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

Donald Trump

A Form of Navalny

Plus: Teen boys go after tampons, Ken Paxton goes after migrant charities, and more...

Liz Wolfe | 2.21.2024 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Donald Trump | John Angelillo/UPI/Newscom
(John Angelillo/UPI/Newscom)

Taking crazy pills: Former President Donald Trump said last evening that the civil fraud verdict that will force him to pony up $355 million for inflating his net worth to banks is actually "a form of Navalny" and "a form of communism or fascism."

When asked about the Russian state's imprisonment and killing of dissident Alexei Navalny, Trump responded: "It's happening here." The indictments are "all because of the fact that I'm in politics," in his telling.

He made these comments last night during a Fox News town hall. On Truth Social, his own alternative social media platform, Trump said, "the sudden death of Alexei Navalny has made me more and more aware of what is happening in our Country."

Alexei Navalny, who was reported dead on Friday, served as an opposition leader in a state that disallows opposition and legitimate voting. Navalny garnered a massive following—more than 6 million YouTube followers, for starters, with at least one video viewed 130 million times—by doing legitimately good journalism digging into the kleptocratic, repressive Putin regime. Navalny offered normal Russians legitimate, well-sourced explanations for why they are so poor: their leaders consistently abdicate responsibility, choosing to enrich themselves. Their leaders are content with everyday people living in squalor and dysfunction, as long as they stay comfortable.

Running for office, and cutting through the state's propaganda, made him so disfavored by the regime that he went into exile. Navalny returned to Russia in 2021 with full awareness that he would be locked up but a devout belief that he ought to continue his work domestically, displaying courage in the face of certain persecution. And sure enough, he was locked up, then sent to an even more remote prison camp called IK-3, in Kharp, which is in the Arctic Circle. His death there was reported last week, but the opposition movement will not die with him. "In killing Aleksei, Putin killed half of me, half of my heart and half of my soul," said his widow, Yulia, "but I have another half left—and it is telling me I have no right to give up."

Trump, on the other hand, misrepresented his net worth to banks, defrauding lenders (who…still had a responsibility to do due diligence, a fact ignored in much mainstream media reporting of the case). "Trump claimed his apartment in Manhattan's Trump Tower was 30,000 square feet, nearly three times its actual size," writes Reason's Jacob Sullum. "He valued Mar-a-Lago, his golf resort in Palm Beach, based on the assumption that it could be sold for residential purposes, which the deed precluded." But "[New York Attorney General Letitia] James was not able to identify any damages to lenders or insurers," writes Sullum, and "the striking absence of any injury commensurate with the punishment lends credibility to Trump's reflexive complaint that he is the victim of a partisan vendetta."

Both things can be true, that Trump attracts politically motivated ire—which attorneys general and judges are wrong to indulge—and that he also did something wrong by inflating his net worth. But he's a far cry from Navalny—Trump enjoys self-dealing more than fact-finding and truth-telling—and the way this went down, via the court system, where Trump had the right to defend himself, is a far cry from how "justice" gets dispensed in Russia—by Putin, in penal colonies, via murders of anyone whose beliefs threaten the man in charge.


Scenes from New York: Nobody asked for this.

What are we doing as a city?? pic.twitter.com/iaEBWGPMmh

— Cynical (@CynicalNYK) February 18, 2024


QUICK HITS

  • "Clinical psychologists with the Department of Veterans Affairs faced retaliation and ostracization at work after they publicly opposed a gender-inclusion policy that allows men to access women's medical spaces within the VA," reports National Review.
  • RFK Jr.'s "origin story makes this like Odysseus returning to the manor, stringing the bow, this is that iconic moment," said Bret Weinstein on Joe Rogan's podcast. If you say so, Bret.
  • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just announced a lawsuit against El Paso's Annunciation House, an NGO in charge of a shelter network for migrants, for "facilitating illegal entry to the United States, alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house." But going after charities that help migrants—whatever you think of the behavior they engaged in to get here—seems like a wrongheaded stunt.
  • I do not think this is true or that there's much evidence for it:

do you want a black pill?

like… a really really black pill?

George Carlin would be pro-censorship if he were alive today b/c he didn't actually love free speech, he just fucking hated Christians

— PoIiMath (@politicalmath) February 20, 2024

  • "The enormous contrast between [Alexei] Navalny's civic courage and the corruption of [Vladimir] Putin's regime will remain," writes The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum. "Putin is fighting a bloody, lawless, unnecessary war, in which hundreds of thousands of ordinary Russians have been killed or wounded, for no reason other than to serve his own egotistical vision. He is running a cowardly, micromanaged reelection campaign, one in which all real opponents are eliminated and the only candidate who gets airtime is himself. Instead of facing real questions or challenges, he meets tame propagandists such as Tucker Carlson, to whom he offers nothing more than lengthy, circular, and completely false versions of history."
  • Related: People were arrested for laying flowers in memory of Navalny.

People being arrested in Moscow for laying flowers for Navalny. pic.twitter.com/8YnLpHcB0s

— Eleanor Beardsley (@ElBeardsley) February 17, 2024

  • Wow:

NEW: California's Legislative Analyst's Office says the state's budget problem has grown by $15 Billion.

LAO says because of weak revenue collections so far, the state's deficit could reach $73 Billion. https://t.co/oz83vntalh

— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) February 20, 2024

  • We live in the stupidest simulation:

I dunno if he qualifies as a "hero" lol this ain't exactly Normandy https://t.co/C3fXsLcnkZ

— Liz Wolfe (@LizWolfeReason) February 21, 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: Lawmakers Want Pause on Federal Funds for Predictive Policing

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason.

Donald TrumpRussiaReason RoundupImmigrationMigrantsGender IdentityNew YorkVladimir PutinCorruptionAlexei Navalny
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (646)

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. sarcasmic   1 year ago

    Moment Tucker Carlson jumps to Putin's defense AGAIN as he attacks theory Russian despot had dissident Alexei Navalny killed

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13108749/Tucker-Carlson-vladimir-putin-navalny-defense.html

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Good little narrative pusher. He wasn't a rival. Had under 10% support. You want to see political lawfare against an actual state rival... well you cheer that on.

      Youre pushing the IC narrative without inspection used to fund foreign wars.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        "Had under 10% support."

        He had around 2% support to be exact. He wasn't Putin's chief rival, most Russian's hadn't even heard about him. Russia's Jill Stein.

        But here's sarcasmic pushing Raytheon stockholder's talking points he picked up from the CNN neocons. Don't worry sarcasmic, you'll get your WWIII yet.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago (edited)

          Wait. The Putin-controlled state-owned polling companies found that Navalny had almost no support? Whoa! You’re kidding! What a shocking result!

          I love how you all treat NPR as if it is state-run propaganda and treat it skeptically, but then turn around and take real state-run propaganda from dictatorial regimes at face value.

          1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            Jesse gets his immigration numbers from an organization with a stated mission of showing the "consequences" of immigration, and claims they're totally unbiased. Say's I'm making an ad hominem argument when I point it out.

            I imagine he would also believe that a leftist organization with a stated mission of showing "consequences" of income inequality would be totally unbiased, and it would be an ad hominem to say otherwise.

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              You always get burned when you side with Creepjeff child castrationist and yet time and time again you keep grabbing that hot iron. I'd say alcohol induced brain damage, but even that doesn't fully explain it.

              Since Jeff's handwaving all the polls as rUsSiAN pRoPagAndA, let's go directly to Russia of the Future, Navalny's party.

              For the Moscow election Navalny's campaign office predicted Sobyanin would score 49–51%, and Navalny would get 24–26% of votes. That's right in the center of their base of support. They never ran in much of Russia.

              https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2013/09/09_a_5645357.shtml

              And before you cry "I can't read Russian" use fucking Google translate.

            2. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Jesse gets his immigration numbers from an organization with a stated mission of showing the “consequences” of immigration, and claims they’re totally unbiased. Say’s I’m making an ad hominem argument when I point it out.

              What numbers provided were wrong sarc? You dismissed them because you disagree with them as an entity. This is an ad hominem attack retard.

              Look at the two tribalist buddies. Lol.

          2. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

            He then posted links proving that all Palestinians are evil. The links were from an Israeli news outlet and an Israeli policy center. Then said I was making an ad hominem argument when I doubted their perfect objectivity.

            It’s as if he picks the most biased source he can possibly find, and then attacks anyone who doesn’t consider their words to be scripture.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              I think Jesse must be one of those kinds of people who think that right-wingers are just inherently better people. So when they post a story, it is automatically taken at face value because they have a high degree of integrity and are incapable of lying. But when left-wingers post a story, since they are inferior people, their stories are full of lies and trash and should be ignored.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                He's convinced that I'm a left-winger. So when I said that Trump's lawyers told him to quit being defiant or there would be trouble, he hears me demanding that Trump be prosecuted. From there is claims I support "lawfare." As always I can't tell if he's incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                  I actually call you retarded and a neocon. You do push corporate narratives blindly as shown here.

                  And again. Look at the two tribalists who offer nothing of value commiserate. Weird how you two don't provide evidence of your assertions, you just cry when your assertions are shown to be false.

                2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

                  I’ll post this again to help explain Sarc’s nonsense……

                  “What are the symptoms of alcohol brain shrinkage?

                  Some of the symptoms include ataxia, confusion and problems with vision. Korsakoff's amnesic syndrome – this includes a loss of short-term memory, an inability to acquire new information and 'confabulation' (the person fills in gaps in their memory with fabrications that they believe to be true).”

                  -The Alzheimer’s Society

              2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                "I think Jesse must be one of those kinds of people who think that right-wingers are just inherently better people."

                Everyone is better people than you and our town drunk, you fat fucking Nazi.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  LOL rich coming from the guy who literally wants to throw TV producers in jail for airing speech that he doesn't like.

                  1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                    What the hell are you babbling about now?

                  2. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Cite?

                  3. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

                    You’re just angry that you’re so morbidly obese that you can’t catch any children to molest.

                2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

                  I doubt that even other leftists can tolerate that fat sack of crap for any length of time. He’s excruciatingly annoying.

            2. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Another ad hominem. At no point did you provide evidence counter to what I posted. You complained about the source. This is ad hominem dummy.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                You're telling me that you'd trust a leftist organization dedicated to showing the "consequence" of income inequality is going to be objective?

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                  I’m telling you your argument is an ad hominem. When shrike or Jeff provide a leftist source I read it and use my own sources to counter it retard.

                  Have you realized what an ad hominem attack is yet?

                  And your attempt to compare hard calculated numbers to a projection or an opinion makes you even more retarded.

            3. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

              Sarc's Rules for How-to-Think:

              When you dismiss a story while complaining about the source, it isn't ad hominem, you're just describing biases.

              When someone you hate dismisses a story while complaining about the source, they aren't describing biases, they are engaging in ad-hominem.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                You're telling me that a leftist organization with a stated mission of showing the "consequences" of income inequality is going to say anything about how capitalism makes people unequally rich compared to any other economic system? Of course not. They're going to complain about how unfair inequality is, and stir up hate in the form of envy.

                Yet you appear to claim that an organization with a state purpose of showing the "consequence" of immigration is going to be objective and talk about the good things that immigrants bring to society.

                1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago (edited)

                  I’m saying that you dismissed a story about opinion polls out of hand because it came from an Israeli source, and also mischaracterized it as calling “all Palestinians evil.” You then got upset when people accused you of ad hominem.

                2. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                  “He then posted links proving that all Palestinians are evil.”

                  This is not an accurate description of the links posted.

            4. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

              Let's inject some honesty about the linked stories from the other day - they described polls taken of Palestinians regarding support for Oct 7th, support for Hamas, and various other groups.

              These polls indicated a majority support for them. Not surprising at all for anyone who even remotely pays attention to the I/P conflict.

              But for Sarc - "He then posted links proving that all Palestinians are evil"

            5. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago (edited)

              Wrong spot

          3. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

            This might help explain your patent idiocy….

            “What are the symptoms of alcohol brain shrinkage?

            Some of the symptoms include ataxia, confusion and problems with vision. Korsakoff's amnesic syndrome – this includes a loss of short-term memory, an inability to acquire new information and 'confabulation' (the person fills in gaps in their memory with fabrications that they believe to be true).”

            -From the Alzheimer’s Society

      2. Public Entelectual   1 year ago

        What part of ' Gulag Archipelago ' don't you and Tuck understand?

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Don't you mean "vvhat part"? Anyway, that was Stalin, this is Putin. I'd suggest reading up on what a murderer Stalin was before you put your foot in your mouth.

    2. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      Seems incongruous with the fact hundreds of Putin's enemies have been killed within days, sometime hours, of crossing Putin. Why would he wait so long to kill Navalny?

      1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

        It's always interesting to see who reflexively defends Tucker.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

          Is this where you spout your tucker Dominion lie yet again despite being given his actual words dozens of times?

        2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          It’s always interesting to see you reflexively attack Tucker despite having no fucking clue what he actually says. Almost like you got your opinions handed to you in 30 second increments by cable news talking-heads.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            He didnt even read his own link.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              He's getting as bad as Shrike.

              1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

                I’m going to keep posting this in regards to Sarc…..

                “If a person regularly drinks too much alcohol it can be toxic to their nerve cells. Over time, drinking too much alcohol can cause brain cells to die and a person's brain tissue to shrink. This means there are fewer cells to carry the messages that the brain needs to do different tasks.”

                - The Alzheimer’s Society

        3. R Mac   1 year ago

          It’s not about defending Tucker moron.

        4. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

          I see you didn't answer the question.

        5. DesigNate   1 year ago

          That’s not a defense of Tucker…

      2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

        "I like to play with things awhile...before annihilation!"
        --Ming The Merciless from Flash Gordon.

        1. Public Entelectual   1 year ago

          Wake me up when Tuck interviews Ming and gets thrown into the Octopod wrestling pit.

          1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

            *Micsel Palin as Heinrich Himmler grinning a toothy grin!*

            Soon, baby! Soon!
            🙂
            😉

    3. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

      So let’s actually read your article. A single quote.

      ‘Navalny’s death during the Munich Security Conference, in the midst of disputes about aid to Ukraine, is definitely not beneficial for Russia. People who say Putin killed him are idiots,’

      Where is he wrong sarc? What benefit does he gain from killing Navalny? Navalny was not popular in Russia. Vast majority didn’t know who he was. There were polls posted yesterday showing this. He was in jail. What benefit is there to his death?

      Now on the other side… what does the war state gain from his death? Justification to fund the Ukraine war and propaganda.

      Again. Youre a useful idiot of the IC.

      This is the same reliance on ignorance as was used on the Russia destroyed their own pipeline narrative. You are in fact an idiot.

      1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

        Must. Defend. Tucker.

        Must. Defend. Putin.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          And you can't answer the question. Where is he wrong sarc? Make an intelligent argument if you have the capability.

          1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            I didn't make an argument, ninny. I simply posted a headline and a link to see who would reflexively defend the guy. And you came swooping in like a knight in a diaper.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              And now back to this idiocy. Lol.

              Shown to be a lie based on your other responses.

              Was he wrong sarc? What does Putin gain?

              If you had stopped to think for even 30s you would question the narrative you support.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                A knight in a poopy diaper.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  Okay. Full retard. Got it.

            2. R Mac   1 year ago

              So you’re posting pro-war propaganda to troll people about Tucker Carlson?

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

                At least his trolling is getting more obvious. And the Sarc-Jeffy-Mike human centipede has lost the trenchcoat and is out in the open for all to view. I was gone for 6 months and missed nothing.

                1. R Mac   1 year ago

                  Mike Liarson hasn’t posted in months.

                  1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

                    I don’t normally care much about who’s socking around here, but obviously not spam reads a lot like mike. Could be coincidence.

                2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                  Mike Liarson left, coincidentally, when ENB stopped doing the Roundup.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Haha, that’s right, I forgot about that.

                  2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                    I will say, though, that of the three of them, I preferred Mike Laurson. Yeah, he'd sealion a lot, and had some pretty bad takes, but he at least engaged mostly without the absolute juvenile (Squirllsy-like) behavior that the other two resort to on a regular basis now.

                    I don't recall Mike posting this type of thing:
                    "A knight in a poopy diaper."

                    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      He thought turducken was genetically engineered meat....

                    2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                      He "had some pretty bad takes."

                      Sure and also the HO2 as water was another boneheaded mistake. I don't mind that so much as the jejune trolling that comprises most of what Sarc and Chemjeff do now.

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

                      Mike was great. He always denied having TDS, then for an entire week after 1/6/21, his only replies in the comments were calling people "traitor". Followed by 3 weeks of claiming a cop was murdered with a fire extinguisher. Good times.

                      Maybe Tulpa got tired of spoofing him and moved on to murder.

                    4. Dillinger   1 year ago

                      Mike was my biggest fan. I've never recovered.

                    5. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

                      No more Tony either.

            3. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

              No you didn’t. Your unsupported lies blew up in your face and now you’re pretending you were trying to be somehow clever.

          2. Public Entelectual   1 year ago

            Must forget Gulag Archipelago

  2. Jerry B.   1 year ago

    Prop bet.

    Democratic DA will jail Trump for (something) and he'll mysteriously end up dead there.

    What are the odds?

    1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      Trump didn't hang himself.

    2. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      Liz says that is the crazy pills talking. The novel legal theories and kangaroo courts that convicted Navalny are totally different than those being used against Trump.

    3. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

      At 77 years old, if he did see the inside of a prison, 100%. It be a mystery to some, no matter what, so I've no idea how to define that to give odds.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        It be a mystery to some, no matter what, so I’ve no idea how to define that to give odds.

        Short the stocks they manage.

      2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

        That won’t happen. The SS won’t be having that.

        Anyway, much easier to get rid of the democrats.

    4. Super Scary   1 year ago (edited)
    5. Miss Ann Thrope (She/It)   1 year ago

      He'll choke himself to death from behind his back with his own hands.

  3. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Against cannibalism? That's because of racist tropes.

    https://twitter.com/LeftismForU/status/1760019909331796104

    1. Beezard   1 year ago

      I guess it’s not just going to be insect protein in our “meat” once we have the sustainable “circular economy” stakeholder capitalism promises us.

    2. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      It's a great perk to take at Lvl. 4. You can heal up after every fight without using stims, and all you lose is some karma every time. Totally worth it.

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

        I am not letting you into my vault.

      2. R Mac   1 year ago

        NERD!

      3. Beezard   1 year ago

        You huffin’ Jet?

      4. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

        Profligates like you belong on a cross.

    3. Super Scary   1 year ago

      I didn't need anyone to tell me to not eat human meat. I guess that's just my white privilege speaking.

    4. mad.casual   1 year ago

      To paraphrase:

      When people stop believing in God cannibalism as the greatest taboo, they don’t believe in nothing having any taboos — they believe in anything (except cannibalism) being taboo.

      1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago (edited)

        You’re proof that people can believe anything and babble about it with or without Gods.

    5. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

      Ever hear of Kuru? No thanks.

  4. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

    How the Kremlin’s enemies die: Poison, staged suicides, falling out of windows… the many different ways Moscow’s opponents meet their maker, as Alexei Navalny is ‘killed using KGB heart punch’

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13107933/How-Kremlins-enemies-die-poison-staged-suicides-windows.html

    Not according to Tucker and Jesse. Putin wouldn’t do that. He’s a swell guy. Anyone who says different is pushing the leftist narrative.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Hey. More strawmen from the biggest IC defender here. Lol.

      Youre an idiot sarc.

      I'm actually not shocked you fall for the chosen state narratives. Lira was beaten and killed in a Ukrainian jail. Crickets from you. IC and media boost navalny, you take up the banner.

      Nobody is defending putin retard. They are calling out the political manipulation you constantly fall for. Ukraine Russia is not our fight. The story is being used to continue pushing the war. And most we forget you were for the war. Guess you're back on the pro war bandwagon.

      1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

        More strawmen…

        You’re aware that people can read the above comment where you said I was a good little narrative pusher, right?

        What is especially funny and ironic is that your last paragraph is one of your typical rebuttals to things I never said. As in a textbook strawman.

        As always I can’t tell if you’re a liar or a retard.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Putin wouldn’t do that. He’s a swell guy.

          Where did Tucker or I say this retard?

          You are a good little narrative pusher as discussed.

          And no, my last paragraph literally states how you defended the Ukraine funding of the war initially. A factual statement. And now you ride in to push the narrative literally being used to justify more spending. Prior assertion is a fact. Second assertion is a demonstration of your words.

          What you posted was a strawman. A direct one.

          You truly are one of Maines greatest retards.

          1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            my last paragraph literally states how you defended the Ukraine funding of the war initially

            Even if that was true, which it isn't, it only shows how much you hate people who change their minds. People change their minds about the Twatter files and you hate them. People change their minds about anything and you hate them.

            Hate, hate, hate. Must be exhausting.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              When the dumb assholes attacked those who brought facts, came to the wrong conclusions, and then call those who were simpleton conspiracy theorists to justify being wrong for years...

              You didnt change your mind. Your turn came when the evidence was insurmountable and you couldn't lie about it anymore dumbass.

              Youre the worst type of person.

              I challenge you to admit you were wrong and you ignored inconvenient facts.

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                Hate, hate, hate.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  I see you're in deflection mode.

                  Admit you were wrong. Are you capable?

                  1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                    Are you capable of admitting that you know I don't support lawfare but you claim it ten times a day because you're a piece of shit liar?

                    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Except you do dumbass.

                      Fulton County, jack smith. Classified docs, face act, j6, rittenhouse...

                      You supported each one dumdum.

                      Your delusional is legion.

                    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Pathological...

                    3. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      And now the pee wee herman response. Nothing if not consistent.

          2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            Just Maine?

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago

              Was feeling nice.

    2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      In the end, I don't really care that much about the death of Navalny. Sure, it's tragic, and evidence of the authoritarian power of the Russian being used against a political enemy. That's bad. And I have a base level of human compassion that means I am sad he died.

      But as I said below, I don't have to buy into a particular narrative about Navalny. He was a foreigner in a foreign country, and I have no desire either to go to war with Russia or to embrace them as an ally. The degree to which it affects my life is minimal. So it doesn't matter to me if he had 2% support or 40% support, if he actually died of a blood clot or if he was strangled with his own shoelaces.

      What concerns me is seeing the authoritarian power of the American court system being weaponized against a political enemy. It doesn't really matter that it's to a lesser degree and with less dire punishments than Russia. It doesn't matter if we're higher up on the sliding scale of authoritarianism. I'm concerned that we're on the scale at all. And if drawing comparisons or analogies is a way to highlight a bit of hypocrisy-remember, Navalny was accused of trying to push pro Nazi policies, just like Trump-then perhaps the comparison doesn't have to be precisely on point.

      It doesn't really give me any comfort to say, "Yeah, but what's happening in Russia is REALLY evil," when there's lesser versions of that evil happening in the place where I live.

      1. R Mac   1 year ago

        What if Navalny was killed by the CIA?

        1. DesigNate   1 year ago

          Not outside the realm of possibility given their long and illustrious history.

        2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

          Still don't want to go to war over it.

          1. tracerv   1 year ago

            Damn right!

      2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

        Well said!

      3. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        Well said A Thinking Mind.

    3. Super Scary   1 year ago

      "Alexei Navalny is ‘killed using KGB heart punch’"

      Footage of the punch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi225VNmQU4&ab_channel=Bry68

  5. JesseAz   1 year ago

    California wants to eliminate single use cups.

    https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-proposes-banning-single-use-cups-chain-restaurants

    1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      California wants to eliminate all tourism.

      1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

        Sane america wants to eliminate california.

        1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

          Not entirely true. Sane Americans want to keep the coast, Sierra Nevadas, the desert, central valley, etc.

          What we want to eliminate is frowned upon.

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      So they're going to be forced to pay 50.00/hr to people washing cups at Burger King? Okayyyy.

      1. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

        "And why have our utility bills increased so much?"

      2. Moonrocks   1 year ago

        Burger King? Sounds like a source of Greenhouse Gasses that could stand to get eliminated.

        1. Jerry B.   1 year ago

          True. Those "flame broiled" patties probably add lots of CO2 and other stuff to the air.

          1. Super Scary   1 year ago

            They'll just have to move to induction-broiled patties. Yum yum.

        2. Fats of Fury   1 year ago

          The reactionaries
          should be forced to change their name to Burger Komrade.

    3. BrianL.   1 year ago (edited)
    4. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

      That will definitely solve whatever problem it is that they think it will solve.

    5. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      What's going to happen is that instead of providing glasses, these restaurants will provide prepackaged drinks such as cans and bottles of soft drinks and iced tea. Rather than reducing waste, there will, of course, be even more waste than before.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        Hadn't thought of that but if I owned a restaurant that would be the best option. But bottles and cans cost more than syrup and soda in a paper cup so prices would still go up.

    6. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

      CA is missing the boat. Just sue them for millions because people use them. Like NY is doing with Pepsico.

  6. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Lower courts continue to ignore even recent USSC rulings as court declines to hear race based admission case just 2 months after ruling against it.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/02/scotus-refuses-to-take-race-neutral-school-discrimination-case-justices-alito-and-thomas-blast-decision/

    Same game play as gun control.

    1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      When is the SCOTUS deemed meaningless? Ignoring rulings seems to be the norm now.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Biden and democrats openly state the slowness of the courts is a tool to ignore them.

        1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

          Texas said fuck'em as well. Not just democrats.

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            Not exactly. Assuming you’re referring to the park at the border? The court ruled the feds can remove the razor wire, they didn’t rule Texas can’t put it up. So far the feds have decided not to.

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

              So far the feds have decided not to.

              Or they have and the agents in the field are slow-rolling on interfering with tactics that actually work. The Texas border is a long way from DC and government employees are notoriously hard to fire.

              1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

                They've reportedly reduced illegal entrants to practically zero at the park. All coming into CA now.

                1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

                  Lots of nice spots to settle right off I-95.

    2. Moonrocks   1 year ago

      Sounds insurrection-y.

    3. BrianL.   1 year ago

      The thing about this case is that it WASN’T race based. The process was based partly on socioeconomic status. Also, “Applicants must have an unweighted grade-point average of at least 3.5 while taking higher-level courses, complete a problem-solving essay and submit a “Student Portrait Sheet.””

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Emails showed the purpose of the geographical, financial, and essays were done for racial purposes.

    4. SRG2   1 year ago

      So four right-wing judges on the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, hence agreeing with the lower court.

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        This asshole makes jokes regarding murder of the unarmed:

        SRG2 12/23/23
        “Then strode in St Ashli, clad in a gown of white samite and basking in celestial radiance, walking calmly and quietly through the halls of Congress as police ushered her through doors they held open for her, before being cruelly martyred for her beliefs by a Soros-backed special forces officer with a Barrett 0.50 rifle equipped with dum-dum bullets.”

        Claims to be "not authoritarian", except for killing those who do not share is raging TDS.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          Sick fuck.

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            Yeah, shrike is a terrible person.

  7. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Hunter lawyers claiming cocaine found on gun is just saw dust. Given he tried snorting parietal, could be reasonable doubt.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hunter-biden-says-doj-misrepresented-sawdust-cocaine-make-him-look-bad

    1. D-Pizzle   1 year ago

      That's clearly not cocaine. It's obviously a brown color, like...oh I don't know...heroin. Or sawdust. People cut rails of sawdust, right?

  8. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    Polisi was right. Carlin simped for whatever was trendy with the Marxists at the time

    1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

      Was watching a 'best stand ups of all time' compilation and while I knew of Carlin and his bits, I never really watched his stuff. They included some of his bits and TV appearances and I have to say, he very much came off as an edgelord that just wanted to get a rise out of a then Christian centric culture. Some of it was a bit cringe to watch. Some of it was ok. Was kind of surprised for how much acclaim he gets, probably just notable for pushing boundaries.

      1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

        Be that as it may, his routine on caffeine was a hoot.

        1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

          His flamethrower bit is fantastic.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            My favorite has always been baseball vs football.

      2. damikesc   1 year ago

        Don't watch late Carlin. He became the drizzling shits.

        1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

          Late Carlin is the same jibberish as biden

        2. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

          Older and more cynical can lead to that.

          Big Zappa fan, but when Ship Arriving To Late... came out I was done.

          1. Dillinger   1 year ago

            >>Older and more cynical can lead to that.

            like Bobby Weir realizing perpetual $500 grateful dead tickets is a good thing

            1. tracerv   1 year ago

              I did see a Dead Head sticker on a Cadillac.

              1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

                You can never go back.

          2. tracerv   1 year ago

            Wonder what Frank's take on current events would be? He might be the greatest red pill taker in history.

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

        They included some of his bits and TV appearances and I have to say, he very much came off as an edgelord that just wanted to get a rise out of a then Christian centric culture.

        Hell, that was obvious to me when I happened to catch part of his “What Am I Doing in New Jersey” special on HBO in 1988, when I was in middle school. Mainstream comedians at the time were almost all creating content around their hatred of Christians and Christianity in general, because it was the Reagan era and the Moral Majority was their Current Year bete noir.

        1. DesigNate   1 year ago

          TBF, the Moral Majority sucked balls.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            And it wasn't nearly as influential as the media or the MTV crowd portrayed it to be.

            1. Beezard   1 year ago

              As a role playing, metal head teenager at the time, I felt totally oppressed by it all. But, in hindsight it was mostly because the media and MTV were telling me so.

            2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              And what's really interesting is that the people pushing labels and the most censorship were from the left, such as Tipper Gore.

              1. tracerv   1 year ago

                Boy. Old Tipper's bullshit sure got memory holed fast.

                1. Stuck in California   1 year ago

                  Of course it did. Especially since she claimed it was against white, heavy metal music but the real economic losses were massively focused on Black artists, mostly hip-hop, who were effectively locked out of record sellers like Wal Mart (which were HUGE album sellers, especially in towns too small to support independent record stores) and other places.

                  Lots of record stores felt pressured to limit sales of labeled albums to adults, or not stock them at all. Regardless of Tipper claiming "We're not censoring" it was de facto if not de jure censorship.

                  What with black artists being totally on the D plantation, of COURSE that is verboten to talk about. Clinton was the cool president, the dude who played his sax on MTV.

              2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                Watch the video of them trying to grill Dee Snyder (singer of Twisted Sister). They seem to have approached it thinking he would be an idiot, but it certainly didn't turn out that way.

                1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

                  Well he turned into a Covidiot but that was later in life.

                  1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                    He also came out as against medical/surgical gender transitions for minors, recently, if my memory is correct.

                    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Believe he backtracked after blowback.

              3. Beezard   1 year ago

                True dat. It’s usually state level dems going after video games, too, if I remember correctly.

    2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      Polimath*

  9. JesseAz   1 year ago

    The Trump Russia narrative is being ramped back up.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-pelosi-goes-unhinged-rant-about-trump-being-blackmailed-putin

    1. R Mac   1 year ago

      *Sullum becomes erect*

    2. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

      is this election denialism?

    3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      It's not just Pelosi. It's across the Democrats right now. There's a video of CNN pushing the neo-Russiagate shit on Twitter.

      https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1760119974205559207

      Democrats are fully resurrecting the Russia Hoax playbook.

      DNC Chief Disinformation Officer Dan “Dirty Jobs” Goldman is accusing House Republicans of:

      "Acting as an agent or an asset of Russian intelligence"

      Where have we heard this before?

      "It now appears as if the House Republican majority is being used by Russia to interfere in the 2024 election on behalf of Donald Trump."

      This is the game. This is a predicate for investigations. Just in time for election season.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        They've tried Bidenomics, Shrinkflation, Mega Maga, Gratuitous comments by the special counsel and about a dozen more that I can't remember that didn't fly. They're scraping the barrel here. But rest assured, whatever the next DNC narrative, Reason will be here to promote it.

  10. Bill Dalasio   1 year ago

    Sorry, but all you've managed to show is a difference in extent rather than a difference in kind. You say the charges against Trump are legitimate, since they claim an actual wrongdoing (although writing in a magazine that has long railed against victimless crimes, it's noteworthy you can't cite a particular victim). The Russians convicted Nalvany of fraud and embezzlement. Should we take that at face value?

    1. BrianL.   1 year ago

      Navalny was convicted of extremism:

      https://apnews.com/article/russia-navalny-opposition-crackdown-prison-term-b42769d2ba1beb99954279fbb93815d4

      1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

        NPR:

        A Moscow court has found President Vladimir Putin's most vocal critic guilty of fraud, according to Russian state media.

        State-owned news agency TASS reported on Tuesday that Moscow's Lefortovo Court found Alexei Navalny guilty of "fresh fraud charges." It has sentenced the opposition leader, who is already in jail, to an additional nine years in a high-security prison.

        "Navalny committed fraud, that is embezzlement of other people's property through deception," Judge Margarita Kotova read from the verdict, according to TASS. State news agency RIA Novosti reports that Kotova was promoted to a more senior judicial position by Putin last week.

        The court also charged Navalny with contempt of court, for what TASS said was defamation during a previous unrelated trial.

        Prosecutors in this trial — which is one of several criminal cases Navalny faces — accused him of embezzling money that he and his foundation raised over the years and of insulting a judge during a trial last year in which he was accused of slandering a World War II veteran.

        Navalny has denied the allegations, and his supporters paint the case as an effort by the Russian government to keep him in prison for as long as possible.

        1. Sevo   1 year ago

          "....“Navalny committed fraud, that is embezzlement of other people’s property through deception,” Judge Margarita Kotova read from the verdict,..."

          Kotova = Letitia.

  11. Ajsloss   1 year ago

    Trump had the right to defend himself

    I'll believe that when pigs dance... **scrolls a little further down**

  12. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Both things can be true, that Trump attracts politically motivated ire—which attorneys general and judges are wrong to indulge—and that he also did something wrong by inflating his net worth. But he's a far cry from Navalny—Trump enjoys self-dealing more than fact-finding and truth-telling—and the way this went down, via the court system, where Trump had the right to defend himself, is a far cry from how "justice" gets dispensed in Russia—by Putin, in penal colonies, via murders of anyone whose beliefs threaten the man in charge.

    So wr are just ignoring the other trials now? Bankrupting and criminalizing political opponents here is fine because there are worse examples elsewhere? Lira was killed in Ukraine months ago and nobody here or in corporate media batted an eye. James is already talking about property seizure over the ruling.

    If the yard stick for what state abuse we allow is anything better than the worst case, you dont actually have principles.

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      Bankrupting and criminalizing political opponents here is fine because there are worse examples elsewhere?

      You should be proud that the author is coming around to your point of view - that it's ok to do bad things as long as you can point at someone else who did it first and worse.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Another retarded strawman from the guy supporting political lawfare. Amusing.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Right after you reluctantly admitted that I don't support political "lawfare" I predicted that you'd keep on repeating the boilerplate lie like a cop who puts boilerplate lies into their police reports.

          One thing I can always count on is you being dishonest. The sun will come up, and Jesse will tell lies.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Wut? Of course you do. You've only agreed on a single case being lawfare retard. In the classified docs cases and j6 cases you have full support and even defend Biden in the former.

            Are you drunk?

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              I never said I support the cases. Regarding the classified documents, I said that his own lawyers told him to return the documents or he'd get into trouble. I never once said I support him being prosecuted. Same with the J6 cases.
              You see me say "Yeah, he probably did it" and read "I fully support the prosecution and hope he rots in jail!"
              As always I can't tell if you're stupid or lying.

              1. Sevo   1 year ago

                Fuck off and die, lying pile of lefty shit.

              2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                Fucking pathalogical.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Yes, you are.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                    Paul Rubens, you ain't.

                    1. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Although I can totally see him whacking off in a theater.

            2. Sevo   1 year ago

              Still? Again?

            3. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              But keep repeating the lie. Someone might ask the cops to do a wellness check on you if you started telling the truth.

              1. Sevo   1 year ago

                Fuck off and die, lying pile of lefty shit.

              2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                You have serious pathalogical issues man. I would say someone close to you should schedule an intervention but even your daughter hates you.

                1. DesigNate   1 year ago

                  We can all read his comments, the daughter stuff is too far man.

                  1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    Nah. If he chooses to post family drama here I find it fair game. If he was like most sane people and kept that shit private I wouldn't go there.

    2. BrianL.   1 year ago

      That's not what Liz was doing. Trump compared himself to Navalny and Liz is showing that comparison is ridiculous.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        State abuse is state abuse. The same argument she used against Trump still committing crimes can be said about Navalny. It is a merit less argument.

      2. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

        Also so what?

  13. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    Liz, removing tampons from the men's room likely ends up in him getting expelled and harassed by the evil goverment cancers that have the power to ruin his life. Standing up against the garbage psychos in the gov despite this makes him a hero

    1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      The admin wanted to charge the kid with a hate crime.

      I remember saying "hate crimes" would end up being whatever a gov't prefect said it was. And here we are.

      1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

        He and his buddies should jump the principal in the parking lot. So him what real hate looks like.

        1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

          Killing the principal would be justice.

        2. Ajsloss   1 year ago

          The principal in question lists pronouns. Not sure the kid would need his buddies. Now, if the principal was Jim Belushi? Maybe just walk away.

        3. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

          "Principal, your school does not have tampon dispensers in the parking lot! Why do you hate menstruating people? WHY?!"

      2. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

        "Hate crime" = "thought crime"

        It was always intended as a way of enforcing the state's prevailing ideology.

      3. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago (edited)

        Folks, tampons and feminine pads are great additions to Survivalist/Prepper First Aid Kits precisely for their ability to absorb copious amount of blood and stop sucking chest wounds.

        Simply point this out to the Administrators of Gummint Skoolz, who want compliant sherple dependent of Gummint in emergencies, and the feminine hygiene dispensers will be taken down tomorrow.

        Meanwhile, folks, add the “no-so-fresh” goodies to your First Aid Kits while the dispensers are still up and quit’cher bitchin’!
        🙂
        😉

      4. Sevo   1 year ago

        "I remember saying “hate crimes” would end up being whatever a gov’t prefect said it was. And here we are."
        1)
        2)
        3)
        4)
        .
        .
        .
        .
        N) <-- We are here.

    2. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

      Agreed, it takes stones to stand up against the govt-clergy orthodoxy. Especially when you could have your life ruined, be harassed endlessly, and potentially charged with a hate crime.

      Sure its not normandy, but not much is

      1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

        Omaha beach was like normandy

  14. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

    Blink twice if you're being held hostage by Soros, Sullum and Koch. The persecution is entirely political and farcical, but you just gotta agree with the commies in NYC or else. Please tell me you've got a gun to your head or this is very telling as to what you really are.

    The valuation inflation is entirely immaterial to the bank reliance and normal for Real Estate, especially compared to the way they came up with the alternates, or do you propose all property sales be done only at tax assessed values or else it's fraud?

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

      Yeah. Disappointed in the constant attempts to rationalize used to defend the state going after political opponents. This is probably one of the worst takes.

      1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        The point here is that it is possible for politically motivated partisan prosecutors to "go after" political opponents and - at the SAME TIME - that the political opponents they are going after committed a crime or crimes. The farce here is the disproportionate scope of the prosecutions over highly questionable "crimes." The laws themselves are unconstitutionally broad and vague (in my opinion) but the GOP was right in there with the Democrats in crafting those laws - sometimes the SAME laws at the same time. The GOP has shamelessly failed to repeal the laws when they could have, that the Democratics imposed to further their social agenda, when they had the upper hand at the federal level. Increasing polarization of the red and blue states; and blue cities versus red rural guarantees that the blue team will have more and more opportunities to prosecute the red team in the blue-controlled regions like New York and California. This is not going away any time soon.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

          The point here is that it is possible for politically motivated partisan prosecutors to “go after” political opponents and – at the SAME TIME – that the political opponents they are going after committed a crime or crimes.

          Find me the man and I will find the crime. Good job.

          Meanwhile we see evidence of excuse making for not going after others for the same thing.

          Support it if you want. Not libertarian.

        2. R Mac   1 year ago

          Something a racist would say.

        3. DesigNate   1 year ago

          Were they right in there, in New York?

          I find that hard to believe.

          (Obviously federal laws you can point to both sides agreeing to a lot of the bullshit laws)

          1. Stuck in California   1 year ago

            Just did a quick look.

            The NY State legislature has slightly more than double the number of Democrats as Republicans in both houses. 42/21 in the Senate, 102/48 in the house.

            While I get the "Rs also write overly broad laws" argument, it's completely irrelevant to this law, in this state, at this time.

    2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

      See my post below and read 'em and weep! There's no getting past this.

      Reality does not bend when you use a Trumpy Bear as your Talisman.

  15. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    "People were arrested for laying flowers in memory of Navalny."

    Wait till you hear about what happens to Americans praying silently next to abortion clinics

    1. Knutsack   1 year ago

      That happened in the US?

      1. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

        Yep

        1. Knutsack   1 year ago

          Damn. Where did that happen? I can't seem to find a story about it. All results come back with UK hits.

  16. Moonrocks   1 year ago

    and the way this went down, via the court system, where Trump had the right to defend himself, is a far cry from how "justice" gets dispensed in Russia

    Didn't the judge in this case declare Trump guilty before a single witness even testified?

    1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

      far cry

      And I have to point out that what Russia does to dissidents like Navalny is barely different from what the US does to dissidents like Gonzalo Lira.

      Just yesterday, Reason ran an article about the hunting of Julian Assange. When US authorities finally get their hands on him, I'm certain he'll be as safe in their hands as Jeffrey Epstein was.

      1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

        And it's bizarre to see the nation's premier libertarian outlet talks more about dissidents being oppressed half way around the world than the dissidents being oppressed at home. This should be a free country, and we should have the moral authority to call out naked attacks on freedom abroad, but we don't and the reasons we don't are far more important than anything happening in any other country.

        1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

          And tangentially related, it's also bizarre (but not surprising) to see the Current Thing crowd simping for a white nationalist that they hadn't even heard of about 50 hours ago. A sort of "cheering for Yaroslav Hunka" moment, if you will.

        2. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

          It is about more than just moral authority. It is about standing up in opposition to the thugs who increasingly control every aspect of society. Navalny had only his personal courage as a weapon to use against tyranny in Russia. Americans have a lot more going for us if we are united in the fight against the deep state if we will only do so. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone willing to stand up for liberty instead of red team/blue team idiocy.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Why do you always retreat to both sides?

            Show me one equivalent action of the state against Trump or J6 protestors. Just one.

            Or Mackey. Or FACE Act violations.

            This whole both sides are equal bullshit is just that, uses in defense of actual bad acts.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              In a bold move, Jesse goes beyond moral equivalence between the US and Russia, he now declares that Russia is even *better* than the US.

              1. R Mac   1 year ago

                ^ another lie.

              2. DesigNate   1 year ago

                That’s not what he said.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  Sure seems like it for me. That the Russians are better because they didn't do things like "persecute" Mackey.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                    You really are a lying sack of shit, aren't you? You whine about people misquoting you and misinterpreting you, yet you feel free to do it to others.

                    1. R Mac   1 year ago

                      I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      go fuck yourself, you all need to learn to write with precision

                    3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      Jeffy, we write just fine, thank you very much. We just lack the need to be pedantic assholes about everything we write about.

                  2. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Doubles down on the lie.

          2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone willing to stand up for liberty instead of red team/blue team idiocy.

            Yup. The political parties, which are themselves corporations, have us divided and conquered.

          3. Sevo   1 year ago

            We had a POTUS who was willing to 'stand up to' a lot of shit; shame you didn't notice at the time. Or now.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        barely different from what the US does to dissidents like Gonzalo Lira

        What did the US government do to Gonzalo Lira?

        1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

          They let him die in prison for the crime of opposing the government narrative.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago (edited)

            The US government let Lira die in a Ukrainian prison? Since when does the US government have authority over Ukrainian prisons?

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              Lol, so disingenuous. You’re not fooling anyone Lying Jeffy.

            2. Moonrocks   1 year ago

              The US government doesn't have any authority over Russian prisons and still managed to get a second rate women's basketball player charged with drug trafficking out. At any point in the nine months Lira was imprisoned, the regime could have snapped its fingers and had him deported back to the US (possibly by the same trick it uses to appoint and dismiss officials in Ukraine's justice ministry, which is also ostensibly out of US jurisdiction).

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                "the regime" lol, you guys are funny.

                So because the US didn't impose its will on another nation, it's the US's fault that he died in prison, not the fault of the Ukrainian government which sent him to prison in the first place?

                Who even is this Lira guy? I had never heard of him before today.

                1. R Mac   1 year ago

                  “Who even is this Lira guy? I had never heard of him before today.”

                  Of course you hadn’t.

                2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                  Oh, we're sorry, you must not have come across him while reading Salon.

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

              Sending $65 billion showed them who’s the boss.

            4. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

              They had enough authority to get a prosecutor fired, but not to get an American citizen out of prison?

    2. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Pretty damn sure Vavalny went through the courts in Russia as well.

  17. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    Trump didn't have the right to defend himself. The judge ruled he was guilty before the trial. And the trial was for how guilty he was

  18. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago (edited)

    Trump, on the other hand, misrepresented his net worth to banks, defrauding lenders (who…still had a responsibility to do due diligence, a fact ignored in much mainstream media reporting of the case).
    ...
    Both things can be true, that Trump attracts politically motivated ire—which attorneys general and judges are wrong to indulge—and that he also did something wrong by inflating his net worth.

    So there, Trumpistas! *NYAAAH!*. You tell ’em, Liz!
    😛
    Something tells me she’s going to lose the title of “Good Liz” with a whole lot of commenters.
    🙂
    😉

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

      Why is performing a valuation of your wealth a crime? Banks did their own valuations. Pawn shops are criminal hot beds in your mind.

      Youre basically arguing for state determination of all contract terms. You go with that.

      1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

        Pawn shops aren't underwritten by taxpayers via the FDIC and FSLIC and pawn shops don't cost taxpayers Trillions if they go belly up.

        When Trumpistas argue against Government underwriting banks, then you might have something. And even in that case, valuation should be based on more than feelz.

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

          When Trumpistas argue against Government underwriting banks, then you might have something. And even in that case, valuation should be based on more than feelz.

          This may be the dumbest argument in favor of this prosecution I've ever heard. Ever. Like... ever.

          1. Sevo   1 year ago

            Consider the source. Fuck-face here has plenty of the same or worse.

            1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

              Since you and Herr Misek share the same support of Trump, will you two be sharing a Pu-Pu Platter at the Eat-Shit-And-Die Palace?

              Pro Tip: When I tell Herr Misek to: "Fuck Off, Nazi!" I at least explain why he should instead of posting it as copypasta. Points for style for you.

          2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

            Fine, why don't you try telling your banker that your shotgun shack is a Taj Mahal and see how far you get? I made it simple so you wouldn't have to check your notes.
            🙂
            😉

        2. damikesc   1 year ago

          "Pawn shops aren’t underwritten by taxpayers via the FDIC and FSLIC and pawn shops don’t cost taxpayers Trillions if they go belly up.

          When Trumpistas argue against Government underwriting banks, then you might have something. And even in that case, valuation should be based on more than feelz."

          Do you have a mortgage?

          Is it for the EXACT value of your house?

          Odds are...no. It is not worth the exact value. Few, if any, are.

          Feel to explain how you come up with a value of anything you have not sold.

          1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

            I rent. I know better than to have a money pit that takes multiple professionals to build, multiple professionals to buy, and Junkyard Dog Lawyers fighting Zoning Boards, Alphabet Soup Agencies, and HOA-mongers and Karens to use that home as I see fit.

            But if I did own a piece of real property, I wouldn't present it as something it's not and if the prospective buyer didn't want it, we'd each go our merry way.

            1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

              Oh, and this not to mention this is on top of the problems of burglars, home invaders, home title hackers, and now flat-out squatters who break in and stay, as happens in the Atlanta, GA area and most likely elsewhere.

              Life can be easy, but people make it rough.

        3. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

          That is a long way to go to justify using the state for contract agreements between two entities. If banks violate the terms of the FDIC they are at fault and not the secondary client on the other side. But you use this to justify criminalizing a banking client.

          As far as government control of banks… those you call trumpistas have been against it for decades dumbfuck. From operation chokepoint to debunking. Shit I’ve never seen you actually discuss.

          Youre justifying law without a victim to attack someone you apparently hate because quite frankly you are a statist.

          1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

            As far as government control of banks… those you call trumpistas have been against it for decades dumbfuck. From operation chokepoint to debunking. Shit I’ve never seen you actually discuss.

            Unless you include people who supported Trump when he was with the Reform Party in the Nineties, there haven't been Trumpistas for decades. So who's the dumbfuck?

            And as the Libertarian Party Platform observed, silence on a particular injustice by Government should not be taken as tacit approval. This is especially true when there's so much from which tobpick and choose.

            Youre justifying law without a victim to attack someone you apparently hate because quite frankly you are a statist.

            I'll grsnt you that the fine was way excessive and the banks may have declined to press the matter, but it doesn't change what Trump did. And supporting laws against civil fraud does not equal Statism.

        4. DesigNate   1 year ago

          “Pawn shops aren’t underwritten by taxpayers via the FDIC and FSLIC”

          Neither is Deuchte Bank.

          Regardless of that, the actual valuation is 100% subjective between the two parties involved. Fuck off, slaver.

          1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

            If Deutsche bank opersted in the U.S. it would be bound by U.S. law and underwritten by the FDIC.

            And again, a shotgun shack is not a Taj Mahal. I won't stop you from claiming that, but I wouldn't bank with anyone who would agree with your claim and I'll still be pissed if they want a bailout at my expense.

            So who's the slaver here?

      2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

        And art galeries

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Very disappointing to see Liz follow Jacob into this defense of political prosecution. The banks relied on Trump's net worth which they calculated independent of any of his claims and by any measure his assets were far more than enough to satisfy the loan payments. Whether or not any property was over or under valued was irrelevant to whether the loan would be made and the interest rate. To call this fraud is to slander Trump's companies. And it seems to me that the fact that James literally campaigned on prosecuting Trump for a not yet identified crime deserves at least an honorable mention in a "libertarian" publication. Navalny was convicted of a crime in a Russian court. Trump was found liable in a NY court and denied the ability to defend himself by the judge. Both are political prosecutions and in Trump's case the prosecutor actually admitted as much out loud. The only real difference is that Navalny is dead and Trump isn't. Yet.

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        Liz hid it for a while, but Reason simply has no staff who has not been infected with TDS. Not a one.

        1. tracerv   1 year ago

          Somebody finally said it. Tired of the slobbering on this chick.

          Yeah, she's much better than Nolan Brown, but that is still like the world's tallest midget.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            I completely agree. She surely was better than ENB, as you say, but that's not saying much.

            I also watched the first episode of that "Just Asking Questions" podcast with Dave Smith as the guest (I'm a big fan of Dave Smith) a couple months ago. She constantly interrupted and just seemed to be going for gotcha moments (that failed). I was hoping I could add Just Asking Questions to my regular viewing schedule, as there aren't that many GOOD libertarian podcasts, but it didn't live up to my expectations, largely because of Liz's approach.

            This isn't to say Liz is terrible, as she's not. It's just that I'm getting tired of everything regarding Trump or even the Mises Caucus being slammed by Reason, from a point of view that ignores the underlying abuse of power and rights by the federal government because Orangmanbad.

      2. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

        Trump’s case the prosecutor actually admitted as much out loud

        So did the governor supporting her.

      3. R Mac   1 year ago

        Agreed. Oh well, I still didn’t donate.

    3. Sevo   1 year ago

      "...and that he also did something wrong by inflating his net worth."

      Gee, are we to believe an asshole with a raging case of TDS is better suited to gauge his net worth, asshole with a raging case of TDS? And how, exactly, is it 'wrong', asshole with a raging case of TDS?

    4. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

      ""Trump, on the other hand, misrepresented his net worth to banks, defrauding lenders""

      Let the defrauded lenders speak. Oh wait, there are none. If there were, the DA might have a criminal case.

      The lender that testified at trial gave Trump glowing reviews.

    5. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      Since "the good Liz" is a comparative thing she's still got a long way to fall and a whole lot of repetition to actually lose in the comparison. That said, the pro-show trial and anti- speech & market stances are really disappointing.

      1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

        Where did Liz take anti-speech and anti-market stances?

        Understand, I'm not White-Knighting for Liz at all, since I don't agree with her on abortion and have never fully agreed with anyone on everything yet, but I do try to understand and characterize anyone's position properly.

  19. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

    Let's not go sucking Navalny's dick. All these assholes lamenting his demise probably put the Ukraine's flag as their profile pic. Guess what, he was a Russian nationalist and like all Russian nationalist, they view Ukraine as Russia and he'd have done the same as Putin, try to reclaim the lost territory by any means possible.

    1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

      You don't have to "suck Navalny's dick" to say he didn't deserve to get murdered for his dissenting thought, any more than any of the Putineers in the Comments here deserve murder for their mere stupid thoughts.

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

        Sure, now do the American Citizen that died in a Ukraine prison and the state Dept. gave him a middle finger because Biden wanted him dead.

      2. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        Never said he deserved murder. But I also didn't write this ""Putin is fighting a bloody, lawless, unnecessary war, in which hundreds..." as if Navlany was any different.

      3. MT-Man   1 year ago

        I'm confused. Questioning bat soup/racoon dogs is crazy talk. Guy dead has to kgb ok to jump to conclusions.

      4. R Mac   1 year ago

        You’re a fucking simpleton.

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      OMG! Navalny wasn't perfect! He was a bigot and an asshole!
      Guess that means we have to support Putin.

      1. damikesc   1 year ago

        Doesn't pointing that out = you support Putin?

      2. DesigNate   1 year ago

        You’re not even trying today.

        1. R Mac   1 year ago

          We broke him like sarc.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            =D

            Maybe a trunk bear got to him.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      This is the same type of bullshit fallacy used to justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

      Putin: violates the NAP in a big way, violates the sovereignty of a foreign nation, kills hundreds of thousands of people
      Ukraine: has a corruption problem

      Reason apologists for Putin: See? Ukraine isn't perfect! Therefore we must support Putin's invasion!

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        Fuck off Jeff you scumbag piece of shit. Never said any of that.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Well then you're not a Reason apologist for Putin. So naturally you condemn his invasion of a sovereign nation, right?

          1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

            Fuck off. Your a scumbag. If instead of stating what you think I think, and just ask then I might be receptive to engage in conversation. Instead your a disingenuous cunt only worthy to receive my ridicule.

            - I support that message.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Oh, so you are upset that you get a tiny dose of the treatment that I get daily. Too bad so sad.

              1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

                Do I engage with you daily, no. Then why don't you support the NAP?

                And no, not upset. Just calling a spade a spade. But to give you some advice, people ridicule you on this board because of how you, Jeff, go about conversing with people. You assume their positions, and always the lowest form of that position and then argue as if that is their position. It is why you are a disingenuous cunt.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  You assume their positions, and always the lowest form of that position and then argue as if that is their position.

                  No, that is Jesse and his crew. I challenge people and I don't accept weaksauce rationalizations that substitute for actual argumentation.

          2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

            Sovereign nation? What a fucking joke!

            Maybe you should head to Donetsk and take a poll to see if the locals give a shit whether the oligarch they pay for protection pays his bribes to Kiev or to Moscow. Be sure to ask them in Russian, or they might not understand you.

            When a region is not ruled by the consent of the governed, it is pointless for a free nation to take a side as to who governs it. The 100 billion+ the US government is spending is pure graft to war merchants. Believing anything else is naive as fuck.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              Based on the results, it looks like the money isn't going anywhere except the pockets of various Ukrainian officials and military brass. They're taking every bit of equipment we actually send them and running it into the ground, without any sort of maintenance or logistics system to keep them operational, then coming back and begging for more.

              And with this hysterical rhetoric that we have to support Ukraine or Russia is going to roll right into Europe and attack NATO, they're telling on themselves that they consider Ukraine to be their personal buffer state, and for Ukrainians to be their meat shield.

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

                they’re telling on themselves that they consider Ukraine to be their personal buffer state, and for Ukrainians to be their meat shield.

                Without any pretense. They shoot Ukrainian men who desert. It is soldier-slavery of the worst sort and most of the Congresscritters are 100% on the bandwagon. The sad thing is that the neo-Nazi oligarchs are going to be the last men standing and the rising generation that could have challenged them will be dead. The purge will be every bit as effective as Stalin's.

                And on the other side? Putin has already used the war to suss out an actual threat to his power and blew his fucking plane out of the sky. This war is making him stronger, not weaker, and the simps like Jeffy eat it up. The resource attrition during WWII was magnitudes larger than this Ukrainian skirmish and the Soviets were stronger than when they started. Putin is not ignorant of history.

                If ever there was a need for a ceasefire, it is in Ukraine.

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                  They shoot Ukrainian men who desert. It is soldier-slavery of the worst sort and most of the Congresscritters are 100% on the bandwagon.

                  Meanwhile, the trust fund kids are partying it up in Poland and Germany, while the plebs get turned into jello on the front lines.

                  No wonder the neocons are in such a full-throated dirge over this war--the people they support act just like them.

            2. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

              Absolutely they are a sovereign nation. The soviets lost it. Guess what, if you polled "American" colonist in 1776 many would have stated they were loyalist. Doesn't matter Britain lost it.

              Whether you support America's involvement, isn't my point, either. I've many mixed opinions on our governments actions in Ukraine. Overall though I support it because I think the Rus as people are doomed and the country will disintegrate. That leaves a shit ton of nukes open to the highest bidder. Better for all if their territory is less expansive. Same reason we helped stabilize them in the 90s (besides USA just being magnanimous in victory), nuclear proliferation.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                Overall though I support it because I think the Rus as people are doomed and the country will disintegrate.

                In what fucking universe is this likely? Is it the one where we manage to get another drunken lout as our puppet in charge of the country? Because that might actually do it, leaving aside the fact that when it happened the first time, the Russians turned to the current guy in charge to get things straightened out.

                1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

                  Demographics, sucide, alcoholism, rot from the Soviets, lack of education and now being cut off from the Western free markets that was able to keep them afloat post soviet collapse.

                2. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

                  And I don't want to see Putin removed; one of my big issues with our government, regime change. There are far worse leaders in the Russian Federation.

                  I just think that they are nation in a decline and that there is nothing they can do about it now. If wokism is destroying America like I believe both of us can agree on; What did 70 years of wokism to the 10 degree (Soviet Communism) do to them?

                  1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                    This is a centuries-old nation with no actual sign it's about to break apart. Russia traded communism for Russian nationalism which, for all its issues, is a big reason they're still functioning as a country with a collective identity.

                    The whole point of communism is to break everything to shit and try to rebuild it in the form of the communist utopia00which it ALWAYS fails to do, because the great irony is that a theology based partly on the idea that social contradictions need to be eliminated to achieve the higher marxist truth, it's incapable of even addressing its own. Nationalism and a sense of collective identity outside of politics is the antidote to this.

                    1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

                      It's a centuries old empire that lost about a quarter of its own land (good land) in the last, most of the Warsaw pact countries, and went completely broke in the last century. Historically Empires crumble over decades/century facing this kind of decline. If the Romans, couldn't beat back the Huns after decades of loses than I don't think the Russians will either.

              2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                I think the Rus as people are doomed and the country will disintegrate

                Not sure that is a very historically consistent take. If their national identity was fracturing, you would think there would be clear indications almost 30 years after the fall of the USSR. Russia is gigantic. Improving technology has continued to provide them with nearly inexhaustible resources. What the Soviets didn't have, they acquired by threat or conquest. That seems to be their current trajectory as well.

                For all of the interconnectedness, the world seems to have less revolution that at any point in the last 50 years. Oligarchy is becoming the norm.

              3. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

                " I think the Rus as people are doomed and the country will disintegrate."
                Hmm. In the increasingly multipolar planet we have on the one side Russia, China, India, most of the global south and big chunks of South America. Collectively they have two thirds of the planet's population and control three quarters of the planet's natural resources. On the other side we have the US, Western Europe and Australia. These Western governments are subsumed by woke, green agendas. Russia, China etc. are unencumbered. The US cannot recruit a military or build an airplane with doors that stay closed inflight. Europe has slashed it's wrists and decided to take a bath. They are destroying their industries and agriculture and are inviting another 45 million immigrants into the EU who don't give a rat's ass about their culture. Who will win? Well the evidence is in. Despite the best efforts of the Biden war mongers, Russia's economy is doing fine with a national debt to GDP a lot less than ours. Russia was there before we were here. It will be around for a very long time.

        2. R Mac   1 year ago

          I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.

      2. R Mac   1 year ago

        “Ukraine: has a corruption problem”

        I know Lying Jeffy has been informed of what’s been happening in Donbas since 2014, so why would he say this?

        We all know why. Because he’s a liar.

  20. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    "But going after charities that help migrants"

    You misspelled "illegal border crossers".
    They are NOT migrants.
    They are criminals from the minute they illegally cross the US border. Helping them is being an accessory to that crime.
    Period.

    1. Anomalous   1 year ago

      Border trespassers.

      1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

        “Shoot them in the face” - sarc

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          "Blindly shoot them in the face"*

          He has been justifying the shoot recently since the cop couldn't see everything.

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

    Both things can be true, that Trump attracts politically motivated ire—which attorneys general and judges are wrong to indulge—and that he also did something wrong by inflating his net worth.

    Or just one thing can be true.

    This is why real estate and finance people are quietly freaked out about this prosecution. They realized that when a couple of people get together, assess the value of something, and all parties agree, the courts can just reach into the grab bag of valuations, declare someone overinflated and *bam* half a billion in damages to.. the state.

    1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      The questions here are, would this suit have been brought against anyone else and for what he did wrong and is this punishment excessive (especially since the organizations he supposedly defrauded do not believe they were harmed)? Most antifraud laws usually require some proof of actual harm done to determine guilt.

    2. mad.casual   1 year ago

      This is why real estate and finance people are quietly freaked out about this prosecution.

      I'm clear this is why the banks said his assertions made no difference in their estimates. Better to have their potential customers lying to them and them able to ignore it than the government yanking the collar and telling them, again, at a different point in the process, what they will and won't accept as reality.

      1. Stuck in California   1 year ago

        Look at the mayhem Dodd Frank caused. Basically excluded regular Joe homebuyer from getting a loan during the entire Obama dip in real estate prices.

        I mean, it was fantastic for banks and investors. They got near zero rate money from the Fed and snagged property wholesale as the banks offloaded their foreclosure inventory. But the regulatory burden for offloading a mortgage to Fanny Mae was so ridiculous it took years for banks to do regular loans instead of just refinances.

        You want fair valuations? Make the banks 1. do their own and, B. responsible for their own losses if the loan can't be serviced. Bank won't lend on a "liar's loan" if they don't get to socialize the losses.

        Oddly, this is exactly how Deutchebank and Trump handled their deal. No government involvement needed, and the bank made money on the deals.

    3. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      Gotta make them pay their fair share somehow.

    4. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      What I find a bit fascinating is that the judge decided somehow that the valuations provided were overinflated--made up, as it were--and then he himself made up damages mumbling something about if Trump hadn't lied on his statements his interest rates would have been (some number the judge made up), etc.

      And then somehow decided that there was pre-judgement interest due on the fines, as well?

    5. R Mac   1 year ago

      I wonder what’s going to happen to people that appeal their property taxes? Are appraisers and attorneys that specialize in doing appeals going to be brought up on RICO charges?

      1. DesigNate   1 year ago

        Only if they piss off the Democrats in charge of any given locality.

    6. D-Pizzle   1 year ago

      Look what the Delaware Court of Chancery did to Elon Musk. Not the same, but very similar.

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

    I do not think this is true or that there's much evidence for it:

    No, Carlin would now be called 'right wing' and would be getting censored.

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      You kidding? He would have ripped into Trump and been despised by the political right for it.

      1. Brandybuck   1 year ago

        Yes of course. But the political left would be despising him twice as hard for speaking truth to power.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Carlson was a wordsmith. I bet he'd be having a heyday with today's pronoun nonsense.

          1. damikesc   1 year ago

            Did you watch any of his late material?

            He became the shits.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              https://www.imdb.com/list/ls070221411/

              ?

            2. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

              Carlin did get bitter and nihilistic at the end.

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

    I dunno if he qualifies as a "hero" lol this ain't exactly Normandy

    Not for Men it's not.

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

    NEW: California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office says the state’s budget problem has grown by $15 Billion.

    LAO says because of weak revenue collections so far, the state’s deficit could reach $73 Billion.

    Didn't Reason once uncritically report that California had "balanced its budget" a few years ago? I think they did. The above is what happens after you 'balance your budget' using accounting tricks.

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

      Fifth best economy in the world.

    2. Brandybuck   1 year ago

      California, like every state, is not allowed to print it's own money. So an unbalanced budget quickly leads to serious problems. Since California will refuse to cut spending, and borrowers are getting scarce, that only means more taxes in the near future.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        If you want a comparison for what going deep into debt, particularly for pensions, looks like, look no further than the mess called Illinois. That's the future of any state that fails to balance its budget.

        1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

          And wasn't this after the COVID "relief" bills funneled billions to states and localities with the desire (not stated as such) to pay for much of the deficits that these states created with their exorbitant public sector pensions?

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            Yep.

            https://abc7chicago.com/illinois-state-budget-2024-jb-pritzker-governor-surplus/14445331/

            Gov. JB Pritzker will give his sixth state budget address this week, laying out his plan for a fiscal year that government forecasters in November predicted is on pace for a near-$900 million deficit unless corrective action is taken.

          2. Stuck in California   1 year ago

            Actually, California has been technically uderfunding the pensions for years. It's not in the main budget as a debt, but it's out there.

            We threw a governor out of office for not keeping the lights on and giving away the budget to the Prison guard's union once, but since the 2010s with a D supermajority all of that is back and way worse.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              We still got you beat. One governor went to jail for selling a US Senate seat, and another went to jail for selling CDLs for campaign contributions. The latter one actually got people killed.

    3. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      Just declare every trial estate transaction fraudulent and the fines should cover the whole woth no downsides, same as NY.

    4. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      They balanced it with several tens of billions in federal COVID handouts.

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

    Donald Trump again compares his criminal indictments to imprisonment and death of Putin’s top rival 1 hour ago

    Ok, CIA stooge, sure... "top rival". I guess he's the top rival because now 2.5% of people in Russia have heard of him.

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

      Alexey Navalny was too brave to be allowed to live long | Marc Champion

      *facepalm* for FUCK sakes, journolists.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        I mean, Joe Biden is a ridiculous fucking coward.

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      Yes we know. State-run Putin-run public opinion polls in Russia can be taken at face value.

      1. damikesc   1 year ago

        Yes, they are state run.

        Provide some independent polls showing his actual standing.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          I don't know if they even exist.

          In the absence of reliable polls, don't you think we ought to take literal state-run polls with a grain of salt?

          Or maybe we should do what ML does and blindly accept them and use literal Putin propaganda to mock the West's support for Navalny?

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            I agree with taking Russian so-called propaganda with a grain of salt and not just believing it without sufficient supporting evidence. But don't you think you should also do that with US propaganda as well? It seems you hold that standard for Russian sources, but not for ones from your own country.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              What are the literal state-run polls in the US that you are referring to?

              1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                So you think it can't be propaganda unless it is directly funded and run by the government?

          2. DesigNate   1 year ago

            We could take it with a grain of salt, but I doubt that grain would move him from 2% to much past 10% realistically.

  26. Sevo   1 year ago

    "Former President Donald Trump said last evening that the civil fraud verdict that will force him to pony up $355 million for inflating his net worth to banks is actually "a form of Navalny" and "a form of communism or fascism."..."

    Gee, politician engages in hyperbole!
    Piles of shit with raging cases of TDS get upset!
    Fuck off and die, Liz; that act is tired.

  27. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago (edited)

    So:

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just announced a lawsuit against El Paso’s Annunciation House, an NGO in charge of a shelter network for migrants, for “facilitating illegal entry to the United States, alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house.”

    Motte: “We don’t want those migrants here because they use welfare.”

    Bailey: “We don’t want those migrants here under any situation, and we just use welfare as a convenient rationale for why they should go.”

    1. Brandybuck   1 year ago

      If there's a conflict between immigration and the welfare state, let's get rid of the welfare state. Problem solved. How the hell the American Right turned into a defense squad for the welfare state buggers the mind.

      1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

        Why can't we get rid of both?

        1. MasterThief   1 year ago

          This. Some immigration is fine. Replacing the native population is not

      2. JesseAz   1 year ago

        How the hell the American Right turned into a defense squad for the welfare state buggers the mind.

        Wut?

        God damn you, jeff, and sarc have gone full retard.

      3. R Mac   1 year ago

        Show me someone defending the welfare state and I’ll gladly call them out.

      4. Sevo   1 year ago

        "How the hell the American Right turned into a defense squad for the welfare state buggers the mind."

        This is your mind on TDS! Don't let this happen to you!

        1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

          This is your brain. This is your brain on TDS. This is what your brain on TDS does to your family, what it does to your friends, what it does to your neighbors. Any Questions?

          (But picture a young, hot Rachael Leigh Cook swinging the frying pay around breaking shit when you read the above.)

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            *frying pan, not pay

          2. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            She's still pretty hot. Wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.

            1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

              Yeah, I just looked up some current photos of her, and you are correct!

        2. MasterThief   1 year ago

          If I'm being generous then I'd say that conservatives are pissed off about the immigration stuff because they are literally giving our tax dollars to foreign nationals to favor them over citizens. I don't have to be in favor of welfare to agree that if the government is spending my money then it had better be to my benefit rather than someone who has no part in the system

    2. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

      Sorry that normies are waking up to the game you folks have played. Lots of 'liberals' finding out they are NIMBYs when it comes to this stuff and the bills (literal or metaphorical) arrive at their door step.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago (edited)

        Those of us with a brain understood way back in 2015-16 that all the sturm und drang over illegal immigration from the right wasn’t limited to illegal immigration. It was a much more fundamental objection to modern immigration generally. You don’t want “those people” from “those countries” coming here even if they come here legally and don’t use a dollar of welfare. And the key to mainstreaming your bigoted views on those migrants is to shove them in people’s faces and provoke an angry hostile reaction so that the ‘normies’ become as bigoted as your team. That is how to Make America Great Again – by turning it back to the time when most Americans treated brown people as inferior. Good job!

        1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

          "It was a much more fundamental objection to modern immigration"

          What is modern immigration?

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            The immigration regime that we have now.

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              So illegal immigrants. Thanks.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                No. The entire thing. The whole immigration regime.

            2. DesigNate   1 year ago

              Do you mean modern as in current?

              I think we can all agree that the immigration system we have now isn’t making anyone happy.

              You know, because open borders zealots think we can have all 8 billion people living here and closed/controlled borders people think the 1 million we let in legally is probably enough and they aren’t happy about the extra 2 to 3 million that have been coming in illegally for the last four years.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                closed/controlled borders people think the 1 million we let in legally is probably enough far too many

                there, fixed it for ya

        2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

          Fuck you and your racist projection. The Dems lie over and over and over about everything to do with immigration, the welfare, the crimes, the cost to schools and governments.

          When something gets lied about so blatantly and so obviously, it is clearly a scheme. The scheme is to collect votes while importing an electorate less educated, less politically savvy, and more willing to tolerate impositions on their freedoms because at least they are freer than they were in the country they fled.

          It is not racist to point all that out. There is that great quote that was actually made by Benjamin Franklin about freedom and safety. These asylum seekers have already proved that they deserve neither by fleeing instead of fighting. Fuck them. Make them go home and fight. When their country is no longer a socialist-breeding shithole, they are more than welcome to come stay in ours.

        3. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          For the record: I don't care at all if “those people” from “those countries” come here legally and don’t use a dollar of welfare.

          Welcome!

          I will, however, echo Teddy Roosevelt:

          "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

          1. DesigNate   1 year ago

            Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, and therefore a racist and a xenophobe. /s

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Oh great. So migrants are okay to come here, as long as they become indistinguishable from everyone else. That is not much better than just keeping them out.

            1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

              Look, I'm sure my new wife expects me to be loyal to her and not to my ex-wife. Sure, I had good times with the ex-wife, have history there, and hope she ends up happy and successful. But if there's is some competition between new wife and old wife, gotta stand by new wife. I've got to unwind myself out of the ex-wife's extended family and spend time with new wife's. I can't expect the new wife to be just like the old wife (otherwise, why did I leave the old one?). I need to learn new behaviors and new language; the inside jokes and codes I used with the old wife mean nothing to the new wife and. My focus should be on THIS relationship, improving THIS relationship and making THIS relationship the best it can be.

              None of that works if I continue to have an on-going affair with the ex-wife. Pretty sure if the new wife finds out I've been fucking the ex-wife, new wife will kick me out.

    3. D-Pizzle   1 year ago

      Motte: Illegal immigrants.
      Bailey: Refugees.

  28. Sevo   1 year ago

    "How White Liberals Have Adopted Blacks as Mascots | Thomas Sowell"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9vv6xiacp8

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

      Sowell is the man. I say that both ironically and unironically.

    2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      Just like the 1888 Chicago White Stockings (Cubs).

      1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

        Wait. The Chicago White Stockings later became the Cubs and not the White Socks? I don't pay much attention to baseball, but it just seemed odd to me.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          Yes. They formally changed their name to the Cubs in 1906 after being known as the Colts from 1890 to 1905. The old name was adopted by the new South Side team in 1900, later shortened to White Sox.

          The black man as mascot idea was by Cap Anson and Al Spalding (yes, that Spalding), and made it into the first Baseball Hall of Shame book. Anson is a big reason why the color line in baseball came to be.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            Thank you for informing me. I love weird sports trivia.

            Here's one that I couldn't believe until I researched it (and I'm a lifelong Steelers fan): the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Philadelphia Eagles basically swapped teams in 1941.

            And I'm not talking about the 1943 Stealgles team that combined them during WWII.

            https://www.bigblueview.com/2016/11/5/13514926/philadelphia-eagles-pittsburgh-steelers-history-swap

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Nobody can say so much by saying so little like Sowell does. A national treasure.

  29. Brandybuck   1 year ago

    While George Carlin did have a brief period of fringe progressivism, looking at this work as a whole, from the 50s to the naughts, he was most certainly for free speech. Actual free speech, not the kind of "free speech" that is regulated by the state, or censored because it offends a politician or a bloc of voters, or makes them sad.

    Yes, he most certainly called out hypocritical Christians. Do you know who else called out hypocrites? Jesus! But this idea that he was not for free speech but merely part of the Persecution Regime against Christianity is preposterous. One has to be willfully ignorant to make such a claim.

    p.s. Also, with this anal seepage side effect from my new medication, I could definitely use some tampons in the mens room. Just saying.

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

      TMI

    2. mad.casual   1 year ago

      You've been shitting up these forums with your anal seepage well before any "new medication". People have been telling you to shove it up your ass for years.

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

        He may have slow pitched that one, but you fucking dented his car in the parking lot with that hit.

      2. R Mac   1 year ago

        Lol.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      But this idea that he was not for free speech but merely part of the Persecution Regime against Christianity is preposterous. One has to be willfully ignorant to make such a claim.

      Guys like Carlin and Bill Hicks only whined about Christianity because those guys weren't in the majority of the culture at the time. They were trying to break that down and subvert it.

      If they were alive today, they would most certainly be part of the Persecution Regime.

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

        Carlin lost relevance and tried to regain it by going full Boomer.

        I don't know of a current comedian other than Dave Chappelle who is actually willing to risk freely speaking out against leftist orthodoxy and have managed to remain relevant.

        1. R Mac   1 year ago

          They’re trying to cancel David Lucas over George Floyd jokes. I’d never heard of him before and don’t know if he’ll survive it or not.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            He was the guest on Tim Pool's IRL show a couple nights ago. A week ago I saw the clip of the standup show where a few people walk out after he makes George Floyd jokes.

            I like that he's willing to smack the woke left in the face (figuratively), but, from what I saw in the clip and on the IRL show, he's only moderately funny.

        2. Sevo   1 year ago

          Some Ricky Gervais' recent stuff?

          1. tracerv   1 year ago

            Gervais just doesn't seem to give a fuck who he offends. I love it!

            1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

              He's currently my favorite stand-up comedian. I would also list Dave Smith, but he has only had a few full standup comedy videos in the last few years, and he doesn't have anywhere near the fame of Gervais.

        3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          Even in Chappelle's case, it's mainly because he's a black supremacist and he's irritated that troons overtook black people on the progressive stack.

          Like Bill Maher, whatever truths he happens to be spitting at the moment are entirely incidental.

          1. MasterThief   1 year ago

            True. I like all of these comedians, but their biases can get really annoying when they step up on their pedestals. I don't have to agree with a comedian's worldview or biases if they keep things humorous and don't stray too far off base in their attacks. I don't like John Stewart and find him to be a disingenuous shitlib who pushes propaganda to default liberals. Even given that fact, he can make me laugh about things where we are in opposition. He just loses his grip on reality too easily.

  30. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

    The other disappointing aspect of the Navalny coverage at Reason is that the editors are (willfully?) oblivious to the fact that the reaction in press and the regime is designed specifically to persuade intransigent Republicans in the house to give Joe another 60 billion to dump into the Ukraine meat grinder. Simply regurgitating propaganda is not a habit of "free minds".

    1. Sevo   1 year ago

      You reckon droolin' Joe is getting hints that without more vig, someone might spill some beans?

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      You are so right. Free minds instantly leap to unsubstantiated conspiracies to explain events, particularly when the most straightforward explanation helps Democrats.

      1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

        unsubstantiated conspiracies

        Considering the success rate of Wild and Baseless conspiracy theories lately...

      2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

        While I'm critical of anything I perceive as pro-Russian propaganda, I'm just as concerned that there's a force out there pushing anti-Russian propaganda. It makes it difficult to know what the absolute truth is, so I simply figure out what principles should apply and engage with both hypotheticals.

        And what I come to is that, as an American, I'm much more concerned about the corruption of our legal system here at home than I am with a corrupt legal system in Russia. Even if Navalny was a saint destined to liberalize Russia who was dragged off, beaten, tortured, and had a cyanide capsule shoved down his throat, I still am extremely concerned about any steps the United States is taking toward authoritarian prosecutions of political enemies.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          And what I come to is that, as an American, I’m much more concerned about the corruption of our legal system here at home than I am with a corrupt legal system in Russia.

          Yeah, Russia's corrupt legal system has no actual effect on us. We may not like it, but it has nothing to do with our daily lives.

          America's current corrupt two-tier system, on the other hand, does.

          1. Sevo   1 year ago

            And if it doesn't now affect you, personally, you simply have yet to piss off someone holding power. Suffice to say, it WILL.

        2. R Mac   1 year ago

          Lying Jeffy supports the corruption of our legal system.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Troll Mac lies about me daily.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              Bullshit.

      3. R Mac   1 year ago

        A CNN reporter literally asked Biden if Republicans who don’t support more money to Ukraine have blood on their hands you lefty hack.

      4. DesigNate   1 year ago

        Free minds don’t usually parrot whatever fucking Neocons are pushing in order to get more money for the MIC.

  31. mad.casual   1 year ago

    But he's a far cry from Navalny

    Right. Navalny was only opposed/despised within and by the imaginary social constructs that define Russia. Trump is, supposedly, considered a political, if not existential, threat by everyone from the WEF to women to trans-women to legal immigrants to black people to climate change/global warming zealots to Muslims. There are comedians and stage personalities openly voicing a hatred to the point of calling for Trump's death, nowhere near such wrath has been heaped on Navalny outside the Russian government.

  32. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

    ""Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just announced a lawsuit against El Paso's Annunciation House, an NGO in charge of a shelter network for migrants, for "facilitating illegal entry to the United States, alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house." But going after charities that help migrants—whatever you think of the behavior they engaged in to get here—seems like a wrongheaded stunt.""

    Wrongheaded stunt? There's probably more fraud and lawlessness here than any Trump lawsuit. Is it people you like vs people you do not?

    If Loretta James can sue Pepsico for litter, this definitely seems like fair game.

    1. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      It's funny just how stupid she is this morning. Imagine I setup a charity explicitly designed to buy back and modify murder weapons so as to evade or confound law enforcement, would Liz be calling any prosecution of that a "wrongheaded stunt"

  33. mad.casual   1 year ago

    I dunno if he qualifies as a "hero" lol this ain't exactly Normandy

    Were you *in* the Men's Room at Normandy?

  34. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

    The moral equivalence on display here is shocking.

    Do you all *really* believe that the US is *literally* no different than the authoritarian Putin regime? Really? No difference at all?

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      LOL, nice strawman.

      It's your lefty boos running the US regime that are as bad as Putin, not the US in general. Your boos don't even like this country and are constantly whining about how awful and racist it is, and how the Constitution is a white supremacist document.

      So yeah, fuck them. I wouldn't weep anymore for the fall of the neo-Maoist Union of Soviet Socialist Americas or the People's Republic of Western Europe, anymore than I did for the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, or the decline of the Marxist-Leninst vanguard country whose mantle the neoliberal west gleefully took up.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        Not surprising at all that you wish for the death of America.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          I wish for the death of any nation controlled by marxists. As should anyone who values functional, high-trust societies.

          A radical-left regime that hollows the nation out and wears its trappings like a skin suit doesn't deserve to survive in perpetuity. Nor can it, because the foundational keystone of its theology is perpetual revolution.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Well then good thing the US isn't run by Marxists.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              LOL, please--its mass media, its bureaucracy, its schools, and its cultural institutions are all run by marxists.

              Or is this where you imitate mtrueman's "No True Marxist" game when I pointed out the fact that today's cultural marxists and neo-Maoists employ the same circular reasoning as Marx himself did? Should I provide some direct quotes, or will you deflect as you usually do by sniffing that "I'm not interested in reading all that"?

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                Oh good grief. Actual Marxists are vanishingly rare in this country.

                Go ahead and provide whatever quotes that you want. But it's probably going to be some variation of the "Hitler loved his dog" fallacy, to wit:

                Hitler loved his dog and was a Nazi.
                Joe Schmoe loves his dog.
                Therefore Joe Schmoe is a Nazi.

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                  Oh good grief. Actual Marxists are vanishingly rare in this country.

                  "Or is this where you imitate mtrueman’s “No True Marxist” game when I pointed out the fact that today’s cultural marxists and neo-Maoists employ the same circular reasoning as Marx himself did?"

                  Go ahead and provide whatever quotes that you want. But it’s probably going to be some variation of the “Hitler loved his dog” fallacy, to wit:

                  Yes, we know you believe cultural marxism isn't actually a thing, even though it is. It uses the same Oppressed/Oppressor false duality, it holds the same belief in left-wing historic determinism, it espouses the same belief that anyone resisting it is whatever pejorative of the moment they're indulging in, whether it's "western bourgeois capitalism," "western hegemony," "whiteness, "white supremacy," "fascist," etc.

                  But we also know that you believe everything cultural happens in a vacuum. In that, you're just as ignorant of history as your lefty boos.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    Marxism has an actual meaning, you know. Not just 'people you don't like'.

                    Yes, we know you believe cultural marxism isn’t actually a thing

                    I'm not even sure what you mean by the phrase 'cultural marxism'. That phrase has been thrown around so carelessly that I don't know what you all mean by it. Frankly in practice I think it's just a slur used against ideas that you don't like. You don't like certain left-wing ideas so you attach the scary 'MARXIST' label to it.

                    If you think there is some cabal of sociology professors who are conducting a 'long march' to deliberately indoctrinate generations of people into Marxists, then I think that is a paranoid fantasy.

                    But we also know that you believe everything cultural happens in a vacuum.

                    That's not true, I don't believe that. People absolutely do take cultural cues from their surroundings. But it's not part of some organized 'long march'.

                    1. R Mac   1 year ago

                      “Marxism has an actual meaning, you know. Not just ‘people you don’t like’.”

                      I like how he didn’t say anything close to resembling “people you don’t like” yet you put it in quotes while lying about what he said.

                      Why do you lie so much?

                    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      Marxism has an actual meaning, you know. Not just ‘people you don’t like’.

                      Which I outlined above, and you tellingly ignored.

                      But feel free to go through Gramsci, Marcuse, Kimberle Crenshaw, Paolo Freire, Derrick Bell, Robin DiAngelo, for starters, and show how their arguments differentiate from the foundations of marxist beliefs that I listed.

                      If you think there is some cabal of sociology professors who are conducting a ‘long march’ to deliberately indoctrinate generations of people into Marxists, then I think that is a paranoid fantasy.

                      This is more No True Scotsman arguing. Nowhere did even Gramsci argue that it had to be "organized." Both he and Marcuse said that it needed to be implemented at the cultural level--what Marcuse called the "biological foundation"--through strategic influence, particularly in a political alliance between what Marcuse called the "ghetto populations" and the children of the upper-middle classes in particular at the universities.

                      The mainstreaming of Current Year politics took place specifically because the radical left Boomer professors for the New Left created more radical left Gen-X professors, who created more radical left Millennials, and who've gone on to radicalize the Zoomers even further.

                      This wasn't hidden. They were quite open about what they were promoting, especially Marcuse and Freire, as well as their acolytes in academia later on. That's how you get Disney bringing in a bunch of Tumbler and Reddit "influencers" to push the older animators and staff members out of the company.

                      That’s not true, I don’t believe that. People absolutely do take cultural cues from their surroundings. But it’s not part of some organized ‘long march’.

                      Which ignores the fact that this did happen in the universities, and it did happen in the mass media, and it did happen in the schools, and it's currently happening in corporations with DEI programs.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      What the hell is "Current Year politics"? I have not heard that term before.

        2. DesigNate   1 year ago

          Why do people give me shit for being a leftist? Jeff asked aloud as he accused another commenter of wanting the death of America because he thinks leftist who adhere to communist/marxist ideology are bad.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Not what I said. RRWP referred to the US as "neo-Maoist Union of Soviet Socialist Americas". Do you think that is a fair assessment?

            1. DesigNate   1 year ago

              “Not surprising at all that you wish for the death of America.”

              How else would someone interpret that?

              To answer your question; I don’t think it’s quite that bad, just as no one is living the Handmaid’s Tale here either.

              But shits not looking good.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                How else would someone interpret that?

                That he thinks America is irredeemibly Marxist and he wants it to end.

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

                  LOL, no, I want your lefty boos to end just like the Eastern European communists. America will get along just fine without them.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    So you actually think Joe Biden and Democrats are no different than Stalin and Soviet communists?

                    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      Do you think Stalin and the Soviets were the only commies in the entirety of Eastern Europe? Look up the leaders in 1989 sometime--oh wait, that's right, you know about those, this is just you playing dumb again when your dialectic is called out.

    2. damikesc   1 year ago

      ALL of the USA?

      No.

      NYC?

      Yes.

    3. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      Compare and contrast the number of countries bombed and civilians killed by those two regimes over the last 20 years.

    4. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

      ""Do you all *really* believe that the US is *literally* no different than the authoritarian Putin regime? Really? No difference at all?""

      Depends on who you talk to.

      Trump is nothing like Hitler either. But it depends on who you talk to.

      The opposition wants people to believe Trump will be the end of democracy, he is Hitler, he is Putin, he is anything and everything bad. He is guilty of everything and any judge who would say differently should be removed from the bench. When the prosecutor outranks the judge, democracy is ending.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Thats not fair. Both Herr sarc and Herr Jeff have pushed the Trump is hitler narrative. They would never be hypocrites like that.

    5. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      Absolutism is a fallacy.

      Of course there are differences. And yet, some of the similarities are increasingly disturbing.

    6. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

      Do you all *really* believe that the US is *literally* no different than the authoritarian Putin regime? Really? No difference at all?

      Sorry, still not supporting 100Billion for Urkraine, glowie.

      1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

        How do all of you post text in italics? I've tried the normal CTR+I but it doesn't work.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago (edited)

          [i] and [/i], but replace [ with the left carrot (shift+,) and ] with the right carrot (shift+.). It’s all based in HTML.

          You can also use “b” for bold and “blockquote” for a blockquote.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago (edited)

            testing

          2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            Thank you.

        2. ducksalad   1 year ago

          The old-fashioned HTML tags work (can't type it literally or this will turn into italics).

          To start italics:
          less than sign i greater than sign
          To end italics:
          less than sign slash i greater than sign

  35. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

    Navalny returned to Russia in 2021 with full awareness that he would be locked up but a devout belief that he ought to continue his work domestically, displaying courage in the face of certain persecution.

    Oh, please. He went back to Russia because he believed his CIA/MI6 handlers that they were planning some color revolution gayops that would take Putin down and put him in charge. Putin's spy network then got wind of Victoria Nuland and the State Department's plans to support a Ukrainian military action to take back the Crimea (because they DESPERATELY want that Black Sea port for strategic purposes, which was the main reason they were so pissed about Putin taking the peninsula to begin with), and pre-empted it with his own invasion to take back the Donbas.

    BoJo then came charging in, telling Zelensky, "Don't worry, we'll give you a blank check, just hold out and bleed the Russians white," and here we are, with the spring offensive a complete bust, Russia slowly gaining ground again, Zelensky sacking the one competent military commander he had in favor of a largely useless uniformed politician favored by the Nulandites (because Zelensky isn't running this war, the State Department is), and the gayops effectively neutered with Putin taking his rival out.

    These dumbfucks still haven't figured out that Putin (and Xi, for that matter) can afford to not play by the rules that took out the Warsaw Pact, the USSR, Botha, Milosevic, various Arab world leaders, Trump, etc., because these guys have been running the same playbook for well over 30 years now. Russia and China are not isolated, they've spent the 21st century building up alliances outside the Atlantic Council, and can afford to laugh off whatever sanctions or diplomatic pressures the west can bring to bear.

    Furthermore, the west is additionally crippled by its indulgence of deviants and subversives who spend most of their time as activists for promoting oikophobia and unending self-criticism against western history and its cultural and legal traditions. So it's hampered by this schizo attitude where it fruitlessly appeals to patriotism because they think doing so will get the white conservatives to act as their meat shield, while simultaneously belittling and suppressing those same people for not being full-blown marxist revolutionaries.

    We're legitimately at a point where these people need to get their shit pushed in, hard, in order to show them that their historic determinism is a fake belief that has no applicability to real life.

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

      I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      I see now that the Atlantic Council is flattering Navalny's wife as the new "resistance" figurehead to take Navalny's place, the same way that idiot Jean Carnahan was installed as Senator as a proxy for Mel when he died.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        Just when you thought the West had cast off The Patriarchy, traditional marriage, and hereditary succession no less!

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Nice rant Red.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Agreed. Too bad sarc and Jeff won't read it.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Oh I read it. It is RRWP yet again rooting against his own country.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            Why should I root for the victory of lefty Americans any more than the west Germans rooted for the east Germans?

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Yeah I know, people who disagree with you are traitors.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                Yeah, I know, you get buttblasted when your lefty boos get criticized.

        2. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Maybe I should have said understand it.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            They'll never understand it as they support the Dem/GOPe/neocon side and don't want to understand it nor see anything outside their worldview.

    4. R Mac   1 year ago

      Well said.

  36. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

    In dregs of the internet news, have had quite a few far left socialist/communist-sphere folks getting found out for having CP or straight up grooming kids.

    Strange coincidence that the collectivist left wingers that show up here also go to bat for things like CP, transitioning kids, and have a hard time denouncing pedophilia.

    I think the left is having a hard time keeping its agenda regarding children in the "its not happening" phase

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      Who here "goes to bat" for child porn or transitioning kids?
      The only person around here that I know of, who actually "went to bat" for child porn, is Vernon who thinks that child porn should be legal to disseminate.

      have had quite a few far left socialist/communist-sphere folks getting found out for having CP or straight up grooming kids.

      Understandable that you would have this impression if you only get your news from LibsofTikTok.

      1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

        Ya I know its crazy, when libsoftiktok posts videos of weirdos saying "we should allow and help children transition" that I take them at face value .

        Should I assume the videos she is posting are AI or the people in them are lying about what they say they want?

        Did you think this through?

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          No, the fat fuck legitimately believes that reposted videos of leftists being honest about their actions and ideologies shouldn't be taken at face value, but the claims of their mass media organs and random gurus certainly should.

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          I think you should assume that the videos from LibsofTikTok are deliberately selected to provoke a reaction. That they are chosen deliberately with selection bias in mind.

          1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago (edited)

            You just said that I have the (implied) false impression that lefties are out there doing this stuff because I watch libsoftiktok and then immediately shifted to “well its there to provoke a response”. So you admit it is absolutely happening, but now its off limits because she wants it to cause a stir?

            Dude, who does this argumentation work against? You cant score a single point on any topic or maintain a logically consistent point or make an analogy that tracks.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              It is not that some lefties are behaving badly. It is that the misbehaving ones are disproportionately represented on LibsofTikTok. So if she is a main source of information on this, you would be left with the impression that lefties are behaving way worse than they really are. She does this because she deliberately wants to create this false impression. She WANTS people to believe that lefties are worse than they really are. Because she is pushing a narrative.

              It is the same thing that your team does when you all highlight news stories of immigrants behaving badly. You emphasize and trumpet those because you WANT people to believe that immigrants are worse than they really are. Because your team is pushing a similar narrative.

              It is dishonest but that is the standard now for your team.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                It is not that some lefties are behaving badly. It is that the misbehaving ones are disproportionately represented on LibsofTikTok.

                So what? Providing niche web content has been part of the internet ever since it was let into the wild.

                Feel free to start your own ConsofTikTok Twatter channel if it assblasts you that much. There's literally nothing stopping you from reposting videos that people put up on social media for updoots.

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

                  In all seriousness, Jeffy sincerely believes that every new discussion should start with a clean slate and that one's personal posting history is irrelevant to the current discussion. He has flat out declared this on multiple occasions. Why does he hate LibsofTikTok? Because it makes it impossible for liberals to claim their critics are engaging in the "slippery slope" fallacy when it can be demonstrated that their argument leads straight of the fucking cliff.

                  He hates JesseAZ and yourself and others for the same reason. You point out the strawmen and where the goalposts used to be.
                  You provide spoilers when he engages in his favored motte and bailey argumentation style. Most of his arguments are not even worthy of consideration to anyone aware of all the socialist and Marxist dogma he has defended in the past.

                  The problem is that we keep responding to him. The only thing I can figure is he comes here to be punished.

                  1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                    In all seriousness, Jeffy sincerely believes that every new discussion should start with a clean slate and that one’s personal posting history is irrelevant to the current discussion. He has flat out declared this on multiple occasions.

                    That would certainly explain why he's playing dumb on what "Current Year" politics means, even though it's been a meme for nearly a decade now, and been used in the comment sections here by myself and others on multiple occasions.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      It is not playing dumb. I don't know what the phrase "Current Year Politics" is supposed to mean. In case you hadn't noticed, I don't hang out in places where memes are common and I don't read every single comment either. So, what does it mean?

                    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      Look up Current Year Meme, you fat lazy fuck.

                2. R Mac   1 year ago

                  Lying Jeffy frequently does the exact same thing here in these comments, posting links to stories of conservatives. And turd does it several times every day and he’s never complained. He’s only complaining that it’s leftists looking bad.

                  But don’t call him a leftist!

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    Oh I will post stories of conservative politicians who propose some terrible idea, or some conservative guy who broke the law or something. Show me one instance of where I have made an example of some random conservative guy who didn't do anything wrong, just to try to paint all conservatives as horrible people. I don't do that. That is what LibsofTikTok does. She takes ordinary left-wing people who aren't doing anything wrong and she distorts their views and warps them into a narrative that lies by omission.

                    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      She takes ordinary left-wing people who aren’t doing anything wrong and she distorts their views and warps them into a narrative that lies by omission.

                      Reposting their mentally ill screeching in their own videos is "distorting their views"?

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      She takes them out of context and she aggregates them in a way to make them look far more common than they really are.

                    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      According to troons, literally just quoting the vile shit they say is genocide.

                      If they don't want the dumb shit they say getting quoted, unaltered, then maybe don't say it.

              2. Dillinger   1 year ago

                there is zero disproportionate representation of child abusers.

              3. Uilleam   1 year ago

                All of this perverted crap is part of the [D] platform you fat pedo.

          2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            They aren't any different from what Jay Leno did on "Jaywalking" or that shitlib Jordan Klepper does on his content. You're just irritated because it makes your lefty boos look bad.

        3. JesseAz   1 year ago

          I could post studies showing pedophilia is more common for trans groups by a factor of 11 to 1. Jeff would ignore that too.

      2. damikesc   1 year ago

        Well, your pal pedo is certainly on board that kiddie porn train.

      3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        Understandable that you would try to misdirect from leftist pedophiles being caught.

        1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

          it took him 5 minutes to show up for that Bat signal

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Your team is oppressing people and as a libertarian I object to that strongly.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              If exposing pedos and radical leftists by posting their own words they put on the internet is oppression, then it certainly makes sense as to why those people believe they should be able to do what they want with impunity.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                The oppression is when your team passes laws taking away parental rights to seek appropriate medical care for their children because you don't like it. The oppression is when your team passes laws taking away the rights of drag queens to act peacefully in public because your team doesn't like drag queens. That is the oppression, and it is oppression that you fully support.

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                  The oppression is when your team passes laws taking away parental rights to seek appropriate medical care for their children because you don’t like it.

                  Convincing kids that they are "born in the wrong body" and that they need radical surgery, hormone injections, and lifelong medical treatment to correct that supposed metaphysical mistake is hardly "appropriate medical care," and it's telling that your side indulges in such glittering generalities to deflect from that.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    Where did you go to medical school again?

                    Thank you for admitting that you approve of the oppression.

                    1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

                      This is the classic far left move of appeal to authority to refute a claim that water is wet, the sky is blue, or you shouldnt strap dynamite to yourself and light the fuse

                      "Are you an expert in explosives or something?!"

                    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      Yeah, that appeal to authority is exactly what I expected.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      What gives YOU the right to decide what is "appropriate medical care" for someone else?

                      This is from the same people who think the state has a mandate to "protect kids". No, that is the parents' job.

                      Ironically you are doing the exact same thing Team Blue does when they try to justify every welfare program under the sun "for the sake of the children". THEY TOO think the state has a mandate to "protect kids", by showering goodies on them.

                      When the state thinks it has a mandate to "protect kids", guess what, the rights of parents are violated and the state becomes the parent. I thought you all didn't approve of communism.

                    4. Nobartium   1 year ago

                      What gives YOU the right to decide what is “appropriate medical care” for someone else?

                      The 10th amendment?

                    5. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      What gives YOU the right to decide what is “appropriate medical care” for someone else?

                      What gives YOU the right to brainwash kids into believing they're "born in the wrong body" and undergoing radical surgeries and medical procedures they don't actually need?

                      Do you get this buttblasted about de-transitioners who come to their senses and realize they fucked themselves up physically due to mental distress and bad actors influencing them?

                      When the state thinks it has a mandate to “protect kids”, guess what, the rights of parents are violated and the state becomes the parent. I thought you all didn’t approve of communism.

                      Uh, the state doesn't have a mandate to protect kids from, say, being sexually molested? Way to tell on yourself again with that glittering generality, fat boy.

                      It's telling that you think encouraging kids to not hate the body they were born with, and that they need to be convinced that self-mortification and radical body alterations is the only way to feel better, is actually oppressive. Is it because you're a fat piece of shit, and think anyone who hates themselves the way you do every time you look at your flabby gut and man tits in the mirror, should be encouraged to believe that nature dealt them a raw hand, so they should get irreversible surgeries and give themselves osteoporosis in their 20s to fix that?

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      What gives YOU the right to brainwash kids

                      What you call "brainwashing" is, in reality, how other parents choose to raise their kids. Telling that you think that raising kids in a manner that you disapprove of constitutes "brainwashing".

                      they don’t actually need?

                      again, where did you go to medical school?

                      de-transitioners

                      People are permitted to change their minds as well. I have no problem with anyone changing their mind and choosing a different treatment.

                      Uh, the state doesn’t have a mandate to protect kids from, say, being sexually molested?

                      The state has a mandate to punish those who violate rights, not to 'protect kids' per se. That is the parents' job. And sexual molestation of a child is clearly a violation of the kids' rights. The distinction is important, because to put a mandate on the state to 'protect kids' implies that the state is justified in violating the rights of others in order to protect the kids. It is no different than affirming a positive right in any other sphere.

                      It’s telling that you think encouraging kids to not hate the body they were born with, and that they need to be convinced that self-mortification and radical body alterations is the only way to feel better, is actually oppressive.

                      How dishonest. Your team doesn't stop with mere *encouragement*. They use government force to mandate that parents do not choose the option that you disapprove of. If all your team did was 'encourage' I wouldn't have a problem. (Well, not much of one.)

                    7. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      The distinction is important, because to put a mandate on the state to ‘protect kids’ implies that the state is justified in violating the rights of others in order to protect the kids.

                      You clearly don't have kids and you fail again and again to comprehend that kids are a different class of citizen. There is a special duty to protect kids because kids cannot protect themselves. This is not a fringe case. It is the essence of human biology that 25% of the population exists in an immature physical and mental state. It absolutely requires special consideration when contemplating natural rights.

                      You started down this fallacious trail yesterday and are bringing it back to test it again. After you completely contradicted yourself.

                      Don’t you think that it would be great if people who are genuinely being oppressed by their national governments could have some place to turn for redress?

                      If you sincerely believe that our nation should interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation on behalf of people who are not even our citizens, then how can you possibly argue against the government interfering to protect our own children from oppression?

                      You want to oppress someone? Create an environment that requires them to question their most basic traits. Feed them the belief that the events of their birth might be a mistake. Make them dependent on a lifetime of medical intervention to maintain their health. Jack Chalker wrote a whole series of sci-fi books that identified this as the best way to oppress humans on a planetary scale. I never even contemplated it could happen on this planet.

                    8. R Mac   1 year ago

                      I’m not a sex therapist, yet I know it’s wrong to fuck kids.

                      Pretty fucked up you don’t.

                    9. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      What you call “brainwashing” is, in reality, how other parents choose to raise their kids.

                      So you're admitting that they're convincing kids to hate their bodies?

                      again, where did you go to medical school?

                      Another appeal to authority? Should I take that argument as gospel if they fuck up a medical procedure--like, for example, the 250K that die every year from medical errors?

                      People are permitted to change their minds as well. I have no problem with anyone changing their mind and choosing a different treatment.

                      Nice motte and bailey. Are you like that idiot doctor who claimed just going off of puberty blockers and hormones was like flipping a light switch? Or inferring that there's no long-term consequences to undergoing these surgical procedures or taking these meds, and then "changing their mind" later on? Because that's not how it actually works.

                      And by stating that they're "changing their mind," you're actually admitting that this trans shit is actually all in their head.

                    10. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Fine, then I don't want to hear any of you complain about "positive rights" vs. "negative rights". You all are completely in favor of the state establishing positive rights in order to "protect the kids". That means, necessarily, that the state must violate the negative rights of everyone else in order to fulfill those positive rights. The state must violate the rights of drag queens to appear in costume in public in order to satisfy the positive rights of "protecting kids", even if the parents don't want the protection and there is no violation of the NAP. The state must violate the rights of parents by preventing them from seeking legitimate medical care for their children even if all parties completely consent to that medical care knowing all of the risks involved. Where does it end? Of course Team Blue will be happy to use that same argument against your team when it comes to, say, guns. Why shouldn't the state take away the rights of gun owners in order to "protect the kids"? Hmm? What is your principled argument against this? You don't have one, you have ceded the field to them. Maybe the state should ban 'hate speech' in order to 'protect the kids'. What if those precious children hear those naughty words? Isn't it worth it to violate everyone's First Amendment rights in order to 'protect the kids'? Your position is a slippery slope to a nanny-state authoritarian hell.

                    11. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      There is a special duty to protect kids because kids cannot protect themselves.

                      That is the PARENTS' duty. Not the state's duty. The state should ONLY get involved when there is absolutely clear evidence that the parents have failed in this duty. That would be in cases like physical abuse, or neglect, or sexual crimes. Not for legitimate medical procedures.

                      You are just Hillary Clinton with a dick, with her 'it takes a village' nonsense. Except for you, it is not 'it takes a village to raise a child', instead it is 'it takes an authoritarian state to punish those who don't raise kids in the manner that the state deems correct'.

                    12. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      If you sincerely believe that our nation should interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation on behalf of people who are not even our citizens,

                      I don't. That is why I advocate for a global government organized along libertarian and federalist lines.

                      then how can you possibly argue against the government interfering to protect our own children from oppression?

                      If the parents fail in their duty to protect their kids, then and only then should the state get involved. That purported failure however must be clear and convincing and overwhelming.

                      You want to oppress someone? Create an environment that requires them to question their most basic traits. Feed them the belief that the events of their birth might be a mistake. Make them dependent on a lifetime of medical intervention to maintain their health. Jack Chalker wrote a whole series of sci-fi books that identified this as the best way to oppress humans on a planetary scale. I never even contemplated it could happen on this planet.

                      And here we have it - wrongthink is 'oppression' that must be suppressed by the state. Well done.

                    13. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      And here we have it – wrongthink is ‘oppression’ that must be suppressed by the state. Well done.

                      You are by far the most disingenuous cunt in the comments.

                      I describe textbook examples on how to deconstruct a child's ego and you call me out for accusations of wrongthink. You read Orwell as an instruction manual instead of a warning. I can't remember a single time you have ever honestly engaged is discourse.

                      You are a child groomer, Jeffy. I guarantee you will die like you have lived. Alone and afraid.

                    14. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                      Mike Parsons 6 hours ago
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      This is the classic far left move of appeal to authority to refute a claim that water is wet, the sky is blue, or you shouldnt strap dynamite to yourself and light the fuse

                      “Are you an expert in explosives or something?!”

                      As a former combat engineer in the Army, I'm somewhat of an expert in explosives, and I do recommend Chemjeff "straps dynamite to [himself] and lights the fuse."

                      /joking -- I'm not actually telling Chemjeff to kill himself.

                    15. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Yes Chucky, we know. The speech that YOU don't like isn't 'wrongthink', it is just common-sense wrong and should be banned. I am quite certain that all the people on the left who want to ban 'hate speech' feel exactly the same way.

                    16. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      Fine, then I don’t want to hear any of you complain about “positive rights” vs. “negative rights”. You all are completely in favor of the state establishing positive rights in order to “protect the kids”.

                      Look, just because you think it's okay for a doctor to carve off a five-year-old's genitals as long as the parents say it's okay, doesn't make it defensible.

                    17. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Do you agree that the state should create positive rights for children to 'protect them'?

                    18. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Look, just because you think it’s okay for a doctor to carve off a five-year-old’s genitals as long as the parents say it’s okay, doesn’t make it defensible.

                      That has never been my position. I have never argued whether any particular procedure is "okay" or not. Again it is the difference between the right to get stoned, and the act of getting stoned every night. Supporting a right to do something is not the same as moral approval of every instance of that thing. And five years old is absurd. No one has even contemplated surgery on a five-year-old. And you continue to imply that these sorts of decisions are made on a whim or on a purely elective basis when they are done to treat a real medical condition that real people are suffering from.

                    19. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      That has never been my position. I have never argued whether any particular procedure is “okay” or not.

                      Here's the motte and bailey again.

                      You argued that whatever medical procedure the parents wanted, it should be up to them. Now you're retreating back to a more defensible position when the fallacy of your argument was easily hacked.

                2. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

                  "The oppression is when your team passes laws taking away parental rights to seek appropriate medical care for their children "

                  "appropriate medical care" is on Orwellian newspeak level.

                  Its castration and completely fucking the childrens physiology and mental state.

                  Its abuse and/or munchhausens by proxy. Stop pushing the false premise that it is medical care, it objectively is not

                  1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    I mean I literally just posted the new study yesterday showing suicide rates dont go down with surgery and pills, only with mental help for underlying issues. Yet here jeff is yet again with the same false talking points.

                  2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    It is appropriate medical care for *some*.

                    Just wait, the same power that you want to give to the state to meddle in parenting decisions "for the sake of the children" will be used against you, probably in the form of gun restrictions. "Oh, you can't have so many guns in the house, what happens if the kids get a hold of them? You have to turn them in, 'for the sake of the children'".

                    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      Just wait, the same power that you want to give to the state to meddle in parenting decisions “for the sake of the children” will be used against you, probably in the form of gun restrictions.

                      Way to make the argument that any state using that to enact gun restrictions should be burned to the ground.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Yeah I think we all know you aren't exactly one who relies on logical and consistent arguments. Just will to power. Who cares if your arguments could be used against you by the opposition. That assumes the opposition will ever have power in the future!

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

                      “Oh, you can’t have so many guns in the house, what happens if the kids get a hold of them?

                      Dude, you are fucking dumb. Everybody gets this. It is the position of the pro-gun lobby that guns be kept safe and kids in homes with guns be taught gun safety.

                    4. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      Yeah I think we all know you aren’t exactly one who relies on logical and consistent arguments. Just will to power!

                      Do unto others before they do what they say they'll do to you.

                    5. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

                      "Yeah I think we all know you aren’t exactly one who relies on logical and consistent arguments. "

                      You have taken a hard L on every attempt to make a logically consistent point in the last two days (as well as every other time you come here). You take a HARD L, are shown to be completely wrong, and obfuscate, move goal posts, or slay unrelated strawmen.

                      Everyone knows you are an intellectual lightweight here to push left wing politics through very transparent and amateur sophistry. Please dont play the "im on the side of facts and logic" card, you dropped that the last time you tripped on your dick and face planted.

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      whatever, gaslighting moron

                      you are the one in favor of nanny-state authoritarianism, and will have nowhere to cry and run once that nanny-state authoritarianism is turned on you to violate your rights.

                      In fact, it's already here:

                      https://marchforourlives.org/

                      Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and young people in America. We refuse to accept that. Donate today and help fuel our fight.

                      This entire campaign is about using children to take away gun rights. What is your principled argument against this? "Second Amendment" is not a principled argument, it is an appeal to authority. "Because we have the guns" is an appeal to force. You and they are ON THE SAME TEAM when it comes to the state establishing a positive right to 'protect kids'. You only differ in the details on whose rights to violate in order to do that.

                    7. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                      This entire campaign is about using children to take away gun rights. What is your principled argument against this? “Second Amendment” is not a principled argument, it is an appeal to authority. “Because we have the guns” is an appeal to force. You and they are ON THE SAME TEAM when it comes to the state establishing a positive right to ‘protect kids’. You only differ in the details on whose rights to violate in order to do that.

                      Fallacy. Fallacy. Fallacy.

                      Second Amendment is a principled argument because we can easily reference the principled arguments given in favor of the amendment before its adoption and the court rulings since.

                      Because we have the guns? Nobody is saying that.

                      You and they are ON THE SAME TEAM? Go fuck yourself. Advocating for child gun safety goes back to the original platform of every gun lobby. It is idiotic to think outlawing guns will get rid of guns or that children will not be killed by other means. 2 guys with a panel truck in Nice killed more people that the largest mass shooting ever.

                      As always, you refuse to engage with my actual argument that kids are a different class of citizens that require special consideration. Despite all the SCOTUS rulings that describe exactly that.

                    8. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      It's not a fallacy. You just don't like the implications of your own argument. You truly are Hillary Clinton with a dick.

                      Second Amendment is a principled argument because we can easily reference the principled arguments given in favor of the amendment before its adoption and the court rulings since.

                      Not even the post-Heller jurisprudence states that the right to own guns is unlimited. It wouldn't take all that much to create a "but for the children" exception.

                      Advocating for child gun safety goes back to the original platform of every gun lobby.

                      ADVOCATING for gun safety is fine and terrific. MANDATING it is something else entirely. Same deal for gender affirming care. I have absolutely no issues with you and your team advocating against the practice. Go protest to your heart's content. You cross the line when your advocacy turns into MANDATES, justified "for the sake of the children".

                3. DesigNate   1 year ago

                  “ Who here “goes to bat” for child porn or transitioning kids?”

                  Do you know what you just did?

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    one more time: supporting the right to do something is not the same as supporting the thing itself. I support the right to smoke pot, I do not support getting stoned every day.

                    1. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      If I say that people should be able to smoke pot and even get high everyday, that is what is colloquially known as “going to bat” for them.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      I disagree. I'm not defending the people who get stoned every day. I'm defending the right of people to smoke pot if they choose.

            2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              You're about as libertarian as Karl Marx.

          2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            I'd have called it the "batshit signal" myself. There are few here as batshit crazy as Jeffy.

      4. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

        "Who here “goes to bat” for child porn..."

        Sarah Palin's Buttplug (1)

        "...or transitioning kids?"

        You, Tony, Mollygodiva

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          I have only said that parents should have the right to seek necessary medical care for their children, not that I approved of every parental decision in that regard.

          You understand this, right? That supporting the right for an adult to smoke pot is not the same as advocating that everyone ought to get stoned?

          1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

            It is necessary medical care like lobotomies used to be necessary medical care.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Did you know that lobotomies are still legal? Perhaps it is appropriate medical care for *some*.

              1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

                So say for fun, if a child asks for and is certain they absolutely *need* a lobotomy to live their true life or they will kill themselves, should the parent help them do it? Because that would be a clear case of negligence and child abuse

                You are digging deeper holes here friendo. Thanks for, once again, reinforcing your position on the losing end of this debate

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  If a child asks for and is certain that child absolutely *needs* a lobotomy *because the child is diagnosed with a verifiable medical condition, and the lobotomy is intended to treat this medical condition*, and the parents consider this request and consult appropriate medical professionals who gives them what they believe to be reliable advice, and the parents and child are all fully informed of all of the potential benefits and risks involved, then WHATEVER the parents choose to decide, why should the state get involved - UNLESS the parents choose neglect?

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  Once again this entire issue is framed dishonestly from your team. Your team refuses to acknowledge the validity of the underlying medical condition - be it gender dysphoria or something else - and are simply assuming that the child and everyone involved are healthy people who make irrational decisions to get their genitals mutilated.

                  IF that were the case, then I would agree with you, there is no liberty for parents to consent for their children to undergo that type of procedure, because that would be physical abuse and violating the rights of the child.

                  But that is NOT the case - there is a real, verifiable, diagnosable disease state known as gender dysphoria. You refuse to acknowledge this because your politics demands that you do not acknowledge it.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    You want to be able to fuck kids.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      lol, you don't even try to conceal your trolling

                  2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                    For the sake of argument, let's say you're right and that gender dysphoria is a true medical condition and people who suffer it really were born in the wrong body. Why not require that the child wait until he is an adult and more capable of contemplating the ramifications of transitioning?

                    One of the reasons for transitioning the child before puberty is because doing so after would mean there are more clear physical indications that that male would still look more male after the transition. It's important to transition before puberty so they can pass more as a woman later in life? The numerous risks and downsides of transitioning a child (at least the so called male to female transitions) is worth it for appearance sake or cosmetic reasons?

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Why not require that the child wait until he is an adult and more capable of contemplating the ramifications of transitioning?

                      I think it depends on the severity of the condition. Who am I to be making diagnoses of other people or telling people who are suffering that they must wait for their suffering to be alleviated?

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      The numerous risks and downsides of transitioning a child (at least the so called male to female transitions) is worth it for appearance sake or cosmetic reasons?

                      As I understand it, the incongruence between mind and body can be so severe as to cause real psychological harm. If you are utterly convinced that you are a woman trapped in a man's body, then going through male puberty can be very traumatic. And again I am not arguing that gender affirming care is the only possible solution. But it is not that difficult to imagine people for whom it can be *a* possible option provided they are fully informed of all the risks involved.

              2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                Sigh. Twenty years ago, there was not a liberal/progressive in the country that would ever attempt to justify a clitorectomy requested by a child to honor her religion and approved by her parents as "appropriate medical care". Today, that same group is not just defending, but advocating for mastectomies, chemical castration and vaginoplasty to relieve anxiety.

                Let me repeat that. Gender dysphoria is a form of neurosis. It is never life-threatening. Anyone that claims it is life-threatening is lying.

          2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

            Should parents have the right to deny a child such procedures?

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Sure, as long as it does not constitute neglect.

              1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                If it's a legitimate treatment for a real medical condition, as you claim, wouldn't you say that it's neglect not to transition the kid? The parents are not following doctors' instructions and giving the treatment to the kid, in this situation.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  It is *A* legitimate treatment, not *THE ONLY* legitimate treatment. I think it would be neglect to do nothing at all, but I do not and have never supported mandatory transitioning.

              2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                Have to be 18 to get a tattoo, but states want to let 13-year-olds transition against their parent's wishes...

                ----------

                In the United States there is no federal law regulating the practice of tattooing.[1] However, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutory laws requiring a person receiving a tattoo be at least 18 years old. This is partially based on the legal principle that a minor cannot enter into a legal contract or otherwise render informed consent for a procedure. Most states permit a person under the age of 18 to receive a tattoo with permission of a parent or guardian, but some states prohibit tattooing under a certain age regardless of permission, with the exception of medical necessity (such as markings placed for radiation therapy).

                ---------

                Washington state now appears to allow minors to undergo life-changing gender reassignment surgery without parental consent.

                Under a new law, health insurers must cover “gender-affirming” care, including surgical treatments that were previously denied coverage. Democrats rejected a proposal to apply the new law to patients over 18 years old.

                It’s one in a series of new laws that, taken together, allow children as young as 13 years old to make serious health care decisions. The consequences are immense.

                -----------

                In Oregon, teens can take hormones without parental consent starting at age 15.

                -------

                At least there's some limits...

                "ECU Health does not provide gender-related care to patients 2 to 4 years old or any toddler period,” ECU said.

        2. mad.casual   1 year ago

          In a "Without God, there would be no atheists." fashion, there have been *way* too many discussions about whether it's OK, in the context of sexual maturity, for kindergartners to read/watch Snow White without *at least* 3 people going to bat for CP.

        3. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

          And don't forget Jeffy demanding illegal migrants who raped kids while being processed be released into the US unsupervised.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Umm what? this is nonsense

    2. Moonrocks   1 year ago

      quite a few far left socialist/communist-sphere folks getting found out for having CP or straight up grooming kids

      I am shocked, shocked!, that Cuties connoisseurs would have such proclivities.

  37. Sevo   1 year ago

    Never held any real position regarding vote-miscounting in GA until running onto this, yesterday:

    "Takeaways from Fani Willis / Nathan Wade Disqualification Hearing - Viva & Barnes Highlight!"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b9RSQf8x_s&t=440s

    The whole thing is interesting, but start at 8:16 for info on the handling of the GA voting and 13:10 is FUNNY.

  38. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   1 year ago

    There are certain similarities between Vladimir Putin's treatment of Alexei Navalny and Joe Biden's treatment of Donald Trump. Of course it is not exactly the same, but in all fairness it is not possible for it to be exactly the same.

    Both were charged with numerous crimes that require twisting the laws in new ways that even a avowed anti-trumper if being honest must admit that it is partisan. Even the New York Governor effectively admitted that it was partisan by saying that the case was one of a kind be cause Trump was such a bad person and other people should not worry.

    To me, being a person who despises the "Orange Man", this is a partisan attack. Couple this with all of the other court cases and the double standard that excuses "Senile Old Man" and Hillary Clinton, but Trump is a dire threat to our "Democracy" and needs to be charged and found guilty by any means necessary.

    Such as removing Trump from the ballot for a crime that he has never been indicted or found guilty of. The Democrats are saving our "Democracy" by destroying the our democracy. I have no love of Republican party or the MAGA movement, but at the moment the Democrat party poses much more of a threat to our "Democracy" than Trump does.

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

      ""Such as removing Trump from the ballot for a crime that he has never been indicted or found guilty of"'

      Due process is not for my political enemies.
      This is the way of the fascist.

  39. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

    But he's a far cry from Navalny—Trump enjoys self-dealing more than fact-finding and truth-telling—and the way this went down, via the court system, where Trump had the right to defend himself, is a far cry from how "justice" gets dispensed in Russia—by Putin, in penal colonies, via murders of anyone whose beliefs threaten the man in charge.

    Okay, the degree is different. Trump is being grabbed by black coats and shoved into the back of a van. However, this is still happening because it's of political interest against the party in control in New York.

    Trump did NOT have a reasonable chance to defend himself. This case is a violation of the 7th Amendment because he was denied a jury trial. Beyond that, he wasn't allowed to offer a proper defense because the judge gave a summary judgment before the trial. The "defense" you saw was all on damages and extent, not on the factual manner. Because a judge who has exclusively donated to Democrats in his lengthy public career denied Trump many of the possible defenses he might have offered, and pretended there were no facts in dispute when there were facts in dispute.

    And in the end, the loan was a negotiation. Trump's financial statements were only part, and they weren't the final agreed-upon sum. Deutsche Bank has said they'd have given him the same loan at the same interest rate regardless. And here's the kicker-if they hadn't offered him that loan with that interest rate, HE MIGHT NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT LOAN. He might have tried to secure a loan from a different lender.

    So the damages this asshole judge calculated are based on an assumption that he took out an unsecured loan at a much more severe rate of interest. He calls this a disgorgement when it's purely punitive. Beyond that, this is supposed to be a civil suit, and yet the judge is able to levy criminal penalties by barring Trump from working in business in New York for 3 years. That's a deprivation of rights which goes beyond a civil judgment, which means Trump has been denied his 7th Amendment rights.

    Maybe Trump shouldn't be comparing himself to people in much worse circumstances, but nobody of conscience should excuse this weaponization of courts to achieve political ends by saying, "Hey, it's not as bad as what Russia is doing." You're putting entirely too much faith in the integrity of the system when it's being demonstrated the system doesn't protect disfavored political opponents. Trump is on the hook for over half a billion in ridiculously inflated judgments when you include the E. Jean Carrol suit, and it's not because he's just that bad. It's because he sat in the Oval Office for the wrong team.

    There's hatred and political animus simply for his politics. Letitia James, when running for AG, called him an "illegitimate president." She hated him for being elected, not because she was convinced he was doing something to defraud banks or engaging in highly debatable election finance malfeasance.

    And if you see that this is driven by a severe amount of political animus, can't you at least imagine there's some lesser degrees of political animus pushing forward the other two criminal cases? That should be more than a little concerning. It's certainly nothing to write off with the simple, "He's not Navalny." That's an incomplete analysis.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      Trump did NOT have a reasonable chance to defend himself.

      Why do you think it was unreasonable?

      1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

        ...Did you read my whole comment? I extrapolated and explained. Do you want me to clarify something?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Oh, I see.
          first: the 7th Amendment has not been incorporated to the states
          second: the judge's summary judgment occurred after two years of litigation. It wasn't just decided upon on the spot.

          1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

            It's both a Seventh and Eighth Amendment issue, actually. An excessive fine relative to the offense, and an excessive requirement for him to file his appeal. Beyond that, it's problematic that the Bill of Rights hasn't yet been incorporated by states, and perhaps this is a case to make for the incorporation.

            Additionally, your second point is either mis-stated or just plain wrong. The complaint was filed in September, 2022. The Judge's ruling of a default judgment was in September 2023, so it was about a year. The investigation itself did begin much earlier, in January 2022, with subpoenas going back and forth as she started her investigation.

            And it wasn't an actual hearing or anything that lasted a year, where there were weeks and weeks of evidence. Trump filed a motion for summary judgment in order to get the case dismissed, and James filed a response asking for a judgment of guilt. There were a very limited number of filings. Trump wasn't allowed to offer a defense that his financial statements included a disclaimer saying, "Not everything contained within is guaranteed accurate, do your own due diligence." Which the banks did, and the loan was negotiated using essentially a lower valuation of Trump's properties than were represented.

            There's also a lot of problems with the judge. Given that he was the sole fact-finder and also the presiding official, if he was biased, there's enormous problems. He had a clerk sitting next to him who helped campaign for Letitia James, one of the parties of the suit, which is a source of potential bias. He attempted to silence even Trump's lawyers for trying to make a record of this source of perceived bias. He also was quietly promoting himself with out of court communications during the trial, which is probably improper. The general tenor of his rulings raises questions of his objectivity and whether he wanted to come down against Trump.

            And when you add it all up and look at the end result, where there's a massive fine for what is a factual disagreement over property valuations, which are inherently subjective, the whole thing does not come off as a genuine pursuit of justice. An Attorney General ran on the promise that she would go after the "Illegitimate President" Trump back in 2018, since she believed in the Russian conspiracy. So she found an avenue to attack and pursued it because the interest is in hurting a political opponent and not in correcting harms done. That isn't a process that convinces me in the justness of the proceedings.

            1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

              I should clarify, also, that a summary judgment should only come into play when there's no disputed facts between the two parties, so the judge is only ruling as a matter of law.

              Imagine an injury case where there's some kind of hazard, and someone is suing a company they believe is at fault. The company argues they had signs and warnings in place to reduce their fault. Both sides agree that there's an injury, they agree to the cause, and they agree to the wording and placement of signage. The facts are all established, the court only needs to make a legal ruling about whether the company is legally responsible.

              The judge shouldn't have made a summary judgment in this case because the actual values of Trump's property is not an established fact. It's in dispute. Trump alleges a high value, a government expert says it's much lower. If the property actually is worth what Trump says it's worth, then there can be no fraud. This is a material fact, and it has to be given a thorough hearing with both sides able to examine and cross examine experts. It's improper to deny a full hearing an examination of the evidence and to rule in summary based solely on believing one side's evidence over the other.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              It’s both a Seventh and Eighth Amendment issue, actually.

              I already responded to this earlier.

              Seventh Amendment - doesn't apply
              Eighth Amendment - not an "excessive fine" based on how that phrase has been litigated in the past. Because the "excessive" part, legally, means "not reasonably related to the crime". Here there is a reasonable relationship, whether you wish to admit it or not.

              There was no jury because Trump didn't request a jury trial. That is on him.

              1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                There was no jury because Trump didn’t request a jury trial. That is on him.

                No, that's inaccurate. I'll dig it up for you, but Trump could not request a jury trial, this statute required a bench trial. The media made fun of him for complaining about not getting a jury when he never requested one, but that was a bullshit narrative; he wasn't entitled to it under this law. I would argue he should have under the 7th Amendment, which needs to be incorporated into the states. Perhaps this is a case for judicial review to incorporate it.

                1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                  https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/politics/trump-new-york-case-no-jury/index.html

                  There's a CNN article. Even though the allegations here are essentially criminal and the forfeiture is basically a criminal one, the AG brought this as a case in equity, which means Trump was not entitled to a trial by jury under NY law. Which is a problem since this isn't a fucking small claims suit, this is about hundreds of millions, and one of the parties is the state and not the alleged victim.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    Even from your source, it says that Trump could have tried to litigate the issue about whether he could get a jury trial. He didn't even try.

                    1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                      He wouldn't have had a case. He could have potentially tried to argue for one but it would have failed.

                      You said it was Trump's fault there was no jury trial which is bullshit. It's the law in New York and there wasn't a feasible argument to be brought to argue for a jury trial. It would have been futile.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      there wasn’t a feasible argument

                      Even your article says there was: the sheer magnitude of the proposed monetary damages proposed at that point. Yes it is on Trump for not even trying.

                    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      "Yes it is on Trump for not even trying."

                      You are absolutely fucking desperate, huh?

                      From the article:

                      Trump’s lawyers have pushed back on the notion that they failed to request a jury trial, as some have suggested based on paperwork filed in the case.
                      “Under 63 (12), which is what this case is, you don’t have a right, an absolute right to a jury,” Trump lawyer Alina Habba said on Fox News this week.
                      A Trump spokesperson said that the attorney general “filed this case under a consumer protection statute that denies the right to a jury.”
                      “There was never an option to choose a jury trial,” the spokesperson said. “It is unfortunate that a jury won’t be able to hear how absurd the merits of this case are and conclude no wrongdoing ever happened.”

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Oh fuck you. You are just repeating their rationalizations.

                    5. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                      Oh fuck you. You are just repeating their rationalizations.

                      And you were just copying the rhetoric of the one guy who criticized Trump's legal team. You didn't read the law and analyze the history yourself, you glomped onto another person's conclusion and then blamed Trump for not asking for a jury trial.

                  2. MasterThief   1 year ago

                    The state has no standing to dispute issues regarding a national election, but the state somehow has standing to take money from a civil suit involving a private deal where neither party is complaining. It defies all logic

                  3. Sevo   1 year ago

                    "...You are absolutely fucking desperate, huh?..."

                    I'm a go with abysmally, almost unbelievably, STUPID.

            3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              There’s also a lot of problems with the judge.

              I'm sorry, but just because someone is a Democrat or a Republican doesn't mean they are incapable of doing their jobs.

              where there’s a massive fine for what is a factual disagreement over property valuations

              That is not a fair description. Re-read Sullum's article. The fine isn't really about a dispute over property valuations. It is because, due to his overestimation of his net worth, it projected a fraudulent impression of his actual financial condition, permitting him to engage in transactions that he otherwise wouldn't have been able to.

              1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                It is because, due to his overestimation of his net worth, it projected a fraudulent impression of his actual financial condition, permitting him to engage in transactions that he otherwise wouldn’t have been able to.

                That's what the judge said and it's contrary to what Deutsche Bank testified to. They did their own proper valuations, relied on those, and gave him the loan, and they said they would have regardless. This is why we can say there's no victim here.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  They did their own proper valuations, relied on those, and gave him the loan, and they said they would have regardless.

                  Under the same terms? THAT is the real issue here.

                  The victims here, are the invisible investors who did not get to participate in the same opportunities because Trump took them away based on his conduct.

                  1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                    YES, under the same terms. The same rate. Basically, that's the minimum interest loan they would offer, and if I recall, Trump's net worth is WAY over what they require to offer those terms. Their main concern was that Trump had the capability to maintain a certain amount of liquid assets during the loan in case he defaulted, but they weren't really concerned about a default.

                    Trump got what were pretty standard terms for a major, significant borrower. While there's not that many billionaires, they still do a large number of loans like this every month. They're a sophisticated financial entity.

                  2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                    "Under the same terms? THAT is the real issue here."

                    Yes, you fat fascist fuck. The bank stated that publicly.

            4. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago (edited)

              Edit: never mind. You answered my question a few posts below.

              I’m confused because I thought the 14th Amendment basically “incorporated” the Bill of Rights to the states. It’s why New York or California can’t outright ban gun ownership, or at least that’s what I thought.

              But you, ATM, and others have stated that the Bill of Rights, specifically the 7th and 8th Amendments don’t apply. What am I missing?

              –I appreciate anyone who responds to this question with correct information

          2. DesigNate   1 year ago

            Pretty sure the 14th amendment says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            How anyone can say that some of the Bill of Rights are incorporated but others aren’t based on the plain language of the 14th is beyond me.

            I know, I know, take it up with the Judicial Branch.

            1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

              Pretty much every right guaranteed in the bill of rights had to have an individual case incorporating it for each of the states. There's never been one for the 7th. But this could be a case that makes precedence, if Trump can find $450 million to pay for an appeal.

      2. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

        Judicial systems that find it unreasonable for a defendant to defend themselves have not been on the good side of history.

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Yeah the statement that cranks up Liz's TDS meter to 10 is "it's a form of Navalny" with the operative phrase being "form of" meaning it's not an identical situation but has similarities. Anyone who doesn't understand that the Trump prosecutions are political is a fucking idiot. How do we know? Because the prosecutors TOLD US SO. Both James and Willis campaigned for office promising their supporters that they would prosecute him for a crime, any crime. Bragg resurrected a case that the federal government and his predecessor declined and he still hasn't told the defendant what fucking crime he has allegedly committed. Jack "8-0" Smith has has created a timeline that deprives Trump of his constitutional right to mount a defense and has repeatedly petitioned the appellate and Supreme courts to rush the process because the public has a right to have the proceedings finished prior to the election. For Liz to portray this as narcissistic whining on Trump's part is just fucking stupid.

      1. MasterThief   1 year ago

        The media coverage of and criminal/civil trials against Trump are aspects of political assassination. Same goes for Alex Jones somehow being expected to pay billions for supposedly lying about a school shooting.
        The only reason that powers here haven't gone Putin's route and outright assassinated Trump is that he would become a martyr. Their actions are arguably as egregious as assassination and are done for the same purposes. Any sober evaluation of the shit being thrown at Trump would come to the conclusion that multiple people in power using corrupt indefensible means to eliminate the man. They seek to relieve him of his liberty and property despite no crime and the only thing holding them back from seeking his life is that doing so might threaten their power and authority

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          Pretty sure somebody will pin a tinfoil hat on me but here it goes. I agree with every point you made. But. It's not just the Democrats, the deep state and their media enablers that are terrified of Trump regaining power. We currently have heads of state in Europe and Davos elitists worldwide expressing their predictions of the end of the rules based order if Trump somehow comes to power. The recent rantings of HRC and Nancy Pelosi are illustrative of saying the quiet part out loud. There are a lot of powerful players in the game. They are all in with all their chips on the table. Did the CIA take out JFK? I don't know but his nephew says they did. Who took out Jeffery Epstein? Who Blew up Nordstream 2? Would the assassination of Trump be a bridge too far? Could a civil war be organized or would the conventional wisdom be dictated as we saw with the 2020 election and the Covid scam and would potential participants be be jailed in a shock and awe campaign a la j6? I wouldn't have imagined anything like this 10 years ago but here we are.

  40. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

    ""Hunter Biden’s lawyer fired a triple-barreled salvo in his federal gun case Tuesday by arguing the prosecution hadn’t shared all of its evidence in the case, that reports of cocaine residue on a gun pouch were tainted and that a source who may have "infected" the investigation has been indicted.""

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/agents-run-amok-hunter-biden-s-lawyer-blasts-evidence-in-gun-case-against-president-s-son/ar-BB1iBJJH?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=11b50120e70f4beda02ae9b0e7a249c6&ei=37

  41. Dillinger   1 year ago

    doing what you do for a living you must be aware B drew a line in the sand requiring Nalvany to remain vertical and ventilating, yes?

    1. Minadin   1 year ago

      "In 2021, Biden warned Putin of "devastating" consequences for Russia if Navalny dies in prison"

      https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1758462600428356066

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        This is how you know the CIA did it, and there's approximately 30 billion thin green reasons why.

  42. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>"a form of communism or fascism."

    I have been led to believe T has to pony up the $455 mil just to get to the appeal, yes?

    1. Minadin   1 year ago

      Yes, and James is threatening to begin confiscating his buildings and properties to cover it, prior to that.

      https://abcnews.go.com/US/letitia-james-shes-prepared-seize-trumps-assets-pay/story?id=107381482

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        one author's not "a form of communism or fascism" is one reader's spicy filing fee.

      2. DesigNate   1 year ago

        I guarantee she’ll use a higher appraisal to seize something.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          She will use the tax assessment values to maximize the number of buildings then keep all the profits from auction.

        2. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

          She will use as low as possible so she can take it all.

          1. DesigNate   1 year ago

            Hmmm, I accept yours and Jesse’s corrections.

  43. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>I dunno if he qualifies as a "hero" lol this ain't exactly Normandy

    any shot at authority takes on significant lifelong risk today

    1. mad.casual   1 year ago

      Women have been simultaneously morbidly obese, doing "the hardest job on Earth", and "stunning and brave" for 40 yrs. and the first time of any notoriety (for him) that a teen boy tells someone of authority to GTFO, Liz "Mama Bear" Wolfe says, "This ain't Normandy!"?

      LOL, have a seat Liz. I'm sure there's a pickle jar in a position of authority somewhere with your name on it.

  44. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>going after charities that help migrants—whatever you think of the behavior they engaged in to get here—seems like a wrongheaded stunt.

    if visiting Texas is off the board at the very least have lunch with Bill Melugin

  45. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Scenes from New York: Nobody asked for this.

    watching New York City and San Francisco destroy themselves with First World problems is delicious.

    1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

      New York's "finest".

  46. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>People were arrested for laying flowers in memory of Navalny.

    Americans currently serving 11 years for praying outside ...

    1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

      I don't really doubt that this occurred, as Russia is no bastion of liberty, but I do find it odd that the video of this starts with the cop interaction, and not the laying of flowers that allegedly resulted in the arresting. How many times have we all watched a video on YT or Twitter only later to find out that the full video changes things quite a bit when we see what led to the short clip that was posted?

  47. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

    Speaking of political prosecutions, this is what the Navalny fans need 30 billion to finance.
    https://www.dossier.today/p/under-the-fog-of-war-ukraine-cancels
    President Volodymyr Zelensky, the leader of the war-torn country, just received approval from his parliament to extend Martial Law another 90 days. There have been many parliamentary extensions of the wartime mandate, but this one carried special significance because the 2024 presidential elections in Ukraine were scheduled for March 31, 2024, coinciding with the end of Zelensky’s five year term. Now that Martial Law is in place to cover that time period, Ukraine’s presidential elections have been canceled indefinitely.
    In November, a former Zelensky adviser named Oleksiy Arestovych announced that he would be challenging Zelensky for the presidency, promising to focus on a negotiated settlement to end the war with Russia. Arestovych was fiercely critical of Zelensky’s approach to the conflict, maintaining that a settlement was in the best interests of Ukrainians. Far from a pro-Moscow shill, the Russian government has an active arrest warrant out for him.
    Yet just days after his announcement, Ukraine’s National Police force, under the direction of the Zelensky government, launched a criminal investigation against Arestovych.
    Furthermore, over the course of the devastating war, the Ukrainian government has continually centralized power to the point that no trace of a representative democracy currently exists in the country.
    Zelensky has repeatedly sicced his national police on any and all current and former Ukrainian officials who depart from the accepted narrative of the war, which essentially amounts to fighting Russia to the very last Ukrainian, if necessary. Virtually every dissident from the forever war narrative ends up on the wrong side of a corruption investigation, or worse.
    All opposition parties have been removed from the parliament, and all non-state media has been banned from the airwaves. The paranoia-infused government has even signed into law a measure to ban all new Russian books from being imported into the country.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      That's 60 billion.

    2. Krokko   1 year ago

      Putin is fighting a bloody, lawless, unnecessary war, in which hundreds of thousands of ordinary Russians have been killed or wounded, for no reason other than to serve his own egotistical vision.

      Seems to read about the same with Zelensky and "thousands of ordinary Ukrainians..."

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        Kinda "funny" given all the equivocation over Gaza/Israel.

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

        Except Zelensky’s not the one who’s actually in charge here–the US and the EU are calling the shots.

        And given how they've prosecuted wars over the last 80 years, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that they're fucking this one up, too.

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          The US has not really tried to win a war since November 1950 (basically when MacArthur ignored his field commanders and intelligence and was taken by surprise by the Chinese). After that, we managed the war as a stalemate and we haven't tried to win another war since then. Yeah, Desert Storm, Panama and Grenada could be exceptions, but I would note, we were back fighting in Iraq barely a decade later, against the same regime (at least the Germans changed regimes between the world wars, but if the allies hadn't forced the Kaiser to abdicate and instead took their initial offer of a constitutional monarchy, would the Nazis have come to power?). Panama, well that was just taking out a CIA operative that was starting to embarrass us (Sadam Hussein could also fit this category) and in Grenada, we kicked the Cubans out but didn't punish them for their aggression or even negotiate with them.

          1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

            Kinda seems like endless war is just good business.

          2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            Desert Storm mainly worked because we spent several weeks softening up Iraq's air defenses and using our modern fighters to take out their second-gen Migs. We had total control of the air and probably could have gone all the way to Baghdad and taken out Saddam right then and there, but held off because the main objective had been accomplished. It certainly helped that the Iraqis had spent the previous decade wasting men and materiel in their slapfight with Iran.

            Of course, we ended up spending the next several years fucking around in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which happened to piss off one of our former mujhadeen operatives so much that he organized a direct attack on the country ten years later.

            1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

              A lot of things in Desert Storm were handled right. The coalition was carefully maintained so that they had all the Muslim nations on board, the ones who would still be running things after the US left. Israel had to remain out of the conflict to avoid causing a potential schism, and they stayed out of it. Then we didn't bother with regime change, we just flexed with an overwhelming show of force, accomplished our objectives, and pulled out.

              The worst foreign policy blunders of the US have all been instances where we either tried to tell them what kind of government to establish, or else toppled leaders to try to get a friendly regime in place.

      3. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

        Putin had Russia invade Ukraine. For him, this was a war of choice. For Zelensky, not so much.

  48. DesigNate   1 year ago

    “Trump, on the other hand, misrepresented his net worth to banks, defrauding lenders”

    Inflating your net worth isn’t fraud. Literally everyone involved in banking and real estate loans knows numbers get inflated, that’s why the banks routinely counter with a much lower number. Come on Liz, you’re better than that.

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      >>Come on Liz, you’re better than that.

      held hostage by Boehm & Sullum? hands bound by Koch brand zip ties?

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Sullum wrote it and KMW slapped Liz name on it?

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      " Come on Liz, you’re better than that."
      Beginning to have my doubts.

    3. Hiding In Plain Site   1 year ago

      No, Liz is not, and neither is anyone else at (lack of) Reason. Read The Big Short, and then tell me how many people NYC and NY State held accountable for fraud.

    4. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      "Inflating your net worth isn’t fraud. Literally everyone involved in banking and real estate loans knows numbers get inflated"

      It's not even "inflating". For something that's subjective like real estate value any number is possible, and value is only truly determined by an actual sale. Just like antiques, art, and vintage cars.

      Anyone who claims different is a bigger con man than they accuse Trump of being.

      I fear our sweet young Liz has been hanging with a bad crowd at Reason. Smoking Gillespie's special cigarettes with Boehm and Sullum behind Old Man Koch's barn.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        >>It’s not even “inflating”.

        the fuck is MSRP if not fraud in New York?

    5. rbike   1 year ago

      I've done a few real estate transactions in my life. Asset valuation typically comes up. I, being the fiscal conservative, estimated low. In more than one of the transactions, I was encouraged by the lender to raise those values. I should be afraid of losing everything too.

  49. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

    Carlin hated christianity, and religion in general. I wouldnt say he hated *christians* themselves. You can despise religion without despising the adherents.

    Similar to how you can despise the state of north korea without hating north korean people.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      After watching what happened to Neil Young and Howard Stern I refuse to speculate on what Carlin would be like today.

    2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      I hope he'd stay true to his principles like Maher seems to be doing, but I fear Gaear may be right and he'd "evolve" his positions.

  50. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

    Related: People were arrested for laying flowers in memory of Navalny.

    I dont believe anything at face value and certainly not such convenient propaganda.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Were there fiery but mostly peaceful riots going on?

  51. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

    NEW: California's Legislative Analyst's Office says the state's budget problem has grown by $15 Billion.

    Let 'em cook.

  52. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

    But opinion polls conducted by state-run media in Russia which showed Navalny only had 2% support, THOSE we can take at face value.

    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      Versus what? Absolutely nothing but your assertion? Yes.

    2. NOYB2   1 year ago

      I couldn't care less what percentage of Russians supported Navalny. Internal Russian politics is none of our business.

      1. R Mac   1 year ago

        Lying Jeffy is very concerned. But Gonzalo Lira? He’s never heard of him. Tells you were his priorities are.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Am I supposed to have heard of him? What did he do?

          1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

            An American journalist critical of the Ukrainian government who was arrested for aiding and abetting the enemy. He died of pneumonia in jail. This is completely ignored by most left-of-center news outlets.

            To be fair, he seems to have had a history of cringe politics, and he might not have had the most enlightened takes on the Russian invasion. But he was a dissident who was locked up, tried to flee to claim asylum, was captured, and then died 6 months later. Cause of death was listed as pneumonia.

            And they're pointing out that you haven't heard of him because people living in a media bubble wouldn't know that this a case where Ukraine has been accused of human rights because so much Western media has a difficulty saying anything negative about Ukraine.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              "Left of center"? I think maybe it is not covered by anyone other than far-right sources. Just in my googling, I have only ever seen him mentioned in context with Tucker Carlson who once praised him or something, at least in terms of a news story.

              An when you say "he might not have had the most enlightened takes on the Russian invasion", I take that to mean that he was pro-Russia.

              1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                Tucker Carlson is definitely on the right, but I don't think he's "far right." I don't really listen to him, though, so maybe he's further out there than I realize.

                Beyond that, you clearly didn't look too hard. New York Post, Newsweek, fucking Elon Musk, they were all on that story. Clearly not all far-right people there. Do you consider Fox News to be "far right?"

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago (edited)

                  Yes he is far-right. He indulges the worst conspiracy theories. If you think Tucker Carlson is mainstream right then we are all in trouble.

                  A few places covered his death, yes, but before his death, who talked about him? I did a specific search for Newsweek and I found one blurb from 2022 buried way down a list of a bunch of other stories.

                  I think Fox News is definitely borderline far-right of conservative media. Again they pushed these wackadoodle conspiracy theories that got them in trouble.

                  Frankly I don’t think there are hardly any mainstream reputable conservative media outlets. One that actually discusses conservative politics but doesn’t drift off into conspiracy land. One that focuses more on policy and ideas rather than 'pwning the libs' or 'what new thing can we do now to suck Trump's dick?'

                  1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                    I think it’s over 70% of conservatives who believe the 2020 election was stolen. If those are the fringe conspiracies you’re talking about, that’s the vast majority of the party. The center and vast majority of the Republican party is not “far right” by definition. The fringes can only be defined by what’s beyond what your average plank Republican believes.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Is it the idea that if 'the media were honest', they would be condemning Ukraine as a corrupt totalitarian state that is just as bad, if not worse, than Russia, because of what happened to Gonzalo Lira?

  53. Hiding In Plain Site   1 year ago

    If someone calls their butthole a vagina and sticks a tampon up there, does that make them a real woman? Asking for a friend.

  54. Hiding In Plain Site   1 year ago

    Hey Lizzo, how many people did NY City and NY State bring to justice over the massive fraud related to the housing market, you know, back in 2008ish. I'll wait...

  55. SRG2   1 year ago

    Reminder of an earlier grievance from Trump:
    https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/71113584_10217498060021409_1558019091933954048_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=7f8c78&_nc_ohc=wBmCGaTdXGkAX_iKdvA&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=00_AfCRUGDfUoUy7hudQm3JnGJ3Gmb1jkGbFkN5AGq9q-A8bw&oe=65FDB9F1

    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      Treated by the fucking state itself you retarded simp. An assassination by some kook isn't the same as a campaign waged against you by the state. And boy howdy, is that stupidity proof that lefties can't meme or what?

      1. SRG2   1 year ago

        God you're so fucking defensive, you whiny pillock. Yes, Trump has been treated worse by the state, though possibly his being a crook and criminal may have something to do with it, but the comment did not restrict his complaint to state actors.

        1. Sevo   1 year ago

          Steaming piles of TDS-addled shit continue to lie:

          "...Yes, Trump has been treated worse by the state, though possibly his being a crook and criminal may have something to do with it..."

          This asshole seems to be ignorant of the fact that Trump has been under continuous investigation for the last 8 years, and no one has found even an unpaid parking ticket.
          Fuck-face, your credibility is not worth shit.

    2. NOYB2   1 year ago

      Next thing you are going to tell us that Trotsky or Che were "treated badly" too.

      1. SRG2   1 year ago

        And the Trumpsuckers leap to defend their man, regardless of how stupid their defence is.

        You must be suffering from Fragile Y syndrome.

        1. NOYB2   1 year ago

          And the Trumpsuckers leap to defend their man, regardless of how stupid their defence is.

          I don't defend Trump. Rather, I oppose the police state that Democrats and people like you want to bring about. I immigrated to the US to get away from that sh*t.

        2. Sevo   1 year ago

          "...And the Trumpsuckers..."

          Fucking TDS-addled piles of shit think this is "clever". Eat shit and die, asshole.

          1. Public Entelectual   1 year ago

            Tightens laces on $399 gilded Kanye-surplus Trump Sneakers and waddles off in disgust.

    3. R Mac   1 year ago

      Fuck of shrike, you fascist pos.

  56. NOYB2   1 year ago

    Taking crazy pills: Former President Donald Trump said last evening that the civil fraud verdict that will force him to pony up $355 million for inflating his net worth to banks is actually "a form of Navalny" and "a form of communism or fascism."

    Biden and the Democrats are turning the US into a police state and abusing the legal system to rid themselves of political opponents.

    Liz: are you too stupid to understand this, or are you a willing part of this?

    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      Koch mandated narratives, and with the exception of Nancy Rommelman, and maybe Robbie, the Reasonistas are a bad influence on anyone.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        These are the people paying for Reason.

        US conservative group led by billionaire Koch to spend big to beat Trump

        1. NOYB2   1 year ago

          Koch also pays for the Cato institute, people who openly advocate completely open borders. What Americans actually want is irrelevant to these people.

          https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/97-green-card-applications-will-not-get-approved-year

  57. NOYB2   1 year ago

    The only reason we are talking about Navalny in the US is because politicians think they can use this to whip Americans into an anti-Russian hysteria and justify sending hundreds of billions to Ukraine, NATO, and the MIC.

    Here's the thing: opposition politicians get murdered all over the world pretty much every year. It's none of our business, and it is no justification for extra military funding.

    1. Public Entelectual   1 year ago

      When will the Netflix remake of Alexander Nevsky hit YouTube?

  58. Flaco   1 year ago

    So, there's only one female officer that isn't overweight?

    1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

      And none of them can actually dance either.

  59. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

    And as long as I'm here what is the point of the weekly trashing of RFK Jr.? There are good reasons not to vote for him but from a libertarian perspective he's lightyears ahead of the guy Reason endorsed in 2020. Joe Biden. The polling I've seen shows him taking more votes from Biden than Trump and I know he said mean things about about sugar daddy like 20 years ago but maybe try some journalism here. If you're just a mouthpiece for the Koch Stop Trump campaign you should probably advise Biden of the market value of your in kind contributions.

    1. Public Entelectual   1 year ago (edited)

      That’s odd- my last Libertarian election lapel pin says

      WELD / 2020

  60. TJJ2000   1 year ago

    The skeleton remains of a USA is the only reason Trump has managed to dodge his Navalny prosecution. Those skeleton remains are exactly what the Nazi-Empire is trying to sweep-up and get rid of so their Nazi-Empire can raise another Hitler.

  61. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    I was dead in a ditch yesterday and no one cared.

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      thread started w/sarc I figured you all finally joined my simulation

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

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Wait, Lilo & Stitch Is About Medicaid and Family Separation?

Peter Suderman | 5.30.2025 1:59 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!