Our Language Has Gotten More Emotional. Why?
Plus: Biden’s dubious arrest record, Supreme Court rules on vaccine mandate, and more...

Language is getting less rational. That's the gist of new findings from researchers at Wageningen University & Research (WUR) and Indiana University. Their study—"The rise and fall of rationality in language," published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America—found that the past 40 years have seen a shift from the language of rationality to the language of emotion.
"Whatever the drivers, our results suggest that the post-truth phenomenon is linked to a historical seesaw in the balance between our two fundamental modes of thinking: Reasoning versus intuition," study co-author Ingrid van de Leemput said.
The researchers looked at the language used in millions of English- and Spanish-language books published between 1850 and 2019, analyzing the use of 5,000 frequently used words. The rise of reasoning words like determine and conclusion and the decline of intuitive words like feel and believe could be seen starting around 1850 and lasting until the late 20th century. But over the past 40 years, this trend reversed, as words associated with intuition and emotion were used more frequently and words associated with fact-based arguments were used less frequently.
Drawing broad conclusions from all this may be a little hasty, as the findings could simply reflect a shift in the way language is used or the way authors state their cases rather than a deep reset in our modes of thinking. (Maybe writers are just being more frank about how subjective their own interpretations of the world are.) Still, the results of the analysis are somewhat interesting, even if they only reveal shifts in communication styles.
"The nature of this reversal occurs in fiction as well as nonfiction," the researchers point out. "Moreover, the pattern of change in the ratio between sentiment and rationality flag words since 1850 also occurs in New York Times articles, suggesting that it is not an artifact of the book corpora we analyzed."
The phenomenon has only sped up in more recent years:
After the year 1850, the use of sentiment-laden words in Google Books declined systematically, while the use of words associated with fact-based argumentation rose steadily. This pattern reversed in the 1980s, and this change accelerated around 2007, when across languages, the frequency of fact-related words dropped while emotion-laden language surged, a trend paralleled by a shift from collectivistic to individualistic language.
The accelerating shift since 2007 coincides with the rise of social media, which the authors offer as one potential explanation.
But "the trend reversal we find has its origins decades before the rise of social media, suggesting that while social media may have been an amplifier, other factors must have driven the stagnation of the long-term rise of rationality around 1975 to 1980 and triggered its reversal," the study states.
"Print culture is selective and cannot be interpreted as a straightforward reflection of culture in a broader sense," the researchers caution. "Nonetheless, across large amounts of words, patterns of change in frequencies may to some degree reflect changes in the way people feel and see the world."
"It is also worth noting that the link between book language and social sentiment has been validated in other studies and that the long-term trend we find until 1980 is in line with what has been found in other studies including different text corpora and different indicators," they add.
You can read the whole study here.
FREE MINDS
Was President Joe Biden ever arrested? According to him, yes. According to all available evidence, no.
Biden has on multiple occasions talked about being arrested in his youth. Just this week, while talking about voting rights and the civil rights movement, Biden remarked that "it seems like yesterday the first time I got arrested." But the story of Biden's alleged arrest has shifted over time and is apocryphal at best, as The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler points out.
And "it's certainly not the first time he's said he's been arrested," notes Kessler:
Previously, he has said he was arrested trying to see Nelson Mandela in South Africa (Four Pinocchios false) and for trying to enter an all-female dorm room at Ohio University (Partly False, according to USA Today). He has also suggested he was arrested for wandering onto the Senate floor as a "star-struck kid," but most times he has indicated he was just given a warning.
But there's no evidence we can find that Biden was ever arrested.
FREE MARKETS
Supreme Court blocks vaccine mandate. On Thursday, SCOTUS put a halt to the Biden administration's workplace vaccine mandate. "Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the court's order. "Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category." Read more about the decision here.
QUICK HITS
Biden says next week they'll announce plans to make high-quality masks available for free.
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) January 13, 2022
• Eleven people have been indicted on seditious conspiracy charges related to last year's Capitol riot.
• Absentee ballot drop boxes aren't allowed in Wisconsin elections, per a new ruling from a state court there.
• A Texas border control crackdown has been ruled unconstitutional.
• Kentucky is moving to advance a new school choice bill.
• A Virginia lawmaker is trying to end the state's monopoly on liquor sales.
• PayPal is being sued by users who say the company terminated their accounts without reason and held their funds.
• Tensions are high between Russia and Ukraine. "A senior US official warned Thursday that the 'drumbeat of war is sounding loud' following a week's worth of diplomacy between the West and Russia that wrapped up Thursday," reports CNN. "The effort ended without clear breakthroughs over the tens of thousands of Russian troops amassed on the Ukrainian border, leaving prospects for future diplomacy and de-escalation in doubt as Russian officials suggested they could soon turn to military options." Meanwhile, Ukraine tweeted this:
— Ukraine / Україна (@Ukraine) January 13, 2022
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No comments?
Script was broken for a while.
Working Online from home and earns more than $15k every month. I have received $17365 last month by doing online work from home. Its an easy and simple job to do from home and even a little child can do this online and makes money. poi Everybody can get this job now and earns more dollars online by just:-═══►►► CLICK HERE
Your pro-abortion social credit score is too low to comment on an ENB article.
Mandatory comment sterilization is a women's rights issue, not a free speech issue.
Working Online from home and earns more than $15k every month. I have received $17365 last month by doing online work from home. Its an easy and simple job to do from home and even a little child can do this online and makes money. Everybody can get this job now and earns more dollars online by just copy and paste this website in browser and then follow instructions to get started right now. ═══►►► Click Here
Dollars making online job to work in part-time whenever you want and start making more dollars from home. Last month I have got my 3rd paycheck of $17531 have and I gave this only 2 hrs from my whole busy day. Easy to do work and easy HiE to join also. Everybody can now get this and start making real cash simply by going to this website.
==>=> JOBS NET 1
But the sex worker score is so high..
Yea, sex work is an integral part of the fabric of our country. No fucking way am I going to denigrate sex workers.
Spilled Sacks Wetter jobs bill. And you know what those jobs are.
Spilled Sacks WetterBilled Backsides BetterFIFY
Here are 7 at-home jobs that pay at least $100/day. And there’s quite the variety too! Some of these work-at-home jobs are more specialized, others are jobs that qwg anyone can do. They all pay at least $3000/month, but some pay as much as $10,000. GO HOME PAGE FOR MORE DETAILS……… Click Here
Dollars making online job to work in part time whenever you want and start making more dollars from home. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17531 har and i gave this Hah only 2 hrs from my whole busy day. Easy to do work and easy to join also. Everybody can now get this and start making real cash simply by going to this website.
==>=>)Visit Here
I say we boycott Reason until they fix commenting. WHO'S WITH ME?
Boycotting using the comments takes care of itself.
How about boycotting Reason until it goes back to mostly advocating libertarian worldviews?
Great idea!
How will we know when they change if we don't keep looking?
Actually, it will be super-easy.....
Barely an inconvenience!
That comment was TIGHT!
Perhaps there are different flavors of libertarian thought.
Sure. And, much like ice cream, there are lots of flavors that don't even come close to qualifying.
The statist flavored one you prefer is actually slop, not ice cream.
Nobody needs 26 flavors of Libertarianism. - Bernie Sanders
Vermont-based Ben & Jerry's hardest hit.
Meh. Call me when they do Ludwig von Pieces.
There are and it's problematic because they're all white.
So George Ayitty, Lao-Tzu, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E. Williams are all erasured?
Different flavors like authoritarian libertarianism and totalitarian libertarianism?
26 flavors of collectivism that all taste like chalk.
Personcott.
Speciesist! It's Animal-cott.
I’ll repeat what I said the other day when you suggested this. What do you mean by boycott?
Do you mean not posting comments? If all the Trumpers and Republican partisans boycotted the commentariat and left it back to the libertarians who used to hang out here, it would only improve the commentariat.
If you mean boycotting participating in Reason webathons and contributions to Reason, Trumpers and Republican partisans who hang out here already proudly proclaim that they contribute nothing to Reason financially, and are free riders on the comment section provided by Reason. There absence would lighten Reason’s server bills.
So, boycott away. You won’t be missed at all.
Now do sheep's entrails.
Poor White Mike, so desperate to both white knight and troll that he's getting mixed up.
My favorite bit is that "the libertarians who used to hang out here" have their own site and they sound far more like the "Trumpers and Republican Partisans" on most issues than they do Mike.
Yeah, I forget what it was called. I checked it out and it wasn't for me.
It was better than here, in that people talked civilly, but seemed to be dominated by conservative-leaning libertarians, and maybe some outright conservatives who weren't all that libertarian at all.
Yeah, I forget what it was called. I checked it out and it wasn't for me.
So then why the nostalgia? That bunch contributed the lion's share of comments (excl spambots) around here for roughly a decade.
This place ain't what it used to be, but the ideological bent of the commenters hasn't changed much.
You may be right that many people who seemed to be libertarians were really just conservatives who shared in libertarian criticism of Obama. And then they started showing their true colors when Trump became President.
I don’t think they were the only commenters here.
Here's a hint Mike. When you are the only one with a different viewpoint, especially one as slanted left as yours, maybe youre the abnormal one.
I love that him and others lost their fucking minds for 5 goddamn years, but it’s everyone else who changed because Trump got elected.
I think that a lot of people who call themselves libertarians should drop the label. I don't know exactly what libertarianism originally stood for but I do know that I don't want to share political labels with people of your ideological persuasion.
That's why I call myself a conservative who often agrees with stated libertarian principles. Obviously there are a million things that I would prefer to donate to than Reason magazine.
I doubt you even know anything about my “ideological persuasion”.
It's funny. I have found really old comments from the Obama era, where John and I were in perfect agreement about everything. Because everyone was criticizing Obama -- and then when Trump came along, it turned out John was a conservative.
If you didn't know John was a conservative the entire time then you weren't paying attention. He was always on the rightward edge of the board, and would pick fights from that perspective constantly and get called out for it. There's a reason why there would be 50 page subthreads of just him and Tony going back and forth.
Judging by your retelling of things here, it's more likely that you really weren't around as often as you imply. Or you've just a terrible memory and poor reading comprehension.
It's the bad memory. I don't remember details of conversations of John from the Obama era offhand -- I had to google for them to see what was said back then.
I was around A LOT since the start of the Reason Hit & Run. But right about the time Trump was elected, work and raising kids got really busy and I was absent for about the first two years of the Trump presidency. When I came back, Hit & Run was infested with Trump-loving assholes who were extremely rude to everyone, not to mention Tulpa's bullshit.
There’s also the fact that you lie a lot, and probably lose track of the lies you tell.
assholes who were extremely rude to everyone
Maybe stop trolling and lying so much and people will be nicer to you, O mighty sealion.
You forgot what it was called? Sure thing Dee, we believe you.
I checked it out and they kicked me out. Little inoffensive me. Apparently because I didn't get it. Uncool, I suppose.
I've been a member since day one and never go there. There are a lot of people that I like there, but too much snobbery and cool-kids bullshit. I think they kicked John out too. Which is perhaps a bit more understandable. But I always liked John.
Who don’t you like?
I try to like everyone, unless they are just horrible people. Most people have something worthwhile to say.
Did they kick out sarcasmic too? Because earlier last year he was boasting how he was leaving this place for the glibs forever, and then two weeks later he was back.
I'm not sure. Didn't go see if he was picking silly fights over there too.
Is this where you pretend that you’re a libertarian again?
First?
I shoulda known it was too good to be true!
Language is getting less rational.
LEARN MY PRONOUNS
1000 genders that don't exist and counting.
Let a thousand genders bloom
It is like ENB never heard of critical theory, subjectivity, or individual truths.
who would have thought the post-modern, gender confused, feminist inspired society of non-binary soy boys would gravitate toward emotional language.
Is it irrational of me to say that I don't feel LatinX?
It didn't start there, though. Look at the era and the acceleration in 2007 according to the study. It's a Millennial thing and it came from all the kids who were told that you could make criticism easier if you use "I" phrasing. Turn it back on yourself... or whatever that turn of the millennium horseshit was about. I noticed it happening. A decade back I commented to a friend how you could tell younger people online because they'd say "I feel like" before a factual statement or opinion. Misappropriating that concept that was running around pop psychology and teaching it to school children made a pretty large change in how those kids expressed themselves.
Gen X would say "I think" or just state the fact. Younger people were taught heavily never to offend anyone with a strong opinion.
"I feel like I started seeing this ten or fifteen years ago" as opposed to "I started seeing this fifteen years ago."
I catch myself doing that sometimes: "I feel that...". I don't like it. My judgements and opinions are a lot more than just feelings. Say what you mean.
I agree.
It is hard not to pick up on the speech patterns of those around you, especially ones you interact with all the time. That's normal social behavior. But the "I feel like" statement I just cannot do. I dislike it, almost viscerally.
I don't care how you feel unless we're specifically talking about feelings. When talking to a stranger, coworker, or other non-intimate acquaintance I'm loathe to volunteer feelings without facts, reasons, or direct perceptions.
Really, "I feel like something or other happened" types of statements are like a dead fish handshake to me. Say it enough and I get the impression you're a pussy or a pushover. I mean, I don't say that out loud, but it is how I feel.
Twitter started in 2006.
It almost makes you think that much of the austism spectrum or neuro-atypical 'science' is complete bullshit.
I used to respond to "I feel like..." with "OK" and people would act like I just ripped one. Unless the question was, "Where do you want to go for dinner?" Then, somehow, the "OK" to "I feel like Chinese." became completely valid.
Then I became a Dad and the only acceptable response to "I feel like..." became "No you don't, you feel like my kid."
He has also suggested he was arrested for wandering onto the Senate floor as a "star-struck kid," but most times he has indicated he was just given a warning.
The Jan. 6 rioters learned it from watching you, okay?
+ 1 brain on drugs.
Supreme Court blocks vaccine mandate.
Opening the door to Sotomayer's worst fear: the continuation of workplace COVID violence against our youngest children!
Mom! Tommy’s viruses are on my side of the car!
"Was President Joe Biden ever arrested? According to him, yes. According to all available evidence, no."
Reinventing George Wallace's friend Joe Biden as proto-woke superman civil rights avenger is white liberal fan fic. Similar to the wine mom fever dream about Thai prostitutes holding the keys to the super secret Russian conspiracy a few years back. Psychosis seems to be the defining disposition of the progressive.
Cause or effect?
Biden says next week they’ll announce plans to make high-quality masks available for free.
Hopefully masks to cover the face of covid alarmism and pretend everyone has been grounded and reasonable this whole time.
Absentee ballot drop boxes aren't allowed in Wisconsin elections, per a new ruling from a state court there.
For fear Trump will steal them.
A Texas border control crackdown has been ruled unconstitutional.
So long as the immigrant is either vaccinated or not a medical worker.
Kentucky is moving to advance a new school choice bill.
Is Kentucky the new Free State Project home?
There's parts of Eastern Kentucky that are in near-anarchy already.
Our Language Has Gotten More Emotional. Why?
Lower testosterone levels? Non-stop histrionic propaganda from media sources? An education system focused on training graduates to respond to simple compliance tactics combined with a fascist politico-corporate complex making use of that training?
19th Amendment
A Virginia lawmaker is trying to end the state's monopoly on liquor sales.
The revenuers are going to have a fit.
Joe Biden was arrested for cutting Corn Pop’s ear off in a knife fight. Corn Pop had stalked him to his car, looking for trouble. He accused Biden of racism, but there wasn’t a kernel of truth to it. Joe Biden won handily, and Corn Pop left a shell of the man he used to be. The seeds of a great president were planted that day.
As I mentioned yesterday, Biden filled-a-cap-buster when Corn Pop came to town.
Meanwhile, Ukraine tweeted this...
Russian bot probably.
Who else thinks Lisa is like Hillary (but smarter)?
Lisa's socio-political bent is misguided in a 'hopeful but naïve' way, as opposed to 'evil and corrupt' way.
Lisa doesn't prog for big $$$.
I guess Jan 14, 2022 will go down as the slowest news day in history when you not only lead with an entirely unverifiable "study" on the level of "emotion" versus "reason" in language over the past century or so, but devote about 7,000,000 breathless pixels devoted to elucidating its entirely subjective conclusions, which in fact are not even conclusions, but rather stated in the classic hedging language that "the data suggest". Here's a suggestion: No study "finds" anything; no study "proves" anything; studies "say" things, which may or may not be likely to true. And a study like this one, shot full of subjective categories, is, frankly, hardly worth the reading. My only question is, was your mother the author?
I'm guessing this is probably the most intelligent thing you've posted in the last decade and it's NWS.
Our Language Has Gotten More Emotional. Why?
Because more and more people want validation of their feelings rather than logical arguments.
It's a consequence of postmodernism. Everybody is biased in favor of their own feelings, but logic doesn't have a bias. You can be objectively wrong in the face of a logical argument, whereas your subjective emotions are never wrong (at least in your own mind). People don't like to be proven wrong, and those who stand to lose the logic case would rather argue in the arena of idiosyncratic perspectives.
Pot? Kettle? Not sure which is blacker.
Racist!
"After the year 1850, the use of sentiment-laden words in Google Books declined systematically, while the use of words associated with fact-based argumentation rose steadily. This pattern reversed in the 1980s, and this change accelerated around 2007, when across languages, the frequency of fact-related words dropped while emotion-laden language surged, a trend paralleled by a shift from collectivistic to individualistic language."
Could it be that in the 70s and 80s we indulged delusional new-age nonsense that placed feelings over facts, including in K-12 education? And that in recent decades, post-modernist philosophy, which rejects objectivity, has also infiltrated education?
I don't think they even had Google Books in 1850.
iAfter the year 1850, the use of sentiment-laden words in Google Books declined systematically
Funny. I didn't know Google was around in the 1800s.
The PartyGoogle was always around.And always at war with Eastasia, no, Eurasia, no, Oceania, no, Emmanuel Goldstein?
EastRacism
Mircrosoft
Emmanuel Goldtrump
Biden has on multiple occasions talked about being arrested in his youth. Just this week, while talking about voting rights and the civil rights movement, Biden remarked that "it seems like yesterday the first time I got arrested."
"If you didn't get arrested (and vote for me), you're not black."
Hopefully not the last time.
"Our Language Has Gotten More Emotional. Why?"
Perhaps because we have some steaming piles of lefty shit trying to tell us what we are allowed to do?
The comparison of Biden's presidency to Carter's has been ongoing, and it seems to me that Biden's voting rights speech is doing the same kind of thing Carter's "malaise"/"Crisis of Confidence" speech accomplished. Back in July of 1979, the inflation rate was in double digits, unemployment was nearing 6%, and we were in the midst of an energy/oil crisis.
Carter went on national television (all three networks!) in that speech, and he basically blamed the American people for their unwillingness to sacrifice for higher ideals. Carter actually enjoyed a short term bump in approval ratings for a bit afterwards, as the Democrats who supported him reacted well to the speech.
It played poorly with just about everyone else--including swing voters. In the following months, as voters waited in line for hours to buy whatever gasoline was available, they came to realize that the crisis of confidence wasn't a fault within themselves. They'd just completely lost confidence in Jimmy Carter. And I think that's more or less the impact of Biden's voting rights speech.
"Do you want to be [on] . . . the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? . . . Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?
----Joe Biden, January 11, 2022
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/11/remarks-by-president-biden-on-protecting-the-right-to-vote/
Biden basically blamed the American people, and he drew a line in the sand to divide us. Either you're on his side, or you're siding with the president of the Confederacy. Either you're on Biden's side, or you're on the side of, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!". Time to pick a side America: you're either with Biden, or you're the racist problem with America.
Swing voters and moderate democrats--everyone to the right of openly LGBT Kyrsten Sinema--didn't do some soul searching after that statement and realize that the problem is their own support for George Wallace and Jefferson Davis. Rather, they realized that Joe Biden ain't no Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, and he ain't no Abraham Lincoln neither.
They realized that Joe Biden is a problem that needs a solution.
You think people are far smarter than they are
I think the reaction to Biden's speech is what it is.
P.S. All libertarians should have faith in the American to make choices for themselves. Believing they can do that better than politicians and experts is the foundation of libertarianism. That's the libertarian goal. Markets are far smarter than central planners--and market forces are ultimately nothing but people making choices for themselves. Libertarianism is the ultimate anti-elitism.
And, yes, people can be persuaded. Not the willfully obtuse progressives among them, but the critical mass of them can be persuaded. I wish it didn't take an energy crisis, inflation, and stupid speeches to persuade them they made a mistake, but they can learn from their mistakes. Lab rats can learn from electric shocks and cheese, and the American people are certainly smarter than rats.
"Do you want to be [on] . . . the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? . . . Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?
Did he actually suggest that Americans should side with Republicans and not Democrats?
The important distinction is that everyone who opposes racism isn't in favor of Biden, his speech, the progressive agenda, or nuking the filibuster. Elections are often decided by Democrat registered swing voters, and sometimes those races are driven by swing voters deciding to stay home on election day.
Moderate Democrat voters may be thinking to themselves, "If voting for Biden and the progressives means hating my fellow Americans as racists for not wanting him to nuke the filibuster, pass BBB, or impose Washington's voting laws on our state, then I guess I'll just stay home on election day".
If that's my choice, I'll take racism for $500.
Jefferson Davis and George Wallace were both Democrats, just like botcher Joe Biden.
There are moderate Democrats who don't want the filibuster nuked, don't want Build Back Better, and don't want the federal government imposing voting laws on their state--and are offended to see President Biden try to lump them in with George Wallace and Jefferson Davis. I'd say Biden just turned his moderate support into the enemy, but he's been doing it for a long time. It's just that now he's made it explicit.
After scheduling a full US Senate vote on the so-called Voting Rights legislation for Monday (because its Martin Luther King, Jr. Day), Chuck Schumer cancelled/adjourned the Senate today citing the snow storm coming to the East Coast on Sunday and Monday (and a Democrat Senator who has covid).
That sure was a quick end to the so-called race baiting voter rights bill that Biden urged the Senate to swiftly enact yesterday.
Correction, I intended to write "That sure was a quick end to the race baiting so-called voter rights bill that Biden urged the Senate to swiftly enact yesterday."
He was never all that bright, nor do the people controlling his strings have any sense of history.
I'm not sure the people pulling his string have any sense at all! The main obstacle to his agenda is the lack of public support--and the Representatives and Senators who fear a public backlash if they vote for Biden's agenda.
If the people pulling Biden's strings think that speech made moderates want to support politicians for supporting Biden, they're crazy. That speech was self-destructive. It was worse than Donald Trump's inflammatory tweets.
Trump used those tweets to distract the media. If Biden's handlers thought they were generating more support from moderates with that speech, they're completely disconnected from average people in American society.
"they're completely disconnected from average people in American society."
Correct, and they're proud of it.
I suspect the reason they made this huge mistake was because they truly believe themselves to be the voice of average Americans.
They're delusional.
They also believe the hold the "right answers". Moral superiority is apparently pretty easy to get divulged in.
Yes, these are people who believe that if their tactics fail, that's just proof of how righteous they are and how racist/misogynistic/transphobic/etc. the majority of Americans are.
I can’t see what they’re doing. 4d chess? Have they already written off the 2022/2024 elections, and spinning their victimhood: the evildoers destroyed democracy and invalidated the elections we haven’t even had yet? Wasn’t that Trump’s line? At least he wasn’t going pre-crime with accusations.
Some of the smarter progressive leaders (not AOC) must know that they’ve made a Faustian bargain with their own political coalitions, and have written checks they can’t cash. When you promise people utopia in return for control of the government, and then control the government right into some of the most miserable time in the last 50 years, you’re obviously bankrupt. So of course now the system doesn’t work and is all out to get them, along with racists and Nazis. And their voters are stupid enough to let them get away with it, but it’s doubtful America in general will.
What an ingrate. Wallace and Joe were on the same side in 1967.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/01/joe-biden-civil-rights-warrior.php
Hmm, George Wallace and Jefferson Davis were both Democrats.
But they wanted segregated schools unlike today's... Nevermind
Ken, he was specifically addressing Republicans in Congress with that comment, not all Americans more broadly.
The problem is that a bunch of other Americans were listening, and thought he was talking about them.
Kyrsten Sinema for one
And there are a lot of moderate Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema.
I bet that speech didn't play well with suburban women anywhere.
You don't win the support of suburban women by calling them racists.
The problem is polling shows voter ID is highly favored, as is secure elections. So the only tact he has is to claim racism and vote suppression.
And, yet, if I were a cartoonist, I'd draw a picture of Joe Biden bullying a suburban mom like he's PC Principal.
The central issue here may not the rationale for the laws themselves, but the way progressives are unable to relate to moderate Democrats. The politicians are being driven by their concerns about the voters back home. Biden was yelling like he was arguing with Joe Manchin, but he should have tailored his speech to suburban women Democrats.
If Kyrsten Sinema thought that the suburban women back home wanted her to support taking down the filibuster, she might be making speeches rationalizing her support for doing so rather than making speeches about why she won't get rid of the filibuster.
Biden's message should have been directed at Sinema's supporters--like suburban women in Phoenix. I won't claim to be an expert on women, but even I know that calling women names and trying to bully them is a terrible way to go about winning their support.
That suburban woman voter isn't going out of her way to stand in line for Joe Biden on election day--not after he called her a racist and tried to bully her into supporting him. Biden just shit the bed.
I think they’ve reached critical mass for how much of the country needs to be racist Nazis for their worldview to make sense. Their heads can blow off their necks now.
The progressives control the news media, but the news media is practically collapsing under the weight of it. CNN is being sold off by its owner, fired Cuomo, and hired Chris Wallace--in my opinion all because their ratings suck.
Last I checked, Fox News' broadcasts were attracting four times as many viewers as CNN, and Gutfeld! was beating all the other late night talk shows in the ratings--despite there being no celebrity guests.
On the one hand, all we seem to get from most of the news media is unfiltered progressivism, and it makes it seem like progressivism is the norm. On the one hand, we know the progressives are full of shit, but on the the other hand, we tend to believe them when they claim to be representative of average Americans.
If what the media were projecting about their ubiquitous nature of progressive thought were true, wouldn't the recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia have been landslide victories for the Democrats?
I maintain that the progressives in the news media aren't just full of shit when they're saying something that disagrees with me. They're completely full of shit every time they're contradicting the facts or the rules of logic.
They've got a big microphone. It's hard to escape the sound of their voice, but that doesn't mean anything they say about themselves or how much they represent the views of average Americans is true.
Do you remember what Saturday Night Live did in response to Carters Malaise?
The skit I remember was Jimmy Carter explaining that inflation was all of our faults and that there was too much money out there. We should each take 10% of our money and burn it. He had ten dollars in his wallet, so he pulled out a one and lit it on fire.
The punch line was the ash tray he burned it in read "The Buck Burns Here"
I was in elementary school and probably shouldn't have been away at 11pm, and I still remember it. It is more hilarious in retrospect, but man was it a good point.
There is no subtlety in media. There's no humor in mainstream. Mocking of a president is a time honored thing, especially when he's really mockable, but for it to be effective criticism it should be pointed, timely, and witty like that. You're only going to find that in alternative media.
The modern media are all about being direct scolds, and it's all the time, every time, on topic, on message. There's no subtlety, no humor that feels like "yeah, we have to laugh at ourselves" in regard to the ludicrous nature of national politics, and frankly the woke wing is completely humorless. But this division is what was driving ratings, even if it's driving away anyone not a boomer or older because, seriously, who watches TV news?
Obama was a scold. Biden just proved he is, too. But it's no longer a mainstream thing to mock them when they're mockable, let them see how people really see them when they tell us we're terrible people for not going along with whatever they want, or blame us for societal ills that are entirely beyond our control.
Of course, people in media constantly went after Trump, but it was relentless and cruel, so much so that people tuned it out, so I don't see that as the same. But that's a different argument.
tl:dr There should be a court jester in the oval office while a president is practicing a speech like this. It's sure make revisions better if there were.
The narrative is not about voter suppression anymore. It's about who gets to count the votes.
There's a chunk of suburban women who'll pay highly to be called racists.
https://www.today.com/food/organization-aims-dismantle-racism-over-dinner-t185504
I think those people are more progressive than average, and they're probably wealthier than your average suburban woman. I also think that Today is hyping that shit because they're far more progressive than you average suburbanite. This article was claiming that The Today Show was dealing with the worst ratings they'd had since 1991--when they started tracking morning show ratings closely.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbcs-today-has-smallest-audience-total-fiasco
I'm not sure we should believe everything Fox tells us about woke media, but I'm not sure we should take the woke media seriously when they report on how much the American people love progressives either. Yes, some people pay to be berated by progressives for being racists--whether that's indicative of the state of Democrat women in suburban America is another story.
FWIW, NBC News and MSNBC are all being brought under the same management team in an apparent effort to consolidate and cut costs--because they're all having trouble. Part of that is because of the streaming revolution--but that's another way of saying that as soon as people stop subscribing to cable, they stop watching the woke fare on NBC and MSNBC.
CNN is being spun off to a partnership headed by Discovery for the same reason.
There isn't much of an indication from market signals that woke news sells to the general public--far as I can tell. What they buy seems to be mostly be in spite of the woke fare rather than because of it.
Most of this is due to a credibility crash where left-liberal elites and bourgeoisie hector the rest of us that we "need to sacrifice for the greater good," without making any of those sacrifices themselves. These are the people who told everyone in 2020, "Stay the fuck home" because they had the ability to do so without harming their own economic status, and then argued that going to a BLM riot was a public health necessity.
Joe's problem is more that he's "a tired old man" that the leftists elected king, and he no longer has the mental capacity to handle the stresses that come with not getting your way on things all the time. His handlers can only put so much on his plate, and these are people who already don't have the capability to handle a complex society in crisis. So they end up pointing fingers at everyone but themselves, which damages their credibility even further.
I don't think he was ever smart enough to be king. He was corrupt enough to do whatever it took to get to the top, but not smart enough to actually belong there. Now, he's just an old, senile, crooked pedophile with a big microphone that his handlers rarely let him use.
Your analysis of his speech is right on, but the one thing you are missing sight of is that the average American isn’t a political news junkee like, say, people who hang out and comment on a political blog every day. Your average American is probably unaware Biden even made a speech, let alone what he said in the speech.
I think they are aware of inflation, though.
Yes, exactly. It is likely your average guy pulled off the street isn't even going to be aware of some politician's speech, but they will be aware of the price of gas and groceries.
"It's the economy, stupid" is as relevant now as ever.
You're spot on, most people don't pay attention to politics. Chewin' tobaccy prices though? Everyone's aware of that.
At least Jimmy Carter supported legalizing marijuana.
In sharp contrast, Biden championed and authored many War on Drugs laws and policies, which incarcerated and destroyed the lives of millions of poor whites, blacks and latinos.
Ironically (or not), the racists that Joe Bided denounced yesterday (i.e. Jefferson Davis, George Wallace and Bull Connor) were ALL Democrats.
Oh hey the dissent in the ruling were the three totalitarian retard activist judges! Who would have guessed. I think with his three Supreme Court appointments ruling against and turning the tied of totalitarianism. This puts trump up a few notches in my presidential ranking
Agreed. I think what these recent arguments have shows us is the current liberals on the court are so ideologically motivated they cannot even gather and sort through the basic facts without getting influenced by partisan misinformation.
The 6/3 court was a gift. And honestly if there is a vacancy in 2023-2024 I will be happy the R controlled senate will be not be considering a Biden nominee. They have shown they are only interested in activists who have no capability for logical thought. Merrick Garland was supposed to be the "tame, centrist" nominee from Obama and he wants to label angry parents domestic terrorists for speaking out. More proof that blocking him was the correct thing to do.
The dissent was notably void of any actual legal reasoning. It boiled down to, "[w]ell, they're the experts (tm)."
at this point, it's clear that Trump was the best president of our lifetime, entirely due to his court appointments. Thank god for Gorsuch especially. If we had 3 appointments from the communist side of the aisle I shudder to think where we'd be today.
God bless and keep Neil Gorsuch, the last true defender of individual rights in the entire Federal government.
Brett Kavanaugh is a junior-varsity John Roberts. He'll be cursed by libertarians and the right before his term expires.
Meanwhile, Ukraine tweeted this:
Would Putin consider this a "Mean Tweet?" He has shown himself to be a special Siberian snowflake and a Babushka Trigglypuff lately:
Putin: Insulting Prophet Muhammad Is Not Freedom of Expression
https://www.trtworld.com/asia/putin-insulting-prophet-muhammad-is-not-freedom-of-expression-52961?s=09
When your paragon of virtue is a murdering slave owning pedofile, you may want to rethink your beliefs
Even worse in Putin's case, since he's an Orthodox Christian and obviously kow-towing to the Islamofascist nations with whom he wants to form alliances and ply influence.
Biden says next week they'll announce plans to make high-quality masks available for free.
I'll say it again. The government stealing my money under the threat of the gun and using that money to buy and send to me something I neither need nor want nor asked for doesn't not make it free, even if the Secretary of Health & Human Services does not send me an invoice of that "something".
You've got a typo, hippo
Dammit! Take out that "not" or change doesn't to "does"
Edit button Reason. Edit button.
Don't even know where to start with this leftist insanity.
https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/columnists/2022/01/13/column-california-should-abolish-parenthood-name-equity/6513756001/
My solution — making raising your own children illegal — is simple, and while we wait for the legislation to pass, we can act now: the rich and poor should trade kids, and homeowners might swap children with their homeless neighbors.
OBL article?
And, of course, he cites the Totalitarian Plato.
Why stop there?
We should create diversity and equity birth goals. Society has to produce X number of babies of each category per year.
Let's even start a selective breeding program. Certain birthing people will be selected to mate with certain ejaculating people, to produce the right balance of genetic traits- entirely based on equity metrics, of course.
Just declare every egg and sperm property of the state from birth. Maybe we could harvest all the eggs from infant uterus owners at birth and keep them frozen till they're needed for breeding.
Put all the offspring in public facilities from birth, raised by the finest experts.
I think it's a great plan.
Would probably need to outlaw abortion though. Black women despite making up 12% of the women account for 40% of the abortions in some cities.
We are basically supporting black genocide
We would probably need a state-controlled abortion regime. Some birthing people would have to be mandated to have abortions, especially if they concieved outside of the selective breeding program.
Black birthing people would have to be prohibited from having abortions, at least until we meet our equity goals.
We should outlaw marriage, too. That's where people get these crazy "family" ideas. Why should some people get to choose to marry each other? Some people may not get chosen for marriage and that's not equitable at all.
I don't think I'm comfortable with this plan, unless we put Elizabeth Warren in charge.
Just make a law requiring an ID to get an abortion.
"We are basically supporting black genocide"
That is literally the reason abortion was made legal to begin with.
Margaret Sanger approves.
You know who else...nevermind.
Umm, it might be sarcasm.
Hard to tell these days.
It isnt. The author is a Californian politico. Has many other takes like this.
Yeah, his references to "modest proposal" and "brave new world" made it sound sarcastic to me.
He has many other writings. Rarely are they sarcasm.
My solution — making raising your own children illegal — is simple
And a modest proposal at that.
The funniest part is, this is LITERALLY part of the Handmaid's Tale. Children are seized by the government and redistributed, and family units are controlled by the State.
this is like A Modest Proposal.
Better "Modest Proposal" -- https://youtu.be/m_oCb5XfBQs
Homeless neighbors?
Are we still allowed to say homeless? I thought we had to use "unhoused" or some other such bullshit.
Of course, no matter what you did, someone would be raising each child, so what's the difference? If you traded babies with whoever's next door, then your child would become theirs and vice versa, leaving everything effectively the same.
The only way out of it is to not rear children at all, but set them loose in the field to become their own people.
Progs are worried that conservatives are having more kids.
Absentee ballot drop boxes aren't allowed in Wisconsin elections, per a new ruling from a state court there.
I understand that in this case, the law in Wisconsin doesn't explicitly allow drop boxes, so this ruling was probably correct on the merits, but if that's the case, the law ought to change to permit secure drop boxes. Why not? It is a simple change that does nothing to make elections any less secure, and instead makes voting easier. More conveniences like this is what the government ought to do with regards to voting. Make it easier without compromising electoral integrity.
Removing chain of custody doesn't reduce security?
I'veiterally given you the story on Ga and the paid collections or creations of ballots dropped off in the dead of night at these places. They do not ask for ID or confirmation of the ballot at these locations. Even the UN and Jimmy Carter have called these practices ripe for fraud.
If you were to argue manned stations that verify an ID at drop off you would seem mildly neutral but we know that is not what you have advocated.
This is an absentee ballot drop box, not a drop box for an in-person ballot.
What are the standards for submitting an absentee ballot in Wisconsin? If *submitting* an absentee ballot doesn't require a voter ID, then why does it matter if the absentee ballot is sent in the mail, or dropped off in a secure drop box?
Wisconsin requires a witness signature on all ballots which election workers illegally filled in.
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2020-11-07-wisconsin-clerks-may-have-unlawfully-altered-thousands-of-absentee-ballots/
No, that's not what your source claims.
Your source claims from "multiple sources" (all anonymous btw) that election workers MAY HAVE filled in the ADDRESS of the witness. Not that the election workers signed the ballot as witnesses themselves.
And I gotta be honest, this seems like a very ticky-tack thing to try to disqualify ballots over. The voter filled out the ballot correctly, got it signed by the witness correctly, mailed it in on time, the only thing missing was the address of the witness. I would have done what the WEC instructed the election workers to do - go ahead and fill in the address yourself, but use a red pen or make some notation on the ballot to indicate what you did. In the big picture, I don't think this omission warrants disenfranchising voters.
Which is against election law jeff.
What honestly don't you get? They filled it in with red pens as they knew they were in violation and did so anyways. That is not their job to cure a ballot. They notify the voter to do so. That is the end of their duty.
It is amazing watching you make up excuses to defend illegal actions. You are free to search out other sources.
They expended government resources in democrat leaning precincts to cure these ballots. This was the heart of Bush v Gore where different rules were set up to count valid ballots different.
Your entire existence is rationalizing bad acts from the left.
It is not about left vs. right. It is about trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the voter. You don't seem willing to do that.
Are you really willing to disenfranchise thousands of voters for only omitting the address of the witness? That this rule is SO IMPORTANT that it is worth taking away people's votes over?
The benefit of the doubt to the voter? It's not hard to fill out a ballot. If there is a large number of ballots needing cured, there's a good chance something fishy is going on.
No, it generally isn't that hard to fill out a ballot. So here we have a case where the ballots were correctly filled out, properly signed by the witness, properly delivered by the deadline. The only problem was that the witness didn't write down his/her address. Are you really going to completely disqualify this ballot based on this tickytack error?
If there is a large number of ballots needing cured, there's a good chance something fishy is going on.
Or, it could be that the instructions for filling out the ballot weren't clear enough.
"Are you really going to completely disqualify this ballot based on this tickytack error?"
Then how do we know the witness is legit? This is BASIC security stuff here.
You just inserted a shit ton of assertions with the word properly.
Because properly is name and address. Not just name. And curing the blots is not the job of the election office. They notify dimwit.
They should just put bears in the drop boxes. Make it interesting.
"It is about trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the voter."
Are you insane? Voting isn't some game. You're determining the direction of your country.
The ballot is there. It's correctly filled out. The only thing missing is the address of the witness. You would disenfranchise this voter based on this?
The only thing missing is the only way to actually verify the witness exists. Yup, that's no biggie.
And this is where we get to the "benefit of the doubt" part.
You see this and conclude "OBVIOUS FRAUD, reject the ballot!"
I see this and conclude "Innocent mistake, let's try to get the situation cleaned up so that the otherwise legitimate ballot can be counted."
It also goes to what we think the role of the government should be with respect to voting.
You want the government to try to find ways to reject ballots.
I want the government to bend over backwards try to help legitimate voters cast legitimate ballots.
"Innocent mistake, let's try to get the situation cleaned up so that the otherwise legitimate ballot can be counted."
If you don't provide the necessary information when getting a mortgage, a passport or a credit card, you don't get any of them. Choosing a nation's leadership is vastly more important. It's a responsibility. Do it correctly or fuck off.
More assertions that every ballot was correct filled out despite the entire discussion being about improperly filled ballots.
Jeff can't stop being dishonest.
Jeff. Can I just go ahead and modify contracts to correctly fill it out for the person? No big deal right?
I will try a serious response. There are only two practical and positive societal reasons to have broad participation in voting. Signaling and boosting tribal cohesion do not count.
First, we might expect that getting input from all citizens will improve governance. Unfortunately, abundant data deny this, including numerous polls that suggest that even many highly partisan and/or single issue voters mix up which candidate represents their views, even in presidential elections. And other research that show how many people are swayed by things like candidate height and haircut.
Second, letting most people vote will encourage their support of government authority, when they feel like they have a say through the ballot box. But this relies on people having faith in election integrity. Biasing the voter process to accept as many questionable ballots as possible pretty much defies perceptions of integrity, and thus support for the outcomes.
Why use utilitarian arguments in support of protecting voter rights? This is a libertarian forum after all. I prefer the deontological perspective - protecting voter rights is just the right thing to do. Voting-age citizens are simply entitled to the right to vote, by virtue of their citizenship, and that right should be protected regardless if the results of broader participation is "good" or "bad" on some measure.
More assertions that every ballot was correct filled out despite the entire discussion being about improperly filled ballots.
YOUR SOURCE said only that the problem was that the witness' s address was missing. It said nothing about the ballot being improper in any other way. If there was some other issue with the ballots then please present your evidence. Otherwise I have no reason to believe that there was any problem other than the witness address. It is the height of dishonesty to accuse ME of being dishonest for simply discussing what your own source said.
If you don't provide the necessary information when getting a mortgage, a passport or a credit card, you don't get any of them. Choosing a nation's leadership is vastly more important. It's a responsibility. Do it correctly or fuck off.
Jeff. Can I just go ahead and modify contracts to correctly fill it out for the person? No big deal right?
Voting is a civil right. It is not a voluntary contract. It is not like getting a credit card.
Do you even agree with this? That voting is a civil right? If so, then why shouldn't the same mentality apply to voting rights as it does to all other rights?
While voting is a privilege of citizenship, it is also a duty or responsibility. It isn't a constitutional right.
Unlike rights protected in the First Amendment, voting rights do not have constitutional protections. State legislatures have the right to appoint electors in presidential races without holding elections, for example, and states can enact a variety of policies that directly or indirectly infringe on suffrage rights.
It's time to quit lying Jeff. You're constantly called out here every time you do. I don't understand why you bother.
It isn't a constitutional right.
Yes it is. See the Fifteenth Amendment, for starters:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Unlike rights protected in the First Amendment, voting rights do not have constitutional protections.
Yes they do. See above.
State legislatures have the right to appoint electors in presidential races without holding elections, for example
Sure, you are correct here. State legislatures have the authority under the federal Constitution to appoint electors however they wish. They don't have to abide by the will of the voters in the state. They contravene the will of the voters only at their own peril, however. Are you seriously arguing that state legislatures ought to ignore the will of the voters in their state? I thought you were the guy who wanted radical populism.
While voting is a privilege of citizenship
So you want a privileged elite to be deciding on the leaders of the nation? How is this democratic? How is this populist? How is this even defensible?
To be clear I am criticizing your usage of the word "privilege". Voting is not a "privilege". It is a civil right.
Are you really willing to disenfranchise thousands of voters for only omitting the address of the witness?
Yes.
If there are "thousands" of these ballots, each with the exact same mistake something isn't right.
And wouldn't you know it--Wisconsin was a 'fortified' state.
And the entire issue is that the curing of the ballots was only done by government officials in very left leaning areas.
WHO CARES? Honestly, why are you so hung up on this? PER YOUR OWN SOURCE, there was nothing wrong with the ballots except the witness's address was missing. So the election officials filled it in, *in red pen, and made a note of it that they were the ones to do it, in case the decision would be challenged*. And I think that was the right call, that has nothing to do with left vs. right - it has to do with giving the benefit of the doubt to the voter, not automatically assuming that they are out to commit fraud, but instead fixing an error that can be easily fixed. And it has nothing to do with who the person voted for. All of the people affected could have voted for Trump for all I care. The point is that the election officials tried to assist the voting process, rather than try to hinder it. Why does this upset you so much?
Who cares? The 69% of Americans who were worried about election fraud in the most recent Gallup poll care.
It's not someone else's responsibility to 'fix' someone elses mistake, and the potential for fraud is enormous.
Admit it. The only reason you're opposing this is because you know that your party often wins local, state and national elections through rigging.
You really want to know how to protect people's voting rights, Jeff? By making sure that they aren't invalidated by fraud.
Oh so now polls are accurate. Got it. Like we actually believe that you place any faith at all in polls, unless they support what you already believe.
It's not someone else's responsibility to 'fix' someone elses mistake, and the potential for fraud is enormous.
It ought to be the obligation of the government to HELP people vote. To help to secure their RIGHT TO VOTE. You know, that right that you deny even exists in the first place.
Fuck off you lying cunt. It is about maximizing the opportunity for fraud that you support.
Removing chain of custody doesn't reduce security?
What type of "chain of custody" do you think should be operative for absentee ballots, starting with the voter him/herself?
Mail tracking can confirm address for the most part but the Ga usage of DL or last 4 of social security protect from random collections of strangers. Of course activists in government, such as agents in wisconsin who filled in witness statements, make this not as secure.
But as you are aware although you dont admit, lost protections on mail in ballots were removed completely. Such as witness signatures or signature matching.
protect from random collections of strangers
I don't understand why this is such a problematic issue. Isn't what is inside the absentee ballot envelope the important part here? Why does it matter if the ballot was delivered by the voter him/herself, by a mailman via the postal mail, or by some stranger?
You dont understand why a stranger showing up with 50 random ballots is a portal to fraud?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/heed-jimmy-carter-on-the-danger-of-mail-in-voting-11586557667
You claim to be intelligent but you can't see why no verification of the ballot being handed to said individual is an issue. Amazing.
The examples in your article were about fraud associated with the absentee ballot itself, not about the chain of custody. No, fraudulent ballots should not be counted. We both agree on that.
The entire vector of fraud is due to chain of custody. Are you honestly this stupid? Because your sealioning is getting tiresome.
“Are you honestly this stupid?”
Honest ain’t got shit to do with Jeffy.
If you were to argue manned stations that verify an ID at drop off
I would be fine with that, provided that was the operative standard for all absentee ballots, not just absentee ballots submitted via drop box.
All ballots should have begin to end chain of custody with some type of identification. They were asking for ID at the drop off locations in my precinct last year. Manned stations. Could drop of yours and a spouse. That was all.
So how would that work for absentee ballots? Would the mailman have to sign a form saying "I received an absentee ballot from John Smith at 123 Main Street at 9:05 am"?
I already stated my issue with mail in.
Wisconsin as you state above required a witness signature. Georgia and others require your driver's license number.
The fact is thousands of double votes were found in various states proving the avenues of fraud available. Many voters voted outside of their assigned precincts as their voter information was not updated, meaning ballots were sent to wrong persons.
I would propose something akin to a hash assigned to a voter through the dmv or election site to be applied to the envelope.
I would propose something akin to a hash assigned to a voter through the dmv or election site to be applied to the envelope.
Okay, in that case, then why does chain of custody matter? As long as the correct envelope arrives at election HQ with the correct hash, what does it matter if it was delivered via postal mail or via secure dropbox?
How do we feel about the private ballot?
This breaks that. It allows ballot harvesting, which enables all manner of coercion.
If the absentee ballot envelope were tampered with, you might have a point. But provided the ballot envelope was intact and not tampered with, I don't see an issue with HOW the ballot was delivered.
That's a lot of faith in your "provideds".
Sure, it's possible that absentee ballots could be tampered with.
It's also possible that in-person voters could be intimidated by the mob holding their families hostage back home. "Vote for Biden or the kids get it!"
I get the feeling that you all really want there to be only one way to vote - stand in line on election day - with very very very few exceptions, without regard to the relative risk or probabilities of fraud of exploring other ways to vote. And when anyone suggests maybe drop boxes aren't that big of a deal, or that maybe absentee ballots are okay, you're just going to create hypotheticals and fears to generate the outcome that you are looking for.
Sure, it's possible that absentee ballots could be tampered with.
It's also possible that in-person voters could be intimidated by the mob holding their families hostage back home. "Vote for Biden or the kids get it!"
Are you being deliberately retarded?
The first instance is literally millions of times more likely than the second. Name the country and the election where someone didn't try to tamper with ballots.
You can't.
New York post had an article of a Democrat operative who literally admitted to unsealing envelopes and changing votes.
Do you know how easy it actually is?
New York post had an article of a Democrat operative who literally admitted to unsealing envelopes and changing votes.
Okay, I will see your anecdote, and raise it with millions of anecdotes from individuals who voted by absentee ballot with no issue whatsoever.
"raise it with millions of anecdotes from individuals who voted by absentee ballot with no issue whatsoever"
How the fuck would they know that their votes didn't end up in some firepit in the country. Which is why mail-in voting is insane.
How the fuck would they know that their votes didn't end up in some firepit in the country.
Because I have no reason to assume that this is the case?
You are just throwing sand in the air, generating doubt over any election method that you don't personally approve of. It is nuts.
ML do you think all absentee voting should be banned?
ML and yesterday you accused me of dancing on Herman Cain's grave when I did not do so. When are you going to apologize for your slander?
You missed the point. It's not about tampering with the vote after it is cast. I'm talking about coersing the vote. Union bosses harvesting ballots and watching as workers fill out the approved union card.
Business owners having employees fill out ballots at work where they can ensure their candidates are supported.
There is a reason for the secret ballot, and tampering with envelopes is not it.
Because of activists with government jobs who can access the databases.
If you assume that the election workers are themselves corrupt, then no election is ever valid. This is just an overly cynical response.
Maybe the mailman is on the take? So, ban absentee ballots?
Maybe all the poll workers are shredding and altering the ballots? So, then, what? How do you conduct elections then?
It's prudent to assume everyone involved in the election is corrupt and plan accordingly.
It's almost like you actually want them to... oh wait.
If all election workers are corrupt, how do you propose conducting elections at all?
And when are you going to apologize for yesterday's slander?
All election workers must be assumed to be corrupt, because most are. Even on a small individual scale.
That's why rules, observers, ID and paper ballots are so important.
You lefties will bark on and on about how voting is important, but then you want to treat those same votes like used toilet paper. It's all a show for you.
And in actuality I prefer simply 10 days of manned drop off locations with the same rules as in person voting.
What if an eligible voter cannot make it to the drop off location in the 10-day period of time, because they are, say, out of the country for an extended period?
What if what if what if.
Exceptions should only be made for active duty. If there is a widespread need a database of addresses for a worker to drive and collect based on a defined need.
All you want is fraud. Just fucking admit it already.
No, I don't want fraud. I don't want to disenfranchise eligible, legitimate voters over bullshit reasons.
So people who are out of the country on business, they don't get to vote at all?
If there is a widespread need a database of addresses for a worker to drive and collect based on a defined need.
I think this is the first time I've seen you admit that you actually want election workers to help facilitate voters to cast their ballots, rather than to simply stand in judgment and find any pretext that they can to throw out ballots. I agree with you that election offices generally should help voters vote.
"What if an eligible voter cannot make it to the drop off location in the 10-day period of time, because they are, say, out of the country for an extended period?"
Then the same absentee ballots rules we have had in place for decades continues.
My issue here is that I don't want voters to be unwittingly disenfranchised because some mailman didn't sign some form.
It is unwittingly if they don't follow the damn rules.
If you're that concerned fund a voter information group. Don't open up voting to fraud.
Unbelievable.
So because a mailman doesn't follow the rules, then the voters should be disenfranchised?
Well, if you assume mailmen are untrustworthy, then no mail in system can possibly work.
Lol. More hypotheticals. Jeff hates those.
I'veiterally given you the story on Ga and the paid collections or creations of ballots dropped off in the dead of night at these places.
Jesse, I've had you on ignore for months now. Whatever story you think you showed me, I didn't see it. So if you have this story handy, I'd like to see it.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/georgia-opens-investigation-possible-illegal-ballot-harvesting-2020
So based on your story, nothing has been *proved* about anyone being paid to collect ballots, right? Your story simply reports on an allegation made by a conservative group.
So a witness and video feeds aren't proof.
God damn you are ridiculous. Someone admitted to being paid per ballot. The video shows them taking selfies with ballots up to show how many. Cell phone data shows the same activists at different locations.
You really do bury your head in the sand.
So a witness and video feeds aren't proof.
I would have to see the evidence for myself. Do you expect me to accept claims from conservative groups at face value?
Lol. Yet you are ready to call the oath breakers seditionists. You admitted you never watched Rittenhouse video but wanted him convicted.
From now on never comment on another criminal issue until you've gone over all trial material. Deal?
Umm, neither of those statements are true, but that is typical of you trying to change the subject.
So you want me to accept these claims from this conservative group at face value, without the opportunity to review the evidence myself, trusting that their representations are truthful and correct?
They are both true.
Never comment on another criminal assertion until you've gone over all testimony and trial material.
Thats the standard you've just given yourself. And yes it is saved.
Don't be a hypocrite jeff. That's your new standard.
They are both true.
They may be, but I would like to be the judge of that.
Never comment on another criminal assertion until you've gone over all testimony and trial material.
In this case, there wasn't even a trial, only an accusation.
You are just upset that I hold you to the same standard that you hold anyone who cites a left-wing source for evidence.
You are debating a shitposter. Mark Twain said something about this.
Voter fraud and
NaziCritical Race Theory. The two insane, evil hills that Jeff is willing to die on.wrong, make it as inconvenient as possible to vote.
Why?
Because then people will cease to depend on the government.
Contrary to popular belief, low participation in democracy is not indicative of low legitimacy.
Umm, consent of the governed is the very definition of a legitimate government, at least from a democratic point of view.
How should government be decided upon, if not by elections?
I didn't reject elections as the method to decide rulers.
To elaborate: Much like welfare, the best way to convince people that they should not be dependent on government is to make it useless to them.
Restrictions on voting accomplish this by simply turning people off. Those that persist are more likely to do so because they view it as a civil act, as opposed to a right or entitlement.
So you do not believe voting should be a civil right?
Those that persist are more likely to do so because they view it as a civil act
A civil act is a step higher than just a right. The civil action individual has a stake in the election, has taken the time to learn about the candidates, weigh the options, and most importantly cares about how the outcome will affect them and all other citizens.
An entitled voter votes with the media and the narrative, not as an informed voter but as part of a school of fish moving in a like direction.
There is a difference.
And no I am not trying to say the entitled shouldn't vote, but making it as simple as possible so it requires no more effort than scribbling ones name on a mail in ballot that someone mailed to them without request. And then not bothering to fill the information out correctly or worse, handing it off to someone else to do what they want with it. Is that the voter you want having a say in the direction of your country?
I don't.
Those people are more likely to be leftists, so yes, Jeffy wants to make it as easy for as many of them to vote as possible.
Is that the voter you want having a say in the direction of your country?
There are a lot of people who I don't *want* to exercise their rights. But an important part of what it means to be a libertarian is that we defend people's rights for their own sake, even if we don't like how they may exercise their rights. So no I don't *want* moron idiot voters to be voting. But I will support their right to vote just the same.
“But an important part of what it means to be a libertarian is that we defend people's rights for their own sake, even if we don't like how they may exercise their rights.”
Remind me your position on Rittenhouse?
And no I am not trying to say the entitled shouldn't vote, but making it as simple as possible so it requires no more effort than scribbling ones name on a mail in ballot
I want to protect their right to vote as well. Making the voter follow a process to give them the right to place a vote is not a disenfranchisement.
Are they a registered voter? The mail-to ballot process circumvents that. Are they who they say they are? No id required makes that a moot point. Can they vote on same day by just showing up, no ID no requirement? Hmm, seems to me that allows anyone to vote, citizen, non-citizen, resident, non-resident, out of state caravan. Now extend that voting period to 7 days, 14. Seems to me it would be easy to assemble a large cadre of 'voters' and travel across the country to wherever those votes are needed to fortify any election.
Add to that a federal level interference in each state's voting process and you have all the makings of a banana republic.
As I said earlier, is that the voting process you would advocate for?
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
Biden says next week they’ll announce plans to make high-quality masks available for free
Are these the ones stamped with Made in China like in Congress yesterday?
Maybe they'll get them out by the next variant? Govt showing how incapable it is of doing anything
Unless they have newly designed N95 masks, the masks are made for only a single use (then they get thrown away).
Why is the federal government mailing 500 million single use masks to Americans? What a moronic waste of taxpayers dollars
"PayPal is being sued by users who say the company terminated their accounts without reason and held their funds."
Where were they on Jan 6?
Eleven people have been indicted on seditious conspiracy charges related to last year's Capitol riot.
4 members decided to state the words used for these charges after only 11 months of solitary confinement.
In August of this year the doj and fbi said there was no evidence of a conspiracy.
The charges in the charging document include training, encrypted communication, attacks on government forces... or your basic antifa backed riot.
Hmm...
And the timing! Trials should begin about a month prior to the elections.
Nobody should ever say torture does not work. It got the Dems a DC grand jury (truly an impressive and judicious lot) anxious to indict a group for something.
Do mean tweets count as torture?
Wasn't Ray Epps a member of the Oath Keepers? Who was constantly at the front where the barricades were torn down, who was advocating that people go INSIDE the capitol? Why wasn't he indicted as a member of this seditious conspiracy?
And one woman pled guilty for being about 10 feet past an imaginary line while video of Epps on the steps exists.
Their protestations over him give the game away.
Let's list the things you just said about Ray Epps:
- A _member_ of Oath Keepers. You said nothing about his being a leader or planner.
- Was there the day of the riots and urged people to go inside, in the spur of the moment.
Where is the part where he was conspiring?
I thought Ray Epps and Stewart Rhodes were pretty similar figures, doing similar activities. Odd that only one is getting indicted.
Hey Mike,
Anyone who wants to know what actually happened on Jan 5 and 6 should carefully review the reports at
https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Looking forward to the next report on Revolver News, as it will likely compare/contrast the folks arrested by the FBI with the half dozen coconspirators who actually breached the Capitol Grounds, removed the Police barriers, repeatedly urged/corralled naive Trump supporters to unlawfully walk onto the Capitol Grounds and then to enter the Capitol Building.
Mike Liarson won’t click your link. Mike Liarson won’t consider your position. Mike Liarson is a partisan.
"-Was there the day of the riots and urged people to go inside, in the spur of the moment"
Neat how you added "in the spur of the moment" you dishonest demagogue.
The moment was very long. It lasted from the 5th, through the night, into the 6th.
Watch the videos revolver news has been given to you dummy.
I don't think MIke Liarson has a computer/phone and is able to see the links. How else could we explain his ignorance. Certainly couldn't be willful.
I've read the indictment. A big chunk of the allegations are that they conspired to do things that are perfectly legal-like travel to Washington DC as part of a protest, and also bringing equipment like radios, eye protection, helmets, camo uniforms, knives, and batons. None of those are illegal items. DC being a gun-free city, of course, they aren't alleged to have brought firearms.
Also, they're alleged to have conspired this attack even though they didn't reach the Capitol grounds until after the riot had already begun. They show up on the grounds around 2:30 pm, after the first rioters had entered the building at 2:15, after having been busting window for 15 minutes prior to that. So the riot was well underway before these men got there.
The best part was these guys getting indicted for incitement despite never setting foot in the Capitol, just a day after Simp-Boy Kinzinger argued that Epps was never indicted because he never set foot in the Capitol.
These people aren't even pretending that they're trying to be consistent on this.
So, they are off the hook because they were incompetent at arriving on time?
That's such an incredibly dishonest and interpretative take of people not being there from the start.
And you wonder why everyone here thinks you're a retarded weasel.
It does make one wonder how they could possibly be behind the attack on the Capitol when they weren't there when the attack started. The barricades had already been down so they might not have known they were stepping across the invisible line.
Look, rioting is bad, and if they joined in the rioting, they should face criminal penalties for it. But pretending like they engaged in a seditious conspiracy because they planned to join an organized protest is pretty dangerous.
"DC being a gun-free city, of course, they aren't alleged to have brought firearms."
You are dancing around the whole truth by not mentioning this: "organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C."
So, while it is true that they never _brought_ firearms, you skipped over mentioning that they are charged with preparing to do so.
Making statements that are factually true, but leave out part of the story, is a neat rhetorical trick, but it is not something who an impartial observer who is interested in the whole truth of the matter would do.
What they were "Willing" to do seems immaterial unless we want to legalize the concept of pre-crime.
What they did seems more important.
I've heard that pre-crime can be just as dangerous as crime. I've been told you need protection against both.
Common sense pre-crime control.
I'm sure they were prepared and willing to bring all the guns into DC, they just forgot to pack them. Oopsie!
Let's just say I'm a little bit skeptical of the claim that they had "Quick-Response Forces" all staged just outside of the city, ready to roll in with loads of weapons at a moment's notice. Because, after all, people did breach the capitol and there was a riot, and yet these guns never materialized on the day of. Though let's not talk about the big van or trailer full of weapons that was found on January 5th, and the driver/owner was allowed to go free.
To be clear, I am only repeating things claimed in the allegations (as you were). I don't assume that the allegations are true -- they need to be proven.
After bitching and moaning about the filibuster...Democrats today filibustered a Cruz sponsored bill to increase sanctions on Russia. It got 55 votes, but not enough for cloture.
Of course each team's outrage/defense over the filibuster is selective.
...Given that the Democrats were referring it to as a holdover of Jim Crow laws YESTERDAY, this is rather ridiculous.
....but, shocker, you have to both sides this. Naturally.
Am I wrong? Does Team Red not also engage in selective indignation with regards to the filibuster - opposed to it when they are in charge, in favor of it when they are not?
Did they try to kill it?
No. Specifically said they would not.
I know, you take no sides. Got it.
See below.
Was anything done?
They could have killed it as recently as January last year.
They did not. McConnell specifically said he would not.
Democrats threaten to kill it WHILE using it to protect Putin.
IIRC, these threats to end the filibuster from Team Red were concerning Democrats blocking Bush's judicial nominees. In this case, the threats were enough, Democrats caved, and permitted the votes.
But you're moving the goalposts here. We've gone from "did Team Red oppose the filibuster?" to "did Team Red actually get rid of the filibuster?" No, at that time, they didn't get rid of it, because Team Blue caved and they didn't have to. But at the time, they were sounding like Team Blue today (minus the Jim Crow rhetoric) - that the filibuster is undemocratic, majority rule should prevail in the Senate, etc. Read the link that I provided.
And of course Team Red actually did get rid of the filibuster when Team Blue filibustered Gorsuch in 2017.
I don't know why this is such a controversial topic for you. Team Red aren't the bunch of saints that you think they are.
"But you're moving the goalposts here. We've gone from "did Team Red oppose the filibuster?" to "did Team Red actually get rid of the filibuster?""
Trying arguing points I make, not ones you wish I did.
You can go back and look at my post. It's rather short. Hell, I'll help you.
"Did they try to kill it?"
Verbatim question I asked.
"And of course Team Red actually did get rid of the filibuster when Team Blue filibustered Gorsuch in 2017."
Nope. Dems killed the filibuster for judicial appointees (not for SCOTUS as Obama had no SCOTUS nominees at the time). Republicans simply closed that "carve out". After warning Reid that he probably should not end the filibuster for judicial nominees in the first place.
Team Red didn't whine about the filibuster then USE IT LESS THAN 24 HRS LATER, you insipid fuck. And solely to protect Putin to boot.
I think you are avoiding the uncomfortable truth that Team Red has been just as two-faced on the matter of the filibuster than Team Blue.
"Did they try to kill it?"
Yes. They tried to kill it. As I demonstrated.
No, they did not. There was no attempt made at all.
Okay, so you're just denying what was actually done in defense of Team Red. Got it.
Your the one being dishonest here, Jeff.
Explain how they tried to kill it, because they made no attempt.
Reid killed the judicial filibuster. How dishonest are you jeff?
Lets remember chemjeff wannabe statist.....Senator McConnell declined to mess with the filibuster despite strenuous efforts by POTUS Trump to persuade him otherwise.
Team R did not initiate this; they responded to each provocation with a measured response.
Please read the link I provided below.
The only team 5hat has reformed a filibuster rule via parliamentarian vote is Harry Reid Jeff. Sorry you are ignorant.
And now you'll try to parse it by saying some judges are different than others.
Reid stopped the judicial filibuster dummy.
Reid didn't end the judicial filibuster; it wasn't even the beginning of the end, but it was the end of the beginning.
Who besides you and the left had asked to end the filibuster?
Here ya go Jesse. I'll take you off of ignore just for this one day to see how it goes. Let's see if we can have a productive dialogue.
"The time has come to change the rules. I want to change them in an orderly fashion. I want a time agreement. But, barring that, if I have to be forced into a corner to try for majority vote I will do it because I am going to do my duty as I see my duty, whether I win or lose…. If we can only change an abominable rule by majority vote, that is in the interests of the Senate and in the interests of the nation that the majority must work its will. And it will work its will." - Mitch McConnell on Senate floor, May 23, 2005
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/nuclear-flashback-when-harry-reid-and-mitch-mcconnell-sang-different-tunes/
You had me off ignore yesterday shit weasel but still ignored all the posts showing your ignorance.
Had to reach back to 2013 huh? Did McConnell ever propose amending the rules or just complain about its use? 2 different things.
2013 was just the article, had to reach back to 2005 for a quote.
So is each team's outrage over Russia.
Hmm. Is this a type of criminal forgery? Or is this legitimate speech?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/13/michigan-ag-nessel-refers-gop-electors-review-federal-prosecutors/6521827001/
Would hate to insult nothingburgers to compare this to that.
It didn't include the governors signature idiot. It was never a forgery. It was a protest. They added no names but theirs.
Forgery is not necessarily just the fraudulent copying of a signature. It can also include the fraudulent copying of other official documents, or even works of art.
Printing a government form, putting your name on it, and sending it to someone is not forgery by any definition.
Of they had created a seal or a name that was not theirs it would be.
What is actually difficult here?
Printing a government form, ALTERING it, and then trying to pass it off as the authentic original version, is a type of forgery.
They didn't alter it. They signed their names to a form.
God damn youre a moron sometimes.
It didn't have the signatures needed. They did not forge a single signature
Youre so fucking dishonest.
Sometimes?
https://twitter.com/HazardHarringto/status/1481797871389351936?t=UHBuLHUC7kNLW5Iy4QzDLg&s=19
I work in Big Tech. A name you would know and have probably used before.
Wanted to give a rundown of what it's like from the inside right now.
[Thread]
https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1481756694128517128?t=p_BNJlNaxlbLAdr2tob0GQ&s=19
We are an astoundingly colorblind country. 96 percent of Americans approve of neighbors of a different race - highest in the world. 91 percent approve of interracial marriage. 89 percent of Americans think rising diversity is just fine. Americans are loving, generous people.
[Links]
But Jim Crow 2.0!
Jim EAGLE!!!! Get some bad feelings towards American Patriotism included now.
In a recent survey almost all groups said "the economy" was their number one concern. All except one group.
Blacks had "racism" eaking out a win over the economy. Despite things being objectively, significantly better every year, and white people (also every major corporation) falling over themselves to find the racism they are guilty of so they can self flagellate. The DNC has these people absolutely mind fucked.
Maybe the reason why different groups have different priorities is not because anyone has been "brainwashed", but because that is the reasonable conclusion based on their own experiences.
You think CRT is "racist garbage", right? Is that because Republicans brainwashed you? Or is that because that is your considered opinion based on your analysis?
So, if others believe "racism is a problem in this country", why not extend the same courtesy? That it is their considered opinion based on their analysis, and not the result of "brainwashing"?
Some of the loudest voices I have heard elaborate on CRT, its roots, and the current praxis are James Lindsay, John Mcwhorter, Sam Harris.
Lindsay, a PHD in mathematics, lifelong atheist and now independent, former full on liberal (Trump 2020 is the first time he pulled the lever for an R).
John Mcwhorter, linguist, black, gay intellectual who, while he has more conservative opinions than the current black activist class, still leans heavy to the left and is essentially a democrat.
Sam Harris, neuroscientist, atheist, liberal, hates Trump, is pretty much a full on democrat.
Not everyone who hates CRT is a republican. Broaden your horizons young Jeffrey
So, if others believe "racism is a problem in this country", why not extend the same courtesy?
Why do you assume he isn't extending the same courtesy and has, instead, been brainwashed? Is it because you're a rational and emotional clusterfuck of a human being?
It tells people they are defined by their race. That is racism.
Language is becoming more emotional.
And yes, I do deny the "experiences" of people for whom their experiences can't be backed up by empirical analysis. This is why language is becoming more emotional. We've chucked out reason in exchange for "personal truth" and "lived experience".
Who cares if a person in the black community is far more likely to be killed by someone else within that community than police. Michelle Obama's biggest fear is her children will be killed by a police officer. Michelle Obama's billionaire "lived experience" is all that matters.
Glenn Loury on this subject.
Glenn Loury is the kind of voice that all the screechers want supressed.
Despite things being objectively, significantly better every year (racially)
FIFY. Not sure when the poll was taken but, if post-2020, the objective conclusion is that black people prefer to be locked in their homes, forced to use Doordash as equals than be allowed to walk into a bar where someone mopping up in the bathrooms for them at $15/hr. thinks they're too uppity.
It's a slave ship!
https://twitter.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1482011830641991688?t=T-K_832vi8JNDMLrwQOAgw&s=19
BREAKING NEWS: Nike sends a defiant letter to its remaining unvaccinated employees that they will be FIRED by January 15 if they fail get vaccinated against COVID. Republicans attacked Nike’s mandate, but the company held its ground. RT TO THANK NIKE FOR STANDING STRONG!
If you’re a Democrat who is thankful to Nike for standing strong and announcing today that they will be firing all unvaccinated employees by January 15, despite relentless Republican attacks on its company mandate, please RT and follow our account for more breaking news!
https://twitter.com/leslibless/status/1481831700955078656?t=n3ILW4uQL-cSOCWAAK8-sQ&s=19
Citigroup is firing any of their 65,000 US workers who defy the vaax, in spite of today’s ruling.
Tomorrow is the deadline.
Some employment law attorneys are going to make a lot of money off this.
And yet a lot of people will still lose their jobs.
You can bank on that!
More people moving out of the citi.
Dems have never gotten over their fondness of slavery.
Looks like they're trying to do gamergate again
https://twitter.com/SydneyLWatson/status/1481751923174871043?t=fgAHGIJVsAeTmByvWKsZxg&s=19
Can someone please cliffnotes this situation for me? Every time I start listening I zone out a minute in.
"@G4TV
we stand with @Froskurinn and the women in the space"
[Video]
I spent a lot of time there advising gamers (I supported them over the idiotic press) that the media that hates you for this hates you for a lot of other things and the lies they say about this are lies they say about other things.
They will always be trying to do gamergate again.
But in every industry. Its the same DNA
Can someone please cliffnotes this situation for me? Every time I start listening I zone out a minute in.
Sometimes sociopaths fail at ground level. Sometimes they fail up and leave a smoking crater when they come back down.
I've always considered "games journalists" to be the sub 70 IQ journalism dropouts. I can see that G4 is doing what killed them the first time.
Thing is, they have some entertaining people there. But if this is what they are offering up...yikes.
"Women aren't here to be easy on the eyes for you."
Right, then I'll tell you what I've been told by men since I was a tween, "You aren't getting paid to stand around and look pretty. Grab a shovel and shut up." Better?
What's most hilarious about her rant is the very specific women she called out by name who according to her were not there to be easy on the eyes, repeatedly sexualized themselves in the previous iteration of G4 tv. Because it was the early aughts.
She says as she ogles Chris Hemsworth at the beach.
Really, the best thing that could happen to G4 tv is exactly what will happen naturally if we let it: it will wither on the vine with zero viewers.
https://twitter.com/HdxAcademy/status/1481627096514535428?t=GJgPh5Q_1T8eg3M1nWOd_g&s=19
"Male students preferred protecting free speech over an inclusive and diverse society by a decisive 61 to 39. Female students took the opposite position, favoring an inclusive, diverse society over free speech by 64 to 35."
[Link]
this is the end of the republic
Something something language more emotional...
Who is the retard that said censorship is diverse and inclusive?
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1481798386999300105?t=ttRfn4BYLTrLhRsT2QeunQ&s=19
Held my patient’s hand as he passed away last night. He said:
“Am I dying because I’m a communist?”
All I could do was tell him, “No. You’re not dying because you’re a communist. But that’s why you’re going to hell.”
"@GunReformRyan
Held my patient’s hand as he passed away last night. He said:
“This is all my fault. I should have just gotten the damn shot. Now I’ll never see my family again.”
The heaps of people that die due to not being vaccinated CAN’T tell you how much they regret it…"
These types of posts, along with the ones that involve a child making exceptionally astute political observations, are so obviously fabricated that it boggles my mind. What's really creepy is that these types of posts are being done by medical professionals, someone you *should* be able to trust. The frequency in which these posts are made just makes the entire thing ring hollow.
A. Shit that didn't happen.
B. Sounds like his biggest regret was being associated with communist.
C. Liberty or Die. Better dead than Red. Get the shot because you want the shot. Not because some self-righteous 'Follow the SCIENCE!' religious nut tells you you're going to hell if you don't.
Whoops, meant in reply to Nardz above.
"Language is getting less rational."
Correction:
Language used by left wingers, Hollywood celebrities, elitist billionaires, BLM race baiters, Antifa anarchists, woke corporate execs and many other Democrats has become totally irrational, uncivil, disrespectful, and physically threatening to most Americans.
ENB wrote: "Was President Joe Biden ever arrested? According to him, yes. According to all available evidence, no."
So why then, did ENB campaign for Biden (as she repeatedly lied about and demonized Trump, who was the most libertarian president since Cal Coolidge)?
Feelingz. And no mean tweets.
Cal Coolidge did enforce Comstock laws banning all birth control, including mailed parental advice. He also signed the law making peyote and mescaline illegal and the 1929 Five and Ten law making all prohibition violations federal felonies. So the "libertarian" bar he left as a mystical conservative was not all that high when it comes down to comparisons.
Was President Joe Biden ever arrested? According to him, yes. According to all available evidence, no.
Probably not, however, I have heard numerous stories that in his early senate days when he would go out drinking with Moynihan, Kennedy, and the rest of the gang, he would frequently get so shit-faced drunk that he would suddenly just throw up all over the floor of the bar without even attempting to make it to the bathroom first or anything.
Fortunately for him, throwing up on the barroom floor isn’t in and of itself a crime that can get you arrested and charged.
• Eleven people have been indicted on seditious conspiracy charges related to last year's Capitol riot.
Ray Epps still hasn't been charged, and it will be interesting finding out if the FBI has charged any of the half dozen coconspirators who orchestrated and conducted the initial breach of the Capitol Grounds, swiftly removed Police barriers, breached the Capitol building, repeatedly urged/corralled (using three identical bull horns for an hour) thousands of naive Trump supporters to unlawfully walk onto the Capitol Grounds and into Capitol (before and as Trump was speaking a half hour away).
Hopefully, Revolver News will do an update comparing the actual Capitol insurgents (none of whom were indicted as of several days ago, likely because they were/are FBI agents or informants) with the people who were charged by the FBI yesterday. https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/
Schadenfreude City! Observe that the looter media were quick to insinuate that some of the violent rioters were "libertarians." Has a single dues-paying party member been identified with that motley mob?
Abbott called Operation Lone Star a state investment in security that the federal government refused to make, but opponents — including Democrats and immigration advocates — criticized the effort for militarizing the border and interfering with immigration enforcement, a federal responsibility.
I'd like a clear definition of what the Democrats (and immigration advocates) refer to as "immigration enforcement" as it relates to the Federal Government, and exactly what interference is occurring, aside from the fact that enforcement in and of itself is happening.
He should just round them all up and ship them off to the really nice parts of blue states. They'd LOVE to have them, I imagine.
Clearly not enforcing is a type of enforcement. Do you even Prog bro?
"Biden's dubious arrest record". I think you meant to say "Biden claimed, without evidence, that he had been arrested multiple times." Remember when you used to use that "without evidence" claim on a regular basis? Good times!
Perhaps the "Drug Abuse" Senator was referring to his own cognitive development. It's pretty near impossible to find two equally noisome looter politicians. This makes the LP all the more valuable in that it enables us to vote a pox on both their hice.
This really is troubling. Rational people can work out disagreements more easily because they are fact based. Solutions are much more difficult when you involve emotions. When people communicate in the most rational manner, using numbers and mathematics, they can cut across differences, because you can’t argue against a number. Plus, when people are more emotional, people demand more government intervention to resolve differences that are more easily resolved when people are fact focused. Liberty, to some degree, is best sustained when people are rational.
When is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory?
"WASHINGTON—Russia has pre-positioned a group of operatives to conduct a false-flag operation in Eastern Ukraine as a pretext for invading the country, the White House said Friday.
“The operatives are trained in urban warfare and in using explosives to carry out acts of sabotage against Russia’s proxy forces,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at the White House. “Our information also indicates that Russian influence actors are already starting to fabricate Ukrainian provocations in state and social media to justify a Russian intervention and sow divisions in Ukraine.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-says-russia-is-planning-false-flag-operation-as-pretext-for-invading-ukraine-11642182308?
So, the Biden administration is claiming that Russians are planning an attack on Russian forces--in order to justify an invasion of Ukraine?
I guess we'll see.
Can you imagine what the press reaction would be if a Republican suggested something like this? We'd never hear the end of it.
Why do you say that? It's not like we have never before seen a false flag operation used as a pretense to invade a country.
Seems like all you are doing here is regurgitating the Republican victimhood narrative.
Because the fbi does this regularly. It's more of the rule than the exception
When is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory?
When it's a proven conspiracy fact. And despite the recent trend of conspiracy theories becoming conspiracy fact in record time, I doubt the ruling regime's pronouncement of this wild, baseless conspiracy theory will be vindicated any time soon. Don't know why, just a gut feeling.
Interesting part is the idea that an attack against Russian proxy forces IN UKRAINE would be justification of an actual invasion.
But the best part is how the old Soviet policies of forcibly replacing Ukrainians with ethnic Russians is now being used to justify Russian invasion. Some things never change.
That’s not true Ken, because as we all know, a Republican President would be running cover for Putin by not blatantly saber rattling.
It’s kinda weird that you have immediately see military intelligence through a partisan pair of glasses.
It's kinda weird that we immediately see "military intelligence" in all the usual news outlets simultaneously.
Is the Ukraine not an important topic to cover in the news?
So, the Biden administration is claiming that Russians are planning an attack on Russian forces--in order to justify an invasion of Ukraine?
So now the Russians are putting bounties on Russian soldiers' heads in Russia?
Gotta commend Biden for forsaking Trump's legacy, perpetrating a sloppy pullout of Afghanistan, and then effecting a sloppy pull in that makes Iraq look like an honest proposition. At least Bush put a WMD ring on it, asked the UN Security council first, and had Tony Blair to stand for him as best man. Here's hoping the witnesses to this shotgun wedding pull the trigger before the "I do"s.
The Ukrainians want the US to show up.
Could this be because more women are being published?
THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
An elephant in the room can be a humorous image.
Publishers Clearing Hoes?
Interesting perspective of "less rational" rather than "more expressive."
Shocking that the white guy doesn't know the difference between being detained and being arrested.
Emotion is how stupid people think they’re smart.
Stupid is funny in an insincere way.
Funny is smart in an emotional way.
Therefore stupid is smart in an insincerely emotional way.
The least-noted and most significant events in 2007 were the admission of Red China (which considers production and trade crimes) into the FATF. This came shortly after the GW Bush Faith-Based bureaucracy-packing EO. The FATF promptly issued a report on AML through real estate, and subprime mortgage-backed securities began to fail. Dozens of charts show asset forfeiture increasing sharply through 2008, then leveling off a bit lest the Crash link obtrude itself on our notice. The Looter Kleptocracy became an obvious thing, so Newspeak changed to disguise the fact.
Here are 7 at-home jobs that pay at least $100/day. And there’s quite the variety too! Some of these work-at-home jobs are more specialized, others are jobs that anyone can do. DHGFFDSFThey all pay at least $3000/month, but some pay as much as $10,000. GO HOME PAGE FOR MORE DETAILS…...... Home Profit System