Biden Takes Credit for Things He Shouldn't at Marathon Wednesday Press Conference
Plus: Protecting the First Amendment, examining the SHOP SAFE Act, and more...

Dubious claims from President Joe Biden's press conference. In a televised press conference yesterday, the president talked about a wide-ranging set of issues, from the failure of Democrats' voting bill to America's withdrawal from Afghanistan to his own mental fitness. Over the course of the nearly two-hour event (which you can watch in full here, if you're a masochist), Biden spewed a lot of his typical half-truths and exaggerations. Fact-checkers have taken Biden to task for comments he made about the pandemic, economic growth, and other subjects.
For instance, Biden made the dubious claims that his "Build Back Better" plan wouldn't "raise a single penny in taxes on people making under $400,000 a year"—a proposition that folks at the Tax Foundation dispute—and that it would cut the deficit. However, the Congressional Budget Office says the version passed by the House of Representatives would actually raise the deficit by $158 billion over 10 years.
Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post pointed out several Biden statements that were misleading or lacked context, including claims about inflation, jobs, wage growth, and taxes.
And here's some of the Associated Press fact check:
BIDEN: "We just made surprise medical bills illegal in this country."
THE FACTS: He ignores the fact that President Donald Trump signed that consumer protection into law before leaving office in December 2020. The achievement is Trump's….
BIDEN: "We created 6 million new jobs, more jobs in one year than any time before."
THE FACTS: He's taking too much credit. As Trump did before him, Biden makes some grandiose economic claims that gloss over one central reason for historic growth — the U.S. population is far larger than in past decades (and continued to grow last year, despite COVID-19 deaths).
The economy added 6.4 million jobs in 2021, the most on government records dating back to 1939, but part of that is just a natural rebound from what had been the steepest job loss on record in 2020, when 9.4 million jobs were cut.
And since the late 1970s, the U.S. population has grown by more than 100 million people, so any hiring surge under Biden will be larger in raw numbers than that achieved by his predecessors. On a percentage basis, the number of jobs in the U.S. grew 4.5% in 2021. That is still a sizeable increase — the biggest since 1978 — but not a record-breaker.
Reviews of Biden's press conference are predictably mixed. Partisan media outlets have rushed to defend their usual positions, with Democrats praising the president's performance and conservatives mocking it mercilessly.
The conference was "filled with shrewd observations" and "displayed a mastery of the realities of power," claimed The New Republic. Meanwhile, the New York Post called it "an exercise in self-delusion" and "an utter disaster" and Fox News host Jesse Watters called it "a political field sobriety test — that he failed."
The truth is probably somewhat less dramatic than either of these sides suggests. Biden fumbled, exaggerated, and at times sounded a lot like former President Donald Trump, whining that his opponents wouldn't let his party get whatever it wanted and blaming this on some personal anti-Biden agenda rather than just, you know, differing values and goals. ("I did not anticipate that there'd be such a stalwart effort to make sure that the most important thing was that President Biden didn't get anything done," Biden said.)
Biden also made some eyebrow-raising statements, like suggesting that if the Democrats' voting rights legislation didn't pass (and it didn't), the legitimacy of this year's elections—or at least people's sense that they're legitimate—couldn't be assured. From Roll Call:
[Biden] was asked multiple times whether he thought upcoming elections would be viewed as legitimate without the voting rights bills reaching his desk.
"Well, it all depends on whether or not we're able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election," Biden said.
Later in the news conference, he said, in reference to the midterms, that "the increase in prospect of it being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed."
Biden also did a few more admirable things, like standing firm on withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan ("I make no apologies for what I did") and semi-admitted that the Democratic talking point about corporate concentration causing our current inflation woes doesn't quite cut it. ("It's not been the reason we've had high inflation today," said Biden. "It's not the only reason.")
Mostly, however, Biden seemed to spew a lot of the types of platitudes that his base likes to hear.
See also:
FREE MINDS
Reason's Nick Gillespie talks to First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere, author of the new book The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder:
Corn-Revere tells me that although no one cops to being a censor these days, attempts to delegitimate the First Amendment are everywhere around us, especially when it comes to limiting speech in the name of supposedly protecting the feelings of religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. "If you look at the history of this, you find it is the protection of individuals' speech rights that has made all of the mass movements by minorities and previously marginalized people possible," says Corn-Revere. "There wouldn't have been a gay rights movement or a women's movement. Certainly the civil rights movement was a defining time for protecting the speech of individuals."
He also talks about worrying shifts away from robust defenses of the First Amendment among Millennials and Gen Z, why every plan to put elected officials in charge of speech would be worse than trusting the relatively unregulated marketplace of ideas, and why he's ultimately optimistic about the future of free expression.
Listen here.
FREE MARKETS
The SHOP SAFE Act is being sold as protection from counterfeit products sold via the internet. Don't buy it. There are ample problems with the SHOP SAFE Act, including the fact that its supporters exaggerate the problem it sets out to solve and the fact that it would resonate far, far beyond the specific issues it aims to address. Reason's Robby Soave has more details on this bad bill, which Democrats are considering adding to the bipartisan Endless Frontier Act.
QUICK HITS
• Drone footage of a U.S. military strike that killed 10 civilians (including seven kids) last August clearly shows that children were nearby prior to the strike.
• Some good news on omicron:
Since early last week, new cases in Connecticut, Maryland, NJ and NY have fallen by more than 30%. They're down by more than 10% in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. In California, cases may have peaked.
By @DLeonhardt https://t.co/a4Haov8epK— Cliff Levy (@cliffordlevy) January 19, 2022
• Reason's Ron Bailey explains the "ginned up tempest of online moral outrage" over an Elon Musk exchange about artificial wombs.
• Efforts by Democrats in the Senate to change filibuster rules have failed, as has their voting bill. "The twin defeats were never in doubt," notes The New York Times. "They did succeed in forcing the Senate for the first time to debate the bill, leading to hours of raw and emotional arguments on the floor over civil rights, racism and how elections are conducted."
And there it is: the vote to change the filibuster rules for this legislation fails 52-48 pic.twitter.com/a1qXxHZPwP
— Grace Panetta (@grace_panetta) January 20, 2022
• A Supreme Court decision yesterday means the National Archives can turn over Trump documents to Congress' January 6 committee that the former president asserted were covered under executive privilege.
• Biden's approval rating is now at a low for his presidency. Less than a third of those surveyed say they want him to run for reelection in 2024 (though 48 percent of Democrats say so). And a majority—56 percent—disapproves of how he's now doing as president.
• New legislation in Kentucky would "make operating a charitable bail organization unlawful."
• It never fails…
The @LASheriffDept is using debunked human trafficking myths to justify a massive increase in policing of Inglewood in the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl.
Sex workers, be careful out there.https://t.co/MdEYWHt4pg
— Mike Stabile (@mikestabile) January 19, 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
BBB wouldn’t raise taxes by a single penny. It would be astronomically greater than that.
a $2 bill?
$3 bill, inflation is a bitch right now.
That Admir-earl approves.
Dubious claims from President Joe Biden's press conference.
It's okay, he doesn't remember any of it.
Biden probably didn't "remember" it when he was saying it.
He certainly doesn't remember the truth so his comments weren't lies. The media's representations are a different story.
My favorite part was the money we spent on laboratories to keep the kids safe while washing their hands.
"So, we have new ventilation systems available for them. We have — the way they handle — they scrub down laboratories and — I mean, the lavatories kids go to, to go to the bathroom — cafeterias, buses, et cetera. That — all that money is there. There’s billions of dollars made available. That’s there."
-Brandon
If Trump had uttered even 1 sentence approaching this level of incoherence, he would have been skewered for days, until the next squirrel drew their attention.
Now the president can just mumble strings of words together for almost 2 straight hours that are nothing more than gibberish, and not a peep.
Do you think this will be a habit as a pretense to using the 25th on the old crook?
Wow! If there is anything that is a solid both sides truth it’s that both Biden and Trump are doddering old men. Neither qualified to be chief executive.
Biden more incoherent, while Trump speaks so vaguely he cannot be pinned down on anything.
Then how could Trump allegedly "lie" so frequently?
Pick a narrative, clown.
White Mike speak with forked tongue.
Classic gaslighting.
He thinks that our cognitive dissonance is as great as his.
Caw caw!
Trump peppered most of his speeches with optimistic, positive, encouraging words. The press vilified him for it.
Can you give an example?
How about this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81eWnIOLyAc
Here's a transcript of Trump's Decemeber 2nd, 2021 speech on election fraud:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-on-election-fraud-claims-transcript-december-2
I'll give some examples of his vaugeness:
"We have an in all swing states major infractions or outright fraud, which is far more in numbers or votes then we need to overturn the results of a state." He goes on to discuss one example, from Wisconsin. What happened to all the other swing states?
"Joe Biden can’t be president. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of votes. We’re talking about numbers like nobody has ever seen before. Just as an example, in certain states, we’ll be down by, let’s say, 7,000 votes, but we’ll find later on 20,000, 50,000, 100,00, 200,000 discrepancies or fraudulent votes, and that includes votes that went through when they were not allowed to be seen by Republican poll watchers, because the poll watchers were locked out of the building." He's just rambling about no particular state and no particular numbers.
"They didn’t know what to do. They had no one to complain to, most just left and said, “That’s strange.” But many people complained and complained vehemently, and in a lot of cases, they filled out a provisional ballot, which was almost never used, but in virtually every case was a vote for Trump. In other words, they went in to vote and they were told that they voted and they didn’t vote. They left and they felt horror and they lost respect for our system. This happened tens of thousands of times all over the country. That’s how desperate the Democrats were. They would fill out ballots of people not even knowing if these people were going to show up. When they did show up, they said, “Sorry, you’ve already voted.” Again, he's talking about no particular state, no particular people. Just vague handwaving.
I can go on and on giving dozens of examples from that one speech alone.
Which wouldn’t make it any better rebuttal regarding “most of his speeches” birdbrain.
The mirror image, in fact. There is some grousing, but I am guessing that the 'fact-checking' is due to fear that the media knows they will be called on their bullshit if they let too much slide. That said, the amount of praise for the bumbling, fumbling, boasting, lying, paranoid horseshit that this beltway grifter, racist shitbag, and serial child predator let loose in just under two hours is astounding.
"Drone footage of a U.S. military strike that killed 10 civilians (including seven kids) last August clearly shows that children were nearby prior to the strike."
SLOPPY PULLOUT!!!!!!
#DefendBidenAtAllCosts
Retro-active reproductive rights.
HAPERINCINERATION
LMFAO....that was inspired.
Biden year one article was not written by a libritarian.
Biden complaining about how the Republicans won't let him get his way is nonsensical. They control the white house and all of congress.
I'm not sure if you've been paying attention the past 30 years or so, but much of what Biden says has always been nonsensical.
The percentage started out pretty high back in the 90's when I became aware of him and it's gone up significantly since then.
Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings, circa 1991?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rca-_DOgBPU
that was an utter embarassement. Thomas's comments about it years later are amazing. If Biden had any cognizant brain cells left I'd imagine he would still be stewing over them.
The media was fawning over him then, as well. And it was clear that he was a sub-par intellect then, with a talent for glad-handing and memorizing the correct buzzwords and buzzphrases.
What about hair sniffing?
"Biden's approval rating is now at a low for his presidency. Less than a third of those surveyed say they want him to run for reelection in 2024 (though 48 percent of Democrats say so). And a majority—56 percent—disapproves of how he's now doing as president."
AP News, huh? Guess that's another misinformation site I'll file under wingnut.com. There's no way his numbers could be that low considering the fantastic job he's doing.
#LibertariansForBiden
What about an approval poll of billionaires?
I totally want to see the Official OBL Biden Polling Results. That would be true value for your entertainment dollar.
And that's one of his better polls. The Romney tab of wingnut.com.
How much money have the top 10 billionaires made? That's really all that matters.
This, and the price index based on chewing tobacco.
In a televised press conference yesterday, the president talked about a wide-ranging set of issues...
Including when they used to wear onions on their belts.
Which was the style at the time.
Did he talk about the shortage of nickels?
Give me 20 bees for a dollar!...you see nickels had bees on them.
"Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post pointed out several Biden statements that were misleading or lacked context, including claims about inflation, jobs, wage growth, and taxes."
You have to ask, "Are the American people, including our leaders, that stupid?" And you have to answer, "Yes."
We just made surprise medical bills illegal in this country.
The royal we.
Wait, I thought it was the unity we.
It was the "get back in your hole, peasant" we.
Not to worry though, surprise tax bills are still totally okay.
Charitable bail organizations are rife with unintended consequences, so I'm not sad to see them go, even if on principle I object to their banning.
Really bail reform needs to focus on forcing bail to be tailored to the individual's ability to pay. Maybe instead of a specific number, say bail has to be set as a percentage of monthly/yearly income (if the person has no income, then as a percentage of the poverty limit for the state). Then set a limit that a judge can't place bail at higher than 100% of income. Bails that require go fund me's to make, just turn bail into a popularity contest instead of a real judgement on risk.
As long as they don't bail out red SUVs we will all be okay
Really bail reform needs to focus on forcing bail to be tailored to the individual's ability to pay.
Once upon a time, this rationale got my indigent junkie cousin ROR'd following a kidnapping, aggravated assault, robbery, and GTA charge. Good times.
I should be clear. If you're really a big enough risk to require multi million dollar bail despite having zero income or funds, then you shouldn't be have bail period. I forgot to add that part to my original post. Either you should be able to pay for your bail, or you are too much of a risk to be given bail and judges shouldn't be able to fake mercy.
That should go without saying, of course. But considering that everyone involved in the process is under some form of political pressure, there's going to be really silly abuses of such reforms that won't even seem like abuses in the moment.
Basically, the bail reform may end up being less harmful overall, but it's also going to create some very, very embarrassing headlines along the way.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/28/nycs-worst-2021-cases-stem-from-shaky-bail-reform-law/
How about making those who bail out suspects financially and criminally liable for any additional crimes committed?
They are already financially responsible because they lose the bail funds given.
I don't think that's true. Don't they only lose bail if they don't show up for hearings / trial? So they could be committing new crimes but still show up. I suspect most do since criminals know a bail jumper will never get another bail bond.
That amount is often far less than actual damages from subsequent crimes.
Does this apply to violent offenders violating previous bail terms? Asking for a red SUV.
As I said above. I accidently left out of my post, that my main point is that bail should either be payable or not granted at all. Judges should not have the option to offer multi millions of dollars of bail. If someone is truly that great of a risk, then they shouldn't get a bail option.
More curious if you think bail should be automatically granted for basic crimes even in the presence of prior bail violations.
Don't have a strong opinion, because I haven't looked into it. I'm just against judges not being forced to either give reasonable bail or declare someone too high risk to have bail.
It is one of the primary questions. In LA and other areas there are cases on cases of people being arrested for theft multiple times and released the next day without ever having gone to their first hearing.
Regarding "the good news on omicron", are you telling me that it peaked in the late Nov through early Jan, and then tapered off? Almost like it has some sort of "season"? Wow this is a shock! has anyone looked into this? I have never heard of a virus like this before
Wait til you hear about this new fangled "natural immunity" thing some folks are talking about!
Is it, like, organic and everything?
Yes, but it comes from animals so the vegans are out of luck.
If they/them die, they/them die.
Fake news! Any increase or decrease (real or imagined) in COVID "numbers" is entirely due to (1) the heroic efforts of righteous political leaders or (2) the dastardly efforts of evil political leaders, even if the numbers occur before the claimed political actions.
Just like the "economy".
The virus is cowering in fear from the tests and masks that have almost been mailed out.
So I guess the next "viral blizzard" which will oblige mail-in balloting only for the midterms will have to be a new variant.
Almost war with Russia over the Ukraine will be the reason that they're forced to delay the midterms indefinitely.
Nah. It will be the 6th or 7th COVID surge, with a variant even more contagious but almost no symptoms. Thus only detectable via official government testing.
Am rooting for 4/8chan/anonymous trolling campaign/hoax about virus infected mailers for mail-in ballots...
INCONCIEVABLE!
That's because these so-called "coronaviruses" were completely unknown prior to 2019.
...but part of that is just a natural rebound from what had been the steepest job loss on record in 2020, when 9.4 million jobs were cut.
Due to Trump's lockdowns.
Regulatory costs have soared under Biden leading to increases in spittin tabaccy.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/regulatory-costs-soar-as-biden-adds-rules-faster-than-predecessors
Regulations are way more libertarian than "mean" tweets
Regulations provide comfort to sheeple; mean tweets are literally violence.
to be fair, Biden isn't adding any regulation.
it's his stalinist millennial handlers who are doing it.
("I did not anticipate that there'd be such a stalwart effort to make sure that the most important thing was that President Biden didn't get anything done," Biden said.)
Has Joe forgotten who he is? Our did he just finish reading a bunch of Bob Dole speeches?
Those darn obstructionist Democrats, still on the wrong side of history.
Andrew Feinberg
@AndrewFeinberg
Watching @POTUS, the one thing that strikes me is that he's articulate and detailed in a way that is completely inappropriate for today's media environment and easily weaponized by his opponents to make him look addled and weak.
Andrew Feinberg
@AndrewFeinberg
Replying to @AndrewFeinberg
Or to put it another way, he's talking like a print newspaper guy in a TikTok world. It's a speaking style that doesn't work so hot when people have short attention spans and respond best to memes and soundbites.
So, Andrew is saying he is wowed by Biden's genius?
Does that not disqualify him from ever being taken seriously ever again?
Describing biden as articulate and detailed does.
he's talking like a print newspaper guy in a TikTok world.
The phrase is “out of touch”.
The phrase is “incoherent rambling”.
...if the Democrats' voting rights legislation didn't pass (and it didn't), the legitimacy of this year's elections—or at least people's sense that they're legitimate—couldn't be assured.
STOP THE STEAL
I think they meant
START THE STEAL!
We know that it is undemocratic to blame election fraud for a loss after an election. Is it now accepted to blame fraud for losses before an election?
Fraud, like treason, is in the eye of the beholder. Like freedom fighter vs. traitorous scum.
Dod everyone forget that dems were yelling about an illegitimate election in 2019 before Trump started discussing the rule changes happening? They were the original stop the steal to justify their changes.
It's not been the reason we've had high inflation today...
I blame basic economics.
Much too complicated.
Choose your blame target below:
A) Greedy corporations
B) Systemic racism
C) Capitalism
D) Trump
E) All of the above (Note: option E is only available to advanced players)
Do straight, white, evangelical, southern men fall under E?
Don't you even CRT? Straight, white, evangelical, southern men have to sit on the floor in the corner wearing symbolic plastic chains and not speak. That's how you equity.
Male swimmer on women's team is starting to throw his races and swimming at a leisurely place to barely finish first after controversy of winning by 38 seconds earlier on the year.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/01/penns-transgender-swimmer-loses-to-yales-transgender-swimmer-in-womens-100-meter-race/
Team mates accuse him of throwing the 100m race for a woman to male trans swimmer to try to end some of the outrage. Swimming at nearly 10s lower than previous races on the event.
Perhaps it's their time of the month?
Well done, sir!
There's certainly blood in the water over this.
I think you were getting a little too chummy with that comment.
Thanks for keeping us abreast.
That was a stroke of genius.
I mean it would be stupid not to. Making the difference that obvious is how you get ordinary people upset enough to put rule changes in place.
On the other hand, might just have realized that he doesn't need to put in 110% when he's that far ahead of any possible competition.
I was won't about this. When he lost to the other girl/guy no one really reported the times. He's throwing them to fit in with the girls. What a teammate.
Turning into a real pussy.
all they* do is lie. every time. it's amazing actually.
*woke proggies
Agreed. Woke proggies lie a lot.
Now do Trump and his cronies…
Above Mike Laursen says Trump speaks so vaguely that he can't be pinned down on anything.
But here he says Trump lies.
Which is it?
If Trump speaks to vaguely to be pinned down, he can't be lying. If he lies, he can't be speaking too vaguely to be pinned down.
Mike Laursen, low IQ clump of cancer everyone!
Like a hemorrhoid with less charm.
It is White Mike who we sea lion.
i wasn't talking about trump, he lives in your head not mine.
Sad. Like the COVID panic, some people will never get over Trump. It/he fills their every waking moment and skews their understanding of all things--forever.
Since early last week, new cases in Connecticut, Maryland, NJ and NY have fallen by more than 30%. They’re down by more than 10% in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
The panic brigade lives by the case count; their fearmongering dies by the case count.
I thought it was because the masks are finally working.
I still marvel that we use the marketing terms of the left to talk about the election regulation bill they are pushing.
It is clearly and unambiguously designed to enable election rigging. There is no alternate explanation where these reforms are voting rights. In fact, if any international election monitoring agency were to encounter these rules for elections in some 3rd world country, they would call them out as corrupt.
Yet we only use the language of the left to describe it as voting rights.
Remember Iraq and how we conducted elections there? In person voting, and to ensure than we had one person, one vote, they dipped a finger in indelible ink when voting. Simple, cheap, and absolutely effective against subverting the system outside of the poll workers and observers.
Even if you are in favor of a 3 month long vote by mail election day, it would be hard to describe this bill as voting rights.
They mean "voting right", not "voting rights".
The next step will be having Facebook run the elections online, and announce the results a week before the election.
As always -- read the actual legislation. There's so much being proposed to Save Our Democracy it'll make your head swim.
Reason firmly, and consistently, declares their allegiance via language choice
Perhaps you can discuss the specifics in the bill that you view as not genuinely tied to "voting rights", and is instead "election rigging".
For example, how is making election day a national holiday, a type of "election rigging"?
It's more the permitting of ballot harvesting, national mail in voting without a requirement for a mail in ballot to be requested, the lack of any photo ID obligations....
Who exactly is complaining about making election day a national holiday? That isn't one of the issues that is being objected to.
This is why you are called dishonest.
I will complain about it. Let's not pretend that this 'holiday' will be observed by anyone except the government. And why the fuck should government workers get the day off to vote? Talk about a conflict of interest.
That's a sealioning attempt if I ever saw one. Did White Mike give you lessons?
OK, let's agree: we will make Election Day a national holiday if most people have to vote in person.
If I get the entire day off - I'm definitely not voting ever again. That's an opportunity to do something fun while you suckers waste your time standing in line.
And get a damned ID card.
For example, how is making election day a national holiday, a type of "election rigging"?
Notice how left wingers protect the bill by pretending these are the objectionable features. Activists are taught to try to control the discussion by focusing on the secondary sections and avoiding those designed to make fraud undetectable.
Yep.
Like their argument for abortion.
BUT RAPE!!!
As if more than 1 in a thousand abortions are about getting rid of a rape baby versus making a simple lifestyle decision.
Sounds like a straw man.
Yes, it is often argued that an exception should be made for rape. Even some conservatives make that argument.
But where has anybody argued that all abortions should be allowed because some women are pregnant from being raped?
If the comment is a straw man argument, your rebuttal is formulated exactly the same.
But think about it for a second. Abortion made illegal except for rape. Now bearing false witness is a method of accessing abortion. Reports of rapes rise dramatically. Some accused get falsely imprisoned and some real rapes get lost in the deluge of reports.
I would certainly argue that all abortions should be allowed because some women are pregnant from being raped. The alternative is far worse.
You are really bad at playing a libertarian.
It seems like a pretty common response from the Pro Choice groups. When the Pro Life advocates question the need for abortions the first example of why it is so important is always what about rape and/or incest?
The exceptions, and they are the exceptions compared to the number of abortion done each year, don't justify the rule and in my opinion pave the way for more lack of personal responsibility.
No wonder 50% of liberal white women are struggling.
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition
If it's pretty common, can you cite an example?
Can you go play on the expressway tonight in dark clothing?
The fetus is guilty of criminal trespassing, right?
Abortionariums could bring in the Capitol Police to shoot the fetus for maximum social justice.
It could double as firearms proficiency training... Not that I think Congress' Stasi need firearms when not on duty at the Capitol. When serving elsewhere, they can be what the left is so loudly pushing for, unarmed conflict resolution types.
THANK YOU!
Just because Biden compares his bill with the Voting Rights Act doesn't mean we have to all pretend they are the same thing.
Don't you even emperor's new clothes?
I figured out the moral of the story the first time I read it. 😉
If you are powerful enough you can take out your junk in front of anyone?
The kids refer to it as Toobing.
Matt Walsh confuses activists who claim men are women by asking them the simple question of what do you define as a woman.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/dr-phil-aftermath-lgbt-activists-complain-matt-walsh-gave-them-nightmares-walsh-responds
they declared, “transgender women are women.”
Sheesh, Matt! What more do you want?!
Maybe Matt got burned by a surprise on a date.
“When he took off her dress, it was a big old mess. Sheila was a man.”
That's funky. And cold.
But it wouldn't happen in Medina.
Holly came from Miami fla
Hitchhike her way across the usa
Plucked her eyebrows along the way
Shaved her legs and then he was a she
And the Girls of Color go Doo! Do-do! Do!-Do! Doo! Do!-Do!-Do! Doo!....
They drank champagne, but it tasted just like Coca-Cola.
"the increase in prospect of it being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed."
Those concerned about the cognitive health of our fearless leader should behold this sophisticated mathematical statement!
So, there is one bill right now that will either be passed or not. A purely binary input. That, according to Biden, I guess, makes the “proportion” of the output all or nothing.
You add nothing to these boards. In fact, you’re a consistent detriment to all discussion. Fuck off Dee.
This
The GOP continues to push for access to therapeutics to treat covid if a patient wants to go that route. Also known as giving citizens the freedom of choice.
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/republicans-push-greater-access-covid-therapeutics
Come on, man. Choice is only for some people on some issues.
I have been told by reliable sources that Republicans are only interested in opposition, and not actual individual choice.
WHAT ABOUT ON ABORTION? OR RECREATIONAL DRUGS? HUH SMART GUY?
Republicans hate hippies.
There are lots of vaccinated people with Covid who need therapeutics too.
The most psychotic thing is that government and the media are deliberately withholding and agitating against them, if they aren't made by Pfizer.
If you get Covid, even after the mRNA jab, the attitude is still "fuck you, you should have got vaccinated".
There's a lot of people in government and media who witheld and agitated against life-saving treatments, who need to go to jail when this is over.
Fauci also delayed the formation of the therapeutic aids cocktail preferring expensive specialty drugs that didn't work. It's his MO.
That's just part of the most massive crime against humanity in history.
I know for sure that I have been exposed to COVID multiple times in the last three weeks and have watched almost everybody in my office who didn't have it previously get sick. Nobody became seriously ill, but those who had it previously haven't gotten sick at all this time.
Natural immunity 5/5, vaccine 3/8.
Yet another anecdotal confirmation that the science is out there, and it isn't what the 'public health experts' are peddling.
Oh, and that jeffy and White Mike are spreading misinformation.
"Oh, and that jeffy and White Mike are deliberately and knowingly spreading misinformation."
It's the only reason they're here.
Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post pointed out several Biden statements that were misleading or lacked context, including claims about inflation, jobs, wage growth, and taxes.
Previously known as lying.
Again, Jesse, lying is something that people from only one party do.
You might need to take an equity training course.
Remember, Democracy dies in DARKNESS...not in misleading statements.
Democracy dies in DARKNESS
Sounds racist.
Don’t think it is an either/or…
Ffs.
The ferocious sea lion strikes again.
"Democracy Dies In Darkness"...'Cause if The Mob can't see you, The Mob can't get you!
By contrast, A Libertarian Republic Lives On With An Infrared Scope!
BIDEN: "We created 6 million new jobs, more jobs in one year than any time before."
THE FACTS: He's taking too much credit. As Trump did before him, Biden makes some grandiose economic claims that gloss over one central reason for historic growth — the U.S. population is far larger than in past decades (and continued to grow last year, despite COVID-19 deaths).
These are largely jobs lost under democrat shut downs last year.. we still have 4 million less jobs that at the start of the pandemic...
*fewer
(Sorry!)
A Supreme Court decision yesterday means the National Archives can turn over Trump documents to Congress' January 6 committee...
"These are all just McDonalds receipts!"
LOL
OK, that was funny.
Fist has been waiting years for your affirmation!
Did ENB miss the lart where Biden said minor incursions by Russia into the Ukraine were fine?
He's had these answers prepared for him from selected questions.
So his administration WANTS this statement out there.
To what end?
Cui bono?
Were they worried there will be no "invasion" & are trying to manipulate Russia into action they can use to justify war?
Remember how Trump was Putin's puppet but did little Putin wanted to have done while Biden cannot do enough to please Putin. Good times.
I bet Burisma is annoyed that they gave Hunter so much money for his dad to tell Putin to go ahead and invade.
Burisma has no problem with this. Sure, Russia will take another 50 square miles of Ukraine. And then the US will parachute in many billions of dollars in response.
Just the tip.
Reason has steadfastly avoided the entire Russia/Ukraine problem. Seems a ripe target for a libertarian perspective.
Am guessing that Russia will use force in Donbass. My discussions with Russians is that Donetsk and Lugansk are Russia. Russia accumulated a war chest and can somewhat handle (additional) international economic sanctions. At the end of the day, people need coal, oil and natural gas. Moscow is also trying to pressure Kiev into resupplying water to Crimea, which they recently shutoff. Russia sits on the UN Security Council so there won’t be anything formal from that group.
Ukraine has been pushing hard to get the US militarily involved.
We don't need to get militarily involved, but some U.S. tankers sending Light Sweet Crude for trade will make Putin draw in his fangs! Once we wheel-chair Biden out and excise Krunkt Kackling Kammy in a straight-jacket, maybe whoever's next can get the oil flowing again.
Partisan media outlets have rushed to defend their usual positions, with Democrats praising the president's performance and conservatives mocking it mercilessly.
Hidden within this statement is the fact that one of these positions is correct and the other is a lie. But ENB obscures that so she can maintain her carefully nurtured Both Sides-ism.
That it takes so much work should be a tell, but people who do this aren't interested in the truth anyway.
And there is more to it than lie versus truth.
Remember Afghanistan? Do you notice a daily update on how many Americans and Afghan allies are still trapped... left behind?
Wanna take bets on how many of those updates you would be seeing if we were talking about a Trump administration?
Biden is ending COVID numbers like deaths et al starting next month.
I bet the media will never ask why.
Can you cite an article on this?
You and sarc just yesterday said citations weren't needed when requested from you. Lol.
https://www.businessinsider.com/misleading-viral-claim-on-government-tracking-covid-19-deaths-debunked-2022-1
It's half-true. Hospitals no longer have to report to HHS, but the CDC will still aggregate various state data.
Related: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/01/14/a-shift-away-from-daily-covid-case-counts-has-begun
And thanks, again.
Can you provide cites for yesterday's assertions now?
Thanks!
Can you sealion, sealion? Asking for a sealion.
A most ferocious sealion.
Also hidden is the fact that, if reason’s other articles about political affiliation are accurate, more people identify as something that isn’t a democrat or a Republican than people who identify as Democrats or Republicans (even if, in practice, almost everyone votes for a Republican or democrat), and if 1/2 of democrats approve of Biden and want him re-elected, and his approval rate is still only 1/3, virtually everyone who isn’t a partisan democrat hates Biden.
This isn’t a conspiracy by white supremacists or right wing media, or the storied Republican pounce job. This is Biden royally sucking, and everyone who isn’t incentivized in some way to see him as a good president, sees him as an unmitigated disaster.
Democrats are about to get clubbed. And it’s their own fucking fault. Not only providing cover for, but actively supporting Mostly Peaceful Protests. Godawful Covid policy at every turn. The mask falling off the teachers unions. Insisting that every person in America who doesn’t support their agenda whole cloth as a racist, white supremacist (or if you’re a minority, someone who has succumbed to white supremacy and unworthy of being called anything but a white supremacist). Government induced inflation such that a normal grocery visit requires a second mortgage. These and a million other things have sunk their legitimacy for everyone who is not a partisan democrat.
The democrat party can go get fucked.
Biden's approval rating is now at a low for his presidency.
His handlers aren't as popular as they thought they'd be.
The junta seem to have decided to make him the fall-guy for all the shit they've pulled and are planning to pull.
Watch Buttigeig get maneuvered into the heir-apparent position after the midterms.
Gay
We do need to remember, Biden is just a prop. He was always meant as a meat shield, to be thrown under the bus when opposition to the cabal's agenda became too apparent.
The agenda and the left/global socialist cabal collectively, rather than Biden individually, are the cancer.
The Roger Goodell of the progressives?
My first reaction watching snippets of the press conference: Fuck Joe Biden
Let's go, Brandon! Y ou're doing great!
Signaling: ... .. --. -. .- .-.. .. -. --. .-.-.- / ... .. --. -. .- .-.. .. -. --. .-.-.- / .--. .-.. . .- ... . / .- -.-. -.-. . .--. - / -- . / .- ... / --- -. . / --- ..-. / -.-- --- ..- .-. / --- .-- -. .-.-.-
Did someone tell you this was clever?
You should leave the humor to people that aren’t fucking retarded.
Remember to --. --- / ..-. ..- -.-. -.- / -.-- --- ..- .-. ... . .-.. ..-. / .-- .... .. - . / -- .. -.- .
The @LASheriffDept
is using debunked human trafficking myths to justify a massive increase in policing of Inglewood in the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl.
Oh, so everyone can make money off the big game except the police.
We let them rob the cash drops from pot sales so they're already taken care of.
I cant really agree with your language on Biden standing firm on his no apologies stance for getting out of Afghanistan. The criticism is not the fact that we left Afghanistan, it is how we left.
And pretending that the mode of exit was anything other than an unmitigated disaster is just silly. If anything, the correct context to play would have been the comments his predecessor made (the one who initiated the withdrawal process) about his military advisors position on removing equipment. He said they told him it was too expensive to keep the aircraft. He said You cant fill a $10 million aircraft with a half a tank of gas and fly it to Turkey or Pakistan? Thats too expensive?
Billions in weaponry and equipment gifted to the Taliban by this pullout, simply because of how it was done.
And Biden has no apologies??
Not to mention all the people we left behind that he promised we would not leave behind...
He also actually delayed leaving.
It was nap time.
The agreement Trump signed with the Taliban had us leaving at the end of April 2021.
Biden didn't really decide to leave until weeks before the deadline, and then he arbitrarily extended it to September 2021--without the Taliban's agreement.
Biden had eight months to evacuate our allies from Afghanistan, but he didn't bother to get started until after they'd overrun the Kabul airport in August of 2021.
Because leaving Afghanistan was the right thing to do doesn't mean it couldn't have been done competently, and Biden administration's incompetence walked in a run for the warmongers.
If Trump had been reelected, our allies would have been out of Afghanistan by the end of April 2021. Our allies wouldn't have been there when the Taliban waltzed into Kabul and surrounded the airport. Fuck Joe Biden.
It’s a counterfactual, so we don’t know. Trump tended to lose interest in President-ing for the last year of his administration. Instead, concentrating on pre-bitching full time about the election being stolen from him.
Well, if you wanted to make a vacuous and nonresponsive reply, that was one way to go about it.....
A true weasel comment. Like usual
Biden's advisors were offered Trump's entire plan, and simply ignored the offer:
"I ran Team Trump’s Afghan withdrawal — Biden’s attempt to blame us is just sad"
https://nypost.com/2021/08/19/i-ran-trumps-afghan-withdrawal-bidens-attempt-to-blame-us-is-sad/
Remember, team Biden came into office loudly proclaiming that there was no plan for vaccinations and they had to cobble something together, but they were working on it.
No Plan. that was the talking point term to use.
This, while over a million shots a day were being administered before he was sworn in. Kinda their game plan.
Yesterday he said only 2 million Americans were vaccinated when he took office. If that's true, it's only because you're not considered vaccinated for like 30 days after you start getting the shots, which weren't available until very very late in 2020.
"Biden made the dubious claims that his "Build Back Better" plan wouldn't "raise a single penny in taxes on people making under $400,000 a year"—a proposition that folks at the Tax Foundation dispute—and that it would cut the deficit. However, the Congressional Budget Office says the version passed by the House of Representatives would actually raise the deficit by $158 billion over 10 years."
There should always be a libertarian, somewhere, who points out that "reducing the deficit" isn't the only important consideration--and can be used to mask terrible, spending and tax policies. If Biden introduced a policy that would raise taxes across the board by 100%--and only increase spending by 95%--that would "reduce the deficit". Should any libertarian or fiscal conservative anywhere support a policy that would double taxes and almost double spending in the name of deficit reduction? The correct answer is, "of course not".
We don't need experts at the Tax Foundation or the Congressional Budget Office to tell us that raising both taxes and spending isn't something libertarian capitalists or fiscal conservatives should want to do. Biden increasing taxes and spending and selling it as fiscal conservatism is pissing on our heads and telling us that it's raining. We don't need experts to explain to us that this is idiotic
progressive bullshit. We just need libertarian capitalists and fiscal conservatives--with or without any level of expertise--to point out the obvious to their fellow Americans.
good points all
Perhaps the obvious is not obvious. And it likely conflicts with one or more delusional ideas about government spending, taxes, or basic math.
Premise: That raising spending isn't something fiscal conservatives want is obvious.
Premise: That raising taxes isn't something anti-tax anarcho-capitalists want is obvious.
Premise: That increasing the size and scope of government by increasing both taxes and spending is something small state libertarians do not want is also obvious.
Conclusion: Biden attempting to address the concerns of libertarian capitalists and fiscal conservatives by dramatically increasing both spending and taxes is obviously horseshit.
Show me where I'm wrong.
P.S. If raising both taxes and spending is the libertarian capitalist and fiscally conservative solution to deficit reduction, should progressives support executing the homeless in the name of reducing the overall rate of homelessness?
Sorry, Ken. I meant that these basic truths are not obvious to many average people, including some that might call themselves fiscal conservatives. Logic, consistency, and math skills are not as common as we might wish.
I think they are!
That's what I'm disputing.
I thoroughly believe that average Americans are perfectly capable of understanding that, for instance, raising spending in the name of fiscal conservatism is specifically "bullshit"--using a term that average Americans completely understand without any need for us to city the experts at the CBO or the Tax Foundation.
I see average Americans turning their backs on the dominant media narrative on these issues. Fuck the experts. Fuck the news media. Fuck Joe Biden. And Fuck Joe Biden's bullshit about deficit reduction. We shouldn't assume that because the media is pushing some narrative that average Americans are buying it.
Biden's polls are in the shitter despite the experts and the media narrative.
Clearly, Americans are not buying it. November 4 will not get here fast enough.
#Scroogeonomics
Last evening I had the opportunity to judge a middle school debate competition. The topic was legalizing drugs.
It was really heartwarming. The kids were well informed on the topic and able to argue both sides well. There seemed to be a strong leaning toward the legalization side by the students. (the format was that both sides had to be prepared, and a coin flip would determine who had pro and who had con)
surprisingly, none of the kids I talked to had watched the Soho forum debate featuring our own Mr. Sullum.
Also heartwarming - I heard a lot of jokes that I interpreted as mocking woke culture.
saying Thats Racist about something mundane and silly was a fairly common joke. Also, homophobic language police have apparently failed with the middle school crowd, as Thats Gay, You're Gay, and just straight up jokes about sexual orientation were not at all taboo.
This was a highly diverse crowd of students - probably every race and ethnicity imaginable was well represented. One panel I judged had no two people from the same country, let alone the same ethnicity. Also, the nerds who join debate.
And the Woke was not strong with them.
On the other side of the ledger.. the guy running the thing had a huge button on his lanyard proclaiming his pronouns to be HE/HIM. Dude was a total Karen too.
Thats Gay, You're Gay, and just straight up jokes about sexual orientation were not at all taboo.
Do you think that is a positive development?
Yes.
Now fuck off and die, karen.
If they want to be treated equally it means opening yourself up to joking and mockery like everyone else.
Absolutely and unequivocally.
I was marching for gay rights a long time ago, probably before you were born. Terms have changed sides multiple times since then. And the only bad development has been the hysterical movement against having a sense of humor and faux outrage over words.
40 years ago my gay friends had a sense of humor about themselves. Actually, a giant, outsized sense of humor about themselves. Publicly losing a sense of humor has been a major loss to that community.
Saying that someone is bad, evil, or lesser because of their sexual orientation is bad... and is exceedingly rare these days. But despite the loud protestations of the thought police, labeling words as off limits for other uses because you now own them is not a good thing.
If you saw how my gay friends talked to each other and me, it would positively give you the vapors.
Calling someone a dick isnt degrading or dehumanizing to men.
Calling someone a pussy isn't degrading or dehumanizing to women. Neither is saying a movie was gay dehumanizing to homosexuals.
And it looks like the obnoxious pubescent clade of this generation agrees.
But dont worry your empty little head about it... by the time they hit college they will probably be appropriately brainwashed into woke culture.
Still... it is a sign that the natural order of things is still out there, pressing against this alternate reality that proclaims words simultaneously have no meaning and are violence. Eventually the artifice will collapse under its own weight. And then we can go back to having fun insulting each other equally, as god intended. With good intentions and no hard feelings.
"Oh man, he thinks we're talking about gay fags."
If you say so. I don't consider it a particularly positive development that kids use derogatory language.
Especially fat jokes.
Except it’s not a “development.”
Kids have ALWAYS been assholes. They have ALWAYS used derogatory language. Or are you somehow maintaining that teens have previously been linguistic angels, never having uttered a disrespectful word until white supremacy suddenly made them do it?
Fat gay Jeff didn’t have any friends as a kid.
It's not a "development." It's been the state of affairs at least since I was a middle schooler in the 80s, and probably well before that. And it was the state of affairs when I was in the Army as well.
Politically correct speech policing is a "development," and it's not a positive one.
Sounds like fly-over, deplorable country. Please call 1-800-USSTASI to report the location of this school and the names of all children who may have violated official speed codes.
No need. Special Agent ChemJeff is here.
"Special Agent ChemJeff", that made me chuckle.
"Biden also did a few more admirable things, like standing firm on withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan ("I make no apologies for what I did") "
Leaving Americans behind? Biden is proud of it.
Killing innocents on the way out? Biden is proud of it.
ENB does not seem upset about either. Seems she does not understand that the drone footage occurred under Biden...
Meh. No sex workers were harmed.
ENB expressed no personal opinion. Thoughtful of you to fill one in for her.
Yea she did weasel
Can you provide a link with some evidence of your claim? I'm not doubting you, you understand, I just really want to understand your view better.
Labeling something “admirable” is a personal opinion you stupid cunt.
Do you have a cite for that opinion?
Biden extended the deadline in Afghanistan so he could have a Sept 11 photo op. Like it was going to be a spike the football moment. He then ignored the intelligence indicating the Taliban was retaking the country. He provided no plan to evacuate Americans until the Taliban was surrounding Kabul. It ended up being a botched abandonment that cost American lives, left Americans in Afghanistan, blindsided our allies, allowed 5,000 high concern prisoners to be released and facilitated large caches of military equipment to fall into the hands of the Taliban (with better stuff possibly being sold to Russia or China for analysis).
Drone striking children on the way out was Biden’s cherry on top.
Biden also felt it appropriate to check his watch when the bodies of the fallen Americans returned to the United States.
Biden also helped oversee the failed occupation for eight years as Vice President. And voted for the original invasion as a senator.
And turd shows up to trivialize Biden's colossal fuck-up every chance he gets.
Truely hateful people.
"Biden Takes Credit for Things He Shouldn't at Marathon Wednesday Press Conference"
To be fair, he isn't actually president in practice, so how would he know? And they've probably shot him up with a record amount of drugs to keep him somewhat lucid so that was playing a part too.
"Fact-checkers have taken Biden to task for...
I've said it for Trump's and I'll say it for Biden's, but fuck fact-checkers.
They're 99% pig-ignorant journalists spinning shil to match their bosses demands and predjudices on subjects they don't actually understand, like virology, economics and climate science.
When it comes to analyzing politicians words, if they're hostile, they'll treat idioms, figures-of-speech, analogies and parables like verbatim reports and dub them lies, in astounding displays of sophistry.
Fact-checking has proven repeatedly to be nothing more than a new form of demagoguery and propaganda.
https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1483947465191858181?t=GHiXzXVjMiLwP9CHxliKxg&s=19
There is so much to say about Pres Biden's presser.
The thing that sticks w/ me is that he took responsibility for mistakes he believes he made, expressed genuine frustration w/ COVID & his agenda being stalled by GOP and Democrats & took hard questions without insulting folks.
https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1483946716256735234?t=cXZd9keJvZ4HL-pl7Z9nWg&s=19
Pres Biden, in the longest news conference in presidential history, made news, pushed back on critics, called out lies, took responsibility for mistakes he believes he made, expressed surprise at GOP, talked foreign policy and didn't lash out on reporters.
Quite the change.
With such reporting, I can see why NPR warrants a penny from us.
NPR has put the clown paint on heavy this week, between this nonsense and their terrible reporting on Gorsuch the UnMasked.
As of this morning, they are still standing behind their SCotUS masking fail, despite the fact that every party to the story- Sotomayor, Gorsuch and Roberts- have denied it in whole.
Even further, even if the story were true, the idea that Sotomayor doesn't feel safe around an unmasked Gorsuch makes HER look bad, not Sotomayor. Howard Hughes' germaphobia was never considered a good thing, for fucks sake.
Get woke! Hughes levels of paranoia and "sensitivity" are now virtues, and delusional demands for germ-free* living are now reasonable social and political goals.
*Germs include anything that might make a sensitive person feel bad, including words and ideas.
Each justice is vaccinated and boosted. They are tested every morning before work. If shoving a stick up my nose and scraping my brains each morning before work isn't enough "sensitivity" for you, then you can go fuck right off, thank you very much.
Poor Nardz. He needs help.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/capitol-rioter-ordered-back-jail-dwi-arrest-ar-15-rifle-discovered-car-rcna12747
A man accused of rioting at the U.S. Capitol has been ordered to be returned to federal custody after authorities said he tried to flee an arrest on suspicion of drunk driving last month and police found an AR-15 rifle in his car.
Collectivistjeff is literally cancer
Please don't get your comedy cues from Sarcasmic. He isn't tolerable or funny either.
Garner police officer responded to a restaurant in Wake County, North Carolina, around 5 a.m. and found Grant in his vehicle, according to the motion to revoke his release. He appeared to be intoxicated, and the officer began a DWI investigation, it said.
AR15s are legal to own in North Carolina.
What point are you trying to make Jeff? Are you trying to infer he had the rifle at the capitol? The two events are completely unrelated.
What was your actual point?
I think the point is that he was not-driving in a parking lot while intoxicated. Therefore, an insurrectionist!
"...What was your actual point?..."
Why would you ever think jeff had a point? Intoxicated rambling is his limit.
Now imagine the man is black.
"In Grant’s car, police recovered an AR-15 assault rifle"
Ha ha ha, oh Jeff.
What's the big fucking deal here anyway, the restrictions are ridiculous for a trespassing charge. It's not like he burned down a courthouse or a drycleaners, or looted a shoe store. How come you're not embarrassed?
Did they also find any Legos? Possibly a fire extinguisher?
He didn't read past the headline.
Lefty Jeffy hates 2A.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/biden-holds-press-conference
I summarized the press conference in real-time.
This was fantastic, FYI. God's Work.
Thanks 🙂
That was awesome! Loved it.
Lol
If we libertarians truly believe in the right to vote as a civil right, then two conclusions must immediately follow:
1. The state's job should be to enable the exercise of that right to the greatest extent possible, while still maintaining a secure election. It should not be the voter's job to have to convince the state why a certain method of voting should be allowed. It should be the state's job to have to convince the voters why a certain method of voting should NOT be allowed. And that burden of proof should be very high. Fears of what "might" happen shouldn't cut it.
2. We have a duty to defend the right to vote as we do all other rights - defend it for its own sake, not based on any perceived particular outcome. We don't defend free speech rights because we like the speech being uttered. We defend free speech rights because the right itself is important to defend regardless of the speech. It is the same with voting rights. We should defend voting rights not because we think it will produce results that we like. We should defend voting rights for their own sake.
Except you are a marxist, not a libertarian.
No this is exactly wrong. Just because you have a right, it doesn't mean you have the right to force everybody to bend over backwards so that you can enjoy that right.
The logical conclusion of your statement is that the State should allow votes 365 days a year, 24x7, and in whatever format possible. If you bring in a cocktail napkin with scribbles, it is the State's responsibility to divine your intent.
But, as you say, "It should be the state's job to have to convince the voters why a certain method of voting should NOT be allowed."
Well, the state's voters elected these representatives and they are now enacting laws. Are you saying the voters are wrong?
Yes, sometimes we have to destroy democracy in order to save "democracy".
ps. Please don't confuse the simple act of voting with the righteous goals of utopian, progressive society.
Good analogy and breakdown.
No this is exactly wrong. Just because you have a right, it doesn't mean you have the right to force everybody to bend over backwards so that you can enjoy that right.
For natural rights, no. But for **CIVIL** rights, yes it does. For example, you have the right to a trial by jury if accused of certain crimes. That right DOES obligate the state to pay for judges, pay for juries, pay for the light bill for a court room, etc., so that this right may be enjoyed. The right to vote is a civil right not a natural right.
The logical conclusion of your statement is that the State should allow votes 365 days a year, 24x7, and in whatever format possible. If you bring in a cocktail napkin with scribbles, it is the State's responsibility to divine your intent.
Actually...
There was a time in this country when voters would bring their own ballots to the polling station, and they would be counted just the same as every other ballot.
There was a time in this country when voters would vote "viva voce". Because, presumably, so many of them could not read.
Your hypothetical situation is actually not all THAT hypothetical.
But of course there is a very good reason not to permit voting right now: there are no officially declared candidates. But if, for example, there was an official "campaign season", where all the candidates had been officially chosen at that point, then I see no reason to allow voters to vote **SECURELY** any time during that campaign season. Why not?
And just pointing to unspecified vague fears about "voting fraud" doesn't cut it. There has to be some objective, rational, quantifiable reason why permitting greater voter access shouldn't be permitted and it has to be very well justified. That is my point.
*I see no reason NOT to allow
"For natural rights, no. But for **CIVIL** rights, yes it does. For example, you have the right to a trial by jury if accused of certain crimes."
First of all, the right to a trial is a positive right for the actual state to do something. The state is obligated to provide you the trial. Not necessarily to transfer you to the trial. And yet, the argument here is that in order to enjoy a negative right (you voting) the government is obligated to allow you to vote from your couch, hand it to a non-government employee and accept it? No that is not reasonable.
And by the way, you skipped over the part where I noted that these regulations ARE the expressed will of the voters via their elected representatives.
"And just pointing to unspecified vague fears about "voting fraud" doesn't cut it."
This is a strawman. There are legitimate concerns about ballot harvesting and mail in voting. It is very simple: this breaks a verifiable chain of custody between the alleged voter and the state. No one would ever say that a poll worker should be allowed to just grab a handful of ballots and take them home overnight, precisely because this breaks the chain of custody.
*If* the state is obligated to jump through all manner of hoops to help you vote, then that includes the duty to ensure a chain of custody to ensure your actual vote is counted. These are inseparable, because the voting process is not just whether you got to hand in a ballot- it is whether or not that ballot was counted and the legitimate results actioned.
Most of the major objections to voting changes in these states included Democrat attempts to weaken or even break the chain of custody. That included removing signature verification, instituting ballot harvesting, and mail-in voting that did not include the built in safeguards of places like california that took years to institute.
I don't need to show you proof that fraud occurred to show that the chain of custody was broken. If it was broken, it was broken. The whole point of maintaining the chain of custody is that once it is broken, actual fraud cannot be easily detected.
The whole reason many groups have won in
Voting is not a negative right. It is a positive right. It is a right that is entirely invented and created by government, to justify its own legitimacy by the consent of the governed.
the government is obligated to allow you to vote from your couch, hand it to a non-government employee and accept it?
If all of that can be done securely, why not? Again, where should the burden lie? Should the burden be on the voter to try to justify his/her preferred method of voting? Or should the burden be on the state to try to justify why a preferred method of voting NOT be allowed? This is the difference between a right and a privilege. For a privilege, it is the former. For a right, it is the latter. Do we have voting rights, or voting privileges?
This is a strawman. There are legitimate concerns about ballot harvesting and mail in voting.
It is not as much of a strawman as you might think. Look at Ken's response, in opposition to the suggestion that maybe absentee ballots should be counted if they are postmarked on time. His "concern" is that postal employees MIGHT manufacture ballots by manipulating the postal machines. Is there any EVIDENCE that this has happened? No. But, we should disenfranchise legitimate votes that were sent in good faith and postmarked by election day, because paranoiacs like Ken here think that it MIGHT be fraudulent based on nothing more than his fear? THAT is what is unreasonable.
*If* the state is obligated to jump through all manner of hoops to help you vote, then that includes the duty to ensure a chain of custody to ensure your actual vote is counted. These are inseparable, because the voting process is not just whether you got to hand in a ballot- it is whether or not that ballot was counted and the legitimate results actioned.
Yes - the chain of custody AFTER THE BALLOT WAS RECEIVED at the elections office. That matters of course. But why does the chain of custody matter BEFORE the ballot was received, as long as it is a valid, legitimate ballot that was not obviously tampered with?
A lot of the concerns have to do with the chain of custody BEFORE the ballot was received. And I frankly don't see why this is an issue, as long as the ballot is a legitimate ballot.
You just said it was a civil right and not a natural right. Race/Gender/Etc based regulations are fine if applied equally under Civil Rights.
"Voting is not a negative right"
Yes it is. I have a right to vote. I don't have a right to force you to drive me to the polling precinct. It is my right to do something with my body.
"If all of that can be done securely, why not? "
Any person involved in securing votes knows that must include securing the chain of custody. Handing off votes to a third party breaks the chain of custody. Full stop.
"For a privilege, it is the former. For a right, it is the latter. Do we have voting rights, or voting privileges?"
Every single court recognizes that rights are not unlimited. This is not just about privileges. Even "civil rights".
And again, for the third time, you started off insisting that it is incumbent on the State to enact laws that meet voters' approval. States (like Georgia) have done so. So it seems to me that they have met the standard of your requirements. Or do the voters of Georgia not count?
"It is not as much of a strawman as you might think. Look at Ken's response,"
No. Go argue with Ken. I am very specifically talking about breaking the chain of custody, which harvesting and other changes specifically do. And this argument, like the one above, you ignore and try to change the subject.
All that said, because the chain of custody is so tenuous right now- verified only by a requested ballot and a signature- it is entirely appropriate for risk mitigation strategies to be in place. Limiting the opportunity for fraud is absolutely a valid mechanism for accounting for a lack of controls in other areas. If instead of trying to remove all controls, democrat machines would offer up techniques and methods that maintain the chain of custody, they would find more agreement to their methods.
"A lot of the concerns have to do with the chain of custody BEFORE the ballot was received. And I frankly don't see why this is an issue, as long as the ballot is a legitimate ballot."
This is nonsense on stilts. Ballots aren't votes. They are records of votes. From the minute a voter RECORDS their vote, the chain of custody begins, and any interruption in the chain is a risk. And if you are going to insist that the State jump through hoops to allow *you* to vote from the couch, then I am going to insist the State jump through exactly the same number of hoops to ensure *my* vote isn't impacted by fraud.
Set aside the politics here, and let's focus on the real intent here. You can have voting that is hard and insecure. And you can have voting that is easy and secure. But you must engineer these things at the same time.
This is a solvable problem, but it requires us to stop playing these obvious games of trying to curry partisan advantage, and instead put resources where they are required. With a few billion dollars the US could easily ensure that every citizen in the united states has the ID necessary to begin the chain of custody. So rather than try to make custody retention illegal, let's spend our money ensuring that everyone can get an ID.
The next step is to embed that ID with a cryptographic secret that is only unlockable by the user. That secret can then easily be used to watermark a ballot. That ballot can then easily be registered either through mail or even online. A block chain could even ensure that every single vote is observable and countable by anyone. And the cryptographic secret would allow you to identify which vote is yours and confirm it reflects your will.
Every one of these things would allow for mail in voting, in person voting or even voting from your couch. The only concern at that point is 3rd parties coming to your door and pressuring you to vote in a certain manner.
But rather than try to actually create a secure system of voting from the ground up, Democrats want to make any sort of security impossible in return for "ease of voting". Well sorry, my right to a secure vote is an inseparable part of my right to vote. *shrug*.
Great post.
Well done Overt. But it's probably lost on Jeffy. He's more concerned about the outcome to help Dems steal elections. NO MAJOR FRAUD!!!
If Overt isn't careful, Jeff, White Mike and sarcamic will start giving him the Ken treatment. Following him around and shitposting after every comment he makes.
This breaks out the distinct gaps in viewpoint between what is necessary for a secure and legitimate, to use the buzzword of the moment, election, or to have as many people involved as possible -ease of voting. The left-leaning sorts tend to pooh-pooh any sort of security issues until they are on the losing end, then it's all hands on, Russian collusion, literal Manchurian candidate who doesn't know it territory. They are either unwilling or unable to see that the systems they propose and enable, allowing ease of voting, contribute to data security, physical security, and election security problems. Their concern, as always, seems to be numbers, and any attempt to stop one of their proposals is met with the typical cries of racism etc.
If it is a Civil right and not a natural right, then non biased rules are fine.
You do realize that correct? You just destroyed your own argument.
Jeff, you stupid idiot, you have a right to trial by jury. But there is also a legally designated PROCESS for the trial, as well as a designated venue for trial. There are also mechanisms to dispute the outcome and have verdicts discarded if they don't conform to the legal proces. None of those processes are designed around "convenience" for the accused. They're designed to protect the integrity of the trial process and ensure fair outcomes.
You can't request to have a trial in your living room, with a jury made up of a bunch of people that were hanging around in the area, because it's quicker and easier.
The state only has to ensure that your rights remain intact. Exercising them is your job.
Well, the state's voters elected these representatives and they are now enacting laws. Are you saying the voters are wrong?
As a general rule, when voters vote to restrict rights, then yes they are wrong. If doesn't matter if the rights that they are voting to restrict are gun rights or voting rights.
"As a general rule, when voters vote to restrict rights, then yes they are wrong."
Now you are changing your stance. It was originally, the state just has to follow the will of the voters...now it is "you can't restrict rights at all".
Well we have a problem. Because my right to vote includes the right to have my vote counted free of fraud. So your desire to send cocktail napkins into the state conflicts with my right to have my vote not invalidated by fraud. *shrug* Guess we have to figure out a balance here.
Add onto this, if you are going to insist that the state has a duty (setting aside how much effort is required) to enable your vote then that includes a duty to ensure that the vote counts.
For example, even if we were to accept that the State has a responsibility to allow you to vote via 3rd party courier among 100 other ballots in his trunk, no one would argue that the State can stop there. They need to ensure that the vote is kept secure, counted appropriately and tabulated effectively.
That also implies a duty of the state to ensure that your vote is not impacted by fraud- either by someone tampering with your ballot, or counteracting it with other fraudulent ballots. This can't be restated enough- if the state has a duty to bend over backwards to accept your vote, then it must also have an equal duty to prevent fraud.
There is no get out of jail free card- you can't just say "if it makes voting easier, you must accept" because if it makes fraud easier, you are not actually making the vote as likely to count.
I differ from some of the people on this thread that you cannot do effective and secure mail in voting- even universal mail in voting. But that should not be mandated at the federal level, because each state has different ways of running elections that may have different ways to solve for this.
I actually agree, as long as the standard with regards to fraud that we are using, is, "DOES this voting method make fraud easier or not?", rather than, "COULD this voting method make fraud easier or not?" What Team Red wants to do is to generate so much fear and doubt about every voting method except their own preferred one, so that their preferred method wins by default, because all the others are deemed "too risky". Decisions to limit people's voting rights should not be made lightly, and they should certainly not be made based only on vague unspecified fear from paranoid loons. They should be made using a high standard, based on objective, measurable, quantifiable data.
And here Jeff realizes his argument is infantile and starts creating strawman as to the motivations of his opponents.
There are decades of discussion on these tacts from corrupt countries Jeff. We know how Iraq stuffed ballots. We know how Venezuela does. You just don't care because liberals want more vectors for fraud.
"What Team Red wants to do is to generate so much fear and doubt about every voting method except their own preferred one, "
Oooh oooh, can I do it too? What team Blue wants to do is make it impossible to determine if ballot boxes were stuffed full of fake votes. Am I doing the "read the minds of people I don't like" thing right?
"and they should certainly not be made based only on vague unspecified fear from paranoid loons."
Dude, go take an auditing class some day and come back to me. I spent somewhere close to a decade dealing with Sarbanes Oxley and the whole point of these controls is that *if they don't exist, fraud will be undetectable*.
For example, one lawsuit in 2020 argued that the already weak CoC control, signature verification, be removed from mail in ballots. This literally makes it impossible to validate whether the ballot is actually from the person alleged (and it was a weak control to begin with). The whole reason the control exists is so that I can determine if the person signing the ballot is the correct voter. Remove that control, and I no longer have a way to prove it was a fraudulent ballot.
It's like you are smashing out my headlights and saying "What's wrong? You didn't need any light, there is nothing in the road- do you see anything in the road? "
What Team Blue wants to do is to generate so much fear and anger about every voting method except their own preferred one, so that their preferred method wins by default, because all the others are deemed racist. Two can play your silly game, Jeff.
we libertarians
LOL.
right to vote as a civil right
How many times will I have to point out to you it is not a right. The clearest evidence is foreigners can not vote in the election. Foreigners have a right to trial, right to health care, right to travel if here legally, right to own a gun, etc.
Voting has been modified many times: age, religion, land owners, etc.
How are you so wrong all the time about basic civics.
The state's job should be to enable the exercise of that right to the greatest extent possible
No. It is not. It just allows the right to occur. It does not provide anything. Or are you arguing government should ship guns and bullets to everyone? I'd actually welcome that change.
while still maintaining a secure election
Which for decades ballot harvesting, drop boxes, and absentee ballots have not done so. This was not controversial until 2018. Even Jimmy Carter stated it was the single biggest vector for voting fraud in other countries.
Basically you're poorly defending the leftist's position to enable maximal vectors of vote fraud. You refuse to look at past evidence, discussions, documents, etc that even the left used to agree with and analyze. You'll stick to number of fraud convictions and refuse to acknowledge this is because the state doesn't pursue these charges. Jay Walking must not exist in your world either. We know of thousands of double votes in just 2 states in 2020 that the states refused to pursue action on.
You refuse to have an actual conversation because you know the weakness of your arguments, so now you try to appeal to emotion but did so based on ignorance of reality.
Mandating that mail-in votes be counted up to two weeks after election day will cast doubt on the election results in perpetuity. That's a law that will enable and reward ballot box stuffing.
Running hundreds or thousands of empty envelopes off on a postage meter machine with today's date on them is something every mail clerk in America can do. First, you go out and canvas heavily Democrat areas to make sure people are requesting mail-in ballots.
After the election day--once they know how many votes the Democrats need to win--they could go out and canvas for people who haven't mailed in their votes for two weeks after the election. Fuck that noise. It's institutionalized ballot box stuffing, and legalized ballot box stuffing is still ballot box stuffing.
P.S. Making it legal to stuff the ballot box after the election undermines democracy.
Mandating that mail-in votes be counted up to two weeks after election day will cast doubt on the election results in perpetuity.
IF the ballot was postmarked by election day, and the post office is simply slow to deliver it to the elections office, why shouldn't it be counted? Why should the voter be disenfranchised due to the mailman's incompetence?
It's the risk you choose to run when voting by mail. If it's worth that much to you, get there in person.
There are costs & benefits to any choice. For some undecipherable reason there's complete denial about that reality when it comes to people's pet issues.
It's the risk you choose to run when voting by mail. If it's worth that much to you, get there in person.
That is placing the burden on the wrong party.
The burden should be NOT be on the voter to try to justify why his/her vote should count. Instead the burden should be on the state to try to justify why the vote should NOT count.
That is what distinguishes a right from a privilege. With a right, the holder of said right is presumed to have the liberty to exercise that right as he/she sees fit, and the burden rests on those who would restrict that right to justify it. By contrast, for a privilege, the burden is on the person seeking to acquire the privilege to justify why he/she ought to enjoy access to the privilege.
the burden rests on those who would restrict that right to justify it
Upthread you are outright throwing out the justification for said restrictions. Nice bit of circularity in that logic.
You not only need to prevent corruption, but also the appearance thereof. Constantly easing requirements to vote harvesting, counts, etc mostly stands to benefit of a political party which has a propensity for finding just enough votes overnight to tilt elections in their favor, thus utterly failing that second portion.
You not only need to prevent corruption, but also the appearance thereof.
Okay, so then what should be the standard for a voting system that prevents "the appearance of corruption"? It has to satisfy the concerns of even the most paranoid lunatic out there? Anyone can invent any manner of hypothetical fear about any voting method whatsoever. Where do we draw the line between a justified fear, and an unjustified one?
My preference would be for in-person as a default with identity verification. Mail-in is fine, but it would require increased hurdles for verification - e.g. affixing a copy of your ID to the ballot with signature checked against that on the ID, multifactor passcode, etc, and collections performed by state agents or from secure locations.
I'm not opposed to conveniences, but with each convenience necessarily requires increased vigilance to maintain integrity.
It has to satisfy the concerns of even the most paranoid lunatic out there?
No, but you are simply declaring points of reasonable suspicion to be out of bounds even when said points are noticed by a wide majority of participants. Locks keep honest men honest.
It's the job of state legislatures to find the proper balance here. I don't pretend to speak for everyone, and it's necessarily a moving target.
No, but you are simply declaring points of reasonable suspicion to be out of bounds even when said points are noticed by a wide majority of participants.
Sorry but I do not subscribe to the "paranoid's veto". A suspicion that is not backed by data or evidence, and is simply a manifestation of hypothetical fear, is not reasonable. I don't care how many times Ken says that hypothetically, postal workers MIGHT manufacture votes using postal machines. I don't care how many people actually believe it. If there is no data to support this scenario, then there is no reason to lend it any weight.
Even under your scheme, what if "a wide majority of participants" believe that people voting in-person with ID's, are using fake ID's? What if there was an entire cottage industry devoted to "proving" the hypothesis that there is an army of illegal voters out there using fake ID's to vote? You could have breathless story after breathless story about how easy it was to make fake ID's, about how half of the poll workers are Democrats and therefore OBVIOUSLY in on the scam and that that means half of the ballots cast were actually from people with fake ID's? What if you had "experts" report "statistical anomalies" which OBVIOUSLY proved that there was an army of voters with fake ID's? What if these stories got repeated so often on social media that half the country started believing it? Would then fake ID's be not secure enough?
This is the problem here.
*Would voter ID's then not be secure enough?
Sorry but I do not subscribe to the "paranoid's veto".
Nor do I. We train our bullshit detectors every day - if a sizable minority or clear majority of people think there's a flaw in the system, then there probably is. Because a malicious actor will also notice that flaw and take steps to exploit it.
A suspicion that is not backed by data or evidence, and is simply a manifestation of hypothetical fear, is not reasonable.
Then you are inviting misconduct. If an auditor fails to notice a flawed process and that flaw is exploited then it's the auditor's fault, not the process owner (the people and their representatives are the auditor in this analogy).
The problem is you do not believe that suspicion of an unsecured mail-in voting scheme rises to the level of reasonableness, and concocted a fantastical hypothetical to justify that belief because you simply do not and will never trust the judgement of a certain political party's membership.
In your hypothetical scenario the supposed fraud would be easy to disprove with actual evidence rather than there being a gaping hole in the chain of custody that everyone shrugs about because they prefer the official result and understand that the evidence to prove or disprove any malfeasance simply does not exist anyway.
I try to take a baptists and bootleggers view into every policy demand: the Democrats and allies want a less-secure election regime partly out of authentic concern for the situationally challenged, and partly because requiring ID, regularly purging inactive voters, etc allows them to marginally improve their vote totals moreso than it does the Republicans'. This is why they react so fiercely even when allowances are made for whatever concerns they might have regarding the implementation of said measures.
“A suspicion that is not backed by data or evidence, and is simply a manifestation of hypothetical fear, is not reasonable.”
Is it reasonable to intentionally ignore any such evidence as you do?
Example:
Ken says that if absentee ballots postmarked on election day are permitted to be counted after election day, because the post office is slow in delivering those ballots, postal workers MIGHT take advantage of this to manipulating postal machines to manufacture votes on election day. He has no proof or evidence that this has occurred, he has only a hypothetical situation that it MIGHT occur.
Is this hypothetical situation enough proof for you to declare that legitimate ballots postmarked on election day but delivered after election day, should not be counted?
You have to declare an endpoint somewhere. If a piece of intracounty first class mail typically takes 2-3 days to get to its destination then demanding 7 days post-election seems more than a bit unreasonable to me.
More important than this though, the rules should be consistent and applied evenly. That's probably the biggest problem with the 2020 election - all the ad hoc stuff effected due to the pandemic just reeked of foul play, both in process and result. So turning around to say afterwards, "FREEST AND FAIREST ELECTION EVAR!!1!!!1" as if there's nothing to be discussed simply invites continued suspicion.
Blockchain might help this situation, but we should expect the government to screw up that, too.
Running hundreds or thousands of empty envelopes off on a postage meter machine with today's date on them is something every mail clerk in America can do.
Yes, they COULD do that. But DO they do that? Any one can generate any number of hypothetical fears about what MIGHT happen.
So what should be the standard here? That the voting system ought to assuage even the most paranoid fears of the most paranoid voters? Saying that something COULD happen is not the same as saying that something DOES happen.
So you aren't about election security then. You're just interested in what can be proven, anything that is not proven is fine with you even if it is fraud.
I mean, if you removed voter ID requirements for in person voting, sure you could vote as someone else, but that's only something someone COULD do right? Of course they can't prove it, so no convictions, which means the change would be fine in your world.
Do you understand how idiotic your belief system is?
We're talking about the "Democratic" party, which uses superdelegates at its nominating convention--in case the voters pick the wrong candidate.
"In American politics, a superdelegate is an unpledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for themselves for whom they vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates (who make up slightly under 15% of all convention delegates) include party leaders and elected officials (PLEOs).
"Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination. This contrasts with pledged delegates who are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination."
Once the Democrats honestly address the problems with their own clear undemocratic elections, maybe they can start talking about how to make everyone else's elections more "democratic".
Here's the link this time!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Sorry, by sex, not by religion.
Your contention in 1 is silly.
I want to vote 2 years in advance via trained seal. The state must prove why this should not be allowed!!
silly.
There are no official candidates 2 years in advance.
And is "trained seal" a secure method of voting?
Why can't there be? There is nothing stopping it. Why can't a candidate announce 2 years in advance Jeff?
That's the idiocy of your entire take on this discussion.
I wrote:
" The state's job should be to enable the exercise of that right to the greatest extent possible, while still maintaining a secure election."
This does NOT mean "anything goes". It DOES mean that if there are going to be restrictions on voting rights, they should be few, and directly related to tangible quantifiable objective data about maintaining secure elections.
directly related to tangible quantifiable objective data about maintaining secure
You have just failed Audit 101. Do not pass go, do not collect your CISA.
How can one get quantifiable objective data without auditing every single election Jeff?
Now do the second amm.
You may be right, but my problem with the current bill may not be so much libertarian as that it is heavy handed use of Federal government overriding states.
In general, states should run their own elections as they see fit. But I know that can end up with big problems as far as civil rights of minorities.
Watching the 2020 election, the most glaring problem I saw were the huge, long lines to vote in Georgia.
As someone who has always lived in states where there are plentiful and uncrowded polling places, I was, like: “What the fuck, Georgia?”
The operation of polling places are typically run by local boards. It's not even a state problem. If jurisdictions in GA have long lines for voting, then that particular jurisdiction has a problem. Especially because there are other local voting precints in the same state that DON'T have huge long lines.
And, it should be noted, those problems typically happen in deep blue areas, so this is a democrat problem, not a republican problem. It took me 5 minutes to vote in my MAGA country town. It took 30-40 minutes in the nearest deep blue city, 25 minutes away.
It is also noteworthy that "Long Lines" that you see on the news are not necessarily the sole story. My polling place is empty 80% of the day. You can walk right in (it is across the street from me) and hand in your ballot super simple. Between 8 and 9am, and 5 and 6pm there is a line out the door.
I certainly think making Election Day a state or national holiday would be a good compromise here.
Or just set up your polling locations to handle the surge times.
In general, states should run their own elections as they see fit. But I know that can end up with big problems as far as civil rights of minorities.
You just know it? Like, deep down inside?
You ceaselessly point out how Republicans are paranoid conspiracy theorists. Yet, here you don't even have a theory, you just know it.
I certainly can't argue with that.
1, totally not left-leaning; 2, only resembles weird religious attachment to ideas that have no proof.
Brandon just hit a new personal record worst spread in the Real Clear Politics polling average at+13 disapproval.
At the rate at which he’s free-falling, it won’t be too much longer at all now until his approval is permanently stuck in the 30s pretty much across the board.
What I cant figure out is who is approving of this dude and why? Bush had at least some positives to his name, as did Trump. You know, something for the home team to hang their hat on. What does Biden have?
The (D) behind his name?
He ain't Trump, and to assholes like turd, sarc and brandyshit, that's quite enough.
He's still not Trump.
He's a rubber stamp for the Socialists running him.
CA needs another lefty to hand out free shit:
"Bilal Mahmood pushes innovation to address California’s biggest issues"
[...]
"Policy proposals:" more free shit, but from a Muslim Stanford grad!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/bilal-mahmood-pushes-innovation-to-address-california-s-biggest-issues/ar-AASYvjR?ocid=uxbndlbing
He just needs to visit the cargo rail lines in Los Angeles.
let me guess... without reading the article his ideas are:
Sacramento should spend MOAR money
Yes, but he's a Muslim Stanford grad, so the money is spent "innovatively"!
Is he a Top Man or an Expert?
are we just going to pretend we didn't dodge a bullet yesterday. God bless that bisexual bimbo from arizona. I mean it
The Chron mentioned it on pg. 8, below the fold. If it had gone the other way, it would have shoved news of the drought off the front page.
Yes. That is exactly what we are going to pretend, until the midterms, when we will pretend that black people are being beaten and arrested for voting.
What are Democrats supposed to do to Sen. Sinema with "the backs of their hands," @RBReich?
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1484177082930253838?s=21
The iron law of woke projection
And not a battered women’s advocate to be found.
the stalinists always show their true colors. every time
Reach back like a pimp and slap the ho, obviously.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1484193249271050240?t=jJzIqbqOpos0Xe848zrBTw&s=19
It's nothing short of stunning how the US Govt continues to convince its journalists that its motive in places like Ukraine is to defend democracy when -- leaving aside from the coup the US engineered in Ukraine -- the US props up the tyrants of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt.
The second you step outside the US and speak with people who haven't been drowned in this propaganda their whole lives, they immediately see it. Here's a mainstream Brazilian reporter with Globo, @gugachacra, pointing this out. How do they manage to obscure this in the US???
"Yes, we go around the world toppling governments at will and propping up the most savage tyrannies -- and we have for decades -- yet you will tell Americans that our motive is always to side with pro-democracy forces and protect and defend freedom."
How does this still work???
Remember when Joe Biden was in charge of Ukraine for the Obama administration and a Ukrainian energy company paid his son Hunter $50,000/month to sit on its Board even though he had no experience or knowledge whatsoever about that industry?
Anyway...
I believe it was $83k/month.
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1483966789553954818?t=r-VLXFYLBR89EYUYwZauow&s=19
Virginia education administrator admits the program they've been redesigning education around is Marxism.
[Link]
Reason has also failed to report another key news story today.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/20/starbucks-nixes-vaccine-mandate-after-supreme-court-ruling/
Looks like some of the woke corporate CEO's are sobering up about the disastrous impact Biden's vaccine mandate has had on their workforce and business.
I drive past four Starbucks stores on my way to my kid's hockey practice. Every day, most of them are only open for drive-thru due to staffing problems, and they're ALWAYS out of something. They're ALL closed when I drive past them on the the way home at 7pm. It's been that way for months. I'm sure that's got to be pinching the bottom line a bit.
A coffee shop that closes at 7pm?!? Jesus Christ! More evidence of the economic failures of the Biden administration. The walls are closing in on us all because of Biden and his Marxist Nazi economic policies. What next? The after hours club closing at 2am? Tyranny, I’ll tell you is spelled D…E…M…O…N…C…R…A…T…I…C…P…A…R…T…Y
Terrible at this shrike.
At the least he isn't in here as SPB pretending like he wasn't caught posting CP. That was getting annoying.
I’m not Shrike— whoever that is. I’m a Black, gay conservative who is GOPProud just like Proud Boy conservatives and Average Joes like Milo Yiannopoulos and Caitlyn Jenner. You know who I’m particularly proud of today…. Black, gay and GOPProud Clarence Thomas. His steadfast support of the Jan 6th patriots and Trump is very inspiring, don’t you think?
"I’m not Shrike"
You're not tricking anyone, Shrike. You have some pretty unique idioms and a writing style common to all your socks. You also get hung up on weird narratives and topics that nobody else does.
Next time you want to sock, try to change it up a bit.
You’rea stupid p.o.s. You’re also muted.
I wonder if these people are realizing that without the government support, they will be liable for adverse vaccine reactions.
>>Efforts by Democrats in the Senate to change filibuster rules have failed, as has their voting bill.
those Capitol Hill fucknuts doing the right thing is rare and a beautiful thing.
Jan 6th Committee to ask Ivanka Trump to talk with them
FUUUUCCCKKK! The level of depravity on the part of the Democratic Party knows no ends. Now they are going after Dear Leader’s girlfriend. That’s fucking sick and worse than something Chairman Mao would do!
All those years of obsessing over OBL, Shrike, and you still can't parody properly.
You're living proof of the adage that lefties can't meme.
Apparently another sock of our racing lunatic.
It's utterly bizarre that you praise Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan only in the same article to show video of him drone striking kids in Afghanistan, as part of a hysterical reflex reaction to the suicide bombing
You can argue that withdrawing from Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but how he did was completely screwed up (and I might add, there are still something like 80 Americans there that can't get out)
Yeah, droolin' Joe got the car home after running over several pedestrians and crashing into the back of the garage.
Some 'accomplishment', especially since he was handed instructions on how to do it well by his predecessor and ignored them.
Matt Gaetz on Twitter: “ The @DIRECTV cancellation of @OANN is BULLSHIT!
Well said Matt. It’s clear that the real intellectuals in America are all Republicans. How can DirecTV actually cancel OAN over something so minor and statutory? You know what I call one private company refusing to do business with another private company? I’ll tell you: socialist tyranny. That what this is!
Just because customers were canceling their subscriptions, citing their continued carrying of OAN as the reason, DIRECTTV was cowardly for not supporting the real intellectuals.
In this thread two leftist "libertarians" celebrate censorship.
'Biden Takes Credit for Things He Shouldn't at Marathon Wednesday Press Conference.' So, no difference from the rest of his career? And, what the shuddering fuck is the fascination with pointing out, looking at you, lefty weirdo commenters and sophist apologists, the length of the doddering dimwit's embarrassing stretch before the cameras. Was a time when 'liberals' understood, or professed to understand, that quantity did not equate to quality.
Biden talked about how long he was up there multiple times. It was obviously trying to counter the 'old man can't hang' vibe that Biden had going. Of course Reason is going to pick up the ball and help him.
There clearly was an anti Trump agenda from the start: Democrats, many Republicans, academics, and the media hated his guts and were trying to destroy the man, his administration, and anybody who worked for him or supported him.
Biden, on the other hand, has been coddled in comparison, with even Republicans trying to help a former colleague.