Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Free Speech

Google Says Truth Social Must Clean Up Act Before Gracing Android App Store

Plus: Vermont city repeals prostitution ordinance, political correctness revisited, and more...

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 8.31.2022 9:34 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Truth Social app in front of a picture of Donald Trump | Jaap Arriens/Sipa USA/Newscom
(Jaap Arriens/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Truth Social, the Twitter-esque social media platform launched by former President Donald Trump, is being barred from the Google Play store over content moderation concerns.

Google Play is the default place to find apps on Android phones. Exclusion from the Google Play store doesn't mean people are prohibited from downloading and installing an app on Android devices, but it does make doing so more difficult. And Truth Social does not currently offer a version of the app that can be downloaded and installed from its website or elsewhere. So, anyone who wants to use Truth Social on an Android phone has to do so via web browser rather than through a dedicated app.

"On Aug. 19, we notified Truth Social of several violations of standard policies in their current app submission and reiterated that having effective systems for moderating user-generated content is a condition of our terms of service for any app to go live on Google Play," a Google spokesperson told Axios, which reports that Google is concerned with Truth Social not effectively moderating threats of violence.

The situation echoes concerns over the right-leaning social media platform Parler, which was banned from app stores (though only temporarily from Apple's) for alleged indifference to posts from January 6 rioters. Many conservatives accused the tech companies of liberal bias and potentially illegal conduct.

There are two important things to keep in mind when it comes to the Truth Social and Google Play situation.

Number one is that the situation looks likely to resolve itself soon enough. Google said it has raised its concerns with Truth Social, and the two companies are working to resolve the issue. Trump Media & Technology Group said in a statement: "It is our belief that all Americans should have access to Truth Social no matter what devices they use. We look forward to Google approving Truth Social at their earliest convenience."

Also important to keep in mind: The impossible situation app stores find themselves in.

Google and Apple have both been harassed by regulators and politicians over app store policies, with some suggesting that tightly controlling the app store could be an antitrust violation or grounds for losing Section 230 protections.

Meanwhile, these companies are also hammered for not doing enough to stop dangerous, misleading, or violent content, including content on apps that appear in app stores. Sometimes, the government even tries to ban certain apps from being available through app stores. And increasingly, intermediaries—like tech companies and payment processors—face lawsuits for not stopping potentially harmful content.

In effect, tightly controlling its app store may get Google in legal and political trouble. But not tightly controlling its app store may also get Google in legal and political trouble.

This sort of catch-22 has become all too common for tech companies, which face demands to both stop more speech and allow all speech.


FREE MINDS

"Is 'Woke' just PC with faster internet?" asks Phoebe Maltz Bovy. The impetus for this question: her discovery of an early '90s book titled The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook. In a post on Freddie DeBoer's blog, Bovy looks at what's different between today's version of "political correctness" and that from 30 years back, and what's the same. "But the point of the book feels about as 2022 as it could. There are the defenses of free speech, which, yes, but more powerful, and more relevant, is the critique of PC's fixation on language over substance, and indeed in obscuring the absence of substantive change."


FREE MARKETS

A city in Vermont has repealed two ordinances against prostitution. The Montpelier ordinances state that "no female person shall be a prostitute" and "no person shall keep a house of prostitution."

City Manager Bill Fraser said the ordinances hadn't been used in a long time. And prostitution will still be criminalized in Montpelier under Vermont state law.

But despite minimal practical impact, the repeal could be a sign of winds shifting.

"Montpelier has become the second city in Vermont to repeal its antiquated prostitution ordinance in the past year," notes the group Decriminalize Sex Work. "Last summer, the Burlington City Council voted to repeal that city's prostitution ordinance and voters subsequently chose to strike discriminatory and archaic language on sex work from the city charter."

More on the debate over Montpelier's ordinances here and here.


FOLLOWUP

DOJ responds to Trump. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has responded to former President Donald Trump's request to appoint a special master to oversee the handling of documents gotten from Mar-a-Lago. You can read the full filing here; CNN offers highlights here.


QUICK HITS

• Read Reason's Matt Welch on the death of Mikhail Gorbachev.

• Young people are interested in the news—but not very happy with it.

• France is using drones to spy on and tax unauthorized swimming pools.

• "California lawmakers are on the verge of passing a bill that would significantly scale back solitary confinement in prisons, jails and private immigration detention centers," reports Fox News. The measure—AB 2632—would limit solitary confinement to no more than 15 consecutive days and no more than 45 cumulative days in a 180-day time frame.

• A pair of Virginia lawsuits seeking to get the books Gender Queer and A Court of Mist and Fury removed from the shelves of libraries and private booksellers has been dismissed.

• New York is hobbling its legal cannabis market with excessive taxes and regulations.

• A new book showcases six decades' worth of Maurice Sendak's work.

• Women are the fastest-growing incarcerated group in Texas, reports Scalawag magazine. "In Texas, women's incarceration rates have increased dramatically over the past few decades—over 1000 percent since 1980."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: New York Set to Hobble ‘Legal’ Cannabis with Taxes and Regulations

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Free SpeechReason RoundupSocial MediaAppsGoogleDonald TrumpTechnologyInternetAntitrust
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (692)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

    France is using drones to spy on and tax unauthorized swimming pools.

    Ooh la la!

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Sacre bleu!

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Mon Dieu!

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Merde

    2. Ajsloss   3 years ago

      My understanding is that there's a place in France where the naked ladies dance. Why don't they send the drones there?

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Because they don’t care.

        1. Utkonos   3 years ago

          Cuz they chew their underwear?

      2. Inigo Montoya   3 years ago

        Probably because it's not an easy place to find, if it exists at all.

        One time when I was in France, I enthusiastically bought a ticket for a performance by the "Barenaked Ladies" on tour. Come to find out they were fully-clothed men in a musical band, not women dancing in a state of undress. It turned out to be a good concert, but even the women dancing in the audience weren't naked.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          Lame. At least at the 80s hair metal concerts, you'd get to see a few hot sluts flash their titties.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            As of pre-covid, hard rock concerts still had that.

      3. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Because there's already a hole in the wall where the men can see it all.

    3. Ronbback   3 years ago

      Guess what the U.S. is doing the same the U.S. also use google maps satellite view

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Google Maps originated as a CIA investment via In-Q-Tel with Keyhole Earth Viewer, so they're just using what their own technology.

    4. mad.casual   3 years ago

      So the pool cleaning drones respond by starting #defundalldrones and #therearenoillegalpool campaigns and setting fire to minority-owned pools, right?

      I admit, this whole AI business has me as confused as Y2K.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Was at a new years party for y2k. A friend of mine snuck down to the breaker box, shut off all the power at midnight. Not everyone was as amused as we were.

    5. OTO Links   3 years ago

      thanks https://4u-review.com/set-forget-software-review/

  2. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

    "DOJ responds to Trump."

    LOL

    It's over. #TrumpDocuments is the biggest scandal in the history of the universe. He's going to prison for real this time.

    #WallsClosingIn

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   3 years ago

      Not so fast.

      I've been told that Durham is working on the biggest scandal in US history. Even Donnie-Boy said so. Mikey M has been updating H&R as info arrives.

      Not sure what it is about but it's likely bigger than even the Obama tan suit in the Oval Office scandal.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Chuck Colson of Watergate fame was sentenced to prison for possessing a single FBI file on a political rival.
        What's the penalty for a President employing the Director of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the FBI, the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on members of the opposition political party in an effort to ensure his former Secretary of State wins the Presidency?

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   3 years ago

          Too bad the Trump campaign was hip-deep in Russia collusion in 2016. It muddies things up.

          Trump "We need a back channel to the Kremlin".

          FBI - "We might need to look at these guys. Get a FISA warrant."

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

            If you, and the totally-beyond-reproach and Uber-ethical FBI, say so.

          2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            "Too bad the Trump campaign was hip-deep in Russia collusion in 2016."

            I've got something I want to show you, but first I'd like you to double-down on that statement.

            Can you repeat it for me?

          3. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

            You mean the collusion created by the FBI?

            It is fact that someone in the FBI manipulated DNS data to make it look like Trump had connections to a Russan bank (Alpha). It was a lie built in the house of the FBI. We should ALL be concerned about that.

            1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   3 years ago

              Trump campaign tried to set up an illegal back channel to the Kremlin.

              They didn't go through with it but the FBI was all over it.

              1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                Prove it.

                1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   3 years ago

                  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/the-push-for-a-trump-russia-back-channel-what-we-know.html

                  Kushner and Flynn secretly met with Kislyak in Trump Tower on December 1, 2016. Last spring the Washington Post reported that Kushner proposed using Russian diplomatic facilities in the U.S. to establish a back channel for communication between the Trump transition and the Russian government. U.S. intelligence intercepted Kislyak describing the request to his superiors.

                  1. DesigNate   3 years ago

                    Imagine using a news report that you planted to justify your fishing expedition.

                    This is why you hold the top spot as the dumbest motherfucker to post here.

                    1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

                      Joe Friday and Jeff hardest hit.

                  2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                    Is that illegal?

                  3. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                    Yeah, your 2018 article was proved to be bullshit four years ago.
                    Vnesheconombank said the meeting was business-related, in connection with Kushner's management of Kushner Companies. The WaPo itself even retracted some of the claims your outdated article was based on.

                    And I know you know that, but for some retarded reason you still think that you can trick everyone.

                2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                  By the way, creating a back channel is not evidence of collusion.

                  What were they colluding on?

          4. R Mac   3 years ago

            It’s not a guarantee that a pedophile will be a liar, but they’re more likely to be than others.

      2. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

        Brilliant sarcasm as usual, Mr. Buttplug. 🙂

        Can I just take a minute to marvel at your encyclopedic knowledge of Drumpf scandals? As we now know, #TrumpDocuments — which most of us found out about in August 2022 — is what finally sent him to prison ............ yet you knew about it in May 2021. That's more than a year in advance!

        #ButtplugHasTheBestIntel

      3. Super Scary   3 years ago

        "Not sure what it is about but it's likely bigger than even the Obama tan suit in the Oval Office scandal."

        Couldn't possibly be a bigger deal than Trump getting two scoops of ice cream or having bigger salt and pepper shakers than everyone else. Those are actual scandals and were widely reported because of their importance.

  3. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

    Texas is leading the way in fe. Ale equity

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Female*

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Are you a biologist?

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

          In grad school I did research for the bio chemistry department, does that help?

          1. DesigNate   3 years ago

            What was her name?

      2. Its_Not_Inevitable   3 years ago

        Thought it might be a new IPA: iron ale.

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

          Nah it would be a stout

          1. mad.casual   3 years ago

            Inclusion of lactose would make it an Imperial Stout.

            1. SRG   3 years ago

              No - it would make it a milk stout. Imperial stout is merely an unusually strong stout.

  4. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

    What? Nothing about abortion, our most cherished tradition?

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      It’s early in the day yet.

    2. Idaho Bob   3 years ago

      Hey, prostitution is mentioned!

  5. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

    Ahhh getting your trump news from CNN. It's not like their technical director said they spent the 4 years of his presidency making up stories.
    At least ENB can support the child nookie network.

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      Saw that. Didn’t click the link.

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Read about half the response. It was largely a political document used to back the affidavit abd its reactions. It used a lot of might and maybe and attempted to remove any defense Trump has offered with vague and novel claims. The picture of the classified documents was funny because it also included a magazine in the box that they took in the raid.

      The number of documents is about what was expected to be the number related to crossfire hurricane which makes the filing even more suspicious.

      And again no talks of nuclear secrets, one of the first narratives leaked.

      It is a political document and hopefully the judge laughs at it.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        It also undoes what the records act under NARA has been judicially discussed in the 2012 ruling for Clinton where the judge said the president and not NARA decides personal vs presidential documents. It also ignored that the act does not control copies of documents but original documents. If these were copies the and NARA has other copies of it, say digital ones, the act doesn't apply to the copies.

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          Margot Cleveland does a good job breaking down the records act here.

          https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/29/redacted-mar-a-lago-affidavit-confirms-bidens-doj-fished-for-a-crime-to-pin-on-trump/

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

            Indeed, after reading the article, I must concur that the DOJ is after the Crossfire Hurricane documents they were told to release to the public and failed to do so. The release would incriminate the DOJ and the FBI.

            1. Overt   3 years ago

              I don't know...something about this narrative bothers me.

              Why the fuck hasn't Trump released these documents? He has had almost 2 years. If he really did declassify them, he should be allowed to release them as he sees fit. But he still hasn't done it.

              This leads me to believe that there is nothing new to learn in those documents, and so there is no real reason for the FBI to get them.

              I think it is more likely that the FBI was merely on a fishing expedition to get Trump on anything they can. And to just harass him mercilessly.

              1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

                It’s all about the timing.

              2. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

                Declassified doesn't mean fit for public release. The government has all kinds of documents that are unclassified that the average drone isn't allowed to go publish.

              3. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

                Trump ordered the DOJ to release the Crossfire documents before he left office after having agreed to redactions requested by the DOJ. To date they have not released the documents despite being ordered to do so by a federal court in a civil suit. Other commenters have posted links here. If I can find it I'll post below.

              4. SRG   3 years ago

                1. They're not his documents to keep.
                2. We only have his word that they're declassified.
                3. If any citizen had classified documents at home that didn't belong to him, that he had not secured, and that he was resistant to handing back, do you really think that the FBI or DOJ would shrug their collective shoulders and say, "ah, well"? Or would they do a full-on dawn raid (unlike the soft-pedalled raid that we actually saw).

                1. Square = Circle   3 years ago

                  If any citizen had classified documents at home that didn't belong to him, that he had not secured, and that he was resistant to handing back, do you really think that the FBI or DOJ would shrug their collective shoulders and say, "ah, well"?

                  You mean exactly what they did with Hilary Clinton?

                  1. DesigNate   3 years ago

                    But remember, Comey explained that nobody in this country would try to charge her with anything even though he laid out exactly what she did illegally.

                  2. Terran   3 years ago

                    He said citizen, not ruling elite.

                  3. SRG   3 years ago

                    You mean exactly what they did with Hilary Clinton?

                    Yes, aside from being totally different. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

                    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

                      Yes, aside from being totally different.

                      Except it wasn't.

            2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

              October Surprise!!! One can dream...

          2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

            Actually since it happened in FL can trump file a federal lawsuit in the 11 circuit? Having the trial in FL would be a lot more fair than having the trial in dc

      2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        It's 54 pages long so it's something I'll get to later.

      3. Ronbback   3 years ago

        the picture was silly. any one can put top secret on a file and show a bunch of blanked out pages. thats not proof of anything and as past experience shows the FBI is not beyond lying and making things up and yes planting of evidence, at this point there is no reason to believe anything coming from the FBI and that is the FBI's fault not a MAGA cult conspiracy problem.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          No Trump Defense Syndrome to see here.

          1. Yatusabes   3 years ago

            There is a reason none of the gays send you messages on Grindr. Your Photoshop skills suck.

            Of course the photos of Trump's files are bogus. Its the FBI's attempt at catfishing

          2. DesigNate   3 years ago

            No dipshit, just abject hatred and distrust of the government apparatus used to fuck with citizens.

            But you wouldn’t understand because you’re not a big government moron.

          3. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

            Here's something you might not realize. For better or worse this is not about defending Trump per se. This defense would apply to all former Presidents. No one is saying these rules only apply to Trump.

    3. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   3 years ago

      Ahhh getting your trump news from CNN.

      Wingnut.com is the only reliable news source. Everyone knows that.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        Hey pedofile, the technical director (the guy responsible for the programming) said they made up stories for the trump presidency. They tell you they lie, so it is logical to call them liars. Same as its logical to call people that post child porn links discussing pedofies

      2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Is that where you get your smokeless tobacco inflation news?

      3. JimboJr   3 years ago

        no surprise BP shows up to play defense.

        After all, they keep finding pedophiles in the ranks of CNN. He's gotta look out for his cohorts.

  6. Jerryskids   3 years ago

    "In Texas, women's incarceration rates have increased dramatically over the past few decades—over 1000 percent since 1980."

    As a feminist, I applaud this blow for equality.

    1. Anomalous   3 years ago

      Lock her up. And her. And her.

    2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      Said this below, but it's arbitrary endpoints. HUGE spike in the 90s where it at least quintupled from 90-97. Since around 2002 it's leveled off with only gradual growth, approximately in line with the rate of population growth.

      So why look back 40 years when the past 20 years have been mostly stable? Narrative hunting. Looking to create a political narrative aimed at Governor Abbot, I would guess, even though this FAR predates his term.

    3. Eeyore   3 years ago

      But what about white women?

    4. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      Finally, some equality between the sexes.

      oops, there's no sex any more only 'identification' so we have to start over.

      1. Ronbback   3 years ago

        I've been looking for an answer to a question. If a man is imprisoned as a man but transitions to a woman while in prison couldn't that person then claim to not be the man who committed the crime and therefore must be released from prison.

        1. Stuck in California   3 years ago

          No, that would be wrong.

          You throw him... err her in the women's and then have her promise not to use her penis on the other women.

    5. NOYB2   3 years ago

      Next: bringing down life expectancy for women to match that of men! Equity demands it!

      1. MK Ultra   3 years ago

        Alec Baldwin is already on that.

  7. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

    Can anybody give examples of “potentially harmful content”?
    (Besides the stuff butplug is into)

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Speech is violence. Didn't you know that?

      1. Anomalous   3 years ago

        But so is silence.

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          Yes. The man who stops clapping first is always the traitor.

          1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

            That is why I never clap.

            1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

              But you HAVE the clap! Somehow, your magic underwear did NOT protect you from the clap!

              (I suspect cockpit error. NEVER take off your magic underwear, Chuck! Even when you get it up, Chuck! Oh by the way, what's up, Chuck?)

              1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

                You really are a fucking retard. What is wrong with you?

                1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

                  Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                  So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                  Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                  Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                  Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                  At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                  Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                  Thank You! -Reason Staff

                  1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                    Sqrlsy waves his white flag after being told to fuck off only once today?
                    The old troll must be ill.

                    1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

                      Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                      Fame and fortune awaits YOU, Oh Perfect One!!!

        2. Minadin   3 years ago

          And physical violence is 'mostly peaceful'.

      2. Brandybuck   3 years ago

        The wrong kind of speech is damaging to Ron DeSantis.

    2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      Orange Man Bad.

      1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

        Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

        We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

        He pussy-grab His creditors in 6 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

        All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

        Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

        Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

        We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!

        These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Orange Man Bad, Sqrlsy.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

            Don't kill his copy-pasta buzz.

        2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

          You know who doesn’t just talk about grabbing pussy?

          1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

            Rapists?

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Was that the Secret Service code name for Bill Clinton?

              1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

                https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-broomstick-one/

                Secret Service Agents Called Hillary Clinton’s Airplane ‘Broomstick One’?
                An Internet joke circulating since the early 2000s holds that U.S. Secret Service agents and military personnel refer to Hillary Clinton's aircraft as "Broomstick One."

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Anything that makes a pink-haired cross-gender socialist snowflake sad or mad. So, pretty much everything normal people might say.

      1. Ignore me!   3 years ago

        This^. For decades now, the left has been pushing the standard of "everything is bad if people in the correct victim categories say it is" (with "progressive" being the primary victim category) while also pretending that this makes perfect sense and is a completely workable standard instead of so subjective as to be meaningless. People can avoid racism if it's defined in a reasonable and relatively objective way. But no one can avoid racism (or any other "biased" behavior) if liking guacamole can be racist, or mowing your lawn, or going birdwatching, or expecting people to show up to work on time, or thinking math is a useful collection of abstract concepts that work in predictable ways to produce correct or incorrect answers and not something a white guy made up to oppress BIPOC people. The list goes on. By applying accusations of bias in an inconsistent, scattershot way, but mostly in a particular ideological direction, the left has made normal discourse practically impossible, with the only important conversation being what people should be accused of this week. Most people (of any category) are very aware that they could become targets if they're not careful.

        1. Utkonos   3 years ago

          Birdwatching is actually sexual harassment

    4. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      Facism. Also, Republicans are fascist, according to the White House Spokesperson. So all they have to do is censor any right-wing viewpoints.

      1. HorseConch   3 years ago

        Semi-Fascism has been steadily creeping in. Semi-Fascists are the new groomers.

        1. Ignore me!   3 years ago

          With Semi-Fascists, what's the other part? Doubleplusgood citizens, or merely unbad?

      2. Eeyore   3 years ago

        The new Biden definition of fascist is anybody who opposes thier fascist agenda.

        Don't try and figure it out until you can first unsuccessfully identify a woman.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Paging Crocodile Dundee.

          1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

            He can correctly identify knives

            1. Eeyore   3 years ago

              Being unable to correctly identify a gun magazine is a bonus qualification.

    5. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Content that's potentially harmful to the narrative du jour.

    6. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Anything that questions The Narrative (TM).

      1. Ersatz   3 years ago

        you must be a fan of the Critical Drinker youtube movie reviews

    7. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

      I'm uming they mean harm to the FBI for their actions which would cause people to distrust them and therefore jeopardize national security. Nice and tight ouroboros of "just trust us we're from your infallible government"

    8. Sometimes a Great Notion   3 years ago

      Flashing/stropping lights on an app?

  8. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

    "In Texas, women's incarceration rates have increased dramatically over the past few decades—over 1000 percent since 1980."

    As an LGBTQIA+ left-libertarian, I have two thoughts.

    1. Of course I want to #FreeTheCriminals and #EmptyThePrisons so Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch has a larger supply of cost-effective labor.

    2. However if women are going to be imprisoned, they absolutely must share cells and showering facilities with transwomen and their ladydicks. (Scott Shackford is also a staunch advocate of this arrangement.)

    #IntersectionalFeminism

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      In Texas, women's incarceration rates have increased dramatically over the past few decades—over 1000 percent since 1980.

      Just another example of women getting out into the workforce. Girls can, rob, murder and steal!!

      1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        And the biggest increase was from 91-99, with things being mostly stable since around 2002. Why include the outlier 90s in this, I wonder...

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          To make it look worse than it is. Prison population in all demographics went way up in the 1990s as the country finally did something about its crime problem. The men's population went up a lot too. Not the 1000 percent the women's population did. But the men's population was starting from a much higher base.

          1. SRG   3 years ago

            Except crime was dropping from about 1992 onwards - according to the Freakonomics guys, due in no small part to the "missing" generation post Roe.

            I wonder whether instead it was due to the expansion of the private prison industry, who found that investing in politicians was good for the ROE.

            1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

              Except crime was dropping from about 1992 onwards - according to the Freakonomics guys, due in no small part to the "missing" generation post Roe.

              Crime was dropping as more and more people went to prison. What a mystery. Do yourself a favor and Google "Fox Butterfield". Yes, crime went down in the 1990s as society finally put a lot of dangerous people in jail. Tyler Cowen is an idiot who doesn't understand causality.

              1. SRG   3 years ago

                https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-caused-crime-decline

                1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

                  That research is bullshit. It is based on the Marxist assumption that crime is caused by poverty and outside forces rather than human agency. All it shows is a correlation between abortions and a drop in crime. Correlation is not causation. The real causation is that we actually started punishing crime.

                  Why do you think those people went to prison? Was it just done by lottery or something? They went to prison because they committed crimes, some of them violent and some of them drug crimes. But, the people involved in the drug trade and drug use were also often criminals in other ways. So, when they went to prison for drugs, it also meant they were no longer committing the other crimes they committed.

                  Moreover, if you assume that people go to prison for committing crimes, the rise in prison population disproves the abortion theory. Why? Because if legal abortion really did cause fewer people to be criminals in society, then there would have been fewer people available to be locked up not more. The prison population rose because society took crime a lot more seriously. That in turn meant criminals were both unable to commit crimes because they were in prison or they were deterred from committing them when they were out of prison.

                  Just fucking stop it with this bullshit.

                  1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

                    That anyone would cite Freakonomics as some kind of authoritative sources shows how taken with trendy NYT listings most of the bougie class really is.

                    1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                      ""That research is bullshit. It is based on the Marxist assumption that crime is caused by poverty ""

                      And that gets repeated by people that think the rich are criminals.

                    2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                      Should have been under Briggs's comment.

                    3. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

                      If it is in a Ted Talk, it must be true, right Red Rocks?

            2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

              Except crime was dropping from about 1992 onwards - according to the Freakonomics guys, due in no small part to the "missing" generation post Roe.

              That's what they like to claim, but considering the stats on prisoners, I'm not so sure "crime dropped because the black people were aborting their kids on an industrial scale" is really the message the abortion lobby should be going for.

              1. DesigNate   3 years ago

                I’m too lazy to do it, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that more people are in government prisons vs. private prisons. But for leftist like SRG it’s always private actors faults and never government stooges using their government union to influence politicians.

                (For the retards, this is not a defense of the existence of private prisons)

                1. SRG   3 years ago

                  I'm not a leftist, peasant. I am merely aware that there's an important distinction between capitalism and capitalists.

    2. Claptrap   3 years ago

      You left out an I, shitlord.

      1. Claptrap   3 years ago

        And what about the two spirits? You don't get a pass on hate just because you added a plus. Sexual minorities matter.

    3. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Look, the rapes aren't happening and also, they are the cost of ending systemic trans-oppression

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        So, good for us?

  9. Jerryskids   3 years ago

    By "cleaning up its act" Google means banning Trump and Trump supporters from Truth Social.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Making the world safe for Democrats, er, democracy!

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        It's really the same! It's right there in the name! Anybody who likes democracy must be a Democrat, like everybody who likes community must be a communist and everybody who likes being social must be a socialist! Leftists are so clever in the names they pick for their mass murdering movements!

    2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Yet they allow Twitter, where a whistle blower just said they can and don't monitor child porn

  10. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

    Even though I believe life begins at conception, I have never supported total abortion bans because I think the difficulty of and invasions of privacy necessary to enforce such bans make them unjust and unwise. So, I have always been on the ban abortion near or just after viability camp. But the below article puts total abortion bans into a new light. It turns out that if you ban abortion entirely in your state, people like this woman don't move there. I don't think it is a good idea to have laws that can't be enforced. If having this last that can't be enforced means solving the problem of leftist douche bags moving to and then proceeding to ruin your state, well maybe this is one unenforceable law that is worth having.
    Bradford, 32, walked away from a $300,000 job based in Oklahoma out of concern for her health. She’s a strategic investment professional living in Los Angeles and was set to start working remotely for a company based in Oklahoma this month. But once Roe was overturned, and Oklahoma enacted its trigger law banning almost all abortions, Bradford says the uncertainty surrounding the state’s restricted reproductive care led her to pull out of the job altogether.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/18/how-roes-end-is-changing-millennials-career-plans-and-lives.html

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      She aborted a career opportunity.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        I don't think Oklahoma is going to miss her. Gee another crazy cat lady. Talk about dodging a bullet.

      2. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Family bad, state good. - mao and leftists

      3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        But was it a viable career?

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          Just a clump of job duties.

        2. HorseConch   3 years ago

          Not if she can't get instant abortion, I mean healthcare. Apparently, $300k isn't enough to afford out of state travel for "healthcare".

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      "Bradford, 32, walked away from a $300,000 job based in Oklahoma out of concern for her health. She’s a strategic investment professional living in Los Angeles and was set to start working remotely for a company based in Oklahoma this month. But once Roe was overturned, and Oklahoma enacted its trigger law banning almost all abortions, Bradford says the uncertainty surrounding the state’s restricted reproductive care led her to pull out of the job altogether."

      Oklahoma dodged a bullet there. Morons are not needed.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        So if she's working remote and staying in LA how does that effect her. Is she unable to take birth control? Is she incapable of having the guy wear a condom?

        1. damikesc   3 years ago

          Looking at her photo...beggars cannot be choosers.

          1. NOYB2   3 years ago

            FTFA: "What if she had a reproductive-related emergency during a trip to Oklahoma?"

            Seriously.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

              To be fair, in Oklahoma she's about a 7.

              1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

                Christ...ok...so I shan't be adding her to the spank rolodex.

                7 for Oklahoma is a 2 for California....and that's only because I haven't actually beheld her mug yet

          2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

            Please save me the trouble:

            Hot or Not?

    3. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      As an Arizona resident seeing my state starting to get taken over by idiot Californians, this is intriguing.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        It is isn't? We may have finally found a solution to the California problem.

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Note that two of the people interviewed are abortion maximalists--the "abortion up to the moment the infant's feet exit the birth canal" types who are about 20-25% of the population. They're saying that states like Virginia and Florida that have Europe-style abortion bans are too right-wing for them.

        Yeah, I suspect red states will benefit immensely if these people remain in their deep blue containment zones.

        1. JimboJr   3 years ago

          would be a massive benefit to the electoral college vote counting.

          All the psychos can stay in CA and NY, run up the vote totals there to record highs, and they can lose states like VA, GA, AZ, OH, etc. Would be pretty perfect. They can keep their little sanctuary shit city enclaves.

      3. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

        You don't like it, don't be in the lower 49

    4. Personcommenting   3 years ago

      It says she was going to work remotely for a company based in OK. If she is working remotely why does it matter what the OK abortion law is? She's in California.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Don't you virtue signal?

      2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        She's a strategic investment professional, not a critical thinking professional.

        1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

          ZING!!

      3. damikesc   3 years ago

        Which firm is she with so I can be sure to not invest with them?

        I'd rather not have a moron investment professional.

        1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

          Live, Laugh, Love, Light Investments

      4. mad.casual   3 years ago

        The personal health issue is rather flagrant B.S. Getting pregnant and aborting is more deleterious to a woman's health than not getting pregnant in the first place. At 32, in a $300K job, she's effectively saying she's worried her past time or cultural practice of getting pregnant and abortion, for longevity purposes, will be interrupted.

        1. mad.casual   3 years ago

          And, of course, her concern is for treatments for her condition that have nothing to do with abortion:

          Bradford has endometriosis, a painful chronic condition where tissue that normally grows inside the uterus grows on other parts of the reproductive organs. She’s managed her diagnosis by undergoing a dilation and curettage, or D&C, the same procedure used in many surgical abortions.

          She has also been prescribed a progesterone hormone, medically classified as contraception, to manage symptoms.

          Notably, it turns out that blindly scraping out a woman's uterus (D&C) isn't as effective as going in and diagnostically locating the problem and removing it.

          1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

            Treatment for endometriosis is not an abortion and does not involve a viable fetus and is legal in every state. Can we please stop making shit up?

          2. JimboJr   3 years ago

            "She’s managed her diagnosis by undergoing a dilation and curettage, or D&C, the same procedure used in many surgical abortions."

            And this is frank bullshit and a bad faith attempt to show concern for her ability to get 'normal healthcare'.

            First of all, many hospitals actually differentiate and call it a D&E (dilation and evacuation) when there is fetal tissue involved. That isn't the case 100% of the time, but that is the overall culture.

            That's not even to mention the very purposeful conflation of treatment for endometriosis vs an abortion. These people are grasping for the thinnest of straws here.

      5. NOYB2   3 years ago

        If she’s a remote employee in California with health insurance based in Oklahoma, which state’s laws would govern her health care? Would her insurance deny coverage of anything illegal in Oklahoma? What if she had a reproductive-related emergency during a trip to Oklahoma?

        I.e., on $300k/year, she's apparently too poor to pay for her abortions out of pocket.

        And who knows, some very desperate Oklahoma cowboy might actually have sex with her on a business trip, and then what would she do?

        1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

          Is she that ugly?

          1. NOYB2   3 years ago

            I think a "reproductive emergency" is highly unlikely.

            1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

              Thank you kind sir for that euphemism. That does make it all laughable

    5. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      On the positive side, our increased polarization has taught people about states and federalism. If enough states enact extreme policies (abortion, socialism, puritanism, bans on guns, speech, etc.) demographics and even casual travel will get more entertaining.

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        Casual travel was very entertaining during the Covid days. In some states you would swear we were battling the Black Death, in other states they never heard of a virus.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          But did the people see each other as Eloi and Morlocks then?

        2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

          One of the best was New Mexico where they treated travelers like they were smuggling in smallpox blankets.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

            I went to New Mexico and Montana during the pandemic, and the two states couldn't have been more different. Too bad the winters in Montana are so ball-numbing cold, that would be a sweet place to live.

            1. JimboJr   3 years ago

              Visited some friends in CA during the insanity. Man are those people out of their minds in that state.

    6. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      It turns out that if you ban abortion entirely in your state, people like this woman don't move there.

      That's what cause me to flip on abortions. I used to not care and lean on the side of less government intervention, but if it means fewer leftists seeking refuge in a state then I think it's a good idea.

    7. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

      One would think that Ms. Bradford could just use birth control, but maybe, even though she's looking at a $300,000/year job, too damn stupid to use it.

      1. mad.casual   3 years ago

        One would think that Ms. Bradford could just use birth control

        *Raises envelope to forehead, Johnny Carson-style*
        One might surmise that *Ms.* Bradford, a single, 32-yr.-old, rad-fem, investment banker probably has many, many reasons why she wouldn't need to use birth control at all.

        *clicks link*

        Hey-Oh!

        1. mad.casual   3 years ago

          Do I grab the envelope that raises the issue of whether she had an actual offer on the table for a job where the salary was actually $300K or whether she turned down an interview for a position that had the potential of $300K, with commission?

          1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

            No, she is ugly.

            1. mad.casual   3 years ago

              "Ed McMahon" already affirmed the answer with "Hey-oh!". Rendering the "She was/will be pregnant!" assertion as "Mostly false." With endometriosis pushing it to "Almost certainly false."

              I'm going to the other assertions of "She wouldn't be able to get treatment for her not-pregnancy!" (Mostly false) and "She left $300K/yr. on the table!"

              The last is unclear but given her strategic ability to step down from a position and walk away from the position she was going into without knowing that her treatment would be banned, I see no reason to assume she hasn't broken her 'mostly false' streak.

            2. Uilleam   3 years ago

              Why is it always the ones screaming the loudest are the least likely to get pregnant?

              1. Michael Ejercito   3 years ago

                Good question.

                Why are the loudest voices for gun control in low-crime neighborhoods?

      2. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        I bet Bradford is lucky to get laid once a year and has been on the pill since she was 15, if she is anything like the others of her ilk I have known. Yet, she wakes up every day worried she might need an abortion and won't be able to get one. If that is not the picture of neurosis, I don't know what is.

    8. NOYB2   3 years ago

      It turns out that if you ban abortion entirely in your state, people like this woman don't move there.

      I used to not care much about abortion laws either way. But this settles it: let's ban abortion from the moment of conception. If it keeps women like her from moving here, that's a really good thing.

    9. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      LOL--this genius gave up a job based in Oklahoma where she never had to actually set foot in Oklahoma, because it was a remote job. Sounds like everyone came out ahead on that one.

      Just take the pill or use Plan B if you want to raw-dog, you dumb bitch.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        This was an even better kicker: Bradford has endometriosis, a painful chronic condition where tissue that normally grows inside the uterus grows on other parts of the reproductive organs.

        If her reproductive organs are that fucked up, it sounds like she'd save herself a lot of anxiety by getting a hysterectomy and freezing her eggs for a surrogate if she decides she wants a kid later on.

  11. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Roundabout

    Biden to Republicans: You're either on the side of the mob or on the side of the police

    Now enjoy

    7 minutes of Democrats saying, “DEFUND THE POLICE.”

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Those mobs that burned, looted, and murdered their way through 2020 with Biden and the Democratic Party's support were not real mobs. They were mostly peaceful protestors silly.

      1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        And, of course, Antifa is just an idea; not a terrorist organization that kills people, burns police stations and attempts to burn down federal buildings, repeatedly.

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          That is right. And attacking federal court houses and federal law enforcement facilities is not an insurrection. Walking around the Capitol building for an hour after the Capitol Police let you in is an insurrection.

      2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        You're racist for remembering them. It's always been the Republicans who supported mobs. Or something.

    2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   3 years ago

      Now enjoy

      Been posting more Goebbels today?

      I know you've taken up his propaganda.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        You were just devestated to find out he was a socialist, huh? Don't worry, it's just one more thing you you have in common with your dear Mr. Soros' history.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   3 years ago

          When you lick up Nazi propaganda do you wear one of their cool uniforms?

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            I don't know, do you? Maybe ask George. I bet he's still got his Hitler Youth outfit.

    3. mad.casual   3 years ago

      Analogously off-topic: Warner Bros. murders woke Batgirl film, tosses corpse into volcano, turns around and slam dunks Harry Potter game, selling out in minutes despite SJW boycott campaign.

  12. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

    Hmm, another day without an anti-DeSantis link. 🙁

    Remember, Koch-funded libertarians, your benefactor Charles Koch wants you to attack Liz Cheney's only rival for the 2024 GOP nomination.

    #LizCheney2024

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Satan?

    2. HorseConch   3 years ago

      I'm guessing that the internal polling has her so far ahead that they don't need to waste the keystrokes. No way that Deathsantis could beat the New Lincoln in an election.

  13. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Roughup

    No Whites Allowed: Pfizer Fellowship Flagrantly Violates the Law, Lawyers Say

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Say lawyers or anyone who can read and has seen the Civil Rights Act.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        The Civil Rights Act is racist! (by not enshrining anti-racist racism)

    2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      I keep saying it, Woke = Racists. It's amazing how rich white people think they need to be racists towards white people to help blacks. The level of derp is amazing.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        There's zero difference between the establishment elites racism towards working class whites, and the eighteenth century French aristocracy's disdain for the peasants and parvenus.

        After 200 years on the back benches the second estate is back, baby.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Yes, and I bet the elite whites see themselves as a race distinct from the unwashed whites.

          1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

            Seems that way. Look at the way liberal white elites talk about whites in fly over country.

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              WTF dude? I wash.

        2. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

          And between the white planters' disdain toward poor whites in the antebellum South. They're much the same types of people.

      2. JesseAz   3 years ago

        They also have to be racist to PoC by being white saviors since they believe PoC are incompetent and lazy.

        1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

          Of course they are Jesse. You cannot expect POC to understand how to get a drivers license or state ID.

        2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

          They aren't?
          As I learned from the Smithsonian African American museum poc don't care about their family, don't believe in working, don't believe in objective reality, and have a seperate math system that takes out all the stuff like arithmatic

  14. damikesc   3 years ago

    "The situation echoes concerns over the right-leaning social media platform Parler, which was banned from app stores (though only temporarily from Apple's) for alleged indifference to posts from January 6 rioters. Many conservatives accused the tech companies of liberal bias and potentially illegal conduct."

    Given that the concerns were provably false (Parler reached out to the Feds about such posts before 1/6), seems like a valid concern.

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      There's no probably about it. In both cases, it's an obvious pretext to suppress political opposition (and a rival company).

      Also, IIRC, the J6 people actually did more planning on Facebook than on Parler.

  15. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Routine

    Biden:"Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels 5 times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun."

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      I don't understand why we don't just send Ukraine a few dozen AR 15s. They are such super weapons, the Russians wouldn't stand a chance.

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        Once they see their comrades get their lungs blown out, it will be game over.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Sorry, that's 9mm.

          1. HorseConch   3 years ago

            By lefty standards, I have enough firepower in my safe to wipe out all of Russia, all of North Korea, and 2/3 of China.

          2. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

            Sorry, that's 9mm.

            Not according to SleepyJoe.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              "President Joe Biden said a 9mm bullet "blows the lung out of the body" while discussing options on gun legislation on Monday, prompting some to suggest he was calling for handguns to be banned.

              Biden made the remarks while speaking to reporters outside the White House, a day after he and first lady Jill Biden visited Uvalde, Texas, and comforted families grieving the 19 children and two teachers who were killed in a mass shooting at an elementary school last week."

              May, 2022

              1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

                Whoops. My bad.

                1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

                  No worries. Hard to keep up with all the gun tips coming from Uncle Joe.

      2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

        "President Biden pushed back against opponents of his proposed assault weapons ban on Tuesday saying “right-wing” Americans would need “an F-15” to “fight against the country,” in remarks meant to convey there are limits to Second Amendment rights."

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/30/foes-proposed-assault-weapons-ban-would-need-f-15-/

        Really? The Taliban didn't. It's not good when the Commander in Chief does understand the outcome of war he supported from the beginning as a Senator.

    2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      But it's Trump that lies about literally everything.

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        Is he a liar if he believes what he says?

        1. damikesc   3 years ago

          Don't think "blithering moron" is preferrable to a liar.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            What’s sarc got to do with this?

          2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            "Bombastic buffoon" always comes to mind when I think of the former president. But not liar.

            1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

              Unfiltered elitist. Such people often say the first thing that pops into their head because no one has dared to contradict them for most of their lives. Luckily, he wasn't trying to force things on us for our own good and the invisible hand and the Constitution stayed his selfish tendencies.

              Being opposed continually made him a much better candidate than Uncle Joe.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                Bombastic buffoon, unfiltered elitist. Tomato, tomahto.

              2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                Being opposed continually made him a much better candidate than Uncle Joe.

                If by "better" you mean "less shitty" then I suppose so. But that's like arguing over a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich as far as I'm concerned. I choose none of the above. I'll reregister to vote when I have someone to vote for. I'm all done playing the game of voting against the worst candidate. It's always a compromise with evil, and in any such compromise evil always wins.

                1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                  There might be something to be said for voting for the lesser of two evils, but certainly not in the case where one lives in a red or blue state where your vote is not going to make any difference, anyway.

                  I know there are people who live in swing states, but I never have: I've lived in a deep blue state (California) most of my life, and now live in a deep red state. There is no reason whatsoever for me to signal any approval for either the Democrats or Republicans.

                2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                  If by "better" you mean "less shitty" then I suppose so. But that's like arguing over a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich as far as I'm concerned.

                  For a moment there, above, you diverged from the talking points. But then it's right back to spouting this particular line you have been sharing as gospel for years even now that it has been proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt. A President can be a contemptuous asshole and still be better. An opposed Trump was demonstrably much better for freedom & liberty than an unopposed Biden, not just less shitty. Trump would have been better in a second term.

                  You and your symbiote, White Mike, need to wake the fuck up and understand that team Blue is busy wiping out the possibility of any future for our children that does not include the collapse of the dollar. Team Red may be fine with the public paying for a ton of shit they get no real benefit from, but they are not winning by promising free shit to drifters and flat out saying they are going to steal it from earners.

                  in any such compromise evil always wins.

                  Pure solipsism. You are ignoring the part where millions of actual taxpayers could have won as well.

                  1. Ewald Von Kleist   3 years ago

                    that's true.. the US Federal gummint incurred massively less debt when Team Red were last in charge of the legislature and the executive! Make Taxpayers Great Again!

        2. JesseAz   3 years ago

          Deflect. Defend.

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            You're getting pissy because you think I'm deflecting to defend Trump?

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              You're getting pissy because Biden said something crazy and you can't figure out a way to justify it.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                When have I ever tried to justify anything that idiot said?

          2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

            Dissemble, deflect, distract. The lie comes first, then the 'that's not what I said', then the movement of goalposts if not a complete non sequitur.

            There is a playbook.

            1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

              You do realize that I was talking about your Lord and Master, Godking Trump?

              1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                Flail some more, spazassmic, I wasn't replying to you.

                The fact that you read anything I have ever written as an endorsement of DJT is all I need to know to dismiss your commentary out of hand. You engage in every behavior for which you accuse others. Go gaslight someone else.

            2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

              By the way, you got JesseAz's playbook wrong.

              Deliberately misinterpret what someone says, call them a liar when they try to clarify, then keep attacking them personally until the topic of discussion is forgotten.

              1. R Mac   3 years ago

                Poor sarc.

              2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                "Deliberately misinterpret what someone says, call them a liar when they try to clarify"

                Like that time you got drunk and posted all sorts of crazy shit and then swore you'd been hacked?

              3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                "then keep attacking them personally until the topic of discussion is forgotten."

                Like you did in the comment immediately proceeding this one where you called me a Trump worshiper?

        3. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          Probably not. Though it's its own issue, and really showcases that Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect I am always blathering on about.

    3. JimboJr   3 years ago

      I love that every time a democrat opens their mouth about guns they appear to be trying to prove they know nothing about guns

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Yeah, but every time a Democrat says anything about guns, all other Democrats hear "this proves that guns are so bad they must be confiscated immediately!"

    4. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Jeff will be by shortly to again claim Biden has never called for gun control.

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        Akshually, he didn’t call for control.
        He called for confiscation.

        1. Uilleam   3 years ago

          Tomato tomahto...

    5. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Hmmm perhaps I should point out that the ar15 has a muzzle velocity of ~2100 fps, while the Weatherby 400 has a muzzle velocity of ~3200 fps. Oh well I guess we have to believe biden

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        We choose truth over facts.

      2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        You know who else has a problem with muzzle velocity?

  16. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Number one is that the situation looks likely to resolve itself soon enough. Google said it has raised its concerns with Truth Social, and the two companies are working to resolve the issue. Trump Media & Technology Group said in a statement: "It is our belief that all Americans should have access to Truth Social no matter what devices they use. We look forward to Google approving Truth Social at their earliest convenience."

    Google brought up 2 major issues with moderation. Violence and sexual images. Truth social has a no sexual postings policy. They remove threats. Do you know which companies often don't? IG and Twitter.

    This is a political position from Google. Stop pushing narratives that are obvious lies. And no I didn't sign up for TS like Mike did.

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Meanwhile, these companies are also hammered for not doing enough to stop dangerous, misleading, or violent content, including content on apps that appear in app stores.

      Often by government which would make policies changes under threats liable to the 1a.

      Do you see the problem yet?

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        Doesn't the government clamping down on "misleading content" just give the civil libertarian in you a warm fuzzy feeling? I mean what could possibly go wrong?

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Dude, if the government can't turn online speech into a safe space for sensitive (i.e. progressive liberal-friendly) people, then why have one?

        2. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

          Google is the real victim here.

      2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        Come on Jesse. It's just coincidence that government and social media have identical policies. It's not like the POTUS told the world during a press conference that he sent a list of content to FB to remove.

    2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      In effect, tightly controlling its app store may get Google in legal and political trouble. But not tightly controlling its app store may also get Google in legal and political trouble.

      It's clearly a problem with both sides. I mean, one side is pushing for Big Tech to act as a government arm to censor things they don't like. The other side is pushing companies to not be censorious in the name of free speech. BOTH SIDES.

      1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        The second side is WORSE!!! They're icky conservatives that don't trust the almighty government. - ENB & Reason Editors

        1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

          And I'll be honest: if there was NO government force trying to use social media to censor things they don't like, I'd likely have issues with the government trying to punish social media companies for removing content they don't like. But since we've got plenty of evidence of major federal entities trying to silence speech they dislike with veiled threats, the pushback is completely necessary.

          A far preferable outcome would be government keeping its fingers out of the social media world entirely but that ship has already sailed. I don't know if we can ever find that safe harbor again. It's overall very shitty, but I'm in favor of the government NOT forcing big companies to serve as propaganda arms by dictating what they should call disinformation.

          1. Sometimes a Great Notion   3 years ago

            This. That's why I am excited to see how the Alex Berenson case against the Biden Admin shakes out. He won, rightfully so, his case against Twitter on contract law grounds, not 1st A like Praeger's stupid lawsuit relied on.

            This is what I've been waiting for. No public town-square ruling, no 1st amendment rights being forced on private companies. Just plan old contract law being enforced, followed by a lawsuit against the government for violating civil rights, followed by a criminal prosecution of those responsible (hopefully the last one does happen).

            1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

              Nobody is going to get far suing Google, Twitter, Facebook or any other media that gives away user accounts for free on contract grounds. Those social sites have 100% of the negotiating power in what their user contract says.

              1. Sometimes a Great Notion   3 years ago

                Alex Berenson just did and won his case and is back on Twitter. And his going to sue the Biden admin for them demanding Twitter take action against him, which he learned through discovery with Twitter.

                1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                  And I’ll bet whatever grounds he won on has been fixed by Twitter’s lawyers by now

                  1. R Mac   3 years ago

                    Cite?

                2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                  Yeah, so just read up on his case. Twitter settled and reinstated his account, so didn’t hinge on anything related to contract.

                  1. R Mac   3 years ago

                    Wow, you’re being dumb on purpose again.

                    1. DesigNate   3 years ago

                      He’s not being dumb, he’s just a disingenuous cunt.

            2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

              And I should say by the way, I totally support Berenson in suing the _government_. If the government has been coercing Twitter or Facebook, then Twitter and Facebook are _victims_ of censorship. Berenson should be suing the perpetrators, not fellow victims.

              1. Cyto   3 years ago

                Who told you to say that?

                Where do you get such mind-numbingly stupid talking points?

                "He never should have sued the people who censored him so that he could find the proof that the Biden administration was behind it all! He should have just sued the Biden administration!!!"

                Are you even self-aware enough to realize how stupid that position is?

                Even someone being paid to troll the internet, day after day, pushing a partisan narrative in discussions of every stripe in order to muddy the waters and prevent discourse on issues outside the partisan narrative would have to possess enough of an intellect to have some self-reflection, wouldn't they? Wouldn't such a person eventually come to realize what they actually are?

          2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

            We have evidence of efforts to silence speech they dislike. Not so much on the evidence of any veiled threats.

            This is the part of Ken's narrative that he just assumed, but never proved. If social networking companies tend to be liberally biased (and there is evidence that they do tend that way), they don't need to be threatened; they will comply of their own free will. That sucks, but it also means that they are exercising their right of free speech when they refuse to carry someone's posts.

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              The Democrats never threatened social media with anything?

            2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

              And FBI agents showing up to talk with Mark Zuckerberg, personally, was just a friendly neighborhood visit. Nothing to be concerned about, fellow citizen.

              1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

                Quoting Zuckerberg: “the FBI came to us - some folks on our team”

                How did that turn into the FBI coming to Zuckerberg, personally.

        2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

          The progressives attacking and imprisoning members of the opposition party is bad, because the conservatives might do it when they get power

          1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

            Republicans could pounce.

      2. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        According to reason, trying to get corporations with tens of millions of users to express whatever opinions they want is "anti free speech" but having a few corporations voluntarily do the bidding of the government to censor unpopular points of view is the "pro free speech" position. yeah, that makes sense.

        1. Quicktown Brix   3 years ago

          The issue is whether the response to a problem of crony-capitalism (where a few corporations host most speech also do the bidding of the government and suppress conservative speech) is to buckle down on more state power over corporations or hope the market prevails and free speech platforms take over. I'd much prefer the latter, but doubt it is a realistic possibility.
          Still, Reason's position makes libertarian sense. The constitution guarantees you free speech, but not free speech on Twitter. And the libertarian default response is less regulation, not more.

          1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

            Reason's position would make libertarian sense, if you ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the corner with the "agent of the government" sign. There is irrefutable evidence that these companies have been acting at the behest of the government to censor things like skepticism of the COVID vaccine and God knows what else. When they do that, they are no longer private actors, they are government agents.

            When you have a platform that is this large, they are effectively a common carrier and should be treated as one. You wouldn't let the phone company refuse service to people based on their opinions. The same is true here. Also, 230 immunity was granted to them on the assumption that they would not censor their users beyond taking down illegal content when requested. That assumption held true for a while but no longer does. If these platforms want to claim the right to have total control over what is put on them, then they should have to assume the corresponding responsibility of being responsible for that content. So, you don't repeal 230. You just amend it and make it such that any platform with over say a million users must engage in content neutral policies in order to avail themselves of the protection.

            1. mad.casual   3 years ago

              You just amend it and make it such that any platform with over say a million users must engage in content neutral policies in order to avail themselves of the protection.

              A.K.A. literally picking winners and losers.

              Your position is/was the default setting prior to S230. A BBS host had no obligation to honor anything from the FBI or any other LEO that wasn't a warrant (and a warrant used to require probable cause of a crime). Anything else was a contractual violation/tort for the courts to decide. The court decisions may not have always shaken out on the side of liberty, but they wouldn't necessarily have abrogated the role of the judiciary and the BOR writ large.

              From being a law passed by Congress to the "Good Samaritan" to the "blocking and screening of obscene material" to the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, S230, whether it was intended to or not, stands exactly athwart the 1A. Giving Congress finer control over the number of users they censor and the degree of their Good Samaritanness does not right the wrong.

              1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

                A.K.A. literally picking winners and losers.

                How is that picking winners and losers? Are we picking winners and losers when we don't let the phone companies or the power companies cut off service because they don't like someone's politics? I don't think so.

                From being a law passed by Congress to the "Good Samaritan" to the "blocking and screening of obscene material" to the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, S230, whether it was intended to or not, stands exactly athwart the 1A. Giving Congress finer control over the number of users they censor and the degree of their Good Samaritanness does not right the wrong.

                Section 230 was not totally off base. The strict liability nature of copyright law made social media platforms virtually impossible to run. Without 230, anytime a user posted copyrighted material, the platform would be responsible for statutory damages to the owner of the copyright. Section 230 was created to allow social media platforms the ability to avoid liability for material posted by their users provided they took the illegal material down when the owner or the government requested them to do so. If you really did repeal 230, the resulting copyright suits would likely put all of these platforms out of business.

                It might be that the solution is to do something about the absurd nature of copyright law and just amend that to make it more reasonable. Even if you did that, however, you still have the problem of a very few companies having almost total control of what can and cannot be said in the public square. That is not good for the country or for freedom. There are more threats to freedom than just the government. The best solution is to recognize these large platforms what they are, the modern day public square and prevent these companies from censoring unpopular opinions. Do that and then when the government comes along and asks them to be a private agent of censorship, they can say "sorry but you are asking us to do something that is illegal".

                1. mad.casual   3 years ago

                  How is that picking winners and losers? Are we picking winners and losers when we don't let the phone companies or the power companies cut off service because they don't like someone's politics? I don't think so.

                  First, you're inverting history. We protected phone carriers without S230. Second, Title II/Common (or Public) Carrier dates back to pre-Industrial times and applies regardless of the carrier's size: strictly on whether the costs of loss are covered by the consumer or the State/Crown. The only reason you feel the need to parse based on size is because tech giants have been allowed to skirt the distinction under S230. We let privately-owned companies grow massive without IPOs, there's no reason why a company with 200 customers can't decide to go public. The analogy applies to Title II.

                  Section 230 was not totally off base. The strict liability nature of copyright law made social media platforms virtually impossible to run.

                  Again, inverted history along with a red herring. The word 'copyright' appears nowhere in section 230. You're conflating the DMCA passed in 1998, with the CDA passed in 1997. In order for carriers to be held liable as motivation for S230, the DMCA would've had to pass before the CDA.

                  It might be that the solution is to do something about the absurd nature of copyright law and just amend that to make it more reasonable. Even if you did that, however, you still have the problem of a very few companies having almost total control of what can and cannot be said in the public square.

                  Again, this falsely assumes the primacy of S230 or backwards lens of history. You can repeal S230 without changing copyright law. It can even be done without breaking up big tech. Repeal S230 and, like AT&T, CenturLink, Verizon, and Comcast, Google et al. can either become a Title II and say "sorry but you are asking us to do something that is illegal" or face liability to its users and customers and eat the costs themselves.

                  1. mad.casual   3 years ago

                    In order for carriers to be held liable as motivation for S230, the DMCA would've had to pass before the CDA.

                    And, in fact, the opposite occurred both legally and procedurally. The CDA passed, the DMCA passed, and then p2p sites were shut down by private lawsuits for the actions of their users.

            2. Quicktown Brix   3 years ago

              "There is irrefutable evidence that these companies have been acting at the behest of the government to censor things like skepticism of the COVID vaccine and God knows what else."
              Agreed. It is sickening.

              So the decision is stick to libertarian principles or fight corrupt government with more government power; stick to your principles and (almost definitely) lose or fight fire with fire and hope to not burn.

              BTW, I think a phone company should be able to refuse service to people for whatever reason they want, especially in the age of mobile phones.

              1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

                So the decision is stick to libertarian principles or fight corrupt government with more government power; stick to your principles and (almost definitely) lose or fight fire with fire and hope to not burn.

                Yes, the solution is to make it illegal for them to censor views. Then the government can't ask them to do it. As long as they can, the government will continue to ask and they will continue to comply in at least some cases. Sorry but hoping the government gets less corrupt isn't a plan. It is a wish.

              2. mad.casual   3 years ago

                BTW, I think a phone company should be able to refuse service to people for whatever reason they want, especially in the age of mobile phones.

                You are free to set up your own private phone network. Google set one up on its Mobile View campus as part of it's attempt to break the mobile networks carrier-hardware vendor lock.

                1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

                  yeah, build your own phone company. That is a realistic solution for people with unpopular views who get censored. Get the fuck out of here.

            3. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

              ""When they do that, they are no longer private actors, they are government agents.""

              Like when you doctor want to know about your gun collection.

          2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

            And the free market should be solving it. It's not the free market's fault that TRUTH Social seems to be run by incompetents.

      3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Unregulated speech is racist! Even if nobody says anything racist. Which is impossible, since silence is racist.

      4. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        "The other side is pushing companies to not be censorious in the name of free speech."

        It is an inherent and important part of free speech to be able to refuse to facilitate speech on or using one's private property. What you call "not being censorious" is being compelled to pay the hosting bills to spread right-wing misinformation and hate speech.

    3. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      Interesting. There is a lot of porn on Twitter. So, so much porn.

      1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        Wait, where?! I'm completely missing out on it.

        Guess I need to subscribe to more than Three Year Letterman and How Things Are Made.

  17. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Rigging

    WHEN THE MONKEES launched their inaugural tour in 1967, they played to throngs of screaming teenagers – and at least one FBI informant.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      If your organization doesn't have at least one FBI informant, can it really be called an organization?

      1. mad.casual   3 years ago

        *Sheds tear over immediate-family + 1 followers on Twitter.*

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          It is cute you think none of your family is an FBI informant.

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Reading Chaos by Tom O'Neil. COINTELPRO (FBI) and CHAOS (CIA) were two federal programs that have a lot of similarities to what is going on against groups currently. They had many ties to Hollywood and the music industry as well.

      History seems to be repeating itself.

      1. Stuck in California   3 years ago

        >many ties to Hollywood

        Weren't Chaos the bad guys in Get Smart?

        Makes you think!

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          Close. They were K.A.O.S.

          1. DivideByZero   3 years ago

            In Inspector Gadget, it was M.A.D. which was headed by Dr. Claw.

            What were we talking about again?

            1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

              Burritos.

    3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      One?

    4. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      "The suit was filed on Dolenz’s behalf by attorney Mark S. Zaid, an expert in Freedom of Information Act litigation. He was also a key part of the team that represented the government whistleblower in the 2019 Donald Trump/Ukraine scandal, which set the stage for Trump’s first impeachment."

      Wait, are they for Freedom! or against it?

      1. HorseConch   3 years ago

        Depends on how they view US policy in Ukraine.

    5. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      Wow. Really cool that Dolenz is pursuing these corrupt assholes. Having said that, the only Monkee with any actual musical talent was Nesmith who actually made a couple of good records under his own name.

  18. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Rider

    Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman signed pledge to ban fracking

    Buttplug says that this is impossible

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Now if only the monkey pox task force could get the government to ban fucking.

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      By all existing evidence the dude is batshit crazy and a threat to civilization. Pennsylvania meet your new senator The Honorable John Fetterman!

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

        (D)

  19. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Rollover

    Biden Says The Military Can Obliterate The Second Amendment

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      The man is clearly ill.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        With a type of dementia that reveals his core values (and just happens to align with the DNC agenda).

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      I love how Reason is not concerned about Biden's REPEATED threats to use the military against political rivals.

      I think "We will use the military to kill you" is several levels worse than mean tweets, but YMMV.

      And thank you for providing useful links.

      1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        Ditto ML, appreciate the real links.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          How can we get Reason to pay ML to do the daily Roundup?

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

            To be fair, he threw in a sex worker link... that qualifies him right there.

          2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

            A fucking Canuck? You can’t be serious!?

            JK. Haha

        2. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

          I liked the Reason Reach Around better but the Reason Rollover still beats the Reason Links. I'm starting a commenter's referendum for new Reason Senior Editor: Mother's. Who's on board here? Yeah he lives in the great frozen wilderness to our north but he can still do the cocktail parties on Zoom.

          1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

            Leave the cocktail parties out of it. They seem to really fuck people up.

      2. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        No shit. Can you imagine the reason reaction if Trump has said that the military could destroy the Democratic Party. Biden says it about the Republican Party and it is either a nonstory or if they cover it, it will be a "Republicans pounce" story about how Republicans are taking advantage of a Biden "gaffe" whatever that is.

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          The full narrative on the left keeps escalating with media like MSNBC and democrats calling the right terrorists.

          1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

            Yes. It is I think a sign of desperation on their part. They can't win the argument and they know they have fucked up everything since they have been in power. So, they are just going to try to declare anyone who notices that a terrorist. It is incredibly destructive and dangerous but it is not like these people give a shit about the country or won't resort to any means necessary to stay in power.

            1. JimboJr   3 years ago

              that playbook on display from the schoolboard hearings should have been a loud and clear warning to everyone

            2. Hank Ferrous   3 years ago

              I am less certain than you. Jesse says deflect/defend above, he left out demonize and dehumanize. The left/progressives generally don't view people outside of their in-group as people, but at best as labels. Then, I suspect they don't see anybody except through the lens of a label and their biases.

              1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

                I agree with you. I just think that they are dropping the mask because they are afraid they are losing power.

      3. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

        It's highly disconcerting that Biden has repeatedly threatened force. That's far more fascistic than anything done by the other side whom Biden is calling "semi-fascist".

        BTW, thanks for the links Reason won't link.

      4. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

        And is currently using the DOJ, FBI, and ATF against political rivals.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          Dems have been doing that since at least 2016. Reason hasn’t cared the last six years, why would they now?

    3. JimboJr   3 years ago

      "brave right wing Americans who say its all about keeping America independent and safe, if you want to fight against the country you need an F-15. You need something a little more than a gun."

      And I would like to reiterate, our govt would have loved to do COVID camps like Australia did. You know what the difference is? Ill give you a hint, its not the F15's half the country owns for self defense. Sometimes preventing govt tyranny means making a nanny state lowling think twice before violating your freedoms

    4. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      How many F-15s did the Taliban have?

      1. JimboJr   3 years ago

        ^this.

        I dont know how many handguns and rifles you could buy for the cost of an F15, but I can bet you could produce one hell of a guerilla assault with that many weapons.

        1. Stuck in California   3 years ago

          Did nobody watch Red Dawn in the 80s?

      2. HorseConch   3 years ago

        I don't know how many they had, but they currently own quite a few.

      3. damikesc   3 years ago

        Now, they have plenty. Before, not any.

      4. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        There's a good post I saved once I reply to this F-15 nonsense when Swallwell said something similar. I'm afraid that I forgot who originally wrote it:

        Listen, I'm going to try and explain it.

        A totalitarian government wants control of humans, not irradiated glass. You can't control an entire country and it's people with nukes, tanks, jets, battleships, drones or anything that idiots like Swalwell think trumps citizen ownership of firearms.

        Nukes, tanks, drones and battleships can not stand on street corners and enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet can't kick down your door at 3 AM and search for contraband.

        None of these things, especially nukes, can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave a nation. A government doesn't want to kill everyone and blow up it's own infrastructure. These are the things it needs to be a tyranny in the first place. If they used nukes on everything outside of DC, they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of crap.

        Police are always needed to maintain a police state. Boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground, they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians, which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons, while the people have nothing but their own limp dicks.

        BUT, when every pedestrian has a Glock, and every homeowner has an AR-15, all that goes right out the window, because the Stasi are now outnumbered and face the real possibility of defeat.

        If you want living examples, look at every insurgency the US military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing more than AK-47's, pickup trucks and improvised explosives, because the big, scary military machines are all but useless in dealing with them.

        1. HorseConch   3 years ago

          Look at how all of Assad's weapons worked in Syria. The resistance didn't have jack squat for arms compared to the government, but it forced a very prolonged fight. They had outside help, but by the left's theory, it should have been over in about 8 hours.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

            ISIS was mostly squashed due to an largely uncoordinated (save for air deconfliction in some areas) international effort between the US, GCC nations, Iranian militias, Russia, Syria, Kurds, and a few scattered anti-Assad Syrian Arabs.

            The "international coalition" that included a bunch of European nations was, to be blunt, largely window-dressing. Those guys spent more time fucking around with open-source materials and playing tag-along for recce flights than doing anything substantive.

    5. Quicktown Brix   3 years ago

      "Biden Says The Military Can Obliterate The Second Amendment"

      Except he didn't. What he said is bad enough. There's no reason for hyperbole. What he said is the the military makes the 2nd amendment irrelevant.

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

        What Biden said is fallacious. The implication is that the 2A is anachronistic and worthless for the purpose of citizens independently acting as a check on the government that is not representing them. He is wrong.

        In fact, citizens have even built tanks to take on the government.

        1. Michael Ejercito   3 years ago

          Then why does not the military make the 5th amendment irrelevant?

          Why do we need civilian courts to judge guilt when we can have military commissions?

        2. R Mac   3 years ago

          One of the best stories ever.

        3. Quicktown Brix   3 years ago

          "What Biden said is fallacious."
          I agree completely.

        4. Super Scary   3 years ago

          I knew about this (from a Cracked article way back) but I didn't know this particular detail. Pretty hardcore stuff -
          "According to authorities, once he’d sealed himself inside the cockpit, it would have been impossible for him to have gotten out — and they don’t believe he ever wanted to."

  20. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Rapproachment

    "Paging Professor Nolan-Brown"

    How an Unqualified Sex Worker Allegedly Infiltrated a Top Air Force Lab

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      "A senior research scientist working on advanced propulsion technologies for the U.S. Air Force duped a contractor into hiring an unqualified sex worker he had paid using a government charge card because he thought she was “really hot,” according to the feds."

      Sounds pretty qualified to me.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Fuckin' LOL that this guy used his GTC to buy a hooker. Bitch, did you really not understand that they track your purchases even if you pay the card on time?

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      This article could be about Kamala Harris.

      1. Stuck in California   3 years ago

        she was “really hot,”

        Nope. Not her.

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Willie Brown wants to fight you now.

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      Yet, Gord, who allegedly told Roy he paid the woman $400 an hour for her services, claimed to be in love with her and said she felt the same about him.

      Dude... duuuuude. Need to point this guy to the Reason interview with the sex worker-cum-data analyst.

    4. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      What exactly are the required qualifications for a sex worker?

  21. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Ripple

    ATF Agents Attempt ‘Solvent Trap’ Confiscation, Man Tells Them To Get a Warrant [VIDEO]

    Agent #2: “We’re not trying to be jerks here.”

    Man: “You are though…”

    Agent #2: “But we’re not.”

    Man: “You’re the ATF.”

    Man: “I know everything about your job. All it is, is to erode the 2nd Amendment.”

    Agent: “Please tell me…”

    Man: “Shall not be infringed.”

    Agent: “So, uh, violent, uh, criminals with guns that we take off the street – “

    Man: “Oh, like at Waco?”

    Man: “Or at Ruby Ridge?”

    Agent: “Oh gosh.”

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Cops are generally stupid and lazy. They depend on the public being even more stupid and more lazy and giving up their rights and letting cops search or in some cases just confessing. If you don't consent to a search and don't answer any questions, most cops will be pissed but walk away and find easier marks.

      1. damikesc   3 years ago

        My biggest annoyance is with traffic stops, courts allow them to use dogs to generate probable cause, even though I have serious doubts that the dog won't just alert on literally anything.

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          The entire Carol doctrine is complete bullshit. The courts decided unilaterally that you don't have an expectation of privacy in your car and thus it was okay to search your car without a warrant. That is complete bullshit. If they arrest you, they have a right to do a search incident to arrest. If they don't have probable cause to arrest you, they should have to get a warrant to search your car. This shit of just pulling people over and searching their cars because the cop can later rationalize it is totally contrary to the 4th Amendment.

          The problem with the dogs is that they can detain you to wait for Rover to show up to sniff. Where do they get the right to detain you? They don't have probable cause to arrest you or they would do it. They don't have probable cause to search you or they wouldn't need rover. Yet, somehow they get to effectively arrest you so they can bring in Rover to get probable cause that they don't have. Bullshit.

          1. damikesc   3 years ago

            People do not have lawyers immediately available to fight them on it.

            I'm not a "Defund the cops" guy (FBI yes, local police no) but abuses are abuses and need to be dealt with completely.

            1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

              I am in the same camp. I am very much pro law and order and have no patience for criminals. But, that doesn't mean the cops should be able to abuse the law. Allowing them to do so doesn't reduce crime. It just encourages cops to pick on the law abiding because doing so is easier than going after criminals.

          2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

            Yet if I attack the cop and say the dog told me to do it, that's not a viable defence

        2. JesseAz   3 years ago

          https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right

          1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

            Still more accurate than the TSA.

            1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

              At Christmas, when I went through the Austin airport, the TSA was having people walk one by one past dogs before getting to the screening area.

        3. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

          Dogs can be trained to alert just to alert. A cue from the handler is all it takes.

          1. damikesc   3 years ago

            Watching On Patrol Live, I cannot see what they claim the dog is "alerting" on since it seems to be whenever its handler touches a part of the car, it jumps up. And you'd think with an allegedly random selection of police/citizen interactions, you'd have the dog fail to alert at least once...but it NEVER failed to do so on Live PD or On Patrol Live.

          2. Uilleam   3 years ago

            No training required. The dogs learn to alert simply because it pleases the handler. To lazy to search for it, but studies have been done to prove this.

            1. Ersatz   3 years ago

              I'm reminded of Bradley Cooper being taught the mentalist tricks in Nightmare Alley

            2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Look up Clever Hans.

      2. SRG   3 years ago

        And yet almost every fucking time cops beat up or kill an innocent black citizen, right-wing posters here and elsewhere give immediate credence to the cop side of the story, and criticise the citizen for insuffident deference or for exercising constitutional rights while black - perhaps thinking that these are still DP offences in much of the US. or at least, wishing they were.

        Can you explain this undue respect to the police?

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          "And yet almost every fucking time cops beat up or kill an innocent black citizen, right-wing posters here and elsewhere give immediate credence to the cop side of the story"

          Golly Shrike, can you provide a single example?

          1. DesigNate   3 years ago

            Spoiler alert, he can’t even identify who is “right-wing” here.

          2. SRG   3 years ago

            Fuck off, peasant.

            Just wait, there'll be more examples soon. Can't ba arsed to go back just to cite examples to an egregiously bad-faith poster like yourself. When they come up again. I'll mention it.

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              I'm not even asking for links or exact quotes. All I want is an example like "Nardz said something like this, JesseAZ said something like that, Chuck P said X".

              That's all. It's not actually hard if anyone actually said what you're claiming they said. It's only hard if you were bullshitting, which I'm pretty sure you are.

            2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

              Just wait, there'll be more examples soon. Can't ba arsed to go back just to cite examples to an egregiously bad-faith poster like yourself.

              It's not like there aren't numerous cop articles in the search archives, you lazy, insufferable chimp.

        2. NOYB2   3 years ago

          Can you explain this undue respect to the police

          Police are people with guns who can throw you in jail or shoot you and get away with it. That's why people respect them.

          Sane people exercise their constitutional rights by complying with whatever demands (legal or illegal) the cops make when necessary and then going to court later and sort it out, alive and well.

          If you choose a different course of action, well, don't expect any sympathy.

  22. damikesc   3 years ago

    "The final page of the 54-page court filing was a photo showing classified document cover sheets arrayed on the floor of Trump's office at Mar-a-Lago, including documents with highly sensitive material like human sources."

    No chance FBI staged that photo. Banish that thought.

    1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      FBI is 100% trustworthy, at least when they're investigating icky conservatives. - ENB & Reason Editors

      1. Uilleam   3 years ago

        I'm convinced.

      2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        No the FBI is 0% trust me L, except when trump is involved, the the FBI pulls a complete 180 on its entire history and becomes virtuous, then after they instantly revert back to their old ways

      3. damikesc   3 years ago

        In fact, Jonathan Turley is openly saying that the photo is the work of FBI agents.

    2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      This is 100% believable and not staged. It's as super-credible and undeniably true as Maggie Haberman's photos of Trump's Top Secret memos flushed down the toilet, face up, perfectly legible, and with no ink bleeding.

  23. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Ringtone

    Enjoy Another Kamala Harris Word Salad [Video]

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      Warning: listening to the Vice President may cause brain damage.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        She was not hired to talk.

        1. HorseConch   3 years ago

          I would like to see her and KJP do a town hall together with the Big Guy.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

            Is "do a town hall" some sex code talk?

            1. HorseConch   3 years ago

              No, but that could be entertaining.

        2. Stuck in California   3 years ago

          I thought it was to Hum.

    2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      Top Men!
      Adults back in charge!
      Cream of the crop!

    3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Kamala Harris: the #1 #2 in the world.

      1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

        The #1 of #2?

    4. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

      She's insurance and nothing more. Do you want to keep Biden (who's as stupid as they come) or this twit who makes Biden look smart?

  24. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

    Barging into people's homes unannounced thankfully still requires a death wish in this country.

    A father who shot dead his daughters’ ex-boyfriend as he tried to break into their home can be seen laughing with officers during his interview hours after the killing.

    Mitchell Duckro, 52, shot his daughter Allyson’s former boyfriend James Rayl 22, three times after he showed up unannounced to their home in Sidney, Ohio, on July 31.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11164589/Ohio-father-52-seen-LAUGHING-cops-hours-shooting-dead-daughters-ex-boyfriend.html

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Fucking Brit simps are SHOCKED at the idea of self-defense.

    2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      Violently breaking into someone's home in america where every other house is full of guns... not smart.

    3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      I would have with, "Good Guy With a Gun Stops Violent Home Invasion". But, then again, I am not a lefty piece of shit reporter trying to build a narrative

  25. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Roundhead

    Heavenly rewards for the faithful and true

    Biden Names MSNBC Pundit Who Pushed Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy to Intelligence Board.

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Reason is also ignoring the new IRS head for 87k new employees is a Lerner acolyte.

      1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        Ignoring, and silently cheering it.

      2. Fats of Fury   3 years ago

        No word on suddenly "retired" FBI agent Thibault either.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

          I gotta say the perp walk of Thibault looks a little fishy to me. Chris Wray testified in a senate hearing that he was like really disturbed to find out that the Hunter investigation had been shut down. Even though it's HIS FUCKING JOB to know about shit like that. Meanwhile people with "knowledge" are reporting that a grand jury investigating Hunter heard testimony from an unidentified witness about the identity of the "Big Guy". Bobolinsky explained all of this a couple of years ago. If I were a conspiracy theorist I might surmise that the deep staters are setting up Joe for a big fall after the midterms but before 2024 if need be. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

        2. NOYB2   3 years ago

          No word on suddenly "retired" FBI agent Thibault either.

          You can be certain he is getting a nice, cushy job with a government contractor, doubling or tripling his salary while retaining his pension.

    2. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

      To be fair, I believe this was in the roundup yesterday.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      But totally not a leftist government-media-tech-big money conspiracy.

  26. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    "...a Google spokesperson told Axios, which reports that Google is concerned with Truth Social not effectively moderating threats of violence."

    Um, which violence? The "words are violence" or the "silence is violence". I can see how moderators can get confused.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Find the upper-level Google manager that didn't work on a Democratic party campaign. They infiltrate, capture, and then use these companies to run around the first amendment.

      Of course the execs are grossly violating their fiduciary duties and can be sued but that's expensive and hard to prove in court.

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      Section 230 should give them all the protection they'd need.

    3. Joe Friday   3 years ago

      Probably the kind where Trump thugs attack the capital and police protecting it. He and Graham are trying to gin up another mob over MAGAt-lago.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          You don't think there are people willing to take up arms to reinstate their king, I mean Trump? Several people on this board are waiting for an excuse to murder people over politics. "You voted for so-and-so which is an act of force against me, therefore I'm justified in putting a bullet in your head." You know who they are. There's millions more of them across the country.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

            I think it's a lot more likely at this point that, given the actual rhetoric by their own public figures the last few days, and the actions of their departments like the DoJ towards school boards, that it's going to be the left kicking off the Great Happening, not the right.

            You can only poke someone so many times before you get punched in the mouth, and the left seems incredibly determined to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, likely because it fits in with their deterministic fantasies of the end of history.

      2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        I don't think Graham was trying to gin up a mob. He was just warning about the potential for one.

  27. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Reeducation

    Biden Admin Already Reviewed Potentially Privileged Documents Taken in Mar-a-Lago Raid

    A bonus or the target?

    Imagine the Trump DOJ raiding Obama's house and stealing his privileged documents.

    1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

      Trump had government documents at his crib and Obama doesn't.

      You're too dumb to fish.

      1. damikesc   3 years ago

        MAL is a secured site (has been for years) and has already had funding issued to the Archives to make it a home for the documents pending a library. Archives is dragging their feet in doing it. Any clue why?

        1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

          bullshit. link it.

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            Hold up. Are you saying that Trump's house at MAL, which is currently secured by the US Secret Service and has been for ages, isn't a secured site?

            1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

              It is not a secured site for official documents and especially classified ones. There is video of unknown people wondering around the closet in which most - not all - of these docs were held. It is up to NARA, not citizen Trump, to make these decisions.

              1. damikesc   3 years ago

                "There is video"

                Where is said video?

                "It is up to NARA, not citizen Trump, to make these decisions."

                Really isn't.

                But they have assured that no President will ever cooperate with them again.

                1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                  "A U.S. official tells CBS News that federal investigators are evaluating video evidence that shows people at Mar-a-Lago accessing storage areas that contained classified documents -- part of what prompted the FBI to raid the estate. "

                  https://news.yahoo.com/feds-reviewing-video-mar-lago-223500702.html

                  "Really isn't."

                  The courts will decide and you are wrong.

                  See today's news on the feds court submittal on how much Trump cooperated. I posted it and you need to read it.

                  1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                    Where's the link on your claim above about Trump waiting on NARA?

                    1. SRG   3 years ago

                      They don't need any steenkin' links. They just know, because they read it on the Pederalist or One Reich News or BJ Media.

                      And in case you missed it, all these Trumpsuckers are now legal experts on NARA, PRA, and classification protocols, having previously been unable even to spell NARA.

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      Anonymous/unnamed single sourcing is the best sourcing, amirite?

                      Tell you what, I'll believe and apologize to you two chucklefucks when video showing unauthorized people accessing still classified documents is either verified or released.

                      Until then I will continue to call you shill's and liars. I also want you to know that when nothing comes of this I'll be hanging this obviously phony inference around your necks like an albatross every post that you make.

                      It really is amazing how many of these stories time and time turn out to be bullshit, but every single time you're acting like it's a new bombshell.

                  2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                    A U.S. official

                    Your citation from Yahoo News failed to identify a source.

                    yahoo
                    noun
                    1. A name given by Swift, in “Gulliver's Travels,” to a feigned race of brutes having the form of man and all his degrading passions.
                    2. [lowercase] A rough, brutal, uncouth character.
                    3. [lowercase] A greenhorn; a back-country lout.

                    Yahoo, indeed...

                  3. damikesc   3 years ago

                    "A U.S. official tells CBS News that federal investigators are evaluating video evidence"

                    Where is this evidence?

                    A U.S official saying so is not evidence. It is a non-corroborated claim.

                    Who is this official? Name? Anything?

                    "See today's news on the feds court submittal on how much Trump cooperated. I posted it and you need to read it."

                    Wow, a court filing. Shocking.

                    Jussie Smollett filed court docs saying he did not make up a hate crime. I guess he really is innocent then.

                    Moron.

        2. Joe Friday   3 years ago

          Still waiting for that link.

      2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Joe knows the "truth".

      3. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        "Trump had government documents at his crib and Obama doesn't."

        Hold the fuck up... I want you to think for a second and then reply...

        Are you claiming that Obama DIDN'T take government documents that he declassified with him when his term ended?

        As a follow-up question, do you think that Bush's 1 & 2, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc. didn't take government documents that they declassified with them when their terms ended?

        I know Media Matters et al. don't send their A teams to work the comments, but wow!

        1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

          Jesus Christ! Read a goddamn newspaper! How do you not know this.

          "August 12, 2022, statement
          The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.

          # # #

          For press information contact the National Archives Public and Media Communications Staff via email at public.affairs@nara.gov.

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            The Obama Presidential records aren't the documents I'm talking about shill, and I think you know that.

            I'm asking you if you believe that Obama DIDN'T do exactly what Trump did and personally take copies of government documents that he declassified with him when his term ended?

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Joe is just a grade B dick.

            2. Joe Friday   3 years ago

              Doofus, read my lips! ANY documents of an official nature and concerning non-personal matters of the president are "Presidential Records" and they belong to the government.

              According to the agency tasked with controlling these documents, Obama did not do what Trump did and they said this loud and clear 3 weeks ago. Why are you still repeating that bullshit?

              1. damikesc   3 years ago

                Because he did precisely that. Not even a debatable point.

                1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                  Not debatable among the true believers I guess, but the NARA begs to differ. Can either of you provide a link to your claim?

                  You still owe us one on Trump supposedly waiting on the NARA to get his papers together for his library.

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    Can either of you provide a link to your claim?

                    You're kidding right? Don't you know the rules? They only need to assert something for it to be true. You need multiple citations which they can disregard by attacking the politics of the source.
                    So it really doesn't matter what you cite. They're gonna say "Nya nya nya! Your citation is from a poopyhead, you poopyhead!"

                    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      Poor sarc.

                  2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                    All Presidents hold personal copies of their papers owned by NARA.

                    I know you're copying and pasting from talking-points, but damn, do a little reading too.

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                Wrong. Original documents yes. But presidential records that are copies already owned by NARA are not. Presidents can indeed have copies of their papers.

                1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                  Jeses, the law reads: "extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified."

                  So, are you claiming Trump has "extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified."? He and his lawyers aren't claiming that.

                  1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                    That law has no punishment mechanism. So for better or worse, you can't charge a former president criminally for a violation.

                    So why is the FBI treating it like a criminal case where there is no criminality according to the law itself.

                    1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                      "Espionage Act — Possible fines and up to 10 years in prison

                      The search warrant unsealed on Friday afternoon cited 18 U.S. Code 793, which is part of the Espionage Act, that specifically refers to the “gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.”

                      If charged for that violation, Trump could face fines and up to 10 years in prison, according to the Espionage Act.

                      Concealment of documents — Possible fines and up to three years in prison

                      The warrant also pointed to 18 U.S. Code 2071 on “concealment, removal, or mutilation generally.”

                      The provision deems it illegal to steal government documents and makes it a crime for anyone to have any federal record in their possession with the intention to conceal or destroy it. If charged, Trump could face a fine or three years in prison.

                      Additionally, if found guilty, Trump could be disqualified from holding public office in the future.

                      CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

                      Obstruction of justice — Possible fines and up to 20 years in prison

                      Trump also faces possible charges related to obstruction of justice based on violations of 18 U.S. Code 1519, which deals with the “destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy.”

                      The law criminalizes the destruction of federal records and carries the highest sentence of all: 20 years in prison. If found guilty, Trump could face hefty fines of up to $5,000 in addition to prison time."

                      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/fbi-raid-trump-could-face-under-espionage-act

                    2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                      The espionage act is not the same as the Presidential records act.

                    3. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                      I find it funny how you think receiving a search warrant is akin to guilt.

                    4. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                      The whole fucking thing is moot. A legislative act that makes the actions of the President illegal does not pass Constitutional muster, as intended. When the records were taken, Trump was still President. The only Constitutional measure that can be taken is impeachment.

          2. JesseAz   3 years ago

            No. Obama paid NARA to put their name on storage he was using today digitize documents. nara control was a formality in agreement with Obama. I posted Obama own website showing this.

            You are one gullible pos.

            1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

              Post it again, and explain how NARA's control is a "formality". NARA said:

              ""August 12, 2022, statement
              The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration."

      4. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

        ""Trump had government documents at his crib and Obama doesn't.""

        Hillary did. And she's not afforded the same abilities as the president on the matter.

        We were told that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary. Why would it be a no go for a Secretary of State but a go on a president?

        1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

          Hillary had 105 classified docs on her server of various seriousness, none of them top secret. She fully complied with the FBI while being investigated. According to the document filed by the feds last night, Trump has not.

          1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

            She was not allowed to store any classified documents on a non-approved device. Period.

            Hillary's lawyer negotiated with the DOJ about what would be gathered. Her own IT examined the server, not the FBI. The FBI took their word for it.

            The subpoena Hillary did receive was from a Judicial Watch lawsuit. But the emails demanded in the subpoena from her server were deleted. That's obstruction.

            There is a GLARING difference in how Hillary was dealt with and how Trump is delt with.

            1. Ersatz   3 years ago

              The silence is deafening but I expect a
              "what-about-ism" response as usual when they dont want to deal with the obviously corrupt motivations of the current persecuti... er.. impetus to prosecution

          2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

            “She fully complied…”

            Haha. Wow. Imagine being this gullible. You’ve always been a joke, Joey joe joe, but this is another level.

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      The constitutional question remains if a president can remove a prior presidents privilege. Which biden says he did.

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        Last I checked executive privilege refers to communications between the other branches while in office. Not sure how that applies to taking home classified documents, or how it can be taken away.

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          You should check again. It is not just communications. It is any preparation for policy or discussions with his executive members dumbass.

          Likewise I already addressed youre retarded ignorance above.

          Egan vs Navy (1988) gives primary determination of classification to the president. He can declassify documents at will as he and his team stated he did. Markings do not make something classified. Determination of classification does you ignorant fuck.

          Likewise copies are not covered by the Presidential records act as linked above.

          I get youre a full blown supporter of the state now. But fucking try not being ignorant for once.

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            Such hostility.

          2. SRG   3 years ago

            Indeed he can declassify at will. But that doesn't mean that when Trump says now that he declassified then, he should be believed. Plus, declassified or not, Trump had no right to be in possession of those documents - as you well know.

            1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

              Actually he does have that right.

        2. damikesc   3 years ago

          Executive privilege deals with communications inside the executive branch to advise the President on options available. Has squat to do with other branches.

          1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

            1. Trump is no longer in the executive branch of the federal government.
            2. ANY documents - classified or not - concerning official duties of the president are the property of the federal government, forever. No president can take away any documents unless they are strictly personal in nature.
            3. Trump is in violation of the laws governing documents whether they are classified or not if he has any official documents from his days as President in his possession.
            4. Obama's documents are under the control of the NARA which will control their accessibility at his coming presidential library and so could Trump's be if he decides to build a library.

            1. damikesc   3 years ago

              "1. Trump is no longer in the executive branch of the federal government."

              Immaterial. The privilege remains after he leaves office, otherwise, there is no executive privilege ever.

              "2. ANY documents - classified or not - concerning official duties of the president are the property of the federal government, forever. No president can take away any documents unless they are strictly personal in nature."

              Courts certainly disagree with you.

              "3. Trump is in violation of the laws governing documents whether they are classified or not if he has any official documents from his days as President in his possession."

              Also blatantly untrue.

              "4. Obama's documents are under the control of the NARA which will control their accessibility at his coming presidential library and so could Trump's be if he decides to build a library."

              Except they are markedly less secure than under physical protection of the Secret Service at all times.

              Do not worry...sucking up to fascists never ends up poorly.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                Stop sucking up to fascists! Trump can do whatever he wants!

              2. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                "1. Trump is no longer in the executive branch of the federal government."

                Immaterial. The privilege remains after he leaves office, otherwise, there is no executive privilege ever.

                Do the math:

                "Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]"

                The DOJ and FBI are not members of another branch and Trump is no longer the president.

                "2. ANY documents - classified or not - concerning official duties of the president are the property of the federal government, forever. No president can take away any documents unless they are strictly personal in nature."

                "Courts certainly disagree with you."

                Really? Enjoy:

                "§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

                The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."

                https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

                "3. Trump is in violation of the laws governing documents whether they are classified or not if he has any official documents from his days as President in his possession."

                Also blatantly untrue.

                True. See above.

                "4. Obama's documents are under the control of the NARA which will control their accessibility at his coming presidential library and so could Trump's be if he decides to build a library."

                Except they are markedly less secure than under physical protection of the Secret Service at all times.

                Funny shit. The SS is not tasked with, not does it practice guarding Trump's basement closet or the various other locations documents were discovered in.

                You're done.

                1. damikesc   3 years ago

                  I am amazed how frequently you are wrong on all topics. Ignorance must be serious bliss for you.

                  1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                    I accept your surrender. Leave in peace.

                  2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    He's backing up his arguments with definitions. Your arguments are backed with name calling.

                    1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                      """1. Trump is no longer in the executive branch of the federal government."

                      Immaterial. The privilege remains after he leaves office, otherwise, there is no executive privilege ever.

                      "2. ANY documents - classified or not - concerning official duties of the president are the property of the federal government, forever. No president can take away any documents unless they are strictly personal in nature."

                      Courts certainly disagree with you.

                      "3. Trump is in violation of the laws governing documents whether they are classified or not if he has any official documents from his days as President in his possession."

                      Also blatantly untrue.

                      "4. Obama's documents are under the control of the NARA which will control their accessibility at his coming presidential library and so could Trump's be if he decides to build a library."

                      Except they are markedly less secure than under physical protection of the Secret Service at all times.""

                      I don't see any name calling.

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      sarcasmic - "He's backing up his arguments with definitions. Your arguments are backed with name calling"

                      TrickyVic - "Here are counterarguments and refutations"

                      sarcasmic - *ghosts*

                      This is why everyone hates you, sarcasmic.

      2. damikesc   3 years ago

        "The constitutional question remains if a president can remove a prior presidents privilege. Which biden says he did."

        Fairly sure he cannot as, if he could, then there is no actual executive privilege at all.

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          that is turleys and Dershowitz's argument as well.

          1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

            Then they are too dumb to write nursery rhymes. Trump is no longer in the executive branch and has no legal ownership of any official documents.

            1. damikesc   3 years ago

              1) You're retarded.

              2) The comment you are moronically flailing about here is in regards to executive privilege.

              3) You have achieved the impressive feat of being incredibly wrong on the incorrect topic.

              1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                Read my lips! Trump is no longer a member of the executive branch, but the DOJ and FBI are. Not only does executive privilege - which he does not possess - not overcome our laws on records, but he is trying to withhold them from the branch of government of which he was previously a member.

                Dershowitz and Turley will chase any camera and say anything if they think it will get them on again. They are wrong if they are saying what you think they are saying.

                1. damikesc   3 years ago

                  Again, you are so adamantly wrong.

                  SEvo is not wrong. Trying to reason with you is a waste of time. Insults are all you deserve, fucking moron.

                  1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                    As if Sevo could reason.

                    Hey, thanks for another surrender, and can you take your high horse with you?

                2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  I like how a fifty center is arguing against constitutional law professors blindly.

                  1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                    You assume - and I don't - that posters here are accurately representing whatever the professors said. It is true that both are Trump apologists who will do anything to get on Fox News, but that doesn't mean they always say nonsense and factually incorrect opinions.

            2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              You've flat out lied here several times today about things everyone knows about, but everyone else is the dummy, huh?

              1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

                Again, Joe is a grade B dick.

        2. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

          This may be the biggest issue at stake. Not only did Biden remove Trump's privilege, he deferred to the judgment of a bureaucrat to do so while claiming he had no knowledge of the matter. I don't see how this doesn't end up at the Supreme Court and Biden gets his ass kicked. Not that that will change anything.

    3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Link fail?

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/08/30/biden-admin-already-reviewed-potentially-privileged-documents-taken-in-mar-a-lago-raid-n1625184

        1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

          No wonder you're so fucking ignorant, if this where you get your news.

          The conspiracy this asshole gins up would mean that Trump has had documents for a year and a half in his basement which somehow exonerate him on Russian collusion and has done nothing with them. You marks will believe anything and there are plenty of people like this creep who will milk you.

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            Heh, the genetic fallacy. Now that's what I call desperate.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Perhaps a grade C dick.

              1. damikesc   3 years ago

                Calling him a dick is being generous.

                1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                  That's all you've got left damiksec.

                2. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

                  Well, it's gotta be less than an inch long.

  28. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Rhetorical

    Jean-Pierre insists 'MAGA Republicans' are the 'definition of fascism,' doesn't know the definition of fascism

    This isn't just rhetorical excess. They have nefarious purposes for what they're doing with these labels ... and 'MAGA,' 'Trump,' 'conservative,' 'small government,' all the buzzwords are all going to mean 'fascism' very soon.

    1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      Republicans are fascist. Also, we're going to push for Google to censor all fascism.

      Nothing to see here...

    2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Fascists calling others fascists is the height of fascism.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Core tenet of post-modernism and critical theory: words mean whatever the user wants.

      Core tenet of Goebbels, Alinsky, and other propagandists: words mean whatever psychologic impact users can create.

    4. HorseConch   3 years ago

      The only people I know that are scared of all the fascists are the whacko way left types. Your run-of-the-mill, mask wearing, Ukraine Flag waiving democrat is just toeing the party line. This whole Ultra-MAGA campaign reeks of desperation.

  29. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Ridiculous

    Michael Cohen Says Trump Won’t Run in 2024 Because He’s Afraid of Liz Cheney.

    1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      Even Cohen isn't this dumb. This has got to be satire.

      1. damikesc   3 years ago

        Trump did have abysmal choices in hires.

    2. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

      Of course! If Liz did so well in Wyoming for a mere House seat, think of what she could do on a national scale.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Odd on Democrats pushing Liz as a third party spoiler?

      2. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

        She might even beat Bill Weld's votes in the primary!

  30. Claptrap   3 years ago

    • A new book showcases six decades' worth of Maurice Sendak's work

    Somehow I'm reminded of Dave Chapelle's bit about loving chicken.

  31. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Roughly

    Obama-Era Tea Party Targeter Appointed to Create IRS Office Overseeing 87,000 New Agents.

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      “Customer Service”

    2. Joe Friday   3 years ago

      There won't be 87,000 "new agents" and no one targeted "tea party" organizations any more than they targeted liberal groups who's names suggested political organizations who were not eligible for tax exemptions.

      Read a newspaper sometime instead of confirmation crap like pjmedia. You might not appear so dumb.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        The IRS literally publicly apologized for targeting. Are you just a fucking idiot?

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Idiot, yes. Fucking (involving other people), no.

        2. Sevo   3 years ago

          ...Are you just a fucking idiot?

          Why are you asking?

        3. Joe Friday   3 years ago

          They apologized for using shorthand methods - based on names of organizations - to screen for political groups seeking tax exempt status.

          You need to read a little better.

          1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

            "... Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

            Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking ­tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

            During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors — simply because of the words in their names, she said in a conference call with reporters.

            They constituted about one-quarter of the 300 groups who were flagged for additional analysis by employees of the IRS tax-exempt unit’s main office in Cincinnati.....

            Lerner said she has had no contact with Obama administration officials about the issue...."

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              Yes, people lie about their motives when caught. If left-wingers had been targeted by her too, she might have been believable.

              1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                Left wingers were targeted by the IRS for having political sounding names.

                "New documents provided to the Treasury Department's inspector general indicate that progressive groups, in addition to conservative groups, may have been targeted by the IRS for additional scrutiny, according to testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by J. Russell George, the inspector general. The revelation bolsters the case of congressional Democrats who have argued that IRS targeting was not politically motivated, and that the groups targeted were more ideologically diverse than originally believed.

                In his prepared testimony, George described documents from July 2010 that included the term "progressive" within a discussion of the types of groups that should be scrutinized by the IRS. Those documents were provided to George's office on July 9, but were not provided prior to the inspector general's original audit that initially jump-started the targeting scandal and the resultant committee hearings...."

                https://www.cbsnews.com/news/liberal-groups-may-have-been-targeted-by-irs-as-well/

                "WASHINGTON -- The Internal Revenue Service targeted progressive groups applying for tax-exempt status in addition to conservative ones, according to IRS documents released by congressional Democrats on Monday.

                The documents and an internal IRS report being sent to congressional committees reveal that the tax agency used terms that included "progressive" and "occupy" to flag progressive organizations for extra scrutiny before the 2012 elections.

                he revelations greatly complicate the political scandal that has engulfed the IRS over the past few weeks. An inspector general report in mid-May revealed the tax agency had screened conservative groups with words like "tea party" in their name when considering applications for tax-exempt status. Lawmakers from both parties quickly denounced the creation of such "Be On The Lookout," or BOLO, lists. Republicans in particular argued the finding proved the IRS was trying to tip the scales of the election during the heat of the campaign.

                Now it appears the agency's BOLOs were applied to organizations across the ideological spectrum. The IRS also screened groups advocating on behalf of Israeli settlements who were applying for non-profit 501(c)(4) status -- a criterion that may on its own prove politically toxic.

                A request for comment from the IRS was not immediately returned. The news of the progressive BOLO was first reported by The Associated Press...."

                https://www.huffpost.com/entry/irs-progressive-groups_n_3492679

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

                  Joe Friday
                  August.31.2022 at 11:36 am
                  Flag Comment Mute User
                  No wonder you're so fucking ignorant, if this where you get your news.

                2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                  Wow, a 2013 article so you can pretend that it hasn't since been revealed that even though the left-leaning groups were flagged by software they were ignored and not placed under further investigation.

                  The apology was for targeting conservative groups for being conservative, but you're trying to pretend it wasn't related to ideology.

                  How do you live with yourself? Lying for a living on the internet, and all.

                  1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

                    "Wow, a 2013 article so you can pretend that it hasn't since been revealed that even though the left-leaning groups were flagged by software they were ignored and not placed under further investigation."

                    Link please.
                    Lerner's statement was in 2013. WTF are you talking about?

          2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            That's not "shorthand methods" by any metric, you dishonest fuck, and even if it wasn't political (which it was because thousands of "mistakes" going in only one direction aren't accidental) it would be fireable levels of laziness and incompetence.

            1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

              See above, and please, read something besides the bullshit you have been quoting here. That you don't know that NARA had clearly debunked Trump's claim about Obama's documents 3 weeks ago, or that the IRS did target left wing groups - again for the shorthand method it gave them of determining possibly overly political groups applying for exemptions - speaks loudly about how poorly informed you are.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

                IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups - NBC News

                IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups - NPR

                1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

                  ""Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews.""

                  ""https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups-flna1C9873823""

                  Here is Lerner admitting it, yet Joe won't admit she admitted it.

            2. JimboJr   3 years ago

              LMAO in this thread:

              Joe Retard: "Read a newspaper sometime instead of confirmation crap"....
              ....
              sites huffpo and washington post!

              Then gets dunked on by being provided bog standard MSM outlet coverage of what he says didnt happen.

              He would be embarrassed if he had an ounce of shame, but this just shows he's a shill with no dignity. Hilarious. What a fucking low watt bulb

            3. Joe Friday   3 years ago

              Flagging applications by political sounding names certainly is a short hand method, eliminating the of reading many applications without such names.

              What is wrong with you?

      2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Read a newspaper sometime instead of confirmation crap like pjmedia. You might not appear so dumb.

        Hahaha, oh wow! I love it when the retards self-own.

        IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups - NBC News

        IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups - NPR

        1. JimboJr   3 years ago

          Joe Friday just got double tapped. Ouch

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

            Yeah, notice he's going on on massive TL;DR copypastas above, but pointedly avoided responding to this one.

        2. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

          Those aren’t newspapers!
          /joefuckhead

      3. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        "and no one targeted "tea party" organizations any more than they targeted liberal groups who's names suggested political organizations who were not eligible for tax exemptions.

        Spectacular job, Joe!

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

        1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

          if even Wikipedia can acknowledge something that is bad for the liberal regime you know it's egregious

      4. Sevo   3 years ago

        Eat shit and die, Asshole.

  32. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Reason Rotunda

    This one's for Misek

    It’s Open Season on Hasdic and Orthodox Jews in New York City

    1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Why do totalitarian regimes always hate Jews?

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        It inspires the Miseks.

        1. HorseConch   3 years ago

          He's buying a ticket to the big apple as we speak.

      2. NOYB2   3 years ago

        Societies in general discriminate against separate minority cultures existing within them. It's not specific to totalitarian regimes, nor to Judaism, it's just part of human nature. Protestants, Catholics, Buddhists, and lots of other groups have been hated the same way at times.

        You just happen to notice it particularly with Jews because they have existed as a minority in many societies for the past three thousand years.

        Of course, you also notice it particularly in totalitarian regimes, because conformance to the state-proscribed culture is mandatory, and deviations are punished severely.

  33. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    "Young people are interested in the news—but not very happy with it."

    Let's see. What else are young people "interested in" but not very happy with?

    Working for a living?
    A free society?
    Reality?

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      Gender reassignment?

      1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        Well played.

    2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Is there anyone interested in the news that's happy with it?

  34. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    'Women are the fastest-growing incarcerated group in Texas, reports Scalawag magazine. "In Texas, women's incarceration rates have increased dramatically over the past few decades—over 1000 percent since 1980."'

    Finally, some gender equity.

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      How do we know this? Is there a biologist in the jail?

    2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      So it was a huge spike in the 90s and has been relatively stable since the mid 2000s, with only moderate growth. I wonder if there's a specific mid-90s policy that may have caused increased incarceration rates. I'm not in Texas so I wouldn't know much about that.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        Maybe the drug cartels have their own affirmative action program. I mean, when is the last time you saw a woman Mexican drug lord? The cartels clearly have a glass ceiling problem.

        1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

          Actually, the most successful Mexican drug lords are women.
          How successful are they?
          So successful that they never get caught like the incompetent male drug lords.

          1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

            Good point.

      2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        I suppose I should talk about a publication that uses arbitrary endpoints. The growth in female incarceration has been stable, or proportional to population, for 20 years, but they went back over 40 just so they could include the huge spikes of the 90s. It's pretty blatantly narrative-hunting.

        1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

          Meets my definition of clickbait - - - - - -

      3. Its_Not_Inevitable   3 years ago

        Seems like this "news" is about 20 years old.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

          Why bring it up now, except as a hammer to use on Texas?

          1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

            Because it's a hammer to use against Texas. Remember, Texas is ground zero for "They're going to imprison women for seeking abortion access!"

            Nevermind that the studies they were looking at only ran up to 2016 and most of the increases happened in the 90s.

    3. damikesc   3 years ago

      When one goes from 1 to 10 convicts, that is a 1000% increase.

      Still not very big.

    4. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      Finally, some gender equity.

      I think you mean sex equity, unless they are actually compiling the numbers based on the costumes people wear?

  35. mad.casual   3 years ago

    "Is 'Woke' just PC with faster internet?"

    Max Power: There's three ways to do things. There is the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way!
    Bart: Isn't that just the wrong way?
    Max Power: Yeah, but faster.

    Political or correct, pick one. Social or Justice, pick one.

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      'I saw it on a hair dryer!'

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Also applies to Max Boot.

  36. Mickey Rat   3 years ago

    How is Google in an impossible position? Does not Section 230 prevent them from being legally responsible for a third party's content? Should not Google be able to the members of the government applying political pressure for them to restrict legal content to go pound sand?

    I do not understand Google's dilemma.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      There isn't a legal dilemma. You are right. Google isn't responsible for the content on its servers thanks to 230. It only has to take illegal content down when someone, law enforcement or otherwise, points it out to them. First, I have yet to see any case that the content is in fact illegal. Second, even if it is, Google has no duty to remove it until someone brings it to their attention. Section 230 removes the duty to know about illegal content. You just have to take it down when someone tells you it is there.

      Yeah, there is no legal dilemma here. The only dilemma is Google's desire to pretend to be an open platform clashing with its desire to act as an agent of government censorship. If this were a Republican Administration demanding Google do something about Antifa posts, you wouldn't be hearing about any dilemma. You would be hearing about Google standing on the side of free speech.

      1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

        ^ Exactly this. They would be hailed a "brave' for facing down the fascists in DC

      2. mad.casual   3 years ago

        Section 230 removes the duty to know about illegal content.

        Incorrect. Cubby v. Compuserve set the precedent that a host that's unaware of the content of it's servers is not responsible for the content of those servers. Cox/Wyden, in passing S230, specifically stated then and has since affirmed that he thought that was the wrong decision.

        Even if you think Stratton Oakmont is a valid counterargument (it's not as Prodigy actively moderated posts), that only makes the case that S230 is so vague as to be unconstitutional and/or accidentally violates the 1A and should still go.

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          Under 230, they are presumed not to know at the very least. If they were under a duty to know, then you could win statutory damages against them every time a user puts up copyrighted material and the platform doesn't take it down. Last I looked you couldn't do that. They had to take it down if you asked but the mere fact that it was up there didn't entitle you to sue the platform just the person who posted it.

          1. mad.casual   3 years ago

            Under 230, they are presumed not to know at the very least.

            Under criminal law they are presumed not to know. Civil Law (generally) operates on the proof of balance of probabilities. If I sue Reason and Amazon for speech hosted by Reason on Amazon's servers, I'm not obligated to show whether Amazon or Reason is the more guilty party, only that damages were done. Amazon can demonstrate that they didn't know and move to be excluded, they aren't presumed 'innocent'.

            If they were under a duty to know, then you could win statutory damages against them every time a user puts up copyrighted material and the platform doesn't take it down. Last I looked you couldn't do that.

            See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.. The RIAA sued, Napster took down and blocked (according to them) sharing of 99.4% of all copyrighted material and wound up settling for $26M for past copyright violations and future infringements. But, as I mentioned above, the DMCA and S230 are two separate issues (and are, both, also separate from 'English Rule' vs. 'American Rule').

            1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

              The Napster case proves my point. The platform had music the rights to which A&M records owned and they had to take them down. The damages were for Napsters refusal to take them down in the first place. Had they done that, there wouldn't have been any damages.

    2. NOYB2   3 years ago

      I do not understand Google's dilemma.

      Google's dilemma is that they want lots of government handouts, lots of government regulations that create barriers to entry, and that they don't want to become the target of anti-trust enforcement. So, they do what Democrats demand of them.

      The question for Google isn't legality, it's the administration going to them saying "nice company you have there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it."

  37. Personcommenting   3 years ago

    First, of course, the women are at a greater percentage they started with a smaller number.

    Second, while many of them are likely drug-related my guess is the main increase has come from the rise of conspiracy arrests. We now lock up the ride-or-die that was only riding while someone else was dying.

  38. Joe Friday   3 years ago

    Meanwhile (Fed's court filing available at the link):

    "Former president Donald Trump and his advisers repeatedly failed to turn over highly classified government documents even after receiving a subpoena and pledging a “diligent search” had been conducted, leading to an FBI raid of his Florida home that found more than 100 additional classified items, according to a blistering court filing by federal prosecutors late Tuesday.

    The filing traces the extraordinary saga of government officials’ repeated efforts to recover sensitive national security papers from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club, centered on a storage room where prosecutors came to suspect that “government records were likely concealed and removed … and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”

    The agents also came to doubt claims by Trump’s team that the storage room was the only place where such documents might be found.

    When agents conducted their court-ordered search on Aug. 8, they found material so sensitive that “even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents,” the filing says.

    Among the most potentially incriminating details in the government filing is a photograph, showing a number of files labeled “Top Secret” with bright red or yellow cover sheets, spread out over a carpet. Those files were found inside a container in Trump’s office, according to the court filing. A close examination of one of the cover sheets in the photo shows a marking for “HCS,” a government acronym for systems used to protect intelligence gathered from secret human sources.

    The 36-page filing also reveals, for the first time, the text of a written assurance given to the Justice Department by Trump’s “custodian of records” on June 3. It says Trump’s team had done a thorough search for any classified material in response to a subpoena and had turned over any relevant documents.

    Trump and his representatives gave the Justice Department 38 classified documents that day, the filing says, in addition to 184 others that were discovered in boxes sent to the National Archives earlier in the year.

    The filing says Trump’s lawyer told Justice Department officials that all White House records that remained at Mar-a-Lago nearly 17 months after Trump left office were contained in the storage room, and that all boxes in the room had been searched.

    Yet when FBI agents raided the Trump property in August, they found more than 100 additional classified papers, which, prosecutors wrote, “calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter.”

    The filing offers the most detailed, blow-by-blow account to date of the interactions between Trump’s team and government officials, who over the course of many months became increasingly desperate to find and contain all of the classified material stashed at Mar-a-Lago.

    In parts of the filing, using only their job descriptions, prosecutors paint Trump’s lawyer, Evan Corcoran, and custodian of records, Christina Bobb, as so uncooperative as to lead agents to suspect the Trump team might be obstructing the investigation.

    The filing, for instance, says that when FBI agents and Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the Justice Department, met with Trump’s two representatives in early June, “the former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained.”

    Yet, earlier this month, Bobb told The Washington Post that the lawyers showed the federal officials the boxes, and that Bratt and others spent some time looking through the material.

    Trump made similar claims on social media after the raid, saying that his lawyers and representatives “were cooperating fully, and very good relationships had been established.” He added, “The government could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it.”

    The Justice Department filing also takes aim at Trump’s defenders who said he had declassified the seized material while he was still president or suggested it might somehow be covered by executive privilege. At that same June 3 meeting, the filing states, “neither counsel nor the custodian asserted that the former President had declassified the documents or asserted any claim of executive privilege.”

    Tuesday night’s filing comes ahead of a hearing scheduled Thursday before U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon on a request by Trump’s lawyers to have a special master appointed to review the files seized by the FBI.

    The Justice Department notified the court Monday that a “filter team” of law enforcement officials had already finished its examination of any possibly privileged documents.

    Trump’s legal team filed the request for a special master two weeks after the search, calling the court-approved law enforcement action a “shockingly aggressive,” politically motivated raid and claiming that federal authorities seized records to which they had no legal right.

    But their motion centered on the assertion that much of the seized material contained presidential communications and was therefore shielded by executive privilege. Executive privilege is usually invoked to shield communications from Congress or the courts, not another department of the executive government such as the Justice Department.

    In their filing Tuesday night, federal prosecutors pushed back on what they called “the wide-ranging meritless accusations leveled against the government” by Trump’s lawyers. The request for a special master was pointless, the government reasoned, because its review of the documents was already complete. The judge should reject Trump’s demands to get the documents back “because those records do not belong to him,” but are rather the property of the government, the filing said.

    Trump’s legal team may file a response to the government’s motion on Wednesday.

    Although Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump in 2020, said on Saturday that she was inclined to appoint a special master, she also said her order “should not be construed as a final determination on Plaintiff’s Motion.”

    FBI agents who conducted the search took 33 items of evidence, most of them boxes, according to the new filing, which said 13 of the boxes contained classified documents, some categorized as top secret. Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, told lawmakers Friday that U.S. intelligence analysts will conduct a review of the classified materials to determine the potential risk to national security if their contents were disclosed.

    According to a partially redacted affidavit unsealed Friday, the agents who conducted the search of Mar-a-Lago were seeking all “physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation” of three federal laws, including a part of the Espionage Act outlawing gathering, transmitting or losing national defense information. The warrant also cites laws on destruction of records and concealment or mutilation of government material.

    The search is part of a criminal investigation into whether Trump and his aides took secret government papers and did not return all of them, despite demands from senior officials, and whether anyone obstructed government efforts to recover all of the classified material."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/31/trump-documents-removed-storage-room/

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      TL,DR would suffice but the WAPO link def makes this a hard skip

    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      You do know that Trump ordered all of the Crossfire Hurricane documents declassified while still president, and that the DOJ is also in violation of a court order ordering their release?

      And yet you still try to trick us by pretending that the documents weren't declassified.

      I hope you're boss at the fifty-cent factory didn't pay you for that.

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        Why are you yelling at a cut and paste?

        1. damikesc   3 years ago

          Criticizing the poster for posting propaganda. If you are citing it, you are saying it is worthy of discussion unless you specifically say otherwise.

          Which did not happen.

          1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

            Doofus, as I said, the article includes the DOJ submittal to the court, so, if you think they misquoted or incorrectly reported on that document you can check it yourself.

            Of course they didn't misreport it and the fact is you can't handle the truth.

        2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Actually, you've got a point.

      2. Joe Friday   3 years ago

        Link please

    3. Claptrap   3 years ago

      The search is part of a criminal investigation into whether Trump and his aides took secret government papers and did not return all of them, despite demands from senior officials, and whether anyone obstructed government efforts to recover all of the classified material."

      I.e nobody knows if a crime even exists, but Trump must be guilty of something. This is why it's extremely off-putting, even for many of us that aren't favorably inclined to Trump. It's banana republic stuff, poking around for a reason to jail a prior and likely future political opponent.

      1. Sevo   3 years ago

        "I.e nobody knows if a crime even exists, but Trump must be guilty of something..."

        Six years of a fishing expedition! Pretty sure they'd have me on something with that effort.
        That Trump must be the cleanest NY developer ever! Not one pay-off to a building inspector? Jeeze!

      2. damikesc   3 years ago

        I loved seeing some Twitter journalist criticizing the commentary about this being "Banana republic" stuff and posting a map of where it happened to show that it is not that uncommon.

        Every location, of course, was a location of a banana republic.

      3. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

        "Trump and his aides took secret government papers and did not return all of them, despite demands from senior officials,"
        So a former president has full authority by law to determine what are secret government papers. Who are these senior officials referenced? Like some kinda Super Presidents? (checks constitution) .

        1. Joe Friday   3 years ago

          It is irrelevant if docs are "secret". All documents from the WH that are from official business - as opposed to the president's personal matters - belong to the people through the government and presidents do not have a right to remove them.

          That is the law.

    4. Sevo   3 years ago

      Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
      Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
      Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
      Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
      Eat shit and die, Asshole.

    5. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Well, if WaPo says Trump did something, it absolutely must be true. They've never been wrong on him.

    6. rbike   3 years ago

      Wow, the walls have slammed shut?

  39. sarcasmic   3 years ago

    'Pick up your bean burrito and leave... this ain't India': Taco bell customer, 37, is arrested for vile racist rant branding Hindu man the N-word and spitting at him for not getting beef burrito

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11162895/Hey-pick-bean-burrito-leave-California-man-arrested-racist-rant-Taco-Bell.html

    1. damikesc   3 years ago

      On what possible Constitutional grounds is this arrest not unbelievably illegal?

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      How long has been been homeless?

      Singh Tejinder

      Oh wait, we were enriched by immigration.

    3. HorseConch   3 years ago

      Singh Tejinder is the name of the suspect. Sounds like Indian on Hindu hatred.

      1. mad.casual   3 years ago

        'F**k Indira Gandhi, n****,' Tejinder is heard saying, in reference to the female Indian prime minister who was assassinated by Sikh nationalists in 1984.

        Gotdammed white nationalists!

        1. Claptrap   3 years ago

          He is a nationalist, and Punjabis are pretty white. Checks out.

          This is what assimilation looks like in Donald Trump's America.

    4. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Meh. More "superior" Brits having fun watching the rubes in the colonies.

  40. JimboJr   3 years ago

    "Young people are interested in the news—but not very happy with it."

    That's because they dont have the brain power to sort through the propaganda yet.

    A huge portion of them are convinced the climate is exponentially worsening and we are on the brink of extinction. So not surprised they aren't happy with the news. But also had they survived that last 10 climate apocalypses, like anyone over 40 has, they would realize most of the 'news' they read is written at the level of a partisan hack activist, not a journalist

    1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      Today's journalist = partisan hack activist.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Today's young adult = middle school intellect and emotional maturity.

    2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      A huge portion of them are convinced the climate is exponentially worsening and we are on the brink of extinction. So not surprised they aren't happy with the news.

      This isn't even the news, this is just the curriculum. They teach kids in junior high that the environment is going to collapse and there's nothing they can do about it. It's basically child abuse.

      1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        100% truth. And, they don't even pretend that its theory that is never correct. They push it as 100% fact. No opposing view, no caveat that their claims are worst case scenario numbers, nothing.

        1. JimboJr   3 years ago

          any opposition gets you labeled 'anti-science'.

          we are truly dealing with the old church model, with Cardinal Fauci et al

          1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

            The optimistic side of me hopes that, in the wake of the COVID debacle--during which the "experts" were either wrong or deliberately lied about absolutely everything--people start to wake up to other "sciencey" propaganda schemes like the climate change cult.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Keep dreaming. Most of the sheeple are sure they survived COVID (so far!) only because they embraced all the expert propaganda and supported government over-reach.

      2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Worse, they teach kids to believe the only way to survive is through eco-socialism.

  41. Sevo   3 years ago

    "Biden forcefully defends FBI after threats"
    [...]
    "President Joe Biden forcefully defends the FBI as the agency and its employees have come under withering criticism and threats of violence since executing a search warrant at former President Donald Trump's Florida residence earlier this month..."
    https://news.yahoo.com/biden-forcefully-defends-fbi-threats-213248026.html

    Seems droolin' Joe's handlers may have wrong-footed themselves.

  42. Surly Curmudgen   3 years ago

    Google, gestated in a pile of cow flop, sine matre illegitimi.

  43. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

    https://www.thecollegefix.com/defamed-bakery-finally-seals-36m-victory-over-oberlin-after-court-rejects-colleges-appeal/

    Oberlin is finally going to have to pay the $36 million judgement against them for calling a local bakery "the Racist" for not letting a couple of Oberlin students get away with shoplifting. Talk about news that warms even the coldest heart. Sometimes there is such a thing as a feel good story of the day.

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      there's not enough people that get what they deserve in this world, but every now and then you get a win

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        Yes. The world mostly belongs to the Devil. Just occasionally, however, justice is served.

      2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        Indeed. This is today's silver lining. We need more of them.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Yeah, but now the SJWs at Oberlin feel super-oppressed and even more righteous. Unless the college cuts salaries to cover the judgement, the faculty and staff will still feel like they won.

      1. JimboJr   3 years ago

        I know, but sometimes a bully is just so egregious he needs to get railed in the face.

      2. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

        It doesn't matter what you do, they'll always become more self-righteous and oppressed. That dial only goes 1 way.

        Might as well take their $36m if it's all the same anyways.

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      USA! USA! USA!

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        You Fascist!

    4. mad.casual   3 years ago

      Double plus pwnage points if the bakery says, "A couple million is good enough for us." and gives the other $30+M away.

      Undecided as to whether the better ultra-maga double plus pwnage would be to set up a trust to give $10,000 in free loan foregiveness to students who didn't attend Oberlin, just give it away to a homeless shelter, or somewhere in between.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        Only if they give the money to Bob Jones University.

    5. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      So the Oberlin administrators who slandered this family have been fired right? Right?

  44. jdgalt1   3 years ago

    "Truth" Social is already suppressing enough of the truth to be allowed in Apple's app store. Which defeats the whole point of the forum's existence, so why does anyone bother with it?

    A real free-speech site would have users load its app from its web site, and either shun Apple products or give iPhone users help in jailbreaking their phones. Or it would do as Gab has done, and just have its members use a web browser to log in.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Sometimes free speech is not worth any effort.

  45. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    France is using drones to spy on and tax unauthorized swimming pools.

    This is the future liberals want for you

  46. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Truth Social, the Twitter-esque social media platform launched by former President Donald Trump, is being barred from the Google Play store over content moderation concerns.

    Insurrection 2.0 averted.

  47. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    "On Aug. 19, we notified Truth Social of several violations of standard policies in their current app submission and reiterated that having effective systems for moderating user-generated content is a condition of our terms of service for any app to go live on Google Play," a Google spokesperson told Axios, which reports that Google is concerned with Truth Social not effectively moderating threats of violence.

    The fuck out of here.

    1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      what a joke this all this.
      no serious person can b elieve for one second that this is anything other than petty partisan action. Going after their enemy. The mean girls targeting their outcast.

      These "platforms" are basically a political arm of the regime at this point.

  48. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Is 'Woke' just PC with faster internet?

    Macs are woke and have faster internet?

  49. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    New York is hobbling its legal cannabis market with excessive taxes and regulations.

    WOW! i mean really, who could have seen that coming?

  50. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    A city in Vermont has repealed two ordinances against prostitution.

    Methinks certain city councilmen have been frequenting the ladies of the evening.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      Yeah, but it's Vermont--the chick that played the hooker in Breaking Bad is going to be better-looking and less strung out than anyone in that frozen shithole.

      1. Hank Ferrous   3 years ago

        It's was humid and in the high 80s in Burlington and Montpelier this week...

    2. Hank Ferrous   3 years ago

      What is more interesting, from a reason mag story, is how local news somehow became important enough for mention... /sarc

      Here's a more honest link, given that the city council did what progressives do, ignored their constituents.

      https://vermontdailychronicle.com/montpelier-mon%20vt%20prostution%20lawprostitution-repeal-moves-forward/

      1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

        404

  51. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    DOJ responds to Trump.

    DOJ is now officially part of THE RESISTANCE. #SlayQueen #LoveWins #DOJ4ever

  52. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    France is using drones to spy on and tax unauthorized swimming pools.

    Sunbathers are taxed by the body hair.

  53. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    New York is hobbling its legal cannabis market with excessive taxes and regulations.

    Isn't that a surprising twist.

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

      No one here (NYC) cares about the legal market. It does not exist yet, but you can buy weed in all sorts of stores and bodegas these days. It's everywhere. What will be interesting is when the gov cracks down on these stores. It will be proof that it's not about justice reform but about money.

    2. Minadin   3 years ago

      Weren't they telling us 10, 20 years ago that they wanted to "legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it"?

      Well?

  54. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Women are the fastest-growing incarcerated group in Texas...

    "What are you in for?"

    "Driving while tiddies."

    1. rbike   3 years ago

      I see the self identifying crap as increasing the "women" number. When they finally send me to prison, I am choosing the women's penitentiary. All you guys are with me , Right ?

      1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

        Who are you calling "guy", bigot.

  55. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    In Texas, women's incarceration rates have increased dramatically over the past few decades...

    The Criminal Justice Industrial Complex has found a new market.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      And thy name is "equity".

  56. Naime Bond   3 years ago

    '..(to stop).....dangerous, (two people juggling axes), misleading, (Nobel Prize winner NOT being blocked for disagreeing with Dr. Fauci), or violent content (posting Tom and Jerry Cartoon)...'.

    1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      The wuhan virus narrative enforcement is the most egregious to me. I can understand being a petty partisan and blocking your enemies cause you can. But the fucking control of a virus narrative is just amazing. Banned for posting the raw numbers out of other countries, or resutls to studies, that just happen to contradict the regime's narrative on covid. It's outright stalinist.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        As John McWhorter has suggested, modern woke progressivism is now a de facto religion. Thus actions to silence heresy are to be expected.

    2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      I take it back, the figleaf they put on claiming they want to block "misinformation" in general is the most egregious.

      Yesterday Biden claimed that a bullet from AR-15 goes 5 times as fast a bullet from any other gun. I dont see Youtube/Twitter/FB taking it down, banning it , or putting misinformation warnings on that clip.

      I can search for BigFoot and flat earth and find hundreds of videos from starry eyed believers about these subjects that are the definition of misinformation.

      It's all bullshit.

  57. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

    CA - we are going to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035.

    Also CA -
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/californians-told-not-to-charge-electric-cars-days-after-gas-car-sales-ban/ar-AA11jhPN?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=630e9a810f41485f9a5231be1aa20b9e

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      WA: Hold my kombucha

      1. Minadin   3 years ago

        "The new policy requires 100% of new sales of passenger cars, trucks and SUVs in the state to be powered by electricity or hydrogen by 2035, with one-fifth allowed to be plug-in hybrids."

        My 'unforeseen consequences' sense is feeling some pretty laughably predictable fallout from that.

        How are they going to enforce that? Can't people get cars out of state? What about people who move in from out of state? Can't license your current car, have to sell it out of state? Is the price of plug-in hybrids about to go through the roof? Tune in next week . . .

        1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

          Tourism from other states? Sometimes they drive.

        2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

          ""My 'unforeseen consequences' sense is feeling some pretty laughably predictable fallout from that."'

          Mine too.

        3. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          It's particularly rough considering that WA is a very rural state. Though, this is a classic thing that happens in those types of places where the small area, but large city exerts huge influence over the larger rural area.
          So, get ready Moses Lake, y'all are right fucked!

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

            As the old Washington Political adage goes, to win politically, you need only carry what you can see from the top of the Space Needle.

    2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      at this point i do have to assume this is all intentional

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

        I'd say the assumption isn't wrong. A personal vehicle is one way for people to be free and to go where they want, when they want. These elites aren't too keen on this.

      2. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        Not certain they are smart enough for that.

      3. HorseConch   3 years ago

        I did assume that, but looking at the reaction in Europe and being blindsided by inflation, I'm more convinced than ever that we are being ruled by a bunch of rubes.

      4. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

        It's a lot of things.

  58. Minadin   3 years ago

    NPR story says that the idea of nuclear energy is gaining popular support worldwide . . . and they give credit to: Environmentalists No shit.

    https://notthebee.com/article/after-literal-decades-of-fear-mongering-and-demonizing-nuclear-power-environmentalists-now-want-you-to-give-them-credit-for-the-move-towards-nuclear-power

    I mean, I suppose you could argue that they played an outsized role in making the cost of fossil fuels so damned high. Small business owners getting $10k electric bills that used to be $2k are probably open to some other options for generating cheap electricity.

    1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Pivoting so hard they're drilling a hole in the ground.

      1. Minadin   3 years ago

        Maybe they'll strike oil.

    2. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

      Environmentalists get the credit!?! Engineers have been stating the obvious for quite some time now, that the only way to have enough electrical power in the future is to go nuclear. These asshole environweenies have been fighting nuclear power tooth and nail for decades now.

      1. Minadin   3 years ago

        We have the receipts.
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_groups_in_the_United_States

        "See also:

        Anti-nuclear protests in the United States
        Environmental movement in the United States
        List of anti-nuclear groups"

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Fuck NPR

    4. Kungpowderfinger   3 years ago

      It’s no-shit, CA governor and senator beg state legislator to keep Diablo running:

      https://kcra.com/article/feinstein-urges-extend-california-diablo-nuclear-plant/41034623

      “Extending the life of the Diablo Canyon power plant is part of a set of proposals Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked the Legislature to approve as the Democratic-led state aims to achieve its goal to drastically reduce carbon emissions within the next two decades.”

      Which is all bullshit, they’re just terrified of rolling blackouts, about the only thing in Cali that will remove an incumbent.

      And the state is officially blaming climate change for our energy shortfalls, and not the massive shuttering of coastal power plants over the past few years.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        Politicians are figuring out that no amount of "but don't you love the earth and care about the climate" will save them if the lights go out.

        1. JimboJr   3 years ago

          this is why I am looking forward to this winter.

          there is probably going to be a lot of anger and rioting, and they are going to see how much people care about the environment when they cant heat their house

          1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

            I don't think things are going to be that bad in the US, thanks to fracking and natural gas. Europe, however, is screwed.

            1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

              "Europe, however, is screwed."

              Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people.

              1. Super Scary   3 years ago

                "Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people."

                After all that mocking the world did when Texas froze over last year, I'll agree.

            2. JimboJr   3 years ago

              Ya that's why I am looking forward to this winter, personally. I live in the US, and have electricity partially provided by natural gas, as well as a whole house generator. Also I live in a climate that is not terrible in the winter anyways.

              But Europe drank the kool aid, and decreased their nuclear capacity while going all in on 'renewables'. So the pain they caused themselves is completely self induced. I feel bad that they have to suffer, but damned if people didnt tell them this would happen.

              And I have a comfortable seat to watch it from a distance.

    5. JimboJr   3 years ago

      and what they are most scared of is we call their bluff, go nuclear, and massively reduce CO2 output (which nuclear is fantastic at) and we see the effects of a substantially reduced CO2 output on the climate...nothing at all changes.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        They are most scared about anything that would impair their ability to steal. The entire environmental movement is nothing but a means for the elite to steal enormous amounts of money from everyone else.

        1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

          Not just steal, but also micromanage every aspect of your life. Climate change gives them the "emergency" they need to justify it.

  59. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

    Google Says Truth Social Must Clean Up Act Before Gracing Android App Store

    They have to ban Trump from the platform.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/30/twitter-monetize-porn-child-safety-warnings/

      Just going to leave this here

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

        So that's where Buttplug gets his money.

  60. SRG   3 years ago

    Well, if Truth Social goes down because it's not paying its bills, as has been reported, the whole thing will be moot.

    I would be absolutely astonished if a Trump-associated entity didn't pay its bills, of course, given Trump's long history of paying all his suppliers on time and the lack of bankruptcies in his corporate affairs. Also, I recently acquired a splendid bridge in lower Manhattan from this very generous Nigerian prince.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Where has it been reported that they are not paying their bills? Do you not include a link out of kindness or something? Or are you just talking out of your ass pasting talking points you read on KOS this morning?

      1. JimboJr   3 years ago

        probably the same source that had it on good authority the classifed info trump took was nuclear secrets and he was selling them to the Saudi's

      2. SRG   3 years ago

        It's everywhere.
        https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/trump-social-media-app-facing-financial-fallout

    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      Have you seen TRUTH Social. There's no discussion of anything there. Just Trump posting rants, and his supporters (and a few critics) posting memes in response.

      1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

        So just like Facebook then.

      2. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        So it is like Twitter and Facebook just with people on the right being able to talk instead of the left.

        You really do completely lack any sense of self awareness Mike. It is remarkable.

      3. JimboJr   3 years ago

        oh, so they are actually allowing free speech there?

  61. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

    Ugh. Reason has done new ad that completely takes over the iPhone screen every time I refresh the page.

  62. Weigel's Cock Ring   3 years ago

    Stock market update time!! Here's how the major U.S. stock indexes have performed year-to-date, which is now eight (8) full months according to my math:

    Dow Jones (DJIA): -13.87%
    S&P 500 *JNX): -17.54%
    NASDAQ Composite (JXIC): -25.37%(!!!)

    A pretty dismal fucking year in just every way imaginable way so far, wouldn't you say? But you probably knew all of this if you keep regular tabs on how your 401(k) plan is doing.

    Gee, I wonder why you never see Dipshit Dave Weigel around these parts anymore, talking about how the economy and the markets always do such much better under the democrats. Oh yeah, that's why!

  63. Crackers64   3 years ago

    Has Goolge ever looked at some of the shit in their "store"? A lot of it is downright illegal and their are a lot of scams. These things they don't care about.

    If they want to use their weird standards fine, but they need to apply it equally.

  64. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

    It’s in character, on the other hand, for Apple to be difficult about getting approved for the App Store. They have lots of rules and are infamously nit picky about them.

  65. HypCryme.com   3 years ago

    Somehow I doubt Truth is much bothered. The more google/facebook/twitter/whatever censor or block or otherwise impede freedom-seekers, the more of them go to the alternatives, which is a widely dispersed network which nevertheless seeks the same goals. Only it can't be analyzed the way the 'mainstream' social media users, so they don't know what is going on. Like the small bubbles that appear on the bottom of a pan of water being heated, they see just a few here and there, ten a few more, and then full boil happens suddenly and without warning.

    1. Tony   3 years ago

      The boiling over is a violent terrorist attack, right?

      You missed the step where the right-wing alternative truth machine collapses under the weight of child porn, drug trafficking, child trafficking, porn porn, and the opinions of anti-Trumpers. Or do they censor all of those?

  66. JeffryBlake   3 years ago

    Recently, Google has been tightening the rules for website promotion, I felt it on my site. I even had to seek help. My friend advised me to read the article https://naturallinks.net/blog/crowd-links-vs-pbn-links/ . I think this is exactly what you need in order for the ranking and recognition of the site to grow, click to learn more. It describes well how the company works and how well it bears fruit, I advise you to read it. Good luck to you.

  67. Faze Three   3 years ago

    This article provided me with a wealth of information. The article is incredibly helpful and offers some of the most useful information. Thanks for the wonderful post.

    Regards,
    Faze Three Limited

  68. Joe Stal   3 years ago

    I think that google should remove scam apps, of which there are a lot in the playmarket. Why are there no normal mobile games? Because google doesn't care about its market.

  69. MilikusFlorium   3 years ago

    I have always been very surprised by Google's negligence. Why aren't they concerned with the security of their market? I think it leads to a total fooling of users. There really aren't many good games out there these days and most of them are casual crap. I'll probably find a video game development company to make a decent game myself.

  70. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    Sacre bleu!

  71. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Tabernac! Câlisse!

  72. Eva265Foster   3 years ago

    I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ati-11) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
    .
    ---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness

Jacob Sullum | 6.4.2025 12:01 AM

D.C. Pauses Plans To Hike Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers

Billy Binion | 6.3.2025 6:00 PM

It's Rand Paul and Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump Over the 'Big Beautiful Bill'

Eric Boehm | 6.3.2025 4:35 PM

Female Nude Spa in Washington Can't Bar Transgender Clients With Male Genitalia, Federal Court Rules

Billy Binion | 6.3.2025 4:20 PM

Trump Cut Funds From Wasteful Projects To Spend on Wasteful Statue Garden

Joe Lancaster | 6.3.2025 3:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!