FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried Used Customer Assets to Fund Political Donations, Says SEC
Plus: moral panic about department stores, the obvious cause of homelessness, and more...

Disgraced crypto king faces criminal charges and SEC lawsuit. Sam Bankman-Fried, founder and head of the popular cryptocurrency exchange FTX, has been arrested in the Bahamas at the behest of U.S. prosecutors, who have filed charges against him. Bankman-Fried also faces charges from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Bankman-Fried's arrest follows revelations that FTX lent customer assets to Alameda Research, which he also owned, and that FTX had filed for bankruptcy.
"Earlier this evening, Bahamian authorities arrested Samuel Bankman-Fried at the request of the US government, based on a sealed indictment filed by the [Southern District of New York]," said U.S. attorney Damian Williams in a Twitter statement on Monday night. "We expect to move to unseal the indictment in the morning and will have more to say at that time."
It's unclear precisely what charges Bankman-Fried faces, but authorities were looking at him for potential fraud charges.
"The SEC has authorized separate charges relating to his violations of securities laws, to be filed publicly tomorrow," said Gurbir Grewal, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, in a Monday night statement.
This morning, the SEC alleged that Bankman-Fried had been diverting customer funds from FTX to Alameda Research "from the start," and that he had also used customer assets to fund venture investments, real estate purchases, and even political donations.
Bankman-Fried was known to be a major donor to Democratic politicians (the second-largest in the 2022 election cycle, according to Forbes). Bankman-Fried has also stated that he secretly gave a lot to Republicans, too, though this hasn't been verified. "I've been their third-biggest Republican donor this year as well," but it's "not generally known," because "all my Republican donations were dark," he said in a recent YouTube interview.
Bankman-Fried "orchestrat[ed] a scheme to defraud equity investors in FTX Trading Ltd. (FTX), the crypto trading platform of which he was the CEO and co-founder," alleged the SEC in a press release, stating that he "commingled FTX customers' funds at Alameda to make undisclosed venture investments, lavish real estate purchases, and large political donations."
Bankman-Fried has blamed incompetence for any crimes he may have committed. "I didn't knowingly commit fraud," Bankman-Fried told the BBC last weekend. "I didn't want any of this to happen. I was certainly not nearly as competent as I thought I was."
John Jay Ray III, who has been appointed CEO of FTX to oversee its bankruptcy case, said in court filings: "Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information."
FREE MINDS
Virginia Postrel offers a fascinating history of how department stores helped liberate women—and moral panic. From her Wall Street Journal essay:
Urban shopping districts were where women claimed the right to dine outside their homes, walk unescorted and take public transportation without loss of reputation. Thousands of female sales clerks flowed out of stores in the evenings, when downtowns had previously been male territory. Department stores provided ladies' rooms that gave women places to use the toilet and refresh their hair and clothing. They offered female-friendly tearooms. Directly and indirectly, modern shopping enlarged women's public role.
Of course, this led to new levels of contact between men and women and that freaked a lot of people out:
Men known as "mashers" gathered in shopping districts to ogle and chat up women. Some were no more than well-dressed flirts, violating Victorian norms in ways that few today would find objectionable. Many contented themselves with what an outraged clubwoman termed "merciless glances." Others followed, catcalled and in some cases fondled women as they strolled between stores, paused to look in windows or waited for trams.
Postrel offers more details in her newsletter:
Newspapers launched anti-masher crusades and prominent women demanded stricter law enforcement and stern punishment.…The crusade against mashers, while based on a real problem, had a strong element of moral panic.
FREE MARKETS
The obvious cause of homelessness: not enough housing. Jerusalem Demsas with more in The Atlantic:
In their book, Homelessness Is a Housing Problem, the University of Washington professor Gregg Colburn and the data scientist Clayton Page Aldern demonstrate that "the homelessness crisis in coastal cities cannot be explained by disproportionate levels of drug use, mental illness, or poverty." Rather, the most relevant factors in the homelessness crisis are rent prices and vacancy rates.
Colburn and Aldern note that some urban areas with very high rates of poverty (Detroit, Miami-Dade County, Philadelphia) have among the lowest homelessness rates in the country, and some places with relatively low poverty rates (Santa Clara County, San Francisco, Boston) have relatively high rates of homelessness. The same pattern holds for unemployment rates: "Homelessness is abundant," the authors write, "only in areas with robust labor markets and low rates of unemployment—booming coastal cities."
[…] America has had populations of mentally ill, drug-addicted, poor, and unemployed people for the whole of its history, and Los Angeles has always been warmer than Duluth—and yet the homelessness crisis we see in American cities today dates only to the 1980s. What changed that caused homelessness to explode then? Again, it's simple: lack of housing. The places people needed to move for good jobs stopped building the housing necessary to accommodate economic growth.
And why don't many cities have enough housing? In large part because regulations have made it difficult:
Few Republican-dominated states have had to deal with severe homelessness crises, mainly because superstar cities are concentrated in Democratic states. Some blame profligate welfare programs for blue-city homelessness, claiming that people are moving from other states to take advantage of coastal largesse. But the available evidence points in the opposite direction—in 2022, just 17 percent of homeless people reported that they'd lived in San Francisco for less than one year, according to city officials. Gregg Colburn and Clayton Aldern found essentially no relationship between places with more generous welfare programs and rates of homelessness. And abundant other research indicates that social-welfare programs reduce homelessness. Consider, too, that some people move to superstar cities in search of gainful employment and then find themselves unable to keep up with the cost of living—not a phenomenon that can be blamed on welfare policies.
But liberalism is largely to blame for the homelessness crisis: A contradiction at the core of liberal ideology has precluded Democratic politicians, who run most of the cities where homelessness is most acute, from addressing the issue. Liberals have stated preferences that housing should be affordable, particularly for marginalized groups that have historically been shunted to the peripheries of the housing market. But local politicians seeking to protect the interests of incumbent homeowners spawned a web of regulations, laws, and norms that has made blocking the development of new housing pitifully simple.
Read the rest here.
FOLLOWUP
Bari Weiss has released the latest installment of the Twitter Files, for which Twitter CEO Elon Musk has granted access to internal documents to a small group of friendly reporters. Now on installment five, the "files" reveal more about Twitter's internal deliberation processes regarding things like de-amplifying accounts, the Hunter Biden laptop story and Hunter Biden dick pics, misinformation reports from law enforcement, and Donald Trump's account suspension. So far, the dispatches have contained some interesting and notable information, and also a lot of Musk-friendly spin and culture war hyperbole. Some other perspectives…
David French's take on the Twitter Files: "The picture that emerges is of a company that simply could not create and maintain clear, coherent, and consistent standards to restrict or manage allegedly harmful speech on its platform. Moreover, it's plain that Twitter's moderation czars existed within an ideological monoculture that made them far more tolerant toward the excesses of their own allies. In other words, Twitter behaved exactly like public and private universities in the era when speech codes ruled the campus."
Mike Masnick's take on the Twitter Files: "They are all written by people who appear to have (1) no idea what they're looking at (2) no interest in talking to anyone who does understand it and (3) no concern about presenting them in an extremely misleading light in an effort to push a narrative that is not even remotely supported by what they're sharing."
Yasha Levine's take on the Twitter Files: "One of the saddest things about them is that the people on both sides of this holographic media fight really are horrible, and yet we're supposed to get all emotionally involved in it and pick one oligarchic faction—either TEAM LIB or TEAM MAGA—and root for it like it's our lord and savior. All the while, nothing about this drama will have any real impact on anyone in America. It's just feeding the political-entertainment complex and the rich assholes and their hanger-ons that feed off of it."
QUICK HITS
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1602209026900631552
• A Senate investigation suggests that "the Federal Bureau of Prison's deeply flawed, backlogged system for investigating sexual assault fails to protect female inmates from rape while protecting employees who commit sexual assault."
• The Supreme Court won't hear a case concerning California's ban on flavored tobacco.
• Lawmakers have tucked a bill called the Judicial Security and Privacy Act into the national defense spending authorization bill and it presents several First Amendment concerns, says Chamber of Progress counsel Jess Miers:
We seriously need to talk about this Judicial Security and Privacy Act currently shoved into the NDAA. Let's start with where we're at WRT #Section230
Follow along with me on page 2487: https://t.co/t3wxUQnXao
— Jess Miers ???? (@jess_miers) December 12, 2022
• How ChatGPT might impact the U.S. economy.
• "State TikTok bans are a dumb performance and don't fix the actual underlying problem," suggests Techdirt.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
ENB, other tech writers exist outside of Masnick, in case you were ever curious.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job csx09 online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,125 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link——————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply
COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE________ http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
But are any of them as reliably on the side of the marxist progressive totalitarian saviors that ENB so adores?
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://www.LiveJob247.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
But do those tech writers agee with her political beliefs?
I'm guessing not as she seems to cite him almost exclusively.
Oh, and David French so she can "BOAF SIDEZ!" the issues.
Which side is French on again?
Well, people like ENB claim right-wing. But he was bought and paid for by a left-winger several years ago.
So, like David Brooks?
David French's side, but if you pay him enough he'll be on your side too. He's very principled that way.
Whoever pays him.
I have even managed $20,000 per calendar month by simply working some easy tasks from my apartment. As I had lost my office career, I was very disturbed but luckily I’ve discovered this best on-line career that’s why I’m capable of earning a thousand USD just from home. Each person can avail this best offer & collect more greenbacks online
checking this article>>OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
c
To be fair, French at least acknowledges that Twitter's actions were due to the fact that it was a political monoculture that acted in a wholly biased manner.
ENB, other tech writers exist outside of Masnick, in case you were ever curious
Her favorite source seems to be The Atlantic, with an occasional Mother Jones for variety.
Masnick is essentially a Bolshevik.
I'm so tired of this nonsense about "What are the causes of homelessness?"
The question is backwards. The correct question is "What are the causes of wealth that allows people to have homes?"
Yeah, people these days tend to look at the outcomes only and not what led to them. It is why, today, a college degree is not a guarantor of success or knowledge because, previously, to finish college showed the habits of people who would be successful without college regardless.
That's not at all what I'm saying. Poverty is the default state of man. For hundreds of thousands of years humans existed on the equivalent of a dollar a day. Now we're stupid rich by comparison, and people wonder what causes homelessness? Homelessness is the default. Wealth is unusual, not homelessness. Instead of destroying wealth to fix the problem of homelessness, people should focus on allowing the homeless to create their own wealth.
Good job buddy.
Instead of destroying wealth to fix the problem of homelessness, people should focus on allowing the homeless to create their own wealth.
sarcasmic, nice turn of phrase. Well said.
Thank you. I put a lot of thought into that sentence.
“….allowing”?
Implies a permission that is possible to grant and currently being denied.
More welfare? Higher minimum wage? I’m not seeing the “well said” in this comment. The path to creating wealth is already out there. This seems more like an excuse.
Implies a permission that is possible to grant and currently being denied.
Yep. Try to make money without asking permission and obeying orders. See what you're "allowed" to do.
Way too over dramatic. And does not address what the homeless are not currently “allowed” that the rest of us seem to manage.
If people have little interest in, or ability to do something so basic as sheltering themselves, no amount of “allowances” will change that.
Spokane has a big homeless problem. Given that it’s become the dumping ground for coastal democrat urban dystopias. Not all, but a lot of them, have no interest in earning a living or doing anything beyond sucking up free money and getting high as much as possible.
These people are not good neighbors and blight any area around them where they reside in large numbers. Including a current encampment on the east end of the city, on DOT land. The city is trying to remove them, but the usual leftist advocacy groups are trying to stop that.
Start putting out free boxes of heroin, crack, and anything else the DEA evidence rooms claim to be full of. The addict problem will take care of itself in a few weeks.
Some of the pressure on Washington should be relieved soon. I understand Oregon has passed a law stating that medical care is a human right so all the homeless will probably soon being abandoning the State of "future hope" for the State that "flies with her own wings" (whatever that means).
Oops. Nevermind. Your homeless and "unhoused" will obviously now stay put.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hhs-approves-washington-state-request-offer-health-insurance-illegal-immigrants-citing-health-equity
Have you thought about moving to another state? A state that has more interest in promoting the general welfare of their legal residents? Just a thought. However, if you do, you are not allowed to vote until have proven you have a thorough understanding of the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution of the new state to which you have moved.
Oh, and don't immediately go to the county commissioner meeting demanding new red-lights at every cross-road and free bus service to the mall 20 miles away. We have already discussed those issues and prefer to leave those cross-roads with the stop signs that have worked for years (learn to drive and read signs), and if you want to go to the mall, buy a car, hitch a ride, or call a cab.
I’m tempted to move across the border to Idaho. Beyond their issues with cannabis and a few other minor things, Idaho is becoming steadily better by comparison.
I have even managed $20,000 per calendar month by simply working some easy tasks from my apartment. As I had lost my office career, I was very disturbed but luckily I’ve discovered this best on-line career that’s why I’m capable of earning a thousand USD just from home. Each person can avail this best offer & collect more greenbacks online
checking this article>>OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
c
I agree that this should be the case, but I don't think it's possible in a society like ours whose culture is being driven by people who are crippled by pathological altruism.
This goes back to what I was saying yesterday about judging people by intentions and policy by results.
I think those who want to spend taxes to help the homeless have good intentions. I also think they’re going about it the wrong way.
Rather than accusing the other side of being evil for promoting bad policy, we could have more productive conversations if we accept that our political enemies might share some of the same goals that we have. Then have a conversation about how to achieve those goals without accusing the other of having bad intentions.
No, we accuse evil people of being evil because they’re evil. Bad policy is just one part of the package.
I am not sure the compulsively composition have actual good intentions. Most of them have an urge to feel better about themselves more than truly helping.
Homelessness is not the default. People lived in houses in ancient times, during middle ages, right up to today. It is not something new at all
That's really dumb. Even for you, and I expect you to be dumb.
By default people have nothing. Not until something is produced. Then people have stuff by production or plunder. Plunder is a lot easier, which is why we form governments. Some want protection from plunder while others want the gains from plunder. Regardless, homelessness is the default until a home is built. If people aren't allowed to produce the wealth required for a home, or they aren't given a home that someone else made, well golly then they don't have one.
“That’s really dumb. Even for you, and I expect you to be dumb.”
Ok, now that’s well said.
JFree is like a child/socialist who imagines a reality that feels right but has no basis in fact.
Homelessness is higher in the richest country on earth than it is in most dirt poor countries.
Try thinking before you speak you moronic asshole.
For that matter, there are probably more homeless humans in the US than there are homeless birds in the US.
I'm sure that is because birds get all the proper lessons on wealth creation
LA county has almost one million illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Central America. The average education level of the Mexicans is six years schooling. They arrive usually with no English and, lacking documents, finding employment is problematic.
However, the homeless population in LA isn't Mexican. If it was only due to the high cost of housing, almost all the homeless would speak Spanish - but that is not the case.
Look elsewhere - probably tolerance for drug use.
In my experience anyone who says "Lazy Mexican" never worked with any Mexicans.
Yup, Mexico is the country where EVERYBODY is super hardworking. Explains why they're such a success story. All of those hard workers. I guess their magic dirt makes them all super duper industrious.
I'll say this: The mexicans I have hired to do work for me have worked their ass off. But they're motivated to do better. I get it.
Long time ago I worked with this Mexican dishwasher who would take a month off every year. For that month he'd go home to Mexico with American dollars, and live like a king. To his friends and family he was a respected businessman who went to America and came home rich. The rest of the time he was a lowly dishwasher sharing an apartment with ten other dirt poor Mexicans eating beans and rice every day.
"The rest of the time he was a lowly dishwasher sharing an apartment with ten other dirt poor Mexicans eating beans and rice every day."
I have seen cases of twenty or thirty Mexicans sharing the same place. While they are not homeless and I guess it is better than sleeping in taped together cardboard boxes it is still different than what lots of peeps view as acceptable living quarters.
Maybe ten years ago I was still living on my sailboat (pre COVID-19 that limited travel) with a shipmate from Sweden. On a trip to my condo she made the comment that the walk in closet from my master bedroom was bigger than her old apartment in Sweden. In fact in most of the world living quarters are tiny compared to what the US views as normal.
I hired some Mexicans to do some painting in my last house, which had a 20 ft cathedral ceiling in the living room. Came home during a lunch break to check on them. Two of them were holding up a ladder that wasn’t leaning on anything while a third, very small guy was at the top of the ladder painting, as the two at the bottom moved it along the wall he was painting.
I'll take that to mean you've never worked with any Mexicans.
I've worked in restaurants so, yes, plenty.
Just amazing that a country where, per you, EVERYBODY is super hard-working, it is still little more than a third world shithole.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other reasons for that than the people not working hard. Like work not being as rewarding there.
Or being entitled democrats.
You having a contest with JesseAz to see who can do the best job of intentionally misinterpreting what someone says?
I'm not the one claiming all of any group are hard workers. You claim that all Mexicans are hard workers and I am just pointing out it is odd that a country of busy folks like that is just a third world shithole.
I suggested that anyone who says "Lazy Mexican" never worked with any Mexicans. That's not a statement about all Mexicans. Only the ones who come to the states so they can work.
It could just be that the ones who are willing to take the risk to make the trek up here are somewhat more industrious or motivated than their average countryman.
He's intentionally ignoring that Mexico has a very weak government that focuses more on wealth redistribution than property rights and rule of law.
The system in which people work matters as much or more than the effort they put out.
The Government is weak? The government is weak? You're weak!
I've been in this business 15 years...
What's your name, pal?
FUCK YOU, that's my name!
No, chingon. In Mexico, everyone is working. They have almost zero unemployment. Their wages aren't as high comparatively speaking, but they all work.
PUT THAT COFFEE DOWN. Coffee is for the full time employees only..
With those cartels around it’s probably not even safe for serial killers.
It isn't that Mexicans are especially hard workers but that they do actually work, unlike the drugged out homeless seen on the streets. Working, they actually find somewhere other than on the streets to live.
Tell me you’ve never worked alongside any Mexicans without saying you’ve never worked alongside any Mexicans.
Mexico is going to change, by the way. There are tremendous economic and geopolitical trends that are going to shift factory work done in China to Mexico. The immigration problem will take care of itself.
Probably not, Mike. These folks are going through Mexico from Central America to the US and Canada.
Then there is the whole cartel problem.
Except that all the factories will still be owned by China and serve CCP policies, just in Mexico or other Central/South American countries.
Why is that necessarily so?
Foxcomm, for example, is *in China* and it is a Taiwan company.
Don’t think they’d keep coming if finding employment were hard. That’s the reason they are coming.
There a lots of illegal immigrants in LA mowing lawns, washing dishes and cooking, watching children, hanging drywall…
They used to come for the work. Now they come for the bennies. Free housing (for illegals only, not for Americans--they shall remain "unhoused" and drugged up), free medical care, free child care, free education, free food, free cell phone. The word spreads and now we have illegal aliens from Africa walking across the border (how they arrived in South America shall forever remain a mystery).
Hey, how many Reason writers have given up their job and moved out of their homes so that an illegal alien could have that job and home? Still zero? Wow, who would have thought? I guess they are still expecting the peons to do the heavy lifting on those issues. Better get to it folks. Donate YOUR job and home for the cause today to get ahead of the rush. Tomorrow's Reason article shaming you for being so greedy is being written even at this moment.
Democrats do love a de facto slave underclass.
Sociology as a scientific discipline is crap.
This is an easy question to answer if you want the real answer.... at least "who are they and why do they live on the street?"
I have direct experience via our ministry at the church. Here in South Florida (those coastal cities), housing is quite expensive. And homelessness has almost nothing to do with that. At least not the "living on the street" variety.
Couch surfing from place to place trying to get on your feet homelessness? Yeah, maybe. Living in the car? Maybe.
But the guys on the street are a large and visible cohort, and they are what people generally understand as "homeless". And the number 1 feature around here is that they are not natives.
Many of them came down as service workers because jobs are easy together and they have little consequence for being unreliable and the weather is nice. Another, larger cohort came down for court ordered drug treatment and stayed. So cities like Cincinnati and Detroit and Chicago export their mentally ill drug addicts who are at risk for homelessness to South Florida via the court system.
Places like LA and San Francisco also have large support structures and incentives to stay... so perhaps that explains the large street population. Easy to answer with simple demographics surveys. If housing prices are the determining factor, that population will be low income locals who were evicted for not paying the rent due to poverty.
I’m so tired of this nonsense about “What are the causes of homelessness?”
the answer is freaking obvious too.
But the report says that even people who have enough wealth are experiencing homelessness. They may have enough of everything else, but housing is a problem. I get it.
The cause of homelessness? Duh, evil capitalists and MAGA types ganged up on SBF so he could not create enough wealth to buy everyone a house (and a pony).
Every homeless person has a right to live at the beach in free housing.
or in a beautiful apartment in midtown overlooking the park.
A beautiful 2br, 2ba, 2000 square foot apartment, two parking places, chef's kitchen and overlooking the park in a hip walkable neighborhood with rent of $450/month.
https://twitter.com/RealTheoWold/status/1602539783682920448?t=7a-WNgbvqdSsZnDTFGQQJQ&s=19
Reason — mouthpiece for discredited DC “libertarians” — pushes Ranked Choice Voting, the Left’s newest electoral innovation. More embarrassing, Reason cites FairVote and repeats the lie that it is a “nonpartisan” org. 1/
FairVote — consistent with the position of leading Leftist election “experts” like Eric Holder and Marc Elias — advocates for the abolition of the Electoral College, proportional representation based on skin color and gender, and “independent” redistricting commissions. 2/
FairVote has board members who are paid employees of Soros’ Open Society and policy staffers who worked for Bernie Sanders. But Reason wants you to believe they’re “nonpartisan” and ranked choice voting is just a harmless reform. It’s not.
So Reason is misrepresenting the issue to push the Soros agenda? Shocking! Nah.
Call me old fashioned, but I'll take actual enumeration of votes cast for a candidate over statistical sophistry (ranked choice voting).
Ranked choice voting sounds like a good idea, but in practice screws with voter preference, and allows enormous amounts of "behind the scenes" manipulation -- or at least the appearance of such.
70% of voters surveyed believe suppression of the Hunter laptop affected the election.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11529381/Hunter-Bidens-laptop-Voters-lacked-critical-information-2020-election-survey-shows.html
Shrike will be here shortly to say it was only dick pics.
And by shrike, do you mean ENB limiting the laptop suppression reasons to just that issue?
ENB is the one true libertarian here. Unlike the filthy commenters who can't even afford parties in a D.C. bubble.
Supply proof that "Big Guy 10%" is incriminating yhen.
Odd how you don't need proof for either the stolen election from Donnie or Biden taking bribes.
It's like you wingnuts just make the shit up.
Which you do.
Yeah, emails between his son and the company paying the bribe won't convince this DNC fifty-center. He demands "proof"
And by proof Buttplug means a groveling apology from anyone who has criticized the left or cast aspersions about the current Whitehouse and their media lackeys (or is that the other way around?).
One of the people deeply involved in those emails specifically said who "the big guy" is. We have one of the parties to the emails saying who it is and morons online saying "We have no idea"
And, honestly, given that he and Hunter intermingled bank accounts and shared the same phone number, it's rather dirty.
Remember, it's hard to get a man to believe something when his job depends on not believing it. And it's even harder to get a moron to believe something when he gets paid 50 cents to say he does not believe it.
He didn’t just say it, he’s on record saying he would testify under oath, and he went to the FBI before this story broke and they told him to take a hike.
Then there’s all the pics of Joe with Hunter and his business parters, which is amazing because Joe says he’s never met any of them.
And we had another one of the business partners saying he wasn’t involved. That is always left out of the narrative.
Also, the business partner who confirmed that Big Guy is Joe Biden accepted an invitation to sit in the front row as a guest of Donald Trump at the first Predidential debate, hurting his credibility.
And don’t even try to say this means I’m siding with the Left or defending Joe. I’m giving a dispassionate, balanced view of the state of the current evidence.
I believe it’s entirely possible Joe Biden was on the take, but I acknowledge not enough evidence has been presented to prove it. In other words, maybe he did it but is getting away with it.
In other words, maybe he did it but is getting away with it.
I have an idea. Why don't we have some law enforcement types look into it? Maybe just a cursory glance, even. . . .
Supply proof that “Big Guy 10%” is incriminating yhen.
Those few words probably wouldn't be sufficient to convict in a court of law, no. But why are we pretending that that's the only piece of evidence there is, and why are we pretending that this has already been investigated when it hasn't?
Because Shrike is a partisan liar and rapes children?
This survey's conclusions seems absurd though.
52% of republicans said they were "somewhat likely" or "very likely" to have changed their votes if they knew the laptop information was real? So at least 52% of republicans voted for Biden? Wow! No wonder republicans are doing so poorly.
62% of democrats said they were "somewhat likely" or "very likely" to have changed their votes if they knew the laptop information was real? So at least 62% of democrats would have not voted for Biden if they knew? Who knew democrats were so principled! Come on!!!
Initial surveys said 5 to 15% of dems would have voted differently when the laptop was confirmed. The one pattern is it effected the election.
Are you denying this? More has come out in the last 2 years. And now dems actually do dislike Biden so the numbers should increase.
The lower number is probably more accurate as it was done nearer to the election.
5 to 15% seems much more reasonable.
Yes, I agree it affected the election, but remain doubtful it changed the outcome.
Biden won many states by less than 5%...
The cheating and illegal election law court decisions at the 11th hour pushed it over the edge.
I think the proof is in the pudding, JesseAZ. Meaning, over the next two years, it will become very evident that POTUS Biden has been using his son as the front man for influence peddling. Yeah, we knew that. Soon, there will be incontrovertible proof.
Team R better start thinking about who (Team D) runs if POTUS Biden does not.
Please, please, please, please! Could we have Trump and Hillary again? Cuz most American's really don't deserve anything better.
If that happens I'm moving to Canad...fuck Trudeau...Borneo.
I need enough money to buy my own private island and make the Mac largely self sufficient. Then import a few hot young female Ukrainian refugees.
Yeah, it’s a bit much to swallow.
Dick pics affect elections too. Ask Gary Hart/Anthony Wiener/Randy Boehning for details.
other polls have shown that a meaningful percentage people who learn of the laptop, who didnt know before the election, say they woudl NOT have voted biden.
It's a true bona fide election manipulation event.
Hunter Biden dick pics
INVESTIGATE NOW !!!!
If Twitter hadn't suppressed the story Trump would have won the election. You know, just like Russian ads on Facebook got him elected.
Wait. I thought Donnie DID win the election? But it was stolen in a genius four state plot by Sleepy Joe who can't tie his shoes some days.
Interesting how Biden's a doddering old fool and a mastermind at the same time. Like how Bush was a chimp and an evil genius at the same time. Sometimes there are more similarities than differences between the opposing teams.
Nobody suspects Biden was aware of anything. I've seen ventriloquist puppets with more autonomy than Joe.
Political commentators are shallow and facile in their takes? Well, I never!
Though to be fair, I don't think many are actually giving Biden credit for masterminding anything.
Look at Buttplug pretend yet again that the Laptop Scandal is about sex rather than bribery.
Look at an increasingly desperate Sarcasmic pretend to gobble it up.
Buttplug does it because he's paid to. Sarcasmic does it because he's retarded.
Laptop Scandal is about sex rather than bribery
There is zero proof of this.
Look at Abscam. That is proof.
You don't just get to allege something out of the wild. You no doubt thought Pizzagate was proof Hil-Dog ran a child predator ring.
Your party is gullible. Republicans are prone to belief without evidence.
You are so laughable, it isn't even funny. Abscam is an entirely different creature. That was created by the FBI specifically to entrap politicians looking for bribes.
If you have the child of a politician working for various foreign companies that are close to their respective governments, and part of that payment gets siphoned off, say 10%, to the politician him/herself, what do you call it? It's certainly not sex.
Look, in the Buttplug narrative only Trump's family could ever do such corrupt things on a global scale. The Bidens have been unfairly smeared by a rogue alt-right press contingent.
You birthers just allege with no evidence.
Over and over again.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a TDS-addled shit-pile, a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Birther? When have I ever posted anything about anyone's birthplace, Buttplug? Cite it. Otherwise, you're just making shit up (as usual).
"Birthers"
What the fuck does that even mean in this context? How is that related?
"no evidence"
Yeah, that's what the laptop is about, Pluggo. Evidence. Not sex, evidence.
I know you're paid to dissemble here, but you're not really earning your keep with low quality arguments like that.
Your authoritarian hero, Fatass Donnie, is the most famous birther ever.
You believe his lies. You believe the election was stolen.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a TDS-addled shit-pile, a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Well, you certainly try to prove me right when I say you're a purveyor of low quality arguments.
Everyone: “The proof of bribery in the Hunter Biden laptop”
Buttplug: “Noooooooo, don’t look at that!!! Look over there!! It’s Trump and he’s saying mean things about Obama!!!! Booo!!!”
You’re certainly predictable, Pluggo.
I’m a brother, in the sense that I wish you were never born. Kind of like the children you rape wish you were never born. Although I would settle for you being not alive now.
Imagine the media response if one of Trump's kids had lost a laptop like with dick picks, video of them doing hookers and blow, and records of their shady foreign activities such that Pres. Trump might be implicated?
Can you say party time at MSDNC (among many others)? We'd never hear the end of it.
There is zero proof of this.
Why are you still pretending there's zero proof? Seriously. Who do you think you're fooling?
No one said it was Biden’s plan. Nor did anyone say it was one cohesive plot. Lying and cheating come naturally to your kind.
^ Parody is obsolete: Exhibit #938
And people wonder why I retired OBL? The character was basically a shameless Democratic talking points regurgitator who claimed to be a libertarian. Why keep going when Buttplug already serves that purpose?
The only people who found OBL to be entertaining were idiots who feel that anyone who disagrees with them are leftists, even if the person also disagrees with leftists. Their simple minds cannot comprehend disagreeing with both sides. You're on one or the other. So if you're not on the right, you must be on the left. Even if you're not.
You seem to have taken the parody super seriously.
Do you honestly deny that SPB is a lefty?
A, I never read OBL because he was tedious and boring, and B SPB is more libertarian than most of the Trumpians in the comments.
By the way that whooshing sound was my point flying over your head. You know, the point being that only a certified moron believes that disagreement with their team equals support for the other team, and that these comments are ruled by certified morons.
O. M. G.
OBL was an American treasure. Anyone disagreeing is very likely a moron.
Agile Cyborg was a national treasure. OBL is a tool.
And you’re a raging alcoholic obsessed with a president who is pragmatically far more libertarian than you will ever be, despite your insistence to the contrary.
"A, I never read OBL because he was tedious and boring, and B SPB is more libertarian than most of the Trumpians in the comments."
OH. You don't know what a libertarian IS. Explains a ton.
"By the way that whooshing sound was my point flying over your head. You know, the point being that only a certified moron believes that disagreement with their team equals support for the other team, and that these comments are ruled by certified morons."
I know you don't look in mirrors. If I were you, I would not either.
"OH. You don’t know what a libertarian IS. Explains a ton."
I know what I see, which is people on the right attributing all disagreement to support for the far left. Which means all libertarians are leftists because they don't agree with the far right.
Wait wait I know!
A libertarian is a socially conservative Republican who is paranoid and anti-war and wants less spending.
Is that it? Because I think that's it according to the commenters here.
They like guns and low taxes. That makes them true libertarians.
This explains a lot. Sarcasmic and Jeff don't think being anti-war, pro-second amendment and against government spending are necessary to be libertarian.
Do you have any more articles praising dark brandon you can post to show us who the true libertarians are? Does it require supporting child porn too?
Supporting child porn does appear to be an important benchmark of libertarianism to Jeffy.
You know what a libertarian isn't, Jeffy? A guy who's paid to espouse Top Men, corporatism, authoritarianism and censorship, all of which you've done here.
And globalism as well as social democracy.
Shreek’s Pedo buddy, Jeffy, has decided to white knight for the child rapist.
Do you also know we had a discussion about your pro child groomer/molester agenda yesterday? Don’t worry, I’m sure the guys will fill you in.
Sarc may actually be worse than when chipper claimed Marxists were closer to libertarians than conservatives were.
Also, sarcasmic, I read your comments in spite of them being tedious and boring. I will even occasionally attempt to give you an assumption of good faith...then you kill that.
I'll be sure to let you know when I give a shit.
This response proves how little you care. Really, it does.
Because he's a troll... and not even a good one. He goes around the comments trying to start fights, but then goes full victim-mode when people punch back.
Look at how desperate sarc is to have me engage his leftist idiocy.
I kind of want to see his melt down when more people just ignore him.
He’s like the guy in the bar who flicks peanuts at you and runs his mouth, then says he was only kidding around when you stand up to kick his ass.
Now wonder he fits in so well with the left.
Why is it, when sarc is in a thread, we get this million-comment cascade that winds up being all about him and completely goes away from the original topic? Jeffy's almost as bad.
Why is it, when sarc is in a thread, we get this million-comment cascade that winds up being all about him and completely goes away from the original topic?
Google "ad hominem."
Mute him.
Google “ad hominem.”
Advice Sarcasmic should take. He thinks ad hominem is being told to go fuck yourself.
SPB2 is more libertine, not libertarian. Don't mistake the two.
Libertine in the sense that he fucks children.
Sarc calling someone else's posts tedious is peak hypocrisy
He has to deny it or he would be admitting his own bias.
There's one.
I never found OBL to be funny but my main criticism is he would drop character. You gotta commit to the role!
Like you did with White Knight?
Weren't you a parody of Liberaltarians? You know, the open borders Koch kind that write for Reason?
Dude, there is no such thing as a libertarian. Haven't you figured that out yet? You're with Trump and the Republicans, or you're a leftist. That's it. Those are the only two possible political choices. So anyone who claims to be a libertarian is a leftist by virtue of the fact that they're not Trumpian Republicans.
Yes, back in the Ron Paul Revolution days I joked that no one ever scored 100% on the Libertarian Putity Test.
Even then everyone here had their own definition of "libertarian" and it magically fit their own policy quirks.
Even then there was a general agreement on matters of economic and personal freedom, both of which are despised by the current crop of Trumpians who call themselves "true libertarians."
It is due to Ron Paul.
I have noticed that the people who object to the current right-wing libertarian crowd are, almost always, people who joined the libertarian cause in the pre-Ron-Paul days. It is very rare to find someone who calls him/herself a "Ron Paul Libertarian" but who also objects to the socially conservative crap that they push.
Ron Paul hijacked the label of "libertarian" and turned it into "a person who is fundamentally a Republican but who is paranoid about the security state and anti-war, and disagrees with Republicans on maybe a couple of other issues." They fundamentally have the same ideological biases and fundamentals as your typical socially conservative Republican.
I could see that as a contributing factor. But that was many moons ago. Doesn't explain the "Trump was the most libertarian president EVER" crowd.
You really found your true friends with these two. You must be proud.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
The Ron Paul crowd hijacked libertarianism. Now it means "a Republican who disagrees with other Republicans on maybe a couple of issues".
Do you idiots even read what you wrote and realize your takes are bad? Or have you fully deluded yourselves into blind support of the DNC and the left as a libertarian ideal?
You stop beating your wife yet?
Didn't you surreptitiously feed your horsemeat when you found out she loved horses? Weren't you accused of abuse during your divorce?
You probably shouldn't go there, Sarckles.
He just dreamed of doing it. But he did burn peoples meat for ordering it wrong in a method up rage as a line cook.
I don’t believe he was ever married, nor has he sired any children. Just drunken fantasies. I consider it more likely he lives alone, in a refrigerator box located in a piss soaked alley. Posting his comments on public library computers.
Tedious.
More than just shrike doing that here.
Plus it seems to be working on fooling other principled posters like sarcasmic.
Sandra, I just want to say that some of your posts were absolutely priceless. I have laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes a few times. You have a gift. 🙂
Don't listen to him. I often found it to be the most worthwhile thing in these comments. It was like when SB Cohen scored Kazakhstan government URL with a .kz domain
Fucking hilarious
For the twentieth time, Buttplug, no one gives a shit about your tiny dick pics. Post them somewhere else.
We care more about the emails on that laptop.
https://twitter.com/josephmenn/status/1602321577491562502?t=TzHF-ylfnEaT3txk1oI3xg&s=19
Over the weekend, Elon Musk alarmed safety experts by using tactics honed by QAnon, and attracting some of its followers, to suggest that former Twitter managers had ulterior motives for not rooting out child sex abuse images on the platform. My story:
[Wapo link]
That they did not ever root up kiddie porn should raise questions. As well as ignoring when people who were the children in the kiddie porn posts ASKING them to remove them were rebuffed.
They were actively distributing child sexual abuse.
These clumps of cancer should face violence.
QAnon Promoter Found to Be Sex Offender With History of Child Sexual Abuse
https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-promoter-found-sex-offender-history-child-sexual-abuse-1644105
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
I'd wager you should know as you got your old handle here, "Sarah Palin's Buttplug" banned for posting child porn.
There’s proof that he has.
I suppose the relevancy of this will be noted eventually.
I didn’t know you were involved with this Qanon person. Hopefully they execute you.
Related.
Parody is obsolete: Exhibit #2,433
Elon Musk is now explicitly encouraging his 120 million followers to start following QAnon. Put differently, Elon Musk is encouraging his 120 million followers to join a domestic terrorism movement.
Oooooooooooh scary! 🙁
Bunny emoji is the new swastika
Why do most progressives sound like 10 year old girl drama queens, and are just as truthful?
That domestic terrorist group attacked the US Capitol. And now MTG says their mistake was in not being properly armed.
What arms were brought into the Capitol, Shrike? Name them, and no, a fire extinguisher doesn't count.
Hard to terrorize when you're only arms are floofy flags and fire extinguishers.
Only one group of terrorists actually attacked the government.
It was 5/29/20.
They got nothing for it and, instead, got paid millions by the DC government.
Another one of your idiotic Democratic talking points: 1 / 6 was exactly like 9 / 11!
9/11 hijackers = Jan 6 Trump mob. Exactly the same motive.
"Exactly the same motive"? The 9 / 11 hijackers wanted to kill as many people as possible to punish the US for its policies in the Middle East. Did the 1 / 6 mob try to kill as many people as possible? Were their complaints related to foreign policy?
But that's the way it is with you Democrats. Everything you don't like has to be compared to the worst things imaginable. Trump is not just a buffoon who shouldn't have been President, he's "Hitler being blackmailed by Putin over a pee tape." 1 / 6 was not just a riot, it was a "terrorist attack similar to 9 / 11."
Pathetic, hysterical drama queens. So self-evidently ridiculous that parodying you became pointless.
Again, like spoiled 10 year old girls. (My apologies to young girls.)
Unmasked OBL is still super.
Why do you support censorship. People should freely trade children porn without fear. Ask jeff.
You can't spell NAMBLA without (L).
Jesse, as do I, support censorship because we both want the distribution of child porn to be banned.
But only one of us is honest enough to admit that it is genuine censorship.
Cite you supporting banning child porn? You’ve been defending it as a free speech issue while denying it victimized someone. And even defending men in drag flashing kids for fun.
It took you 6 days to realize how fucked up your point is? Are you now going to claim ID theft and credit card fraud are not a free speech issue? Or are you going to continue with it as censorship?
It is not genuine censorship. It is an illegal act that victimized people jeff. I know you are desperate to claim it is censorship so you can use it as a false equivalence to defend your stance of censorship against political ideas. But nobody here is dumb enough to agree to your sea lion attempts. Reminder. One of the tactics of a sea lion is to redefine base agreements to words and discussions. That is what you are doing.
You've defended child porn for 5 days. Glad to see you realize how terrible it makes you look. But my guess is you only switched due to appearances and are still a fucking pedophile given your last few years defending grooming and now child porn.
Says the guy who just today defended rapist prison guards.
Cite you supporting banning child porn?
Here you go.
https://reason.com/2022/12/09/bari-weiss-twitter-files-elon-musk-blacklist-shadow-banning/?comments=true#comment-9830402
You may apologize now.
Dude doesn't apologize when he beats his wife. Why would he apologize for lying?
True. Poor Mrs. Jesse. And the horror that his kids have to endure.
Hey, your "cite" is about you trying to justify censorship instead. What do you think you're pulling?
Being extremely successful is surely a horror to life's failures like you two. Lol.
People better than you are the worst.
If he's a fraction of the dick he is here to people in real life, I must assume he has no friends and his family merely tolerates him.
Ideas!
Sarcasmic never starts shit. He's always the victim, it's everyone else who is mean.
Don’t assume any of the bold keyboard edge lords here act anywhere nearly the same when interacting with their wives in real life.
Unlike you, who I’m quite certain squawks like a bird in real life.
And mike joins in on the personal attacks he oft decries, not calling it out, but supporting it with name calling.
LOL. The Hypocrisy is amazing. People use Sarc's own statements against him while makine things up about people. Mike supports this I guess.
Did you ever apologize to your daughter when Child Protective Services were called on you for abuse?
sarcasmic 13 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I had CPS called on me because I said sometimes dragged my kid’s feet off the bed to get her to get up. CPS said it was reported that I was “Laying hands on my child in a concerning way.”
It is projection. Thats all he has. Accuse others of what he does.
chemjeff radical individualist 4 days ago Flag Comment Mute User You know that “free speech” includes not just the literal spoken word. . If you are in favor of making possession of child porn illegal, then you are in favor of censorship. . It is a type of censorship that I favor. It is ALSO a type of censorship that YOU favor. But you are too dishonest to admit it. You want to have it both ways: to strike a pose of being “against censorship” while you support censorship, calling it something else.
That is your defense. That you favor it while attacking it as a form of censorship?
Lol. Wow.
Is this like saying "I'm against rape, but it isnt assault."?
But I'm NOT attacking it as a form of censorship.
You are the one who has it stuck in your head that "censorship = bad". The reality is, the issue is a lot more complicated.
No. It is you trying to change based assumptions to excuse your prior support of censorship.
Again. Youre not fooling anyone sea lion.
Child porn has never been a free speech issue. It has a victim. It is a crime. Only pedophiles defend it as a free speech issue.
The fact you continue to try to equate child porn to your prior support of censorship is stunning.
I’m NOT defending it as a free speech issue. I state quite clearly that I think the possession and distribution of child porn is a type of speech that should not be free, that should be censored.
You are the one claiming that you are “anti-censorship” while continuing to favor certain types of censorship, claiming “oh that’s not REAL censorship”.
Your mistake is thinking JesseAz is capable of honest discussion. He's not. He's here to score points and own libs. When if he can't find libs to own he'll call people libs, argue against things they don't say, intentionally misinterpret what they do say, and then declare victory while a host of idiots clap like mechanical monkeys.
Your mistake is thinking JesseAz is capable of honest discussion. He’s not. He’s here to score points and own libs.
When you're making false equivalencies and begging the question like chemjeff, notably using his favorite example of child abuse (he did argue that preventing child molesters from entering the US was reducing their liberty, after all).
The fact that he constantly feels the need to frame larger political issues within such a specific framework gives the game away. It's hardly an accident that he's so invested in protecting pederasts and child molesters.
I'm not defending jeff. I'm simply reminding him that any debate with JesseAz is a waste of time because they guy doesn't even pretend to be honest.
It is not genuine censorship. It is an illegal act that victimized people jeff.
The CREATION of the child porn creates the victim, yes.
The POSSESSION and DISTRIBUTION does not.
And even if it did, banning it is STILL CENSORSHIP.
I know you are desperate to claim it is censorship so you can use it as a false equivalence to defend your stance of censorship against political ideas.
I don't favor censorship against political ideas by the government. FFS I am the one who was claiming that schools should be uninhibited places to teach any academically relevant subject while you all were freaking out about "groomer teachers turning kids gay".
I am also an adult on the subject. I don't believe that ALL censorship in ALL contexts is bad. Banning the possession and distribution of child porn is one example of good censorship.
You are the dishonest one here who wants to have a facade of being "anti-censorship" while still supporting it in the cases that you deem worthy. But just not CALLING it "censorship". You just want to claim the "anti-censorship" narrative, that's all.
Fuck me, Jeff. How crazy are you?
The CREATION of the child porn creates the victim, yes.
The POSSESSION and DISTRIBUTION does not.
Oh, bullshit. The possession and distribution is part of the crime, dork.
You do know that there are separate criminal statutes for creating child porn, and for possessing child porn, right?
What is the crime associated with possession and distribution of child porn?
Look at how desperate you are to defend child porn still. And all to try to dave face on your past support of political censorship. What the fuck is wrong with you.
You are so dishonest, even when I explicitly provide a link where I state quite clearly that I do not support child porn, you still accuse me of favoring child porn.
All you care about is the issue and the narrative. You want to be on the "pro-free-speech, anti-censorship" side because it looks good. You refuse to critically examine your own position and you handwave away anyone who points out that yes, you do in fact favor censorship under some circumstances, claim "but it's not REAL censorship". You're a dishonest narrative-pushing troll, right up there with Posobiec and the rest of the right-wing media outrage machine.
You are so dishonest, even when I explicitly provide a link where I state quite clearly that I do not support child porn, you still accuse me of favoring child porn.
If you make a statement that differs from what he says you said, then you're the liar.
If you make a statement that differs from what he says you said, then you’re the liar.
Of course he's lying. He's using child porn to bolster his argument.
Simply possessing something can't be censored you retarded fuck. Crnsorship requires some type of transmission.
Transmitting child porn is not speech. It is a crime.
How fucking retarded are you? Youre not going to change the basic assumptions or discussion here.
What a pathetic piece of shit. All to defend his defense of political censorship.
Transmitting child porn is not speech. It is a crime.
Transmitting child porn is speech that is censored, and for good reason.
chemjeff wannabe statist....quite honestly, anyone who exploits children by producing pornography for sexual pleasure should be summarily executed.
And those 'minor attracted persons' who like to view that perversion? I have no problem sticking those sick fucks in the general population of Rikers Island, wearing a sign that states: Libtards call me a 'minor attracted person'.
It is vile and disgusting to exploit children for sexual pleasure.
chemtard is creating a strawman by claiming that what his opponents are arguing for is a pure non-censorship environment, and that anything they support censoring makes them hypocrites. He uses the example of child porn because he thinks this proves this strawman, but that's primarily because, as an anti-rightist, he's fine with their speech being censored by his lefty allies. When the right wants to censor something that is obviously harmful like child porn, he then creates a false equivalence to say that they aren't really against censorship, just censorship of things they don't like.
Which shows that Jeff isn't actually a libertarian, either, he's just an anti-rightist.
Yeap. It is obvious was jeff is attempting to do here, excuse his past stances.
what his opponents are arguing for is a pure non-censorship environment
Jesse himself says he is "anti-censorship", without reservation or qualification. And Team Red is trying to claim that it's the "pro-speech" party. So no it's not a strawman.
but that’s primarily because, as an anti-rightist, he’s fine with their speech being censored by his lefty allies.
I am opposed to the government censoring any political speech by anyone that is not otherwise illegal.
I believe it should be legal for lefties to censor right-wing viewpoints on their property.
I believe it should be legal for righties to censor left-wing viewpoints on their property.
Unlike you, I actually have principles, not just mindless tribalism.
When the right wants to censor something that is obviously harmful like child porn
Oh oh oh so you ARE admitting that banning the possession and distribution of child porn is a type of censorship. Please inform Jesse, he seems confused on this topic.
they aren’t really against censorship, just censorship of things they don’t like.
But that is a true statement. And they like to grandstand and push a narrative that they are "pro-free-speech".
Knock it off with the grandstanding and narrative-pushing and let's discuss censorship like adults, recognizing that not ALL censorship is bad.
Child porn is banned not because it's speech but because it involves the criminal sexualization of minors. That you can't get that simple fact says a lot about you, none of it good.
Incidentally, here is a person who really does think that the possession of child porn should not be a crime.
https://reason.com/2022/12/09/this-principal-investigated-a-sexting-incident-so-the-police-charged-him-with-possessing-child-porn/?comments=true#comment-9829803
Merely possessing an image should never be a crime. Illegal pornography charges should be only for those who produce, sell, buy, or distribute it.
And no, it’s not SPB.
I await with bated breath your devastating rhetorical takedown of this person as being a pedophile and a groomer. But I know you won’t, because he is on your tribe.
Possession isnt a transmission of speech you retarded fuck. How wide are you willing to stretch your new definitions?
Do you agree with this person, that possession of child porn should not be a crime?
Now you're twisting what was said there, Jeffy. It would be nice if you weren't so damn dishonest about it.
I agree you're making a creepy fool of yourself and should stop.
This is, of course, what pedophiles and groomers do--they create false equivalencies and exercise extreme sophistry to make their gross predilections more acceptable within a liberalized social environment, just like the trannie movement does with exploiting the vulnerability of minors by lying that these normal processes are actually abnormal, and encouraging them radically alter their bodies and natural biological development to stop the abnormalities from occurring.
So when jeff says that he should be able to take children to a strip show and that no one should be empowered to stop him, he's absolutely trying to normalize these pedophilic behaviors, by arguing that anyone who argues that censorship is bad should also support it, too.
So when jeff says that he should be able to take children to a strip show and that no one should be empowered to stop him,
So in your view, should it be illegal for a parent to voluntarily take kids to a "strip show" where there is no nudity and no sexual contact?
he’s absolutely trying to normalize these pedophilic behaviors,
I love how you try to frame that any parenting decision that isn't what a conservative prude might choose constitutes "pedophilic behaviors".
And the thing is, we don't all have to agree on what is the best way to raise kids. As long as there is no literal child abuse, it should all be legal. And if you wish to socially disapprove of how some other set of parents choose to raise their kids, then be my guest. I fully support your liberty to do as much scolding and disapproving as you want. But the moment that you want to send the MEN WITH GUNS in to criminalize parenting decisions that aren't child abuse, that is when you cross the line.
>>As long as there is no literal child abuse
cool. the existence of *any* child pron is literal child abuse.
So in your view, should it be illegal for a parent to voluntarily take kids to a “strip show” where there is no nudity and no sexual contact?
Depends on what position you're taking.
I love how you try to frame that any parenting decision that isn’t what a conservative prude might choose constitutes “pedophilic behaviors”.
I love how you try to frame any parenting decision that aligns with what a liberal degenerate might choose constitutes acceptable behavior.
As long as there is no literal child abuse, it should all be legal.
And as I pointed out, your side is constantly trying to reframe that definition towards sexualizing kids.
But the moment that you want to send the MEN WITH GUNS in to criminalize parenting decisions that aren’t child abuse, that is when you cross the line.
Since you brought it up, what's child abuse, in your specific definiton?
Depends on what position you’re taking.
So principled.
And as I pointed out, your side is constantly trying to reframe that definition towards sexualizing kids.
Libertarians want to sexualize kids? Someone tell KMW.
I await with bated breath your devastating rhetorical takedown of this person as being a pedophile and a groomer. But I know you won’t, because he is on your tribe.
"Meanwhile, I've spent the last two days arguing that you can't be anti-censorship and still support the banning of child porn, because I'm totally not a pederast, I'm just asking questions."
And flashing your dick at young children isnt sexual!!! Another claim he is making.
you can’t be anti-censorship and still support the banning of child porn
When it comes to the distribution and possession of child porn, how is that not a true statement?
And no I'm not a pederast. I don't expect you to argue honestly either on the subject.
When it comes to the distribution and possession of child porn, how is that not a true statement?
Because it's promoting harmful social behaviors. There's a world of difference between maliciously targeting right-wing speech because it doesn't align with leftist ideologies, and child porn. You're trying to equate the two because you support censorship of right-wing speech.
And no I’m not a pederast. I don’t expect you to argue honestly either on the subject.
Right--you believe that child molesters should be allowed to claim refugee status, support taking kids to sexualised strip shows, and use the example of child porn to argue that right-wing speech should be censored.
Because it’s promoting harmful social behaviors.
It IS promoting harmful social behaviors. That's one reason why it should be censored. We agree.
You’re trying to equate the two
No, I am showing that they are both examples of the same thing.
A 2-door hatchback is a car. A racecar is a car. They are both cars. They are not equivalent cars. Get it now?
Censoring child porn is an example of censorship. This is an example of censorship that is desirable. Censoring right-wing viewpoints is also an example of censorship. This is an example, when done by the government, of censorship that is very undesirable. But both are examples of censorship.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
No, I am showing that they are both examples of the same thing.
A 2-door hatchback is a car. A racecar is a car. They are both cars. They are not equivalent cars. Get it now?
Yet another stupid analogy.
Censoring child porn is an example of censorship. This is an example of censorship that is desirable. Censoring right-wing viewpoints is also an example of censorship. This is an example, when done by the government, of censorship that is very undesirable. But both are examples of censorship.
Still indulging in that false equivalence.
One of the issues in Maricopa outside of the maladninistration of the election was the addition of 25k votes late in the counting process
The Maricopa County Recorder announced on Nov. 9 that there were "275,000+ ballots" that "had been sorted for scanning and signature verification" after the vote centers were closed, according to the complaint, but the next day, a Maricopa County election official contacted the county election contractor Runbeck, which reported having scanned 298,000 ballots.
Many observers at the time noted how there were a few weird high Hobbs vote dumps during the counting far away in vote distribution from prior dumps. Hobbs "won" by 17k.
There is now also evidence that ballots rejected for signature verification were added back in after rejection against state law. Lake is asking for a review of all envelopes.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/more-25000-ballots-added-maricopa-county-vote-total-after-election
Old news.
Also "too local."
Only QAnon insurrectionists would possibly have any suspicions about the integrity of an election outcome.
Kind of odd that the Justice Department had SBF arrested just before he was supposed to testify before Congress. If I were the "no coincidences" type, I might say that SBF didn't kill himself.
Too bad the cameras malfunctioned and his guards fell asleep
I bet the guards in charge of watching his cell (or whatever) are looking forward to the paid time off.
Disgraced crypto king faces criminal charges and SEC lawsuit.
What's the use of buying elections if they're not going to shield you after?
Will the Democrats return what we now know was stolen money to investors? Only time will tell.
Duh. What do you think union pension fund bail-outs are?
Surprised you don't have a comment on this, ENB. Of course, when you let someone like SPB2 back in, maybe it's not news you like.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/musk-disbands-twitter-trust-safety-council-after-inaction-child-porn
Twitter has dissolved its Trust and Safety council after new owner Elon Musk criticized the group over a longstanding lack of action to rid the platform of child sexual abuse material.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link…………..>>> onlinecareer1
Gee, y'think regarding the money laundering? Wanna bet it was laundered to campaign contributions?
https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/sam-bankman-fried-arrested-bahamas-set-prompt-extradition
According to the NYT, the charges against SBF which in an indictment which will be unsealed on Tuesday included wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, securities fraud, securities fraud conspiracy and money laundering. Of course, SBF should also be charged for talking too damn much and adding 15 years to his sentence by being a megalomaniac sociopath, but we'd take attempted bribery of the entire Democratic Party instead.
The EU is showing how to make Illinois look clean by comparison.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/12/13/the-eu-is-rotten-to-the-core/
The European Union is engulfed in a serious corruption scandal. Several serving MEPs, ex-MEPs and their assistants stand accused of receiving cash from Qatar in exchange for promoting the interests of the gulf state in Brussels.
Or, as they call it in Brussels, Tuesday.
...CEO Elon Musk has granted access to internal documents to a small group of friendly reporters.
By friendly you mean ultra right wing MAGA zealots.
You were invited?
Dailymail actually called them right-wing journalists.
You'd think sarcasmic would be here lambasting them for labelling anybody who is not left-wing as being right-wing.
Note: None of the people he leaked info to are right-wing by any rational definition of the word.
No no. You are free to call anyone you disagree with right wing. It let's you morally ignore information that harms the left. But don't you fucking dare call sarc a leftist.
Dude, we don't call you a right-winger merely because we disagree with you.
We call you a right-winger because you shill for Team Red. Day after day after day.
You literally come rushing to their defense anytime something embarrassing pops up about Team Red. And you continually cite right-wing news sources as authoritative, like you did here.
And Jeff is here as an example of how he can do it but don’t you dare call him a leftist. Sure he never points out any issues of the information provided, but it is right wing so he can blindly dismiss it. It allows him to continue to live in his bubble without push back.
Thank you for providing another example jeff.
What information did I post that was right wing or incorrect?
This is just another example of JesseAz accusing others of doing what he does while he is doing it. I have to give the guy credit for having absolutely no shame at all.
Nothing about Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Bari Weiss being labeled as right-wingers?
Even worse, some of these seditious reporters were once part of the Progressive tribe. Nothing is more evil than a traitorous apostate.
Think sarcasmic was just making a dumb joke, not to be taken too seriously.
I think Bari Weiss would be surprised to find out that she is an ultra right wing MAGA zealot.
It's unclear precisely what charges Bankman-Fried faces, but authorities were looking at him for potential fraud charges.
Charges were released last night. Are you too hungover rage tweeting about your readers?
(the second-largest in the 2022 election cycle, according to Forbes). Bankman-Fried has also stated that he secretly gave a lot to Republicans, too, though this hasn't been verified.
But you had to add it to make it both sides? It was a few hundred thousand to the conservatives on the oversight committee over FTX.
Goebbels is so proud of ENB and Reason
He could also use a sandwich.
Cuban sandwich?
Bahaman sandwich?
Was that a hate comment?
The officer ran up to a man described as mentally ill, attempted no de-escalation, and shot him despite not being in danger.
If he was mentally ill then why give him a gun and badge?
"FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried Used Customer Assets to Fund DEMOCRATIC Party Political Donations, Says SEC"
FTFY
Let's be honest, if this guy was funding the GOP, ENB would have been precise. And there definitely would have been some mention of pouncing.
In the more in-depth coverage you can find elsewhere, I did find a few reports that another higher-up at FTX had given a little over $25 million to Republicans. That's less than half of what SBF gave to Democrats, but it's still quite a bit of money. It seems like FTX really was paying off both sides, but also had a pretty obvious bias.
https://twitter.com/iLoveJaneAdams/status/1602463561111916546?t=tqllkKaJikPwFJ0wnnFlrw&s=19
Jeffrey Epstein & Bill Gates funded MIT’s Media Lab developing CBDC “Project Hamilton”, while SEC Chair Gensler was the Lab’s senior advisor & taught economics with Glenn Ellison, the father of SBF’s girlfriend and co-CEO of Alameda Research, Caroline Ellison.
Most of that money went to PACs supporting crypto. The 25 million was not to Republicans but to a cause. It is being listed as such to protect the democrats
See here you go, deflecting for Team Red.
SBF gave money to Republicans - "well akshually that was money given to a cause that doesn't count"
SBF gave money to Democrats - "HE'S FUNDING THE LEFT NO DOUBT"
What did I say that was incorrect. Do you have sources that show i am incorrect? Or are you making blind claims because it goes against your leftist beliefs?
Here is one analysis. I'm sure the site is right wing.
https://www.cryptotimes.io/ftx-ceo-sbf-donated-16-million-to-super-pacs-in-april/
Here is another.
Of that total, 92% has gone to the Democrats, with the remainder going to Republican candidates and campaigns. FTX co-CEO Salame favors the red side of the political divide, donating $23.6 million to Republican campaigns for the current cycle.
Note the GOP donations were not made by SBF but by Salame.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/sbf-has-been-a-significant-donor-in-us-midterm-elections
So do you have anything to counter your leftist statements?
Jeff? I know you're rage reading. I'm sure you can provide me some counter facts. Or are the two sites above right wing and you can blindly dismiss them?
Not required.
Slimy pile of lefty shit is as dishonest as turd.
Did the money go to MacConnell?
According to Opensecrets.org, SBF donated
$36,846,356 to Democrats
and
$240,200 to Republicans
IOW, 0.6% of his political donations was to Team Red.
$240,200 might be enough for a few candidates, but it's a pittance in the long term scheme of things. $36.8 million on the other hand...
...fails to protect female inmates from rape while protecting employees who commit sexual assault.
When criminal justice and incarceration turns into a jobs program, this is what you're going to get.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/12/13/the-curious-case-of-the-bag-snatching-nuclear-expert/
The issue here is not so much that a man has allegedly stolen two women’s suitcases. It is more that a person of such clearly questionable character was ushered into a senior government role in the first place.
It also makes one feel really confident about the DOE's nuclear waste disposal efforts.
I suspect FLOTUS is making some of these hiring decisions particularly this guy and the Quaker Oats Ma'am.
All of that should be ignored because "trans" or whatever.
The Supreme Court won't hear a case concerning California's ban on flavored tobacco.
That's individual rights and commerce, why would the justices be interested?
The government has the authority to force you to eat your broccoli, as averred by Justice Kagan during her hearings. It's all very constitutional.
Bari Weiss has released the latest installment of the Twitter Files, for which Twitter CEO Elon Musk has granted access to internal documents to a small group of friendly reporters.
Friendly reporters or honest ones not seeking to bury the story?
And then she post links to incurious reporters trying to bury the story. Unbelievable.
She knows who her actual audience is.
Based on those agreeing with her tweet they are pro censorship dems falsely claiming to be libertarians.
Those must be the hordes of "good" libertarians who read Reason and never comment.
Those must be the hordes of “good” libertarians who read Reason and never comment.
And donate huge sums of money to their annual beg-at-thon.
They probably have the last name "Koch".
Probably both. But all among the most honest journalists working at the moment.
Food for thought.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/12/12/in-defence-of-the-december-strikes/
It perhaps isn’t surprising that a man who once wore £490 Prada loafers to a building site cannot appreciate how difficult it is for someone with a family and a mortgage to get by on £34,000 a year. But Sunak’s clever, he knows maths, so he surely understands that giving nurses a wage rise below inflation – which is what the government proposed – would bring about a literal downturn in nurses’ living standards.
"The obvious cause of homelessness: not enough housing."
The even more obvious cause of homelessness: complete idiots who think that just by wishing for something it will appear, and everyone will then behave according to the plan.
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1602651667920736257?t=13eGqKXxDLKfu25wFb0S9g&s=19
My son sent me this. They pop up on the practice exam website kids use.
They’re after your kids. This is why you cannot ignore cultural issues with your children. The LGBTQ demon mob will get to them if you don’t get to them first.
[Link]
At least they admit the L on trans women are women and have moved on to 'girls' nomenclature.
I always ask, if trans men are men does that mean I'm a trans man?
No, devo.
Maybe our folks from Arizona can further comment and add to this.
ttps://www.cnn.com/2022/12/11/opinions/kyrsten-sinema-independent-arizona-democrats-gabriel/index.html
From Barry Goldwater to John McCain, and now to Sinema, Arizona has long been the home of the “maverick” senator. For decades, the state has rewarded politicians who stand up to party bosses and politics as usual.
Despite their complaints Friday, Arizona Democrats ran her out of their party.
She is polling at just over 35% for the dem primaries. She is trying to save her job.
She was against the born alive bill with 100% NARAL rating. Pro amnesty. Has voted yes on every big spending bill. She isn't independent.
Haha, CNN. Still pushing the Maverick line. John McCain was a POS who used his POW status repeatedly, while doing crap for Arizonians. You could count on him once every 6 years to give lip services to the border, then promptly ignore it. He complained about "pork" spending, but he was a Democrat about spending; just like Bush and the other RINOs. And he got a hard-on for every war that came along.
Sinema is NOT a centrist or independent. As noted, she voted with Biden 93% of the time. The only centrist positions she's taken is against removing the filibuster. She's not speaking against all the woke crap and grooming non-sense. She votes for all the spending. Has she spoken against our involvement with Ukraine?
Don't be fooled. The DNC know that AZ won't vote for a far, FAR left radical like Gallego, so this is theater to help position Sinema for the general election. You watch, there will be a wide field in the primary to help push Sinema through with less than 50%. Then in the general election, she'll play the centrist card while labeling her candidate a far right MAGA radical.
The Kochs will be happy for the cheap labor.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/12/thousands-of-migrants-flood-over-border-at-el-paso/
Thousands of migrants have once again flooded over the border from Mexico at El Paso, Texas — many of whom had reportedly been kidnapped by cartels, rescued by the Mexican army, then brought to the border by the country’s police and told to turn themselves in to US authorities.
"The Supreme Court won't hear a case concerning California's ban on flavored tobacco."
Ketanji's dad used to smoke menthols, and she just hates that shit.
she's not a tobacco farmer.
Mail-in balloting.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/12/twitter-files-reveal-how-federal-censors-made-mail-in-ballots-sacred-boosting-biden/
The FBI pressured Twitter to target an Oct. 26, 2020, tweet from a former Republican official who wrote that “between 2% and 25% of Ballots by Mail are Being Rejected for Errors,” journalist Matt Taibbi revealed.
But that tweet was more accurate than the “New Truths” federal overseers imposed. When New York City relied on mail-in ballots for a June 2020 primary, up to 20% of ballots were declared invalid. The Daily News labeled the primary snafus a “dumpster fire.”
And now the DoJ and government like the Michigan AG, and Arizona SoS are threatening anyone who advocates for election integrity measures.
The Twitter Files; more than ENB cares to tell you.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/11/medias-silence-on-twitter-files-is-shameful/
If anything is an existential threat to democracy, it is Big Tech’s assault on free speech, in service to one side of politics and under the instruction of intelligence operatives determined to rig elections against recalcitrant Republicans. In fact, the lead agency tasked with election security, the FBI, is revealed as a prime culprit.
Arrogant prick caught name calling on hot mic.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/13/new-zealand-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-caught-name-calling-rival-on-hot-mic/
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has landed herself in some trouble after she was caught on a hot mic making a nasty comment towards her political rival.
The comment was targeted at David Seymour, the leader of the libertarian ACT party, after he threw some hardball questions at Ardern about her government’s record.
Jacinda Ardern is really a shitty person. And, a psychopath to boot.
The SBF World Apology Tour Continues.
https://wng.org/opinions/the-bankman-fried-media-apology-tour-1670850637
Unfortunately, the mainstream business press that had been celebrating Bankman-Fried was not interested in digging deeply into the reported problems. Why would they? FTX sponsored their conferences. Bankman-Fried’s parents were law professors, and his mother was a pioneering financial bundler to the Democratic Party. Bankman-Fried became one of the largest donors to the Democrats and the largest single donor to the Democrats for 2022. FTX’s ESG score was higher than Exxon-Mobil and Bankman-Fried espoused all the right, true, and virtuous progressive talking points.
Even small children know he’s just a prop
https://twitter.com/CariKelemen/status/1602642444994191363?t=TB-wMmEYqrQisWT-xIAfag&s=19
Is he invisible? No one is even looking at him. Wow.
[Video]
Women be shopping.
"the homelessness crisis in coastal cities cannot be explained by disproportionate levels of drug use, mental illness, or poverty."
No doubt about it; every homeless person I ever saw at an intersection with a sign was sane, sober, and rich.
Good weather is the primary factor in homelessness, who are almost all drug addicts or mentally ill.
"housing" is not at all the issue and only disingenuous grifters make that claim.
https://twitter.com/politicalmath/status/1602542224457228289?t=aEp0vVYF_mTXKf2RiGoEZw&s=19
I had forgotten that Popehat called the Covington kids "evil" and never apologized for this
this was the first time in my life when a middle-aged man needed desperately to demand that children half his weight were moral monsters
[Link]
Yeah, no everyone who attacked those kids did not comport themselves in a manner that looked good even a month later.
I love that Popehat is now quitting Twitter because of Musk.
As somebody said "If you have blocked as many people as Popehat did, there really is not much of a need for a big "I'm leaving" rant.
Remember when he was not a narcissistic blowhard asshole?
Is he also moving to Canada?
...for their free "healthcare."
I followed Popehat on Twitter and am now following him on Mastodon.
I’m wondering how you even know how many people he has blocked. I have no idea how many people that people that I follow on either platform have blocked — how do you know?
Do you follow him like you follow ENB?
I notice that ENB has totally left Twitter for mastodon just like all the other progressive journalists. You can tell by all the Mastsdon links she posts.
Yep. Just like her tweets (oh, did I say tweets?) this past week that Mike not just follows but comments on.
https://twitter.com/JamesBradleyCA/status/1602638928200302592?t=SG-LIbbeVEptu-vfXzs3iw&s=19
Tara Reade told Tucker Carlson LAST NIGHT that Joe Biden “penetrated me with his fingers.”
Media SILENT.
KAMALA SILENT.
Just another day in Joe Biden’s America.
DON'T believe her!
#she'stheoneliar
#believeallwomenexceptHer
So many pussy grabbers, so little time. Can’t cover them all.
So he grabbed her by the pussy?
Not believable because she's not 12
This response proves how little you care. Really, it does.
Uh-oh. Twitter wasn't the only crowd to suppress the Hunter Biden Laptop story.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1602463521417359360
So maybe the claim that the laptop was of questionable provenance was not such an outlandish claim after all.
Trying the old "boaf sidz" thing there, chemjeff dorky statist?
https://twitter.com/USMortality/status/1602344576898854914?t=fEk2RzDr9qZTUWrcobjUkA&s=19
New German data reveals that, sudden deaths with unknown cause have increased by 3x since the start of vaccination in 2021!
[Link]
Grant Wahl? That was a strange death.
murdered.
A headline today in the WSJ:
Europe Strikes Deal to Tax Imports Based on Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
“With this directive, the polluter is really going to pay, and we are pushing the rest of the world to do the same,” said Mohammed Chahim, a European lawmaker who led talks for the Parliament.
Fucking idiot. But not near as an issue for libertarians as the Q takeover of Twitter, right?
Of course not. It's all too local, too far away from DC.
Odds of China being hit AT ALL by this is incredibly slim.
Imagine being as dumb as an EU elite. Just incredible.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll totally throw the book at him...
Well, Maxine Waters did throw a kiss at him.
He’s served his purpose, so under the bus with him. You expect loyalty from Democrats?
True, and I’m sure it will be easier to Epstein him when he’s in prison.
“Bankman-Fried has also stated that he secretly gave a lot to Republicans, too, though this hasn’t been verified. “I’ve been their third-biggest Republican donor this year as well,” but it’s “not generally known,” because “all my Republican donations were dark,”
Let me get this straight.
This guy’s whole schtick was about giving money to progressive causes.
He loudly and publicly gave millions and millions of dollars to the Democrats.
He loudly and publicly poured invective on Republicans.
But now that the shit has hit the fan and the Democrats are being publicly embarrassed, we’re suddenly told that he was also giving huge amounts of money to Republicans… but super secretly and anonymously?
And ENB just writes it straight and unquestioningly.
And the 95% of Reason fans (who never post comments) accept it gratefully and unquestionably.
Of course she does, and then she wonders why she gets disliked in the comment section. It might help if ENB were a real libertarian instead of a progressive libertine.
I rarely criticize the writers here cuz I like this place, but she really lost me with the breathless “trump is snatching migrant children off the streets!” headline a few years back.
As opposed to what? Leaving them feral? I’m guessing that any dem doing the same wouldn’t be “snatching” and in fact would be compassionate.
She took it to Twitter the other day:
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/1601256561086988289
Reason commenters make up a very small percentage of our readership, and are largely people who hate everyone on staff and all of our work, on any subject. They’re in now way representative of “libertarian audiences” overall
Liz, you're not going to live this down.
largely people who hate everyone on staff and all of our work..
Seems dismissive.
>> ENB just writes it straight and unquestioningly.
she's writing for the tens of millions who read the print magazine
"I gave a ton to Republicans but it was super secret and you'll never find the receipts and I'll never show any proof!"
"And ENB just writes it straight and unquestioningly.
She did say,“Bankman-Fried has also stated" and "though this hasn’t been verified."
Is this unquestioning?
I included that statement in my quote, and yes, she didn't question or analyze Bankman-Fried's claim.
*Archer voice* Wait, I had something for this. Something about stated vs. revealed preferences.
Liberals have stated preferences that housing should be affordable
HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHA
Imagine stating this with a straight face.
I have some stated preferences that I live in a house made of gold and poop rainbows. my "stated preference" is irrelevant to reality fucking liberals all stupid shits.
"...Now on installment five, the "files" reveal more about Twitter's internal deliberation processes regarding things like de-amplifying accounts, the Hunter Biden laptop story and Hunter Biden dick pics, misinformation reports from law enforcement, and Donald Trump's account suspension. So far, the dispatches have contained some interesting and notable information, and also a lot of Musk-friendly spin and culture war hyperbole..."
Is "it really isn't important" #3 or #4 on the denial list?
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link…………..>>> onlinecareer1
"holy shit! we gotta get the kid in custody so he never sees the light of day again. what if he testifies @congress?"
Let's just get this out of the way now:
Jeffrey EpsteinSam Bankman-Fried didn't kill himself.Flowers By Irene turned on him I don't think even his mommy can save him now.
The obvious cause of homelessness: not enough housing.
this is so obviously untrue that only an ivory tower shitlib academic could say it with a straight face.
if they're in tents outside my office building are they homeless or utility-less?
We prefer the term “unhoused” here in Sacramento.
I saw that term just last week. Unbelievable.
I'll agree that lack of housing is a problem that creates prohibitive costs and hurts lower-income people. I can't agree that the homeless problem has anything to do with it.
It's not that there's literally no homes or vacant apartments anywhere, it's the fact that they have no income. Usually this is because of a drug addiction or a mental issue, but there's a ton of life-stylers and leeches as well. The solution to homelessness is always going to be more complicated than just building houses; you need to solve the issues these people have and starve out the leeches by making them get work.
^ also, one thing to remember is that being "homeless" in MidTown Manhattan vs. the outskirts of Duluth. Anyone can get on welfare and foodstamps and basically live for free in certain parts of this country.
It's location and the reason they are there is they want drugs. Hands down.
There are probably still thousands of vacant buildings in Detroit-it was such a problem the local government was bulldozing complete neighborhoods. Why aren't homeless people flocking to fill those empty spaces?
Such juvenile logic being pushed. I have a lot of sympathy for homeless people and their issues but the naivety of thinking there's a simple fix for the myriad problems that cause homelessness is astounding.
Mike Masnick's take on the Twitter Files: "They are all written by people who appear to have (1) no idea what they're looking at (2) no interest in talking to anyone who does understand it and (3) no concern about presenting them in an extremely misleading light in an effort to push a narrative that is not even remotely supported by what they're sharing."</I.
This take is delusional.
The thing you can be sure of is that Elon, Bari, Glenn, and MIchael all are far, far smarter than masnick and know exactly what they're looking at in these fils.
Yasha Levine's take on the Twitter Files: "One of the saddest things about them is that the people on both sides of this holographic media fight really are horrible,
Utterly delusional. Elon is the asshole here? That's seriously crazy. This Yoel Roth person involved outstages every single public asshole I've ever encountered. He's like a caricature of a villain. It's hard to believe he'sreal.
I think that's overstating things a bit. Yoel Roth is a bog-standard Silicon Valley leftist who shares all the pretenses of his political class. He's the equivalent of a Soviet commissar who does what the party tells him, and is easily replaceable with someone else in that class when he becomes a liability or loose end to cut, because they all think and act alike, and are working in the interest of the party above all.
In other words, Roth is just tool. He's just getting attention because he happened to be a key player in a particular place at a particular time.
I'll agree that Roth is just a tool. But he really is beyond a caricature of a villain. Parallels between Zuck, Bezos, and even Musk and Elliot Carver? Sure.
Roth is categorically a different monster.
Roth is categorically a different monster.
A modern version of Ward Churchill's "Little Eichmanns".
Except I'm not aware if Churchill or Eichmann explicitly advocated sexualizing minors on the side.
But you know exactly why ENB decided to share this.
Masnick is a smart guy, because he understands very well what's going on here. It's just that he supported what Twitter was doing before, and is complaining because airing their dirty laundry makes his side look bad.
Bingo. And his side includes 100% solid Libertarian ENB. Because silencing your opponents is how Libertarians roll. Right?
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://ukincome6.blogspot.com/
The Supreme Court won't hear a case concerning California's ban on flavored tobacco.
The courts wont save you. They wont help keep you safe.
"free" country indeed.
Concerning “Homelessness is a Housing Problem” one glaring factor that isn’t addressed is that homeless people are overwhelmingly unemployed, so saying that people flock to cities with high homeless rates to find work just does not stand up to scrutiny at any level. Saying that disproportionate rates of mental illness and hopeless addiction don’t explain the problem simply dodges the issue. Saying that there isn’t enough housing to house the homeless reverses cause and effect without explaining why a disproportionate number of homeless people congregate in cities with insufficient housing. I strongly suspect cherry-picking by this University of Washington professor!
I think there are sort of two problems of homelessness. There are the addicts and mentally ill who end up living on the streets (often by choice to some degree) and then there are people who just can't find a place to live that they can afford. I'm sure there is some overlap between the groups and lots of bad life choices in each. But from what I've read and seen, the sidewalk tent cities of shit are pretty much the former group.
"State TikTok bans are a dumb performance and don't fix the actual underlying problem," suggests Techdirt.
Not only that but what is the actual problem? I keep reading that TikTok is gathering your private info! So does every other app and can they really be more egregious than Facebook and Google? I really doubt it.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. As a consumer I could care less if the big tech company building a detailed personal profile on me is from China or USA. Frankly, it's better if they are in China and not working closely with all the three letter agencies that have been aligned against me.
Frankly, it’s better if they are in China and not working closely with all the three letter agencies that have been aligned against me.
Is it really better if it's not true?
Everything I've read from IT people indicate TikTok takes more info than any other social media app out there.
Doubtless the lack of housing is a major, if not THE major, cause of the growth in homelessness. But there are other factors:
1. The crazy homeless don't face mental health incarceration -- as was the case until Reagan changed the rules.
2. The police no longer hassle the homeless. It's often now considered a RIGHT for homeless to camp on city streets or even on private property. The most liberal cities are where these rights are strongest.
3. The subsidies for the homeless have mushroomed -- especially in liberal bastions. One can now live on the streets without having to work for basic needs. Agencies -- public and private -- are stumbling over each other, giving the homeless stuff they may not even want.
4. "Food stamp" benefits (EBT debit cards) can now be used at fast food outlets. This works well for the homeless.
It's been Reagan's fault since 1968. Libs are insane.
Doubtless the lack of housing is a major, if not THE major, cause of the growth in homelessness. But there are other factors:
It is not. It is not even close to a major growth in homelessness. The meth addicts living in a tent and shitting on the sidewalk down under the bridge near my house are not there simply because they were unable to find a 2 bedroom apartment for $1200 a month.
1. The crazy homeless don’t face mental health incarceration — as was the case until Reagan changed the rules.
When the hell were you born?
Hell, I remember a Psychiatrist bringing this up on NPR back in the early 90s-- noting that the 1960s/70s laws over deinstitutionalization which came out of the "one flew over the cuckoos nest" era not having the effect it was supposed to have, and made things worse.
3. The subsidies for the homeless have mushroomed — especially in liberal bastions. One can now live on the streets without having to work for basic needs. Agencies — public and private — are stumbling over each other, giving the homeless stuff they may not even want.
Now you're on to something.
Actually it was jfk who changed the rules. In part because of One Flew over the cuckoo's nest and in part because of his sister Rosemary. The idea then was that this would become community centers - and that is what died when they were never funded.
Still most homeless are not mentally incompetent even if they have problems
Yes, see my comment above.
Ah. But did you know that what happened to permanently aggravate the problem was zoning and NIMBY.
Community centers failed because Americans don't want their crazy relatives any where their neighbors can see. Especially not family friendly America.
And we don't want the SRO's and boarding houses where people on the fringe (and new to town and our kids who moved out of the house) used to live. Eminent domain, zoning, and NIMBY work wonders to whitewash and cover our pride. And if that doesn't work, then criminalize the noncompliant
The crazy homeless don’t face mental health incarceration — as was the case until Reagan changed the rules.
What I love most about this argument promulgated by shitlibs all the time is that what they're saying is , "the homeless problem would be solved if we just locked them all up" LOLOLOL
Are they wrong? Of course it wouldn't solve teh whole problem, but would get most of the crazies off the streets. Not that I promote such a policy necessarily.
it would work yes. It's just funny to me that the compassionate liberals are advocating mass roundup of homeless lol
If DeSantis promoted such a solution, for instance, he'd be Hitler incarnate
I think there's been an honest discussion in the mental health community about how the 1960s desinstitutionalism made things worse.
The problem is it's a good example of what might be called "competing virtues".
Virtue 1: People who haven't committed a crime shouldn't be locked up against their will, for any reason whatsoever.
Virtue 2: There's clearly a subset of people who are so mentally debilitated, that they can't provide for themselves the minimal necessities of care, and find themselves in absolute squalor and horrifying conditions, far worse than anything they'd "suffer" in "forced" institutionalization.
So you have to find a way to minimize the human rights violations of the first virtue, and try to mitigate the terrible conditions of the second. There is no easy answer.
5. They can walk out of a Walgreens with as much as they can carry without paying, so they should at least be well supplied with toilet paper and mouthwash.
FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried Used Customer Assets to Fund Political Donations, Says SEC
This is an old-news nothingburger. Can't we just file this under covid being created in a lab and Twitter groomers shadowbanning everything?
So retail shops etc helped create a public third place (a place that isn't home or work). One of the costs of online retail is the further decline of third place
"They are all written by people who appear to have (1) no idea what they're looking at (2) no interest in talking to anyone who does understand it and (3) no concern about presenting them in an extremely misleading light in an effort to push a narrative that is not even remotely supported by what they're sharing."
Caution: Intense Focused Projection
Class 3 or higher projection sources in use. Even brief observation without proper protection is known to cause irreversible damage including blindness.
Sentiments you'll never read from Reason:
https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/status/1602502386400071680?t=H7EX7j0S_n39wr17mIfmzQ&s=19
I was wrong about lockdowns and mandates. I was wrong and the reason I was wrong was my tribalism, my emotions, and my distorted understanding of human nature and of the virus. It doesn't matter much, but I wanted to apologize for being wrong.
My motivation for doing this is simple.
It's clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during COVID, and where we could have done better.
Nobody is doing that. Instead, many are doubling down and admitting no error. That's very bad. It's neither historically nor scientifically accurate. And it alienates people who can see that the sky is blue.
So, be the change you want to see in the world.
While more influential people than myself are not doing it, I can.
It's OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned.
That's a central part of the way science works.
Far more mature than I've seen from a lot of folks.
He just wants amnesty
Maybe, but I'll take an apology anytime. That at least shows some remorse and some growth. It won't stop punishment, but may lessen it.
Nice to see that one of the elites can at least admit that what happened was fucked up, and that his team needs to exercise some humility going to forward to actually learn from their mistakes. That's a lot more honest and WAY less self-serving than asking for an "amnesty" by BOF SYDEZ.
https://twitter.com/JeremyRedfernFL/status/1602705536574783488?s=19
.@GovRonDeSantis:
In Florida, it is against the law to mislead and misrepresent the efficacy of a drug.
So, today, I’m announcing a petition to the Supreme Court of Florida to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate any wrongdoing with respect to the COVID-19 vaccines.
He is going to paint the electoral map red.
So, Sandra (formerly OBL), said Ronnie D. was clearly a better contender than Trump for the 2024 election. I disagreed. Admittedly, I didn't take all the bennies of being a career politician into account.
However, I still remain less than entirely convinced.
It's not even that DeSantis is such a terrific candidate. It's that Trump is an obviously terrible one. Let's review!
1. The one election Trump managed to win was against historically unpopular Hillary Clinton.
2. Trump already lost to Biden once.
3. If 2024 is a Biden vs. Trump rematch this time Biden will have incumbency advantage.
4. Trump was already debatably too old in 2016 which, coupled with his weight, makes him clearly too old for 2024 (and especially ill-suited to contrast with Biden's age).
5. Trump-like #StopTheSteal candidates are toxic; see the GOP candidates Democrats boosted in the midterms.
6. Having spent 4 years failing to build the wall or drain the swamp, any campaign promise Trump makes next time will be hollow.
7. Trump will not be able to resist continuing to whine about 2020, which is a proven loser as a message.
Forget DeSantis. Glenn Youngkin would be a better choice than Trump.
I'd have to agree that there are better choices for the future than Trump now. He was what was needed in 2016 to give everything a swift kick in the ass, but now, it's time for the next steps. We need someone who is willing to stand up for parents and stand up against the Woke/SJWs.
The Democrats will be going all out to find (or create) something disqualifying about Youngkin. He’s being too reasonable and effective as Va. Governor.
1. The one election Trump managed to win was against historically unpopular Hillary Clinton.
You know who else is currently historically unpopular? Hint: She ran against him in the 2020 primaries.
2. Trump already lost to Biden once.
You mean he lost to the guy who lost to Obama and was, subsequently more unprecedentedly popular than Obama (and is still currently historically unpopular)?
4. Trump was already debatably too old in 2016 which, coupled with his weight, makes him clearly too old for 2024 (and especially ill-suited to contrast with Biden’s age).
Fair. Numbers don't lie but, at the same time, you can suffer a stroke at 53 and still win, so it's questionable what the age number, or any other number even means.
5. Trump-like #StopTheSteal candidates are toxic; see the GOP candidates Democrats boosted in the midterms.
You mean the ones that created specific election police task forces and won? Because here's the pro-Trump rag Politico saying he batted 48%. Which would seem more like intoxicating and sobering rather than outright toxic.
6. Having spent 4 years failing to build the wall or drain the swamp, any campaign promise Trump makes next time will be hollow.
They were hollow in 2016. This has been debated since 2016. The 'good' argument here is that his bombast has been tempered. Rightly questionable whether he could overcome it, but he's objectively pulled off much more impossible feats.
7. Trump will not be able to resist continuing to whine about 2020, which is a proven loser as a message.
Again, IDK. Trump has proven capable of exceeding expectations and Team Stupid is by no means the only ones capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe DeSantis would be better positioned if the Dems actually impeached Trump for Jan. 6th, maybe the fallout of any one of a number of Trump-style political stunts sticks to him.
I think arguments can be made for who would be a better POTUS, but contender? Its not even close.
We have a lot of more centrist R's in the hospital here. Specifically, a LOT of them who voted for Obama and then Trump. They openly state that they are tired of Trump, all the time.
These same people either stayed home or voted for Warnock because Walker was just too much for them to hold their nose and pull the lever for.
Trump's trick was he was a political unknown, going up against an unpopular status quo establishment politician at a time where populism was rising. Trump lost to a senile dementia patient who didnt campaign, and the most trump-like candidates all just lost in what turned a set up for a bloodbath (historically unpopular Biden in terrible economy with an angry public) into a NET GAIN in the senate, with a wrist slap in the house.
The 'trick' isnt going to work again. People are fatigued from the man, and the owning-the-libs, while fun, only gets you so far. 2020 was getting shocked by sticking the fork in the outlet, and 2022 was the repeat performance.
If you want to try again in 2024 be my guest, but I would advise against it. I dont really feel like giving Biden's handlers a dem presidency and senate again.
I'm not saying he's the best candidate. I'm just saying he's still very viable and further, that said viability isn't explicitly in the hands of Trump, DeSantis, or Youngkin in 2024 any more than it was in Cruz, Trump, or Rubio's hands in 2016.
As stated previously, DeSantis (or Youngkin or whomever) beats Trump in the 2024 primary, he's the better candidate.
And I still lament the 'one-and-done' or 'sobering up' attitude wrt to outsider billionaire (troll) candidates (Trump, Cuban, Musk, Thiel, etc., etc., etc.).
Bankman-Fried has also stated that he secretly gave a lot to Republicans, too, though this hasn't been verified. "I've been their third-biggest Republican donor this year as well," but it's "not generally known," because "all my Republican donations were dark," he said in a recent YouTube interview.
The New York Times rehabilitation attempt continues apace, I see.
I see. Just mentioning that he made this claim, even with all the caution in the sentence about whether it is actually true, is an attempt at “rehabilitation”.
Even taking this statement at face value (I don't, as Bankman-Friend is drug-addled nepot and a sociopath), it's telling that he's claiming his Republican donations were done on the down-low while the ones to Democrats were done completely out in the open, as if he knew he'd get more clout through blatantly catering to them.
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1602690477375078401?t=OC7_X2ys6UTDqrO_UdBBEQ&s=19
Biden: wages have increased faster than prices
Actually, prices have increased faster than wages for a record 20 consecutive months
[Link]
Where are all the fact-checkers!?!?! lolololo
All the while, nothing about this drama will have any real impact on anyone in America. It's just feeding the political-entertainment complex and the rich assholes and their hanger-ons that feed off of it."
So above it all.
It’s a fairly accurate assessment.
It’s a tempest in a tea pot. It made no difference in anybody learning all about Hunter Biden’s laptop if they cared, and it made no difference in the election outcome.
Still it is concerning that there was a cozy relationship between certain liberals at the FBI and liberals at Twitter. It’s good to be aware of it.
Cite?
None of us knows if it made any difference to the election outcome or not. Stop pretending that you do.
In any case, it seems pretty clear that it was suppressed because of how it might have hurt Joe Biden. That should be enough for a major scandal right there. Censoring a legitimate news story because it made a candidate look bad.
John Jay Ray III, who has been appointed CEO of FTX to oversee its bankruptcy case, said in court filings: "Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information."
It's a crypto exchange. I can set up a crypto exchange tonight, from my basement.
Here, you put your crypto in and change it for dollars or vice-versa. Bam, crypto exchange.
The controls are in place, they're just perfectly encrypted to provide perfect anonymity and perfect fidelity and that's why he can't see them.
RNG, corporate control and trustworthy financial information generator, same thing.
The most fucked up part about this: The DOJ stepped in to stop this Bankman-Fried asswipe from testifying to Congress today by arresting him (via Bahama).
Anything think that is coincidental?
Don't prosecutors want asswipes like Bankman-Fried to testify under oath so they can crucify them later with their public statements? Shouldn't they just sit back and take notes...instead of arresting them before they testify?
Virginia Postrel offers a fascinating history of how department stores helped liberate women—and moral panic.
Department stores are still inspiring moral panic. Just look at how many have been destroyed in the "mostly peaceful" riots of now almost three years by hordes of rabble who think Free-Market Capitalism equals Racism.
Men known as "mashers" gathered in shopping districts to ogle and chat up women. Some were no more than well-dressed flirts, violating Victorian norms in ways that few today would find objectionable. Many contented themselves with what an outraged clubwoman termed "merciless glances."
Again, there's still moral panic about this. Radical Feminists still shriek against "The Male Gaze."
Newspapers launched anti-masher crusades and prominent women demanded stricter law enforcement and stern punishment.…The crusade against mashers, while based on a real problem, had a strong element of moral panic.
With #MeToo, "Everything Old Is New Again!"
https://youtu.be/RA17_BuOZDg
Isn't that why long, sharp hat pins were invented?
Hat pins may be good for knitting bees, but bigger weapons would be needed for lynching bees.
According to Virginia Postrel's Substack article, the campaign against "mashers" in the early 1900s also coincided with lynchings triggered by perceived flirting across "racial" lines.
The Ku Klux Klan and their Ladies' Auxillary evidently had to protect the honor of "White Womanhood," even if their exemplars could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch. So "Strange Fruit" became the grim harvest of policing sexual propriety.
And now we know in part where Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) comes from, Charlie Brown.
AFAIK all department stores were started by men with the purpose of liberating women of their husband's money.
Before there was treating men as ATMs, there was treating men as triplicate Withdrawal Slips. Ah, progress! 😉
Twitter files..."Some other perspectives…"
Good luck finding ANY perspective from ABC, CBS, NBC. You might be able to tweeze something out of CNN or MSNBC.
https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Screen-Shot-2022-12-12-at-3.39.23-PM-901x1024.png
Corporate media outlets have all but refused to cover the unfolding “Twitter Files” published by independent journalists including Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi throughout the last week. According to Grabien, a news clipping and transcribing service, a search of its database finds that among the three major networks — ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News — the words “Twitter Files” have been discussed on air a collective total of one time since Dec. 2, the day Elon Musk announced the release of the first batch.
When it comes to cable network coverage, CNN and MSNBC have mentioned the words “Twitter Files” just 13 times and 17 times, respectively, since Dec. 2, compared to Fox News’s 374 mentions of the keywords. A Monday search on CNN’s website for “Twitter Files” turns up zero search results for any coverage of the independent journalists’ ongoing investigations.
Why would the MSM report on their own malevolence? I'm surprised ENB is covering so much, considering how much Reason has supported the narrative for the last 6 years.
"the homelessness crisis we see in American cities today dates only to the 1980s. What changed that caused homelessness to explode then? Again, it's simple: lack of housing."
This is dead wrong.
Most homeless people could cohabitate or stay with relatives, friends and/or other homeless folks (by sharing an apartment).
There are also many financially struggling home owners who could rent one or two of their empty bedrooms to homeless people (and other financially struggling folks).
Instead, most homeless people have chosen to shelter in tents, cardboard boxes, subways, sidewalks, public and/or charity run homeless shelters, etc.
As a perpetually broke undergrad and graduate student from 1976 - 1985 (who worked nearly a dozen different jobs to finance my degrees) I lived in a half dozen different houses (in State College and Pittsburgh) splitting the rent, utilities and food bills with 2 - 25 other struggling college students.
Meanwhile, most housing built during the past 40 years has more bedrooms, bathrooms and living space than older housing stock.
It appears that people who live alone are more likely to become homeless than those who live with family, friends or other housemates.
There are also many financially struggling home owners who could rent one or two of their empty bedrooms to homeless people (and other financially struggling folks).
I wonder if we're going to eventually see a trend of 80s-00s McMansions being converted to multi-unit housing, like the Victorian and Tudor mansions of the nouveau riche in the late 1880s-early 1920s were starting in the Depression. There's a lot of mining-era mansions in Denver's Capitol Hill and other early streetcar suburban neighborhoods that were converted to apartments in the last 100 years.
It appears that people on meth and heroin are more likely to become homeless than people who are not.
"I certainly had no evil intent," mused A. Hitler as the Russians shelled Berlin. "Apparently I was just incompetent. Or rather, somewhat incompetent. Not completely." (sarc)
Odds on SBF doing an Epstein while in jail?