Reason Roundup

Americans Oppose Deportations, Remain Skeptical About Asylum Seekers

Plus: SPCA sues for First Amendment rights of pet owners and veterinarians, an epic antitrust battle between Apple and Fortnite's parent company begins, and more...

|

Americans are largely charitable toward undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. but not toward asylum seekers. Most Americans do not wish to see undocumented immigrants who are already living here be deported, according to the latest Pew Research Center poll of U.S. attitudes toward immigration.

When asked what should happen to people now in the country illegally, only 25 percent of survey respondents said they shouldn't be allowed to stay and there should be a national effort to deport them. Another 5 percent said they don't think undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay—but they also don't want to see a national deportation initiative.

Meanwhile, 69 percent of those polled said there should be a way for undocumented immigrants living here to stay in the country legally if they fulfill certain requirements. And 42 percent of survey respondents said they should be provided with a path to citizenship, while 26 percent preferred a path to permanent residency, but not citizenship.

The findings provide an interesting look at how the Trump administration's immigration rhetoric and policies were out of touch with mainstream American opinion.

But they also suggest that four years under President Donald Trump did shift American opinions rightward on immigration. The 69 percent that now support a way for undocumented immigrants to stay is down from 77 percent in March 2017, "with the decrease being driven by shifting attitudes among Republicans," Pew reports.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans are more divided than Democrats over what should be done regarding undocumented immigrants. A slight majority (51 percent) said they should not be allowed to stay in the country legally, while 48 percent said they should. Pew notes that "there also are age differences within the Republican Party: 62% of Republicans under 35 favor allowing undocumented immigrants to stay, compared with 46% of those ages 35 to 64 and 40% of Republicans 65 and older." Meanwhile, "more than eight-in-ten Democrats … say there should be a way for undocumented immigrants who meet requirements to stay in the country legally."

Not many folks from any political persuasion seem to think the federal government is doing a good job in its immigration policies:

The government receives negative ratings for how it has handled the situation at the border. About two-thirds of U.S. adults (68%) say that the government is doing a very (33%) or somewhat (35%) bad job of dealing with the increased number of people seeking asylum at the country's southern border, while fewer than half as many (29%) say it is doing a very or somewhat good job.

But there's little agreement about what the government should be doing.

And answers to questions about refugees and asylum status suggest the Biden administration—which announced yesterday that it would increase the number of allowed refugees from the 15,000 cap set by Trump to 62,500 for this fiscal year—is also at odds with what Americans want on immigration.

Some 79 percent of people polled by Pew said it's either very (47 percent) or somewhat (32 percent) important to reduce the number of people seeking asylum in the U.S.

A smaller but still significant percentage—57 percent—said it should be harder for asylum seekers to be granted legal status here.

And a full half said it's somewhat or very important for the U.S. to disallow asylum seekers entirely.

The Pew survey was conducted from April 5 to April 11, 2021, and includes data from 5,109 people, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

In other immigration news: The Biden administration is making progress at cutting the number of unaccompanied minors in federal custody. "The number of unaccompanied children held by Border Patrol has plummeted by 88% since late March, when U.S. migrant holding facilities became severely overcrowded as thousands of minors crossed the southern border alone," reports CBS News.


FREE MINDS 

Animal welfare group files First Amendment lawsuit against veterinary board. The San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is suing the California Veterinary Medical Board for allegedly violating pet owners' and veterinarians' right to free speech. The nonprofit is challenging the board's ban on veterinarians talking to people about their pets' health by phone or by online chat unless the vet has met with the pet owner in person first.

"The California Veterinary Medical Board is suggesting they don't trust veterinarians that they licensed to make sound decisions for animals," Brandy Kuentzel, general counsel to the San Francisco SPCA, said in an emailed statement. "The law not only restricts veterinarians and pet owners' constitutional right to free speech, it also restricts a pet's access to veterinary care."

"People can use telemedicine for themselves and their children, so why not for their pets?" Kuentzel added.


FREE MARKETS

Epic antitrust battle between Apple and Fortnite creator begins. Yesterday marked the beginning of a federal antitrust trial involving Epic Games—the company behind the immensely popular video game Fortnite—and Apple. Epic Games is suing Apple, after Epic violated the terms of Apple's app store and Apple dropped it from the store.

Epic violated Apple's rules by offering its own in-app payment system, rather than relying on Apple's in-app payment system. (Google has a similar requirement.) After Apple dropped Epic Games from its app store, Epic sued Apple (and Apple countersued).

"In order to win, Epic has to convince the judge that Apple has a monopoly with its App Store and abused that market power by forcing Epic (and other developers) to use Apple's payment system," notes Axios. "Apple argues that the relevant market isn't iOS, but rather all the different options players have for games, of which it is just one player."

As for the first day of Epic v. Apple trial, it was off to a rocky start, reports Gizmodo:

First, the court had issues getting both teleconference lines up and running, and even when they were humming along fine, everyone's lines seemed to be unmuted. On the main line, one person chanted, "Epic Games! Epic Games!" Another chimed in, "I'm going to tell my mom, just don't pick up the line," while yet another offered this insightful commentary: "Tim Sweeney better know what he's doing. If he messes up once, we won't have iOS back. This call is live, by the way."

The additional line suffered from the same audio issues as well. About 35 minutes into the hearing, while Epic's legal team was still giving its opening statement, the audio suddenly cut out.…But one audience member figured out he was unmuted.

"FORTNITE SUCKS," that person yelled into the mic. "Yo, yo, yo, we can't hear anything, bro. The audio died or some shit."


QUICK HITS

• How the U.S. government codified patriarchy.

• When fighting "misinformation" is really fighting free speech.

• Facebook's oversight board will have a decision about Trump's suspended account on Wednesday.

• "The European Commission on Monday proposed easing restrictions on non-essential travel for visitors who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19," reports Axios.

• Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada are appealing a ruling that they ratified the Equal Rights Amendment (several decades) too late for it to count.

NEXT: White House: Schools Should 'Probably' Open in the Fall. Also: 'Maybe,' and 'It Depends.'

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

  1. Americans Oppose Deportations, Remain Skeptical About Asylum Seekers

    According to the same people that claim that 95% of Americans agree with our Dear Leader?

    1. According to those people, average Americans are the enemy of progress, and those who pander to them are populist insurrectionists.

      They only cite public opinion when they want some politicians to ignore their own constituents. Here’s a poll that says 75% of Republicans believe the 2020 election wasn’t conducted fairly.

      https://www.newsweek.com/75-republicans-believe-voter-fraud-benefited-biden-amid-trumps-refusal-concede-poll-1548569

      Somehow, polls are more important than what Republican constituents want their representatives in Congress to do, but when the Democrats want to do something unpopular, the polls don’t really matter at all.

      1. A third of democrats also believe the election wasn’t clean.

        1. It was fortified!

          1. Election integrity is racist.

            1. “No evidence of fraud.”
              Then:
              “No widespread evidence of fraud.”
              Then:
              “No systemic evidence of fraud.”
              Then:
              “Well, it wouldn’t make any difference.”
              Then:
              “Well, it’s too late now!”
              Now:
              “Election integrity is racist.”

              1. You got it right at #1, moron.

                1. Suck that ruling establishment dick, boy

                  1. JOB FOR USA 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 S 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. Nice ad hominem. You later complain about them.

                  1. Sometimes it’s fucking tough in the face of Team Red horseshit. I’ll just say that.

                    1. Others should be the change you want to see but not you?

                3. Except for all the, you know, evidence

                4. No faggot, YOU have it wrong. Like all socialists, you should die.

                  So kill yourself.

        2. Remember when a bunch the president’s lawyer-type henchmen came out and said that if you believed their little tale about stolen elections that meant you were not a reasonable person? Well, Jesse…what does that say about you.

          And by the way, since there has been literally no evidence of a stolen election presented in the 60 some opportunities that the Trump campaign had in court, where do you think this belief in absence of evidence came from? it came from Donald Trump, who claimed the election was going to be rigged months before it happened. Almost as though that entire belief is nothing but a self fulfilling prophecy, only with imaginary fulfillment.

          1. Yeah man this!!! Conservaturds do NOT want to deal with this, with ANY honesty whatsoever!!!

            https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/
            Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory

      2. So you want politicians to pander to morons who believe in blood libels, Ken? Explain, please. I thought politicians were supposed to tell people hard truths and not bullshit them. I guess that only applies to Welfare and fiscal policy where we’re all just supposed to accept that there will be winners and losers in any acceptable economic model.

        1. Citation on politicians ever doing what you claim they do.

          1. Liz Cheney?

            1. Except those aren’t hard truths, they are pandering as they lose position in their parties.

              1. Adam Kinzinger?

                That the election as not stolen is a hard truth.

                Since there is no, none, 0, zip evidence of anything else.

                No one cares how badly you want to believe. Belief is for children and morons.

                1. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
                  If the election was honestly conducted and reported, the people involved would be urging, in the strongest terms, to investigate, fully, to show their honesty.
                  How does it help to keep those, who don’t trust the results, from seeing what an audit would produce?
                  Yet, every effort has been made to keep that from happening.
                  It seems to be that those, who are fighting tooth and nail to avoid it being looked into, know what a shit-storm it would create if the doubters turned out to be correct.
                  A percentage of Bai-din voters, enough to change the outcome, said they wouldn’t have voted for him if the Hunter laptop story hadn’t been censored by Big Tech and the mainstream media.
                  That, alone is evidence the election wasn’t conducted fairly.

                  1. You’re wasting your time on him. Time better spent working out a plan to excise his kind of Marxist filth from this country.

        2. “Blood libel”? Are you fucking kidding me?

          Whether or not they are correct about the facts, if half of the country believes there was something wrong with the elections, you have to take that seriously. Dismissing them as morons or crazy people will not lead to good things. If Democrats were at all serious about healing and unity, they would have to address these issues and acknowledge the concerns of a significant portion of the electorate.

          1. Putting idiotic beliefs into morons’ heads is not a good thing to do.

            And yes, they are the lesser intelligent part of our populace, in large part.

            1. So what? That’s what people think. It doesn’t matter where the ideas came from or whether they are reasonable. If you want any kind of democracy, you have to accept that the contents of idiots’ heads are a legitimate part of the decision making process. The system must be neutral as to whether any particular idea is idiotic. Every citizen gets a say.
              And while there certainly were some idiotic conspiracy theories about the election, there are also legitimate concerns. To dismiss all of it as idiotic beliefs is, well, pretty idiotic. There was a lot of playing fast and loose with the rules. Maybe it was necessary in some sense, but it happened and should certainly be examined to see what problems did or could happen and make sure it is better next time. Instead, people of your ilk simply want to dismiss the concerns of half of the country and call them morons. You really think that is going to lead to healing and unity and good things? Fuck off.

              1. I think that when a president, using all the immense power of that office, attempts to perpetuate a fraud that is entirely made up from whole cloth, that the resulting belief is also not legitimate and requires no response. Let the idiots realize that Donald Trump is a life long conman and that he conned them. Or not. We are moving on.

                1. And that’s the problem. You are moving on without half of the country. That’s a serious problem. That isn’t going to be solved by calling them idiots.

            2. You want to play the intelligence card? How about the typical lower class black or brown person? Would they score any different from the rednecks you belittle on knowledge or IQ tests? How about the typical (cliched?) upper class white kids who spent 6 years of daddy’s (or taxpayer’s) money getting degrees in activist ideology but still can’t handle personal finance or deal with emotional challenges? Any other left or left-leaning types that you want to talk about that are probably not as smart as they (or you) think they are?

        3. “So you want politicians to pander to morons . . .”

          —–American Socialist

          Elected representatives should reflect the views of their constituents within the proper purview of democracy, or they should be voted out of office. Arguing that representatives should ignore the opinions of their constituents, even within the proper purview of democracy, is effectively advocating autocratic government. If that’s what you want, why not be honest about it?

          Regardless, because you despise everyday, average Americans and their opinions and because you want an authoritarian government that ignores their opinions, even within the proper purview of democracy, that doesn’t mean the government you want isn’t autocratic or that it shouldn’t be opposed by libertarians everywhere for that reason.

          Are you really surprised to heat that libertarians oppose authoritarianism?

          The purpose of libertarianism is not to seize power and inflict our opinions on an unwilling population–over their objections and against their will. Claiming to represent the will of the people, even while openly advocating ignoring what the people want, is elitist and authoritarian and what progressivism is about. It’s also yet another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

          1. See Red Rocks? At least Ken can argue without asking me about my mortgage. And even though he Venn Diagrams me in with the most horrible people ever because I don’t want politicians to tolerate obvious liars and assholes, he does it in the 3rd person so I didn’t take it as an offense. He doesn’t know me so I’m ok with it.

            1. Red Rocks is the far more intellectually honest of the two. And smarter, and has broader knowledge. I can learn things from Red Rocks. Ken is completely full of himself.

              1. No, that’s you. Goddamn you’re just an idiot shill.

            2. For instance, Ken has admitted that he know that the election was not stolen. But he supports Trump and co lying about it, because Joe is just that evil that overturning a legitimate election is moral. Ken will engage with his fellow cultists on the stolen election like he believes it sometimes too, which is pretty disgusting.

              Look at this comment chain, where Ken all but admits this, since he knows his fellow cultists will only take explicit confessions as truth, and can read into anything else to get the belief that fits with their internal truth.

              https://reason.com/2020/12/15/mitch-mcconnell-and-several-other-gop-senators-finally-acknowledge-bidens-victory/#comment-8641051

              1. If 75% of Republicans think the election was fraudulent, that by itself justifies their Republican representatives demanding an audit. Representing your constituents is what elected politicians are supposed to do. If you think the voters’ concerns should only be addressed if their valid in your mind, that makes you an authoritarian. Emperor Xi only does what the people want when it’s what he wants, too.

                Do you only support democracy if and when you win the election or do you always turn against democracy when you lose?

                Yes, democracy means that, within its proper purview, the people should get what they want–even if they want the wrong thing. I’ve already addressed that elsewhere in this thread. The basic principle is pretty easy to understand. If you don’t understand it, it’s because you don’t want to, and if you can’t understand it, it’s because you’re stupid.

                The people should oppose government policies within the proper purview of democracy for whatever reasons they want–even if it’s for bad reasons–and within the proper purview of democracy, our elected leaders should respect what the people want. That’s only hard for authoritarians to understand, and not understanding such a basic premise of democracy is what makes progressives elitist and is yet another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

                1. What you pointedly do not address is how that belief got into voters’ heads in the first place.

                  Enter: The Big Lie.

                  Ken: Sees nothing.

                  1. What you pointedly do not address is how that belief got into voters’ heads in the first place.

                    Bullshit. Your logic is horribly flawed. The following syllogisms are nonsense:

                    -Joe Biden said he believes in God.
                    -Many people believe in God.
                    -People only believe in God because Joe Biden said so.

                    -Trump said the election was a fraud.
                    -Many people believe there was fraud during the election.
                    -People only believe there was fraud because Trump said so.

                    You dismiss free will in favor of fanatical worship when the former is the much more likely motivation.

                    1. We all believe the lies that we want to believe!

                      As evidence for this, I give you Chuckles the Smug-Pig!

                      https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/
                      Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory

                      Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today, Chuckles the Smug-Pig?

                    2. Do you think the election was stolen from Trump Chuck?

                    3. Trump claimed the election was a fraud before it happened. He likewise claimed 2016 was a fraud before and after it happened, and was not able to find any evidence for fraud in 2016 either.

                      How fucking dumb are you to let him pull the same trick twice in a row?

                    4. 3 replies, not one addressed the faulty logic I pointed out.

                      Can I assume ya’ll believe in God because Biden says so?

                    5. I’m just curious if you think the election was stolen from Trump?

                  2. The idea that what the people want should be ignored by their elected representatives if they came to believe those things because of reasons you don’t approve of is also elitist, authoritarian, and may be stupid.

                    1. Germans were told 10,000,000,000 and sometimes more, that Germany was stabbed in the back by Jews! And they believed! Because they WANTED to believe! So 1/3 of their elected reps gave Hitler dickstatorshit powers… Just as the believe-the-lies-lusters TODAY want to give Der TrumpfenFuhrer dickstatorshit powers TODAY!

                      According to Ken Shultz, the people who challenged Hitler and His Big Lies… Just like the people who challenge Der TrumpfenFuhrer and His Big Lies today… Need to be condemned, because, well, um, challenging those who come to believe those things because of reasons you don’t approve of is also elitist, authoritarian, and may be stupid. DO NOT CHALLENGE THE BIG LIES, BECAUSE THAT IS ELITIST!!!! WE MUST ALL ***BELIEVE***!!!

                    2. Keep never addressing the source of The Big Lie, Ken.

              2. This buffoon finding evidence that I support elected representatives representing the voters–even when the voters want the wrong thing–is only evidence 1) that I support the basic precepts of democracy and 2) that he or she is a buffoon.

            3. At least Ken can argue without asking me about my mortgage.

              Consider it an in-kind contribution. Ken’s far more indulgent than I ever would be.

              1. I give up on them, eventually, too, sometimes.

      3. “Here’s a poll that says 75% of Republicans believe the 2020 election wasn’t conducted fairly.”

        Others believe the Big Lie… You should believe it, too!

        In the late-1920s Germany, no doubt, there were more and more, louder and louder calls to investigate “Jews stabbed Germany in the back on the WW I battlefields” theories… Because, after all, where there’s smoke, there’s fire! If there wasn’t SOME truth to these claims about the dastardly Jews, then WHY do so many people believe that? Surely, there wouldn’t be ANY harm in investigating this some more!

        https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
        Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

        Totalitarians want to turn GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dictatorshit).

          1. He has had the run down of the election lawsuits, he is just too dumb to understand the meaning of them.

          2. Here is a post that DOL, our resident sociopath, will continue to ignore. Maybe it’s not showing up for him?

            1. So? Are you supposing that this one rule change invalidates the 2020 election? If not, then I reiterate, so what?

        1. It’s an open question, not a lie. I certainly can’t say for sure that the election was unfair or somehow rigged. But no one can rule it out either. Calling it all a “big lie” dismisses many legitimate concerns. The huge increase in voting by absentee ballot for one thing opened up huge opportunities for fraud and other shady shit.

          1. See my cite above, then look at the context. Michigan is a purple state who’s state executive branch goes back and forth between the two parties. Currently, the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State are Democrats.

            Wayne county (Detroit-run by Democrats for decades) has a long history of voting irregularities. Democrats don’t even deny it, they say they will fix it. Wanna guess when and where the votes for Biden overtook Trump in this state? It went exactly like the other swing states that have large Democrat strongholds.

            Why would the Democrat Secretary of State, for the first time ever, both repeatedly mail out mail in voting applications to every registered voter (even after admitting the voter roles in Wayne county are a disaster) and also instruct election workers not to check signatures on mail in voting?

            I should be allowed to point out these problems and ask these questions (which still have not been addressed 6 months later other than the ruling above) without being labeled a conspiracy theorist and insurrectionist.

            1. Here is another post that DOL, our resident sociopath, will continue to ignore.

              1. Here’s R Mac with another uncited, “just asking questions here…seems fishy” post followed by an uncited, unsupported and often reused ad hominem. Yawwwwwwn.

                Anyway, I’m gonna stop beating up on the dunce now.

                1. I’m gonna use court rulings for months to support my position, until there’s a court ruling that contradicts my position, then I’m going to pretend that ruling doesn’t exist.

                  —DOL

                  1. Sorry, I had to go looking for it. You are stingy with your links. Pay by the copy paste?

                    1. It was my first post in the thread. You’re not even trying to be honest. Or you really don’t know how.

          2. It’s not an open question. 60 some court cases say the matter is settled. The main people leading charges of conspiracy have all retracted their claims and claim that you are unreasonable for believing them.

            Guys…it’s over. We know what happened. Trump was the most unpopular president in the history of such measurements, and he got beaten badly. The End.

            1. Yeah, it is. Saying 60 court cases are settled means nothing. Those cases don’t come close to addressing all of the possible problems.
              Trump may have been beaten. But he also got more votes than any presidential candidate ever did in any previous election. There was a lot weird about this election. People are concerned. You can’t just dismiss that and say “fuck you” to half the electorate.

              1. Zeb, your vague assertions of weirdness is the most concrete thing that trump and his fans have. It’s over, trump lost. Any other belief simply is not supported by evidence, and we’re not here to discuss feelings, are we?

                1. I’m not saying the election isn’t over. It is. Biden is president. Fine. You still can’t dismiss half the country as morons if you want to have a functioning political system. That’s my only point. Even if they are completely wrong, when that many people believe something you need to address it.

                  1. DOL seems to believe that either you think this is the most secure election evah!, or that the entire election was widespread fraud.

                2. Now do 2016.

            2. Trump was the most unpopular president in the history of such measurements

              I mean, that’s not really true. Hell, his career-low rating isn’t even particularly out of the ordinary. And that’s without getting into how thoroughly the polls understated Trump’s viability as a candidate. In the end he’s basically the Republican answer to Carter.

              Trump was unique in being totally unwilling/able to expand out from his base (look at that absurdly low high-water mark), and being totally unable operate off anything but instinct.

                1. Among all the Gallup approval rating polls throughout his four years in office, Trump averaged an approval rating of only 41 percent. This makes him the most unpopular president since Gallup began measuring presidents in 1938, and four points lower than the second-most unpopular president, Harry Truman.

                  Whoosh. Popularity is fleeting – “average approval rating” means fuck and all.

                  Jesus, how many “GWB IS THE MOST UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT EVER!” football spikes did we read in the wake of the financial crisis? Have some perspective, dude – I even did you the favor of actually linking to the data which informs this very article.

                  1. I do have some perspective, and here it is: “Among all the Gallup approval rating polls throughout his four years in office, Trump averaged an approval rating of only 41 percent. This makes him the most unpopular president since Gallup began measuring presidents in 1938, and four points lower than the second-most unpopular president, Harry Truman.”

                    See? Trump is the most unpopular president in polling history. It’s a simple statement of fact. I don’t even know what part you are trying to take issue with.

                    1. Simple: “average approval rating” is a useless metric. Citing it as anything but trivia is stupid.

                    2. George HW Bush: more popular than Clinton and Reagan!

                    3. It’s useful for determining who was the most consistently unpopular president. And the answer is… Trump.

                      If you are having a hard time digesting this, also consider that he was also a single term president who lost the popular vote by wide margins twice.

            3. Nice to see you completely ignore the post directly above you dishonest piece of shit.

              Why? Because it was a ruling after you started parroting the 0-60 democrat talking point, and it went against a Democrat. And you’re a Democrat.

              1. How is the actual court record on the matter a “democrat talking point”?

                You guys are just fulling willing to concede that reality supports democrat positions.

                1. So you’re still ignoring my posts about an actual concern with the election here, while claiming that I never post anything downthread.

                  It’s clear to everyone you’re full of shit, DOL.

                  1. Ignoring it? What is there to say about it? More vague accusations of “irregularities” is nothing to debate. By every real analysis and audit, there was no fraud. I understand it “feels” off to you, being that you are cult member who believes and then searches for confirming evidence, rather than the other way around.

                    1. A judge ruling that a Democrat Secretary of State violated election laws about signature verification instructions on mail-in ballots, while she simultaneously mailed out multiple mail-in ballot applications to every registered voter in the state for the first time In the states history is not vague.

                    2. Yes, mail ballots were sent out. Now connect your statement to anything that supports the accusation of widespread fraud.

                      You are doing this: a > b > e

                      You need to do this: a > b > c > d > e

                    3. Still ignoring the actual ruling by a judge, while also changing my argument. You really can’t help yourself. Now go be a dishonest piece of shit with someone else, sociopath.

                    4. I’m not ignoring it, you are repeatedly failing to connect that ruling to a claim of a stolen election. Bring it all the way home.

                    5. You are doing this: a > b > e

                      You need to do this: a > b > c > d > e

                      More like a+b>e but no, you can’t use c and d as part of your equation. But here’s z, the real answer. No I won’t show my work and you can’t either.

            4. What do I believe? You have no idea. My point isn’t that the election was stolen. My point is that when half the country believes something is wrong, you can’t just ignore them or call them idiots if you want them to ever see elections as legitimate again. You cannot have anything approaching a functioning democratic process if you do.
              Personally, I’ve never thought elections were legitimate.

              1. So? So prevent the next president from putting complete lies into people’s heads about the election then. Stop electing conman cult leaders to high positions.

                1. You can’t prevent that and to try is authoritarian. People get to say what they want and believe what they want and vote for who they want. Trump wasn’t some magical hypnotist who could make people believe things and vote for him. If you think that the only reason people believe what they do or support Trump is that they are stupid idiots, you will never understand anything.

                  And in case this still isn’t clear, I am not any kind of Trump supporter and I am not claiming that the election was stolen.

                  1. I think his numerous posts in this thread make it clear that DOL is an authoritarian.

                    1. Go ahead and cite any comment in which I espouse authoritarianism. Any single one.

                    2. Why so you can spew bullshit about it?

                    3. weak

                  2. De Oppresso Liber
                    May.4.2021 at 2:10 pm
                    So prevent the next president from putting complete lies into people’s heads about the election then.
                    Preventing something from happening is authoritarian

                    1. Preventing Stalin from taking over the USSR would have been authoritarian then? Preventing my 2-year-old from toddling into the heavily trafficked streets, per his desires, would be authoritarian also?

      4. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf
        Massive modern USA election fraud is like Sasquatch… They say that we see a footprint here, then there, and maybe even a tuft of fur that turns out to be bear-hair… But we go out LOOKING for Sasquatch?!? We can NEVER find him!

        1. LOL. First… Brennan Center.

          Second…

          Based on the same logic, jaywalking almost never occurs given the number of pedestrians as compared to the number of arrests for jaywalking in any given year. Of course anyone not a sock of sarcasmic understands this point.

          You look at convictions as a measure for something that is largely unmeasurable due to no effective verification being in place.

          Random sampling of voters actually shows a statistically significant number of voters who are shown to have voted but stated in polling they did not. But there are no arrests for this as nobody can track down who voted in lieu of the voter. You claim this proves voting is sacrosanct and clean.

          Likewise there are the many numbers of nursing home residents who I have linked to in the past where their families list them as having dementia or other issues and having not voted as having shown up as voting.

          You ignore these things, and focus on convictions. Because you are pushing a lie in and of itself.

          Then on top of that we have the NY Post story where a democrat basically admitted mail in ballots were where all of the fraud occurred, and he detailed how he had done it for decades in jersey.

          Again, you ignore reality because you try to argue proof based on prosecution. Prosecution requires A) a prosecutor who will investigate fraud and B) some way to tie someone to voting as someone else.

          1. Brainless herd-instinct sheeple like you will soon kill democracy in the USA!

            https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/04/politics/donald-trump-gop-democracy/index.html

            The GOP’s devotion to Trump threatens to destroy American democracy

      5. https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/

        Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory

        Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today, Ken?

        1. That there were outlandish claims made about the election does not mean that there aren’t also legitimate concerns.

          1. Where is the evidence for the reasonable concerns then? Why did Trump campaign repeatedly withdraw their cases when they had the opportunity to present such evidence?

            At this point, the very least you must admit is that if there is evidence of a stolen election, Trump campaign was not aware of it. And thus they made those accusations as a strategy to keep power even when losing an election, rather than a legitimate attempt at preserving the integrity of our democratic system.

            In short, the GOP cynically claimed election fraud in an attempt to overturn a legitimate election. This is the only reasonable take on the facts.

            1. The massive use of absentee ballots and the inconsistent checks of signatures, for one. That’s a real concern and something that really happened.

              1. You can tell by the immediate pivot to a reform of voting procedures that the powers that be in Georgia on all sides were completely embarrassed by how the process unfolded this year, in spite of a) the popularity of many of the ad-hoc changes and b) their necessary protestations against Trump’s accusations of widespread fraud.

              2. And yet international observers and nearly all 50 state secretaries of state agreed that this was the most secure election in our history, or at the very least that there was no evidence of fraud.

                So again, this belief you seem to think is valid is held despite the evidence, not because of it. The best thing to do with irrational, silly beliefs is to treat them as irrational, silly beliefs.

                1. All 50 state secretaries of state agreed that this was the most secure election in our history, or at the very least that there was no evidence of fraud.

                  Well, that’s their job. None of them would ever state otherwise, because it would be tantamount to publicizing their own incompetence.

                2. Does the Michigan Secretary of State, who a judge ruled violated election laws, count in that?

                  Most secure election in history? That’s ludicrous on its face.

                  1. “Most secure election in history? That’s ludicrous on its face.”

                    For it to be ludicrous on its face, you’d think you’d need at least one piece of hard evidence, right?

                    Please put that evidence < here.

                    1. It’s your ridiculous assertion.

                    2. How was 2016 less secure?

                      You’re making the claim.

                    3. Don’t forget DOL is a Russia! cultist.

                    4. Also ignored the Michigan sos, again. If a sos that a judge ruled violated election laws says the election was the most secure ever, who is DOL to question her authority?

                    5. Russia and Trump cooperating on the 2016 election does not require belief without evidence. To hold the contrary belief does. You guys refuse to read the material, and so I will not argue further with you.

                      Suffice it to say, if you read the base material instead of tweets and comforting editorials from preferred sources, you can come to no other conclusion but that Trump and his campaign knew about the hack, expected to benefit from the hack, and failed to report it. They also met with Russian government agents and then lied about those meetings. Trump chose someone best known as an undeclared Russian agent and frequent associate of actual Russian agents as his campaign manager, and then pardoned him.

                      These are all simple facts which are well recorded and not matters up for debate. To ignore the obvious conclusion from these separate facts is your choice, born out of intellectual cowardice.

        2. Suck that ruling establishment dick, boy

          1. I’m so sorry that your feelings are having a hard time dealing with the facts.

          2. DOL is a real piece of shit. Not sure why anyone spends much energy debating the idiot. We should be focusing our efforts on what to do about trash like him.

        3. She didn’t actually say that, you know.

      6. “According to those people”. Those People are PhD Keynesian economists employed (with an average starting salary at $300-$400k), by federal or blue state government. Us flyovers call em central planners.

      7. What a fucking whore you are. R’s ARE insurrectionists now. They should be completely ignored on every utterance they make or belief they have re their insurrection. The US is not a suicide pact and there is no reason absent some evidence otherwise to believe that R’s give a rat’s shit about even small r-republicanism.

        You LOST. That’s what happens sometimes. Get the fuck over it and grow up. You cultist asshole.

        1. How about those three years of “RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!”?

          1. ?

            So you’re saying that you don’t believe in a stolen election, but that acting like you do is payback for 2016. Cool.

            1. Not what he said, but that is the sort of word twisting shitweasel response we’ve all come to expect from you.

    2. It’s not actually a poll, it’s a “panel”.

      Panel methodology is alright for picking up short term trends, (Because you’re actually finding out how specific people’s minds changed.) it sucks big time for actually being representative of the public. Basically, it’s a group of people you keep talking to, over and over, and you contaminate them with your repeated questioning. Panels can easily be a form of push polling.

      Regular polling is worse for picking up short term trends, but much better for actually determining what public opinion IS.

      So, when they say the American public shifted rightward, trust them. When they say the American public opposes deportations? A bit more skepticism is in order.

  2. they should be provided with a path to citizenship

    “Why, it’s already right there in the ‘So You Want To Be A Citizen’ handbook. In Spanish, even.”

    1. That path being a bus ride to a combination citizen oath, voter registration, and mail-in ballot workshop.

      1. Or a plane ride back to the country they were originally a citizen of.

  3. “The findings provide an interesting look at how the Trump administration’s immigration rhetoric and policies were out of touch with mainstream American opinion.”

    And yet your findings may be out of touch with the Constitution.

    While it’s true that naturalization policy is within the proper purview of democracy, it can and should only be changed by Congress–not by an opinion poll by Pew, Gallup, or anyone else.

    1. not by an opinion poll by Pew, Gallup, or anyone else.

      “How *dare* you attempt to thwart The Will of The People!”

      1. My mob rule is better than your mob rule!

        1. I can tell the difference between mob rule and naturalization policy properly being set by Congress–because it’s within the proper purview of democracy.

          You can, too.

          We cannot live a free society if the government can inflict wars, taxes, treaties, or naturalization policies on us over our objections and without our consent. That is why these things are within the proper purview of democracy and were granted to Congress in the Constitution.

          Meanwhile, the reaction to naturalization policies inflicted on people by unaccountable politicians is pretty much always the same–whether we’re talking about the UK, France, Germany, or the United States. Either respect democracy on these issues, or you will face a populist backlash like we saw around the world circa 2016. If the EU had respected the proper purview of democracy on immigration policy before then, the UK might still be part of the EU. If Obama had respected the proper purview of democracy on everything from the Paris climate treaty to asylum policy, Trump might never have won in 2016.

          If and when enough of the American people don’t share our views on something within the proper purview of democracy, we need tolerate that policy anyway–even as we try to persuade them to change it. No way the government should be allowed to inflict a war on the American people without their consent by way of Congress, and if the American people support a constitutionally declared war in Iraq, over my personal objections and against my will, that doesn’t mean I need to become an enemy of democracy. That just means I need to persuade my fellow Americans to change their minds.

          Progressives and their fans in the media try to pain democracy as mob rule, when they don’t like what the American people want. No way we should carry water for them. They only care about democracy when it suits them. You know who else cared about democracy when it suited him to do so?!

          1. “We cannot live a free society if the government can inflict wars, taxes, treaties, or naturalization policies on us over our objections and without our consent. That is why these things are within the proper purview of democracy and were granted to Congress in the Constitution.”

            Nope. I agree with you; we can’t live in a free society this way. Now what?

            1. Democracy in its proper purview is necessary but not sufficient.

          2. But given what we know about human psychology, including all the irrational processing that people apply to voting (see studies about how in mock elections, voters preferred taller candidates or those with better hair), and how most people can be manipulated with very modest effort, why should we want “democracy”? Or at least, why should we expect democratic outcomes to serve anyone besides those running the theater?

            1. Again, the answer is because it’s necessary in order to prevent a government from inflicting wars, treaties, naturalization policies, or taxes on the people over our objections and against our will.

              We still have plenty of bad taxes, wars, etc., even with democracy in place, and if democracy weren’t standing in the way of these things, we’d have more of them, not less. Has there been a time since World War II that the American people wanted war but the president stood in the way?

              There may be a relatively small group of people who wanted to go to war in Lebanon, El Salvador, or Syria, but for the most part, Americans are more reluctant to go to war than the Commander-in-chief. Democracy is largely a check against bad policy–within its proper purview.

              Wars, naturalization policy, treaties, taxes are democracy’s proper purview. Religion, the press, and speech are not, which is why the First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law”.

              1. Central to democracy is elections, Ken. And you have not demonstrated any respect for them or in getting the consent of the governed. You are nakedly engaging in bad faith arguments.

                So which is it? Democracy is important and a central value, or that Joe Biden is such an evil communist that overturning the will of the people through extra legal means is warranted? Because we’ve seen you argue it both ways.

    2. Hey, as long as this fucking idiotic law has the approval of Top Men it’s a-ok with Ken.

      1. Actually, that’s not what I wrote.

        “If and when enough of the American people don’t share our views on something within the proper purview of democracy, we need [to] tolerate that policy anyway–even as we try to persuade them to change it. No way the government should be allowed to inflict a war on the American people without their consent by way of Congress, and if the American people support a constitutionally declared war in Iraq, over my personal objections and against my will, that doesn’t mean I need to become an enemy of democracy. That just means I need to persuade my fellow Americans to change their minds.

        —-Ken Shultz

        Can’t you read?

        Do you not understand what you read?

        If you only support democracy when you win the vote, then you might as well be an authoritarian.

  4. The ruling could usher in Trump’s return to the world’s biggest social network

    “Well, … OK. But no more mean Tweets, remember.”

    1. They need the traffic.

      1. Media needs something to have conflict with again. Woth how perfect Biden has been, there is no antagonist for their epic virtue signaling. Comedians are begging for jokes these days. Biden provides them nothing.

        1. There is plenty of SleepyJoe material, but they can’t use it if they want to keep working.

          1. Because it’s a sleepy, tired, worn out joke? Trump provided gaffes hourly. Hitting the same one joke over and over isn’t considered good comedy outside of 11 year olds and hate groups.

            1. Do you honestly think that’s why they don’t make jokes about Biden? Why do you think a bunch of the cast of SNL is talking about boycotting their own show because Elon Musk is going to be on? Such a disingenuous piece of shit.

              1. I mean, Biden yelling at hecklers to give him five more days to close all the detention centers (I think that was more than five days ago) at the border was pretty funny to me.

                Being on a zoom call with a bunch of other world leaders, wearing a mask when none of them were? Seems like pretty good material.

                Falling down 3 times going up the stairs to air force one?

                1. Chevy Chase could have dome a whole season of sketches on that back in the day.

    2. Exactly how do you tweet on facebook?
      And why would Trump “rejoin”?

      1. To announce his own platform.

    3. Interesting question is how long before they decide to throw him off again. Anyone starting a pool?

      1. Does Trump get booted from FB before Biden dies of natural causes?

  5. Americans are largely charitable toward undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. but not toward asylum seekers.

    Word is immigrants already in the country are not charitable toward those that follow.

  6. Another 5 percent said they don’t think undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay—but they also don’t want to see a national deportation initiative.

    Local deportations it is.

    1. Those contradictory responses show that polling is not worth much. A significant number of the respondents do not know what they want or the questions were worded in such a way to encourage this kind of cognitive dissonance.

      1. Wording does not matter much to people who want to drink lots of beer and also have bodies like the models in beer ads.

      2. They are push polls not based on reality.

        1. Exactly: It’s not actually a “poll”, it’s a “panel”. Which is sort of like a poll except that you keep the same group over and over, push polling them repeatedly until they agree with you.

          Only thing less representative than a panel is a focus group.

      3. That and also the “yeah, they shouldn’t be here, but I don’t want to be the bad guy that says they have to go. Someone else can take care of that.”

    2. Exactly, deport them all to the homes of democrats.

  7. The government receives negative ratings for how it has handled the situation at the border.

    “We don’t know what you should be doing, but you’re doing it badly.”

  8. The Biden administration is making progress at cutting the number of unaccompanied minors in federal custody.

    The number of angst-ridden immigrant teens can cut themselves without creepy Joe in the mix, thank you very much.

    1. And if they need help or advice about cutting, they can ask some 5th generation neurotic American teens.

  9. The number of unaccompanied children held by Border Patrol has plummeted by 88% since late March…

    Turfed them to another agency, huh?

      1. National Assembly Mandating Biden’s Laws Association?

    1. They stopped doing dna checks so they are once again a paid bonus to migrants to get released more quickly as a family unit.

    2. “Turfed them to another agency, huh

      Yep. Camps built by HHS farther from the border.

  10. People can use telemedicine for themselves and their children, so why not for their pets?

    The courts are going to remove the right for humans to call their doctors now, aren’t they?

  11. The Biden administration is making progress at cutting the number of unaccompanied minors in federal custody.

    As the weeks and months pass, more and more minors achieve the age of majority.

  12. “FORTNITE SUCKS,” that person yelled into the mic. “Yo, yo, yo, we can’t hear anything, bro. The audio died or some shit.”

    The jury of their peers has spoken.

    1. The professionalism of these people re as lay stands out, does it not?

    2. Fortnite is still a thing? What about Warcraft?

  13. https://twitter.com/EricMMatheny/status/1389543952227909632?s=19

    Washington DC says you can’t dance at a wedding but Biden just authorized 62,500 refugees to enter the US before the year’s end. If you still think this is a legitimate health crisis and not an exercise in fear-based control, you’re probably driving alone with a mask on.

    1. What is the punishment for dancing at a wedding? (Besides embarrassment.)

      1. Kevin bacon movie remakes.

    2. The pro immigrant crowd will be dancing in the streets. Just not at weddings. In DC.

      1. DC Funk Parade is virtual this year.

  14. Hayek offered what remains the defining statement of libertarianism as something distinct from and often in opposition to the political right.

    “Let’s get fuckin’ blazed, boys.”

    1. Its amazing how ENB can never uncover any libertarian philosophical opposition to the Left

  15. How the U.S. government codified patriarchy.

    Did you not see the latest CIA recruitment video?

  16. When fighting “misinformation” is really fighting free speech.

    Wrong speech isn’t protected speech.

  17. There are paid Russian trolls here in the Reason comments (one of several fifty-rublers) who use the monikers “Mother’s Lament,” “Red Rocks White Privilege,” and “Nardz.”

    These trolls purpose is to try and deflect criticism of the Trump worshipping traitors and, to a lesser extent, GOP politicians who support the agenda of Trump.

    In order to halt conversation, the trolls here use disruption techniques.

    Mother’s Lament favorite disruption technique is to demand a citation even for the most ordinary or obvious statements. Keep in mind that these requests aren’t just reserved for controversial statements but often for matters of common knowledge (e.g. most experts place fascism on the right side of the left right political spectrum). The purpose of this is twofold:

    In the first, a commenter will waste time and energy hunting down a citation.
    When such a citation is posted Mother’s Lament will then redefine the criteria and claim that the citation is worthless or lie about the cite or it’s source; or, if unequivocal, Mother’s Lament will ignore the response, and move elsewhere. Either way the purpose of disruption was served.

    In the second, if the commenter calls out Red Rocks White Privilege’s support for treason or refuses to play along, Red Rocks White Privilege will then follow the commenter along, claiming at every post that they are a gay slur. Here too, harassment and disruption are the purpose.

    It is important for us all not to enable them.
    If you see Mother’s Lament moving the goalposts, playing dumb, or just lying, please respond by posting “Fuck off, Mother’s Lament”, or by pasting this warning.

    1. Cite?

      1. ul. Vosdvizhenka d.1
        Moscow 121019
        Russia

    2. Fuck off, A message about Mother’s Lament, Red Rocks, and Nardz

      1. White Knight is just absolutely furious right now, but like devils, he can’t create, only imitate. That’s why he’s copying shit done to him.
        This is probably why lefties can’t meme either.

        1. “White Knight is just absolutely furious right now”

          I am? News to me.

          1. Well, you’re not very intelligent. So that isn’t a surprise.

    3. In Soviet Russia you pay Soros!

      1. In Europe, you use military time. In Soviet Russia, military use your time!

        1. That’s a good one!

            1. In Soviet Russia asshole flag you!

              (I admit I’m no Yakov when it comes to these jokes)

              1. You are more of a jackoff.

                1. Ha! that’s a good one

                  1. The best jokes are based on truth.

              2. Can you get a white Russian by milking a Moscow?

                1. No I think you need Vodka and Kahlua.

    4. You lost me when you didn’t put the possessive apostrophe after trolls in the second sentence.

      If you’re gonna do a grandiose manifesto you best get your grammar right.

      idjit

      1. It is fairly close to your commentary yesterday morning. So good on you giving tips to others.

        1. My grammar is impeccable unless I intentionally do it wrong for effect. So fuck the fuck off, troll.

          1. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

            Did you or did you not go into a threat about authoritarian overreach under the guise of covid responses and bitch about the right instead? Completely unprovoked when you did. That isn’t far off from this post.

            You must be well liked at glibs to spend so much time here still.

            1. “Did you or did you not…”

              We’re not in court, dumbass.

              “…go into a threat about authoritarian overreach under the guise of covid responses and bitch about the right instead?”

              No. But I’m not going to bother to explain what I actually said because you’re a dishonest troll who will twist my words, call me a leftist, argue against things I never said, and then smugly declare victory.

              Get back to me when you can talk about a topic without making it a left/right contest, and when you can respond to what I actually said.

              Until then you’re just a loser troll.

              1. You lie.

                https://reason.com/2021/05/03/freedom-becomes-a-long-haul-covid-victim/#comment-8884986

                sarcasmic
                May.3.2021 at 12:57 pm
                You just can’t see it because reasons politics.

                Yep. It’s all politics. If people on the left say something then people on the right must oppose it. If a Democrat remarks that the sky is blue then Sevo will point out a cloud and then call the person a lying leftist fuckstick who needs to die a slow death. Masks, qualified immunity reform, convicting Floyd’s killer, you name it. All of these things must be opposed because of politics.

                1. M’kay. I stand by that statement, and you embody it.

                  1. You are projecting. You’re just too stupid to realize it.

                    1. Jesse, why don’t you try being happy?

                      Your misery, self induced probably, oozes out of your comments. Feel like I need a shower after reading a series of them.

    5. Did you putin much time for this? Seems like you were russian to get this posted. No stalin at all.

      1. You’re on a goddamn roll!

      1. “As God as my witness, Woke Knight has been broken in two!” – Jim Ross

        1. Apparently glibs wasn’t the liberal panacea all the foot stompers thought it was.

          1. Sarc’s back to posting almost as much as he used to, unfortunately.

            1. And you have yet to make a single comment about topics or ideas. All you do is talk about people. Know what they say about small minds…

              1. He makes them far more often than you do.

                1. Shorter JesseAz: Neener neener!

                  1. Again, you claim to not be a troll. Again you have offered nothing of substance.

              2. You’ve already admitted you don’t read most of my posts, so how do you know what’s in them all?

          2. Was anyone under the impression that it was? My impression is that they’re closer the the saner side of the Reason commentariat.

            1. They’re the sane people who abandoned Reason, making room for JesseAz, R Mac, Mother’s Lament, and the rest of the trolls to move in.

              1. Lol, way to prove my point above that you are basically the same as the troll above. Good work buddy.

              2. I wasn’t aware there was a limit to the number of commentators. In that case, you should leave, like you said you were going to, to make room for someone new.

                Or was that just one of your victim screeds?

            2. My impression is that they’re closer the the saner side of the Reason commentariat.

              Their politics really aren’t all that much different from what’s posted here. The only major difference is that a lot of them know each other in real life through meet-ups and are legitimate friends, so there’s a different level of banter.

              1. Ayuh. I’ve met a half dozen anyway. We go shooting, have dinner parties, and the next meetup we’re gonna build some ghost guns.

                1. And oddly, you keep coming back here to troll. Weird.

                  1. You call me a troll as you drop a turd on most of my posts. Self unaware?

                    1. Wow, you even copy my comments I use against you. That’s just pathetic man.

                      JesseAz
                      May.4.2021 at 10:47 am
                      Youre response was

                      Shorter buckleup: “I know nothing about statistics.”

                      And you call someone else a troll.

                      You really are self unaware.

                      That is just pathetic.

                  2. You just wish you were invited to spend a weekend in a huge vacation home on a lake building guns with some cool cats.

                    1. Lol, pathetic.

                    2. Yeah, spending a weekend in a half-million dollar vacation home in a vacation hotspot, fishing and building guns with like-minded people, is indeed pathetic.

                      What a loser I am.

                      Soooooooooooooooooo pathetic.

                    3. No, but bragging about it on the internet is.

                    4. You just wish you were invited. But you will never be. For one simple reason: I don’t like you.

                    5. a HALF-MILLION DOLLAR house, you say? Dr Evil would be so impressed

                    6. So you’re going to invite all the commentators you do like? Is Zeb invited? White Knight?

                      Do you realize how pathetic you look right now, bragging about your weekend plans to strangers on the internet?

                    7. The fact that you have to find friends online is actually quite pathetic.

                      You bragging that a half million dollar house is something special is also quite pathetic.

                      LOL.

                    8. Next up he brags about staying at a half million dollar Super 8.

                    9. So you provide a waterside supper with riparian entertainments or a candlelit supper?

                    10. I’m sure that’s all real. We believe you.

              2. Some of the guys even helped me the last time I moved. Like carrying furniture up stairs and such. They’re a cool bunch.

                1. Wow, that’s awesome!

                2. Ill help you move out of here. just let me know

                  1. Me too.

                3. You’re such a fag.

                  1. Hopefully Biden can weed hate filled, bigoted, anti-American extremists of our military.

                    You support a coup against our democratically elected government.

                    Traitor

          3. No, I’m still reading globs and posting the occasional comment. It has been going just fine.

            1. Also reading glibertarians, when I’m not reading “globs”.

              1. “Also reading glibertarians… because they won’t let me post there.”

                1. I’m also posting there.

      2. Funny thing is I didn’t post this comment. I don’t know who did, but I was mildly amused.

        I’m wondering why they left you out. That must hurt a little.

        1. I assumed your buddy sarc posted it. Btw, are you invited to the HALF MILLION! dollar lake house for the weekend of making ghost guns with sarc?

          1. No, wasn’t invited. I has sad.

            1. He must not like you. Because the only reason I’m not invited is because he doesn’t like me.

              Or he’s full of shit as usual.

              1. I’ll be OK.

                1. No, probably not. And that’s a good sign you should harm yourself.

    6. This was funnier the first time.

    7. How much is the rent for the space I’m occupying in your head?

      Dumbfuck Hihnsano liked to complain about me stalking him, too, the whole time he was stalking everyone else up and down the board with his copypasta and unhinged rants. Some people really don’t like it when they can’t use a heckler’s veto.

      1. I miss the enemies list on Hihn’s webpage.

        1. I’m not sure if anyone actually archived it or not, but that website of his (not the Enemies List, his Web 1.0-era site) was his pride and joy. It’s incredibly ironic that the whole thing just got wiped off the Internet after he passed, as if it never even existed. Whoever was in charge of his estate eliminated it with sheer prejudice.

          1. That website looked like it was created on Compuserve around 1995. His service provider probably killed it for nonpayment.

            1. I wonder how much something like that actually cost to keep active every month. At this point, it couldn’t have been all that much.

            2. Someone here could have picked up the tab but too late now. Hihnsight is 20/20.

          2. If I’ve made sarcasmic and White Knight’s enemies list, I’d be tickled pink. It’s kinda what I want for my birthday.

    8. I feel like there’s a lot of HO2 (and “sodium dicholoride”) behind this comment.

      1. You may want to avoid this topic, NACL2 Guy.

        1. In this thread, White Knight once again tries to dump his invention of sodium dichloride (a molecule that cannot physically exist), on someone else.

          1. LOL. Unicorn was the guy who tried to make fun of me (for something Tulpa posted in my name), but fell flat on his face because Unicorn didn’t realize that the capitalization of the letters in chemical formulas matters.

            1. This is now just HO2 under the bridge…

              1. That was genuinely funny! Good one!

            2. THE DEVOLUTION OF WHITE KNIGHT
              1. Claims that the chemical formula for water is HO2.
              2. Fights the entire commentariat insisting it’s true.
              3. “Technically they’re the same”
              4. Fights the entire commentariat insisting it’s true.
              5. “Tulpa did it”
              6. Discovers the non-existent molecule, sodium dichloride.
              7. Blames it on me.

              1. Number #5 is totally true.

                As I’ve said before, when the HO2 thing was first brought up, someone linked to some comments I had supposedly made. I didn’t remember making them, but I admitted I must have made a typo. Big funny. Ha ha!

                Then Mother’s, I think it was, linked to the original discussion, which I had never seen. Anyone who is interested in the truth can copy and paste the handle from those original comments in an online hex editor and see that the handle contains invisible characters. So, to my great relief, I learned that I never made the comments in the first place.

                1. You are a lying sacm of shit.
                  There was no typo. You tuoed out the words “Hydrogen diOxide”, and claimed “they mean the same thing”.

                  You then days later seized upon someone else’s typo, capitalizing the L in Chlorine, which may have been intentional to make the L distinguishable from an I (i)

              2. Ugh, as part of this stupid conversation, I wasted my time to dig up the original comment on #6:

                https://reason.com/2021/02/24/bill-de-blasio-wear-two-masks-covid-19-anthony-fauci/#comment-8779196

                Damn! It was diWhite Knighoxide who made the original “NaCL3” comment, not you. I have to apologize to you. That sucks.

              3. Since I’m wasting my time, I dug up the original comment on #5:

                https://reason.com/2021/01/12/antique-plate-fiestaware-school-evacuation/#comment-8695663

                1. If you are someone who actually cares about the truth, and want to see proof that the original comment spoofed my handle. Look for a website called “View non-printable unicode characters” (Reason won’t let me link the URL). Copy the handle from the original “hydrogen di-oxide” comment I linked to above, and paste it into the online form.

                  You will see that the handle is padded with U+200A “hair space” characters, and terminated with CR-LF.

                  1. Which is totes Tulpa’s M.O.

                  2. Hey White Knight thanks for the link! I tried to post it and couldn’t post it either, who knows why?

                    “If you are someone who actually cares about the truth…”

                    That’s a VERY exotic beast around these parts! Other than us REAL libertarians, they scarcely exist here! Here, it’s all about tribal allegiances, and the truth, too, is the enemy, along with Not-Me tribes!

                    Gandhi warned us about “politics without principle”. The total lack of honesty by most posters here, gives us a few clues about just HOW extremely correct Gandhi was!

                    From http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/
                    Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Sins that Lead to Violence”
                    ‘1) Wealth without work,
                    ‘2) Pleasure without conscience,
                    ‘3) Knowledge without character,
                    ‘4) Commerce without morality,
                    ‘5) Science without humanity,
                    ‘6) Worship without sacrifice, and
                    ‘7) Politics without principle.

                    1. It’s a .php URL rather than .html. Reason probably blocks .php.

                2. The   ​ White    Knight
                  January.12.2021 at 1:37 pm
                  Actually, water would be “hydrogen di-oxide”, not monoxide. Guessing you didn’t ever actually take a chemistry class.

                  I see no mention of Tulpa there.

                  1. The   ​ White    Knight
                    January.12.2021 at 1:57 pm
                    Okay well I think technically both work in this situation.

                    Or there

                    1. he   ​ White    Knight
                      January.12.2021 at 2:01 pm
                      First, I wasn’t even wrong, we were both correct in this situation. But yes, I probably should not have been so quick to correct you when we were both right.

                      Or there

                    2. Umm, also spoofed handle. Easily checked using the method I describe above (for anyone who cares about the truth):

                      https://reason.com/2021/05/04/americans-oppose-deportations-remain-skeptical-about-asylum-seekers/#comment-8887075

                  2. https://reason.com/2021/05/04/americans-oppose-deportations-remain-skeptical-about-asylum-seekers/#comment-8887079

                    I am assuming it was Tulpa based on patterns of past handle spoofing behavior. It could be someone else.

                    1. Own it.

                    2. Poor Dee.

    9. Nice. Thank you!

    10. Jesus, get a life, dude.

    11. GFY, Dee

    12. I very much doubt there are paid commenters here of any stripe, since the comment count and traffic are pretty low. But if anyone is paid, it would be LC1787. He’s probably just mentally unwell, though.

      1. Answer me honestly, is the person using the De Oppresso Liber name here at Reason, paid to post comments?

        1. I am not, and I doubt you are either.

      2. I think LC1789 is either an unpaid troll or just really, really stupid.

        My money’s on the latter. They haven’t been round much post Trump’s election fantasies petering out.

    13. I wondered why sarcasmic was being so reasonable in his posting since returning after he announced everyone but he and jeffy were uncivilized and stomped off in a huff and nobody gave a shit. He realized he went too far on a handle that is not throwaway.

      Glad to see he hasn’t changed a bit.

      1. Aww i’m suprised you didn’t accuse me of posting this satirical gem!

        You don’t think much of me, do ya?

  18. It is odd that we are opinion polling illegal immigration at this point. This debate has already been had. It has already been settled. We already have a solution. We debated it, we compromised, and we passed laws.

    The last amnesty was the pinky promise I totally swear last amnesty. They passed laws that made it impossible for illegal immigrants to obtain work in the United States. This would absolutely become a positively stop all illegal immigration for all time. They double pinky promised that they would enforce it.

    I know that I personally have to provide all sorts of documentation from all sorts of columns to prove that I’m an American citizen when I want to work.

    So what is all this debate about illegal immigration supposed to be accomplishing? Simply enforce the laws as written and that problem is solved.

    There is no illegal immigration problem. There is a law enforcement problem.

    Separately, there is an immigration problem. We have demand for more workers and more citizens. It is clear. There is no other reason that we don’t enforce immigration law. It is not all that difficult.

    So pretending that illegal immigration is the problem is a clever misdirection. The problem is our legal immigration policy. We have quotas in place that are too restrictive. It creates the illegal immigration problem, which results in people protesting enforcement of the law. Imagine that? We actually have groups that blame law enforcement for enforcing the laws as written. Our country really does have mental illness.

    Bush tried to address this problem directly. He proposed immigration quotas and guest workers that would solve all of the problems. Nobody went with him. It didn’t give the Democrats an issue. It robbed them of their once every decade or two infusion of 20 or 30 million new Democrat voters. It robbed Republicans of stable labor prices propped up by illegal immigration. It robbed Republicans of farm workers.

    It was just a non-starter.

    All that goes to show is that we need to stop being dishonest. And pretending that simply allowing people to come here illegally, live here for a while, and then granting them citizenship is a solution is fundamentally dishonest. It is not a solution. It does great evil to people. And it eats away at the soul of our nation.

    Reason has not been at the forefront of fixing this issue either. Simply whining that open borders is a good thing is not a policy position. Not when there are real achievable reforms that could be had at any moment, should this tap dance by the two major parties ever be exposed for the pantomime that it is.

    1. “We have quotas in place that are too restrictive. It creates the illegal immigration problem,”

      Legal immigration quotas create illegal immigration the way banks refusing to hand out money to random people who walk in the door creates bank robberies; Sure, if you give it away, they can’t steal it.

  19. Facebook’s oversight board will have a decision about Trump’s suspended account on Wednesday.

    Like Galileo, Trump’s heterodoxy is just too dangerous to expose to the commoners.

  20. ENB has some competition.

    If you honestly think the worst thing that could happen to someone is their kids doing sex work you *are* the problem.

    — Cathy Reisenwitz ???????????? (@CathyReisenwitz) May 3, 2021

    1. But can Cathy make a yummy sammich?

    2. Kids? Not adult children? Freudian slip? Revealed preferences?

    3. It’s not the worst thing, but is she actually stupid or depraved enough to think it’s a good thing?

  21. Illegal aliens should be summarily deported. They broke the law, and they dis-incent lawful and correct behavior (to emigrate to USA, you file and application and wait to be admitted) by immigrants. If you fail to punish bad behavior, you will get more of it.

    Cruella DeBrown just doesn’t get it. The flaxen-haired harpy never will.

    1. It’s okay to break stupid laws, everyone does it. People drive 5 miles over the speed limit. They modify their house without the zoning board’s permission. They drink alcohol when they are 20 years old.

      Immigration law is just another stupid law that deserves to be mocked and ignored. It doesn’t benefit society, on the contrary, it harms it by preventing useful workers from coming here and contributing to economic growth. The problem with waiting is that the country doesn’t admit enough immigrants. If you want people to wait, the wait needs to be a reasonable length.

  22. The European Commission on Monday proposed easing restrictions on non-essential travel for visitors who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19

    “Ihre Papiere sind in Ordnung nicht!”

    1. Pretty standard visa requirement to maintain certain vaccinations. Not sure I’d pull out the “papers please” on this one.

      1. You know who else refused to pull out?

  23. “‘The California Veterinary Medical Board is suggesting they don’t trust veterinarians that they licensed to make sound decisions for animals…”‘

    Note: I generally have a very poor view of the SPCA, but with this they are correct with this lawsuit. If vets and pet owners (or “staff,” in the case of cats), can’t make these decisions, who the hell will? Ronald McDonald?

    1. My vet was using it during the height of lockdowns and one of my dogs had a bump on her eye lid. I wasn’t excited about it at first, but it worked great. We had the initial meeting over the phone, I pulled into the parking lot to get some antibiotic cream, then we went into the vet 2 weeks later for the follow up. It would have been over a week longer to get into the vet in person for the first appointment.

      1. Exactly.
        With nine cats, you can imagine how much we rely on telemedicine.

        1. “With nine cats”

          I’ve just lost all respect for you.

        2. I had a deal with my cats. You don’t get sick, I won’t take you to the vet.

          1. Nine cats?

            Here’s the deal: You hold still and I won’t make you wait for a second bullet.

            Nobody needs more cats than bullets in the magazine.

            1. No, not nine of them. I could manage 18 by that rule, but I think the .22 revolver is the better option for putting down cats.

        3. Nine cats or one with nine lives?

    2. If vets and pet owners (or “staff,” in the case of cats), can’t make these decisions among themselves, who the hell will? Ronald McDonald?

      AFAICT, owners are still free to contact neighbors or solve their cat problems themselves.

  24. Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada are appealing a ruling that they ratified the Equal Rights Amendment (several decades) too late for it to count.

    Insisting that they be held accountable for being late is completely counter to woman power.

    1. Yikes. I hope your wife doesn’t read this… 😉 Cause, it’s SOOOO true.

  25. One of the Chauvin jury members attended protests prior to the trial and was caught in a picture of a telling t-shirt. He apparently lied on his juror questionnaire.

    https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2021/05/04/the-verdict-should-be-thrown-out-a-chauvin-juror-appears-to-have-lied-about-attending-a-george-floyd-protest-and-check-out-his-t-shirt/

    1. Just more evidence that it did not meet the standard of a fair trial.

    2. He was also seen wearing a shirt that read
      “Josef k was guilty”

    3. Minnesota’s not going to throw out the decision. If it doesn’t get to the USSC, the trial’s verdict will stand.

    4. Jesus Fucking Christ, at least the Soviets knew how to put on a proper show trial.

      That said, isn’t this the sort of thing that has to be objected to at jury selection—no matter when you learn of the bias—or it gets waived as an appealable issue?

      1. Not if they lie on the juror questionnaire. If they lie about anything that would have provided a basis for rejecting them, you’ve got grounds for a mistrial.

    5. They’re not even pretending anymore. The MSM will ignore this.

    6. Seems like a crystal clear case for throwing out the results. No one can argue the juror hadn’t predecided his verdict when he went through the effort of buying a t-shirt and attending a protest to advertise that he had already made up his mind.

      Also, seems a good enough example that the judge made the wrong decision in not letting the trial be moved.

      1. He also went on TV last week saying we need activism through jury selections.

      2. Odds it actually gets thrown out? Should and will have little relation when it comes to politically related justice in this country.

        1. Yeah, I know, but our courts have held strong on criminal trials in the past. The Duke lacrosse Boys aren’t in jail for rape after all. I just keep going there is some bulwark that can hold out.

          1. Duke lacrosse was almost 15 years ago.

            1. There was an attempted crucifixion in that case but none of them ended up dying on the lacrosse.

    7. Isn’t that perjury?

      1. Depends who does it, and why.

      2. Who’s going to prosecute him for it? The DA he helped?

  26. https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1389378654027665409?s=19

    Watch how disgustingly this “teacher” treats an LAPD officer.

    This is not the type of person that should be teaching our kids. Period.

    [Video]

    1. Filed a complaint with internal affairs, too. Apparently she has a long history of this behavior.

      And why do teachers (and to a lesser extent, nurses) think that proclaiming their profession makes a difference to the cop?

    2. And she’s driving a Mercedes. Sometimes it’s ok for a cop to pull someone out of a car and beat the living hell out of them.

      1. IMO, it would be a legitimate function of police unions to make their living by having lawyers grind people like this into goo.

        1. Gotta love how she’s calling him a Mexican racist while telling him he’ll never be white.

          1. From the window of her Mercedez.

    3. Did her video make it to the internet? Seems like broadcasting that someone is a murderer and a Mexican racist without the slightest shred of evidence would constitute a crime of some sort.

      1. Like some kind of hate crime?

        1. I was thinking more civil crime, libel/slander/defamation.

          1. Public officials usually can’t file slander suits if it’s in relation to their job. It’s considered a state action against an individual.

  27. 5,109 people were polled but are unelected and don’t get to vote on immigration laws.

    So it’s meaningless except if you’re a squishy politician.

    1. On the one hand, they say they’re defending democracy from insurrections.

      On the other hand, they denigrate democracy at every turn–even within its proper purview.

      This is another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

      1. Not only do the Glorious Ends justify the conniving, authoritarian, and sometimes violent means–those means are the Glorious Ends.

    2. Shorter buckleup: “I know nothing about statistics.”

      1. Shorter sarcasmic: i believe all polls without looking at the sample population but accuse others of not knowing statistics.

        Wait. That was longer.

        1. Oh cute. The troll is telling me what I believe. Again.

          1. Youre response was

            Shorter buckleup: “I know nothing about statistics.”

            And you call someone else a troll.

            You really are self unaware.

            Go back to being ignored at glibs.

            1. You don’t even know what a troll is, and you call me self unaware.

              1. I know what a hypocrite is, hypocrite.

                Btw, when do you plan on posting your rant about how mean everyone is, and what a victim you are, before or after you insult everyone?

                1. Am I supposed to take that as an insult? Oh, boo hoo, a troll who has never made a single post about a topic, who only talks about people, is calling me names. Wah.

                  1. He makes more on topic posts than you do.

                    1. LMAO!

                      Grow up.

                    2. Not only does he not read my posts that are on a topic, if it’s only part of my post, he ignores that part and responds to the other.

                      Because he’s a fucking hypocrite.

    3. Was someone suggesting making laws by poll? No?

      Polls just tell you what the general populace tends to think about certain issues. Hilarious how upset the dummies get when polling does not agree with them (which is frequently).

  28. And how many of the poll respondents believe illegal immigrants should be eligible for tax payer programs?

    Wording matters on complex topics.

    Everyone will say yes if you ask them if they want a new car. Answer changes if you ask them if they want to pay for a new car.

    1. “And how many of the poll respondents believe illegal immigrants should be eligible for tax payer programs?”

      I recall Milton Friedman, one of my favorite libertarian thinkers, and a strong supporter of immigration, saying something about it not being workable with a welfare state.

      Oh here it is: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”

      On the other hand, re-distribution of wealth does not necessarily require a “welfare state,” staffed by millions of government minions.

      1. This is why I have a problem with the simpleton libertarians that now write for this site. They don’t think deeply on any topic. They approach libertarianism from ideal states without any complex interaction between various issues. The world is not ideal. Approaching and stopping discussions at ideal states is done for introductory level classes.

        1. If you want in depth analysis go to the mises institute

          1. I do. Read most of their articles. Very good articles for the most part.

        2. “This is why I have a problem with the simpleton libertarians that now write for this site.”

          I tend to agree. But I think that one reason is that there simply isn’t much of an agreement on what, specifically, should be done. Libertarians come in many “flavors,” and they are not particularly well-known for “consensus building.”

        3. Good point. I mean, 100 level Economics classes are pointless because those principles aren’t built upon. In fact they’re completely negated when you get into higher level classes. I don’t even know why they bother to teach basic principles when they don’t apply at all in the real world.

          Shit, look at physics! Those introductory classes do math with the assumption that everything happens in a vacuum! How stupid is that? And don’t get me started on how useless Newtonian physics is. It totally breaks down when you approach the speed of light, which makes it completely irrelevant.

          There’s no point whatsoever in simplifying problems other than to explain them to a moron.

          Smart people like you sneer at such losers.

          You’re so wise and smart.

          1. Now please have freshman level physics students design your airplanes.

            What part of “and stop at” did you struggle with?

            1. This isn’t a forum for people who design airplanes. It’s a forum for libertarians to banter about the news of the day. Then along comes you telling everyone that they’re stupid, that the magazine is stupid, that their take on the news is stupid, because you’re so awesome.

              I’d tell you to go somewhere else but you won’t because you know you’d be banned for being a troll who ignores topics and only talks about people.

              1. Except this very publication used to do a better job at this. Now please fuck off back to glibs yourself like you said you would.

                1. Why do you keep responding to all of my posts? Do you really want me to leave? I don’t think so. Because you’re a loser who people ignore, and I’m one of the few idiots who actually responds to your stupidity. Without me you’d get lonely.

                  1. No I really want you to do what you said you would.

                    1. I’d say I’m sorry to disappoint, but that would imply that I care about what you think.

                    2. He is a drunken liar. He can’t help it. He also has a weird desire to be a victim.

                  2. Interesting you didn’t respond to the part of my post that was about the topic of the thread, hypocrite.

              2. It’s a forum for libertarians to banter about the news of the day.

                Superficial familiarity with libertarianism doesn’t make you a ilbertarian any more than taking a 100-level economics course makes you an economist. If “you” write for an economics publication with a 100-level undergraduate understanding “you”
                should get rebuked, if “you” do it repeatedly article-after-article, year-after-year, “you” should get fired. If you do it in the comments, you should get roasted. If “you” want to spout off about things which “you” have little-to-no understanding, go do it on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc.

          2. Everything DOES happen in a vacuum! What did you think was between those air molecules you breath?

            Vacuum.

        4. The irony.

      2. > It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.

        It’s so sad that your entire takeway from this is to get rid of immigration, when in fact the correct response is to get rid of welfare. As a compromise, just get rid of welfare for immigrants.

        1. “It’s so sad that your entire takeway from this is to get rid of immigration, when in fact the correct response is to get rid of welfare. As a compromise, just get rid of welfare for immigrants.”

          That is pretty much what I AM saying. Dismantle the current welfare state.

        2. Seems the takeaway is “no free immigration until we remove the welfare state”. Reason does not want to do that.

        3. The other takeaway, which was actually the dominant Libertarian position back when I joined the party in the 70’s, was, “And don’t open the borders until you HAVE gotten rid of welfare!”

          Because if you open them first, you will never, ever, get rid of it.

    2. Or if they are asked if they want to pay for a new car for an immigrant.

    3. I wonder how they’d respond if someone told them that MExicans help them pay for the Social Security benefits they’re getting.

      1. Pay your mortgage.

      2. “And help me get paid less, too. Wouldn’t need them helping me with Social Security if they weren’t dragging down my pay rate!”

        That’s how they’d respond, at least if they knew any economics.

    4. How about:

      Question 1. Do you want your neighbor to get a new car?

      Question 2. Do you want to pay for a new car for your neighbor?

  29. https://twitter.com/emmaogreen/status/1389566672789557255?s=19

    A while ago, I started noticing something strange: Very progressive people, who love to talk about “believing in science,” were adopting COVID restrictions *over and above* CDC guidelines. I thought, is there a story here? And, well, wow, there is.
    [Link]

    1. First, the CDC is not science. We all know the CDC is an easily manipulable political agency. Second, science is not, and has never been, a set of policy prescriptions.

      1. Leftist scolds do love to scold, though. And they are keeping it up. I live among them. Glare at me all you want, Karen. I’m not putting a mask on to hike.

        And lazy ass teachers need to get back to school. We all know what you’re really scared of, teachers: work.

  30. Meanwhile, 69 percent of those polled said there should be a way for undocumented immigrants living here to stay in the country legally if they fulfill certain requirements.

    I don’t know why that number isn’t nearly 100 percent – of course there should be a way for illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants. Unless you’re against immigration all together, that’s what our immigration laws are for. The catch is the “fulfilling certain requirements” part – do you mean “promising to vote multiple times for Democrats” or “go back home and start over and do it legally this time”?

  31. The Apple App Store. Yes, it’s a monopoly, because there are no alternatives. I’ve been burned by this and a past employer was burned by this.

    The new Apple policy is that NO APP MAY BE INSTALLED that has not been approved by Apple Inc. by being on the App Store. Even if you plan to put your product on the App Store, it’s a major development hurdle. I know of several products that have cancelled their Mac/iPhone development plans after Apple rolled out its new policies.

    Not the case for Windows(*) or Linux and any UNIX derivative. Send the user a zip file of your program and you’re good to go. Not so on Apple. I MUST be approved by Apple Inc before an end user can install it. And without an official development kit, the end user cannot install it. Google is almost as bad, as there are obscure ways around the Play Store.

    What makes this a monopoly? The lack of reasonable alternatives. Hacking the phone in violation of use agreement is not reasonable. Buying a whole new phone with requisite carrier plan is not reasonable.

    p.s. Should this be illegal? Should the government step in? Of course not! Jonny Ives is a major asshole, an orifice large enough to swallow the entire board of directors whole. But there is no law against being an asshole. He gets to be an asshole and I get to call him one.

    (*) Windows is sort of heading in this direction too. While the app store is a nice convenience, it should never become mandatory. I don’t think it will because there’s a legion of IT out there who desperately need to control their client’s systems.

    1. A reasonable alternative is Android.

      1. Android is Google. I addressed it. Plus it’s not reasonable to throw away a $400 phone to buy a new $400 phone just to run Fortnite. Not reasonable.

        I own the phone I should be able to install what I want on it. I should be able to watch Bible sermons or Tawdry porn, all without asking Jonny Ives or Sergey Brin for permission.

        1. Caveat emptor. I have standardized on Apple products. In the past it meant not having access to all the software that other platforms were getting. Or waiting a long time for that software.

          You do own the phone. And you can hack it to install anything you’d like. But it doesn’t mean Apple has to support or facilitate that.

          Next time you upgrade your phone, consider another platform.

    2. Getting software free of viruses has its price.

      1. It’s not free of viruses. They’re just sanctioned.

        malware măl′wâr″
        n. Malicious computer software that interferes with normal computer functions or sends personal data about the user to unauthorized parties over the Internet.
        n. Software which has been designed to operate in a malicious, undesirable manner.

      2. So just pop up scary warning dialog, and let the user have control of the phone which they own because they paid for it. APPLE DOES NOT OWN MY PHONE! IT’S MY PROPERTY!

        The government actually caused this via Copyright Law and refusing to nix bogus contracts like End User License Agreements, in full violation of the United States Commercial Code. If I buy a thing then I own that thing. Period. I may not have the legal right to copy and distribute the creative works on it, but it’s still my fucking phone. Apple knows it too, which is why they don’t send cops after people who unlock their phones. But they will make it incredibly hard to do.

    3. “The new Apple policy is that NO APP MAY BE INSTALLED that has not been approved by Apple Inc. by being on the App Store.”

      Wait, you cannot do private distribution of an app, say an internal company app, anymore? I thought they still allowed this.

      1. I believe you have to “jailbreak” the phone to do that, which voids your warranties, etc.

        1. I think I’m thinking of a distribution option that was only available for Mac desktop apps, not iOS.

      2. I have a project open in most recent Xcode right now. When I go to the Organizer window and select a build, it still gives me the four options: App Store Connect, Ad Hoc (install on designated devices), Enterprise (distribute to your organization), Development (distribute to members of your team).

        I think it used to be possible for an end user to install an app that they obtained by the moral equivalent of a .zip file, by clicking a dialog accepting the risk. I’ve only used that for desktop apps, not iOS apps, though. I suppose Enterprise is the closest option, but it’s probably more locked down than what I just described.

  32. Another 5 percent said they don’t think undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay—but they also don’t want to see a national deportation initiative.

    Have Bernie and Rocco show them the door?

  33. How the U.S. government codified patriarchy.

    Sounds like somebody’s trying to horn in on the reparations racket by claiming sexism is worse today than it’s ever been in the history of this country.

  34. If Apple is forced by the courts to allow apps on their store, they only have to go with their strength – their control of the software and hardware. The Apple products cost much more, but people spend the money expecting better service.
    Apple only have to start up a new app store and call it something like ‘Caveat Emptor’ with several paragraphs of lawyer talk about Apple accepting no responsibility for bank account hacking, software crashes, or identity theft from apps downloaded from the new store.
    People can then decide for themselves if they want to accept the risk. Most Apple users probably will not.

    1. The Apple products cost much more, but people spend the money expecting better service more convenience.

      FIFY. IDK, what your exact definition of ‘better service’ is, but Apple has a demonstrated history of pushing whole replacements at full market value for trivial repairs, undamaged customer goods, or even engineering/design defects within or specifically/narrowly out of warantee.

  35. “But there’s little agreement about what the government should be doing.”

    This may well be the biggest problem. If there was some general agreement you might work towards a consensus. What I fear is that we have a half dozen ideas that are so different there is little chance of consensus.

    1. That used to be a definition for that quaint thing called, gridlock.

      Now, it has become an excuse to use extra-Constitutional and extra-judicial means to achieve political ends. Never once have events ended well in a Republic when these means are employed.

      1. Despite what his name implies, M4E supports extra-Constitutional and extra-judicial means to achieve political ends, if those political ends are left wing.

        1. R Mac, with another uncited accusation. And on, “extra-judicial means to achieve political ends”, would you be referring to events of Jan 6th?

          What was Jesse saying about you actually making posts of substance? Still have not seen one of those.

          1. That’s because you ignore them, you dishonest piece of shit.

            1. Go ahead and link one. I’m genuinely curious.

              1. I already did, you dishonest piece of shit.

                1. You used the same insult twice in a row. Can we at least roll out a fresh one?

                  1. As the recipient of at least a few “Caw caw” comments daily from R Mac, I can say he isn’t much on the originality thing.

                    1. That just my response when you squawk like a bird Dee.

      2. The founders did not envision gridlock, but rather compromise. The idea of compromise has served the country reasonably well through the years. All though not perfectly. The idea of compromise has been lost in more recent years and so the rise in use of EOs and lawsuits.

        1. “The founders did not envision gridlock, but rather compromise.”

          The founders didn’t envision the federal government would have anywhere near as much power as it does now.

          1. Certainly not mean tweets. By a bad orange man.

            1. Hmm, which would have been harder for a 18th Century intellectual to envision:
              – In the future, people would be able to instantaneously post 280-character messages to everyone else in the world.
              – In the future, a President of the United States would be a guy who is very wealthy, but still purposely slathers his face in a low-quality fake suntan product.

              I would argue they would be more likely to envision the latter, since 18th Century intellectuals had some pretty odd sartorial and cosmetic fashions themselves.

              1. They wore wigs. So probably suntanning. Franklin may have guessed Twitter.

  36. That’s too bad. It just seems like the American people don’t want jack-booted thugs on the streets of America like the libertarians in the comments. Don’t they know that limited government is for tech bros and oil companies and not for the poors and Mexicans? What a bunch of morons!

    1. Pay your mortgage.

    2. “…Don’t they know that limited government is for tech bros and oil companies and not for the poors and Mexicans?..”

      Don’t commie assholes know they are full of shit?

    3. Yup. The commentariat was pro riots all last year and was hoping for more if the “right verdict” was coerced in the Chauvin trial. You nailed it.
      Limited government is for all. Large companies are able to grow with the help from government. The Ma and Pa store gets hammered by forced wage increases whereas Walmart is able to withstand them putting them in a better market position than the smaller competitors.

      1. That’s a concern for libertarians?!? Geesch, I didn’t know about you and your concern over who makes profits! You sure do have a lot of contradictions. As a [quasi-]Marxist that’s very interesting!

        I guess libertarianism means that you get to work for and be renumerated by whomever you choose. Of course, that’s reliant upon you having the proper papers issued by Top Men. That goes without saying.

        1. I’m more concerned that you pay your mortgage.

          1. Jesus Christ! Is that all you can say? You’re like a fucking seal.

            And to think… I thought libertarians and their ideals were so attractive that they could be discussed rationally without delving into insults or ad hominems. Or that’s what I thought when I came here only to discover that you make the same ugly and personal insults as everyone else. Maybe it’s because you don’t have too much to say or that your arguments are weak. Dunno, but it says more about you then me.

            1. That’s what happens when prissy nannyscolds powerlevel–they get mercilessly mocked about it for eternity.

              Maybe it’s because you don’t have too much to say or that your arguments are weak.

              I cited three academic sources for you to read just yesterday. I can understand why someone too lazy to pay their mortgage would be too lazy to read anything more complex than young adult fiction, but that’s your cross to bear, not mine.

        2. “That’s a concern for libertarians?!?”

          You really haven’t been paying attention this whole time, have you? Yes, the government making laws that benefit large corporations over small businesses is a concern for libertarians.

        3. The issue is whether competition in a market is robust. When laws are imposed that stymie some participants to the advantage of others, it’s a government-created market failure. I understand that is your endgame and all, but your ignorance of the path that leads there makes you sound, well, ignorant.

          1. God. There’s so many *s to libertarianism. It’s really hard to pin down exactly what they believe.

            1. We all said the same thing. Please come back with a, “Jesus. I think…” generic response.

            2. Being obtuse is not a rhetorical strategy.

              1. It’s a way of life though, apparently.

  37. lol fakebook loses traffic, turns to T

  38. They’re not even pretending anymore. MSM will ignore this.

  39. Apropos of nothing, a commenter on a WAPO story about infrastructure legislation rebutted a Republican legislator’s claim that only 5% of the spending in the bill was actually for infrastructure by citing a White House release that fully 25% of the infrastructure bill spending would be used for infrastructure.

    You couldn’t make stuff like this up.

    1. Apropos of nothing, a commenter on a WAPO story about infrastructure legislation rebutted a Republican legislator’s claim that only 5% of the spending in the bill was actually for infrastructure by citing a White House release that fully 25% of the infrastructure bill spending would be used for infrastructure.

      I mean, we’ve always joked about how a government project is going to end up costing 3 times the original estimate after all the beak-wetters take their sip, but it’s still rather startling to see them admit that they’re operating at the same level as some grifter NGO where only a fraction of the actual revenue goes toward the supposed cause, and the rest goes toward perks for the executives.

    2. Reminds me of the Taco Bell refutation of the false rumor that their ground beef doesn’t contain beef by touting that, in fact, their ground beef contains fully 85% real beef. At least Taco Bell mentioned what the other 15% was.

      1. They could have said it contains 1 x 10^2 percent beef and not be fibbing. But that would have drawn attention.

  40. Curious if Reason is going to cover a teacher’s union telling the CDC what to say, at the request of The White House?

    1. Welch tried. He’s confused.

    2. They did. Yesterday. Do try to keep up.

      1. I was busy yesterday. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

        1. See? That’s what you do here. Try to insult people and hurt them. I’m sure there’s a psychological diagnosis that would explain what makes you you. I’m here to argue that government is usually— but not always— bad and is employed to maintain the status-quo, maintain hegemony, and to enforce laws that benefit the rich and well-connected at the expense of the poor. You’re here to insult people. See the difference?

          1. No he apologized, sarcastically. I’m here to hurt your feelings you fucking cock swallowing pile of dog shit.

          2. See the difference?

            Nope. Telling government employees they’re bad at their jobs is insulting. Especially if they’re some sort of unicorn who’s good at their job, libertarian, and just happens to be attached to the public teet.

            Assuming insulting people has got to be done, I don’t know why anyone would oppose it intrinsically, especially on the internet.

          3. I would be shocked if my comment actually hurt brandy.

            1. “Brandy, show me on the Yes-We-Can Obama doll where R Mac microaggressed you.”

              1. *Points right at the anatomically-correct doll’s butthole.

                1. Keep your fantasies about me sticking my pinkie up brandy’s ass to yourself, weirdo.

                  1. Too late, I shared ’em.

                    You start with the microaggressions, but quickly move on to full on cultural appropriations…

                  2. You’re just addressing DOL, right? Asking for a friend.

                    1. I’d also prefer the pedo didn’t fantasize about it either.

  41. >> The nonprofit is challenging the board’s ban on veterinarians talking to people about their pets’ health by phone or by online chat unless the vet has met with the pet owner in person first.

    I hope they get their way.

  42. More than 25% of the nation oppose illegal immigration. Polls like this only show Americans are uncomfortable with the logistics of mass deportation, which invokes images of ice agents storming houses. Note the disparity between those who want illegals to “legally stay” and those who want “path to citizenship”

    You’re going to see further shifts in immigration IN the immigrant group. Remember, these people have to deal with nightmarish traffic and sky rocketing housing prices more than your typical lib white suburbanites. There’s no (or less) telecommuting in lower end retail jobs. Recent polls already show Latinos generally not down with massive migration at the border.

    Liberals in states like Montana will just repeat party lines on immigration. In reality, immigration brings negatives as well as positives, and the downside has been creeping past the upside for a while now.

Please to post comments