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

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Middle East

Death in Jordan

Plus: Biden's border plan, RFK Jr., the Libertarian Party, and more.

Robby Soave | 1.29.2024 9:39 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
President Biden | Samuel Corum/UPI/Newscom
President Biden (Samuel Corum/UPI/Newscom)

The U.S. and Iran are on a collision course—and that could mean war. Iranian-backed militants launched a drone strike on a military outpost in Jordan, resulting in the deaths of three U.S. service members stationed there. The attack was a response to continued U.S. support for Israel and its war effort against Hamas, an effort that has destroyed much of Gaza and resulted in 20,000 Palestinian casualties.

President Joe Biden vowed to respond to the attack. "Have no doubt: We will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing," he tweeted Sunday afternoon.

Hawkish Republicans are already calling for open war with Iran, with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) and John Cornyn (R–Tex.) urging Biden to hit Iran hard. Their remarks drew swift rebukes from others on the right, including Tucker Carlson, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Candace Owens.

Former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) criticized the decision to keep U.S. troops "in harm's way" all over the world without a clear mission or congressional authorization. He has a point: Doing so has endangered these soldiers' safety and U.S. national security interests. Even if it is reasonable for the government to retaliate after an attack, the best policy would be to forestall this possibility by keeping the troops out of danger in the first place.

And while the Biden administration has stood firmly behind Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu—offering only mild, occasional criticism of Netanyahu's war aims—perhaps Biden should consider whether total and unqualified support, and financial assistance, to Israel is undermining our own security.

The bottom line: The Middle East is in crisis, and the U.S. is being dragged into a broader military conflict of dubious necessity.

Biden wants the border deal, and he wants it now. The president is practically begging Democrats and Republicans to agree to legislation that would give him the authority "to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed."

The Senate's version of the current deal requires a shutdown of the border the number of illegal crossings reaches a certain threshold. At that point, migrants would be sent back to their home countries, whether or not they plan to claim asylum.

Mexico would need to agree to take back these migrants. But an even steeper challenge could be getting House Republicans on board. Former President Trump has ordered Speaker of the House Mike Johnson to nix anything short of a "perfect" border deal. Trump probably believes that he benefits politically from unrest at the border—and he's right—so the GOP has very little incentive to actually agree to anything.

In any case, the Senate border plan is a mess, and springs from profoundly un-libertarian impulses: 4,999 migrant crossings is fine, but 5,000 is too many and should trigger a shutdown of the border and automatic deportations? Congress needs to make it easier for people to come to the U.S. legally and work here. Arbitrary caps make no sense.

Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pursuing the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination after all? In a recent interview on CNN, the independent candidate again addressed the possibility that he might join up with the Libertarian Party.

"That is something that we're looking at," Kennedy told CNN's Michael Smerconish. "We have a really good, relationship with the Libertarian Party. I'm going to be speaking at the California Libertarian Party convention."

Last summer, at a time when RFK Jr. was ostensibly still running against President Joe Biden for the Democratic Party's nomination, he met with Libertarian leadership about changing parties. Angela McArdle, chair of the Libertarian Party, was clearly excited about the possibility, telling me in an interview that she was thrilled to see his political thinking evolving in a more libertarian direction. "The lockdowns and mandates seem to have stirred an awakening within him, causing him to reconsider many of his other political stances," she said.

Nevertheless, RFK Jr. opted to run as an independent candidate. The October 7 attacks on Israel further strained matters, as RFK Jr.'s unqualified support for U.S. financial assistance to Israel irked many libertarians; the Libertarian Party's X account invited his "disenfranchised" anti-war supporters to jump ship.

One possible reason for Kennedy to consider seeking the party's endorsement is ballot access. Qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states is a difficult task for an independent; as the U.S.'s largest third party, the Libertarian Party already possesses access in most states.

In other RFK Jr. news, the candidate has claimed that former President Donald Trump's campaign floated the idea last year of offering him the vice presidency.

BREAKING: Robert Kennedy Jr. says that members of President Trump's team did ask him to be Trump's Vice President for his second administration.
"People from the team have reached out to me," Kennedy said.

RFK Jr. also stated, "I'm flattered President Trump would offer (that) to… pic.twitter.com/uMJ6ePI71j

— Christian Movick (@ChristianM_74) January 29, 2024

"I would not take that job," said Kennedy, according to NewsNation. "And I'm flattered that President Trump would offer it to me, but it's not something that I'm interested in."


Scenes from Washington, D.C.: The federal government has vowed to intervene in D.C.'s crime wave, saying it will assist with carjacking cases and other violent offenses.

"This surge in law enforcement resources will build on the Department's efforts to target the individuals and organizations that are driving violent crime in the nation's capital," said Attorney General Merrick Garland. "The Justice Department will not rest until every community in our country is safe from the scourge of violent crime."


QUICK HITS

  • Sen. John Fetterman (D–Penn.) said he opposes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's prposed crackdown on Zyn, saying that he's "on the side of more freedom."
  • A jury has ordered Trump to pay $83 million to E. Jean Carroll.
  • Workers at a U.N. aid agency have been accused of having ties to Hamas.
  • Climate activists are at it again:

????#BREAKING: Climate activist has attack and thrown soup at the famous Mona Lisa painting in the Louvre Museum, Paris pic.twitter.com/vu3FVa1555

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) January 28, 2024

  • The San Francisco 49er and the Kansas City Chiefs will advance to the Super Bowl.
  • Biden clearly had a good time at this beer brewery:

JOE BIDEN: "In beer brew here… Huh ish issah use to make the brew beer here.. Issh Weer-fining… Oooooh Earth Rider… Thanks for the Great Lakes!" pic.twitter.com/qfHeoIxEj1

— The First (@TheFirstonTV) January 25, 2024

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

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

NEXT: The Battle of the Sexes Turns Political

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

Middle EastWarForeign PolicyJordanIranIsraelDronesRobert Kennedy Jr.Libertarian PartyPoliticsReason Roundup
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (395)

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

  1. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    The U.S. and Iran are on a collision course—and that could mean war.

    I can think of few regimes that deserve to get bitch slapped more. Not that I look forward to this Raytheon grab.

    1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      The adults are back in the room... In adult dipers

      1. GertieMoses   1 year ago (edited)

        People are happier if they are more financially independent. Make 120 to 180USD / Hr by performing simple tasks. We can help you achieve this. Join our strong community and earn money easily and safely from wherever you want....
        On This Website—>>> https://Www.Smartcareer1.com

        1. Minadin   1 year ago

          . . . Joe?

    2. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

      POTUS Biden will get bitch-slapped again?

    3. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

      Here's a Mystery Science Theater 3000 skit that presciently summarizes Biden's dealings with Iran. Professor Bobo, of course, is Biden and the bomb carolers are the Mullahs:

      MST3K 0804--Deadly Mantis (Wonderful Bomb)
      https://youtu.be/CrWv6mP1ZWk?si=rfn45UFV7_YR2cx6

      Hopefully, the outcome of the skit is not ours!

  2. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Biden wants the border deal, and he wants it now.

    Harris must have come back from her many visits there with all kinds of solutions.

    1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      All Biden has to do to "fix" the border crisis is reverse every executive order he issued to create the crisis.
      No additional funding required.

      1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

        It sure seems strange how suddenly he "needs" the cooperation of Congress to do something, when he doesn't need their cooperation for war or spending $500B+ on student loan "forgiveness".

    2. Ska   1 year ago

      You know who else wants it now?

      Yes, Veruca Salt. Enjoy that earworm.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Band or movie?

        1. Ska   1 year ago

          I was thinking the song from the movie. Does the band do a cover? It would be fitting.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            She was a bad egg.

      2. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

        What about Freddie Mercury?

        1. Ska   1 year ago

          He wants it all and wants to be free. I don't know if there was a time sensitivity to it.

          1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

            I thought he aske the question who wants to live forever?

          2. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

            I don’t know if there was a time sensitivity to it.

            Before 1992, I'm guessing. Too soon?

          3. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

            He wanted it all and wanted it now.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              He also wanted somebody to love.

              1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

                What about Jefferson Airplane?

                1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                  They went chasing rabbits followed by trying to build a city on rock 'n roll.

      3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        So who's the seether?

        1. Minadin   1 year ago

          Booked them for a concert in college. Those ladies can play some pretty mean pool.

        2. tracerv   1 year ago

          Louise.

      4. Dillinger   1 year ago

        can't fight the seether.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Nah, more like the DNC decided that the party needs to look moderate on immigration and therefore Joe has to care about the border. Or at least cooperate with the coming media surge about sensible border control.

      1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

        Biden wants a deal to shut down the border. Trump is opposed. How long was I out?

        1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

          Biden wants a deal to shut down the border.

          No grasshopper, he does not.

          1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

            Phew! Insanity averted.

        2. Fats of Fury   1 year ago

          LOL!
          Biden wants a deal that lets in 4999 illegals per day. That's 1,824,635 a year. Go back to sleep.

      2. Super Scary   1 year ago

        "Nah, more like the DNC decided that the party needs to look moderate on immigration"

        It is an election year after all.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Ding, ding, ding, ding.

  3. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

    Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pursuing the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination after all? In a recent interview on CNN, the independent candidate again addressed the possibility that he might join up with the Libertarian Party.

    This is how the LP fails us time and again. RFKJ is a leftist, even though he has some tolerable ideas.

    1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Event though he SAYS he has some tolerable ideas?

      1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

        Yep, I concede the correction.

    2. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

      Yeah he makes Bill Weld almost* look libertarian.

      *Almost doing a lot of work in that sentence.

      1. Minadin   1 year ago

        *No kidding, we can be sure it wasn't Bill Weld doing the work

  4. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pursuing the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination after all?

    Sure, why not.

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Doesn’t matter what he does.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        I will consider him for the nom if Cheryl Hines appears at my front door.

    2. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      The Libertarian Party is apparently a slut for a famous name.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        So, kinda like political groupies? Do we gain extra status if we fuck the entire band?

      2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        Sometimes. Who the hell heard of Jo Jorgensen?

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          I wish I hadn't. Got tired of using rehashed Republicans, so we're now going to use rehashed Democrats? I see how it would benefit RFK Jr, helps with ballot access. Considering the DNC is out to bar him access to the ballot, I would almost hope the LP goes with him, just to stick it to our self appointed 'defenders of democracy™' who seem to think defending democracy involves not giving people choices.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

            Be fair. They are defending "their democracy".

          2. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

            Until her BLM idiocy, JJ was doing 'ok' for an inexperienced third-party candidate. At the very least, she had the advantage of not having a nose ring and facial tattoos to scare away voters. 🙂

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      As long as he picks Bill Weld as VP I'm cool.

  5. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    JOE BIDEN: "In beer brew here… Huh ish issah use to make the brew beer here.. Issh Weer-fining… Oooooh Earth Rider… Thanks for the Great Lakes!"

    And they made fun of “coveffe” for years.

    1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

      Hear anyone talking about 25A for POTUS Biden?

      Because I heard about 25A incessantly while POTUS Trump was in office.

      1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

        Different because old Joe is just senile.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          So it would actually be applicable instead of political. Got it.

          1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

            JesseAZ, I wonder sometimes if SPB2 isn't a ENB sock.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              I mean I criticize ENB like the rest of us, but I'm not that mean.

              1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                True, and it appears White Mike was SPB's sock anyway.

                1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                  ENB's sock.

                  SPB has many socks, but not White Mike.

              2. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

                Yeah, but tell me it makes sense to think that way.

        2. Sevo   1 year ago

          turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, 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.

        3. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

          Doesn't Joe being senile mean there should be more 25A talk not less?

      2. Eeyore   1 year ago

        He is still a perfectly functional puppet.

      3. Minadin   1 year ago

        I thought they would 25A Biden about 3 years ago, to be honest.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Even Democrats are scared of a President Cackles.

      4. Eeyore   1 year ago

        It is a constitutional violation to not remove him.

      5. rbike   1 year ago

        It is just a stutter.

        Be kind.

    2. Eeyore   1 year ago

      Kamala couldn't say it better.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      The ghost of Corn Pop is apparently haunting him in his final days.

  6. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    The federal government has vowed to intervene in D.C.'s crime wave, saying it will assist with carjacking cases and other violent offenses.

    That means the feds are going to start tempting spectrum-dwellers into doing carjackings.

  7. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

    I see a bright future for the libertarian party ...

    One possible reason for Kennedy to consider seeking the party's endorsement is ballot access. Qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states is a difficult task for an independent; as the U.S.'s largest third party, the Libertarian Party already possesses access in most states.

    What could be more libertarian than renting out the party's ballot access? Isn't that what property rights are all about?

    1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      If he does land on the LP ticket, that gives me a pretty good excuse to stay home on election day.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        Yup. I'm not gonna vote for that.

  8. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

    The Middle East is in crisis

    I was promised by Trump Cultists that Donnie's Abraham Accords solved all the crisis in the Middle East forever and ever or at least until Jesus returns and smites all the Jews for not believing.

    1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      What did the Biden cultist promise? More forever war?

      1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

        Who cares?

        The rag-heads are going to war anyway.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          You really do let your racism and bigotry fly, don't you?

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

            And someone in the previous thread just said you conservative Wokies didn't exist.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Pointing out youre a racist isn't woke. Racists like yourself have existed throughout history.

              Asking for government power to go after perceived racism is. Usually from vagueness such as using concepts of structural racism to invent racism.

              1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

                But good racism >>> bad racism!

            2. Sevo   1 year ago

              turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
              turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.

            3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              Seriously, dude, "rag-head"? You don't have to be woke not to be a racist or a bigot. You don't have to be woke to be an asshole either.

            4. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              "conservative Wokies"

              Used to be self-identifying liberals or leftists weren't racist either.

          2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago (edited)

            Super Scary 1 hour ago Flag Comment Mute User “Wokes on the right ”
            .
            Ah, so the word “woke” has completely lost all meaning now. Good to know.

            1. Super Scary   1 year ago

              You don't have to be woke to not be racist. This isn't a hard concept.

              1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                TBQH the woke are some of the most racist people there are. A neocon like Buttplug fit's right in nowadays.

            2. Sevo   1 year ago

              turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, 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 TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.

        2. Sevo   1 year ago

          turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
          turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.

    2. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Then Joe got into office and started giving Iran billions in hopes of a return to the laughable deal Obama set up.

      Oh. Somehow you forgot that part. Which entities are starting up the issues? Iran backed proxies or those who signed onto the Abraham Accords?

      Never stop being retarded shrike.

    3. Sevo   1 year ago

      turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, 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.

  9. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

    On the verge of WWIII, the leader of the free world has his hat on backwards and mumbles:

    “In beer brew here... Huh ish issah use to make the brew beer here.. Issh Weer-fining... Oooooh Earth Rider... Thanks for the Great Lakes!”

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Be fair. Joe was over-due for his afternoon blood swap.

    2. ducksalad   1 year ago

      It's kind of weird how in the same post Robby Soave uses phrases like "President Biden vowed..." and "Biden wants the border deal..." as if he was functional and expressing coherent ideas.

      Maybe Soave is following the unitary executive convention, where we treat stuff coming from executive branch personnel as if it literally came from Biden himself.

  10. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Sen. John Fetterman (D–Penn.) said he opposes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's prposed crackdown on Zyn, saying that he's "on the side of more freedom."

    Can we get whatever medical/mental treatment Fetterman underwent last year for the other senators?

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

      He went and got mental help and stopped being a far left activist. Strange.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Just saw a post his wife deleted her X account. Maybe he got rid of the activist in his life?

        1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

          The drugs from Senator Lurch's stay at Walter Reed just kicked in...

      2. Unable2Reason   1 year ago

        It really is a bizarre but welcome transformation. Hope it's not just until his meds run out.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Hoodies for everyone?

    3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      He's been a bit of a pleasant surprise. Maybe I was wrong about him.

    4. BYODB   1 year ago

      The poor guy is brain damaged. It's a sign of the times that he couldn't see a path to resigning despite his medical situation.

    5. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      The more his mind mends, the more to the right he drifts.
      Call the NIH immediately!

    6. Minadin   1 year ago

      https://babylonbee.com/news/weird-man-becomes-more-conservative-as-he-regains-brain-function

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        Pray for a vaccine! And 23 boosters.

  11. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    A jury has ordered Trump to pay $83 million to E. Jean Carroll.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we got him.

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

      He has shut his giant orange pie-hole since then. (regarding his victim).

      To appeal he has to put up the $83 million.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        He has to put up 83M if he doesn't appeal either dumbass.

        Not shocked you support this though.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

          Hey, Donnie only hires the best lawyers.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

            The best lawyers can’t overcome political juries in NYC, judges who prejudge the facts of the case, and judges who disallow all forms of a defense.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              That, and overcoming a massive conflict of interest by the judge.

              https://nypost.com/2024/01/27/news/trump-to-use-judges-conflict-in-83-3m-jury-verdict/

              Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s “mentor.

              “It was never disclosed. It’s insane and so incestuous,” Habba said, insisting neither the 79-year-old judge nor Roberta Kaplan, 57, who aren’t related, disclosed the “conflict of interest” and a violation of judicial ethics rules.

              Roberta Kaplan worked at Paul, Weiss Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown from 1992 to 2016, before leaving to become a founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, according to her LinkedIn page.

              “This is news to us,” she continued. “We are going to include this in our appeal and take appropriate measures. The fact it wasn’t disclosed is an ethics violation.”

              During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton.

              “Lew was like her mentor,” claimed the former partner.

            2. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

              Even some on the left are beginning to grumble about the railroading Trump is getting. Sad the die-hard leftists only want to see Trump burn, at the expense of justice.

        2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

          Speaking of Donnie's lawyers poor Rudy Guilani has his hat in hand begging Donnie to pay the legal fees owed to him;

          Rudy Giuliani has claimed that Donald Trump could owe him 'unpaid legal fees' in a new filing
          .
          The New York Times previously reported that Giuliani had repeatedly unsuccessfully appealed to Trump to pay his overdue legal fees.
          .
          The report said that Giuliani believes he is owed "millions of dollars" for his efforts to try to keep Trump in power.

          https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-claims-unpaid-fees-donald-trump-in-bankruptcy-filing-2024-1

          Donnie stiffs another poor sucker that did work for him.

          Great guy!

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

            If only Rudy had posted pictures of his penis, right?

          2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            Buttplug knows that there's a Media Matters group dedicated to ensuring that Trump can't get legal representation by harassing his lawyers.

            High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods

            This is what Buttplug is celebrating. When I say Buttplug is a fascist I'm not using hyperbole.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

              Fascists For Democracy!

              1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

                Nazi’s for freedom!

          3. Sevo   1 year ago

            turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, 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 TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.

      2. Sevo   1 year ago

        turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
        turd lies. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.

      3. Sevo   1 year ago

        The asshole turd certainly is dishonest, but he’s got a heaping helping of stupid to go with his dishonesty. Stupid, lying, despicable steaming pile of lefty shit and proud to be!

  12. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Workers at a U.N. aid agency have been accused of having ties to Hamas.

    Blue helmets caught raping? Well, I never.

    1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      U.N. has been accused of having ties to Hamas.

      FIFY.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        Be fair. A primary purpose for the UN is to contradict and confound the US. Of course, another primary purpose is to siphon US dollars into the the right second and third world pockets.

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          Can we get Japan to walk out of the UN like they did with the League of Nations, signing it's death warrant? Hell, I might even overlook them invading Manchuria again if they killed the UN.

  13. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

    Former President Trump has ordered Speaker of the House Mike Johnson to nix anything short of a "perfect" border deal.

    After four years of his own border failures Fatass Donnie is demanding the current administration fail too.

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Because sleepyjoe has been doing great so far…

    2. Sevo   1 year ago

      How badly does turd lie? So badly, he equates an unarmed murder victim to terrorists:

      Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
      April.20.2021 at 10:47 pm
      “Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”

      He is a scumbag, ain't he?

    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      22 lawsuits, court ordered work stoppages and four years of DNC harassment

      Buttplug: "hiS oWn bOrDeR fAiLuReS"

      1. DesigNate   1 year ago

        He should have been able to overcome all of that all while being investigated as a traitor and Russian asset.

        1. damikesc   1 year ago

          As asked earlier here --- Biden did NOT need Congressional help to "forgive" student loans nor to ship tons of money to Ukraine.

          There are already laws covering the border.

          He wants to pass this problem on somebody else.

  14. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

    "The Justice Department will not rest until every community in our country is safe from the scourge of violent crime."

    I need definitions and quantifications, otherwise this is nothing more than a meaningless political posture statement. Oh, wait...

  15. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Climate activist has attack and thrown soup at the famous Mona Lisa painting in the Louvre Museum, Paris

    Viral marketing for Campbell's.

    1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

      New spokeman: Minestrona Lisa.

      1. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

        No.

        1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

          Mono Miso?

          1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

            *Mona*

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Who knew DaVinci was in the pocket of Big Oil?

      1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

        Didn't he paint in oils?

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          Yeah, I was just guessing but according to Wikipedia it was done in oils. Considering the brain trust that is the watermelons of the modern environmental movement, this probably almost makes sense to them.

          1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            Anyone want to tell them not all oils are petroleum based?

            1. Its_Not_Inevitable   1 year ago

              Like whale oil? Save the whales!

              1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                All the political shit turned me off but what really drove the last nail into the coffin for me is that Goodell refuses to address the bad officiating, most the time even refuses to admit what every fan is well aware of by now the refs are biased and terrible at their jobs. Just to many games being impacted even decided by bad reffing or one sided reffing.

                1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                  Fucking Reason. I already posted that below, why did you repost it here.

                  1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                    It's okay. An extra post condemning Goodell is worth reading it twice.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      That better be vegan non-GMO artisan soup made from sustainable vegetables grown in a community plot and cooked in a clay pot heated by the sun and transported on a wooden cart with no metal hardware.

  16. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    The San Francisco 49er and the Kansas City Chiefs will advance to the Super Bowl.

    I think I'll root for the ones not denigrating a whole indigenous population by making it their mascot.

    1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

      ya, its about time we stand up for the gold miners!

    2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      But the 49ers uprooted the noble savages in order to prospect for gold like the greedy capitalists they are

      1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

        Think of all the environmental damage!

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Who cares about the teams? What really matters is the proper choice of rainbow DEI half-time acts, and the woke politics of the TV ads.

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

        Was listening to the early game on Westwood one in the garage. Every other commercial was for phizers covid shots and treatments. Sometimes they ran the same one twice in the same commercial break. There were other ones for RSV shots as well.

        One thing’s for sure: they want people scared and getting lots of injections. Fucking creepy times we live in.

    4. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

      Ugh, I haven't really watched much football the past couple of years (and I used to pretty religiously but what with my favorite team being out of market and all the other crap, I have a hard time giving a fuck anymore) but Jesus, I hate both teams.

      But I will propose a drinking game:
      One shot every time they cut to Taylor Swift in her fan box. Two shots every time they mention Swift-Kelce dating. I'm betting everyone will be falling down drunk before half time.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        Well, falling down drunk might be the appropriate condition to watch the half-time show.

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          I was going to propose taking a shot every time a bad call/no call goes in the Chiefs favor but didn't want to send anyone to the ER.

      2. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

        After the kneeling bullshit, I was pretty much done with the NFL. I'll tune in for a game or two, but moved on LaLiga.

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          All the political shit turned me off but what really drove the last nail into the coffin for me is that Goodell refuses to address the bad officiating, most the time even refuses to admit what every fan is well aware of by now the refs are biased and terrible at their jobs. Just to many games being impacted even decided by bad reffing or one sided reffing.

  17. A Cynical Asshole   1 year ago

    This might be the most coherent Biden quote in a long time:

    JOE BIDEN: “In beer brew here... Huh ish issah use to make the brew beer here.. Issh Weer-fining... Oooooh Earth Rider... Thanks for the Great Lakes!”

    80 million people voted for this...

    1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

      It's about time someone gives credit to Earth Rider for the Great Lakes!

    2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      No, 80 million ballots were counted for him

    3. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

      It is so sad that an old man is being used by POTUS Obama like that.

    4. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      I don't speak Bidenese.

    5. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      I'm becoming increasingly convinced that he's not running anything, there's just an entrenched bureaucracy that's using him as a front-man. Libertarians who voted for him essentially voted for the shadow government.

      1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

        They voted for Obama's third term.

    6. Roberta   1 year ago

      So he's drunk. The Great Lake must refer to their Superior ale, of which he must've partaken generously.

      Trouble is, he's like this all the time.

      1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

        His son didn't give him enough of his Joe Talk-ie pills.

      2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

        Sadly, he was not drunk.

  18. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    "In beer brew here… Huh ish issah use to make the brew beer here.. Issh Weer-fining… Oooooh Earth Rider… Thanks for the Great Lakes!"

    Kudos to the transcriber.

    1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

      I think that's old English: language and mythology.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        Olde English. Maybe. Or some of that Lord of the Rings crap.

      2. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

        The beacon has been lit, Gondor calls for help???

        1. BYODB   1 year ago

          Where was Biden when the Westfold fell?

  19. JesseAz   1 year ago

    The Senate's version of the current deal requires a shutdown of the border the number of illegal crossings reaches a certain threshold.

    Whats the threshold Liz? The deal legalized 80% of the border problems Joe has caused. He already has the power to shut down the border. The deal simply legalized 1.8M illegal immigrants a year. And spends billions more to do so.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Trump probably believes that he benefits politically from unrest at the border—and he's right—so the GOP has very little incentive to actually agree to anything.

      Or the deal is terrible and benefits nobody but illegal immigrants.

      HR 2 already was passed by the House. Does the Senate ignoring it benefit Joe?

    2. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      I feel obligated to to mention this article was not written by Liz.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Ahh. Robby. Didn't look at byline.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          The tone is clearly different. I hope new Liz did not get sent to the cornfield.

          1. Its_Not_Inevitable   1 year ago

            Or taken to the train station, forbid.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago (edited)

      He already has the power to shut down the border.

      NO ONE has the power to shut down the border, just like NO ONE has the power to shut down the marijuana market or the prostitution market. These are all victimless ‘crimes’ that free people will find a way around legal restrictions regardless of which authoritarian is in charge.

      And before Jesse or others starts bleating about the ‘victimless’ part with WELL WHATABOUT ALL THE WELFARE THEY USE???, whatever public benefits they get, is a result of government policies AFTER the migration has occurred, not as a consequence of the migration. And besides most come here for the opportunity to work for a better life for themselves as their families, the whole narrative of ‘they lounge about on welfare’ is wrong.

      1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

        Sleepy Joe could stop all the speeders too. 55 MPH you know.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          You just know that the same people who are demanding that Biden "shut down the border" would give infinite excuses for everything that Trump failed to do.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            Um, that's part of what the executive branch can do. Below is a discussion of what the executive can and cannot do regarding the border.

            https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10283

            Federal statutes grant the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) general authority over operations to secure the border and specific authority to close temporarily “any . . . port of entry” when necessary to protect national interests. Other statutes give the President broad authority to suspend the entry of non- U.S. citizens. Together, these statutes probably authorize a range of targeted executive measures to close a port of entry or to restrict operations at some ports, at least in some circumstances. Whether the statutes authorize more sweeping executive action to close many or all of the ports of entry on the southern border to most or all people and goods, however, is a question with which federal courts have not grappled and which may face significant constitutional and other legal obstacles, depending on the scope of the executive action.

            First, some statutes supply executive agencies with authority over border operations. Perhaps most relevant is 19 U.S.C. § 1318(b)(2), which provides as follows: [T]he Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, when necessary to respond to a
            specific threat to human life or national interests, is authorized to close temporarily any Customs office or port of entry or take any other lesser action that may be necessary to respond to the specific threat.

            Second, other statutes grant the executive branch broad authority to restrict the entry of aliens. INA § 212(f), which came to public attention when President Trump invoked it as authority for the “Travel Ban” executive orders and proclamation, confers exceptionally broad power on the President in this regard: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for
            such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be
            appropriate.

            1. damikesc   1 year ago

              Note, unlike chemjeff and his pedo buddy ---- facts being dropped right here.

        2. Sevo   1 year ago

          Kiddie porn addict lefty shit turd here seems to fantasize that ‘trespassing’ on public land = flying an airliner full of passengers into a skyscraper.
          There are few more obvious examples of turd’s imbecility than this.

        3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Actually, that's something the feds (legislative and executive) cannot currently do. They did try to blackmail the states into the 55 mph limit with the National Mandatory Speed Law (NMSL) by withholding highway funds if the states did not comply (the same is done with the drinking age of 21 currently).

      2. Randy Sax   1 year ago

        "whatever public benefits they get, is a result of government policies AFTER the migration has occurred, not as a consequence of the migration."
        I don't think your grasp on the English language is as solid as you think it is.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          If a migrant steps one foot over the border onto public land, there is absolutely no victim. If that migrant LATER decides to do other things, those other actions may or may not have victims, but they are not because the migrant stepped one foot over the border.

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

            Isn't the US bound by law to allow the asylum seeker six months entry to accommodate an asylum trial?

            Seems to me only Congress can fix this.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              No. There is a long history of quick adjudication of obviously false asylum claims. That process has been ended.

            2. Sevo   1 year ago

              turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
              turd lies. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.

            3. damikesc   1 year ago

              Feel free to provide links to said law.

          2. Randy Sax   1 year ago (edited)

            You cannot have open borders AND a welfare state. That system does create victims. If you are arguing that we keep the current system then your argument saying that it is a victimless crime is just wrong. If you are arguing that we ditch the welfare system and keep the open borders then I am all for it.

        2. JesseAz   1 year ago

          And Jeff is completely wrong here as usual as the bill includes free legal representation for illegal immigrants.

          1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            Also, whole federal law doesn't allow direct welfare payments to immigrants, there is a whole slew of backdoor welfare. For example, supplying federal grants to NGO, that spend the money not the government. Both Catholic Social Services and Lutheran Social Services for example receive billions in federal grants to assist immigrants both legal and illegal. In other words, it's a shell game. Me personally, despite being a Lutheran, believe no NGO should receive any federal grants. Charity should never be paid for by tax payers dollars. Charity should always be freely given, not tax funded. Because the latter isn't true charity.

      3. Minadin   1 year ago

        The president can absolutely shut down the border, albeit on a temporary emergency basis.

        You think he couldn't during a war? Natural disaster? Other emergency?

        1. DesigNate   1 year ago

          I think he’s trying to argue that (like pot) it’s not logistically possible.

          Of course we all know he also believes the president doesn’t have the authority to do anything about the border either.

    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      I love how people like Jesse thinks that there is like some magic wand that a president can just wave to 'shut down the border'.

      1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

        the current deal requires a shutdown of the border the number of illegal crossings reaches a certain threshold.

        Who would do it then?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Legislators can write words on a page but they cannot change reality.

          1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

            Laws have no meaning.

            /jeff

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Laws are magic.

              /Dlam

              1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

                Who needs laws?

                /Sarc

                1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

                  Fuck the laws

                  /SPB2

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                    Doesn't he usually fuck the kids instead?

          2. Nobartium   1 year ago

            What a shitty stance.

            By that logic, all laws protecting rights are meaningless as well.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              I think jeff is saying that no amount of legislation can stop people from illegally crossing the border.

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                Which is a strawman. It can reduce the number. But you two don't care about reality.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Legislation is words on paper. That's it. Shutting down the border would require a lot of manpower and a lot of money. Like wartime mobilization. Legislation by itself won't do it.

                  1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

                    Leave your door unlocked.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      If you lock your doors, AND you post a sign out front that says "doors are locked", and someone tries to break into your house and fails because the doors are locked, the reason why that person wasn't able to get in wasn't because of the sign.

                    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

                      And if you lock your doors and government agents remove the locks because other people think "visitors" are more entitled to your stuff?

                  2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    Keep building the strawman.

                    Since we can't stop all murders, we shouldn't have law regarding murder or officers find murderers.

                    Same logic youre using.

                    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Right. Except that's not the same logic I'm using. Not by a long shot. I'm saying that it will require lots and lots of manpower to secure the border. No amount of manpower can stop murder.

                    2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      It actually doesn't.

                      It means having manpower stop people at the border. Not making them lunches, cutting barriers for them, being taxis for them, etc.

                      You seem to be ignorant that the crisis is growing because of changes Biden signed through executive orders.

                      And again, nobody is asking for a zero crossed border as the goal. But if found illegally they can be quickly deported. You keep retreating to the same dumb strawman.

                2. Super Scary   1 year ago

                  How about some "common sense" immigration laws then?

                3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  Which is a strawman.

                  "shutdown of the border"

                  1. Truthfulness   1 year ago

                    You haven't refuted him. Minimize illegal immigration by closing the borders. Is that difficult for you to understand?

              2. Sevo   1 year ago

                Log out and back in and the steaming piles of lefty shit who you had muted show up again.
                Fuck off and die, you worthless asshole.

              3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                I think jeff is saying that no amount of legislation can stop people from illegally crossing the border.

                By that logic, no amount of legislation can stop people from doing anything, including murder. But that doesn't mean that we get rid of the laws.

                What he's saying is nuclear-grade retarded.

                1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                  What he’s saying is nuclear-grade retarded.

                  Well, this is Jeffy, so that's usually a given.

                2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Defenders of gun control and the drug war say the same thing.

                  1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                    Yes, a stable, functional society has to figure out how to balance its laws. Who knew?

                  2. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                    No they don’t.

                    They seek to reduce it, not eliminate it.

                  3. Minadin   1 year ago

                    And I would say the same thing to the gun control nuts: You don't necessarily need new laws, just enforce the ones on the books.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      "Enforcing the laws on the books" permits anyone to apply for asylum at the border. This is what you want to enforce?

                    2. Minadin   1 year ago

                      Jeff, that's horseshit and you know it's horseshit, so quit repeating it. You've been explained this many, many times.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      It's not horseshit. It is what the law says.

                      https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim

                      "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."

                    4. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago (edited)

                      Jeffy, you forgot to go further on that.

                      (b) Conditions for granting asylum

                      (1) In general (A) Eligibility

                      The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.

                      (B) Burden of proof (i) In general

                      The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

                      So, yes they can apply, but they can and should be denied if they don’t meet the criteria in b1A. And the economics of the home country are not a reason for asylum.

                    5. Minadin   1 year ago

                      In accordance with this section:

                      (2) Exceptions
                      (A) Safe third country
                      Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

                      (B) Time limit
                      Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien's arrival in the United States.

                      (C) Previous asylum applications
                      Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the alien has previously applied for asylum and had such application denied.

                      (D) Changed circumstances
                      An application for asylum of an alien may be considered, notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C), if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application within the period specified in subparagraph (B).

                      (E) Applicability
                      Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6).

                    6. Minadin   1 year ago

                      So, shorter version: HORSESHIT.

                    7. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago (edited)

                      That’s right. So anyone can apply for asylum if they just show up. They can’t have applied before and they have to apply within one year of showing up and they can’t have gone to a “safe country”. So you are arguing that I didn’t include those three caveats? Fine, you win with your nitpicking. Not literally “anyone” can apply. But that still includes a very large number of people and it is also includes the people who are showing up now.

                      So a person who shows up at the border, without papers, who hasn’t applied for asylum before, who applies within 1 year, who didn’t travel through a “safe third country” *as defined by the law*, you are totally okay with enforcing this part of the law, right?

                    8. Minadin   1 year ago

                      There are a large number of exceptions for people who can apply - and the very first one is people who have passed through a safe third country. That's just for who can even apply. There's another whole list of reasons people can be denied.

                      So, your statement that 'anyone who shows up is allowed to apply' is false. It's shown false by your own link.

                    9. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Yes, I get it. You scored on nitpick points. Congratulations.
                      BTW, Mexico is not a "safe third country" as a matter of law.
                      But you are okay with enforcing this law, right?

                    10. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

                      chemjeff, it is not a nitpick to point out you are completely wrong about the law.

                      What is wrong is a total dumbass trying to cherrypick the legal code to make a point, and whiffing.

                3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  Laws don't prevent murder. That's right. Laws specify the process for how to punish a crime of murder once it occurs. Now you are learning!

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                    So, what you're saying is that laws don't prevent them from crossing the border, but we can arrest, try, and deport them for violating the border.

                    Thanks for clarifying, Jeffy.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      No law can "shut down" the border. Yes the government can arrest people who try to cross the border, just like the government can arrest people who smoke weed. Good luck on trying to do that.

                    2. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      Dude, the last three years have seen three times the annual historical numbers. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it’s an issue with the current regime’s policies re: enforcement/incentivization.

                4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  But that doesn’t mean that we get rid of the laws.

                  That is not the alternative being presented here.

                  The analogy would be, since laws don't stop murder, and because we really really want to get rid of murder, pass another law that tries to "shutdown all murder". Think that will be possible?

                5. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

                  His argument, also coincidentally the one being aired on MSNBC, is "its really hard to stop everyone, and laws alone cant stop people anyways, plus the world is a mean unfair place, also it takes too long to get in legally, therefore we might as well not try."

                  Just like their retarded take on abortion (no restrictions, period) they have a retarded take here (open borders).

                  Their arguments should be ridiculed, but also, its clear these people need to be ignored. They arent serious people with adult ideas.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Hey, you actually have a point. Words on a page (the law) do not stop people from violating other people's rights either. The words on the page only lay out the process of what to do if one's rights are violated.

              1. Nobartium   1 year ago

                Then they aren't words on paper.

                Just admit that you are outcome driven.

          3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            Legislators can write words on a page but they cannot change reality.

            Just like a man can call himself a woman, but can't change reality, either. Hey-O!!

            1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

              Now, now....don't go confusing him with the facts.

      2. Zeb   1 year ago

        Is it possible to prevent absolutely anyone from crossing the border illegally? Probably not. But there are certainly different ways to manage it. During both the Obama and Trump administrations, illegal crossings were way down. I don't think that was a simple coincidence.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Then COVID happened, and many countries with teetering economies spun down the shitter. I think that probably had a lot more to do with it than the president.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Ahh. Argumentation from ignorance relying on bald assertions.

            Never change. I mean do you think covid existed under Obama which zeb mentioned?

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Are you saying the surge of immigration during Biden's tenure is all because of him and him alone, and the worldwide economic downturn as a result of COVID policies had nothing to do with it?

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                Are you aware of Bidens EOs on day 1 of his administration dumdum?

                Are you aware of what he said while campaigning in 2019?

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                  I mean even NBC News was calling Biden out in 2021. Lol.

                  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/fact-checking-biden-migrant-surge-during-first-news-conference-n1262089

                  But you keep defending dems sarc. All youre good at lately.

                  Here is politico.

                  https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/13/biden-title-42-border-asylum-immigration-481097

            2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              I'll take your silence as a yes.

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                You rely on ignorance and bald assertions in every response. This is no different.

            3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              You're confusing him with facts.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                You're confusing his lies with things I said.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  Do you just spit out words randomly? I didn't say you said anything. I stated how your arguments were formed dumdum.

          2. Zeb   1 year ago

            That's probably part of why there are so many people trying to enter in recent years. But I think there are two big factors: the number of people who are desperate enough to make the trip, and the perceived ease and likelihood of successfully getting to the US and not being immediately deported.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Believe their court dates are now more than 3 years out and one news outlet reported a case of 10 years out.

              1. Zeb   1 year ago

                Yeah, that's nuts. We have no obligation and no practical ability to protect every miserable and oppressed person in the world. If the asylum/refugee system is already that backed up, then at the very least pausing putting new people on the list to clear up the backlog seems reasonable.

          3. Fats of Fury   1 year ago (edited)

            No, then Biden happened

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwLYMPLYbo

            Candidate Biden Calls On Illegal Immigrants to Surge the Border

      3. Nobartium   1 year ago

        It's called administrative policy.

        Specifically, harsher enforcement.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Not even harsher enforcement. Just actual enforcement.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Nobartium is right here. There is "actual enforcement". The Team Red politicians who are saying "the border is wide open" are lying to you. The Border Patrol arrest and process people crossing the border every day. What your team is advocating for now is "harsher enforcement". Make it even more illegal to cross the border without papers. It will result in taking away more of your rights but you don't care so long as those brown people stay on their side of the border.

            1. Nobartium   1 year ago

              I have yet to see you come up with a good reason why inclusion is morally superior to exclusion, from a libertarian perspective.

              Until then, bitching about racism will get you nowhere.

              1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                The open borders crowd is a big reason I changed my party registration from LP to unaffiliated (and GWB, McCain and Romney were why I changed from Republican to LP). I used to qualify my statement that I was for a liberalized, easy path to immigration but then I saw several economists around 2022 admit the quiet part out loud, that we needed more unskilled workers to depress wages to fight inflation, including a study from George Mason University.
                https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/open-border-policy-not-accident

                This article as discussed how NGO help launder federal money to immigrants that the federal government can't pay out directly.

                It is quite possible that the conditions in the late 19th and early 20th century, the peak of immigration, are not reproducible in today's world. There are no vast tracts of prairie to be homesteaded, and a booming and growing manufacturing economy hungry for unskilled but hard workers willing to do repetitive work day after day. Even picking fruits and vegetables are increasingly going to be mechanized. We're already testing and fielding some autonomous grain carts, and other farming implements. Adoption is slow at first but then something happens that causes an industry wide adoption. About half of all farming was still done by horse power (literally) at the start of the second world war, by the end of the 1950s it was down to single percentages. We now have robotic milkers, that actually increase milk production and decreases cases of mastitis. They're expensive but more and more farmers have adopted them due to fewer workers. Little money was invested in robotic harvesters for fruits and vegetables, until about a decade ago, by the end of this decade, it's likely the vary majority of fruits and vegetables will be robotically harvested. Using color spectrometry, robots can do a better job than humans detecting which are ripe and which aren't. There is also less chance of contamination. And robotic drones are being developed to detect weeds, insect and disease damage in crops and then spot applying the correct pesticides to control it. This will greatly reduce pesticide usage, increase yield and decrease costs. Drones are being used by ranchers and dairy farmers to monitor cows during calving, reducing stress from constant checking by humans while alerting the rancher when there is a problem, early enough to intervene successfully. In the next couple of decades, farmers and ranchers will be doing a lot of their work from labtops and tablets. Hell, modern tractors and harvesters already provide a plethora of instantaneous data and it is only going to increase. As such, the need for unskilled workers is going to decrease dramatically in agriculture.

                1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                  Hell, RFID chips are making the old tally books obsolete too. Probably not a bad idea to keep a hard copy, but now with an RFID reader, you'll know the history of cow every time she comes through the chute. Her birthdate, her dam and sire, her every calving date. Health of her calves, weights, how they performed at sale, every vaccine she's had every bull she's been exposed to, if you AI, it she took on AI or required a cleanup bull, every time she's been sick and doctored, etc. Dairies have been doing this for decades, the beef world is now starting to follow suit. You riders can also have a RFID reader and be able to pull the data up in the field by scanning their chips, without even catching her. It's going to streamline management decisions (especially voluntary culling), while reducing stress on the animals and improving worker safety. More hands off management. Fewer workers. More timely actionable information. It's going to be as transformative for agriculture as the internal combustion engine and nitrogen synthesis. And like those two innovations it's going to drastically reduce the amount of manpower needed in agriculture.

                  1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                    But, cheap labor is going to slow the process, why spend a $1,000,000 on a new robotic carousel milker if you can hire unskilled immigrants, even if in the long run it will pay for itself. Because agriculture is generally focused on the short term by necessity. The rich guys always buy the new toys (part of why they happen to be the rich guys), the middle guys then buy their used equipment (which is probably better than what they had, because it was new recently), while the poorer guys buy the middle guys used stuff (same thing newer and better than what they had).

    5. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Am I the only one wondering why we can't just do immediately whatever it is we will do after the 5,000/day?

  20. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

    Yet another Super Bowl I have no interest in watching.
    #Fucking49ers

    In other news, somehow the pro-Hamas protestors are being aided, by get this, Russia, if you ask Nancy Pelosi.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-russia-russia-pelosi-proclaims-pro-palestine-protesters-are-puppets-putin

    The Russians are back just in time for another election. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Sunday that pro-Palestinian protesters were “connected to Russia” and pushing “Mr. Putin’s message.” She called for . . . you guessed it . . . a new Russian investigation.

    Protesters have targeted Pelosi’s home, usually an aggressive tactic reserved for Republicans. Indeed, when protesters were toppling statues, Pelosi saw no international conspiracy or influence. Instead, she dismissed the violent riots and said “people will do what they do.”

    Pelosi also refused to condemn Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Cal.) when, during violent rioting, Waters declared that protesters “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.”

    CNN’s Dana Bash asked Pelosi about the shift against Democratic leaders like herself. Pelosi’s response was all-too-familiar:

    But for them to call for a cease-fire is Mr. Putin’s message, Mr. Putin’s message. Make no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Yeah. First super bowl ill skip in 20 years. Have zero interest.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        You watched the kneelers?

    2. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      Well, that was a spectacular choke by the Lions yesterday. They seemed to have the game in the bag at halftime and saw it completely collapse in a couple of minutes in the 3rd quarter by a questionable decision to not go for points and a turnover.

      1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

        questionable decision to not go for points

        I mean, if #8 didn't have stumps for hands, they keep on trucking (and don't get me started on the DB that let a ball bounce off his face).

        1. Ska   1 year ago

          If DBs could catch they'd be receivers.

          1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

            If DBs men could catch become pregnant they’d be receivers women.

            FTFY

            I'm not saying he had to make the interception, I'm just saying he had to be coordinated enough to not have the ball bounce off his face.

        2. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Refs ready granted the completion when they threw the flag. They only picked it up because Aiyuk caught it.

    3. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Damn that Putin and his anti war stances!

    4. Super Scary   1 year ago

      It's the crossover event of the season!

    5. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      Yet another Super Bowl I have no interest in watching.
      #Fucking49ers

      I gave up watching the NFL when they started overly pushing a political agenda about 4 years ago. I don't miss it.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        And it's gotten to be boring as shit now, too. A bunch of RPO shotgun offenses that opened up the stats but made the game completely uninteresting. This shit is ubiquitous at the college level, and as a result the offensive linemen can't run OR pass-block, the QBs are absolute shit at running an offense, running backs are an afterthought, and WRs are a bunch of no-name JAGs. There hasn't been a truly elite wideout since Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald hung up their cleats.

        San Francisco is at least somewhat interesting because their coach is running his dad's 90s-era West Coast offense.

      2. tracerv   1 year ago

        The last time I watched the NFL was fatass Beyonce & her black panther dance troupe did the halftime show @ the Super Bowl. Not even sure when that was & have not missed it a bit.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          The one where she didn't do anything except grunt through the whole performance?

          Beyonce's always been overrated as shit. She did this hilariously unself-aware "FEMINIST" display at her concerts, even though her entire career, she's basically been little more than a glorified Vegas stripper who's benefited from her daddy or Jay-Z plowing the roads of life for her. Pretty face and succulent titties, but she's an absolutely generic, indistinguished singer who's passed her sell-by date now that she's in her 40s.

  21. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

    Looks like this is a go.

    https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_e4fd95a8-bd59-11ee-9920-8f9e6289fa03.html

    After nearly a year of investigations and hearings, the U.S. House Committee of Homeland Security is preparing to impeach U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

    Committee chairman Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., has led the charge for impeachment, arguing Mayorkas is derelict of duty, holding over a dozen hearings and issuing multiple reports over the past year, which The Center Square has extensively covered.

    On Tuesday, two articles of impeachment will be filed and marked up, The Center Square learned from the committee. If the articles are voted out of committee, they would go to the full House for a vote. Green says he has the votes in committee to advance them.

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, last week announced, “a vote on the floor will be held as soon as possible thereafter.”

    Article 1, “Willful and Systemic Refusal to Comply with the Law,” states that Mayorkas has violated his oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of his office, has willfully and systemically refused to comply with Federal immigration laws.”

    Article 2, “Breach of the Public Trust,” states that Mayorkas has violated his oath “to well and faithfully discharge the duties” because he “knowingly made false statements, and knowingly obstructed lawful oversight of the Department of Homeland Security of his office.”

    If the House does impeach him, Mayorkas would be just the second cabinet member in U.S. history in nearly 150 years to be impeached. Secretary of War William Belknap, serving under President Ulysses S. Grant, was impeached on March 2, 1876. Although he had resigned, he stood trial before the U.S. Senate as a former government official and was acquitted.

    1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

      Next up for impeachment: POTUS Biden. Maladministration.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        No thanks. They don't need to hand the DNC an opportunity to ditch him.
        Far more importantly Wray and Garland need to be impeached.

        1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

          They need to return the favor and forever stain his record.

    2. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Immediately followed by a 30 second vote of 'not guilty' in the senate.

      Might have been better to work on election of a president who will just fire his ass.

      (or at least passing regular order budget bills)

  22. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

    Sen. John Fetterman (D–Penn.) said he opposes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's prposed crackdown on Zyn

    Fetterman strikes again after telling Progs to fuck off and saying Menedez is a slimeball who should be expelled now.

    You Peanuts got another one wrong.

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      We need more stroke victims in charge!

    2. Sevo   1 year ago

      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.

    3. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

      SPB2, whoa whoa whoa....

      A lot of us have been saying that Bob 'Sticky Fingers' Menendez is corrupt AF and a sleazeball.

      Senator Lurch....seems to be responding to his medication well.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        Yeah, but if he keeps challenging the party line, he might have another "stroke".

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          I'm honestly curious as to what happened to him while he was in depression treatment. He seems to have completely dropped whatever fucks he might have had about what his own party's voters will say on certain subjects--the dude even got up on his roof and started waving an Israel flag around when people were picketing his home.

          Maybe it's because he's a fucking giant and doesn't have to worry about his physical safety like Sinema does.

          1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

            Incumbency, is what happened. 🙂

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              Yeah, but typically these guys aren't so brazen about it. I think the dude just naturally attracts attention because he's so big, but maybe there's a part of him that just likes being a drama queen and this is how he's getting his fix, even if he has to antagonize his voting base.

  23. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

    Attorney General Merrick Garland. "The Justice Department will not rest until every community in our country is safe from the scourge of violent crime."

    Of course the DOJ has redefined violent crime to include protest at school boards and excluded private property theft.

  24. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago (edited)

    Climate activist narcissistic assholes have attack and thrown soup at the famous Mona Lisa painting in the Louvre Museum, Paris

    FTFY. And for what’s it worth, everytime they do this I’m going to waste a gallon of gas just driving around with no particular place to go.

    1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      I'm burning an old tire.

      1. Minadin   1 year ago

        I have a couple that you can have if you need them.

  25. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    83 million for saying I didn't rape her. This sets the precedence that every defendant in every criminal trial that says they are innocent is guilty, has defamed their accuser

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Only if your name is trump.

    2. Ron   1 year ago

      it is now essentially illegal to claim innocence

      1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

        “You wouldn’t have gotten arrested if you weren’t guilty”

        /sarcasmic

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Chat up a defense attorney or someone who works in the office of one, and ask how many of their clients didn't do it. They'll likely say none. I was surprised at this myself.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Things that never happened for $200 alex.

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              Sarcasmic has moved from hating cops to claiming that there's no such thing as false charges so smoothly that I hardly noticed.

            2. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

              If his tape is true, that eliminates a big argument against the death penalty, because obvious it means no innocent person is in prison.

              1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                Oh and the innocence project can fold up it's operations because it isn't needed anymore.

  26. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

    So, over the weekend, it was revealed that many of you are uninformed on what the concept of "first safe country" means as a legal matter.

    Legally, it is defined thusly:

    https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim

    Briefly, a country is a "first safe country" if:
    * the asylum applicant's “life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”;
    * the asylum applicant “would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection”; AND
    * there is an agreement between the two nations to agree to be designated as such.

    Even if a particular asylum applicant satisfies criteria 1 and 2, there is no 'first save country' agreement between the US and Mexico. The only 'first safe country' agreement that the US has is with Canada. That's it.

    So 'first safe country' has a particular legal definition, it is different than the common colloquial understanding of the term 'safe', and properly enforcing the law - which many of you expressed an interest in doing - would recognize this fact.

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Legislators can write words on a page but they cannot change reality.

    2. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      * the asylum applicant’s “life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality,

      So the racist, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic good ol' USA is not now, and never has been a safe country for asylum seeks. 100% should be denied.

    3. JFree   1 year ago

      The only ‘first safe country’ agreement that the US has is with Canada.

      Typical. Canada is required to 'house' eskimos and polar bears who are seeking asylum. US is required to house everyone else in the world seeking asylum.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        Only because Biden ended the agreements with other countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras).

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          That was the right call. Those countries are not "safe" in any meaningful sense of the word. Trump cajoled and bullied those countries into signing those agreements not because it would be good for refugees, but to stop the migrants from going to America.

          https://archive.is/VOa5h

          1. JFree   1 year ago

            What is that archive.is site? is it a site crawler to get behind paywalls?

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              It is an archive of the Internet. And yeah that appears to be its main purpose now, to get around paywalls.

          2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            LOL, El Salvador is just fine after Bukele threw all the gang members in prison.

    4. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      Yet,

      (2) Exceptions

      (A) Safe third country

      Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

      You only went through part of this, Jeffy.

      (A) Eligibility

      The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.

      (B) Burden of proof
      (i) In general

      The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

      Note that the economy somewhere is not a justification.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        That is a different issue.

        Many of you were complaining yesterday that many of the asylum applications are invalid/fraudulent because the applicants passed through Mexico first, which is supposedly a "first safe country". But it is not. "First safe country" is defined by law as I noted above. This has nothing to do whether the applicant is applying for reasons of genuine oppression or for reasons of economic opportunity.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Then how about you actually look at the entire thing instead of posting the part that supports your side?

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            You are shifting the goalposts.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              There's no shifting of any goalposts, just calling out your cherry-picking.

            2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              Context only matters when it might support your argument, eh?

              1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

                That’s our Chemjeff selectively nuanced defeatist.

                What a guy.

            3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              "You are shifting the goalposts."

              Looks like Jeff's taking his definitions from sarcasmic.

    5. Super Scary   1 year ago (edited)
    6. DesigNate   1 year ago

      So Mexico IS a shithole and the left getting their panties in a twist over Trump saying such was yet more outrage porn?

  27. Agammamon   1 year ago

    1. Biden wants a border deal? Why, I thought immigration came with no negatives? The last couple years should have demonstrated how much richer Chicago and NYC are now that they've been enriched with non-demonized youths.

    2. Mexico doesn't have to agree to anything. Out them in a boat, push it back. Mexico can take these people or it can face Reason calling them heartless for not doing so - just like you do to the US.

    1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      Do illegals count as cabotage? Maybe just float them out on an ice drift. Save on boats that way.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      1. Biden wants a border deal? Why, I thought immigration came with no negatives? The last couple years should have demonstrated how much richer Chicago and NYC are now that they’ve been enriched with non-demonized youths.

      Denver's had so much exponential cultural enrichment that its hospitals like Denver Health are being overwhelmed, the schools don't have enough money to handle the upsurge of students they've gotten, and the migrants are stealing the windshield squeegees from gas stations to panhandle by cleaning windows, just like some 70s-80s urban dystopia.

      1. Super Scary   1 year ago

        "migrants are stealing the windshield squeegees from gas stations"

        How else are they going to keep those food trucks clean?

        1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

          TBH, it would be pretty funny if gas stations started chaining the squeegees to the concrete like pens at the bank.

          1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            Or make you check them out attached to a cinder block or such like they do with bathroom keys?

  28. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

    "Hawkish Republicans are already calling for open war with Iran"

    Oh, those poor, misguided war-mongering Republicans. Good thing that Democrats are above that sort of thing.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      Graham and Cornyn aren't any fucking surprise, though.

    2. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Exactly.
      If we have a war with Iran, Iranians might die, not just Americans.

  29. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

    "Biden clearly had a good time at this beer brewery"

    Holy fuck. How can any Biden fan hear this and then tell us how he is the best choice for President?

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

      I don’t think Biden has many fans. He’s just the anti-Trump.

      edit: or the antichrist the way some people are behaving.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Leave Joe alone!

        Amazing watching you applaud the state going after Trump as you call him the 2nd coming of Hitler then rush to protect Joe from any criticism. Lol.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Things that never happened for $200 alex.

          1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

            You know we can read your posts right?

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              If you think Jesse's comment is an accurate description of things I've said then you've got brain damage.

              1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                Anyone can read your comments, without relying on JesseAZ or anyone else's descriptions.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  This.

              2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

                Another example of articulate argumentation.

              3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                It's probably more accurate than yours have been. You do have a history of having TDS issues and condemning cops unless it's against someone you don't like. Then, you praise them.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Too funny. Do me a favor then and put me on mute and stop responding if you think Jesse's bullshit is more accurate than my own words.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                    Dude, I don't even mute the retarded squirrel, just the spammers.

                  2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    My bullshit is literally reposting your posts word for word.

                    Youre like the leftists who bitch about LibsOfTikTok for reposting their posts.

                    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Riiight. Except that instead of applauding the state I've stated prosecuting Trump is shameful (I've also said the classified documents case has legs, but that's not praising anyone), I stated that Trump used Hitleresque language but never called him Hitler or anything close, and in the comment you were responding to I said Biden doesn't have fans which is far from saying he can't be criticized.

                      I will give you credit for one thing. You've never once accurately restated anything that anyone has said. Give you an A for consistency.

                    2. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                      You mean the one time you did below after I posted my original statement? Im sure you can show a prior time.

                      I can post links to you defending Trump as guilty in the federal cases and the insurrection claims. So I’m assuming you can post one time prior today and aren’t simply lying. Odd that you claim this and then attack everyone who says the same thing as Trump cultists. Weird indeed.

                      How is posting your own posts word for word innacurate? I'm honestly curious. I've proven you lie about your prior posts all the time. Weird projection.

                    3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      How is posting your own posts word for word inaccurate?

                      Because, as he told me, it's not what he was thinking..er..meant..er..oh, whatever at the time, never mind that it's what he actually wrote.

      2. Fats of Fury   1 year ago

        I don’t think Biden has many fans.
        Well, he's got you, Pluggo, Chemo, Sqrlsy and quite a few others. Enough for you Bidettes to start up a kick line for Joe. If you could get your legs that high.

    2. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

      No idea. He sounds just like my dear departed grandfather; who had Alzheimers. Same slurring and giggling mannerisms.

  30. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

    Biden wants the border deal, and he wants it now. The president is practically begging Democrats and Republicans to agree to legislation that would give him the authority "to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed."

    Amazing how a small number of tariffs brings people to the negotiating table, eh?

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      The SOB just wants more money to launder through Ukraine.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

        Of course he does. And that's politics.

    2. Fats of Fury   1 year ago

      Biden is begging for Mexico’s help with the border (and his reelection)

      https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4420526-biden-is-begging-for-mexicos-help-with-the-border-and-with-his-re-election/

  31. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Iranian-backed militants launched a drone strike on a military outpost in Jordan, resulting in the deaths of three U.S. service members stationed there.

    ya and like 10x that injured too what the fucking fuck we just allow Beirut all over again now?

    1. JFree   1 year ago

      We will always allow a Beirut because we don't know what is going on in region and we don't want to really understand anything because that would involve effort and risk. Before this, no one in the US outside Central Command even knew what Tower 22 was, its mission, how many troops, its target, its enemies, its distance from the nearest refugee camp in Ruqban, any information about the Shiite groups in the area who oppose ISIL as much as they oppose the US, etc. Just like we knew nothing about why we were really in Beirut.

      And now that something has happened, we will be told precisely what is necessary to get us involved in something against Iran because a war with Iran has everything to do with why we are in the region and little to do with why the base was attacked.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago (edited)

      We’ve been at that outpost since ISIS first put its big boy pants on, if not longer. It’s mainly to support SDF and Kurdish operations against Syria.

      An attack was fucking inevitable, because Syria and Iran have been allies for a long damn time. In fact, there's probably been hundreds of them, and one was eventually going to get through anyway.

      The solution would be to pull them the hell out of Jordan.

    3. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Just for the record, it is not "we"; it is the democrat foreign policy, so just the ones that voted for Biden/Harris.

  32. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pursuing the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination after all?

    does any version of the LP let creepo leftists run the show?

  33. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Biden wants the border deal, and he wants it now.

    Congress is the only way Brandon backs away from the invasion unscathed.

  34. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

    A jury has ordered Trump to pay $83 million to E. Jean Carroll.

    And apparently this is all we're going to say about that, when his comments amounted to, "I didn't rape her, she made it all up." And somehow that's $83 million worth of defamation. Keeping in mind that he's never been found guilty of this crime and there's zero evidence of him ever actually being at Bergdorf's with this woman.

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      I think the verdict is absurd and hope he wins on appeal.

      Keeping in mind that he’s never been found guilty of this crime...

      It's a civil suit, which means she only had to convince a jury that he "probably" did it. For that kind of money the threshold should be higher. In my opinion.

      1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

        From what I heard of defense arguments, the goal was to punish him for being Trump. The “harm” this woman suffered was to raise her profile and make her more famous than she ever had been. Almost nobody would be paying her any attention at all if she wasn’t useful for “getting” Donald Trump.

        The whole thing is purely using the court to achieve a political end.

  35. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>A jury has ordered Trump to pay $83 million to E. Jean Carroll.

    Quick Hit because Reason has no opinion on blatant weaponization of the justice system and miscarriages of justice?

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      I know it. I mean, how dare they report the news without having an opinion on it. Better make up their opinion for them and call them liars if they say anything different.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        if Backpage never stop. if T, meh.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          So hard to tell what is straight news or opinion at Reason without Mike to tell us. Glad Sarc designated himself the new arbiter.

  36. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>The San Francisco 49er and the Kansas City Chiefs will advance to the Super Bowl.

    I think they send the whole Niners team 😉

  37. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Biden clearly had a good time at this beer brewery:

    people laughed at the end of B's joke like that one guy who went "whoo!" in the Clapton Unplugged version of Layla even though nobody on earth including that guy knew what Eric was playing yet

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      Wasn't that one of Clapton's band members who did that?

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        not saying you're wrong I haven't seen the video in 30 years but why would a band member whoo three counts in?

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          I did re-watch both the video and listen to the radio version just now. You don't hear any audience or band exclamations in the video, just the performance (maybe MTV edited those out in post-production). On the radio version, there's some audience exclamations after he starts singing the lyrics. The yawp doesn't come until he starts the chorus, so everyone knew the song and people were simply getting into it. But you can't actually tell who does it--I thought it was a band member because it's so damn loud.

          I'd thought it started up early in the song too, but I remembered incorrectly and mixed it up with audience cheers early on during Rod Stewart's Unplugged version of Have I Told You Lately. To be fair, the radio stations played both of them into the ground when they came out, so mixing them up was probably inevitable on my part.

          1. Dillinger   1 year ago

            lol I will dig out the CD when I get home because I (mis?)remember it two notes and one chord in. duh duh duuuuh (whoo!) duh duh duuuuh

            thanks for doing the research

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              No problem. That was a nice bit of nostalgia bait I don't mind re-visiting from time to time.

  38. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    " . . . at a time and in a manner our choosing . . . "

    That is, as soon as someone tells me what and when to do whatever it is.

    1. Fats of Fury   1 year ago (edited)
  39. Dillinger   1 year ago

    what message am I supposed to infer from soup on a painting?

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      This is what happens when you close the mental hospitals.

      1. Minadin   1 year ago

        What is the entire Biden Administration?

        I'll take Public Policy for $600, Alex.

      2. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

        Perhaps more that the person's parents gave into to temper tantrums when they were a child, and they now think such behavior works.

    2. JesseAz   1 year ago

      The same as most modern abstract art. Nothing.

    3. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

      the message is that everyone deserves access to healthy food, the activists stated that very clearly during the act.

      So now you know!

      1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

        Exactly. Everyone deserves access to healthy food, except this food that we've smeared on the wall... meaning one more child will go hungry tonight.

    4. Roberta   1 year ago

      That she looked hungry, and had no teeth.

    5. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      That somebody's spoiled narcissistic brat did not get punched enough by people who work for a living?

    6. Fats of Fury   1 year ago

      Will anyone throw soup on an Andy Warhol painting?

      1. Minadin   1 year ago

        Meta.

  40. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

    Conflict with Iran, eh? Anyone feel like Biden is trying just a bit too hard to repeat the Jimmy Carter administration?

    1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      Maybe he should have Israel and Hamas leadership meet up at Camp David?

    2. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

      Can we skip the whole helicopter crashed in the desert and the dead servicemen?

  41. Roberta   1 year ago

    What are troops for, if not danger?

  42. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

    "(when) the number of illegal crossings reaches a certain threshold."

    That threshold should be "zero." Border crossing should NEVER be illegal. All border crossings should be legal. The only people who should be arrested at the border are known criminals - and by that I mean REAL criminals, not people who are crossing the border without permission. The solution to this non-crisis is to allow anyone who wants to cross into the United States to do so following a very simple registration process at any of a large number of ports of entry. This is a manufactured situation for political purposes as yet another battle front in the culture wars, having no basis whatsoever in reality.

    1. Foo_dd   1 year ago

      that is the underlying problem that seems to get ignored..... it should be easy to come here legally. not talking citizenship, but just crossing a border shouldn't be hard if you are not a known criminal.

      also.... i would add "failed bid for asylum" to the short list of dis-qualifiers. the abuse of our asylum law loopholes is what is making a real mess out of an otherwise just kinda crappy situation.

  43. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago (edited)

    Recycled headline in the Denver Post, so a recycled comment:

    Migrant influx leaves Denver Public Schools short $17.5 million in funding as students keep enrolling

    Turns out actual virtue costs more than virtue signaling. Even with other people’s money.

    ps. Texas, keep them coming.

    1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

      "victimless crime" - Jeff et al

      1. ducksalad   1 year ago

        Those school costs are real, but they're just as real when some jackass and his offspring move here (TX) from California. Schools are state funded so the Californians are 100% as "foreign" as the Mexican guy without papers.

        Both pay school taxes through their rent. The difference is that the Californian insists on doing stuff like voting progressives onto the school board and showing up at board meetings to demand that the cafeteria serve vegan with paper straws. Has lots of time for that since he "works" from home. The Mexican guy with no papers can't vote for school board and anyway has a job he actually has to physically go to.

        As the "victim" I want the Californian problem fixed first. Here's a deal for you: we can address your border issue. But only after California is abolished or sealed off.

    2. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

      There is no doubt in my mind that Denver public schools are a wretched hive of woke and commie villainy. They cant go broke fast enough.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        They've been a basketcase ever since busing. That policy degraded a lot of neighborhood schools in the service of artificially propping up ones that had gone into the toilet like Manual, exacerbated racial tensions, and led to a ton of white flight in the 70s and 80s that only recently reversed somewhat, mainly due to retirees cashing out and buying condos, lofts, and fix-and-flips after the housing bubble popped. But the overall dysfunction remains; the only real school of any prestige in the district anymore is East, and that's because there's some upper middle-class families in the nicer parts of Park Hill that will send their kids there. Any other parents who have money or are able send their kids to various charter schools, or private schools like Machebeuf, Mullen, Kent Denver, Regis, etc.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: A Bit of a Stretch

Charles Oliver | 6.19.2025 4:00 AM

This Court Case Could Normalize Vibes-Based Regulation

Veronique de Rugy | 6.19.2025 1:00 AM

VIDEO: Masked ICE Agents Arrest Afghan Ally Following Immigration Court Hearing

Beth Bailey | 6.18.2025 5:45 PM

SCOTUS Upholds Tennessee Law Banning Medical Transition for Transgender Kids

Emma Camp | 6.18.2025 5:01 PM

The F-35 Ages Worse Than the Planes It's Meant To Replace

Joe Lancaster | 6.18.2025 4:25 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

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

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!