Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang Gets Schooled on New York Street Vendors

The NYC mayoral hopeful tweeted his foot into his mouth.


Last week, former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who's running for mayor of New York City, tweeted about the tenuous state many unlicensed food vendors in the city have found themselves in for decades. But rather than supporting those vendors, thousands of whom can't even buy the permits they need to operate legally in the city because of a longstanding and arbitrary city cap on such permits, the candidate implied a Yang administration would make life even harder for them.

"You know what I hear over and over again—that NYC is not enforcing rules against unlicensed street vendors," Yang, currently the frontrunner in the mayoral race, tweeted on Sunday. "I'm for increasing licenses but we should do more for the retailers who are paying rent and trying to survive."

That tweet, Politico reported, "ignite[d] fury on the left." City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who's also running for the city's top job, accused Yang of criminalizing poverty. Others piled on. The tweet drew more than 4,500 comments, with many of them, such as this one, wondering how arresting a mom who's selling churros in a city subway to make ends meet, or similar rule enforcement, would achieve anything positive at all

Yang attempted to clarify his original tweet, but that clarification—which included a bizarre call for "[e]ducation for immigrant/non English speaking vendors on rules of vending"—may have made the situation worse. 

In my experience speaking over the years with hundreds of food vendors in New York City and elsewhere—some of whom are indeed immigrants whose first language is not English—I've found vendors already understand the rules of vending. What the food vendors I've spoken with don't understand—and what I don't understand either—is why the rules they must follow are so arbitrary, unfair, and convoluted. It's certainly not to benefit consumers or vendors. Instead, these rules exist only to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from competition.

Perhaps recognizing this, Yang backtracked on Monday, saying the controversy was a big misunderstanding caused in part by the challenges of discussing policy matters on Twitter. (LOL.) "'I regret that I took on such a frankly complicated and nuanced issue' on Twitter," New York magazine reported. "He also said that his tweet made it 'seem like it's a zero-sum game between unlicensed street vendors and retailers.'"

At a time when more than 1,000 brick-and-mortar restaurants in New York City have shut their doors permanently due to a combination of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and city and state restrictions on indoor dining, Yang has sought to position himself as a great champion of city restaurants.

But this is at least Yang's second food-related campaign snafu. In January, he angered New Yorkers by referring to something that is not a bodega as a bodega. He joins a long list of city pols who appear bizarrely uncomfortable around food. "The first scandal of Bill de Blasio's tenure as New York City mayor," USA Today reported in 2014, involved de Blasio eating pizza with a knife and fork.

While the bodega and pizza missteps were minor amusements, Yang's stance on food vendors is troubling and worrying and would reverse some minor gains made by food vendors under current Mayor Bill de Blasio.

As I noted last year, the outgoing Mayor de Blasio, himself an unsuccessful 2020 presidential candidate, made some moves to bring fairness to the city's enforcement of its regulations pertaining to food vendors.

In June, as I discussed here, de Blasio announced the city's police department would no longer be charged with enforcing city food-vending rules. That was an important move. Many of the people put at risk by these policies are immigrants and people of color. At a time when more and more New Yorkers are questioning police tactics for dealing with street vendors, de Blasio's move should promised to reduce needless confrontations between police and food vendors.

And de Blasio also supported legislation, which recently became law, that offers a path to legitimacy for some city street food vendors. That new law, adopted by the city council in February, will expand the number of available food vendor permits—adding a few hundred new permits each year, beginning next year, rather than removing the cap altogether—and establishes an office of street vendor enforcement and a street vending advisory board. 

Ten years ago, in a lengthy piece for Reason that you should totally read, advocates I spoke with blasted New York City's awful treatment of food vendors, particularly the permitting process (or absence thereof).

"The Department of Health has capped the amount of food-vending permits," an attorney representing food vendors told me. "And you cannot get one. The waiting list is even closed. But it was 10 or 15 years' wait. It's impossible to get a food vending permit from the city.…If you want to get a permit for your cart or truck, you cannot do it."

Hence, thousands of existing and potential vendors in New York City have waited decades to buy food-vending permits. The city's arbitrary cap on permits doesn't cap the number of vendors. Instead, it incentivizes thousands of vendors to sell food without permits or to obtain permits on the black market.

Andrew Yang's presidential campaign, though unsuccessful, was notable for its ideas. Yang helped to bring proposals such as universal basic income into mainstream conversation. But Yang's serious missteps on the key issue facing New York City's food vendors—in which he relies on the hackneyed misconceptions about food vendors and the city regulations that cruelly and needlessly imperil many of them—suggest his mayoral candidacy might need some new and better ideas.

NEXT: Donald Trump's Presidency Is Over. MAGA Rap Is Keeping His Legacy Alive.

Andrew Yang Food Freedom Food Policy

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

Please to post comments

112 responses to “Andrew Yang Gets Schooled on New York Street Vendors

  1. Street food being one of life’s great pleasures it is no surprise that government wants to see it banned.

    1. I agree. Local small business. More variety. Good food made right in front of you by a person that lives in your community. Why would anyone want that?

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better 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…..VISIT HERE

    2. They don’t want to ban it, dingus, they just want their cut. You regulate the shit out of food vending the same way you regulate the shit out of taxi cabs and – due to the law of supply and demand – it drives the price way up and applicants are willing to fork over way more money for the “privilege” of doing business. Don’t you know anything about how the Mafia operates? Erect toll booths and charge people to pass.

      1. “Nice food truck you got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it”.

    3. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started Copy This Link For Full Detail…USA Dollars  

    4. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better 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…VISIT HERE

    5. The bigger point is why the fuk does anyone at reason care what someone completely antithetical to libertarianism, like yang, says about food trucks in New York city? It’s not a major/national issue, we already know new York regulations are fukked by previous articles, and yang is not worth any publicity from a “libertarian” magazine.

      This is how reason is fukked by lefties. They write more articles about dumbfuck lefties and their dumbfuck ideas like yang than they do libertarian candidates.

      Hey reason, we know lefties like yang are tards and the government of new York city sucks ass. Why don’t you write some articles about solving these issues or good ideas from local libertarians to solve these issues. You guys do a lot of pissing and moaning and “but the other side” tropes in your articles, but there’s very little substance or constructive ideas any more.

  2. “You know what I hear over and over again—that NYC is not enforcing rules against unlicensed street vendors,”
    it’s not dawned on Yang that rules for their own sake are often disregarded, by those bound by them and, at times, those charged with enforcing them.

    First rule of rules: they have to make sense. The idea of asking permission in order to make a living is about as anti-freedom a proposition as there is.

  3. “What the food vendors I’ve spoken with don’t understand—and what I don’t understand either—is why the rules they must follow are so arbitrary, unfair, and convoluted. It’s certainly not to benefit consumers or vendors. Instead, these rules exist only to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from competition.”

    The first time I heard someone from New York City tell me that the primary purpose of the NYPD was to make sure that street vendors were paying sales tax was in the 1980s.

    Property tax, retail sales taxes, and other taxes paid by fixed businesses are almost certainly the biggest source of income for New York City, and because those businesses are ultimately financing most of what the city does, New York City is doing what they can to protect the revenue streams of brick and mortar businesses from street vendors.

    New York City is run by a Democratic party machine that is largely controlled by unions that depend on revenue from brick and mortar businesses for their members’ raises, their vacation benefits, and their pensions. Meanwhile, the rules for street vendors are overseen by city bureaucrat and enforced by cops–who are actual members of those unions.

    The foxes are guarding the hen house, and that is why the rules street vendors must follow are so arbitrary, unfair, and convoluted.

    1. There’s no capitalism like crony capitalism. Especially when some of the cronies include union bosses.

      1. And the union bosses know where their bread is getting buttered.

        1. Ken is a fan of slave labor and violence. Watch when he talks about consumers.

          1. I thought you died Hihn?

            1. I thought you were ignorant, I was right.

  4. How come Yang isn’t giving them $500 a week as a basic income?

    1. Who says he won’t?

    2. NYC is a fucking disaster. New Yorkers have to be the biggest morons on the loaner. Except maybe for San Franciscans Potlanders, and Seattlites.

  5. I once had one of the greatest sandwich I ever had on the streets of New York City. A $10 sausage cooked in front of me with my choice of onions and peppers. I mistakenly suggest it was a Bratwurst ( from my midwestern experience) and I was quickly corrected by the vendor that it was a sausage.
    Just an anecdote that I have discovered on the value of street vendors.

  6. Liberals destroyed NYC, and now they want to burn the ashes of the ashes of the corpse.

  7. Government promising to “do more” for someone is why things are as bad as they are.

    Do less.

    1. The story of Michigan 2020-2021; which is DO MORE

  8. But the bottom line is that he’s for increasing licenses. That makes him better than candidates who aren’t. He should be encouraged, not drawing fire for his remarks.

  9. OT, but sometimes Tony’s sheer ignorance of how the world works is staggering.
    And it’s not just Tony, all our resident lefties, sarcasmic, White Knight, DOL and SPB2 don’t even seem to have a middle-school level understanding of science or how the world works:

    Tony – “I’m glad we’re all finally on the same page about nationalizing the oil industry.

    Me – How the hell did you get there. The American oil industry is composed of over 600 companies. None of whom hold a government facilitated monopoly.
    How many companies dominate Facebook or Google’s market, Tony?

    You’re too stupid to be here. Have you tried arguing your points on 9gag?

    Tony – “The oil industry is a global cartel that not only isn’t subject to a free market, but that takes in the biggest profits in history while socializing the costs of the damage to the environment.

    You deal with this by denying that burning fossil fuels harms the environment, I suspect.

    Me – It’s not a cartel you moron. OPEC is a cartel, not the fucking industry.
    Globally there are tens of thousands of companies all in competition with each other. To try and make a cartel out of them would be like herding cats.

    You don’t understand how any of this works, so you make stupid statements like “The oil industry is a global cartel that not only isn’t subject to a free market”, which is as close to utter gibberish as you can get.
    I don’t believe you even understand what “cartel” means, and you probably don’t understand that the OPEC cartel is a group of nations, not companies.

    Tony – “So oil companies are subject to free-market pressures despite being protected by global cooperation to ensure their existence and stability at the continued expense of better, cheaper alternatives?

    I don’t suppose while you were nitpicking terminology you decided to start believing scientific facts were real?”

    Me – “So oil companies are subject to free-market pressures”

    Yes, you fucking moron. If you are unaware that oil prices fluctuate wildly based on the market then you must live under a rock.
    You also don’t seem to understand that countries make serious money selling the oil in the ground for big bucks. It’s how Norway and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and all those other oil producing nations get rich.

    “despite being protected by global cooperation to ensure their existence and stability at the continued expense of better, cheaper alternatives?”

    What better and cheaper alternatives? The world wants to know.

    It doesn’t get cheaper than digging energy out of the ground.
    And do you honestly think that wind, solar, wave or any other sources that rely on the weather and the time of day can ever come even remotely close to providing the energy needed to power your lifestyle. Barring secret Alien technology, they can’t.
    Only nuclear could possibly come close, and you idiots are trying to shut that down too.

    Forget about energy policy, you don’t even understand energy itself.
    You are so monumentally fucking ignorant about how living works. You probably don’t even know understand where meat or milk or paper comes from.

    So don’t ever try to talk to me about “science” again, until your actual scientific knowledge gets past fifth grade.

    1. “And it’s not just Tony, all our resident lefties, sarcasmic, White Knight, DOL and SPB2 don’t even seem to have a middle-school level understanding of science or how the world works:”

      OK. Rent-free, your head.

      The funny thing here is that back during the Obama Administration, before all you Trumpistas invaded the commentariat, I used to argue with Tony all the time. Even now, I rarely ever back up anything he says, and still disagree with him on a lot.

      And that’s because I’m a libertarian, not a lefty.

      1. Your the ones who have invaded the commentariat, a bunch of paid trolls and fifty-centers employed to endorse your masters narratives. And there’s nothing remotely libertarian about the corporatism, censorship, deplatforming, political oppression, anti-first and second amendment rhetoric and gun control your lot has endorsed here.

        Also my point still stands with you, Mr.HO2.

        1. Even IF IF IF someone were paying them to be ignorant and stupid, that doesn’t mean they aren’t paying them because they’re ignorant and stupid. Their primary characteristics are ignorance and stupidity either way.

          1. Look in the mirror, ken. Also, ken is a racist who supports slave labor.

        2. Isn’t it just a shame that the Reason comment boards aren’t just filled with a bunch of Mother’s Lament clones all upvoting and liking each other?

          1. How do I get in on the upvotes and likes? I havent given or gotten one yet

            1. Reason Patreon

          2. You and I made comments within 6 hours of each other. We must be sock puppets of each other.

            1. You sockpuppet and samefag constantly.
              Everyone has noticed, why don’t you quit pretending and just run with it? You’d seem far less pathetic if you did.

      2. So you used to argue with Tony but you don’t now…because of who else is now commenting here.

        Rent free indeed.

        1. Yup. The Trump ass kissing and boorish behavior on the part of the Trump Mean Girls eclipses anything Tony ever says. Last thing I’m gonna do is gang up on Tony when the Trump Mean Girls are already being rude to him.

          1. “Mean Girls”

            Everytime someone posts something even vaguely positive about Trump, or points out something negative about the Democrats or Reason’s kid glove treatment of them, you ride in to start trolling and shitposting their comments.
            You always start shit and then cry when there’s pushback.
            Fuck off with your phony persecution complex, troll.

            1. No, the “mean girls” are the ones around here who pretend to act like Trump. Like Jesse for example. He lives in a right-wing echo chamber, he spouts nothing but narratives, he never apologizes when he’s wrong or even when he is just excessively rude, he doesn’t back down, he is always on the attack even when it’s completely unnecessary, everyone who isn’t a part of his Amen Choir is a “librul” or “progtard” who must be destroyed at all costs. Those are the “mean girls”. They treat Reason like an extension of right-wing social media. There are plenty of right-leaning posters around here who are capable of having intelligent discussions. The Trump Mean Girls like Jesse aren’t those people.

              1. Pretty much everything you ascribed to Jesse is exactly what you do. It’s like you just wrote down you’re modus operandi and threw Jesse’s name in front.

                And how does he live in an “echo chamber” when he’s always attacking your horseshit? It’s pretty evident that you don’t know what anyone else believes, but he and Ken certainly have your number. The real bubble-boy is you and your fellow fifty-centers like White Knight, whose knowledge barely extends past your talking points pdf’s.

          2. ‘mean girls’ is way too nice for the cocksuckers that have infested this forum

            1. So diplomatic

            2. It’s fun how you samefagging far-left sockpuppets pretend like you’re some sort of status quo, instead of the ideological aberrations you actually are.

      3. Rent free is one of the most pig ignorant insults around. I got about half a million things living “rent free” in my head.
        Since my etymology trivia can still live there “rent free” even though I fucking detest some reason commenters, or despise certain politicians, it really isn’t much of an insult.

        My whole family and an unknown thousands of words also “live rent free”. Also, images of cute animals, hot women, internet jargon, mathematical formulas, childhood memories, scents of the outdoors, city, suburbs and various foods, etc. For fucks sake, the average person is capable of remembering millions of things. When I’m on reason, context brings to mind how much I hate the lefty shills, racists and poo flingers. It really isn’t very taxing.
        Fucking shit, you lefties have nothing on your side but bullying and nobody on the internet gives a fuck about your sad attempts to damage people’s egos.

        1. I’m not the one who came up with the “rent-free in your head” meme around here. It was one of the Trump mean girls who launched that meme.

          1. I’m not the one who came up with the “rent-free in your head” meme around here.

            …I’m just the intellectual dullard who used it.

            1. He’s not very original. 90% of the time he’s trying to copy his detractors.

            2. Hey, the Trump Mean Girls created me. Month after month of my being polite and on-point, and their being assholes in reply.

              1. Isn’t that what we heard from supposedly reluctant Trump supporters, in the early years? “Look, I don’t particularly like Trump, but those mean liberals, they just say such mean things about him, why, they *made* me defend Trump and support him, against their vicious attacks!”

              2. “It’s you’re fault I’m an abusive lying asshole! If you’d all just shut-up and let me gaslight you, things wouldn’t be like this!”

                It’s kicking lying dinks like you and chemleft in the metaphorical teeth, that brings joy to my day. I think it’s a mitzvah.

          2. LOL, Mother’s is accusing me of startint fights — and he’s making this accusation in a comment thread in which, unprovoked, out of the blue, he personally insulted me before I had even visited the page, let alone commented on it.

            1. You started this fight with me months ago, shithead.
              I hope you’re not under the impression that you get to start afresh at pissing me off every day.

    2. Tony, ChemJeff, White Knight, and Shrike don’t care whether they’re wrong or right–much less why.

      They don’t believe the things they do because of reason or for reasons. They aren’t here to learn, contribute, or understand things. They’re just trolls and that is all.

      The only response they deserve is to call them fucking idiots (since that’s what they are), or, better yet, expose them as morons–if you have a minute or two.

      Not only do their moronic ideas have no basis in fact or reason, they don’t understand why that should matter–and that itself is easy to expose and the very definition of willful stupidity.

      Some of us still think the reason they’re so ignorant and stupid is because they haven’t had things explained to them properly, but that isn’t the case. The reason they genuinely believe the ignorant and stupid things they believe is because they’re genuinely ignorant and stupid.

      1. “The only response they deserve is to call them fucking idiots (since that’s what they are), or, better yet, expose them as morons–if you have a minute or two.”

        Ken, you’re finally coming around to my perspective on progs. Debate and discussion is pointless. The solution is to crush them. Before they do the same to us.

        1. In the case of the four I mentioned, arguing with them is pointless because they don’t care about facts or logic, don’t know the difference between rational and irrational, and don’t understand why they should.

          And I’m not generalizing about all progressives from those four. I’ve dealt with each one of them individually, and all four of them share those characteristics. Calling those four ignorant and willfully stupid isn’t an accusation; it’s an observation from empirical evidence.

          1. Ken is just salty that he has been revealed to be the pretentious pompous right-wing MAGA devotee that he really is.

            1. He’s not the guardian of all that is rational, as he regularly claims?

            2. A suckholer of top men and the haute bourgeoisie has no business inferring that Ken is “pompous”.

              You’re just mad that he makes you and your pal White Knight look like idiots every day.

          2. Empirical.

            So based on personal observation rather than logic, data, or theory correct?

            Ignorance and willfully stupid.

            So ignorance means the other person did not know something based on your empirical observation.

            Willfully stupid. Again based on unsupported personal observation you allege a state of mind. They seem to contradict. Stupid might mean ignorance or a below average ability to process information for genetic or other causes.

            Willfully. That is another thing. It implies conscious informed choice. The individual understands the circumstances.

            So willfully stupid is a tautology.

            I submit that a person cannot be ‘willfully stupid’

            1. I’m pretty sure that you just provided empirical evidence of “willfully stupid” with that asinine post.
              Congratulations, purposeful moron.

            2. “I submit that a person cannot be ‘willfully stupid’

              It’s actually more than one incident with the same people. Here’s an example.


              Read above it and below it.

              The argument is broken down into a syllogism, and she’s invited to show me where it’s wrong. I state that it seems to me that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. If there’s something wrong with the logic, I invite her to show me where.

              I also offer my evidence for the premises. If the premises are false, I ask her to show me where.

              I mention that if there are any problems with the logic or the premises, then that’s a bad argument–as I’ve pointed out to her with other syllogisms before. I’m practically begging her to be rational, but she steadfastly refuses. Instead she insists that my conclusion is wrong because it’s wrong–without any reference to the premises or the logic.

              Instead, she hits me with an ad hominem fallacy, the problems with which have been explained to her before by me personally. She has steadfastly refused to believe that the ad hominem fallacy is anything but persuasive in the past despite it being explained to her over and over again.

              Yes, it is possible to be willfully stupid. When a person genuinely doesn’t care what the difference is between being right and being wrong or being rational or irrational–despite having those differences explained to her repeatedly in explicit detail–that person is being willfully stupid. There are people in this world [thread] who are ignorant and stupid on purpose–and they cannot be persuaded to be otherwise.

              1. Your “logic” is just window dressing on the conclusion you wanted to reach. Garbage in garbage out: if you start out looking at the Democrats with an extremely critical eye, and Trump with a forgiving eye, then feed that into your “logic” — surprise: you reach the conclusion that libertarians should support Donald J. Trump.

                You know what they taught us in math and engineering classes: no matter how careful you think you have been with your calculations and logic, check your answer against common sense. If your logic leads you to throw your support behind an amoral, grifting, moronic sociopath, you got something wrong when using your mental slide rule.

                It’s been known that Trump is not worthy of a libertarian’s support since the Vera Coking incident, if not earler.

                1. Fuck, Ken touched a nerve again.

                  Interesting how you refuse to argue against any of the points that he made and just try to handwave it away as “window dressing”.

                  What a lazy, intellectually dishonest piece of shit you are, White Knight.

                  Off topic: What do you get paid for being here? Is it by the post or do you have a day rate?

                2. “if you start out looking at the Democrats with an extremely critical eye, and Trump with a forgiving eye, then feed that into your “logic”

                  The problem with my argument isn’t the logic or the premises. The problem is something to do with me!

                  In response to a post about how she can’t grasp why ad hominem fallacies should be avoided, she perpetrates another ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy has been explained to her in explicit detail–over and over and over again (with links)–and she still expressly refuses to believe that her ad hominem fallacies are anything other than valid.

                  This is further empirical evidence not only that she’s stupid but also willfully so. You cannot persuade her that logic matters because she steadfastly refuses to believe it. And the reason she refuses to be rational is not because it hasn’t been explained to her. It has.

                  It is entirely possible that she’s not smart enough to understand what an ad hominem fallacy is and why that means her counterargument is invalid, but, in addition to that, she also refuses to differentiate between rational and irrational or appreciate that there is any meaningful distinction between being right or wrong.

                  The idea that arguments are valid or invalid based on logic that is completely independent of Ken Shultz is something she refuses to accept–and this is not the first time. She also refuses to get her head around the idea that premises are true or false–regardless of whether Ken Shultz is involved. What else could we mean by “willfully stupid”?

                  I maintain that she is willfully stupid, and I do so from evidence. Echospinner is defending the intellectual capacity of willfully stupid people. Echospinner is not stupid himself. I suspect he’s just not familiar with the evidence in favor of the stupidity hypothesis. He should probably try to find some evidence of his own to the contrary.

                  Go find a valid, factual, and persuasive argument by ChemJeff, Shrike, Tony, or White Knight. I dare you.

                  1. Wow, speak about touching a nerve.

                    1. You don’t even deny being willfully stupid, do you?

                    2. P.S. She still thinks her ad hominem fallacy is valid because she’s stupid–and willfully so.

                    3. This is one of those times that I laugh at you not knowing what is going, and you say I’m just gaslighting. But it’s clear to everyone that, somehow, you don’t understand what’s going on here.

                      It really is amusing.

          3. Indeed. Unfortunately it appears to be a trait common to most to their ilk.

  10. It’s funny to watch the same people waving “#FightFor15” signs talk about “criminalizing poverty”.

  11. My mother got worms from street vendor food.

    Okay, it was in Tijuana, but still…people in different cultures have different ideas of cleanliness. If street vendors can sell whatever, then restaurants should also be immune from regulation.

    1. If you think they aren’t clean enough, eat at home.

  12. Ou are not a libertarian. You’re a democrat shill. And most of us were around during Obama. So just stop with that ‘Trumpistas’ bullshit. It’s discredited, and so are you.

  13. I’ve seen plenty of people eat pizza with a knife and fork, usually because the slice is too large or too thick. So let’s see we want food freedom but we’ll go ahead and assume we know better how food is to be consumed.

    Yeah I get it the left uses satire and insults because it works. It’s why the right needs to start punching back.

  14. Yang expected restaurant owners to come to his defense on twitter. But they are terrified of the socialists. Even when they were shut down for a year and sitting at home all day, they refused to fight to reopen. Instead they cowardly went to a street demonstration and screamed slogans into each others’ ears. And realized it was pointless and went back home.

    The war today is online not in the streets or at the capitol or in the courts. Unfortunately too few are willing to fight – even though you get unlimited lives. The socialists are winning because there are far more lucrative opportunities for profit and power under socialism (medicare for all, UBI, GND, gun control, ‘woke’ re-education, etc) than capitalism.

  15. Hey, what do you know. Another candidate promising to send cops after his constituents on behalf of special interests.

  16. O/T: Thank heavens Team Red is fighting the battles that really need to be fought.

    1. Local story.

    2. Hold on, chemleft.
      Aren’t you usually the first one to shit the bed when something religious happens in public schools?

      Either you’re too stupid to realize that yoga is one of the six orthodox philosophical schools of Hinduism, and its devotional/meditation techniques are what are being taught, or you only oppose religion in schools if it’s Christian.
      You’re either an idiot or a hypocrite. Which is it?

  17. O/T: Oh look. It’s another one of those “fine people”.

    1. CNN?

      1. I know, right? It’s not OANN or The Blaze after all.

        1. So you consider CNN t be a reliable unbiased news agency?

    2. It gets weirder:

      “An Insider investigation can reveal what is shocking is that Hale-Cusanelli, a Navy contractor, held a secret-level security clearance at the Naval Weapons Station Earle and had received numerous honors for his service in the Army Reserves.”

      1. Is this the same as your “Russians paying bounty’s on Americans” story?

        I have to screencap you and chemlefts comments now for when it inevitably turns out to be bullshit.

        I’ve never seen you two clowns back a story that hasn’t turned out to be false, yet.

        1. “Is this the same as your ‘Russians paying bounty’s on Americans’ story?”

          I do remember when that story was in the news. I don’t remember my talking about it much.

          1. “much”

            Now watch him try to lawyer the definition of “much”.

  18. O/T: Well, looks like Team Red Fruitcake, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is going to launch an “America First Caucus”. Manifesto linked in the story. Could have been written by half of the commenters here.

    1. Here is the manifesto:

      What I got most out of it is how incoherent it is. In one paragraph it purports to want to devolve power to the states. And in the very next paragraph, it is railing against Big Tech and demanding national action against it.

      Simultaneously: “The US can no longer be the world’s policeman!” And then: “We must be prepared to go to war with China!”

      Might as well have just saved some time and just write “We are just going to support whatever comes out of Trump’s piehole.”

      1. Simultaneously: “The US can no longer be the world’s policeman!” And then: “We must be prepared to go to war with China!”

        How are these statements mutually exclusive?

        1. He won’t answer you. He’s too stupid.

      2. “Simultaneously: “The US can no longer be the world’s policeman!” And then: “We must be prepared to go to war with China!”

        What the hell does playing global policeman have to do with war with China? Pretty sure thousands of countries have gone to war over the millennia without policing anything.

        The fun thing about chemjeff is he doesn’t really think through a riposte before he posts it.

        1. It would depend on the scenario she envisions leading us to go to war with China. If, for example, it were a scenario where the US is going to war to protect Taiwan, then it would be fair to say that was the US trying to act as the world’s policeman.

          If it were over intellectual property laws, well that wouldn’t be a “world’s policeman” scenario, but it would also not be something worth going to war over.

          1. That was a pretty pathetic attempt at white knighting chemleft’s fuck up, TBQH.

  19. Well, I learned something new today, “Oath Keepers” are an “extremist group” and they are responsible for the “attack on the Capitol” on January sixth.


    The mass vaccination site I went to today was housed in a former Sears that had just been liquidated in bankruptcy, which nicely captures the zeitgeist


    The White House is now supporting the Chinese Communist Party line that our founding documents are racist. It cannot be overstated how disgusting this is. [Video]

    1. The ChiComs own Biden. I sure they have plenty of evidence o baby boy Hunter, and maybe on ten ‘Big Guy’ himself.


    The Guardian used ‘breached’ data to dox rank-and-file police who donated $20 to the officer who was cleared of wrongdoing after shooting Jacob Blake.

    Twitter manually promoted the article, despite ‘hacked materials’ and ‘personal information’ policies.

    There is no apparent news value to naming the officers, who were supporting the due process rights of a colleague and who had donated using the ‘anonymous’ feature. ‘There’s no other value other than to make them fearful,’ co-founded of the victimized crowdfunding company said.

    Twitter actively promoted a story doxxing rank-and-file police officers (and financial info that was supposed to be anonymous) based on a ‘data breach’ — one week after it blocked @WhitlockJason for tweeting the TOWN that BLM founder lives in, calling it ‘personal information.’

    Twitter knows the Guardian’s source, Distributed Denial of Secrets, traffics in hacked data because Twitter itself banned its account for that reason.

    The group has published nearly 270 gigabytes of data from “over 200 police departments” and from ransomware victims.


    Last night Antifa smashed up the Portland Historical Society and spray-painted ‘No More History’ on the broken glass [pic]

    1. Antifa should be put down like a rabid animal.

    2. If antifa executed by firing squad every voting age man and woman in Portland, I think I’d have a hard time feeling sympathy or even getting animated over it. At this point, if you live in Portland, you are essentially in support of what’s going on there.

      I simply don’t care. Portland can burn for all I care.


    Maxine Waters is marching in Brooklyn Center tonight and told people to take to the streets if Chauvin is acquitted [video]

    1. inciting insurrection?

  25. I know this an great decision made.

  26. I think a good decision for the related community

  27. When Yang gives everyone 1K a month of our money (or 2K, or 2.5K to be a living UBI), no one will need to sell stuff on the sidewalk to survive.

  28. Andrew Yang’s presidential campaign, though unsuccessful, was notable for its ideas.

    His ideas are idiotic. You have only to look around any place with multi-generational dependency to see what kind of havoc putting everyone on the dole will wreak on our country.


  29. NY elected DeBlasio twice now they will elect an arrogant liberal who wants everyone on permanent welfare.
    The earners will continue to leave. The lie that people can continue to live at other’s expense will be exposed.

  30. “…why the rules they must follow are so arbitrary, unfair, and convoluted.”

    Consider where you are moving to, and assume the risks.

  31. Isn’t the standard-issue “progressive” stance that without licensing, regulation and aggressive inspections, those vendors will just start poisoning everyone just to prove that they can?

    If the woman selling churros in the subway becomes someone more “chalky” seilling bottles of Peligrino, how quickly will the left’s newfound love of free enterprise evaporate?

Comments are closed.