Reason Roundup

Temporary Government Checks Produce Better Poverty Numbers…Temporarily

Plus: Mistrial motion granted for Backpage defendants, court halts vaccine mandate for New York workers, and more...

|

Did poverty rise or fall in 2020? That depends on how you define it. American household income fell significantly in 2020, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. That should come as little shock considering how much of the country was out of work because of the pandemic. But it is an interesting corollary to reports that poverty fell significantly in 2020, too.

"Nearly 8.5 million people were lifted out of poverty last year," according to The Washington Post. But that's a weird way to describe it because poverty—defined as a family of four living on $26,250 or less—only declined "after accounting for the government aid."

Yes, census data shows the 2020 poverty rate at 9.1 percent—down from 11.8 percent in 2019. But this is only because the federal government gave everyone money. People who have been "lifted out of poverty" by pandemic stimulus payments and other temporary subsidies will be right back in it unless the government decides to dole out thousands per person again.

Without the stimulus money, the 2020 poverty rate would have risen to 12.7 percent, the Census Bureau said. And "by a second measure, which leaves out much of the federal stimulus payments, poverty rose to 11.4 percent from 10.5 percent," the Post reports.

The Wall Street Journal explains further:

The bureau said the traditional poverty rate in 2020 was 11.4%, an increase of 1 percentage point from 2019 and the first increase after five consecutive years of declines. That translated to 37.2 million people in poverty, an increase of 3.3 million from 2019. … The official poverty measure doesn't reflect how much a household pays in taxes, and it also omits noncash government aid like tax credits, housing subsidies and free school lunches. A broader poverty measure that accounts for such expenses and income actually fell last year to 9.1%, down 2.6 percentage points from 2019.

The decrease, coinciding with an increase in the official poverty rate, highlighted the role of the government safety net, which was expanded during the pandemic. The two poverty yardsticks have tracked closely for a decade, but last year was the first time that the supplemental measure dropped below the official measure.

So while fewer people living in poverty is good news, it could be something of an artificial construct. And with more complete data, it's unclear that we have much of a reason to celebrate.

"The annual census findings also underscored the deep impact of so many job losses last year," notes the Post. "Median income declined sharply, 2.9 percent, to $67,521, and the number of people lacking health insurance throughout 2020 grew to 28 million, nearly 2 million more than in 2019. It was the fourth year in a row that the ranks of the uninsured swelled."

Coming out of the pandemic, Americans may be much worse off financially than they were before, despite allegedly having been "lifted out of poverty." People sustained by stimulus payments and unemployment benefits may find themselves unable to get a previous (or comparable) job back—although employer desperation right now at least provides some good news for those seeking employment. Meanwhile, the unusual circumstances of 2020 and 2021 may have only masked latent or worsening financial problems in other ways.

For instance, a temporary reprieve from rent payments under the eviction moratorium doesn't meant that money must never be paid back (or that rents won't rise to compensate). Returns to working outside the home may mean the need to pay childcare costs again. And inflation could see Americans paying more for the same goods.

Suddenly, people of all income levels could find themselves with the same or higher costs of living than they did in 2019.


FREE MINDS

Mistrial motion granted for Backpage defendants. On Tuesday morning, U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich granted a motion for mistrial to the six former Backpage executives on trial for facilitating prostitution. Brnovich stated that while she "gave the government some leeway" to talk about prostitution and sex trafficking at large, "the government has abused that leeway" by focusing almost exclusively on child sex trafficking—a crime with which the defendants aren't charged. "Although I don't see any of these as intentional misconduct, the cumulative effect of all of that is something that I can't overlook and won't overlook," Brnovich said.

This doesn't meant the defendants' saga is over. The charges have not been dropped, and Brnovich said yesterday that the parties would discuss in a few weeks when to reconvene. Nonetheless, it's a heartening (and somewhat surprising) rebuke of government malfeasance and overreach.


FREE MARKETS

Court halts vaccine mandate for New York workers. In two separate rulings yesterday, courts temporarily rejected New York state's attempts to require various kinds of workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

First, federal Judge David Hurd of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York temporarily blocked an August 26 order requiring all hospital and nursing home workers in the state to be vaccinated. The state mandate does not contain a religious exemption, and was challenged by 17 people who say getting the vaccine violates their religious beliefs.

The state's department of health is temporarily barred "from enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with the vaccine mandate," Hurd wrote in his Tuesday ruling. Furthermore, it cannot take "any action, disciplinary or otherwise, against the licensure, certification, residency, admitting privileges or other professional status or qualification of any plaintiffs on account of their seeking or having obtained a religious exemption from mandatory COVID-19 vaccination."

Later on Tuesday, state court judge Laurence L. Love temporarily blocked New York City's requirement that teachers and other education staff be vaccinated against the coronavirus. The mandate—set to go into effect on September 27—was challenged by teachers unions.

But "a City Hall spokesperson downplayed the significance of the decision, saying that based on the ruling there 'is no delay' in the mandate's implementation," reports the  New York Post:

"New York City's education worker vaccine mandate, which has been embraced by the White House, goes into effect on September 27. The court's action today expires on September 22," the spokesperson said.

Last week, a city arbitrator ruled that DOE workers may apply for medical or religious exemptions.

See also: Can Biden's Vaccination Rule for Private Employers Survive Judicial Scrutiny?


QUICK HITS

•  About one in 500 Americans has now died from COVID-19, reports CNN, relying on coronavirus death data from Johns Hopkins University and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

• The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom has failed, meaning Newsom will remain in office.

• New research suggests that "much of what we thought we knew about metabolism was wrong," says The New York Times.

• The U.S. Department of Justice is putting limits on federal law enforcement's use of no-knock raids and chokeholds. They are now "prohibited from using chokeholds and 'carotid restraints' unless deadly force is authorized, which is considered when an officer has a 'reasonable belief' they or another person face imminent danger of death or serious injury," notes CBS News. "The department is also placing new limits on the use of 'no-knock' entries with the execution of warrants. Under the policy, such entries can only be used when an agent believes there is a threat to physical safety. In those circumstances, the agent must receive approval from a federal prosecutor and his or her law enforcement component."

RIP Norm Macdonald.

NEXT: 2 Women Dated for Years. After It Ended, JMU Said Their Relationship Was 'Nonconsensual.'

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. Did poverty rise or fall in 2020? That depends on how you define it.

    Evergreen second sentence.

    1. Yes, census data shows the 2020 poverty rate at 9.1 percent—down from 11.8 percent in 2019.

      This is incorrect (probably intentionally by ENB). The official rate was 11.8% in 2018 and fell to 10.5% in 2019

      The poverty rate fell every year Trump was in office.

      1. In her defense, maybe that is what was posted on someone’s Twitter account.

        1. Poe’s law in effect here.

          A local city council member last year held an emergency meeting for far stricter enforcement of all the covid mandates local businesses decided to ignore (it was ignore or go out of business forever) and even to require masking outdoors, like where we all to to take a walk in the evenings. Her reasoning was “my constituents are complaining to me about” this stuff.

          The meeting was marathon. Over 100 people spoke out against the enforcement, some very forcefully. 4 were for it.

          When asked how many complaints she’d gotten she mumbled something about having read it on twitter. Truth is as wild as fiction. Or maybe truth is fiction.

          1. Or lefty politicians are always lying.

            1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,…………… READ MORE

              1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet K access and you can have that at your home. XYZ Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

                Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

  2. Fuck Joe Biden

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.FDs simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

        Click & Chang your Life …………… VISIT HERE

    1. Fuck the left

      1. Yes, fuck the left and progs! Joe Biden is merely a cardboard cutout for them, so saying fuck Joe Biden is like saying fuck an inanimate object

    2. Fuck Reason for helping him get elected.

    3. Fuck Joe Biden.

    4. Fuck Joe Biden!

    5. Who knew that the 15 minutes of hate could potentially be so fun?

      1. I think you are getting Warhol and Orwell mixed up a bit there.

        1. Warwell?

  3. Mistrial motion granted for Backpage defendants.

    Almost always a good day when prosecutors take it on the chin.

    1. Lowest form of human life

    2. One of the biggest justice reforms needed is public defender reform. Most public defender’s offices are way overworked and way underpaid, especially compared to the DA offices. I like a system that has neither a prosecutors office or a defenders office but a public law office. You have a pool of lawyers that are called up for a case. Sometimes they are the prosecutor and sometimes they are the defense lawyers. Take it a step further, and you don’t even need publicly employed lawyers but make it a contract basis, where the state, county, city contracts private lawyers on an as need basis. Rural Montana has a similar system. We have a county attorney who argues for the county side of the case, sometimes they are prosecutor sometimes they are the defense. All other matters are conducted by private attorneys that are either contracted by the county or are paid for by the litigants. It isn’t perfect, because the county attorneys still act as prosecutors in criminal trials and I would recommend that in criminal trials the attorney for the prosecution also should not be an elected official.

      1. I like it, it makes sense, and therefore will never happen.

  4. Newsom will remain in office
    All we can do now is point and laugh at California .

      1. Isn’t he supposed to be a libertarian? How does that square with endorsing a socialist?

        1. Great Question!

        2. turd, Mike, sarc, jeff all claim to be libertarian.

          1. At least you don’t. That would be a real laugh.

            1. The real laugh was your drunken outburst the other day.

            2. Oh, yeah, almost forgot: Fuck Tulpa!

              1. You won’t make any friends saying stuff like that. Tulpa is the hero of many here for impersonating myself and others, and filling heads with lies. Just look at JesseAz. He obsesses about me every day. I’ll look on threads I never posted on and he mentions me on most. It’s disturbing. If I don’t post for a few days he’s counted them. Him and his buddies idolize Tulpa. They want to be like him when they grow up.

                1. Tulpa never stole your identity you lying fuck. Sunday’s meltdown was all you.

        3. I just did a quick google and it looks like Penn despised Trump long before the election, as a result of getting to know him personally while being on Celeb Apprentice.
          Since then he apparently supports anyone who doesn’t support Trump, which would explain his support for Newsom.
          Amazing how many libertarians Trump pushed out of the Republican party.

          1. Larry Elder isn’t really Trump, despite what your lefty overloads tell you.

            1. He is going full sqrsly today. I can feel it.

              1. He seems sober so far, but it’s early. And he’s west coast time I believe?

            2. Larry Elder isn’t really Trump, despite what your lefty overloads tell you.

              But AOC and Biden are exactly the same! That is what you nutjobs say even though Biden has denounced AOC policies.

              1. R Mac is arguing the the voices in his head again.

                1. Interesting, I’ve never said AOC and Biden are the same, or anything of the sort.

                  You just brought up Penn hating Trump as a reason for supporting Newsom, who kept calling Elders a Trump clone.

                  So who is responding to voices? Because dildo is the one making up nonsense.

              2. No. But they are both horrible.

                1. As are dildo and sarc.

          2. I’m pretty disappointed in Penn for that. He used to always claim he was so pro-individual that he wouldn’t even try to tell people who they should vote for.

            1. After he lost all that weight his entire demeaner changed. I think he got a taste of mortality, and that can change people. That and he’s a father now. That will definitely change a person.

          3. Yeah, I am a faithful member of the “Penn’s Sunday School” congregation. He has talked about it a lot…

            There was some down time on the set of Apprentice, and Penn was subjected to a long monologue where he got an earful of horrifying ideas flowing from Trump’s brain unfettered. Penn has said he would give more details, but it wasn’t like he knew at the time the dude would be running for President, so Penn doesn’t trust that he remembers all the details of the conversation enough to retell it.

            And then, of course, while Trump was running for President he made the bizarrely petty move of insulting Penn & Teller’s Broadway show.

            1. In 1987, Jimmy the Greek predicted Trump would run for POTUS.

              1. Pretty sure Bloom County predicted it before that.

            2. And then, of course, while Trump was running for President he made the bizarrely petty move of insulting Penn & Teller’s Broadway show.

              There’s nothing bizarre about Trump being petty.

            3. It was bizarre to criticize someone who was attacking him? What a weird position.

          4. I recently watched an interview with Penn, and it was pretty clear that Trump combined with COVID broke him as a libertarian. Not that Trump was a libertarian, but there was such a strange distortion in the perception of reality surrounding Trump and COVID that a large number of libertarians almost seemed to have lost the ability to objectively apply libertarian principles or just abandoned them completely.

            1. I saw many former libertarians abandon their principles to join the cult of personality surrounding Trump, and then completely lose their minds over the election. Ken immediately comes to mind.

              1. P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N

                Look it up, White Sarc.

                1. What libertarian principles have I abandoned? Free trade? Free(er) immigration? Fuck you cut spending? Free speech? Nope. That wasn’t me. I think you’re the one projecting.

                  1. All of them?
                    Or to be more specific, you never really held any.

                    That’s why you can cheer a cop shooting an unarmed woman in the head for “trespassing”.

                    1. Now that’s really dumb, because if I’d abandoned those principles I’d be a Trump supporter like you. As far as Saint Babbitt goes, keep making stuff up. Your imagination is much more interesting than the truth.

                    2. Thanks for underlining my point. If you were even remotely libertarian, you’d be repelled by your statement.

                  2. What libertarian principles have I abandoned?

                    This is the thing you don’t get. When you snipe at Ken without detailing exactly what libertarian principles he has abandoned, it reveals that you don’t give a shit about libertarian principles. Ken is pretty damn good at espousing libertarian principles and explaining which, in the choice between a shit sandwich and a turd burrito, holds best to those principles. He expounds on it at length.

                    You just bitch about the delivery guy. It is tedious.

              2. To be completely honest, I even have to take a second to step back and make sure that I am assessing everything politically through libertarian principles. I have an initial impulse to give too much slack to the Republicans. This is largely due to my overcompensation to the press giving too much slack to the Democrats and very often completely distorting the Republican message in an unflattering way.

      2. A libertarian-democrat like Reason. Shackford voted no too.
        They know Newsom is bad but not as bad as that watermelon-eating, chicken-stealing, dice-playing, straight razor-toting, buck-dancing Uncle Tom Larry Elder!

        1. “Racist CA Democrats Reject Chance to Elect Historic Black Governor”

    1. 110% turnout?

    2. I’m just glad that the vile white supremacist was defeated.

      1. Elder is a wife beater – a potential OJ in the making.

        so is Herscel Walker. The GOP likes that kind of thing.

        1. Now tell us how he eats too much watermelon, and just wants him some white wimmen.

    3. Newsom laughing loudest.

  5. Gen. Milley feared Trump might launch nuclear attack, made secret calls to China, new book says

    “He’s crazy. You know he’s crazy. … He’s crazy and what he did yesterday is further evidence of his craziness,” she said, according to The Post. Milley replied, “I agree with you on everything.”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/09/14/gen-mark-milley-worried-trump-could-launch-nuclear-attack/8334915002/

    Milley might have averted a full scale war with China.

    1. Or started one.

      1. A power-mad megalomaniac like Trump will do anything to stay Top Man.

        1. Actual experience shows otherwise.

          1. Jan 6 almost worked.

            The Woodward book reports that Trump wanted Pence to declare the election fraudulent and force a House vote on state legislative lines where the GOP outnumbered.

            Trump would have then been declared king for life.

            1. Jan 6 almost worked.

              With a long, long record of staying the stupidest shit imaginable you have finally topped yourself.

            2. Pence consulted with Dan Quayle on the pressure Trump was putting on him to void the election.

              How Dan Quayle saved democracy. Yes, really.

              https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/dan-quayle-pence-trump-january-6-woodward-costa-book/index.html

              good thing the GOP still has a few sane people like Quayle around.

              The modern GOP is batshit crazy Aborto-Freak power mad.

              1. That is a small potatoe.

              2. Nobody consults Quayle about anything, ever.

              3. Aborto-Freak

                Are those the ones that want to kill babies, or the ones that don’t?

    2. He’s a treasonous seditious person, and your hero!

    3. Funny… NBC went with the “Milley is a hero who averted a nuclear war” take this morning too.

      Remember how the national security advisor of the incoming administration talking to his counterparts was criminal?

      Does anyone even bother with a fig leaf anymore?

      1. No. All pretense is abandoned. Because they don’t need to.

      2. Guess they don’t feel the need to conceal, Cyto. In their bubble, Milley did nothing wrong. Fits so many of their entertainment tropes too: deranged dictator, about to burn everything down rather than lose, who is stopped by a brave, lone voice (bummer he’s a white guy) who cleverly saves us all. Who wouldn’t be entertained by that?

        Besides anyone with even a high-school knowledge of American Civics and Government, but how many of those do we have anymore?

        1. Milley was backed by the Sec of Defense.

          1. So multiple unelected bureaucrats were part of undermining the duly elected civilian Commander in Chief. You realize that doesn’t make it better, right?

            But there’s no such thing as the deep state.

            1. I believe the word is junta.

      3. Spb is now a full on leftist pushing all MSM narratives. Constitutional order doesn’t matter. He will promote military dictates if the left tells him to.

        Even Col Vindman didn’t have that take lol.

        1. Spb is now a full on leftist pushing all MSM narratives.

          “Now”? Shriek’s been pimping Democrats here for well over a decade.

          1. Bullshit. I’ve been critical of conservatives (who I despise).

            I also hate progressives and have said Bernie Sanders is worse than Trump.

            1. Bullshit. You’ve been simping for Democrats for over a decade now, you hicklib pederast.

              You also don’t pay bets you lose.

            2. Fuck Joe Biden.
              Don’t Fuck Kids.

              1. Dildo can’t help himself.

            3. I’ve been critical of conservatives (who I despise)… and have said Bernie Sanders is worse than Trump.

              How is that not pimping the Democrats. Those words could’ve easily come out of the mouths of Pelosi and Tom Perez.

      4. The funniest thing is that Milley isn’t even part of the chain of command when it comes to the nuclear arsenal. First he is Army, second he is a joint chief, which aren’t part of the chain of command except as an advisory role, for a nuclear strike.

        1. I stand corrected I did further research and Milley is part of the chain of command for nuclear deployment, but he would not need to reinforce that because everyone in the chain already knows and trains extensively on who is in the chain of command and war games extensively for a nuclear strike. There is no confusion.

      5. Anyone who thinks Milley won’t do this to Biden also is whistling past the cemetery. Milley is a career political soldier. Anyone who has served knows the kind. They have no political allegiance except to whatever gets them ahead and benefits them. I fully expect Milley to turn on Biden as his poll numbers continue to drop. He is a windsock, most political officers are. They don’t have any real authentically held beliefs. They brown nose their way up through the chain of command, and change direction depending upon who is in power and who is popular. Unfortunately, to many of our high ranking officers today are this way. Right now Milley is “woke” because he thinks the winds are blowing that way. But as soon as the pushback begins, he will change his tune. And once he gets in front of Congress, fully expect him to throw Biden, Blinken and Austin under the bus, because Milley only worries about advancing his career and protecting his career.

    4. Saw that in the Daily Mail. Looks pretty farfetched to me. Trade wars? Yes of course. His economically illiterate sycophants love that shit. But nukes? Not buying it.

      1. I think the idea is Trump would attack with a conventional strike and then it could escalate into a nuclear war.

        1. You guys sure did push your fantasies of trump causing world wars. Fuck reality. Your feelings were that he was an existential crisis. Lol.

          1. It’s Trump’s own people saying this shit. The people he hired. You’re delusional.

            1. Yes. The 90% of D.C. that registers as democrat is “trumps people.” The guy pushing CRT and talking about white rage is “trumps people.”

              Do you think before posting sullum?

              1. DC reelected Marion Barry after his…incident. That’s about all that is needed to know regarding that shithole.

                1. Bitch set him up!

          2. You mean we libertarians who praised Trump for getting troops out of harm’s way?

            Ohhh, you mean the voices in your head. Again.

            1. Are you saying Strudel and dildo are libertarian, the voices in Jesse’s head, or your socks?

              1. If Jennifer rubin can pretend to be conservative, sarc can pretend he doesn’t push leftist talking points.

                1. Yet you still can’t find a single sentence of mine where I do that.

                  You should get help. I mean, you honestly believe the voices in your head. That’s a sign of serious mental illness.

                  1. “January 6 was an iNsurrEction”
                    “you still can’t find a single sentence of mine where I do that”

                2. Sarc wanted to be a lawyer for the DNC but had to give up that dream because he couldn’t pass the bar.

                  1. Funny. No, I never wanted to be a lawyer because that would mean I’d have to hang around lawyers.

          3. Not considered by Sullum:

            Nancy Pelosi, who started this ball rolling, is actually the batshit crazy one. Nobody was talking about nuking anyone until she brought it up. Whether it was a political ploy to make Trump seem crazy, or a product of her booze-addled brain, it was totally out of left field and had no basis in reality.

            1. That’s basically what it was. She got bent out of shape by some prole putting his feet on her desk, and extrapolated that to Trump nuking China.

              1. That’s what would be so funny about this, if it weren’t so incredibly alarming.

                Everything that is said about Trump being an unstable, vengeful, narcissistic nut case can also easily be applied to Nancy Pelosi. If you believe Trump is crazy, Nana Pelosi is every bit as far off her rocker as he is.

              2. This level of minimizing an attack on the foundation of our constitutional republic is disappointing. It was not just that day, that day was the culmination of Trump’s attempt to undo the results of a fair and free election. The 60 some lost lawsuits are not debatable. Trump lost. Trump tried to remain president by any means despite that loss. If you cannot acknowledge that, then you are blind.

                There is no freedom without elections. Installing your own benign dictator is not freedom, and is antithetical to the foundational principles of this country.

                1. Do you need a fainting couch?

                  It’s also not debatable that 15 courts ruled changes to elections were made illegally. In fact the only ones that went to court all seemed to rule in his favor, while the rest avoided the question. But you like avoiding things that go against your narratives, so no wonder you focus on that.

                  There is also no freedom with fixed or marred elections which you seem okay with. Tens of thousands of votes were changed during the audits. Thousands of double voters were found. Mail in ballot inconsistencies were highlighted and never audited. The doubling of adjudicated ballots was pointed to, but never audited. But you got the result you cared for (yay Biden right!!!!) so you blindly ignore all other issues.

                  1. You are factually incorrect, as always. Several cases were decided on the merits. I have linked them many times for you. Your failure to live in reality is not something I would like to debate any further.

                    And fainting couch was the insult I was using last week. Get your own material.

                2. Now do Milley disobeying the UCMJ and the Constitution because of his personal opinions. As a veteran they idea of the military deciding it doesn’t have to follow civilian authority, as laid out in the Constitution is far more troubling than some guy cosplaying in the Capital rotunda.

                  1. Especially when it was all based on conjecture without any evidence Trump would start a war with China. Trump, as much as I despise him, is the first president since Carter not to start a new war.
                    Reagan-Grenada
                    Bush-Panama and Gulf War and Somalia
                    Clinton-Serbia and Kosovo
                    Bush- Afghanistan and Iraq and horn of Africa
                    Obama- Syria and Libya
                    Trump-Nothing
                    But Milley was so worried, without evidence, about Trump starting a new war in his waiting days that he decided he no longer had to follow the UCMJ and the Constitution and conspire with others (Pelosi and Schumer) to circumvent the Constitution. There was zero evidence of their conspiracy theory. No orders were given. No orders were even contemplated to be given according to those closest to Trump.
                    Even well known anti-Trumper Vindman is calling for Milley to resign if this is true. It flies in the face of all US military tradition, regulations and laws. It is indefensible if you respect the Constitution.

                    1. Waining days.

                    2. Waining days.

                      People have been saying that for as long as I can remember. Debt is unsustainable! Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt!

                      And life goes on.

                      Go dance with Chicken Little. I’ll watch and point and laugh.

                    3. Waining days as in his presidency was coming to an end. Fuck, that is self evident by the sentence.

                    4. ‘But Milley was so worried, without evidence, about Trump starting a new war in his waiting days that he decided he no longer had to follow the UCMJ and the Constitution and conspire with others’
                      Here is a clue, auto correct changed waining to waiting and I was simply acknowledging that I didn’t mean waiting days but meant waining days. As in the President was leaving office soon.

                    5. So much for sober sarc today.

                    6. Fair enough.

                    7. First off, it is not clear that Milley overstepped his authority.

                      Does Milley’s (and others’ in close proximity to the president) opinion not, perhaps, make you reconsider if Trump was such a great president? To those outside of the cult, it was evident that Trump does not care about the constitution or elections or maintaining the union. He is a mad man, mentally sick, incapable of basic empathy or even perceiving reality. So no, Milley’s actions themselves do not bother me. The necessity for them does.

                      What does any regulation, tax elimination, end of war, or other presidential decision matter if he was willing to do away with the free elections portion of our republic? None of it matters without the ability to choose our own government. Sometimes you lose though. And you all need to accept that. Nardz wants civil war, but he would die while crying and pissing himself. He has no concept of lethal violence, and nor do most of the civil war accelerationists.

                    8. No their opinion doesn’t matter. The chain of command is clear. His talk to china was unauthorized and outside his chain of command. He conspired against his CiC. It isn’t unclear except by those who don’t hold to their oaths.

                    9. Also, he never did away with free elections. He gave a speech, which is his 1A rights. He never tried to stay in office. He never ordered the military to keep him in office. He gave a fucking speech. Period. I didn’t agree with his speech but it was a fucking speech which is protected under the 1A. You are defending the blatant insubordination, disregard for the Constitution, and what can he read as a plot to conduct a coup because Milley had a feeling that was unfounded. That is unforgivable. It is a blatant violation of the constitution. Milley doesn’t have the fucking authority. This is far closer to ending free elections than Trump’s fucking speech ever was. I served under CiCs I considered far worse than Trump. I never contemplated a coup. You hate trump we get it. But he was the fucking CiC. No it’s ands or buts about it. The fucking military is subservient to the civilian president. We don’t get a fucking choice about that. Fuck off with that bullshit.

                3. De Oppresso Liber
                  September.15.2021 at 12:04 pm
                  Flag Comment Mute User
                  This level of minimizing an attack on the foundation of our constitutional republic is disappointing.

                  Man, when I first started DOL’s post I thought he was actually going to criticize Milley for undermining the duly elected civilian Commander in Chief.

                  Should have known better from the guy that fantasizes about the military slaughtering American citizens with Apache helicopters.

                  1. DoL obviously forgot his chain of command, the UCMJ and his oath to the Constitution.

                    1. Because Stolen Valor is as much military as Joy Reid.

                    2. I have not, and you didn’t either on Jan 6th. But you’ve allowed yourself to be propagandized back into the cult. Remember what you said here on Jan 6th? I do. You said it was traitorous and you were done with it. Come back to the fold. Remember your oath.

                    3. I remember who is the CiC, which seems to be more than you do.

                    4. Nothing that happened on 6 January at all excuses disregard for the chain of command. Nothing. And I condemned the riots but never felt it was an insurrection. I have always called that hyperbole. And it doesn’t excuse insubordination and plotting against the CiC by an unelected General. Nothing. The military is subservient to the civilian commander. If you support a blatant military coup based upon one man’s judgement, you have betrayed your oath. You are the one excusing an attempted military coup by one man based upon his unfounded fears. That is the ultimate betrayal by a soldier. Don’t lecture me about my oath, when you clearly have betrayed yours and Milley clearly betrayed his. The Constitution is clear. The military is subservient to the civilian president and we don’t get to choose what orders we obey and what ones we don’t, especially based on our unfounded fears and feelings and especially not for partisan reasons.

                    5. How dare you fucking question my oath? Nothing that happened on 6 January gave Milley or any other soldier the right to usurp the Constitution. Fuck off with that blatant partisan bullshit. It wasn’t a fucking insurrection. It wasn’t Trump leading it. It was a fucking protest that turned into a fucking riot. Just shut the fuck up, you dishonor all fucking veterans in my opinion as a result of that bullshit you just pulled. I am so pissed right now at you, I can’t even put into words. You mother fucking blue falcon.

                    6. DoL, I have never disavowed a fellow veteran until today. I disavow you. You betrayed your oath and betrayed your country because of partisanship. There is no more dishonorable act a soldier can do.
                      If these charges against Milley are correct I will disavow him as well.
                      There is no further need for us to ever speak again. You’ve shown your true colors. And it isn’t about defending and protecting the Constitution and swearing allegiance to the same. It is about defending and protecting your partisan tribe and swearing allegiance unto the same. You can’t even fucking deny it.
                      Yes I called the rioters traitorous. But Trump didn’t lead them. He gave a fucking speech. It was fucking hogwash but it is still protected under the 1A. And there was no evidence, according to the DoJ investigation, of any coordination and any plan. It was a fucking riot. And what I said on 6 Jan has been tempered by the fucking evidence. Unlike you, I looked at the evidence and the evidence doesn’t prove shit beyond some fucking numbskulls decided to riot. To keep bringing up 6 January as some sort of talisman to disobey the UCMJ and the Constitution is just pure partisan bullshit. 6 January was a bleak day in our history. But even bleaker is how you and others have used it to justify unconstitutional actions of others. The killing of an unarmed citizen. The holding of people on misdemeanor charges for months without bail. Judges forcing rioters to swear an oath of allegiance as part of their sentencing. And now the chairman of the joint chief of staff disobeying the Constitution. None of that is justified by the riots. None of it!
                      I am so fucking tired of everyone like you using the riots on 6 January to fucking defend unconstitutional actions. It is fucking indefensible. It is a betrayal of the oath we took. And you make fun of others for calling for a Civil war but you’re the one who will cause a civil war. Because your allegiance to the Constitution obviously is based solely on your partisan views.

                    7. DoL, I have never disavowed a fellow veteran until today. I disavow you.

                      Don’t worry, you still haven’t. Stolen Valor was never in the military. He’s just “borrowed” other peoples stories for the character he plays here.

                4. This level of minimizing an attack on the foundation of our constitutional republic is disappointing.

                  For a moment I thought DoL was criticizing Milley and Pelosi, and I was like, ‘good for you’. Then I read the next sentence.

                  Real soldiers don’t plot to circumvent the Constitution with political leaders from the opposing party. You would think a guy that claims to be one would know that.

                  1. Oh I trust DoL is not stolen valor. No, he is far worse in my opinion. He is a disgrace to the uniform, a fucking oath breaker for purely partisan reasons. He is excusing Milley breaking the Constitution because Trump was CiC and a riot in 6 Jan and a speech he didn’t agree with. In my book that is far worse than any fucking stolen valor. When a soldier puts partisanship before their oath, that is the biggest betrayal of the oath that I can think of. There is no “but Trump” exclusion in the Constitution or the UCMJ. No, DoL isn’t stolen valor, he disgraces all veterans with that partisan excuse for betraying what every soldier swears on day one at MEPPS. He is a fucking blue falcon oath breaker. There is no lower lifeform. He deserves all the shit everyone flips at him because he just proved he only follows the oath for partisan reasons and is willing to betray the Constitution for partisan reasons. As far as I am concerned he has shown his true colors. And they are blue. He has betrayed his oath and tried to bully me into betraying mine to with some bullshit guilt trip about 6 January. I have never in my life felt the need to disavow a fellow veteran but Milley and now DoL I formally disavow. They betrayed their uniform and their oath. To me that is unforgivable.

                    1. DoL has pissed me off for the last time. Betraying his oath, and for partisan reasons, is the last fucking straw. He is now muted. I apologize to everyone else for losing my temper. I am 4th generation Army and my son is 5th generation. I have always been proud of that but DoL makes me ashamed of that right now. There is nothing more sacred, except God, to me than the Constitution and the oath I swore to it. And for him to excuse breaking the Constitution because “of Trump” just is more than I can handle. I am literally shaking with anger right now.

            2. the left said the same about Reagan, no one should listen to the lefts since always them wishing for that. Remember when Hillary was running for president she said she would pre emptive strike North Korea and shoot down Russin planes in Syria. the left always accuses the right for things the left would do

        2. “I think the idea is Trump would attack with a conventional strike and then it could escalate into a nuclear war.”

          I think this asshole is full of shit.

        3. I didn’t bother to read the whole thing. Looked like rage-porn for his followers. And sure enough, here they are, full of rage.

          1. Ok, Jonah Goldberg

            1. Speaking of…

          2. The problem with this is far beyond Trump. Even assuming everything Milley feared was true, and it all happened more or less as the book says, it’s still problematic because it creates a precedent where military officers are empowered to act outside of their constitutional roles, based on conscience alone, with no restraints. That’s very, very bad, and very, very dangerous, whether the president is Trump or Biden or whoever. I wouldn’t support this if Milley decided on his own that Biden was senile and wasn’t to be trusted with the nuke codes. I would not support a Republican speaker of the house trying to usurp or interfere with a democrat president’s military authority through unconstitutional means. We have a mechanism in place to remove presidents, and that does not include secret phone calls between the speaker and the CJCS, to decide between them what should be done.

            And even if it’s utter bullshit, the other problem is that at least half the country that thinks this is okay. They have no comprehension how dangerous it is to have an unaccountable military, even if you don’t like the guy they’re accountable to. The military is beholden to the civilian chain of command for a reason. There are restraints in place for a reason, and those reasons don’t change because one particular president is an asshole.

            1. Good post.

              1. You just called it rage porn.

              2. I’ve some experience with toxic commanders, so I understand some of the ethical and moral dilemmas at play here. However, it was always my firm belief that you cannot violate chain of command. It destroys military discipline, erodes trust, creates confusion, and just trashes overall effectiveness.

                Once somebody jumps the chain once and gets away with it, the integrity of the chain is now damaged. It leaves the door open for the troops to question their commanders’ orders and to selectively decide who they’re going to listen to and who they’re not. That gets people killed.

                1. But what happens when a commander is really and truly incompetent and/or violating the rules? I wasn’t in the military, but I’ve been in that situation at work and I got it from both ends. Had a boss that was fucking stuff up but his superiors loved him. So when I went over his head I got reprimanded. Then when he quit and the full extent of his fuckups were revealed, I got reprimanded again for not going over his head. I guess shit always rolls downhill.

                  1. Poor sarc.

                  2. There chains in place in the military to handle that issue. If the commander IS the problem, there are official reporting mechanisms in place to allow soldiers to make complaints or reports without having to go through their immediate commander. They exist parallel to the chain of command and they’re official channels, so it’s not violating the chain.

                    1. Sarc prefers just burning people’s food instead of going through official means of showing displeasure. Why act in an orderly and consistent fashion when you can lash out emotionally?

                    2. That makes sense. I suppose that’d be like my employer’s “Ethics Hotline” or whatever. Live and learn…

                      And Jesse, MW and W steaks are burnt. By definition. You still have no statements of mine to confirm your accusations of me being a leftist, so you scream in a shrill voice “He burns steaks!” Talk about lashing out emotionally. Between that and the voices in your head, you’ve got some serious issues. Get help.

                    3. “If the commander IS the problem, there are official reporting mechanisms in place to allow soldiers to make complaints or reports without having to go through their immediate commander.”

                      I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that doesn’t include the Speaker of the House of the opposing party, right?

                    4. Milley, could ask the cabinet to vote on the 25A and then it goes to the HoR, that is the only way it involves the Speaker.

                    5. And Jesse, MW and W steaks are burnt. By definition.

                      I was a cook in my early life. Burnt, by definition, is inedible. Well done is cooked all the way so the meat no longer shows any pink. It may be inedible to you, or unconscionable as a chef to cook it that way depending on the cut, but it is not burnt. MW is another animal than W if you know how to cook.

                    6. It may be inedible to you, or unconscionable as a chef to cook it that way depending on the cut, but it is not burnt.

                      Potayto potahto. It’s burnt to me.

                    7. Potayto potahto. It’s burnt to me.

                      When it’s yours that matters. When you’re a professional cooking for a customer that is paying for it cooking it to their liking and doing it well is what is important. Corn/Maize. My opinion of course. I would just butterfly the meat if I could. Cooked faster and saved some of the moisture.

                    8. If it was a filet of course I’d butterfly it. Takes an hour if you don’t.

                      And yeah yeah, MW is no pink, W is dry. I know my steaks.

                      All of this is nothing but JesseAz desperately, and I mean really fucking desperately, trying to get me in some “gotcha” because he’s got no evidence for the lies he tells about me every day.

                      So me saying I’d grab the crappiest steak in the bin when someone ordered MW or W means I’m, I dunno. Whatever it means in his head.

                      But it must be significant to him or he wouldn’t be posting multiple reminders, every day, whether I’m here or not.

                  3. If Milley thought he was truly of his rocker he could try to implement the 25A. That’s what it is there for. In the military the first thing you are taught is that the President is CiC and no matter your opinion of him personally, short of a truly illegal order you have to follow it. Officers are different than enlisted. Officers also have the ability to resign their commission rather than obey a distasteful order. Enlisted don’t have that option. Milley also could have resigned as joint chief but remain in the Army.
                    As for the illegal order argument. The UCMJ places the burden of proof that an order is illegal on the person who refused the order. You can refuse an order but you will still be charged with insubordination and then you have to prove in the Court Martial that the order was illegal. The system is designed to allow refusal of blatantly illegal orders but also designed so people can’t just refuse an order they dislike and label it illegal. What Milley supposedly did is in direct violation of several clauses of the UCMJ, several regulations, long standing military traditions and the US Constitution (which he swore to uphold and defend the same as the rest of us did). I served under Clinton. I despise Clinton. Thought he was morally reprehensible. Thought his wars were illegal and unnecessary. Thought his treatment of the military was disrespectful. Felt he was a danger to the country. But he was still CiC and short of a clearly illegal order I would snap to, salute and carry on any order he gave me.
                    The other issue that Milley fails on, is you can’t preplan to disobey an order not given. He told the Chinese he would tell them before any military strike, before the election even happened (on 30 October). He couldn’t know the circumstances that might preclude a military strike therefore his promise superseded the authority of the CiC.
                    Say China invaded Taiwan and the president decided to launch an attack against China in retaliation. Was Milley going to call his counterpart and say, “we’re sending a squadron of B-2s tonight to attack you for attacking Taiwan”. That would put the lives of those crews at risk.
                    According to those closest to Trump, and yes they are also partisan, Trump was never contemplating unprovoked war with China. He did ask how we could respond to Chinese military aggression in the South Pacific. That is his job as CiC. He may even have asked about the feasibility of going nuclear if that occurred. I am sure that is something every President since Truman has asked. And I am sure, like every President since Truman, the answer was a nuclear war would be so devasting, even a limited nuclear war, that it wasn’t worth contemplating.
                    Hell, until the second world war, the US War department had contingency plans to fight a war with Britain and or invade Canada. It is literally their job to plan for these contingencies and as CiC it’s literally the President’s job to be aware of contingencies.
                    Also, Milley agreeing with Pelosi that Trump was crazy is also a violation of the UCMJ. He was speaking to someone outside his Chain of Command, voicing an opinion in his official capacity, about his superior. That is a gross violation of the UCMJ. And he didn’t stop there. He went further, he conspired with her to disobey his superior. Which is an even bigger fuck you to the UCMJ and the Constitution. All he should have said was when she said ‘he’s crazy, crazy you know’ (he being Trump). Was ‘no comment’ ( or better yet no reply). And then when she worried about nuclear strikes reassured her that there are several steps involved in launching a nuclear strike and several safeguards in place to avoid the exact scenario she was worried about.
                    It takes someone unfamiliar with the system to think a president can wake up one day and just decide to launch a nuclear strike and it would happen. There are several already built in steps to prevent that. Milley didn’t need to get his subordinates to swear to him to disobey the President because those safeguards have existed since the start of the cold war. It is the stuff of Hollywood fiction. And the military bear games it every year. Milley, as chief of the joint chiefs should have been aware of it. The process is designed to be slow and deliberate (in the case of a first strike as opposed to a retaliatory strike) on purpose. In fact the system is necessarily cumbersome to diminish the chances of the US ever launching a first strike, although doesn’t make it impossible (because there may be some cases, say if you had incontrovertible evidence that the opponent was getting ready to launch a first strike) as to make it improbable in nearly all situations.

                    1. You don’t believe sarc respects the Constitution more than he hates Trump, right?

                2. ‘It destroys military discipline, erodes trust, creates confusion, and just trashes overall effectiveness.’ This is too pat an answer. Yes, sometimes unit climate can be determined by an outside investigator, and a shit command structure removed. But, more often than not, RHIP. Loyalty has too often come to mean only from the lower ranks to the command and staff, with a deliberate choice to ignore the leadership role of being loyal to subordinates. The same assmaggots who insist on loyalty will not, or more than likely are incapable of performing the soldier/sailor/airman/marine level tasks of their subordinates -and will certainly not put themselves out by doing the same jobs. The current crop of field/flag Os and the equivalent staff NCOs are generally not worth Joe or Jane’s loyalty, but they get it due to professionalism.

                  1. We used to say I respect the rank not necessarily the person wearing the rank.

            2. No different than the current wars on “misinformation”. When 1 person, or 1 side decides who’s right or wrong, we are at the mercy of them actually being right or wrong. Censoring actual misinformation is a problem that can cause distrust, censoring information that turns out to be true, but makes you and your cronies look bad is just a bump in the road to totalitarianism.

            3. That’s very, very bad, and very, very dangerous, whether the president is Trump or Biden or whoever. I wouldn’t support this if Milley decided on his own that Biden was senile and wasn’t to be trusted with the nuke codes.

              Yeah, I don’t think people realize how bad this precedent is, assuming Woodward isn’t just bullshitting here. If Milley legitimately thought that Trump was enough of a danger that he would start a nuclear war with China, why didn’t he have Trump locked up and arrested? Was he afraid that the rank-and-file military he oversees might not be fully supportive of such an action, and mutiny as a result? Keep in mind this same woke dumbfuck botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and then lied about what the military knew and when they knew it.

              They have no comprehension how dangerous it is to have an unaccountable military, even if you don’t like the guy they’re accountable to. The military is beholden to the civilian chain of command for a reason. There are restraints in place for a reason, and those reasons don’t change because one particular president is an asshole.

              Exactly. Generals suddenly deciding that they’re the final arbiter of the government is literally how third-world, banana republics operate. That leftists are cheering this decisions is yet another example of the sheer self-entitlement and total lack of future time-orientation they possess.

              1. Generals suddenly deciding that they’re the final arbiter of the government is literally how third-world, banana republics operate.

                I’d say a general refusing to follow an order from the president is not the same as a general issuing orders without permission of the president.

                “I refuse to bomb China” and “I’m using the army to occupy Cleveland because I want to” aren’t the same thing.

                1. Everyone ultimately has to act on their conscience. The consequences of nuking China unprovoked are almost certainly worse than the consequences of the chain of command being broken. But that’s a very extreme example that we haven’t gotten close to so far. For almost all cases, I thin Cronut gets it right. The military being subordinate to civilian authority is very important

                  1. Every military dictator in history believes they were acting on their conscience.

                    1. And? Everyone still has to make that choice when in such a position.

                  2. There are already plenty of safeguards in place to avoid a rogue president ordering an unprovoked first strike. The process for ordering a first strike, as opposed to a retaliatory strike, are pretty cumbersome on purpose (even ordering a retaliatory strike is pretty difficult and has lots of checks and balances). The idea of a rogue president ordering a first strike is really something of Hollywood fiction. The system is designed to make it difficult. There are eight layers of protocol that have to be followed. Yes, sole power lies with the President, and yes once he decides that a strike is needed the process can be completed in under five minutes. But in practical sense, for a first strike, it would be much slower than that, unless missiles were already in the air towards us.

                2. If Trump had ordered an unprovoked attack on China, Milley could certainly question the legality of the order. There’s plenty of room to argue that an unprovoked attack is not a proper use of his military authority.

                  But he didn’t order any attack. Milley was acting on speculation and judgement alone.

                  What I’d really like is for Woodward to barf up that transcript of his conversation with Pelosi. I think the details of that conversation will shed lots of light on what exactly went on here.

                3. There was no order sarc. That’s the whole fucking point. It was pure TDS.

                4. Generals disobeying the presidents orders is actually worse in many ways than making up their own orders. In fact, generals make orders all the time without consulting the President. However, disobeying an order, unless it is illegal or Unconstitutional, is strictly forbidden and not good for the welfare of the military. Neither the UCMJ or the Constitution gives Milley that authority. He unilaterally, if true, took that authority upon himself. And looking it up, the joint chiefs of staff aren’t even part of the chain of command for nuclear weapons. Their job is strictly advisory. And Milley especially isn’t, as he is head of the Army and the nuclear triad belongs to the Navy and Air Force. So he was planning on using authority that is outside his chain of command and for which he is, by law and regulations, not entitled to.

                5. And if he had any indications this was actually truly a possibility he could easily resign and take it to Congress (he can’t take it to Congress while still in uniform, as that violates a number of UCMJ articles). Also, if Nancy Pelosi is so scared if this happening she as speaker can change the current laws vis legislation, such as making a first strike illegal except when congress declares war. The fact that she hasn’t even tried shows that she wasn’t truly afraid but was just undermining the President and Milley went along with it.

                6. I’d say a general refusing to follow an order from the president is not the same as a general issuing orders without permission of the president.

                  Except he made that assumption based on nothing more than Pelosi’s say-so. Trump never indicated that he was going to nuke China, but that piece of shit went around him and contacted his counterpart in China to talk to him about it.

              2. I think it’s another example of them thinking their side will get away with it, but if the other side does it, they’ll be punished.

                And why not? Seems to be the reality we’re dealing with now.

                1. I think Red Rocks is right. They lack future-time orientation. It’s whatever works RIGHT NOW to get their way. They don’t consider that it won’t always be their guy calling the shots.

                  The lefties do love to cry about The Handmaid’s Tale, but they obviously didn’t read the book, or else they’d know that the whole story started with a military coup by religious tyrants.

                  1. I think Red Rocks is right. They lack future-time orientation. It’s whatever works RIGHT NOW to get their way. They don’t consider that it won’t always be their guy calling the shots.

                    Like the abortion law in Texas?

                    1. Yes. And also like the OSHA vaccine mandate.

                    2. Like the abortion law in Texas?

                      Not following that analogy, Sarc.

                    3. It’s just sarc defending Democrats again by attacking Republicans.

                    4. Not following that analogy, Sarc.

                      Conservatives used legal gymnastics to pass a law that’s in clear violation of precedent, but are getting away with it because it’s enforced by civil suits instead of criminal court. What happens when the left uses the same tactic against conservatives?

                    5. Conservatives used legal gymnastics to pass a law that’s in clear violation of precedent

                      Liar. Precedent has nothing to do with legislatively passed laws, it has to do with court rulings. This is the kind of excuse that dipshits give when they have been outsmarted.

                      The law was specifically constructed to get around government interference, there is nothing in it that forces anybody to sue anyone else, it just allows it. It also does not dictate how courts or the juries must decide in the case.

                      Funny that you claim to be a libertarian and can’t abide a law that actually reserves a power to the People instead of the legislature or the executive.

                    6. The left already uses this tactic and more.

                    7. It allows party A to sue party B over a consensual transaction with party C that doesn’t affect party A one bit.

                      I fail to see that as a libertarian victory. More like lawyers patting each other on the back for being garbage.

                    8. But you’re probably hung up on the abortion aspect which means you’ll ignore the principle so long as you perceive it to be a victory.

                    9. Precedent has nothing to do with legislatively passed laws, it has to do with court rulings.

                      Hasn’t RvW been used to strike down legislatively passed laws? Am I missing something?

                    10. It allows party A to sue party B over a consensual transaction with party C that doesn’t affect party A one bit.

                      You are blatantly ignoring the most significant party to the transaction. Which is exactly what the law is intended to address. And there is a shitload of precedent for being able to sue on the behalf of a deceased party.

                      But you’re probably hung up on the abortion aspect which means you’ll ignore the principle so long as you perceive it to be a victory.

                      Now you are just being a giant prick. There is nothing in the law that dictates how the case be decided. If the juries consistently find for the defendant, the lawsuits will fade away. That sounds pretty fucking libertarian to me.

                      Just how did you imagine disagreements would be settled in Sarcatopia?

                  2. It worked at the time they lied to FISA and illegally spied on Trump’s campaign and administration, and despite Trump becoming president. And besides one guy getting probation, everyone involved got away with it, and many of them are back in power four years later.

                    They “fortified” the last election and bragged about it with no consequences.

                    I think it was a legitimate position at one point, but that time has passed. Do you think there will be no long term effects of purging the military of people that aren’t willing to go with The Party? The federalization of election laws? Spreading the unaccountable capital police across the country? They’re about to pass a bill that gives billions of dollars to crony newspapers to continue pushing The Party propaganda, because having all the corporate media on their side just wasn’t enough in 2016.

                    I hope I’m wrong, but it will be a very long time before these people are out of power again. So no, I don’t believe they are being short sited.

                    1. And don’t forget this gem:

                      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gAf9dUq2KlY

                      Is this appropriate? Do you think there will ever be any consequences for this?

          3. Vindman, hardly a Trumpet, also is pissed off and says Milley violated the UCMJ and his oath to the Constitution and should resign.

        4. I didn’t read sullum’s Last article, but from the headline I would assume that the moron disagreed with NY courts blocking the vaccine mandate and sullum hoping there is a way they can reinstate it. Can anyone who still reads this idiots article let me know if I’m right?

        5. It isn’t the job of the JCoS to preplan to disobey an order that wasn’t given. You can’t preplan to disobey a hypothetical order. You can, when given an illegal order, refuse to obey it. Under the UCMJ, you will still be charged with insubordination. You can offer as a defense that the order was illegal but you have to prove to the court that the order given was illegal. If it was so self evidently illegal, it is highly unlikely any JAG prosecutor would continue to press charges. And you can’t call the head of a military rival and assure them that you would notify them before any strike. First, that is the job of the State Department, not the military (international relations). Second, it is grossly a violation of the chain of command. Milley had no authority under the UCMJ or federal law or military tradition or the Constitution to do that. If he were an E-1, and he did that he would be charged and likely prosecuted and be spending a good portion of the rest of his life making big rocks into little rocks at Ft. Leavenworth.
          Say my son, who is an E-1 in the Army, met with my congressman (a Republican) and plotted to disobey an order given to him by the president, and it came out. My son would be in military prison before the ink dried. My son personally feels Biden is suffering from dementia but he and I have already had this discussion when he enlisted. He knows what his chain of command is and respects it.
          Say my son called up a Chinese military official and promised to notify him of any military strike before it happened. My son would be charged with espionage, even if he claimed to be doing it to avoid a war with China, launched by someone who isn’t mentally healthy.
          That is what is so disturbing about it. If anyone but Milley did it, they would already be charged under the UCMJ. And if Milley gets away with it, what stops some other member of the military doing the exact same thing to Biden? And I am sure you would be calling for them to be prosecuted while you forgave Milley, because it isn’t about principles for you, it’s about tribe.

          1. Did he “preplan to disobey an order” or did he make clear the chain of command that no nukes were to be launched without consulting him?

            1. A distinction without a distinction. The joint chiefs actually aren’t part of the chain of command for nuclear weapons, especially the JCoS of the Army. Milley has no authority in this matter except as a consultant. He has no authority to ask them to verify with him first. He is not part of the chain of command.

            2. I stand corrected I did further research and Milley is part of the chain of command for nuclear deployment, but he would not need to reinforce that because everyone in the chain already knows and trains extensively on who is in the chain of command and war games extensively for a nuclear strike. There is no confusion. He wouldn’t have to make the chain of command clear (every soldier already knows their chain of command by heart by the time they leave basic and can quote it verbatim. As soon as you get to a new unit, one of the first things you learn during in processing is your new chain of command. The people in charge of the nuclear arsenal are highly trained professionals who war game nuclear strikes all the time. They aren’t ever confused as to where they stand in it. No professional soldiers are.
              My son has been an E-1 for two months and has done one drill and already can recite his chain of command.
              Anyone who believes the clarifying of chain of command (especially with something as important as nuclear arsenal) has never served a day in their lives. Anyone who has served knows their chain of command by heart. You can’t enter a company area without seeing your chain of command. It is literally posted on the wall and is the first thing you see every morning when you report for duty. You’re drilled on it and your place in it from day one of basic or OBC.
              I’ve been out since January 05 and can almost verbatim still recite my last chain of command. I was assistant squad leader, 1st squad, 3rd platoon, Alpha company, 396th CSH, 396th medical command, 70th RRC, USARC, US Army. I can name my squad leader through the president, both enlisted and officer, and civilian.
              The only time there is any confusion possible is during a change of command, and those don’t come as a surprise. Anything above platoon level is almost always accompanied by a formal change of command ceremony (and any soldier has suffered through those and will never forget them). The higher the rank, the longer and more formal the ceremony. No one should ever be needed to be reminded of the chain of command. At Company level and below, you work with those guys every day, you won’t forget that chain of command and probably know from experience the chain of command for all the platoons in your company.
              In summation, that just isn’t a realistic scenario, the he was just reminding them of the chain of command. If he was doing that he was being insulting to their professionalism. It was unnecessary and insulting. And he wouldn’t have needed them to swear to him to verify with him before hand. It just doesn’t make any sense for anyone who has worn the uniform. Your chain of command is practically your identity in the services.

              1. The only time I’ve ever seen someone “clarify” the chain of command in ten years in service was when they were discipling someone for disobeying it or going outside of it.

        6. The lie is exposed with the second word in that sentence. Feel, strongly believe, sure. Think, not a chance.

      2. CNN watchers will believe literally anything said about Trump.

        1. I’d like to know if Trump ever said anything close to wanting to use nukes other than like when Reagan made the joke on an open mike. I could see Trump saying if China does forcible take over the Pacific, which is not a far fetched idea based on their recent actions ,will we have to use nukes. China is literally threatening the sea and several nations

        2. Yes, that is probably so. Now do OAN watchers.

    5. “Milley might have averted a full scale war with China.”

      You’re not giving him enough credit.

      In fact, he definitely saved the planet from Orange Hitler’s nuclear holocaust. (Unfortunately he was unable to stop World War 3 which, I’m sure you’ll recall, broke out after Drumpf assassinated that Iranian guy.)

      #MilleyForNobelPeacePrize

    6. #pedophilesforunelectedTopMen

    7. See now that is an act of sedition.

    8. turd lies. It’s what turd does. turd is a pathological liar too stupid to understand that he’s lying

    9. Seems like General Milley’s imagination drove himself crazy. Thats the beauty of Trump his mild manner trolling drove the crazy people out into the open and the General is crazy and should be charged with Treason for talking to China about not taking orders and for discussions with Pelosi about forcing Trump out

      1. That is what is crazy. There was no evidence Trump was going to launch a war with China (what would it achieve for him after he lost the election, especially) or launch a nuclear strike. Milley never said that order was given or even discussed. And it isn’t the JoCS job to make or maintain foreign policies. That is the job of the state department. And this is entirely different than Milley having a conversation with his British counterpart, or his French Counterpart. We have formal alliances with them. But China is seen as a political and military rival. Service members have been charged with espionage for far less then what Milley is accused of doing. If he isn’t investigated, and found to be true, charged it would undermine the Chain of Command and demoralize the military. It would send a message that the average service member has to follow the UCMJ, regulations, traditions and the Constitution, but it doesn’t apply to the highest ranks. Many service members already feel that is the case. But this would prove it beyond the shadow of doubt. The harm that this would do to the military and, not hyperbole, the republic would be drastic.
        In the history of the US I can only think of one other parallel, when MacArthur disobeyed Truman. Truman removed him from his command and forced him to retire. It was a retire or else deal.
        If Milley actually had evidence Trump was contemplating anything of this sort, he has plenty of alternatives. He could resign and then tell Congress and the public. He could ask the cabinet to start 25A proceedings. He could tell the President that he was wrong. But he took none of these routes. He instead decided unilaterally to throw out 200+ years of tradition, regulations and military law.

        1. “The harm that this would do to the military and, not hyperbole, the republic would be drastic.”

          These people don’t believe we should be a republic, Soldier. They believe they should rule us all from Washington.

          1. Coastal city-states for the win. Surrender all raw materials, resources, and IP to your betters. As some fuckwit says, open wider.

        2. That is what is crazy. There was no evidence Trump was going to launch a war with China

          Who would have guessed that Madame Speaker, the CJCS and SQRLSY shared a mutual love of Trumptator fan-fiction?

          Anybody that was paying attention, that’s who.

  6. People who have been “lifted out of poverty” by pandemic stimulus payments and other temporary subsidies will be right back in it unless the government decides to dole out thousands per person again.

    Well, is it an election year or not?

    1. It worked for Newsom. all those payouts beyond federal monies was well spent on getting him re elected.

  7. Coming out of the pandemic, Americans may be much worse off financially…..
    Who says we are coming out of the pandemic? Seems to have taken on a life of its own.

  8. What is the rate of the enslaved?

  9. Soap box
    Jury box
    Ballot box

    Which of these remains legitimate?
    Which of these isn’t corrupted wholly and beyond repair?
    Which of these remains a viable option?

    1. Ammo box?

      1. Your mom’s box.

        1. That was obviously broken before he was born. Defective.

          1. He’s just trying to distract from significant issues, like an obedient little boot licking faggot

    2. Chicken Box

      1. “Got an eight piece box!”

    3. Social Security lock box?

    4. Juke box

    5. Mystery box?

      1. Another great musical reference.

        He rocked so hard before Van Hagar. “Call it…Heavy Metal!”

        Sad.

    6. Barbara Boxer?

  10. New York City’s education worker vaccine mandate, which has been embraced by the White House, goes into effect on September 27. The court’s action today expires on September 22…

    So long as everyone is playing their part in this show.

    1. Lol. I missed that. Just another example that it’s all become a joke.

  11. “Coming out of the pandemic, Americans may be much worse off financially ”

    Buttplug jeffsarc tony and mollybitch hardest hit

  12. New research suggests that “much of what we thought we knew about metabolism was wrong,” says The New York Times.

    FTFY

    1. I finally RTFA, and this passage within it really got to me. God, I fucking hate these people sometimes:

      Men, the researchers observed, do not have innately faster metabolisms than women; rather, they tend to burn more calories per day for their size because they typically have a higher proportion of muscle, which uses more energy than fat does.

      And why do men typically have a higher proportion of muscle? Might there be something, I don’t know, innate about that?

      1. So, in essence the NYT is trying to change the definition of metabolism.

    2. Is the launching point for a great many ‘scholarly’ pieces, and chin-scratching assertions here, on why wimmins is heavier. But, in a totally not unhealthy way, because, vagina and body positivity.

    1. The Today Show had this as a major story. A bombshell from the new book…. General saves us all from Nuclear War!!

      1. That’s really how the leftists are spinning it, as instructed by WaPo

    2. General Milley should be on trial for treason.

      1. I think the charge of sedition would be more in line. And Nancy could be looking at those charges depending on her role in this.

        1. “And Nancy could be looking at those charges depending on her role in this.”

          Haha. That was funny.

          1. Wouldn’t hold my breath anytime soon but after the midterms who knows.

            1. Do you really think midterm results are going to have any effect on the bureaucracy in the justice department?

        2. Would love to see the alleged transcript of that phone call.

    3. By the way, since the mainstream media is bringing this up, is this setting the stage for Milley to take the fall for Afghanistan?

      1. No, Milley is like a lot of career political officers, a windsock. He will probably more likely throw Biden, Blinken, Austin et al under the bus to protect himself. That’s how officers like Milley role.

  13. About one in 500 Americans has now died from COVID-19…

    And not all of them had a BMI north of 25.

    1. Don’t tell the snowflakes, but over any 100 year period, at least 499 out of every 500 Americans has died.

    2. About one in 500 Americans has now died from with COVID-19…

    3. Yesterday, the deceased all voted against the recall in the safest election ever.

  14. So if the core mission is to lift all people out of poverty, and then presumably they can economically fend for themselves, let’s do some quick math using the numbers above.

    40,000,000 people in poverty = 10,000,000 families
    $13,000 “average” poor family income (half of $26k) + $20,000 assistance = $33,000, and out of poverty
    $20k x 10 million families = $200 billion per year

    And then eliminating all other poverty programs has to reduce federal spending on poverty, right?

    1. Where do you think the $13,000 comes from?

      1. From them attempting to make some money. Obviously not trying very hard, but not only collecting from the people’s teat.

    2. Seattle spends over 50k a person on homeless programs.

  15. The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom has failed…

    Californians, collectively, you forever get what you deserve. If only they could export their weather along with their people who’ve had enough.

    1. I wish they were just export people who have had enough. Their primary export seems to be people who recognize the state is fucked, don’t understand why, but want to bring in the same policies that ruined their state to begin with.

      1. Yep, you can take the Bernie out of the commune, but you can’t take the commune out of the Bernie.

        1. Forcibly removed from a pacifist commune. Gotta love that.

    2. They are spinning hard on this one. The campaign was “vote no because Larry Elder is a misogynistic racist”. Now the media is unanimous. It is a mandate that the people want more covid restrictions.

      1. In California, most of them probably do.

    3. Californians, collectively, you forever get what you deserve.

      for the first time, I am finally thinking of leaving California. There’s a lot more lifelong Californians like me who just can’t take it anymore.

      If this fascist moron tries another statewide lockdown that will probably be the final straw.

      1. I’m a fourth gen Californian and i know so many other multi generation families leaving it is very sad. when I retire I will probably have to move myself. I have chosen to not leave until my mother passes. I hope she has another ten years but more likely five

    4. If they could export some of their weather. I do like it when it rains sometimes in the summer.

      And there is no such thing as collectively deserving something.

  16. Did the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff commit treason under Trump? Will Slow Joe do anything about it since he is also completely owned by the CCP?

    Does Reason give a single fuck about any of this?

    1. This story just came out yesterday. Please give reason’s crack journalists time to review the situation, check out sources, analyze the options, and put their libertarian spin on it. Seriously, good journalism doesn’t mean rushing into print whatever rumors, etc. are floating around when a story breaks.

      1. Yes, I know they can’t comment on something until Jen Psaki has issued them their talking points.

        1. Circle lady gets the talking points from the same email that the journalists do.

          1. Sorry, that should be “urinalists”.

      2. Where is Mother’s with that “The stages of Reason covering a story,” chart?

        1. 1. It’s Not Real
          2. It’s Russian Disinfo
          3. It’s Real But Doesn’t Matter
          4. It Matters But Not Very Much
          5. This is Old News
          6. Shut Up Racist

          1. 7. Trump planned for this, so it’s his fault
            8. It would have been much worse if Trump were in charge

      3. You mean wait for the appropriate narrative.

      4. Really? Sullum cranks out 30 articles in a stretch by talking out his ass… Ohhhh you said good journalism.

      5. ENB will check her Twitter feeds and review NYT and WAPO coverage and reach the inescapable conclusion that Milley is an American hero.

    2. Maybe. No. No.

  17. “This doesn’t meant the defendants’ saga is over. The charges have not been dropped”

    Besides the charges not being dropped, Backpage isn’t about to go back into operation until FOTSA-SESTA is repealed.

    “The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) are the U.S. Senate and House bills that as the FOSTA-SESTA package became law on April 11, 2018. They clarify the country’s sex trafficking law to make it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and amend the Section 230 safe harbors of the Communications Decency Act (which make online services immune from civil liability for the actions of their users) to exclude enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws from its immunity.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act

    Incidentally, this is the kind of thing misdirected opponents of Section 230 should expect if and when Section 230 is repealed.

    I saw some bad advice given between users on an enthusiast motorcycle forum the other day. I bet the site operator supports Section 230.

    1. P.S. Yes, torqueing your rear axel to spec really is fucking necessary. Talk about misinformation and consequences! That’s Darwin Award level shit.

      1. Torquing your rear axle must be a euphemism.

    2. “This doesn’t meant the defendants’ saga is over. The charges have not been dropped”

      How does that work? A jury was empaneled. The defendants were in jeopardy. Mistrial was not due to their actions, but rather the malfeasance of the prosecution. How is retrying these defendants on these charges, by this sovereign, not a case of Double Jeopardy?

      1. I’m not a lawyer. However, it seems to me that a mistrial means the first trial never happened, so the defendant isn’t being tried twice.

        In the trial of Charles Manson, as I recall, some of the girls in his “Family” stood up among the spectators and, in unison, said something to the effect of, “President Nixon says Charles Mason is guilty. What’s the use?”. The intent of this was to a) prejudice the jury so that b) the judge could declare a mistrial.

        I don’t think the prosecutor making a mistake necessarily means that another trial shouldn’t happen. If a verdict wasn’t reached, and the jury is prejudiced to the point that a verdict can’t be reached by way of a fair trial, then I think you need to rest the board and have another trial from scratch.

        If the prosecutor can’t make his case without doing the same unacceptable shit, then he should drop the prosecution. Quite frankly, this case should have been a slam dunk. It seems to me that the prosecutors were trying to make a name for themselves by being the savior of sex trafficked children. These are the kinds of cases that launch political careers–everyone from Janet Reno to Rudy Giuliani made their names on high profile cases this way.

        Why wasn’t it enough to go after them for facilitating adult prostitution?

        Looks like hubris to me.

        1. Perhaps not tried twice, but in effect they could be tried forever.

          1. The process is the punishment.

          2. There will be a verdict eventually, or the prosecutor will drop the case.

        2. Back page is being procecuters because the founders donated to kamalas political rival

    3. And yet, despite section 230, we still get this. Guess the blanket protection against any other law or regulation only applies if you contribute $X million to the Election Fortification fund.

      1. So, yes, we should hold the line on Section 230 despite the moneyed interests.

        Isn’t that what you’re saying?

        1. I’m more saying that even if section 230 is a good idea as written, section 230 as implemented has close to nothing to do with section 230 as written. On the one hand, it’s the go-to excuse to let multi-billion dollar tech companies off the hook for legal and regulatory violations that would get any normal citizen’s ass sued into bankruptcy (or even put in prison, for that matter). On the other hand, it utterly fails to protect tech companies that aren’t in the club from (at the very least) getting its ass sued into bankruptcy.

          In practical terms, it works just like any other additional law or regulation implemented by the government: it provides yet another weapon for bureaucrats to use as they wish, to reward the bribers and to punish everyone else.

          1. I’m more saying that even if section 230 is a good idea as written, section 230 as implemented has close to nothing to do with section 230 as written”

            If Section 230 was intended to protect platforms from the kind of treatment Backpage is getting, and they were only able to go after Backpage like this once they passed a law to exempt them from Section 230, then it seems to me that Section 230 was working exactly as intended. The question is whether Section 230 should be repealed, and the answer is not that it should be repealed because it only works when it’s the law.

            1. it seems to me that Section 230 was working exactly as intended

              Indeed it is. It continues to protect the favored contributor corporations from any legal harm while simultaneously protecting the favored contributor corporations from their competitors.

              1. Again, the idea that no one should enjoy the benefits of our rights and liberties unless everyone enjoys them equally is in total opposition to libertarian and capitalist thought.

                O.J. got away with murder because he had fancy lawyers that hard.ly anyone else can afford–so no one else should ever be tried for murder again to be fair? That’s just pure horseshit.

                Because something is being applied unjustly doesn’t mean we start violating everyone’s rights until they stop. To the extent that Section 230 protects our rights, it’s doing the right thing.

                If my motorcycle repair forum goes down because Section 230 disappears, no one’s rights will be better protected than before. Violating people’s rights in the name of equality is absurd.

                1. the idea that no one should enjoy the benefits of our rights and liberties unless everyone enjoys them equally is in total opposition to libertarian and capitalist thought.

                  I almost always respect your opinion, even in the cases when I disagree, but this is an incredibly dumb statement. A double standard of law is the exact opposite of libertarian and free market thought. One of the most fundamental principles upon which liberty is based is equality under the law. You’re not free just because Gavin Newsome or Jeff Bezos or Barak Obama are free to do whatever they want. You’re still oppressed as long as the state is oppressing you regardless of the rights enjoyed by the aristocracy. And consequently nobody lives in a free society as long as some minority of people are being oppressed, regardless of how small that minority is.

                  That OJ allegedly got away with murder is a (somewhat) free society working exactly as it should. He didn’t call up his buddies in the California senate to ask them to legalize murder just for him. He didn’t call up his buddies in the judiciary and ask them to throw out the trial. He didn’t call his media buddies to ask them to incite violence against the prosecutors through unfavorable coverage. He called up a team of lawyers, who willingly came to his defense according to the terms they agreed upon, and went through the entire trial process and got a not guilty verdict, just as thousands of other, far less wealthy Americans do every year.

                  If my motorcycle repair forum goes down because Section 230 disappears, no one’s rights will be better protected than before

                  Again, the point is that your motorcycle repair forum isn’t any better protected against disappearing now with section 230 than it would be without. Your rights can be violated with or without section 230 on the books. But rest assured, the government is hard at work protecting Amazon’s right to violate the terms of their contracts and rewrite them at will. Truly, this is the epitome of libertarian capitalism, right?

                  1. “A double standard of law is the exact opposite of libertarian and free market thought.”

                    The idea that no one’s property rights should be respected because of eminent domain abuse is not a principled libertarian position. It’s just stupid.

                    The idea that marijuana shouldn’t be legalized because cocaine and heroin are still illegal is monumentally stupid–not principled.

                    And believing that everyone should be forced to answer in court for things everyone knows they didn’t do–because of some instance of injustice somewhere–is just dumb. It’s not libertarian at all.

                    You’ve rationalized yourself into a ridiculous corner. Stop painting.

                    “Again, the point is that your motorcycle repair forum isn’t any better protected against disappearing now with section 230 than it would be without.”

                    Unless some enterprising lawyer decides to sue the website because some commenter on the site told his client that torqueing to spec didn’t really matter–and his client went down on the freeway, after his axel slipped, with traffic barreling down on him at 70mph.

                    The assumption that website operators won’t make different decisions based on different risk profiles is like assuming they won’t react to price signals. We’re smarter than that.

                    1. The idea that no one’s property rights should be respected because of eminent domain abuse is not a principled libertarian position. It’s just stupid.

                      The idea that anyone’s property rights are being respected when eminent domain is used to seize someone’s property every single day is even stupider. The idea that a ban on eminent domain protects your property rights when the only one whose property doesn’t get seized is the local billionaire that just bought your former house from the government is laughable.

                      Unless some enterprising lawyer decides to sue the website

                      And that’s all well and good until Facebook decides that motorcycle forums are encroaching on its territory. Then all that protection goes out the window. So I guess in this case private property is private, so long as the big guys let you keep it.

                    2. “And that’s all well and good until Facebook decides that motorcycle forums are encroaching on its territory. Then all that protection goes out the window.”

                      It isn’t just Facebook’s decision.

                      They had to pass a law through Congress and get the president to sign it before they got an exception for BackPage. That is no mean feat!

                      They should at least need to do that, and you seem to want to do that for them! Aren’t you the one advocating that they take the protections away from every motorcycle enthusiast site and every major social media company equally?

                      At some point in college, you were supposed to get high and listen to this on headphones:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnC88xBPkkc

                      No, making them all equal isn’t the solution.

            2. Section 230 is not working as intended. Moonrocks is right. It allows SV to operate with unconscionable clauses in their contracts not available to other industry. See Megan Murphy lawsuit.

              1. Section 230 is not working as intended.”

                My statement was that IF IF IF they could only go after Backpage because they passed a law exempting Backpage from Section 230, then that is direct evidence that Section 230 was working as intended in Backpage’s case.

                That isn’t questionable. The questionable part is whether they could have gone after sex traffickers for sex trafficking on Backpage–even without an exemption to Section 230–and the answer is “yes”.

                Meanwhile, if you want to sue people for defaming you on Facebook, you CAN sue the people who actually defamed you if you want–despite Section 230. Section 230 is just protecting the platform, not the the person who violated your rights.

                1. Again, you’re missing the key part of my post. The contractual issues brought up in the Megan Murphy lawsuit were swept away by the arbitration judge (in silicon valley where it is required) saying 230 also covered contracts such as Terms of Service. Megan did not violate any actual rules when she was kicked off.

                  1. I’m not familiar with the case in question, but the solution to a judge misreading the Second Amendment isn’t to repeal the Second Amendment, and the solution to a judge misreading Section 230 isn’t to repeal Section 230.

                    .“[Murphy] argues, the newly added restrictions were applied retroactively to her tweets. Plus, her lawsuit claims, Twitter shouldn’t censor such speech at all. According to the court decision :

                    A California court sided with Twitter in the lawsuit, but Murphy says she’s planning an appeal. The issue isn’t just about her tweets.”

                    —-Washington Examiner

                    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/this-journalist-lost-her-lawsuit-against-twitter-for-banning-her-account-but-shes-not-giving-up

                    Bad decisions should be overturned, and if she doesn’t bother appealing the decision, that’s her business. That doesn’t mean we should start forcing website everywhere to start answering in court for defamatory statements that they didn’t write.

                    Meanwhile, this decision wasn’t even in federal court but only in a lower court in California? Are you sure this is even a precedent setting case?

        2. Is there a point where section 230 only protecting the correct people will change your opinion of it?

          Because I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the “rules for thee, but not for me” clause is now not only completely blatant, but about half the people in this country don’t even care.

          1. Or what Moonrocks just said.

          2. To whatever extent that the First Amendment protects free speech, I will continue to support it.

            If they say that the First Amendment doesn’t protect pornographers, I’ll still support it for protecting as many people as it can, and I will continue to support extending First Amendment protections to everyone who isn’t violating anyone’s rights.

            1. P.S. I feel the same way about Section 230.

              The First Amendment doesn’t protect violating the rights of children any more than the Second Amendment protects the right to indiscriminately shoot people. We don’t need to amend the Constitution to go after child pornographers for violating the rights of children, and I doubt we needed to amend Section 230 to allow us to go after child sex traffickers either. There wasn’t anything about Section 230 that protected child sex traffickers. If your support for the First Amendment wouldn’t fall apart if everyone weren’t protected equally, why would your support for Section 230 be any different?

            2. Section 230 is not The First Amendment. The First Amendment does not give companies protection to violate contracts with people for “good faith” reasons, when those reasons are to do the bidding of the Democrat party.

              1. I didn’t say the First Amendment and Section 230 were the same thing. I said that just as I’d continue to support the First Amendment to cover as many people as possible (so long as they aren’t violating anyone’s rights), so I’d continue to support Section 230 to cover as many website owners as possible. The idea that no one should enjoy the benefits of freedom unless everyone benefits equally is not compatible with libertarian capitalism. It’s the foundation of authoritarian socialism.

                1. Allowing companies to violate contracts is not freedom.

                  For the record, I’m not against the idea that platforms shouldn’t be liable for what people post on them. But that’s not all of what section 230 is. It’s also a way for Democrats in government to coerce platforms to break contracts with their political enemies without consequences. It’s censorship by proxy.

                  1. This is seemingly one of Ken’s blind spots on how 230 is used in theory vs in practice.

                    Also Prof Volokh has brought up case law that shows censorship at the behest of government (such as the WH coordinating with FB) can actually violate the 1A constitutional requirements of free speech. These companies are not working in isolation away from the government. Another huge issue.

                  2. “Allowing companies to violate contracts is not freedom.”

                    Where does Section 230 say that it’s okay to violate contracts?

                    1. It’s the FYTW clause that judges keep citing when throwing cases against big tech out of hand. It may not be explicitly written in the law, but that doesn’t make a practical difference when Google screws you out of your livelihood (even contrary to their own terms of service at the time, which themselves would be unenforceable as a contract in any other context) and you can’t do anything about it.

                    2. (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

                      Regardless of the intentions when the law was written, this now applies to speech Democrats don’t like.

                    3. Copy fail. This goes on top:

                      (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material…

                      (2) Civil liability
                      No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

                    4. Given what I’m reading in Section 230, users should be free to sue platforms for breach of contract regardless of whether platforms can be sued for the defamatory speech of third parties.

                      If some courts are failing to interpret this law properly, again, that isn’t a justification for violating anyone’s rights by making them answer for things they didn’t write or say.

                      At worst, we’re looking at something like the courts failing to protect the rights of gun owners, which is something they did for decades in the face of gun control laws. We’re still not at the end of that fight.

                      You don’t just give up on liberty and justice. You keep fighting.

                    5. (2) Civil liability
                      No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

                      (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of

                      It’s right there Ken. Except “good faith” has become meaningless.

        3. Google, Facebook, and Twitter all admitted to being publishers and not platforms. According to section 230 they are liable for what gets shown on their websites as soon as they make that distinction. In practice they are not liable for any thing because fyty

          1. I’m not looking for a way to rationalize my favorite position. Justice requires that people shouldn’t be held to account for things they didn’t do, and Section 230 protects people from having to account for things they didn’t write or say. I think some people are picking a position first and looking for a way to rationalize it afterwards. They don’t like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, and they’re looking for a way to hurt them. This is absolutely understandable since Google, Facebook, and Twitter treat so many people like shit.

            It’s understandable if people who have been treated like shit want to lash out at the people who mistreated them, but the reason we don’t leave justice up to the victims is because justice isn’t about victims lashing out at the people who mistreat them. Justice sometimes requires us to protect our right to treat other people like shit. Did somebody cut you off on the freeway and give you the finger on the way to work today? Guess what? That’s his right! Turns out assholes have rights, too. Convicted rapists have rights. Terrorists have rights. Racists have rights.

            Google, Facebook, and Twitter are a blight on society, and they should be condemned at every opportunity for the shitty way they treat people. They also shouldn’t need to go to court to respond to things that they didn’t say or write. If you want to go after the person who wronged you, go after the person who wronged you. That isn’t a rationalization of a favorite position. That just flows naturally from primary principles–like the idea that people shouldn’t need to answer in court for things the plaintiff doesn’t even allege they did.

    4. One of the largest problems w/ ‘enthusiast forums’ is the same problem with the internet. People who have minimal/zero experience or expertise feel that the open nature is an invitation to chime in with some spurious bullshit. Read some of the amazon q&a’s where folks just answer blithely that they don’t know, or used the product in a manner unrelated to the question. Section 230 may or may not require reform, but the issue is with people. And, yeah, have had similar experiences on supposedly mechanic-specific forums. Fuckwits.

  18. New research suggests that “much of what we thought we knew about metabolism was wrong…”

    Speaking of BMI…

  19. Leaked documents show Fauci allowed UNC to continue gain of function research even after that research was banned. Professor used disclaimer to try to legally protect himself.

    https://redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/09/14/revealed-fauci-ignored-obamas-ban-on-gain-of-function-research-ordered-coronavirus-studies-to-continue-n442198

    1. When will Fauci answer for his crimes?

      1. As soon as his polling goes south. So, never.

    2. Yet it is Rand Paul who is branded the liar, extreme right wing conspiracy nut, etc.

      1. Duh, anyone who questions government doctrine is a heretic. This is all a faith-based system, right?

    3. Thanks for the link.

      Fauci committed sedition!

  20. About one in 500 Americans has now died from COVID-19, reports CNN, relying on coronavirus death data from Johns Hopkins University and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    WITH, not FROM! All CDC reports I’ve heard listed numbers of dead bodies that tested positive, not the number of people who died as a direct result of the disease.

    Amazing how one little word can completely change what the statistics mean.

    1. This needs to be appended to each and every recitation of the statistics: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/

      COVID hospitalization tallies can’t be taken as a simple measure of the prevalence of severe or even moderate disease, because they might inflate the true numbers by a factor of two.

      It was closer to square in the initial outbreak, but with each wave this problem gets more severe.

  21. About one in 500 Americans has now died from COVID-19, reports CNN, relying on coronavirus death data from Johns Hopkins University and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    With, not of. Every audit has reduced died of numbers by around 30% see Colorado or Southern California audits.

    Covid remains detectable in recovered patients for up to 3 months (flu is 10 days for perspective).

      1. Welcome back from being hacked.

        1. Hey ree-ree. Hacked means someone stole your password and used your account. I was never hacked. Someone impersonated me by putting a space in their name.

          But you know this. I’ve said it many times.

          Keep lying. It’s what you do best.

          1. I thought Reason fixed that?

            1. Whats funny is I proved him directly lying a week ago with links and he still denies it. Drugs fucked him up.

              1. Drugs and unrestrained self-pity.

              2. Except you didn’t. That’s the funny part. Literally everything you have against me is all in your head, and you obsess about it. A lot.

                Get help.

                1. Now that you’ve got all our attention, now’s probably a great time to set the record straight on your divorce and your daughter.

                  1. Nah, the stuff you guys make up is way more interesting.

                    1. I thought her damaging people’s property was pretty interesting.

          2. “…Keep lying. It’s what you do best.”

            Keep making an asshole of yourself; it’s your specialty.

            1. He isnt the asshole everyone else is. Said every asshole.

          3. Fuck Tulpa!

            1. Chrysalis or tulpa

            2. Fuck White Mike. Tulpa is what you deserve.

          4. That was all you, sarcasmic. Quit lying and man up to the fact that you should probably stop drunkposting.

            1. Cool story, brah.

              1. Hilarious, but not particularly cool, unless a living, breathing train-wreck is cool.

    1. Also look at the age numbers. Stop fear mongering.

      1. But if they can’t fearmonger, then how will the Biden regime be able to justify more totalitarian measures to fight the Red Death?

      2. At best, progressives have the intellectual and emotional maturity of a troubled 15 year old girl. And she has no real understanding or acceptance of mortality, except as a sudden shock that busts her innate assumption that she would live (as a teenager) forever. But she will likely forget the current fad threat at some point and fixate on the next “crisis”.

      3. Without the fear mongering, how will they convince parents to jab newborns.

  22. They are now “prohibited from using chokeholds and ‘carotid restraints’ unless deadly force is authorized, which is considered when an officer has a ‘reasonable belief’ they or another person face imminent danger of death or serious injury…”

    Haven’t you heard how often they fear for their lives? It’s, like, all the time.

    1. Cops love to choke people. They really enjoy it. So I’ll bet twenty bucks that this will be completely ignored, and nothing else will happen. That or they’ll start quitting in droves like they did when NYC banned chokeholds.

      1. And some cops like shooting unarmed women in the face. But that’s what gets you off.

        1. So we’re adding snuff films to the big list of sarcasmic degeneracy?

    2. THEY’RE COMING RIGHT FOR US!

    3. Under the policy, such entries can only be used when an agent believes there is a threat to physical safety.

      Oof.

  23. So in 2020 poverty may have decreased, depending on how you spin the numbers. Whatever.

    You know what certainly happened in 2020? Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch lost $5 billion due to Drumpf’s draconian anti-billionaire policies. Fortunately Biden has been far more billionaire-friendly.

    #GetReadyForTheKochComeback

    1. This boy’s Koch-ring is too tight.

      1. OBL is a parody account.

  24. A system that relies on taxing a small minority to fund the majority of public spending, with the fervor to further skew this discrepancy in responsibility, while asking citizens to stay at home and receive their govt checks…is not sustainable.

    Just like when you implement communism and stick it to the rich by taking what they have, they get less (and have more stolen directly from them), but somehow the lower middle class and actual poor get shit on worse. Every time.

    This is completely predictable. Their policies of “eat the rich” will ultimately make the rich just save more money rather than spend, hide it where possible, and keep it away from govt.

    You cant have an actual majority paying no income tax at all, while the top few percent pays 40% of the taxes and the top 20% pays basically everything. No skin in the game for those in the bottom 50%, they dont care, they will continue to vote themselves more free stuff, yet every day they will realize they have less and less.

    What they will get more of, is govt running their sad little lives though. Its a shame. We have seen it over and over in other countries, and we can see it coming here a mile away, but we are like a deer in headlights apparently.

  25. • The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom has failed, meaning Newsom will remain in office.

    Cult of Newsome. Also gives robbie hope with that hair.

  26. RIP Norm Macdonald

    Deserves more than 3 words

    1. It’s impossible to say what Norm’s greatest moment was, but I think his appearance on the View, during which he calls Bill Clinton a murder and trolls the hosts endlessly, might be up there:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3PP_SWHUQQ

      1. One of my favorite jokes of his was from a long time ago, and I can’t find it. It involved a head in a duffel bag.

      2. That’s a good one. I’ll take his getting fired from SNL for his non stop OJ jokes. Fuck Don Ohlmeyer.

        1. Norm outliving Ohlmeyer despite getting cancer ten years ago was his last, greatest troll.

          1. Incidentally, Ohlmeyer’s grave is at St John Cemetery in Lafayette, Louisiana, in case any of you degenerates happen to be in the neighborhood and would like to leave the jock-sniffing simp for a murderer a fragrant Gift of Remembrance.

            1. Hit up Parish Brewery down the street afterwards…

        2. His return to SNL as host after getting fired. He trolled the show in his monologue. “Either I got a lot funnier after getting fired from here or this show now sucks.”

      3. “I love George Bush man. He’s a good man, decent… not a liar, crook, murderer…”

        Geez Norm. You were completely wrong. Bush lied to justify attacking Iraq. His crook friends used the war to bank billions and they murdered thousands of Iraqis.

    2. No shit. This is a guy who really spoke Truth to Power–during his time as the Weekend Update host, he constantly slagged Hillary and unapologetically called OJ a murderer, and ended up losing his job because one of the NBC execs was OJ’s buddy. He even roasted Clinton right to his face, long before Coal-burt got his dick sucked by the media for doing the same thing to Bush.

      Plus, what made him so great was he didn’t give a single fuck if people laughed at his jokes or not. He wasn’t an Applause Comedian like most left-wingers turned in to after Stewart took over the Daily Show. He gave his take, and you could laugh or not, but he wasn’t going to second-guess himself if you didn’t because he knew how fucking funny he was.

    3. It still cracks me up that he played Pigeon on Mike Tyson’s Mysteries. The whole premise of the show was nuts, and he fit right in on a show that’s completely bonkers.

    4. Norm has a hilarious gay pride parade joke.

  27. Obama appointed judge believes disruption of federal proceedings charge being used against jan 6th protestors is unconstitutional.

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/09/15/federal-judge-capitol-hill-rioters-charges-might-not-be-constitutional-n2595889

    Prosecution continues to seek multi year jail sentencing even for those who committed no violence nor vandalism.

    1. Reason will continue to not care.

      1. Neither will our resident lefties.

      2. Oh they care, but they’re on the other side and that’s why they’re not mentioning it.

    2. kind of hard to disrupt people who chose to not continue and leave.

  28. The percentage of Californians who turned our for the recall seem to be about the same percentage who voted for Trump. If there’s something for swing voters to learn from this, it may be that Trump Derangement Syndrome is not unique to Trump.

    Back in the day, a new verb was coined, “to bork”. It’s defined like this:

    “bork : to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification”

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bork

    I suspect the term fell out of use because borking people stopped being distinctive. I think almost every Republican nominee for the Supreme Court since has been borked to some extent. Some appointees, like Thomas and Kavanaugh, were borked to a greater extent than others. Regardless, the way Robert Bork was treated during confirmation hearings is now standard operating procedure. There’s no point in using a term for something that was supposed to be unusual once that unusual circumstance has become the new normal.

    That’s where I think we are with TDS. In case it hasn’t set in, TDS isn’t just for Trump anymore. Larry Elder got it, and if some other Republican emerges in California to challenge Newsom in 2022, they’ll get the same treatment Trump did.

    When Rand Paul, DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, or any other Republican wins the nomination in 2024, they’ll be the subject of the same TDS treatment Trump received, too. The left rationalized their bizarre, fact free, hatred of Trump in terms of him being a unique threat, but going forward, that is the way they’re likely to treat any opposition to the Democratic party for the foreseeable future.

    1. Every Republican is evil, racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, homophobic, and hates the poor!

      The only way to win this game is to not to dispel the accusations, but to sternly and callously say “I don’t give a shit.”

      Republicans fail at this astoundingly, over and over. Rather than saying “I don’t care,” they try to fight to accusations, convince people otherwise, and to smear those hurling the accusations as the ones guilty of that which they are accusing others.

      It is pointless.

      “Fuck off” and “I don’t give a shit” should be the default response by any Republican candidate for any office anywhere to such smears. The only way to prevail, is not to engage.

      At the end of the day, there is no reasoning with irrational people.

    2. We were treated to that lying pos Obo on the tube telling us that if Elder were elected, we were all gonna die, since he opposes mask and vacc mandates!
      They didn’t let him get the part where he’d tell us we could keep our doctors.

      1. Why was Liz Warren telling us what to do?

        1. I’ll bet her ads were very carefully targeted; Palo Alto, Berkeley and the like.

    3. Keep trusting the system, Ken.
      Believing in the integrity of elections and laws is totes gonna prove justified some day.

      1. Keep trusting the system, Ken.”

        This statement is stupid in so many ways, it’s hard to know where to begin.

        1. When you are getting swindled and the people swindling you aren’t hiding it, slapping another dollar down on the table with the hopes you are going to win this time around is well …. where do we begin?

          1. Unfortunately, Newsom’s win wasn’t the result of swindling. Meanwhile, my belief “in the system” is a non-issue. California would still be what it is regardless of what I believed about it.

            What should have happened differently in California is that the opponents of progressivism should have been more persuasive, and the voters of California should have used their critical thinking bone.

            Because we didn’t turn a blue state red, however, doesn’t mean that plenty of swing state voters in swing states aren’t perfectly ready to vote against progressives in the upcoming midterms.

            1. Mass mail-in voting is swindling. There is no way around it.

              1. That might make a difference in some states.

                I’d argue that states should be free to do as they please with those rules, and that even if mail-in voting in conducive to swindling, it is not swindling by itself.

                Meanwhile, the reason Newsom lost isn’t because of mail-in voting. It’s because of the fucking voters in California. They’re gonna choke on this because they voted to choke on it.

                1. There is a reason that cash is preferred in illicit transactions. It is virtually impossible to track. Mail-in voting is the equivalent of using cash. Some people are comfortable with voting system being the equivalent of an untraceable drug deal, for obvious reasons. Others correctly realize that it is a problem.

                  If you are comfortable with an untraceable voting system with no means of accounting for the results, then you are implicitly endorsing fraud. If you think that the major problem of participating in such a system is that, regrettably, there are not enough honest participants, then you may well be the type of person that runs to the authorities when you discover that the dealer took your money in exchange for a bag of oregano.

                  1. Given the stakes, it should be no surprise that the political machine exploits any opportunity they can. And this is the biggest opportunity ever.

            2. the elections seemed fair except that Newsom paid off voters with extra $600.00 checks to whoever and the other Federal monies he took credit for that was given to small business. his adds were quite open about it, He gave Californians this money. that said i think the state is a lost cause and probably the whole country as well.

              1. That’s been legal since the Gracchi brothers at least.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

      2. That’s right, Nardz. Killing people is the answer, right? It’s what you continually advocate for. Gonna start a militia?

        1. You are the gayest fed trolling these comments.

        2. Kill yourself, faggot.

          1. Sure Colonel Fitts. Whatever you say.

        3. I really should stop commenting on Ken’s comments. When I stay out of it, the Trump fan club start in-fighting amongst themselves.

          1. Shut up nazi asshole Mike

          2. You really should stop making a public ass of yourself every day. Please, make the world a better place: Fuck off and die.

          3. Those are called honest discussions. Something you are unaware of.

          4. “I really should stop commenting on trolling and harrassing Ken’s

            Fixed that for you Mike.

          5. Yeah, two different topics where the people that trash you and jeffsarc disagreed with Ken today, and nobody called him a liar or a lefty.

            Which is weird because you lefties always say that’s the reason we say those things to you. But in reality, we call you dishonest lefties because that’s what you are.

        4. Biden voter jeffsarc pitches a fit because he gets torched every day here

    4. Even before Trump they treated Mitt Romney and John McCain like shit. As soon as they became the final GOP candidates the media lied about everything from dogs on roofs and binders of women to McCain Cheating on his wife. that was when i quit watching CNN and MSNBC

    5. They Trumped Romney and McCain before Trump even ran for office.

  29. If ENB was truly concerned about reducing poverty, she would have pointed out that the vast majority of adult Americans who are categorized as living in “poverty” have made those economic decisions for themselves.

    By far the largest contributor to poverty are single parent households (i.e. fatherless children), followed closely by having children as a teenager, and not graduating high school. Many adults who live in poverty have also chosen to rely upon Big Brother subsidies instead of getting/keeping full time jobs (which reduces the subsidies from Big Brother).

    But of course, left wing politicians and media propagandists (including ENB) refuse to address (let alone acknowledge) these realities, and instead advocate even more government subsidies to keep impoverished and poor adults addicted to Big Brother handouts (and to keep most of them them voting Democrat).

  30. About one in 500 Americans has now died from COVID-19, reports CNN, relying on coronavirus death data from Johns Hopkins University and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    These numbers include the died WITH wuhan virus folks, not just died OF it. Everyone knows this, and everyone is pretending otherwise. They have MASSIVELY over-reported wuhan virus fatalities. For a reason. And CNN is complicit in the regime’s plans on this.

  31. New research suggests that “much of what we thought we knew about metabolism was wrong,” says The New York Times.

    Eggs and coffee are good for you again. Wait a couple years…

    1. I just ate two boiled eggs and drank coffee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. Eggs have all that estrogen.

      2. Eat shit and die. I know you’re not sullum… But I’m pretty sure you’re some faggot dinger thats connected to him in some way.
        Again… Eat shit… Die.

    2. People are not calorimeters.

      Yes, of course, you will lose weight if you limit your calorie intake. But stress and insulin levels probably have a big effect, too.

      1. Says the girl that admitted she lets her dog lick her ass yesterday.

      2. Why not get the vaccine put down the Chunkin Donuts with extra cream and sugar?

      3. Wow thanks for dropping some obvious and known facts asshole nazi Mike

        1. It’s not her fault she is fat.

          1. White Castle Mike

            1. Funny. Bravo.

      4. Cawttage cheese thighs

  32. Too bad about that Cali recall though eh?

    Californians “Spank me harder, daddy government!”

    Sad!

    1. It’s amazing Republicans don’t get their asses kicked like this all over the country.

      1. Its telling that the people they recruited as heavy hitters to support Newsom’s campaign (Kamala, Warren, DNC garbage) are the exact kind that are popular in California and can do no wrong, but everywhere else they are despised.

        Newsom is hated in the biggest democratic stronghold in the country. Warren got spanked in her own states primary, bad. Kamala is the most disliked and least approved VP in history, significantly lower approval and likability than Dick Fucking Cheney.

        The fact that you think these people could kick republican ass all over the country is hilarious. They can hardly beat out other dems, and pretty much everyone in the country thinks they are incompetent parasites.

      2. This was not a case of “Republicans”. The recall included many democrats as an alternative to the fascist elitist Newsome. But Californians love their socialist dictators.

      3. Lard of shit exclaims some trope about his betters and then celebrates a scumbag winning in California.

      4. Eat shit… Die

  33. An article in today’s WSJ revealed median 2020 US household incomes for four racial/ethnic groups.
    Asians – $95K
    White (non Hispanic) – $75K
    US median – $67.5K
    Hispanics – $55K
    Blacks – $45K

    But of course, the WSJ article also never mentioned that households with the lowest rates of single parents, the lowest rates of dropping out of high school, and the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy and teen parents also have the highest median household incomes.

    1. That would be racist

      1. When reality is racist, reject reality?

        1. That’s in the playbook.

    2. Also the lowest rates of committing violent crime. Do prisoners count as households? Having a chunk of your population imprisoned seems like a good way to reduce productivity.

      1. House of corrections. Maybe.

  34. An article in today’s WSJ revealed median 2020 US household incomes for four racial/ethnic groups.
    Asians – $95K
    White (non Hispanic) – $75K
    US median – $67.5K
    Hispanics – $55K
    Blacks – $45K

    But of course, the WSJ article also never mentioned that households with the lowest rates of single parents, the lowest rates of dropping out of high school, and the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy and teen parents also have the highest median household incomes.

    1. No, these points are racist to say.

      It cannot be the culture associated with those in the lower income categories, it certainly has to be the culture of the whites and white-passing groups, inflicting harm and supremacy on the other ones.

      It cant be having a stable family structure, with a focus on behaving and doing well in school. No way. All racist talk

  35. HOLY SHIT No mention by ENB about the new book by Bob Woodward claiming the Gen. Mark Milley called the leading Chinese Communist General the day after Biden’s election victory, and told him that the US (i.e. Trump) wouldn’t invade China, and that Milley would notify the Chinese General if the US was planning an attack.

    The book also claimed Milley had private phone calls with Pelosi and Schumer, and that he agreed with Pelosi’s. statement that Trump was crazy.

    So did Bob Woodward lie (or misrepresent the facts) or did Milley commit treason?

    Reason readers want to know, but Reason still hasn’t mentioned the subject (just like the mostly peaceful protest on Jan 6 that resulted in the murder of Ashli Babbitt by a Capitol Police Officer who Pelosi exonerated after she falsely claimed stroke sufferer Brian Sicknick was attacked and killed by protesters).

    1. We already knew about the calls between Pelosi and Willy Milley My question is that call was seditious and conspiring yet no one is calling them on it. Where are the republicans on this they should both be charged. what they did is far worse than anything that happened on Jan 6

    2. Something smells funny here.

      Even Alex Vindman is calling on Milley to resign.

      “Alexander S. Vindman
      @AVindman
      If this is true GEN Milley must resign. He usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military. It’s an extremely dangerous precedent. You can’t simply walk away from that. #dotherightthingintherightway”
      https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1437843079294238724

      I don’t trust Vindman an inch, h every bit the same swamp creature as Milley. Which makes me wonder what the hell is going on.

      1. Guess we’ve found our scapegoat for Afghanistan…

  36. Texas law makes it more difficult to get an abortion

    Dear women in Texas: Maybe you should move to California. We just had a recall election and the guy we confirmed actually won’t treat you like someone in the moderate wing of the Taliban.

    The Taliban candidate got half the vote of the normal guy. The results were suspiciously Soviet like in the tally, but— you know— actually real.

    1. They are free to get up and move to California at their will. They can vote with their feet.

      Funny thing though, most people voting with their feet are still leaving California and moving to Texas.

    2. >>the guy we confirmed actually won’t treat you like someone in the moderate wing of the Taliban.

      lol. just all your money. I’ll be @French Laundry.

    3. Newsom and his wife were associates of Weinstein and Clinton. Both rapists. Congrats on celebrating women getting assaulted you fucking asshole fascist.

      1. AmSoc is Buttplug trolling. The only thing he’d disagree with the Newsoms over is that Rose McGowan was way too old.

        https://reason.com/2021/08/31/americas-longest-war-is-over/#comment-9076679

    4. Have I mentioned how much I appreciate the kind of “socia1ism” that celebrates the state with the highest poverty rate in the nation because all that really matters is access to abortion care?

      #AbortionAboveAll

      1. You can’t be truly evil until you purposefully engender poverty and kill babies. California is a great example for potential Moloch’s.

    5. “…The Taliban candidate got half the vote of the normal guy…”

      Commie shit cannot post without lying; it’s what commie shits do.

    6. ‘The Taliban candidate got half the vote of the normal guy.’ So, a little racism here, a little anti-Muslim sentiment there. Keep it coming, champ, you and your in-group are, as always, pathetic bigots. Bonus points for the use of a fraction, are you certain you didn’t mean the black guy wasn’t a fraction of a ‘real’ and normal person.

  37. >>Mistrial motion granted for Backpage defendants.

    government L always a good day.

    1. Meanwhile in D.C., former Olympic gymnasts are testifying on how the FBI bungled the Nassar case. And if what the gymnasts are saying is true, they royally fucked up.

      1. Defund the FBI. Entirely.

        1. I’m becoming further convinced each day that the entire upper echelons of our government need to be 100% purged of anyone who has ever held a high-ranking position. It’s overridden with fraud, failures, CCP-bootlickers, and people who value their own advancement over the Constitution or the well-being of the country.

      2. At least they didn’t fuck up the Whitmer kidnapping case.

        1. She’s still in office, so from my perspective they did fuck it up.

        2. they totally forgot to fake-kidnap her. or alternatively they got there and decided nobody wanted her in their truck

      3. To busy chasing political prosecutions and nascar nooses to worry about a Dr fucking little girls.

  38. off topic
    five anti vac conservative radio talk show host dead form Covid. My question is were they targeted for infection. lets add Rush to the number of conservative radio show host now murdered. We know the CIA has done it to others why wouldn’t they not do it to Americans that they don’t like.

    Hows that for a conspiracy

    1. Wouldn’t be any more shocking to me than the murder of Fred Hampton

    2. “Hows that for a conspiracy”

      Pretty impressive, seriously. Did you come up with it all on your own?

    3. AM radio waves transmit the Chinese covid virus. Part of the CCP plan to weaken America for their invasion! Proud patriots will either die or submit to CCP rule by changing the dial to NPR.

    4. So not only is COVID harmless to anyone under 80, but it’s a bioweapon that targets conservatives?

      What’s not to like?

    5. ‘Feeling under the weather?’

      https://youtu.be/NP7Nszp4Iwg?t=57

  39. Temporary Government Checks Produce Better Poverty Numbers…Temporarily

    I’ve heard that regular injections of heroin can make you feel better, too. I think Biden should recommend that we give that a try.

    1. Recommend? Joe’s got one move, Mandate!

  40. About one in 500 Americans has now died from COVID-19, reports CNN, relying on coronavirus death data from Johns Hopkins University and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    And now we know this entire pandemic is bullshit, with this one simple, straightforward statistic.

    1. How so?

      1. If 1 in 500 Americans had died from most people would know at least one person who had died from it. I know almost no one who knows someone who died of it.

        I know almost no one who has been hospitalized from it.

        1. “almost no one”

          So, even your personal experience doesn’t conflict with the number they are giving.

          I’ll contrast by giving my view, which is what a moderate person without an agenda thinks: the stat might be a little off, it might conflate “with” with “from”, but it’s just one study. Take it with a grain of salt. But COVID-19 is obviously a problem, worse than regular flu seasons but not as bad as some other diseases.

          1. which is what a moderate person without an agenda thinks:

            Amazing

            1. after reading that *I* required hospitalization.

          2. But COVID-19 is obviously a problem, worse than regular flu seasons but not as bad as some other diseases.

            No one has said it isn’t, and that means that all the draconian measures taken were entirely unnecessary.

            1. Oh, but they were necessary. They were necessary to save face. Can’t have people in government admitting to being wrong, can we? Nope. Double down! Full speed ahead! Damn the torpedoes! Power means never being wrong!

            2. Lots of commenters here have said it isn’t. Check out the comments on Ron Bailey’s post today — just the flu, just affects “fatties”.

          3. I’ve heard the CDC read the numbers on the radio, using the word “with,” and the the reporter parrots the numbers back saying “from.”

            I’d bet twenty bucks that this “one study” took those same numbers and changed the same word.

            Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

          4. But COVID-19 is obviously a problem, worse than regular flu seasons but not as bad as some other diseases.

            How can anyone know? They don’t know how many people died from the disease. Someone tests positive after a car accident and the CDC counts them as dying with the disease. The news turns around and say the person died from the disease, as do all the studies.

            We really don’t know how many deaths COVID has caused, and likely never will.

            1. Not exactly. We at least have a solid idea of order of magnitude, even if 40% of hospitalizations are mild or asymptomatic.

              Also, what I would like to see is a study of severe vs mild cases in a place like Idaho where hospital beds are starting to be rationed. The rate of serious hospitalization is likely much higher.

          5. Mike I’ve never heard one person in my interactions talk about someone dying from covid and one morbidly obese person having issues after getting it. Thousands of interactions, but that’s just personal experience..

            1. I don’t know, or know of, anyone who died with or from COVID. Though I know plenty who had it, ranging in age from grade school to forties. The kids shrugged it off while the adults described it as a really bad cold. Nobody died.

              1. insert “personally” into the beginning of that sentence before the pedants have a coronary

            2. I have.

          6. “I’ll contrast by giving my view, which is what a moderate person without an agenda thinks”

            Hey look, Dee made a joke that was actually funny! Good job Dee!

          7. “…which is what a moderate person without an agenda thinks:…”

            You.
            Are.
            Full.
            Of.
            Shit.

      2. Because even that number is highly exaggerated.

          1. Find your own data. everyone knows it except you apparently.

            1. Such deep interest in truth…

          2. Remember how White Knight always used to ask for citations in the hopes of being ignored, so he could infer the statement was unfounded. Exactly like this.

            Of course White Knight and White Mike are two totally different people, just ask him:

            Mike Laursen
            July.31.2021 at 12:03 pm
            White Knight pointed out, correctly, that you are very logical, but quite unaware that you often engage in not seeking out information that goes against your narratives, garbage-in/garbage-out logic, and not checking your conclusions for basic sanity. You should have listened to White Knight.

            https://reason.com/2021/07/31/americas-cross-partisan-dalliance-with-eugenics/#comment-9022210

          3. You can read the Atlantic article I posted upthread and extrapolate from there, Mr. No-Agenda.

            About 10% of the COVID mortalities since the start of the pandemic across our system were asymptomatic, 15% since the end of the first wave.

            1. *our system -> my employer’s system

  41. The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom has failed, meaning Newsom will remain in office

    I tooooooold youuuu.

    1. He’s been fortified in place.

      1. Any evidence for your claim?

        Cali’s pretty blue so why would he or dems need to cheat?

      2. Does the NDP “fortify” elections in BC?

        Is Trudeau going to “fortify” this upcoming election?

        The only “fortifying” I’ve heard of in Canada recently was the Tories spreading disinformation about where and when to vote about 12 years back.

        1. The Democratic party doesn’t operate in Canada, Plug, so no. The elections aren’t “fortified” here.

          1. You got me! I’m buttplug!

            Do you realize how foolish you look pushing this election stealing lie?

            Of course not! You’re a Trump worshipping fascist.

  42. New research suggests that “much of what we thought we knew about metabolism was wrong,” says The New York Times.

    The science is re-settled!

  43. About one in 500 Americans has now died from with COVID-19, reports lies CNN, relying on misrepresenting coronavirus death data from Johns Hopkins University and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    1. Oh, cute. Not only have you started stealing my words, you learned basic HTML too!

      1. What the hell? That’s your comeback?
        You do realize that everyone here using italics and blockquotes is using html as well, right? Also, are you aware that advanced html can’t be used in the comments?

        Drunken retard.

  44. “Military-to-military exchanges build trust, improve understanding and communication, and pave the way toward greater cooperation. ”

    https://www.army.mil/article/56546/the_united_states_army_exchange_program_with_peoples_liberation_army_of_china

    So having invested in this mutual understanding, what do we do with it?

    1. Sell out.

    2. Uhm, not usurp powers you don’t have by statute. Foreign relations are the purview of the State Department not the DoD, and specifically not the purview of military members.

    3. Imagine if a General in the People’s Liberation Army, told an American counterpart that if Xi gave an order that he didn’t agree with, he’d ignore or override it.

      That’s not mutual understanding. That’s usurping power.

    4. Personally, am going to send my astro zombies to rape this land. Cannot speak for the current-year fuckwits in uniform.

  45. The error? Poverty determined by the USD instead of actual Value.
    $1000 doesn’t mean much when pickup truck are retailing at $120,000.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.