through relentless criticism; and
      The replacement of all systems of power and even the descriptions of those systems with a worldview that describes only oppressors and the oppressed.
      Far from being merely esoteric academic exercises, these philosophies have real-life consequences.

      Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

  28. This guy claims we have a med which will prevent the spread of the WuFlu and cure you if you have it, and I don’t see a word about it:

    “Dr. Pierre Kory, president of the FLCCC Alliance testifies before Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs looking into early outpatient COVID-19 treatment”
    “Newswise — WASHINGTON, D.C. — DECEMBER 8, 2020: Appearing as a witness Tuesday morning before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs – which held a hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution” – Dr. Pierre Kory, President of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), called for the government to swiftly review the already expansive and still rapidly emerging medical evidence on Ivermectin.
    The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
    Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a “miracle drug” against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities – the NIH, CDC, and FDA – to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for Covid-19…”

    I caught the vid of the testimony on Fox (why no one else seems to have carried it is a mystery). The guy was a bit dramatic, but he claims *DATA*, not his opinion, and the papers are available, awaiting peer review
    Maybe ’emergency’ still doesn’t allow the various government agencies to examine data prior to peer review, which would suggest that the government ‘health agencies’ are not taking it as seriously as they claim.

    1. I dunno. When I search on Google for articles about Ivermectin, I see that it is being discussed publicly. Why do you have such a paranoid worldview where you see everything as conspiracy?

      1. “Why do you have such a paranoid worldview where you see everything as conspiracy?”

        Why are you so stupid as to assume that? Is it your TDS? Nobody seems to have found a cure for that.

        1. There’s a cure: lead

        2. Assume?

          “… and I don’t see a word about it”

          1. Yes; both “stupid” and “assume”.
            There could be good reason not to see a lot of ink, but your TDS is overpowering, isn’t it?
            Seek help and fuck off.

            1. The anger! Let it flow though you! It is what gives the Trith his power!


    Holy shit just got this email from YouTube.

    Starting today they will remove content about election fraud…even though there are court cases about election fraud going through the system at this very moment.

    Adios free speech. The bannings are coming.

    1. Thank goodness, for we White Knights corporate censorship is the cornerstone of our efforts.

      Remember, libertarian philosophy should only apply to governments. Individuals and Corporations can silence others as much as they want.

      Don’t like it? Then build your own internet.

    2. Free speech has been dead a long time.

      1. And, yet, here you are engaging in free speech. Every day. Free as in freedom, but also free as in Reason provides this unmoderated comments section to you free of charge, even though many of you proudly contribute nothing to the Reason Foundation.

        1. “”unmoderated comments section””

          I’ve had several posts that say “waiting for moderation” and never get posted.

          1. I don’t think any comment that gets auto tagged with waiting for moderation ever gets posted. Which underlines my point — there isn’t really any moderation, just some old automated scripts.

    3. Youtube is a private company and is free to not host any content that they feel like not hosting.

      1. They change their terms of service on the fly and misrepresent their business model.
        Besides, libertarian philosophy isn’t just for the feds. Witchburnings are wrong regardless.

  30. this is really good post here. Thanks for taking the time to post such valuable information
    Nice bro great ,

  31. California sheriffs are still rebelling against upholding their sworn Constitutional responsibilities by refusing to enforce the state’s latest pandemic restrictions.

    Geez, ENB, you could at least pretend you write for a libertarian organization.

  32. Meanwhile Biteme continues to promote far left staffers to his cabinet even though he slurred his way through bacerras announcement. It is obvious that he’s not making these decisions. It’s sad how the democrats abuse him.

    Also remove Swalwell from the House intelligence committee he’s obviously been compromised. If democrats had any honor or allegiance to America instead of being traitors they would.

    1. Also remove Swalwell from the House intelligence committee he’s obviously been compromised.

      If making deals with Chinese spies was enough to get people out of office, about 3/4 of the Democrats would have to turn in their resignation.

      The Democrats screech “It was the Russians!” while taking Chinese cock up the ass.

  33. Billy Binion joined ENB in seeming to praise elitist authoritarianism ignoring democracy. (ENB quoted some else praising this example of elitist authoritarianism in morning links yesterday).

    “George Gascón was sworn in as the new District Attorney of Los Angeles County on Monday, and he began his tenure with a bang, promising to eliminate sentencing enhancements, nix the use of the death penalty, stop prosecuting certain low-level misdemeanors, and put an immediate end to cash bail.

    The latter may well end up being the most controversial when considering that California voters handily rejected Proposition 25, a November ballot measure to abolish cash bail in favor of risk assessments.

    But cash bail, as Gascón highlighted yesterday, is as unjust as it is arbitrary

    —-Billy Binion

    It should be noted that populism is a reaction to precisely this kind of elitist authoritarianism. Populism in all its forms–from left to right–is always a reaction to elitists ignoring the people. Respecting democracy, in that way, is the alternative to populism. Everyone who both abhors populism and cheers on the elitists who ignore democracy are either ignorant or delusional.

    The reason we saw Brexit was because of elitists in Brussels inflicting immigration and other policies on the people of the UK over their objections and against their will. The reason Trump won in 2016 was in no small part due to elitists in the U.S. government inflicting polices on the American people over their objections and against their will on a wide range of topics from healthcare and Iran to the Paris Climate treaty and bailing out Wall Street. The reason governments in France, Germany, and Italy were completely disrupted by a wave of support for right wing populist parties in recent years is because of authoritarian elitists inflicting policies on an unwilling population.

    The proper purview of democracy is what it is because, for instance, at the federal level, a society that has wars, taxes, naturalization policies, and treaties inflicted on it over their objections and against their will cannot be a free society. This is why Congress (or the Senate) needs to be involved in all those situations. When the voters don’t want a war you want, don’t want a tax you want, don’t want a naturalization policy you want, or don’t want a treaty you want, the solution is not to inflict your policies on them over their objections and against you will. The solution is persuasion.

    There may be times when it is libertarian to support authoritarianism because you like the policies of the authoritarian in question, but generally speaking, that’s just when the only alternative appears to be a communist or a fascist takeover. We’re not looking at anything like that with cash bail in California.

    Meanwhile, the question of how the criminal justice system in California should function stands well within the purview of democracy in California–as well as within the purview of the Constitution and the state constitution. I’m not aware of any decisions that have found the cash bail in question to be unconstitutional in either regard. If there were such a decision, cash bail would be a non-issue.

    And in regards to the state constitution, that’s what Proposition 25 was all about. Proposition 25 was a veto referendum to repeal California state Senate Bill 10. George Gascon is unilaterally enacting legislation that was repealed by the people of California–and there is no good libertarian justification for celebrating that.

    If he’d announced that he decided to start prosecuting recreational marijuana users in their homes again, despite the referendum making that perfectly legal according to state law, he should be condemned for the same reason.

    1. It should be noted, too, that libertarians shouldn’t be praising a prosecutor for refusing to prosecute certain misdemeanors either.

      “The progressive prosecutor is also likely to take heat for his directive not to pursue charges for certain low-level misdemeanors, such as trespassing, disturbing the peace, driving without a license, prostitution, resisting arrest, criminal threats, drug possession, minors with alcohol, drinking in public, public intoxication, and loitering.”

      —-Billy Binion

      The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights. The legitimate purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights from criminals. From a libertarian perspective, why shouldn’t legitimate cases of trespassing, disturbing the peace, and criminal threats be prosecuted as crimes?

      1. The police ceasing to show up for these misdemeanors will lead to the eventual shutdown of every major retailer in LA as the looters realize there are no consequences for petty theft. It is already happening to Walgreens in SF.

        1. The areas with high shoplifting rates already anyway.

          That’s already happening in San Francisco. I linked to a story yesterday about Walgreens (a drug store) shuttering stores because they can’t do anything to stop people from emptying their shelves and the police won’t even bother showing up unless the theft is for more than $950.

        2. It should also be noted that this is how you build momentum for a fascist response.

          If you stayed up all night trying to think of new and better ways to bring a fascist government to California or America, you couldn’t come up with anything better than refusing to prosecute people for these kinds of crimes.

          Incidentally, the laws against loitering and trespassing are to protect homeless people–which is one of the prominent reasons why people were leaving Los Angeles in droves even before the pandemic.

          Here’s Joe Rogan talking about it.

          He’s moving to Texas–and he’s making 30 million+ a year.

          If he can’t stand it, then how’s the average working joe?

          1. The way over policing that we saw in New York City back in the Giuliani era were wildly popular with New Yorkers and celebrated–because even New York liberals had enough of the kinds of policies Los Angeles and San Francisco are pursuing today.

          2. I’ll be honest. It sure seems like california is already basically fascist.

            1. Being here doesn’t feel fascist. It’s authoritarian, but it’s authoritarian socialist.

              This is the phase where the peasants move onto the grounds of your mansion and shit all over the lawns. The next phase is when they let the peasants move into the spare bedrooms of your house. After all, you have five bedrooms, and you’re only using three of them!

      2. I didn’t read Binion’s article. I’m curious if he even discussed that trespassing is a violation of the NAP?

    2. “The progressive prosecutor is also likely to take heat for his directive not to pursue charges for certain low-level misdemeanors, such as trespassing, disturbing the peace, driving without a license, prostitution, resisting arrest, criminal threats, drug possession, minors with alcohol, drinking in public, public intoxication, and loitering.”

      —-Billy Binion

      It should be noted, too, that libertarians shouldn’t be praising a prosecutor for refusing to prosecute certain misdemeanors either.

      The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights. The legitimate purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights from criminals. From a libertarian perspective, why shouldn’t legitimate cases of trespassing, disturbing the peace, and criminal threats be prosecuted as crimes?

      1. Either the devil didn’t want you to read it or the good Lord wanted me to repeat it.

      2. He also included prostitution, public intoxication, loitering, drug possession and minors with alcohol. These are all things that every libertarian should agree are good to stop prosecuting. Even “disturbing the peace” and “driving without a license” for us radical libertarians.

        1. I agree with most of those, which is why I specifically asked about trespassing above. I do think loitering could also be an exception in certain cases. If people are loitering directly in front of my door, disrupting movement in and out of it, they are violating my property rights.

          1. What if they’ve living there in a tent and shitting and pissing in front of the entrance to your business?

            1. Yes, that would be a good example of what I’m talking about. A barrier of feces in front of your door would definitely be a hindrance.

              1. What are you going on about? There are people to deliver that stuff to your door. They can step in the shit for you.


    The Falls Church School Board in Virginia voted 7-0 to change the names of Thomas Jefferson Elementary and George Mason High Tuesday night.

    The vote comes despite an October community survey that found 56% opposition to changing the school names.

    1. there is no end to this and noone is safe from the purges.

    2. I considered the survey results and the community discussion that followed
      And did what I wanted anyway.

    3. All of the retards remind me of Adam’s family values when they are at camp and about to do lifeguard practice
      Annoying girl “I’ll play the victim”
      Wednesday “all your life”

  35. you understand of course the Nevada SC throwing out a lawsuit does not mean 61,000 people did not vote twice, yes?

    1. You’re not supposed to get distracted by silly things like facts and logic.

      1. mad.casual threw a Logic Class in Latin yesterday on one of these threads it was funny

    2. Same thing I said to lc1789. Please tell us you haven’t contributed any of your personal cash to the Trump election challenge grift.

      1. I give all my money to my s.o. so I don’t do dumb things with it.

        1. Please tell me he or she hasn’t contributed to the Trump grift.

          1. Concern troll is concerned. Fuck off cunt.

          2. we don’t give money to people who have more of it than us, no.

  36. New information challenges the official narrative on how law enforcement caught the Golden State Killer.

    All of this is unsubstantiated bullshit, not one shred of proof is being offered to back up their claims of wrong-doing by the police, just rumor and innuendo and blatant lies about the truth of the matter. Jesus, how gullible can you be that you refuse to believe the truth of the matter when dozens of authorities have attested to the truth of the matter? You must be some kind of racist conspiracy-mongering nutjob to believe the authorities conducted some sort of fraudulent investigation of the matter.

    Okay, I’ll admit there might have been a teeny bit of fraud in the investigation, but not a significant amount and certainly not enough to question the results of the investigation. Get over it, let’s just accept the results of the investigation and move on, shall we?

    1. A+

  37. Shit, we could’ve told you the Golden State killer was California’s government.

  38. I am making 92 bucks an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do…………. Here is More information.

  39. A lot of these rejections are the result of judges not wanting to hear cases like this. I am sure election-related lawsuits can take up a lot of time and effort on the part of all parties involved. But the judges dismissing cases is not necessarily an indication of outright rejection.

  40. Hey everyone, Fox is reporting that there is an explosive development in the Hunter Biden saga. And Kayleigh says the big one is coming. Maybe that’s what Trump needs to win the election.
    😀 😀 😀 😀

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.