Government Spending

If This Is How America COMPETES, We're Going to Lose

Plus: College students and speech, state-funded pre-K fail, and more...

|

The America COMPETES Act of 2022 is a sprawling mess of spending and nonsense. House Democrats are rallying behind a 2,912-page bill that's allegedly concerned with addressing supply chain issues and keeping U.S. manufacturing and technology competitive. But like anything Democrats do these days, the bill can't simply address one main issue or a few critical needs. Instead, it tries to insert the government into every aspect of all sorts of industries and markets and pretend that bureaucrats can solve complex social and cultural issues.

For instance, this bill addresses everything from "combating sexual harassment in science" to seeing that more science grants go to people with caregiving responsibilities; retention and advancement of women and minorities in science and tech careers; subverting censorship in China; and supporting collective bargaining agreements and union organizing efforts.

It aims to tackle Chinese fentanyl production, e-commerce platform liability, misinformation in foreign media, global wildlife trafficking, legal conventions in Pacific Island nations, Arctic mammal rescue capabilities, coral research, and the origins of the COVID-19 virus.

It bans shark fin sales, driftnet fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, and the transportation of certain wildlife across state lines.

It offers money for establishing a fund for Chinese language studies, climate change initiatives, solar power, spreading U.S. propaganda overseas, and promoting the consumption of certain types of seafood.

What do some of these issues have to do with supply chain issues, promoting American manufacturing, or ensuring our global tech competitiveness? Your guess is as good as mine.

The summary of the bill—dubbed The America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength (America COMPETES) Act of 2022— is 20 pages long and the section-by-section summary is 109 pages long. I haven't had time to look through the full bill yet, but these documents provide us with a good start to understanding what's in this behemoth.

One worrying aspect is new liabilities for online marketplaces—something that could actually decrease the competitiveness of American tech companies. It would make e-commerce platforms (Amazon, Etsy, eBay, etc.) liable for counterfeit products unless these companies follow a heavy-handed and extensive roster of so-called "best practices." This new framework "would replace the liability framework established by case law" under which a platform is only liable for counterfeiting by third-party sellers if it has "specific knowledge of the infringement (usually through a notice provided by a trademark owner) and fails to take action," a summary of the bill notes.

America COMPETES would pour money into funding government science offices, science education programs, a National Engineering Biology Research and Development Initiative, and so much more.

The first two items listed in the summary are $52 billion to "incentivize" semiconductor production and $45 billion toward "ensuring that more of [critical] goods are made right here in the United States." Once again, rather than remove government-created barriers to free trade and low prices, lawmakers threaten to make it worse by further ballooning U.S. debt and enacting more protectionist policies.

Reason's Eric Boehm wrote about the semiconductor issue last spring, when Democrats first pushed it. Ensuring more domestic production of semiconductors "dovetails nicely with President Joe Biden's pivot toward China as the post-pandemic villain that will justify future expansions of government, as well as with the emerging nationalist economics and anti-China sentiment on the political right," he pointed out. "But what it really amounts to is a massive handout to a successful industry that doesn't need government aid, delivered under the guise of a national security argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

The America COMPETES act authorizes billions for things that have long been on Democrats' policy wish list, along with all sorts of other random things.

It devotes $3 billion to "incentivizing the new construction of solar manufacturing capacity and providing grants and direct loans to retool, retrofit or expand existing solar manufacturing facilities."

It authorizes millions for the antitrust division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for this year. It would also increase filing fees for large mergers, with the goal of giving more money to the DOJ and FTC "to aggressively enforce the antitrust law."

It would "authorize $500 million for the "United States Agency for Global Media for ongoing and new programs to support local media, build independent media, combat PRC disinformation inside and outside of China, invest in technology to subvert censorship, and monitor and evaluate these programs."

It authorizes "$20 million per year through FY 2026  … to combat human trafficking through seafood import monitoring and strengthening international fisheries management."

Instead of removing barriers to bringing new drugs and medical technologies to the U.S. market, the bill would make manufacturers jump through more administrative hoops, "requiring manufacturers to provide additional information to [the Food and Drug Administration] about manufacturing sites and the quantity of drugs they produce."

Instead of making it easier for U.S. university faculty to collaborate with foreign partners, it creates a reporting requirements for faculty that "receive gifts or enter into a contract with a foreign entity of which the value is $50,000 or more."

Instead of simply beefing up cybersecurity and critical tech infrastructure, it "establishes a permanent advisory council" at the Federal Communications Commission "to increase the security, reliability and interoperability of communications networks"—which sounds a lot like what Democrats have been pushing in other bills with regard to tech companies and interoperability standards, even though mandating interoperability makes user data more vulnerable to security threats.

Instead of seriously reducing tariffs and duties across the board, it would lower them in a few areas while raising them in others. Under America COMPETES, "imports valued under $800 [coming] into the United States without paying duties, taxes, or fees" would have to start paying them if these imports came from certain countries, including China.

There's a lot of Cold War-style influence mongering happening here, too. A section titled "Countering China's Educational and Cultural Diplomacy in Latin America" directs the Secretary of State "to devise a strategy that evaluates and expands existing people-to-people programs and creates new exchanges and people-to-people programs that advance U.S. foreign policy goals and promote U.S. national security interests and values." Another section would study the impacts of Chinese political and economic activity in Africa and develop a plan for "promoting improvements in the investment climate in Africa, including through support for democratic institutions, the rule of law and improved transparency."

The few bright spots in the bill involve immigration. The America COMPETES Act would provide "temporary protected status and refugee status for qualifying Hong Kong residents for the 18-month period beginning after enactment" and authorizes "special immigrant status admission for certain priority highly skilled Hong Kong residents." It would amend immigration law to make it easier for startup entrepreneurs and staff (and their families) to come here on temporary visas and petition for lawful permanent resident status. And it would exempt "from the numerical limits on immigrant visas, certain aliens (and the spouses and children of such aliens) who have earned a doctoral degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) from a qualified U.S. research institution or a foreign institution if the degree is the equivalent to a doctoral degree issued by a qualified U.S. research institution."


FREE MINDS

Students less enthusiastic about banning controversial speakers from campus. A new report from the Knight Foundation looks at college student views of free speech: "The 'Knight-Ipsos College Student Views on Free Expression and Campus Speech' report is the fourth in a series of Knight Foundation reports measuring college student attitudes toward speech and the First Amendment since 2016. For this report, Knight Foundation commissioned Ipsos to conduct a survey with a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 college students ages 18-24 enrolled in all types of higher education institutions, along with 4,000 American adults, offering insight into how college students' views on free speech compare with those of the general public." You can read the whole thing here. A few interesting findings:

  • Students are less interested in campuses banning controversial speakers. "Just 1 in 4 students favor schools disinviting controversial speakers, down from more than 2 in 5 in 2019."
  • Students increasingly believe free speech rights are not secure. "The percentage of students saying speech rights are secure has fallen every year since this question was first asked in 2016," the Knight Foundation reports. "This includes a 12-point decrease from 2019 as an increasing number of students—particularly Republicans—say they believe speech rights are threatened."
  • Students have competing and contradictory attitudes toward free speech on campus. "More students now say the climate at school prevents some from saying things others might find offensive, and fewer feel comfortable disagreeing in class. Yet slightly more now report feeling unsafe because of comments made on campus than in 2019."

FREE MARKETS

A new study provides a rebuke of state-funded pre-K programs. "At least for poor children, it turns out that something is not better than nothing," said study co-author and Vanderbilt professor Dale Farran. "The kinds of pre-K that our poor children are going into are not good for them long term."


QUICK HITS

• "Democrats in the House of Representatives are planning to expedite a massive bill that would dramatically increase U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and lay the groundwork for substantial new sanctions on Russia — hastening a war-friendly posture without opportunity for dissent as concerns over a military invasion abound," reports The Intercept.

• We shouldn't exaggerate what's at stake in Ukraine, writes Reason's Natalie Dowzicky. "The 'liberal world order' doesn't require a war with Russia over the Donbass."

• Showing a fake vaccination card could become a crime in Washington state.

• "Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, CBP officers across the nation have seized more than 30,000 counterfeit coronavirus vaccination cards," Grid reports.

• Kat Rosenfield laments that we're all COVID cops now.

• How U.S. abortion laws compare to abortion policy around the world.

• On The Oldest Profession Podcast, host Kaytlin Bailey explores what's wrong with the Nevada brothels' method of legalizing sex work.

• What Japan got right about pandemic responses: "Drastic measures, such as lockdowns, were never taken because the goal was always to find ways to live with Covid-19," writes Hitoshi Oshitani, a virology professor at Tohoku University who helped formulate Japan's COVID-19 response.

• "The current stereotype of Gen X as politically apathetic do-nothings simply does not match the reality, at least in terms of their youth," writes Freddie deBoer in a piece challenging the idea that today's politically engaged young people are somehow unique.

• A new study finds "virus-fighting antibodies capable of blocking the omicron variant persist four months after a third shot of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine," The Washington Post reports.

• "What left-wing progressives and right-wing populists miss in their regulatory frenzy is that antitrust laws have not been used intentionally to destroy success, as they are being deployed now," writes Bret Jacobson at Real Clear Policy. "Their goal for decades has been to ensure competition in the marketplace. That's what makes [Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy] Klobuchar and [Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck] Grassley's legislation"—more on that here—"so, in a word, weird."

• "Authoritarian governments ban Bitcoin mining. The U.S. shouldn't join them," says Andrea O'Sullivan.

• Justin Amash has a new podcast.

NEXT: Charter Schools Win Support by Offering Education Flexibility

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

  1. "America is going to lose"

    Can't think of a better motto for Reason magazine

    1. What about "Liberty--too uncomfortable for us"?

      1. How about "freedom is just another word for not being invited to the good cocktail parties"?

      2. Woke Minds and Broke Markets?

      3. How about, "Racist!"
        ?

    2. “DAVOS! DAVOS! DAVOS!”

  2. The America COMPETES Act of 2022 is a sprawling mess of spending and nonsense.

    The Dem legislative credo: Go big or go home. And we're doing everything our power to never go home again.

    1. It is interesting that we've moved from giant set-piece legislative pieces (Medicare, SS, Obamacare) to just a sampler platter of graft. Our budget has gotten so big that nobody blinks when a bill just adds a dusting of millions here, billions there in HUNDREDS of new programs.

      1. On the plus side, they can always fundraise off their good works for the people getting stopped.

      2. A "sampler platter of graft" is a great way to put it. Every one of these monster bills is a giant laundering operation. At this point, Americans are well within their rights to demand that Congress be disbanded in its entirety.

        1. And replaced with...?

          1. A Constitutional Republic.

            1. That's seditious talk!

            1. I prefer emus, they at least have a demonstrated ability to sell car insurance.

              1. And Doug.

          2. People picked at random to serve for 4 years?

    2. Could Team D possibly could have come up with legislation that is any more anti-competetive than this monstrosity? Not that I want to give them any ideas, but Jesus Christ is this stupid. There is well-intended, but bad legislation...and then there is just spectacularly stupid legislation.

      This is the latter. /shake my fucking head at the progressive lunacy

      1. Yes. Most of their GND desires.

        1. More? I'm not sure about more, but almost everything other than tax cuts that Congress pushes is roughly as anti-competitive as this.

      2. It's like they're trying to be Ayn Rand villains.

    3. Wait, I thought we have to stay home.

    4. But like anything Democrats do these days…

      …winners and losers will be chosen based on open graft?

    5. It took 8 months of study by a highly paid focus group just to come up with the acronym.

      But I do like acronyms.

  3. "It offers money for establishing a fund for Chinese language studies, climate change initiatives, solar power, spreading U.S. propaganda overseas, and promoting the consumption of certain types of seafood."

    LOL

    Despite all their ambitious plans, I can guarantee one thing Democrats won't do — raise the federal minimum wage.

    #OBLsFirstLaw
    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

    1. #UighursLoveNike

    2. Encouraging people to learn Mandarin is the most intelligent thing in the entire bill.

      1. One of the earlier issues of the DVD of Firefly and Serenity enabled you to turn on the Closed Captioning and learn some shiny cuss-words in Mandarin Chi-Knee. Sadly, it doesn't work on Tubi.tv. Sadly, The Alliance must have captured their facilities and stopped The Signal.

        Gorram pigu Go se! Dong ma?

        1. Just re-watched the entire DVD box set and the movie, with our kids for the first time. I'm hoping they do some Chinese cursing at school. Gorramit!!!

          1. Watching Firefly with my kids was always a great opportunity to have discussions about liberty. Plus, there is no better metaphor for the inevitable result of creeping authoritarianism than the Reavers. The socialists literally eating their own.

            1. Somehow, although Joss Whedon doesn’t consider himself a libertarian, he often ends up going there in his stories.

            2. Even better, 90% of them just passively accepted their death, and the 10% that survived started eating each other.

              1. Slight correction (I just watched it): it was 99.9% and 0.01%.

            3. Really, when you think about it, slavery, both chattel and systematic, is the literal, real-life "Living Death" that all Zombie-themed movies portray. Slavery is the act of taking a life while simultaneously keepng the person alive. Arguably, the ultimate crime, even more sinister than outright murder.

          2. At the rate things are going, by the time they grow up, they may need it. Mind you, the latest underground Samizdat:technology will prove helpful.

  4. Since it is de rigueur these days: Let's Go, Brandon.

    (trying to do PG-rated version; clean up my act...heh, heh)

    1. Lets's Go Brandon

      1. Let's go Brandon, I agree.

    2. Kid Rock's version is not PG.

      1. He's got an image to uphold.

      2. Does anyone have a link that doesn't have an effete newscaster whining about it?

          1. Thanks, Google and DuckDuckGo both were spamming me with whiny Rolling Stone and Yahoo articles.

          2. Not the worst thing he's ever done.

  5. Students less enthusiastic about banning controversial speakers from campus.

    All it takes is a scant loud and unassailable few.

    1. And near unanimous faculty+administration support

    2. They're probably hoping the college administrators will maybe let them leave their dorm rooms for an hour or so if they have something to protest.

  6. "The kinds of pre-K that our poor children are going into are not good for them long term."

    Since when is it about the children.

    1. They don't pay union dues = Pre-K attendees

    2. I'd like to help them some, but they're too young to vote.

      1. Now I'm wondering if the line is "some" or "son".

      2. Good one!

    3. I think the programs are worthless, but do they theorize could be the reason why these kids would turn out worse?

      1. More time spent in government daycare = less time spent with parents would be my guess.

      2. My guess would be that whatever alternative they had instead, paid for preschool or spending another with mom or grandmom or old neighbor 4 houses down, meant they got more one-on-one interaction. Or going into Kindergarten with an advantage made them restless as the rest of the class caught up and started a cycle of not paying attention and school apathy.

      3. Kids at that age need to learn through doing things in the real world, not in a school. Of course you could say that about older kids but that ship has sailed.

  7. Democrats in the House of Representatives are planning to expedite a massive bill that would dramatically increase U.S. security assistance to Ukraine...

    I mean, domestic policy is a mess and there is no plan to stop creating inflation, so what else do you want them to do?

    1. Odds on sending American troops to defend the Ukrainian border because that's apparently the only border that matters?

      1. The Russians should just send 1.6 million Russians over the Ukrainian border as asylum seekers. The Donbass would vote to secede in a year or two.

        1. If they call them migrants, it's not invasion!

          1. Mostly peaceful invasion.

        2. Forced migration is how they (the russians that Putin is claiming to stand up for) got there in the first place.

    2. Will Biden then threaten to not give it to Ukraine if they do not do what he wants?

      I mean, he did it before and it, apparently, was NOT a quid pro quo.

    3. Do diversity trainers count as security assistance?

  8. "How U.S. abortion laws compare to abortion policy around the world."

    I don't even need to click the link. I already know the most enlightened counties (meaning the European ones) allow access to abortion care for any reason right up until the end of the 9th month. Among developed nations, only the US is literally The Handmaid's Tale.

    #AbortionAboveAll

  9. We shouldn't exaggerate what's at stake in Ukraine...

    Ouch for Europe's breadbasket.

    1. I thought the Eurotards all went gluten-free.

      1. I think that's more an American thing. They still have subsidized bread in a lot of Euroland.

  10. Showing a fake vaccination card could become a crime in Washington state.

    STOLEN VALOR

    1. Narrator: They were ALL fake vaccination cards . . .

      1. And the police rapidly figured out the whole plan and arrested all criminals.

    2. Any word about showing a fake voter identification card?

      1. They won't prosecute for that.

      2. That's ok. It's for the cause.

      3. Voter fraud is a myth. Now shut up about it.

      4. No, but Inslee gave $40 million to immigrant workers who couldn't get covid money because of their immigration status. Show fake papers to work, no problem. Show fake vax card to watch Spider Man? Felony.

  11. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, CBP officers across the nation have seized more than 30,000 counterfeit coronavirus vaccination cards...

    REAL VACCINES DESERVE REAL PASSPORTS

    1. What about real voters?

    2. Real question... How do they know they are counterfeit vaccination cards?

      The cards we got were simply green printed pieces of paper. No seal. No security features. Not even any graphics. And the data was handwritten by a nurse or assistant.

      How in the world could you distinguish fake from genuine?

      1. Yes exactly. My card does have some logo on it, but its not like its a watermark or something special. Plain black ink. Nothing you couldnt photoshop or just straight up scan/copy. On normal white cardstock card.

        And its basically scribbled in by the nurse who was in a hurry. The only thing you can read at all is the date. There is no possible way they would be able to spot a "fake" from this batch of cards

        1. My shot manufacturer / date / batch information for each round is on a sticker, on my vaccine card.

          And, much like the vaccine card being on plain white card stock that you would see in almost any office supply room, those stickers are basically just your run-of-the-mill Office Depot return address labels.

          Un-possible to fake. Unless you're some sort of expert. Or have access to Microsoft Office, Open Office, Word Perfect, that free label printing program that you can download from Avery, etc. If you don't have a printer, it might be good if you lived within a hundred miles or so of a FedEx/Kinko's. But other than that, really difficult.

      2. All the people they caught were undercover feds.

      3. C'mon man! This is the CBP. Somewhere on CBP mail servers somewhere is a photo of a team of guys with guns, and maybe a K-9 unit, all posed around suitcase or rubbermaid tub with 30,000 blank vaccine passports in it.

  12. Kat Rosenfield laments that we're all COVID cops now.

    STOP RESISTING

    1. THEY JUST WANT TO GO HOME SAFE

    2. we're al covid cops

      Who's this we?

      1. The royal 'we' maybe?

      2. Kat and everyone she knows

        1. Even Karen?

          1. They're all Karen

            1. I want a girl with uninterrupted prosperity (Uninterrupted)
              Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
              With fingernails that shine like justice
              And a voice that is dark like tinted glass
              She is fast, thorough, and sharp as a tack
              She is touring the facility and picking up slack
              ...
              I want a girl with a smooth liquidation (Smooth liquidation)
              I want a girl with good dividends (Good dividends)
              At Citibank we will meet accidentally (Meet accidentally)
              We'll start to talk when she borrows my pen
              She wants a car with a cupholder armrest
              She wants a car that will get her there
              She's changing her name from Kitty to Karen

              1. Ah! The late Nineties and the Double-Aughts!

                No Karen nowadays is like that. Instead of a "Short Skirt and A Long Jacket," Karens have hair shirts and straight-jackets.

  13. If This Is How America COMPETES, We're Going to Lose

    Isn't that the point?

    1. If you goalwasro to destroy America what would you do different then the dems?

    1. Corporate slactivism at its finest.

      Steps:

      - tweet message of the day, black square, BLM shit, pride month etc
      - change literally nothing about your company (including continuing to not actually give 1 fuck about the oppressed)
      - profit

    2. Kellogs, now with six different races and grievances, is part of a complete culture.

      1. And after all this time from it's beginning, Kellogg's Corn Flakes is still anti-masturbation food.

    3. If I was a Wokester I would wonder why billionaire CEO's are suddenly so interested in using leftist political weaponry, but you know they'll never actually sit down and think about it.

    4. Are they going to pay reparations to the black community for the diabetes caused by their sugary cereals? Food justice, and all.

      1. Cap'n Crunch was a slave trafficker!

  14. "For instance, this bill addresses everything from "combating sexual harassment in science" to seeing that more science grants go to people with caregiving responsibilities; retention and advancement of women and minorities in science and tech careers"

    Duh. How are we supposed to trust Science unless we know that Science is based on social justice and equity?

    1. This should be easy enough to fix now that showing your work and getting the right answer are both considered part of the cishet white supremacist patriarchy. Science careers for everyone!

  15. Drastic measures, such as lockdowns, were never taken because the goal was always to find ways to live with Covid-19...

    LITERALLY PEARL HARBOR TIMES TEN.

    1. Except that Japan did have lockdowns....

      apan on Tuesday extended its state of emergency in Tokyo and other regions and announced new measures covering seven more prefectures to counter a spike in COVID-19 infections that is threatening the medical system.

      The current state of emergency, the fourth of the pandemic so far, was due to expire on Aug. 31 but will now last until Sept. 12. Tokyo announced 4,377 new coronavirus cases on Tuesday, after a record 5,773 on Friday.

      https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-set-extend-covid-19-state-emergency-lockdown-sept-12-2021-08-17/

  16. It authorizes "$20 million per year through FY 2026 … to combat human trafficking through seafood import monitoring and strengthening international fisheries management."

    Somebody got confused by comments that it smelled like day-old fish.

    1. Maybe the Dems recruited some spambots to write the thing.

    2. Only the most attractive groupies get to be star kissed

      1. Only the most attractive groupies groupers get to be star kissed

        1. That remimds me of the HBO special with Buddy Hackett, where he got his semi-annual erection ij a fishing boat and had to relieve himself. And when he got to shore, Anita Bryant greets him by screaming: "Fish-Fucker!" 🙂

    3. Why would the monitor seaports for this, the could just go to CNN headquarters and save time

  17. The current stereotype of Gen X as politically apathetic do-nothings simply does not match the reality, at least in terms of their youth...

    Hey, we cultivated that persona very carefully. Don't dismiss it.

    1. Replacing Stuart with Noah finally got us off the couch.

      1. That sounds more like millennials. Replacing Craig with Stuart was enough for this gen-xer.

    2. I’m just delighted to see Gen X referred to as “youthful”

      1. Seriously, arent the older ones nearing retirement?

        1. Shut up and get back to work (take your laptop back to the dining room).

    3. • "The current stereotype of Gen X as politically apathetic do-nothings simply does not match the reality, at least in terms of their youth," writes Freddie deBoer in a piece challenging the idea that today's politically engaged young people are somehow unique.

      Excuse me, but Gen Xers are in their 50s and are starting to get AARP solicitations in the snailmail. Unless Lazarus Long is among us now, how are Gen Xers young? When was this written, the Nineties?

      And it's not like we don't care. We just know our vote and the available candidates do nothing to further the freedom many of us love and our voice is getting increasingly silenced in law and in the culture. Thanks, Boomers and Millennials!

      1. “Thanks, boomers and millennials!”

        Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair! tm

        Meh. I don’t care.

        1. You'll be saying that when your "lockbox" is filled with worthless Federal Reserve Notes/Ones and Zeroes and you're fighting rats in a gutter for a Mar's Bar.

          (Hell, they don't even make Mar's Bars anymore in the U.S. and by then, everything will be Kind Bars or Taco Bell or Soylent Green.)

  18. "But like anything Democrats do these days, the bill can't simply address one main issue or a few critical needs. Instead, it tries to insert the government into every aspect of all sorts of industries and markets and pretend that bureaucrats can solve complex social and cultural issues."

    ----ENB

    The progressives are so awful, they're driving people who might be sympathetic to their aims for the exits. If they've lost everyone to the right of ENB, they've probably lost more than half the suburban women out there (most of whom don't refer to prostitutes as "sex workers").

    I don't see how things get better for Biden and the progressives ahead of the midterms. At this point, the midterms of 2022 are the Republicans' to lose. It looks like the Democrats are just doing this to signal to their base in deep blue states, which is a losing strategy. The race will be won or lost in swing districts and swing states.

    P.S. Score at halftime: Biden = pwned

    1. Ken, do not underestimate Team R's capacity to blow it, politically.

      1. Half the Rs are simply corporate controlled opposition and are terrible executors of what they pretend to run on.

      2. See my comment below about the 29 House Democrats who've decided that trying to run for reelection in swing districts isn't worth the effort.

        The Republicans would need to try really, really hard to screw this up. If they became warhawks and started calling for the military to liberate Ukraine, that might make them lose.

        They're not doing that. The Democrats are more likely to that than the Republicans at this point--because the Commander-in-chief is a Democrat and the Republicans are still worried about offending Trumpian sensibilities (he railed against forever wars).

        Even if the Republicans started harping on abortion at this point, I don't think it would be enough to save the Democrats from what's coming. The Democrats' best chance was to moderate--for Joe Biden to move to the middle. That's not happening.

        The future is full of unforeseeable events, but it's hard to imagine the Democrats doing well in November at this point. Maybe if Biden defeated the Chinese in a naval battle to save Taiwan from a Chinese invasion? It would take something like that.

        1. The great mass of older Republicans are never going to get excited over the prospect of one morally corrupt ex-Soviet state bullying another. Which is how it should be.

        2. You have optimism that I do not yet share, Ken. There is a long time (~285 days) to go; a lot can happen.

        3. See my comment below about the 29 House Democrats who've decided that trying to run for reelection in swing districts isn't worth the effort.

          If I were a conservative libertarian, concerned about spilling my 'libertarian moment' seed all over the place having adverse consequences for my reputation, I might think this would be an OK time to discuss a potential libertarian moment.

          If I were a liberal libertarian, not at all concerned about the social consequences about what effect constantly spilling my 'libertarian moment' seed all over the place would have on my reputation, I wouldn't see a reason not to do it now.

          The fact that Reason has creamed their pants over every not-libertarian moment for years and suddenly, now, can't seem to muster up the energy is very telling. Many, many, many of us pointed out each time that a squish libertarian in the big chair is by no means the best libertarians can hope for.

    2. “I don't see how things get better for Biden and the progressives ahead of the midterms.”

      Unlikely, but if Republicans score any more wins against abortion, it could “energize” Democratic voters.

  19. A new study finds "virus-fighting antibodies capable of blocking the omicron variant persist four months after a third shot of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine..."

    But apparently not all that willing.

  20. What left-wing progressives and right-wing populists miss in their regulatory frenzy is that antitrust laws have not been used intentionally to destroy success...

    If they're so successful then why hasn't their lobbyists bought off Congress and the bureaucracy?

    1. Who says they haven't? All of this regulatory nonsense will make it nearly impossible to compete with the teams of compliance specialists and lawyers at the big tech firms. And any time anyone tries....why not have those same lawyers and compliance experts go work for the government to write some more regulations to keep them out?

    2. That exactly why they are used

    3. Competing lobbyists canceling each other out?

      1. Lobby Dome!

  21. Authoritarian governments ban Bitcoin mining. The U.S. shouldn't join them...

    Are we still pretending the U.S. government isn't authoritarian?

    1. Depends on who they’re targeting.

  22. Justin Amash has a new podcast.

    The Trump badmouthing market is saturated.

    1. Yeah, but there's still plenty of cash in the ESG coffers.

    2. We have yet to reach peak Trump badmouthing, 2024 is just around the corner. What new plots will the FBI cook up this time, stay tuned to find out.

  23. China as the post-pandemic villain

    China was the pre pandemic and pandemic villa too. Also Taiwan semiconductor companies are opening foundries in the US already thanks to china

    1. Taiwanese are the next boat people.

      1. Fashion all the plastics in the Pacific into a floating wall.

        Look at me! Solving an environmental and a humanitarian crisis at the same time. Think of all the jobs!

        1. Hold on there--let's see your diversity plan.

          1. Diversity plan? China is going to build the wall.

            Our part is to work out all the chemistry and engineering issues and then 'accidentally' leave the plans on a laptop in Nancy Pelosi's Town Car.

    2. Should note that TSMC has been very clear that it will not continue with the factories unless the US guarantees billions in subsidies through the CHIP Act (which seems to have been folded into America COMPETES Act).

      I'd say it's less thanks to China and more thanks to America's generosity in pouring our tax money into companies. TSMC will continue selling to China because they'd be fools not to, they'll just use their Taiwanese factories to do it while they have Americans pay for their American factories where they'll sell their chips to the US for a greater cost than what the Chinese pay.

  24. https://twitter.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1486043099310673921?t=JgSeptLxx0nvTC8eZxH81g&s=19

    BREAKING: A 31-year-old father is denied a heart transplant for refusing to get vaxxed because "organs are scarce" and shouldn't go to someone "with a poor chance of surviving" when the common cold can kill after surgery. RT IF YOU SUPPORT THE HOSPITAL MAKING THE TOUGH CALL!

    If you’re a Democrat or an independent who believes that it’s every American’s patriotic duty to protect his or her fellow Americans by getting vaccinated against covid, please RT and follow our account for more breaking news!

    1. If he killed every single hospital employee I would say not guilty

    2. Is this satire?

      1. Progressives don't do satire (or humor).

      2. See Jeff’s comment just below.

        Wait, has Jeff been satire this whole time!?

    3. This was discussed yesterday of course, but in a less inflammatory way. We actually had a discussion surrounding why vaccination makes sense for organ transplants and that it's not exactly "medical tyranny" to insist that recipients of very scarce organs be required to follow some lifestyle choices.

      We don't have a free market in human organs, because if we did, since they are so scarce (and especially organs like the heart), only those with a great deal of money would be able to afford it; plus, the market incentives in a free market for human organs are, shall we say, perverse. So, we've made the choice, for better or for worse, to allocate human organs using other criteria, besides ability to pay, such as medical necessity. And IMO it is not unreasonable to ask these organ recipients to "pay" in the form of lifestyle changes that will make the organ transplant more likely to succeed.

      Now, IF we had a free market in organs, and if some rich guy wanted to buy a human heart for a transplant while continuing a lifestyle virtually guaranteed to see that organ transplant fail, then sure, he ought to have every right to do so, despite how stupid and wasteful that decision may be. But we don't have that situation here.

      But instead, because of our current spot in the multiverse, we can't have those types of intellectual discussions anymore. They are reduced to tribalistic sloganeering along the lines of "Rah Rah Go Hospital" or "Boo Boo Medical Tyranny".

      1. Now do social welfare and economic triage based on past behavior and the probability of the needy to succeed.

        1. So wealth is a proxy for moral worth?

          1. His point is that you are an utter moron.

            1. Do you think you can try to contribute something constructive to the conversation?

              1. Your lack of self awareness is boring, your obfuscation isn't effective, and I would consider you completely impotent except that your ideas are so dangerous. When we tell you to fuck off its because you aren't worth arguing with as you are incapable of any honest rational thought. Trying to reason with you is akin to self flagellation.

                1. Nice summary.

                2. Translation: "I can't refute your ideas so I will just call you names."

                  1. Thank you for proving my point.

                    1. When Jeff saw the Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman interview, he thought Cathy Newman came out looking smarter.

          2. If medical mandates screen out the unworthy, then job mandates can do the same.

            1. Why don't you be more explicit in what you are trying to say.

              1. Hey Jeff. Vaccination has been considered risky for heart transplant patients since they first started doing them.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164225/

                Why do you think it's suddenly okay now?

                You fools are actually trying to kill people.

                1. He doesn't. To his credit he has emphatically stated that he disagrees with government vaccine mandates. But he jumped on the vaccine bandwagon and can't admit that he was wrong.

                  Fuck, he still tries to play as if being asymptomatic or completely healthy obligates you to protect others for reasons.

                  1. It is because he is fucking fat and wants you to lower his risk instead of him going on a diet.

                    1. It is because vaccination is just the right thing to do.

                  2. Well, I appreciate you correcting the record about me when it comes to government vaccine mandates.

                    But I disagree that vaccination is a mistake. For most people it is the right thing to do. It is like wearing a seatbelt. Seatbelts don't prevent all death from collisions, but they help lessen the severity of a collision. Same deal here. You should not be forced to wear a seat belt but you should be encouraged to.

                2. That is not what your link says. The risk associated with vaccination of potential transplant patients depends strongly on the type of vaccine and the nature of the patient's illness. It is simply not true to state broadly that it is "risky" as a general rule.

                  1. That's one of hundreds of studies and they all say the same thing. Would you like a citation dump? Because core.ac.uk has open access to most of them.

                    And this is why nobody got vaccinated immediately before heart surgery until Pfizer's Covid jab came along.

                    Can you explain why 40 years of precedent has been chucked out the window? Because I'm super curious.

                    1. Nobody is saying to get vaccinated IMMEDIATELY before heart surgery. Of course the body has to have time to build up the antibodies. There is not "40 years of precedent" of a blanket prohibition of vaccination before transplantation. It depends on the timing, the vaccine, the illness, and the type of organ. You are inventing shit because it fits neatly into your narrative of "evil establishment doctors forcing COVID vaccines on poor victims".

      2. We actually had a discussion surrounding why vaccination makes sense for organ transplants and that it's not exactly "medical tyranny"

        Jeffy had a discussion with a few sock puppets while the rest of us pointed and laughed.

        Comply or die. What an authoritarian piece of shit.

        1. So, CTSP, why don't you tell us about how you think the process of allocating human organs for transplants ought to work.

          1. We should honestly just get on board with the ideas you and your cohorts have put forward on the medical system: if you dont take any personal responsibility you dont get treatment.

            And I am fine with adopting this childish, black/white methodology. Because I wont have to treat deadbeats, fatties, people that dont take care of themselves, smokers, alcoholics, druggies etc.

            Unfortunately you, Mike, Tony, raspberries et al dont think about the consequences of "policy" that you think is good for you and your pet cause. See also judicial filibuster and Harry Reid. Cant think 2 steps ahead of where you are going when youre marching off a cliff

            1. So in all seriousness, why don't you describe how you think organs ought to be allocated for transplant purposes.

            2. And like I said above, let's extend this personal responsibility ethic to everything. If Jeff agrees, he might start to sound a little bit libertarian.

              1. I was not aware that libertarianism meant "those who don't take personal responsibility deserve to die".

                  1. Holy shit right? How do these people manage to breath?

                1. Funny that. You might not have argued it directly, but Jfree, Tony, Strazele, and raspberry certainly did argue for it, openly. And what you have put forward in the past isnt far from it.

                  There have been many open arguments in favor of withholding care to the unvax because they didnt take personal responsibility. The open condemnation and desire to punish the unvaxxed from your crew hasnt been hidden at all. In fact they dropped the mask of "caring for everyone" almost instantly.

                  1. I have never supported withholding COVID care for unvaccinated individuals.

                    1. Just non-Covid care.

          2. So, CTSP, why don't you tell us about how you think the process of allocating human organs for transplants ought to work.

            You know this is a libertarian commentariot (mostly) right?

            The answer is simple and effective.

            1. By this I presume you mean "free market in human organs"?

              If so, then that means that only those with means will be able to afford organ transplants. If you find that acceptable just say so.

              It also means that there is now a market incentive for organ harvesting.

              1. That is how it works now you moron. If you're not insured and can't afford it you dont get an organ transplant.

                The supply is controlled by bureaucrats and should be a free market supply chain.

                1. True enough with regards to the cost. Although in a free market, then the cost of the transplant would be higher since it would also include the cost of the organ itself, which is now subsidized and hidden away from the patient.

                  I am uncomfortable with having human organs subjected to a purely free market mechanism because of the market incentives that it creates. In all other cases, the market mechanism is that competition between competing suppliers generates incentives for efficiencies and lowering costs, delivering lower prices and higher value for the end customers. What precisely would that type of incentive look like when it came to human organs? I think it MIGHT make sense for organs like kidneys where an individual could freely sell a kidney and still have a functioning one. But for organs like a heart or a liver, where the donor has to be dead before it can be donated, "creating efficiencies" could lead to some serious ethical concerns.

                  1. The other possibility would be financially assisting the person in need of a transplant. That could be charitable or government provided.

                  2. The other other possibility is genetically engineered pig organs, lab grown organs, mechanical organs. Medical science is always advancing. But we are not there yet.

                2. Yup, that “moron” totally added to the discussion.

            2. The answer is simple and effective.

              Obamacare. If you like your liver, you can keep your liver.

      3. Except the "vaccinations" for the Wuflu don't even work so why require it?

        1. I explained this all yesterday. Briefly, the doctors want the patient to have antibodies for COVID in the body ahead of time, because part of the transplant recovery process is taking immunosuppressant drugs, and catching COVID after the transplant means the body will be less able to mount an immune response to it.

          1. the Covid vaccine doesn't stop you from getting covid. Even the damn manufacturers admit it.

            1. The COVID vaccines generate antibodies which help fight against the virus. And if your body is immunosuppressed, which is the case after the transplant while taking those drugs, your body needs all the help it can get, even if the vaccine isn't as effective as we would like it to be.

              1. You are defending evil. Stop it.

                1. In the absence of a market mechanism for distributing organs, I do not think it is evil to allocate organs based on a measure of the likelihood of success. Do you?

                  1. The free market is called natural immunity

                    1. We are talking about heart transplants here, not COVID.

                    2. You really don’t think this is about Covid?

                2. You are not listening to Jeff.

                  1. Quit you weasel

                  2. Quiet you weasel

              2. Cite on them creating antibodies? That's not what I've heard about mRNA vaccines at all.

              3. The vaccines are programmed to introduce spike protein, not attack the virus. The spike protein are what harm the heart basedon studies you ignorant sot. You are asking to introduce the harmful part of the virus to a heart transplant patient.

            2. No vaccine simply “stops” one from getting whatever disease it is meant to prevent. They all prime the body to produce an immune reaction when exposed.

              But vaccines are also supposed to work as a way of protecting people en mass. That fails when you have people stupidly rejecting vaccination.

              1. Considering I got vaccinated and still caught COVID, the assertion that it "produces an immune response" can't even be validated at this point.

                1. Your illness was milder and of shorter duration than if you hadn't been vaccinated. That is the effect of the immune response from the vaccine.

          2. "Briefly, the doctors want the patient to have antibodies for COVID in the body ahead of time, because part of the transplant recovery process is taking immunosuppressant drugs, and catching COVID after the transplant means the body will be less able to mount an immune response to it."

            You're flat out lying here. Vaccination of any sort has never been allowed immediately prior to transplants because of a significant risk of myocarditis.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164225/

            1. You are the one lying. Your link doesn't even mention myocarditis.

              Recommendations on vaccination vis a vis organ transplantation depend strongly on the type of vaccine, of course. But the basic idea behind vaccination is as I had described it.

              1. “You are the one lying. Your link doesn't even mention myocarditis.”

                Try harder. Or keep proving you really don’t understand what all those fancy words mean.

              2. You Ctrl+F'd for "myocarditis" without actually reading the article and understanding what the words meant, didn't you.

                Here's the definition:
                "Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium). The inflammation can reduce the heart's ability to pump and cause rapid or irregular heart rhythms (arrhythmias).
                Infection with a virus usually causes myocarditis. Sometimes myocarditis can result from a reaction to a drug or be part of a more general inflammatory condition.

                https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/myocarditis/symptoms-causes/syc-20352539

                This is what the whole fucking study was about you dishonest idiot, even though the terms were fancier than my simplification.

                Now if you want to still be pedantic you can find my exact descriptor in the studies citations:
                Immune response in renal and heart transplant recipients has been described both adequate and impaired (2, 9, 13, 16, 98).
                98. Vilchez, R. A., J. J. Fung, and S. Kusne. 2000. Influenza A myocarditis developing in an adult liver transplant recipient despite vaccination: a case report and review of the literature. Transplantation 70:543-545. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

                I really hope your bosses didn't give you fifty-cents for that pathetic effort, Jeff.

                1. This is you saying "oh shit, he actually read the article I cited and discovered I was lying, so I will deflect and obfuscate and try to wriggle out of my lie because I can't ever appear to have been shown wrong by that chemjeff guy, that will just humiliate me beyond words among the Mean Grrlz Club".

                  Your claim:

                  "Vaccination of any sort has never been allowed immediately prior to transplants because of a significant risk of myocarditis."

                  is wrong, that entire article has plenty of examples of vaccination prior to transplantation not only working well, but being recommended. Here is the entire paragraph from the sentence that you cited:

                  "Immune response in renal and heart transplant recipients has been described both adequate and impaired (2, 9, 13, 16, 98). Fraund et al. vaccinated 79 heart recipients with the 1996/1997 trivalent vaccine. The vaccination was well tolerated and effective but the antibody levels were lower than healthy controls (37). Pediatric patients after both renal and liver transplantation were protected by influenza vaccination (76), although the percentage of pediatric liver recipients with protective antibody titer 1 month after the vaccination was only 67% in one study (75)."

                  Yes there was one reference that cited one example of myocarditis developing in one patient. That doesn't mean that it vaccination is "*NEVER*" recommended, as you claim. You're lying as usual.

      4. You preached and ignored every counter argument. You are incapable of discussion.

        1. We are in the midst of a discussion right now, actually. Too bad you cannot see it.

          1. You're in the midst of trying to convince us to accept tyranny and we keep telling you to fuck off. Now fuck off.

          2. No. You are ignoring every counter point still. You have not argued in good faith at all.

      5. Did anyone actually agree with you though?

        I explicitly said they shouldn't be requiring this particular vaccine and that I could see the reasoning of the impulse, even though I didn't agree with it.

        Regardless, none of that addresses the OD post. These are the same motherfuckers that think universal healthcare is a human right and they want to deny life saving care because he won't bend the knee on a vaccine that won't actually stop him from getting the disease these monsters are frothing at the mouth over.

        1. You realize you're talking about medical doctors, not politicians, right? I have no idea if this set of doctors want "universal healthcare as a human right" or not, and it's certainly not relevant to the discussion at hand.

          they want to deny life saving care because he won't bend the knee on a vaccine that won't actually stop him from getting the disease

          This has nothing to do with "bending the knee". This is about increasing the patient's odds of success. COVID is more deadly to this patient after transplant because he will be taking immunosuppressant drugs. And if COVID really is endemic and here to stay forever, then it's only a matter of time before this guy catches it. If he should happen to catch it while he is in recovery phase from his transplant, do you want him to fight it with or without the vaccine antibodies? Hmm?

          1. You’d rather he die from heart failure.

    4. Uh, I'm a pretty stingy guy when it comes to the whole 'immunocompromised' label but, IMO, organ transplant recipients pretty generally fall squarely into the category.

      Whatever doctors are insisting you need a vaccine to a disease you don't currently have, especially a vaccine with a known (even if rare) adverse cardiac side effect, before getting a hear transplant needs to have have their head examined with a surgical grade two-by-four.

      1. In general, the risk of myocarditis from the virus is higher than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine.

          1. Prove it. Cite your studies (if you can) that shows that in general, the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is higher than the risk of myocarditis from the virus.

            1. He, of course, cannot. Because it is a ridiculous claim that contradicts what is known from studies.

              1. Lol. We have posted them dozens of times. Holy fuck you two. You never. Ite your shit. I'm tired of providing you two the same posts over and over.

        1. There is zero scientific basis for that claim. The vaccine is not even 2 years old. No study of long term effects and no study of even the short term effect of more than 2 doses, only the immediate effect.

          You are doing nothing but continuing to prove how woefully ignorant (and arrogant) you are.

          1. There is zero scientific basis for that claim.

            Here is a scientific basis for that claim. Read it yourself.

            https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full-text

            First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population.

            1. in the 1-28 days following

              I am not trying to fool you, trip you up, or mock you. Just to educate you. There is no study of long term effects. Unless you can provide a report that was sent here from the future, you can't get around that argument.

              How can you be such a fair-weather fearmonger?

              1. How long-term of a study would satisfy you, and what is the justification for the duration that you choose?

                1. This is a vaccine that it is planned to eventually provide to 8 billion people. COVID is not smallpox, or even Spanish flu, which killed old and young alike.

                  It would think it takes at least 5 years to isolate any upticks in birth defects. They should certainly have required that before giving it to pregnant women. And for kids under 18, to whom COVID poses almost zero risk. 1000 deaths in a population of 100 million. If it looked good at that point, allow kids to be vaccinated while running 10 year, 25 year and lifetime longitudinal studies to catch any increase in associated organ damage or cancers.

                  The danger to young people is so low that there is no justification for the recommendations that were issued. If the vaccine prevented infection as was originally reported, that might be a different story. But in preventing transmission to the vulnerable, the vaccine has proven as useless as the masks.

                  1. What would be the hypothetical mechanism of long-term bad side effects from the mRNA vaccines? They already are already sons unstable they have to be specially refrigerated just to last long enough to get them to the health clinics. The spike proteins they create are only around for, what, a day, maybe two.

                    1. Vaccination started with small exposures to live viruses and then vaccines with inert viruses. The human species has been exposed to these throughout our entire existence. No matter what medical jargon you want to throw around, artificially stimulating a response with lab created spike proteins is brand new technology. It has been pointed out before that testing it the way they have actually violates international law.

                      Regardless, it certainly has not been 95% efficacious as was claimed during the trials. The trials lasted longer than 4 months.
                      They certainly should have identified the waning efficacy. Once the primary claim has been falsified, why are we continuing to accept any other conclusion from those studies, like that they are safe?

                      What are the long term effects? Literally nobody knows.

                    2. You think the 95% number was fabricated?

                    3. So, it’s new.

                      They aren’t lab-created spike proteins. The mRNA spurs the creation of the spike proteins by the person’s own body (specifically cells in their shoulder area, where the mRNA is injected).

                2. Jeff. Do yourself a favor and look at the DMED database from the military. One of the most conclusive medical databases we have and a nice delegation of when vaccines were introduced. You'll see a spike in multiple adverse outcomes.

                  Youre fucking ignorant. This has been provided to you prior but you refuse to listen or educate yourself.

                  1. Looking at absolute case numbers is meaningless unless they are compared to the risk of alternative courses of action.

                    This reminds me of an article I read a while ago about motorcycle helmet laws. It turns out, after motorcycle helmet laws started become mandatory, there was an increase in head trauma cases from motorcycle riders involved in crashes, and the question was whether there was something about the helmet which was intensifying the injuries that these riders suffered. Of course, that wasn't it at all. What was happening was, because helmets were now mandatory in most places, the riders who got into wrecks, suffered survivable brain injuries, when otherwise, when they hadn't been wearing helmets, when they got into a wreck, they just would have died instead, and it wouldn't have been listed on the statistics as a survivor as a brain injury, just as a corpse.

              2. And by the way, thanks for actually reading the article.

          2. “No study of long term effects”

            We have something way more powerful than mere studies. The vaccines have been administered to millions of people worldwide, with little side effects seen. That’s tremendously more evidence of safety than any study.

            1. And they've been utterly fucking useless at stopping case spikes from happening.

            2. with little side effects seen

              How long does it take toxic exposure to DDT to show symptoms? Or toxic exposure to Agent Orange? Or toxic exposure to Round-Up? Hint: it is more than 2 years.

              All of those substances were pronounced safe for use.

              No study of long term effects should scare the shit out of the COVIDiots, but it doesn't. I wonder why.

              1. How long does it take toxic exposure to DDT to show symptoms? Or toxic exposure to Agent Orange? Or toxic exposure to Round-Up? Hint: it is more than 2 years.

                Not true. All of those substances are capable of demonstrating toxicity in animal models well before 2 years. Those are the types of tests that take place before human clinical trials - inject the vaccine into mice and see what happens to them.

                This is an article about the animal studies of Moderna's vaccine, back from August 2020.

                https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-moderna-investigational-covid-19-vaccine-shows-promise-mouse-studies

              2. How can a substance that is so unstable that it has to be specially refrigerated, and only stays in the body for about two days going to cause long-term side effects?

        2. In general, the risk of myocarditis from the virus is higher than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine.

          I see. So the motto isn't "Do no harm" it's "Do just as much harm that's less than some worse harm you can imagine."

          Your risk from COVID-induced myocarditis if you never catch the virus is zero. Unless they doctor gave you COVID, they did no harm. Perfectly analogously, your risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis if you never get vaccinated is zero. Unless the doctor gave you the vaccine, then they did you harm.

          Your take on this issue is, as usual, willfully stupid and evil and, in this case is actually openly/directly stomping on the ethics. People get transplants all the time without a vericella or hepatitis or HPV or anthrax or smallpox or any one of a dozen other vaccines. It's advised for some that they be taken as far before transplant as possible but not required. Moreover, the mRNA vaccines and COVID vaccines in general are demonstrably less effective than the other vaccines I listed. To assert that there will be any benefit derived after transplantation is exceedingly presumptuous and does so specifically to inflict risk/harm on the patient.

          1. Your take on this issue is, as usual, willfully stupid and evil

            I see. So the recommendation, which you yourself cite, for transplant patients to get certain other vaccines, like diphtheria or tetanus, is that also "willfully stupid and evil"? Because these vaccines also have potential side-effects, of course. So the entire medical establishment which makes these recommendations is "willfully stupid and evil"? No of course not. You are just playing your typical game - taking my argument, extrapolating it to the stupidest possible endpoint, interpreting it in the worst possible light, and then pronouncing the worst possible judgment on it, all in bad faith.

      2. And the idea behind requiring the vaccine BEFORE the transplant is so that the patient's body has the antibodies in his system, so that after the transplant, and while taking immunosuppressant drugs, IF he should catch COVID then, he will have some antibodies circulating to fight off the infection, instead of trying to rely on a suppressed immune system to try to generate the antibodies necessary.

        1. As well as giving him the spike protein which causes the actual myocarditis in his system for the new heart when not getting sick prior is safer. Weird how you ignore that.

          1. First, it is not definitively known why some vaccines are associated with myocarditis. The spike protein is one hypothesis only. Of course, good Dr. Malone believes that is THE cause, so that is why you regurgitate it here.

            Second, the order of operations here is:

            1. Get vaccinated.
            2. Vaccine produces spike proteins.
            3. Body generates antibodies to fight spike proteins.
            4. Spike proteins go away, antibodies remain.
            5. THEN the heart transplant occurs.

            No one is suggesting that he should get the vaccine AFTER the transplant.

            1. No one is suggesting that he should get the vaccine AFTER the transplant.

              ORLY? So if he got the transplant without the vaccine you would recommend against getting it 6-12 mos. down the line?

              Because for hematopoetic stem cell recipients the CDC recommends resuming flu vaccinations 6-12 mos. after transplant. For PCV in immunocompromised individuals, they recommend *additional* doses after recovery to ensure immunity.

              It's beginning to seem like you either don't know what the fuck you're talking about and/or don't actually give a shit whether you do anyone any harm or not.

              1. Fine. No one is suggesting that he get the vaccine IMMEDIATELY AFTER the transplant. Happy now?

                Once again you play your typical game: find a nit to pick, blow it way out of proportion and then utter blistering denunciations of epic proportions based on a nit.

                1. Shorter Jeffy: Ignore the things I say that are wrong.

            2. Yes it is jeff. Those 2 doctors you pretend don't have well established resumes listed multiple studies. You dismissed them because the liberal media told you to. There has been a spike in myocarsitis post vaccines. Full stop. This isn't even questioned by the fucking CDC. Belgium banned one vaccine for males under 31 for this reason you ignorant shit.

              1. Cite a study that shows the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is higher than the risk of myocarditis from the virus. Just one. Even if it's from Dr. Malone or the other guy. Go ahead. Because I'd really like to read it.

        2. And the idea behind requiring the vaccine BEFORE the transplant is so that the patient's body has the antibodies in his system

          I'm not just questioning the science/medicine. I know you're too stupid to grasp anything that isn't just written on a single page for you anyway. I'm questioning the ethics and it's obvious that not only do you not care about the ethics, you're trying to persuade others to not care as well. That's why when I raise the ethical points that I raised, you quote narrow, select portions of the literature. Just. Fucking. Evil.

          1. Jeff is a sociopath that likes to treat the real world like a philosophy 100 class, where his “thought experiments” are more important than actual, real life individuals.

  25. https://twitter.com/TheJuggernaut88/status/1485787580298072064?t=oeBKAsLCd6xNjXEPdrjwQQ&s=19

    Quebec announces that the unvaxed are not allowed inside of large stores unless accompanied by a Health Warden that will monitor them so they do not purchase anything except for food and medicine.
    [Link]

    1. Is this some version of the korean store clerk following blacks around?

      1. It certainly isn't for sound medical reasons.

    2. Hey, it isn't gas camps, so this is probably okay - sarcasmic.

    3. Are these people from the same French heritage as Nazi collaborators?

    4. Sure. Sure. But the important question is, will I still be able to use the women's restroom?

  26. I keep mentioning two facts, here in comments, one of which needs to be revised.

    1) The historical median number of seats lost by a new president's party in the House, during his first midterm, is 26--going back to World War I.

    That statistic doesn't need to be revised.

    2) 23 House Democrats have chosen not to seek reelection in 2022 (presumably because they expect to lose).

    That statistic needs to be revised because six more House Democrats have chosen not to seek reelection in 2022 since the last time I'd checked the stat.

    The following statement is now true:

    "Cooper is the 29th Democrat who has decided not to seek reelection to the House"

    ----The Hill

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/591302-rep-jim-cooper-becomes-latest-house-democrat-to-not-seek-reelection

    With 29 (twenty-nine) House Democrats deciding not to seek reelection in 2022 (mostly in purple and red districts), we should't expect the midterms of 2022 to perform somewhere close to the median of 26. The losses we should expect the Democrats to suffer in the House should probably be in addition to those 29.

    If things keep going the way they are, we'll see Republicans win in traditionally blue districts--like we almost saw happen in the recent election in New Jersey.

    1. Hey Ken how many of these statistics were taken for "fortified" elections?

      1. All of them. You can't find a single election without any voter fraud. You can't find a single election where the party controlling the state legislature didn't try to gain an advantage, too, through redistricting or otherwise. Ballot box stuffing is a great American tradition, and the results you see below are in spite of the shenanigans--in each and every election. The results we're talking about (where the party of the president loses House seats in his first midterm), all that happened in spite of the shenanigans. The median is no zero. The median is -26--despite the shenanigans.

        First column is seats won or lost. The last column is the central issues I see in that midterm election.

        +9 1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt Great Depression Response
        +8 2002 George W. Bush 9/11
        -4 1962 John F. Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis
        -8 1990 George H. W. Bush USSR Falls, Operation Desert Shield
        -9 1926 Calvin Coolidge 1st Midterm in 2nd Term (Harding Died)
        -12 1970 Richard Nixon Vietnam, Kent State
        -15 1978 Jimmy Carter Energy Crisis, Inflation
        -18 1954 Dwight D Eisenhower McCarthyism
        -22 1918 Woodrow Wilson Broken Promise not to Enter WWI
        -26 1982 Ronald Reagan Recession
        -41 2018 Donald Trump, Donald Trump
        -47 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson Great Society, Civil Rights Act
        -48 1974 Gerald Ford Nixon Pardoned
        -52 1930 Herbert Hoover Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Great Depression
        -54 1946 Harry S Truman Labor Unrest, Price Controls
        -54 1994 Bill Clinton Gun Control, HillaryCare
        -57 1910 William Taft Republican/Progressives Split
        -63 2010 Barack Obama TARP, ObamaCare
        -77 1922 Warren Harding Republican/Progressive Split

        If there's anything different about this election, it's the question of why we should expect to see the median 26 seats lost by the Democrats--when 29 of them have already decided that they have no reasonable chance to win? What do you know about fortified elections that 29 Democrats in the House don't know?

        1. Normally, I'd expect the Democrats to lose 26 in the House. If Build Back Better had succeeded, I'd expect Biden's Democrats to perform somewhere south of Clinton's -54 and Obama's -63. Although BBB failed, Biden has refused to pivot to the center, and Congress keeps pushing controversial bills, so I'd handicap the Democrats to lose somewhere between Clinton's -54 and and Trump's -41--but with serious potential for the Democrats to underperform. And the 29 early concessions are consistent with that projection.

          What the chart tells us is that the first midterm a president faces is typically a referendum on the new president and what he did. I have a hard time imagining Biden becoming significantly more popular between now and November (more popular than Clinton or Obama), especially when he steadfastly refuses to pivot to the center. His advice appears to be coming from social justice warriors and socialists, and he's not showing any signs of disregarding their advice. If the Democrats flagrantly fixed 100 individual races, I'm not sure they could maintain control of the House.

          1. Senator McConnell said that = the first midterm a president faces is typically a referendum on the new president and what he did

            We'll see. I am frankly a lot more concerned about the prospect of a hot war in Europe and the Taiwan Strait than an election 9 months away.

    2. Oh, but the good news is wine granny Nancy Pelosi is running again.

      1. I count that as a bonus, since she will be in the minority.

      2. She's running, but 1) she's already promised not to seek the Speaker's chair and 2) the Democrats won't be in control of the House in 2023 anyway.

        She's 81 years old. The Progressive Congressional Caucus (her arch enemy) will make up a larger proportion of the House in 2023 than they do now. She's done.

    3. Unfortunately, Pelosi's running.

        1. The vineyard is non-union.

    4. Don't count your Democrats before they hatch their plot.

  27. ""By the end of sixth grade, the children in the study who had been randomly selected to attend the state’s pre-K program were more likely to be referred to special education services than their peers who had not secured a spot in the program""

    Tony hardest hit. Another huge L for the state run trash schools. They cant even get fucking pre-K right! You basically have to keep the kid from shitting their pants and show them some colors and numbers. And the govt cant get that right!

    But we have to force everyone to go to state run schools...for equality.

    Maybe those little "how to be an activist" classes they are showing young children arent as good of an idea as say, numbers, words, reading, math, etc.

    The left is so incompetent its sad

    1. So state run school makes kids retarded. I can see thar

    2. Your insistence on evaluating results, either of the program or of the students work, is white supremacy.

      1. He's just perpetuating systemic racism. 400 years was enough, let the kids be dumb so no feelings get hurt. Who gives a shit if they are living on the street in 10 years?

        1. The street is where the super predators live. The kiddos need to experience that.

    3. "You basically have to keep the kid from shitting their pants and show them some colors and numbers."

      But in Pre-K CRT, the colors and numbers are purely political--and harder to get perfect.

      1. My mom likes to tell a story that when I was 3, in 1973, she had a conversation with her friend who admitted that she hadn't taught her son to identify the colors black and white because she was afraid of enabling him to differentiate himself from the majority of the other kids. Knowing that I knew black and white, and curious about what I thought, she asked me if there was anything different about me and my friend Eddie. My response was, "Yeah, mom," in that eye-rolling kid voice, "Eddie has curly hair."

        Garbage in. Garbage out. Teaching kids CRT does nothing but guarantee they see themselves as different. Left alone, kids will not segregate by race. Usually, it's by who can kick a kickball and who can't.

    4. Here's a crazy idea. Maybe children do better when their actual parents are highly engaged in their early lives and don't just send them off to daycare from age 2.

      1. cant be zeb...BLM has told me the best thing for society is taking down the nuclear family. Surely they have the best intentions in mind for blacks

        1. Nuclear families are definitely a lot of the problem. My kids are excelling in spite of the two parent household that supports them. Imagine how much better my 14 year old with great math skills would be at running a gang than playing sports.

    5. You basically have to keep the kid from shitting their pants
      See there? Any kid can grow up to be president.

  28. "The kinds of pre-K that our poor children are going into are not good for them long term."

    It depends. In the photo shown in the Twitter post, is that kid looking for illegal aliens or removing the carbon-spewing gas pumps?

    1. Checking to make sure everyone at the pizza joint is masked and triple-vaccinated.

  29. We shouldn't exaggerate what's at stake in Ukraine, writes Reason's Natalie Dowzicky. "The 'liberal world order' doesn't require a war with Russia over the Donbass."

    But over the Dumbass, aka Trump? Definitely!

    1. https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1486362740956536838?t=ffvp72Y1Dh2hAsvzPeqw_Q&s=19

      The Ukrainian government says war is not imminent.

      The US evacuated embassy personnel but other countries didn’t.

      1. Is the Dems' midterm strategy to wag some dogs?

        1. They're going to need to wag the biggest dog that they've ever wagged, and I'm afraid that they think that they've found that dog.

  30. "Kat Rosenfield laments that we're all COVID cops now."

    Now hold on a minute, Kat. We might all be snitches now, but cop status is only for certified minions of the elite.

  31. Well, so Team Red has received their talking points now. Expect more apologias in the comments now for Hungary and for Orban.

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/geraldo-challenges-tucker-praising-authoritarian-orban-do-you-want-america-to-be-more-like-hungary/

    "Geraldo Challenges Tucker Praising ‘Authoritarian’ Orban: ‘Do You Want America to Be More Like Hungary?’"

    And of course Carlson's answer is, hey, they aren't so bad! Don't mind their authoritarianism at all!

    1. Carlson is terrible, isn't he? I bet he sends his kids to a school from which they can graduate without reading a single Dr. Kendi book.

      #LibertariansForCRTInPubicSchools
      #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism

    2. What authoritarian policies has Orban enacted?

      1. IT IS KNOWN.

        From what I've seen, conservatives embrace the tough borders / white tower antagonism / family subsidization and gloss over the rest. What it says to me more than anything is that foreign aid direct to governments is a recipe for disaster:

        I interviewed a bunch of people in 2012 who said that they were given lists by Orbán’s people, and that if they hired any of the people on this list they would be ineligible for state contracts. And this is a country where the primary development funds—the primary money for doing anything in the country—is coming from E.U. funds. Most of these businessmen said they couldn’t afford to hire anybody on the blacklist, because they couldn't afford to do without state contracts. So many, many Hungarians have left.

        And there's absolutely no troubling parallels with the US whatsoever in his sleaze:

        They’ve given billions upon billions of dollars of state property to a set of newly created private foundations, which are run by Orbán’s loyalists. These private foundations escape public audit. You can’t get at them with freedom-of-information requests. And all but five of the universities in Hungary have been put into these so-called public-interest foundations, and the foundations can spend their resources any way they want.

        1. Thanks for the link. Now I get why Lefty Jeffy hates him so much:

          “It’s not just his anti-immigration stance or his moral traditionalism,” Douthat wrote. “It’s that his interventions in Hungarian cultural life, the attacks on liberal academic centers and the spending on conservative ideological projects, are seen as examples of how political power might curb progressivism’s influence.”

    3. I’d rather be Hungary then your leftist ideals

    4. Don't mind their authoritarianism at all!

      How so?
      Has Orban locked away dissidents without charges for a year?
      Is Orban mandating medical procedures on the pain of refuseniks losing their jobs and access to medical treatment?
      Is Orban saying candidates shouldn't be allowed to run for disagreeing with his spending bill?

    5. Geraldo isn't too far off the authoritarian bandwagon himself these days.

      1. No, he’s squarely on it.

    6. Five hours later and still no evidence that Orban is authoritarian.

      Also Jeff, surprisingly, lied about Carlson’s response. But it’s ok for Jeffy to lie about Carlson because he’s on the other tribe.

  32. Oh, and an update to the implementation of the Texas "election integrity" law.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/24/texas-vote-by-mail-rejections/

    It's been a hot mess, as the legislature didn't give the Secretary of State nearly enough time to implement all of the new restrictions in the law. But here is a particularly vile twist:

    Absentee ballot applications are now being more frequently rejected, as one of the new requirements is that the applicant must include an identification number on the application that the state already has on file for the applicant. But there is confusion as to which numbers will count and which numbers will match with the state's records. So election offices are rejecting large numbers of absentee ballot applications. And to top it off, one of the new changes made it a felony to “solicit the submission” of an application to vote by mail if the voter did not request it. So it is unclear even if election offices can make PSAs about what the new changes are, because those might be considered "soliciting a submission" of an application. So applicants just have to hope and pray that their application is accepted, and election offices have very limited legal ability to help voters with their application ahead of time.

    So here again, even if we assume that the motives of the Texas legislature are all pure and noble in wanting to create greater election security, their implementation is complete shit. If they are going to create extra burdens and rules on voting, then they should ALSO devote time and resources to help people navigate those rules and to get legal voters the ability to exercise their right to vote. Instead, the entire attitude is, "here's a bunch of rules, you figure it out, if you can't, then tough shit, you don't deserve to vote anyway". That is not how any state ought to treat any civil right, let alone the right to vote.

    1. Do you live in TX, chemjeff?

      Oh, you do not live in TX; then what are you worried about?

      TX will sort it out.

      Or....do you want the Feds to step in with a uniform set of guidelines for all?

      1. More like different sets of guidelines based on which states make him sad.

      2. Well, if people in Texas are having their voting rights abridged, that ought to be of concern to all who value liberty, not just Texans.

        And I do think that when it comes to federal elections, there ought to be *some* set of standardized rules. I don't agree with all of the requirements in the latest bill, but I'd consider conceptually some bit of standardization. Would you?

        1. if people in Texas are having their voting rights abridged

          That's a mighty big claim there, pardner. You willing to back it up?

          1. I said *IF*. *IF* their voting rights are being abridged, it ought to be of concern to all of us. Would you agree?

            1. If frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their ass.

              1. But what if you had a bear in your trunk?

                1. I’d give it an AR-15 and drive around town doing drive-bys, duh.

            2. I am not subscribing to your Texas racist cowboy fan-fiction.

            3. "I said *IF*. *IF* their voting rights are being abridged"

              Well, they arent. So we arent concerned.

        2. Well now chemjeff, something else Texans love (as I understand them) is keeping your nose out of their business. Seems like good advice.

          1. We appreciate that most of all.

    2. You do realize that voting absentee is a special privilege. No need to know any special rules if you vote at the polling place. Which makes sense, because you are supposed to live in the jurisdiction in which you vote.

      Regardless, I just got my voter registration card in the mail this week here in Travis County, TX. Maybe it isn't all that hard to know what number to put on the request.

      1. I disagree that voting absentee should be viewed as a privilege. I think it should be viewed as just another way to exercise one's right to vote, no different than voting on election day in person. I strongly believe that there ought to be no-excuse absentee voting.

        But, let's just put that aside for a moment and take your premise at face value. Then voting in-person is the only exercise of voting rights that actually matters as a right per se. If that is the case, then would you say that voters having to wait hours and hours in line to vote constitutes a substantial burden on that right? If so, what should be done about it?

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/13/more-than-10-hour-wait-and-long-lines-as-early-voting-starts-in-georgia

        1. Nobody cares what you strongly believe because you aren't a smart person Jeff. You completely ignore decades of various election integrity groups highlighting the vectors of fraud from no-excuse absentee voting, as well as ballot harvesting.

          You simply ignore whatever you want to because your arguments are so infantile.

          And why does every idiot leftist bring up long lines in Ga which was caused by democrat election officials, not due to any law?

          1. because you aren't a smart person Jeff

            The sad thing is that he's a genius compared to Shrike, who is a genius compared to White Mike, and poor sarcasmic rides the short bus.

        2. and take your premise at face value. Then voting in-person is the only exercise of voting rights that actually matters as a right per se

          Holy shit. Do you ever argue honestly? That 'absentee voting' is a special privilege is premised on the way language works. The fact that it is not just called 'voting'.

          And, no, waiting to vote is not a substantial burden for anyone if it is a burden for everyone. The security of voting is essential to the exercise of the right. My vote does not mean anything if can be negated by a false vote.

          1. And, no, waiting to vote is not a substantial burden for anyone if it is a burden for everyone.

            Okay then, so if the average wait time is, say, 15 minutes at some precincts, but hours and hours at others, is this a problem? Should something be done to remedy this?

            1. Have you volunteered to help those precincts?

            2. Yes. But a federal level fix will inevitably cause more burden, not less. It's not all about wait times.

              If a remote homestead voter requires a drive of 60 minutes and a wait of 15 minutes and an urban voter can stop at the precinct on their way to or from work and waits 135 minutes, there is no substantial burden on either. If the urban voter must wait 4 hours, that is a problem that should placed squarely on the local officiants.

              Personally, I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes in 32 years of participating, mostly at urban locations. I waited no more than 30 seconds before a machine opened up during the last election. If there were anyplace a Republican wanted to suppress the vote in TX, urban Austin would be #1.

        3. People will literally stand in line for 12 hours at Disneyland to ride the newest shiniest ride, but ask them to stand in line to exercise their "most important right" and people lose their shit.

          (Who controlled the polling place locations/times in Georgia?)

        4. This is the one state voting practice I witnessed during the 2020 election egregious enough it should be fixed, by Federal law if necessary.

          It is either blatant voter suppression or a sign Georgia is so broke it needs financial assistance to open more polling places. And I don’t think it is the latter.

          1. Do you have a cite? Seriously, I have heard plenty of anecdotes but never seen empirical evidence of massive waits. To the average millennial, a 20 minute wait feels like 4 hours if they can't get an internet connection. Waiting 1 or 2 hours to vote is not a big deal. People used to stand in line all night to get into a big movie premier.

            1. You really completely missed all the reporting on the long lines in Georgia? I’ll find a cite for you. Hold on…

              1. “At least two counties briefly had problems with the electronic pollbooks used to check in voters. The issue halted voting for a while at State Farm Arena, in Atlanta. Voters who cast their ballots at the basketball stadium, which was being used as an early voting site, faced long waits as the glitch was resolved.”

                1. And it was early voting, which, again based on the way language works, is a special privilege.

          2. So local democratic officials are suppressing their voters?

            Youre an idiot Mike.

    3. If they are going to create extra burdens and rules on voting, then they should ALSO devote time and resources to help people navigate those rules and to get legal voters the ability to exercise their right to vote. Instead, the entire attitude is, "here's a bunch of rules, you figure it out, if you can't, then tough shit, you don't deserve to vote anyway".

      Sounds a lot like Obamacare.

      But here is a particularly vile twist:

      Does anyone suppose Special Agent Chemjeff described Obamacare as "vile"? That's because people don't criticize their allies in such ways.

      Newsflash, governments aren't competent.

      1. Jeffy’s not a leftist. Just ask him.

      2. Sounds a lot like Obamacare.

        Actually, no it doesn't. When Obamacare first rolled out, there were a bunch of paid "navigators" which helped people through the enrollment process.

        https://www.healthinsurance.org/glossary/navigator/

        So, if there were voting "navigators" that would help eligible voters exercise their right to vote, then that would actually be a positive development.

        1. When Obamacare first rolled out, there were a bunch of paid "navigators" which helped people through the enrollment process.

          Revealingly these people were unable to perform this function both due to their own ignorance and because the signup process the procedure called for didn't actually work. Texas has a process as well, it just doesn't work. But SA Chemjeff doesn't actually care about whether the Obamacare process worked, he only cares about defending the left.

          This is how leftists end up judging everything by inconsistent standards. When they are attacking the right the standard is perfection. But when they are defending the left absolutely anything will do. This is why they are useless in understanding or reforming society.

        2. Every state I’ve lived in has had such “navigator” sites, a mixture of government and private ones.

    4. https://harrisvotes.org/VotingInfo?lang=en-US#VoteByMail

      Maybe, just maybe a lot of the rejects are because they don't qualify.
      Click on the application and see if it really seems all that hard and confusing.

    1. I really wish you'd change your name back to American Socia1ist. And fix your links.

      Anyway, don't buy GG's defense that he was being ironic. Don't believe he's merely spoofing how journalists behaved during the Drumpf years. Ignore the fact that "a dangerous time to tell the truth in America" is the subtitle of Jim Acosta's book.

      No, GG meant every word of that inane rant. He shouldn't be taken seriously.

      1. I get so excited being a gay, Black conservative like Milo and Caitlin that I can’t even do HTML any more. So much winning— even in this depressing Nazi socialist hellhole run by the Democrats.

        1. You're not gay, Shrike, you're a pedophile. Maybe a bisexual pedophile, but still a pedophile.

    2. I know, right? Biden uses foul language to describe a reporter he doesn't like, on a hot mike, and then later apologizes for it. Meanwhile, Trump spends 5 years bashing every and any reporter that he doesn't like, repeatedly, over and over, never apologizing, even posts memes of himself literally fighting CNN, and that is not at all concerning or disturbing.

      1. Those memes of him literally fighting CNN are so dangerous. I'm glad that monster is gone.

        1. New press hashtag:

          #BelieveMe

        2. BUT HE WAS RUDE BACK TO DON LEMON!!1!

          Thank goodness that the adults are back in charge.

      2. I think the point of pointing these things out is that the people who did spend 5 years obsessing about every mean thing Trump said don't seem to care at all when Biden does the same sort of stuff. His personality may not be quite as ridiculous as Trumps, but Biden is well known to have a bad temper and frequently says strange and embarrassing things.

        1. Jeffy wants nothing more than to draw everyone into rehashing the Trumpster fire. This is about Biden breaking his promise to treat the all of the press with respect.

          1. He’s also, dishonestly (as is his way) ignoring the several other examples of Biden being rude to the press. Wonder why?

      3. Cite of him apologizing?

        1. Here it is, but it was definitely a fake apology. Biden is a Nazi fascist socialist running a totalitarian empire backed by Soros money and the corrupt Twitter elite. What can you expect?

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10437283/amp/What-stupid-son-bitch-Biden-attacks-Fox-News-Peter-Doocy-shouting-inflation-question.html

          1. I wasn’t aware saying “it isn't personal, pal”was an apology. I’ll be sure to use it next time I need to apologize.

          2. 'it isn't personal, pal'

            Lol, some apology.

            1. It’s a day ending in “y”, so lefties are changing the definition of a word.

      4. The hypocrisy is you and the other leftists claiming Trump's criticisms were the end of Democracy, then turning around to defend Biden.

        Left wing arguments are useless because all they do is Protect the Shield. To them a principle is used in complete isolation so they can invoke its exact opposite as soon as the target switches from R to D.

        1. I’m sorry… I don’t agree with your analysis. First of all, you mention democracy. Well, that’s your problem right there. America isn’t a democracy; it’s a republic. So when Biden gets elected it’s not the will of the people when he lost by negative 8 million votes. It’s because America isn’t a democracy. Except when it is as in where Trump won by minus 3 million votes to that terrible women who had Parkinson’s Disease. So America is and is not a democracy. It depends.

          1. Poor Shrike.

      5. He Never Apologized Jeff. How many times are you going to lie about this? "Dont' take it personal pal" isn't an apology.

        1. “How many times are you going to lie about this?”

          How many times is it going to come up?

          1. He has to lie about it. That's what they pay him for.

      6. If all he said was "It isn't personal, pal", that's not a fucking apology.

        That would be like me calling you a disingenuous cunt in these comments and then saying "It's not personal, pal." in an article later today.

        1. Which is funny, because Jeffy is a disingenuous cunt, and that WAS personal.

          1. I've been trying hard to be civil and polite with him, but goddamn does he get under my skin sometimes.

            1. He supports policies that literally contradict his handle.

  33. >>Justin Amash has a new podcast.

    nobody wants to know what you did last summer, loser.

  34. Remember: every leftist accusation is really just confession

    https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1486357984078872577?t=eowshJ_DIYes5c10unOQag&s=19

    CNN's @Acosta characterized Virginia as "a Soviet-style police state across the Potomac from Washington."
    [Video]

    1. Well thank god Youngkin got there just in time.

    2. seriously the Orwellian insanity of this comment.

      Guy gets elected gov on the insane ideas of "parents actually get a say in their parents education, the govt doesnt in fact get to tell them to fuck off and let us indoctrinate them" and this is somehow labeled a Soviet style police state.

      Anti-fascism is dressing in all black and threatening violence on your political foes, smashing property

      Anti-racism is segregating kids by color and privilege walks. Black only graduations

      "Soviet style police state" is actually allowing parents to have some say in their childs education over submission to the state...

      How are we not living out Orwell.

    3. every leftist accusation is really just confession

      And "right-wing conspiracy" is next months agenda.

      1. Lol. Already happening. Heard on the radio today about “credible threats” of hacking the power grid, by far right extremists, of course.

        It’s cool they let us know ahead of time, tho… haha.

  35. "Authoritarian governments ban Bitcoin mining. The U.S. shouldn't join them," says Andrea O'Sullivan.

    uh... the US *is* an authoritarian government already. And yeah some of the folks in power already do want to ban bitcoin. They're going to try it at some point, when the fiat pain is at its worst.

  36. Supreme court justice Breyer steps down.

    Biden promises black female.

    Grab your popcorn

    1. One can assume they will try to ram it through before midterms. Probably a bounced retirement now for that very reason.

      1. Announced. Sheesh

        1. Bounced works too.

    2. I had just said the other day if they arent fully retarded they will retire one of the old liberals now. Him or soto. Him because old, her because her brain apparently got pickled by too much Maddow.

      But they wont have another shot at a supreme court nomination for a good 6 years coming up after mid terms, thats for sure

      1. and they learned a very hard lesson with RBG. She thought hillary was a lock and they paid the price

        1. That was funny.

      2. If Breyer does not step down before January, Team D is fucked. They will not get anyone onto SCOTUS.

      3. As long as Thomas doesn't croak. He's getting pretty old and fat.

      4. There is some noise about potentially nominating Kamala, which got me thinking of this scenario...

        1. I thought since the election the idea was to nominate Kamala and then have Sleepy step down and she took over as first black president.
        2. Unfortunately, she did not perform very well in the few tasks they gave her. She is too much CA, and DC is not CA.
        3. Move Kammy into the SCOTUS as the nominee, which rewards her box checking call to duty, shuttles her to a safe holding spot and leaves a hole in the VP slot.
        4. And who has been making noise about a comeback just recently?
        5. HRC steps into the vacant VP spot. Sleepy then has an unexpected medical issue that makes it no longer viable for him to be president.
        6. It is her turn now!!

        1. *first black woman president

        2. You are not the only person to call this as the game plan. Another possibility to replace KH then run in 24 is Michelle Obama.
          So... what to do?

          1. HRC is getting too old (like Biden and Trump).
            The plan is for her protege Mayor/Secretary/VP/Prez Pete to take over. Have you heard anything recently about the supply chain problems or the long line of container ships circling Long Beach Harbor? Seems like he's solved that problem, which puts him up 1-0 on VP Harris.

          2. Taking the next step - Joe steps down, now HRC is the Prez and doesn't she then need a VP of her own?
            The choice is hers to make. The Queen gets to name her own successor!

        3. This actually fits their MO.

    3. "Supreme court justice Breyer steps down."

      If he'd waited until after the midterms, Biden would probably need to get his appointee through a Republican controlled Senate.

      1. They better make a change in the rules or amend the Constitution to force a vote before they lose their majority, because at this point, nobody should ever allow another Democrat appointee to the court.

        Garland. - Nuff said.

    4. I'd guess: Susan Rice or Loretta Lynch.

      I know there are theories about giving this slot to Harris, then back filling her with Hillary. IMO, this would make mid-term losses even worse. Also, I just don't see Hillary as capable of winning in 2024 or ever. Giving her POTUS for 2+ years ahead of 2024 will only make her character MORE clear to voters.

  37. “2,912-page bill”

    This is all I need to know for a vote of No.

    1. War and Peace is only 1,225 pages.

      1. Approximately, 1 War and Peace + 1 Iliad + 1 Odyssey + between 1 and 1.5 of either LOTR: FOTR, LOTR: TTT, or LOTR: ROTK.

    2. But only a third of atlas shrugged

  38. It's a race to the bottom so this seems to be the way to go.

  39. Protein Co-expression in E. coli
    https://www.profacgen.com/Protein-Co-expression-Service-in-E-coli-System.htm
    Multi-protein complexes are involved in essentially all cellular processes. A protein’s function relies on not only its own physio-chemical properties,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.