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

SCOTUS Takes on Trump

Plus: Balkan begging, California corruption, Russian gravediggers, and more...

Liz Wolfe | 2.29.2024 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Trump | Mirrorpix / MEGA / Newscom/ASLON2/Newscom
(Mirrorpix / MEGA / Newscom/ASLON2/Newscom)

Get ready. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim that he is protected from prosecution for his role in plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, and has set oral arguments for April. The Court's term ends in June, so hearing arguments in April means it is very likely a decision will be released before the justices leave.

"The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen, handing at least an interim victory to Mr. Trump," reported The New York Times. "His litigation strategy in all of the criminal prosecutions against him has consisted, in large part, of trying to slow things down."

If he does not have immunity, a criminal trial will follow, probably over the summer—during the height of election season.

Earlier this month, the Court also heard a case on whether states such as Colorado are within their rights to remove Trump from ballots—the 14th Amendment argument. It is expected to issue a ruling soon.

Surely this time will be different: If Congress can't pass appropriations bills to fund the government by midnight Friday, the federal government will enter a partial shutdown. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.) is going for yet another stopgap bill to attempt to keep the government open, which "would extend funding for some government agencies for a week, through March 8, and the rest for another two weeks, until March 22," per The New York Times.

The caveat is that Congress would be expected to approve six of the 12 spending bills to fund the government for the next year, while buying a little more time for legislators to negotiate and pass the rest of the spending bills. Somewhat surprisingly, news broke last night that Johnson has managed to get a fair number of colleagues on board with the plan.

Still, it's a piecemeal solution that pleases practically nobody. The far-right flank of Republicans in the House continues to pursue deep spending cuts that neither Johnson nor Kevin McCarthy before him has managed to prioritize, as well as weaning Ukraine off U.S. government aid. Continuing resolutions—a.k.a. patchwork solutions that temporarily stave off government shutdowns but do not set any sort of long-term budget—were passed in September, November, and January. And Republicans have only a two-seat majority in the House, with quite a few of them riled up about the crisis at the southern border—which they keep saying must be secured, in order for other issues to be tackled—so there are few signs that Congress will get its act together anytime soon.

Are South Koreans having enough sex? Statistics Korea recently released data showing that the fertility rate declined by 8 percent in 2023 when compared with 2022. Normally, such a drop would not be greeted as catastrophic, except that this comes at a time when many developed countries have fertility rates in free-fall and South Korea already had the lowest fertility rate in the world. If current rates hold, the country's population (51 million at present) is predicted to halve by 2100.

"The average number of babies a South Korean woman is expected to give birth to during her life fell to 0.72 from 0.78 in 2022, and previous projections estimate that this will fall even further, to 0.68 in 2024," reported Al Jazeera. The replacement rate is 2.1 children. For comparison, the U.S. fertility rate has been hovering around 1.7, with a little dip in 2020 that has since recovered.

These new data, coupled with a BBC article that featured women across South Korea and their frustrations with their predicaments, has led to a robust debate among the punditry as to whether South Korea's aggressive pro-natalist policies were all for naught. ("Pro-natalist policies have a weak track record in every country where they've been tried," wrote Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown back in June 2023. "South Korea spent more than $200 billion subsidizing child care and parental leave over the past 16 years, President Yoon Suk Yeol said last fall. Yet the fertility rate fell from 1.1 in 2006 to 0.81 in 2021.")

Demographer Lyman Stone, meanwhile, called the BBC article "a demography reporting crime" and said that "South Korea spends less in government money per child than the OECD average" and that "much of the spending Korea claims it does never gets to families, but is actually a morass of local government subsidies, grants, and other intermediated forms of spending." When it does actually get to families, the fertility rate is positively affected, Stone argued.

But there are other factors, too: South Korea's graying population, for one—and how coughing up funds for retirees affects younger taxpayers' ability to save—as well as cultural influences, like the fact that one of Korea's biggest exports, K-pop stars, are generally forced by their agencies to abstain from dating (wouldn't want to destroy the fantasy, I guess). There are massive cultural expectation issues, too, like the fact that most South Koreans—nearly 80 percent!—send their kids to expensive private schools, so the cost of having a child is perceived to be extra high.

For more on this, watch Just Asking Questions with the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney (who has a new book out soon on precisely this subject): "Why aren't people having more kids?"


Scenes from New York:

This woman used OMNY to pay for the bus. Once you hit 12 fares paid within a 7-day period, you get free rides. Cops boarded bus & forced riders to prove they'd paid didn't know how to handle this, threw her off, & hit her w a $100 ticket. Is this city a joke or what? pic.twitter.com/tD1fAvSnwL

— Liz Wolfe (@LizWolfeReason) February 28, 2024

Full article here, courtesy of Hell Gate.


QUICK HITS

  • "Google CEO Sundar Pichai addressed the company's Gemini controversy Tuesday evening, calling the AI app's problematic responses around race unacceptable and vowing to make structural changes to fix the problem," reported Semafor. The image generator Gemini seemed to have a recurring issue giving unrealistic and ahistorical interpretations of events—black Vikings, a lady pope, and nonwhite Founding Fathers, to name a few.
  • California is so screwed:

California politics in a nutshell ???? pic.twitter.com/XE1XRzj7eh

— Alec Stapp (@AlecStapp) February 28, 2024

  • Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in Tirana, Albania, appealing to the Balkan nations for defense support.
  • "Bitcoin rallied above $60,000 on Wednesday, riding its bullish momentum to its highest levels since November 2021, as more signs emerge that cryptocurrency's 'winter' has ended," reported Axios. For more on crypto winter, check out this joint from me and Zach Weissmueller:

  • "Americans' satisfaction with personal life near record low," reported Gallup.
  • The family of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny is having a hard time finding funeral homes and gravediggers to give Navalny a decent burial. Since his death two weeks ago, more than 400 people have reportedly been arrested for laying flowers in his memory, reported the BBC.
  • On one hand, yes, this is an interesting and possibly good take. On the other, I don't think we should engage in any more elder abuse—working in government strikes me as the worst form of torture—and this man is 82. Let him spend the rest of his days eating ice cream cones!

Huge loss. If Democrats hated Mitch McConnell as GOP leader, wait til they see the ones who come next.

As for Republicans, well, this is good news only if you like how the GOP House functions & want more of that. McConnell has been GOPs most effective Congress leader in decades. https://t.co/JpqPy8brjN

— Brian Riedl ???? ???????? (@Brian_Riedl) February 28, 2024

  • RIP Richard Lewis, my favorite Curb Your Enthusiasm character:

richard lewis & larry david back in the day pic.twitter.com/lxKoB0Lzzc

— Marlow Stern (@MarlowNYC) February 28, 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: Do U.S. Public Schools Really Need 77,000 More Counselors?

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason.

Donald TrumpSupreme CourtElection 2020PoliticsSouth KoreaElection 2024CongressFederal governmentGovernment ShutdownFertilityFertility ratesReason Roundup
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (311)

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

  1. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    BOW BEFORE ME, INSOLENT CREATURES, FOR I AM YOUR REASON PLUS GOD.

    1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

      #sellout

      1. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

        I wish. This actually cost me money.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          Do you pay an additional fee to be first every time? Or is is just that you have nothing better to do.

          1. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

            Cream naturally rises to the top.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              I thought that's what happens in Jeffy's pants.

        2. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

          Sucker.
          🙂
          😉

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

      I’m a Grandfather
      !

      1. R Mac   1 year ago

        What kind of temporary are we talking about here?

        1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

          They're going to kick us all out on Friday. "Studies have statistically shown that there's less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week."

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

            “Good luck with your layoffs, all right? I hope your firings go really, really well.”

          2. Milton   1 year ago

            I could still set the building on fire.

            1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

              Echo from the sixties?
              "you can't fight city hall, but you can burn it down".
              (good times, state trooper billy clubs notwithstanding)

              1. Zeb   1 year ago

                Office Space.

                1. R Mac   1 year ago

                  Admit it Zeb you'll miss me.

            2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              "Now Milton, don't be greedy, let's pass it along and make sure everyone gets a piece."

              1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

                Got a new guy at work. A few office space references were being said and he kind of quietly laughed along, at which point someone goes "you seem like you have never seen office space". To which he replied "oh you mean that show "the office"? I am familiar with that show from reddit memes but it was before my time"

                Im not even old old and that fucker made me feel old

                1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

                  Im not even old old and that fucker made me feel old

                  At that point in my office too. What a drag it is getting old.

                  1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

                    I go running for the shelter of um Guinness Extra Stout.

                  2. Dillinger   1 year ago

                    >>What a drag it is getting old.

                    I prefer Monkey Man when discussing the Stones.

                  3. Zeb   1 year ago

                    Happened weirdly suddenly to me. After some restructuring I suddenly went from being on the younger side of the people I work with to being older than most.

                  4. Ersatz   1 year ago

                    was talking at work with someone about Barbara Eden...
                    She's 92 now!

                    that made me feel old.... and, oddly - young. she's too old for me but i'm old enough to know and remember her show.

                    1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

                      It's still on AntennaTV.

                2. Dillinger   1 year ago

                  >>To which he replied “oh you mean that show “the office”?

                  this has happened in more than your life.

                3. Macy's Window   1 year ago

                  The first time I felt old, I was 22.

              2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                Last time, I didn't get a piece of cake.

                1. Dillinger   1 year ago

                  yesbutthatismystapler

    3. BYODB   1 year ago

      Well, looks like this could be the end of me posting here. I'm certainly not paying them for the privilege of posting here and the only reason I come here at all is the comments section.

      It was a good run though. Been posting here for about 25 years.

      1. retiredfire   1 year ago

        Yep.
        Done with REASON.
        Why would a company intentionally lower the number of people viewing the site?
        You fools, who think the "no advertising" will last, remember they said cable TV wouldn't have ads, either.

  2. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    The Supreme Court has agreed to hear former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim...

    Could this spell the end of Trump?

    (Or, at least, Qualified Immunity?)

    1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

      You forgot to tell us to tune in next week at the same batshit crazy time on the same batshit crazy channel.

      1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

        Next week we will all be killed off by the paywall.

        1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

          If so, I just wanted to say it's been real, it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun!
          🙂
          😉
          Seriously, I'm torn on getting Reason Plus. The laughs and pithier thoughts on the Comments are great and that's part of what lured me here. But too many of the Commenters and the articles are straying far from the fighting radical Libertarianism and the hardcore gumshoe journalism thatReason once exemplified. Also, my extracurricular budget is for the present time limited.

          Maybe I'll join later if funds permits and Liz improves things. Maybe join the Glibs if they'll have me. They seem friendly and lively and with only friendly lunacy.

          Until I make up my mind, I'll just say--to update "I'll See You on the Radio"--I'll grok with you in Cyberspace!
          🙂
          😉

    2. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      Ruling will be this case is (D)ifferent.

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        The (D) absolves you from your sins and makes you pure.

        1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

          According to these dreckvolk, when people riot because they feel that Hands Up, Don't Shoot®™ is true, they are not committing Insurrection®™, but fighting White Supremacy®™.

  3. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    If Congress can't pass appropriations bills to fund the government by midnight Friday, the federal government will enter a partial shutdown.

    They're readying the orange National Park Service cones as we speak!

  4. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Now that Fani is cooked. Time to look in on Letitia James. Whi has some eye popping spending from her "campaign" account which includes hundreds of thousands on high end travel, 50k nights on the town listed as office expenses... and ghost donors.

    What are ghost donors? A well known entity from Act Blue that has fixed income seniors donating thousands of times a year in the tens of thousands of dollars. An oddity of donors that magically appear from time to time in key elections.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1762544911205724618.html

    Answer: Ghost donors.
    Take for instance this woman named Suzanne, from Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

    Ms. Suzanne has to be one of the most faithful Democrat donors on the planet. Not only did she make 3,232 individual donations to ActBlue in just one year (2022) totaling more than $46,193

    1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      If running on “I’m gonna get Trump” ticket, soliciting donations for such, and then pushing clearly politically-motivated charges didn’t phase voters, why would they care about a little campaign finance fraud? You see, unlike Fani, Letitia lives in the big blue bubble. She’s on the right team and she went after Trump, so nobody care if she’s done anything wrong.

      1. damikesc   1 year ago

        I do find it impressive that Trump's rhetoric on immigration made his quite Constitutional immigration policies illegal...but HER entire campaign on getting Trump has no bearing on her perse...sorry, prosecution.

        Her bragging incessantly after the fact should be noted by courts. Never seen an AG do that ever.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Animus is solely used to undo GOP legislation.

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            And Trump executive orders reversing Obama executive orders.

    2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      George Soros wasn't exactly a ghost, so who else pitched in? The FBI slush fund? William Gates III?

    3. HorseConch   1 year ago

      Much like the Hunter Biden story, this and other similar dealings will be either swept away or treated as ludicrous. Both sides are either heavily engaged, or for some unforseen reason completely complicit. If any business person made $220k/year and spent millions, there would be heavy scrutiny, but not if you're a "public servant".

    4. R Mac   1 year ago

      In other Letita James news:

      https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/companies/new-york-sues-meatpacking-giant-jbs-over-climate-claims/ar-BB1j3XFb

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        Any company with the wherewithal to do so needs to get the fuck out of NY right now.

        1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/major-investors-pull-out-of-new-york-after-trump-legal-ruling/ss-BB1j74qq?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=e1bb4166895546bcb11e1ac555c24e7d&ei=89#image=12

          Prominent New York investors and real estate developers are starting to speak out in response to the recent Trump ruling in New York City. Some investors in the city are viewing the legal ruling, which found Trump liable for fraud, as a threat to future business dealings in the Empire State.

          The investor speaking publically on the ruling, Kevin O’Leary, didn’t hold back on criticizing the judge and the government of New York.

          Kevin O’Leary, famous for his role on the hit show “Shark Tank”, expressed his negative sentiments on the case in an interview with Fox Business. “This award, I mean, just leaving the whole Trump thing out of it and seeing what occurred here … And I’m no different than any other investor, I’m shocked at this,” O’Leary said.

          “I can’t even understand or fathom the decision at all. There’s no rationale for it,” he said. O’Leary is the chairman of O’Leary Ventures, a venture capital firm based in Miami, Florida, that was founded in the year 2000.

          "It was already on the top of the list of being a loser state. I would never invest in New York now,” O’Leary said. “And I’m not the only person saying that.”

          “We’re very worried, every investor is worried because where is the victim? Who lost the money? This is some arbitrary decision a judge made,” O’Leary said. “This policy … what does this say about the bar? About the legal bar in New York? Aren’t they going to question this judge? What is this?”

          Given the trend that businesses are leaving New York, prominent investors and real estate developers like O’Leary are sounding the alarm. Reforms may be necessary to reverse this course.

          Investors need to be able to trust government officials and the court system to ensure their investments don’t blow up in their faces like what happened to Donald Trump. People should heed O’leary’s warning, as it could spell trouble for the developed Empire state in the future.

      2. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

        Don't want a frivolous climate change lawsuit in New York?

        Stop doing ANY business in New York. The urbanites will get cold, hungry, and thirsty and maybe understand how their votes can directly impact their lives.

  5. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

    House Speaker Mike Johnson needs to be traded to Argentina. We'll throw in an investment package to be named later to sweeten the pot.

    1. Anomalous   1 year ago

      ¡Afuera!

  6. JesseAz   1 year ago

    US GDP "Grew" $334 Billion In Q4.... That Growth Cost $834 Billion In Debt

    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/us-gdp-grew-334-billion-q4-growth-cost-834-billion-debt

    1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      The economy is better than its ever been!

      1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

        Another great article from Reason Plus!

      2. HorseConch   1 year ago

        It's so good that groceries has passed my mortgage payment as my biggest monthly expense. If it keeps going, it will be more than college tuition.

        1. TheReEncogitationer   1 year ago

          Bent-and-dent and salvage grocery is the culinary equivalent of house-flipping and is never a money pit. I'm enjoy a meal from The Island of Misfit Munchables with many leftovers as we speak!
          🙂
          😉

    2. JFree   1 year ago

      US GDP “Grew” $334 Billion In Q4…. That Growth Cost $834 Billion In Debt

      That only includes federal govt debt. That particular ratio of ΔGDP/ΔDebt is the best indicator over time of whether debt (meaning new money) is productive of growth or is more of an increasing burden or inflation. But it is only meaningful if it includes all debt – household, corporate, govt.

      I know the ideology here gets stuck on stupid re govt v else debt but in real terms all debt has the same economic function. And often the different types of debt have different cycles of growth/paydown. ‘New’ debt creates both new money (out of thin air) and a new principal payment stream. If the new money results in growth, then the growth funds the payment stream. If it doesn’t, then the FIRE sector grows at the expense of every other part of the economy and the economy becomes debt-dependent (incl the financial crises that result when debt principal isn’t rolled over). If it gets really out of whack - well that was the origin of debt jubilees dating back to before Nebuchadnezzar

  7. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Are South Koreans having enough sex?

    Great, now I have another pr0nhub search term queued up.

    1. R Mac   1 year ago

      “pr0nhub”

      Is this also being done to protect you from Reason Plus!?

    2. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Where, exactly, is this assumed relationship between sex and birthrates?
      Sounds transphobic to me - - - - - - -

      1. Ersatz   1 year ago

        ^an underrated comment^

  8. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Cops boarded bus & forced riders to prove they'd paid didn't know how to handle this, threw her off, & hit her w a $100 ticket.

    Appears they did know how to handle it.

    1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      All I read was the cops hit her with something.

      Now I need to know what color she was for appropriate rage reaction. If she was a POC trannie, I'm gonna burn some shit down.

      1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

        If she was a POC trannie, I’m gonna burn some shit down. peacefully protest.

        FTFY

        1. R Mac   1 year ago

          *Mostly peacefully

    2. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      Another Reason writer for welfare benefits. How predictable.

    3. mad.casual   1 year ago

      Sounds like somebody's jealous that Tucker Carlson didn't do a glowing review of *their* public transportation hubs.

  9. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Turley discusses the insanity of the NYC judgment and appeals decision.

    https://jonathanturley.org/2024/02/21/nothing-succeeds-like-excess-new-yorks-perverse-incentive-in-pricing-trump-out-of-an-appeal/

    1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      Not even Trump can afford justice in NYC.

    2. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      See also:
      https://babylonbee.com/news/letitia-james-seizes-mar-a-lago-sells-it-for-740-million

      1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

        At publishing time, New York Mayor Eric Adams had announced that, thanks to huge profits from the Mar-a-Lago seizure/sale, illegal immigrants would now each receive an American Express Black Card.

    3. damikesc   1 year ago

      Do not know how this does not afoul of excessive punishment.

      1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

        (D)

      2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        (D)

      3. SRG2   1 year ago

        You do not know how because you do not understand or are possibly ignorant of the relevant law.

        Suppose you swindle someone out of $500mm and after you've been found guilty of fraud, you're instructed to repay that $500mm. Is that "excessive punishment"?

        The $350mm is not a punishment but a disgorging of a benefit. You may disagree with Engoron's calculations, as many do, but once he found that Trump's lying had resulted in his saving $350mm compared to what he would have had to pay in interest, insurance, etc. had he been honest, then Trump's required to repay the $350mm.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          Still lying that a persons right to claim or ask whatever they want for their property is illegal, I see.

          Still pretending that the crooked hanging judge's ridiculous low-ball evaluation wasn't one hundred times more egregious than the Trump corporations ask, I see.

          Doesn't the rampant political corruption and fascism of this all bother your conscience even the tiniest bit?

          1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            For someone who pretends he took law at Harvard, this whole analogy is incredibly dishonest and retarded:

            "Suppose you swindle someone out of $500mm and after you’ve been found guilty of fraud, you’re instructed to repay that $500mm. Is that “excessive punishment”?

            Try this:

            Suppose you haven't swindled anyone out of $500mm. You asked for a loan, gave a figure for collateral, the bank did it's own appraisal and gave you a loan... which you promptly paid back in full.

            Then a crooked DA and Judge, both who campaigned on the promise of harming you somehow, invented a novel charge, gave the judgment before the trial even started and declared you guilty of fraud.

            You’re NOT instructed to repay $500mm that you never swindled to purported victims who insist they never were.

            Rather you have to pay the DA and judges employer $500mm instead. Oh, and they say you're not allowed to appeal the theft to a non-corrupt court unless you first give them your money.

            Is that “excessive punishment”? No, it's actually corruption and theft by the DA's office of the highest order. They're stealing money, and theft probably isn't strong enough a word.

            Anyone who makes a dishonest excuse for this like you did, is a fascist in the truest sense.

            You're a dispicable person.

        2. JesseAz   1 year ago

          Fuck youre dumb shrike.

          The disgorgement included all the profit from selling property as well as the delta between two loan rates, a cost born into profit from sale.

          1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            He's more evil than dumb. He knows the truth but prefers to lie.

            1. Ersatz   1 year ago

              ^this – for most of the commenters that defy [in their comments] common sense and obvious reality here^

  10. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Google CEO Sundar Pichai addressed the company's Gemini controversy Tuesday evening, calling the AI app's problematic responses around race unacceptable and vowing to make structural changes to fix the problem...

    It's going to be virtual genocide. Literally!

    1. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

      “Our teams have been working around the clock to address these issues. We’re already seeing a substantial improvement on a wide range of prompts."

      "If Math.random() < 0.5 insert 'WHITE';"

    2. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

      What are the odds he only sees a problem in things like the pictures returned for "1940's German soldiers" or similar and not the black founding fathers or lady Pope.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        To say nothing of the real-life parody of a CEO a week after releasing a product that depicts black people as Nazis (after previously releasing a product that identified them as gorillas), replying with “Uh, this was unexpected, we’re working on it.”

        “Whoops. Our newest email update accidentally replaces every use of the pronoun “them” with “The Jews”. We’re sorry for the inconvenience and the dingers responsible for the screw up have all been shitcanned.”

        JFC, after the whole "Twitch couldn't predict the consequences of relaxing its nudity policies." self-dick punch you almost wonder if a real AI isn't already working behind the scenes to make these guys look like abjectly brain dead morons.

  11. JesseAz   1 year ago

    The hill decries federal workers being forced back into working in offices.

    The Hill
    @thehill
    "Republicans would cripple the IRS by forcing its workers back into the office" (
    @TheHillOpinion
    ) https://trib.al/NP0Hnnl

    1. Chupacabra   1 year ago

      Watching porn is less fun at work.

      1. Jeffrey Toobin   1 year ago

        Don’t I know it!

        1. Dillinger   1 year ago

          stop video! stop video!

  12. JesseAz   1 year ago

    AJC did the Normal MacDonald joke!

    Citizen Free Press
    @CitizenFreePres
    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution jumps to the defense of Venezuelan illegals.
    .
    Headline -- "‘Not fair’: After UGA killing, Venezuelans in Georgia worry about backlash."

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Bloomberg celebrates crime and murder dropping in Venezuela. Note the outlets that have reported Venezuela sending its criminals up to the US border, including Venezuela refusing to accept deported Venezuela criminals caught in the US.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-28/venezuela-s-violent-deaths-fall-to-22-year-low-on-migration?embedded-checkout=true

  13. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

    The guy who says McConnell stepping down is a huge loss has an Ukraine flag icon next to his name. Just saying.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      As relevant as the news that Romney says he will support Biden over Trump. Uniparty celebrates their strongest uniparty members.

      Pronouns or Ukraine flag in bio means ignore.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      All these dinosaurs that came in during the 80s and early 90s have stayed on WAY past their expiration date, out of this desperation that things are going to go off the rails when they're no longer at the helm. Shit, even Pelosi is sounding increasingly out of it these days, and she was one of the sharper members of the old guard.

      And yeah, it is empirically elder abuse to keep these people coming in to the office every day. There's no way in hell Diane Feinstein should have been allowed to essentially die at her desk. That was just fucking cruel. The same thing's probably going to happen to Grassley and Pelosi.

      Well, if Gen-X and the Millennials who are chomping at the bit to take over can't keep the country functioning, that speaks more to the general decline of American capability that was deliberately subverted by the left over the last 50-plus years. At some point, you have to take the training wheels off, and accept that you can't control future outcomes. They're either going to figure it out, or they're going to fall on their ass, and dying at your desk is just delaying the inevitable.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        And make no mistake, this whole thing with McConnell is due to him undermining the ascendant populists within his party over the last decade. Putting in a bunch of judges isn't going to get him a free pass when he subverted his party's agenda everywhere else; the border bill was simply the last straw.

    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      McConnell stepping down is a huge loss for the GOPe, Raytheon, the DC establishment and Better Business Bureau wing of the party, but a blessing for the rest of humanity.

    4. BYODB   1 year ago

      Yeah, McConnell will just have to relax and spend the #30+ million dollars he's accumulated while in office. Big surprise that a lot of it came from his wife. Funny how so many Senators end up married to people who are rich.

    5. DesigNate   1 year ago

      McConnell spent most of his career rolling over for Democrats as long as he could stay as the controlled opposition.

      But I give him high marks on sticking to his guns not appointing that piece of shit Garland to the SC and working with Trump to fill all those judgeships that Obama left open for some reason.

  14. sarcasmic   1 year ago

    Cops boarded bus & forced riders to prove they'd paid didn't know how to handle this, threw her off, & hit her w a $100 ticket.

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Unless you enforce it.

    1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

      So cops have legal protections Presidents do not?

      1. retiredfire   1 year ago

        Members of Congress do.
        So do judges.
        But, you have to remember; to the left Trump never really was president, so anything that goes with the office should be denied to him.
        If he's ruled to not have immunity, it will not carry over to the next communist president elected, or to previous ones, like 0bama, for ordering the summary execution of an American citizen.

  15. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in Tirana, Albania, appealing to the Balkan nations for defense support.

    The Balkans at least have an interest in not seeing Russia steal area real estate.

    1. Beezard   1 year ago

      Aren’t Serbia and Russia bros? Sounds like a fun recipe to re-powder keg the Balkans.

      Been a while since NATO cluster bombed any refugee trains or surrendered a bunch of Bosnian kids to the Serbs or anything.

  16. JesseAz   1 year ago

    Umm...

    Jason Snead
    @jasonwsnead
    Wow:
    .
    Vice President Kamala Harris says the federal government will now pay college students to register voters in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election.
    .
    This is one step away from the Biden administration outright paying people to vote for them.

    1. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

      This is one more step away from the Biden administration outright paying people to vote for them.

      FTFY

    2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

      “This is one step away from the Biden administration outright paying people to vote for them.”

      Biden sucks. A real president buying off voters would send out $1400 checks to everyone and $700 billion of PPP to businesses and call it "the bestest economy ever".

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Still amazes me how you and sarc can't figure out how government works despite being here for years.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Yes, you've made it pretty clear that everything you don't like that happened while Trump was president was not his fault. Congress did it. While everything you don't like that has happened while Biden is president is all his fault. Especially what has happened since Republicans took the House. You've made that abundantly clear.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            And sarc chimes in to prove it with his favorite strawman.

          2. R Mac   1 year ago

            Pour sarc.

        2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

          Still amazes me how you can't grasp the fact that Donnie + Mitch overrule Nancy.

          You do know that new legislation requires the approval of the President, Senate, and House?

          Well, you are pretty stupid. You probably didn't know that.

          1. Sevo   1 year ago

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

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              He's just flinging shit because he's only pretending he doesn't understand how vetoes and supermajorities work.

          2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            You don't get it. When Biden signs legislation, it's all his fault. When Trump signs legislation, it's all Congress' fault. It's really that simple.

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              Morning Sarckles, Buttplug just made the following wild claim, implying that Nancy could not create the spending bills and bares no blame, because the senate and the president could reject them (somehow conveniently forgetting that the house passed them with a supermajority):

              “how you can’t grasp the fact that Donnie + Mitch overrule Nancy.”

              Your post implies you believe Buttplug. Is it true? You agree Nancy bears no blame for calculating, creating, proposing and approving those bills and the real fault lies with the guy who had to sign an unvetoable spending bill?

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                I'm not saying that the people who wrote and pushed the legislation are not to blame. What I am saying is that you and the rest of Trump's Deranged Supporters who claim he's not at all responsible for legislation that he put his fucking signature on are dishonest partisan garbage.

                1. Sevo   1 year ago

                  "...dishonest partisan garbage..."

                  Projection from TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.

                2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  "not at all responsible for legislation that he put his fucking signature"

                  What part of unvetoable do you not get? I know your memory is short but did you forget he refused to sign three of those other Covid spending bills at the end?

                  1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                    What part of “his fucking signature” do you not get?

                    Had he actually vetoed the legislation and forced an override then you’d have a point. But he didn’t. So you don’t.

                    He vetoed defense spending, not COVID spending. So you're lying as always.

                    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      What part of unvetoable do you not get? What part of the fact that he actually vetoed some of the bills and sent them back unsigned do you not get?

                    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      What part of unvetoable do you not get?

                      I get that just fine. What you don't understand is that he put his signature on the legislation instead of vetoing it.

                      What part of the fact that he actually vetoed some of the bills and sent them back unsigned do you not get?

                      https://www.senate.gov/legislative/vetoes/TrumpDJ.htm

                      I get that you're a liar.

                    3. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      So you want to blame him for not producing theater than ends up with the same consequence. Because of your raging TDS. Despite his public statements against every spending bill after the first (linked to yesterday which you ignored as usual). While you continue to blame Trump solely for the spending because of your TDS.

                    4. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      So you want to blame him for not producing theater than ends up with the same consequence.

                      If he put his signature on it then he bears responsibility for turning it into law.

                    5. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Yes. He didng veto. He threatened veto saying no more as congress continued to demand he sign and not waste time with the veto process.

                      Which part don't you understand sarc? I gave you his statements yesterday.

                      Imagine someone who complains about political theater demanding political theater.

                    6. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      I would be in agreement with you if Trump had exercised his veto power and forced an override. I'd totally agree that he did what he could to block the legislation and was not responsible for it being turned into law. One hundred percent.

                      But he didn't.

                    7. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      So again you demand political theater despite it ending with the same consequence. Because of your TDS. Whatever you do, don't blame congress. That doesn't further your TDS.

                    8. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      So again you demand political theater despite it ending with the same consequence.

                      If the president opposes legislation, it’s his duty to veto it. The lengths you go to to absolve Trump of responsibility for legislation that he signed is, well, deranged.

                      And at no point have I said Congress isn't to blame for legislation that they wrote and passed. That's a blatant lie.

                      I am saying that the president is responsible for legislation that he signs, regardless of if it's veto-proof.

                    9. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      This actually raises a question in my mind: Could the President just flat out refuse to sign legislation that hit his desk? Like just put it in the inbox and then ignore it for the rest of their term.

                      I could see the argument that they could refuse to sign on constitutionality grounds, but just outright refusal because they didn’t like the bill?

                    10. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      It is similar to the pocket veto Obama was famous for. But it goes into effect.

                  2. Zeb   1 year ago

                    I think Trump was pretty happy to sign the "stimulus" (scare quotes because a better way to revive the economy would have been to stop deliberately throttling it). He got to send out those letters telling everyone how he's giving them free money.

                    1. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      I’m pretty sure that was only for the first one.

                      Which, in the game of politics, at least makes sense in an election year after the opposing team shotgunned the economy then tried to slit its throat.

                  3. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                    If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

                3. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  Sarc. For your educational purposes.

                  Biden goes against USSC precedent and without legislation to give tax payer funds for student loans. His action caused it.

                  Biden signs CARES act that had a non veto proof majority. Partially to blame.

                  Trump can't veto a veto proof spending bill. Congress is to blame.

                  Does this explain it to you? Or do you need pictures?

                4. R Mac   1 year ago

                  “Trump’s Deranged Supporters”

                  Ohhh, that’s a good one! Did you coin it?

              2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

                You agree Nancy bears no blame for calculating, creating, proposing and approving those bills

                When did I say that? You lying partisan Trump Cultist?

                I am saying that most of the blame goes to the Senate and White House.

                1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  You implied it right here you fifty-centing fuck:

                  “Donnie + Mitch overrule Nancy.”

                  And claiming that most of the blame goes to the Senate and White House, is like saying it's mom and dads fault that you robbed the 7Eleven.

                2. Sevo   1 year ago

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

            2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              "When Biden signs legislation, it’s all his fault. When Trump signs legislation, it’s all Congress’ fault."

              Yesterday I clearly said it’s only when Biden signs spending legislation when the Democrats control the House, that it’s all his fault. And when Trump signs spending legislation when the Republicans control the House, it’s all his fault.

              Why do you keep lying about this just to make excuses for the Democrats?

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                You're saying that presidents are not responsible for any spending bills that they sign while the opposing party controls the House?

                The lengths you guys go to to defend Trump are getting ridiculous.

                1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

                  ML is pretending the GOP controlled Senate led by Mitch McConnell didn't exist and wasn't in the same party with Donnie.

                  #GOP-Hack-Lament

                  1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                    No, you're pretending that Mitch had enough votes to reject it, which he didn't even if he wanted to thanks to your RINO pals.

                  2. Sevo   1 year ago

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

                2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  "presidents are not responsible for any spending bills that they sign while the opposing party controls the House?"

                  Pretty much. Yes. Particularly if they're unvetoable. Their hands are tied at that point. This is Civics 101, Sarckles.

                  1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                    Once again, you'd have a point if the president vetoed the legislation and the veto was overridden. But he didn't and it wasn't, so you don't.

                    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Your demands for political theater to divest blame from congress is amazing to watch.

                    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      lol you claim Trump isn't responsible for legislation that he enthusiastically signed because Congress could have overridden his veto, and you accuse me of divesting blame?

                      Too funny.

                    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      "lol you claim Trump isn’t responsible for legislation that he enthusiastically signed because Congress could have overridden his veto"

                      It doesn't matter if he had to sign it with tears of grief or while tapdancing. HE COULD NOT VETO IT.

                      You're pretending he could have vetoed it, sent it back and is would have gotten overridden, but that's not the case.
                      Are you being dumb on purpose or are you really this retarded?

                    4. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Do I need to write this out in crayon? His signature is on the bills. Let me repeat that: his signature is on the bills. That's because he signed them into law.

                      If his signature was not on the bills, then I'd agree that he bears no responsibility for them becoming law. He did his part.

                      But that's not what happened.

                    5. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      SO WHAT?

                      You're signature is on your divorce papers and you were certainly vocal in telling us that wasn't your fault.

                    6. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      I don’t understand your insistence on political theater.

                      Also, whatever happened to the line item veto?

                    7. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      Line item veto was ruled illegal due to the Impoundment Act.

                    8. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      I don’t understand your insistence on political theater.

                      I don't understand absolving him of any responsibility for legislation that he signed into law.

                    9. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      Line item veto was ruled illegal

                      Which is a damn shame.

                    10. DesigNate   1 year ago

                      @jesse: ah, I had forgotten about that

                      @sarc: shrike, being a demshill, constantly deflects any criticism of Democrats. I’ve been pretty consistent on making sure to place spending blame on Congress, as they control the purse.

                      I don’t think it’s absolution to point out the context of the spending that shrike is trying to deflect with. Namely that it wouldn’t have existed without the Democrats tanking the economy, that they were demanding even more money be spent, or that he wanted more money to go to individuals and less to bailing out states and corporate Dem supporters. But YMMV.

            3. JesseAz   1 year ago

              5th time you've used this strawman in 2 days. Is it working?

              1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                You still don't know what a strawman is. I'm not arguing against something. I'm making an observation. A strawman is one of your posts where you argue against the voices in your head and get angry when I point out that the arguments you're taking down only exist in your mind.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  Find a post that says what you claim others are saying. I'll wait for your citation.

                  1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                    When you attack people who say Trump is responsible for legislation that he put his signature on, you’re confirming what I said.

                    1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      You're pretending presidents always have a choice.

                    2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                      So no citation?

                    3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      So no citation?

                      Consider the source.

                2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  “You still don’t know what a strawman is. I’m not arguing against something. I’m making an observation. A strawman is one of your posts where you argue against the voices in your head and get angry”

                  Ha-ha. Absolute sarcasmic. It’s been explained to him one million times before, but here we are again.
                  In some ways he’s a national treasure.

                3. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                  According to sarc, his posts can't ever be fallacious because he doesn't make arguments just observations.

            4. damikesc   1 year ago

              What legislation did Biden sign?

          3. JesseAz   1 year ago

            GOPe Mitch who supports all spending increases?

      2. Sevo   1 year ago

        turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
        If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
        turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

  17. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    For more on crypto winter, check out this joint from me and Zach Weissmueller...

    I keep seeing Gabe Kaplan in that screen grab.

    1. Its_Not_Inevitable   1 year ago

      Hey, Mr. Kot-tair!

  18. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    Americans' satisfaction with personal life near record low...

    Luckily we all have our public lives to fall back on.

    1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

      How could that be? The economy is great, the world is at peace, and the adults are back in charge. People should be ecstatic.

      1. HorseConch   1 year ago

        They definitely didn't read Veronique's article telling us how much better we have it.

        1. MasterThief   1 year ago

          It's been a series of all the writers trying to convince readers that the economy is great and we can't trust our lying eyes

  19. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    The family of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny is having a hard time finding funeral homes and gravediggers to give Navalny a decent burial.

    In Soviet Russia, culture cancel you!

  20. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

    This woman used OMNY to pay for the bus. Once you hit 12 fares paid within a 7-day period, you get free rides. Cops boarded bus & forced riders to prove they'd paid didn't know how to handle this, threw her off, & hit her w a $100 ticket. Is this city a joke or what?

    Illegals Migrants get to ride for free so they can spend their $10,000 gift cards while out on the town while staying in their free 5 star hotel rooms.

  21. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    If Democrats hated Mitch McConnell as GOP leader, wait til they see the ones who come next.

    The next GOP leader will always be more Hitler than the last Hitler the GOP had leading it.

    1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

      Literally.

    2. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

      Anything that sows increasing discord and dysfunction in the United States Congress is okay with me. Unfortunately, it hasn't prevented the Federal government from spending increasing amounts above and beyond the revenues stolen from the taxpayers, nor is it likely to in the future. If only government shutdowns actually shut down the government; and if only failure to pass a budget led to stopped government spending! But alas ...

  22. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    If the chick in NY claims to be an illegal fag, she will get money back in a lawsuit against the NY cops

  23. Fist of Etiquette   1 year ago

    RIP Richard Lewis...

    Always funny.

    1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      He was great in Robinhood: Men in Tights

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        word.

      2. R Mac   1 year ago

        Daddy Dearest was a short lived underrated comedy with Don Rickles.

        1. Dillinger   1 year ago

          this universe was better with Don Rickles

  24. Sevo   1 year ago

    "...for his role in plotting to overturn the 2020 election results..."

    Specifically, how would this be accomplished?

    1. Ron   1 year ago

      by telling people to peacefully protest always the first sing of a dictator

  25. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

    So, with the South Korean fertility story, the evidence is mounting that women having working careers as the societal norm is an evolutionary maladaptation. It is literally eating your human capital seed corn on a civilizational level.

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

      Much more likely government incompetence just making everything so expensive that (1) people can’t afford children, and (2) it takes more income to live, with or without children.

      Back in the stone age, all the way up to electric vacuum cleaners and laundry machines, women did have full time jobs. There was only a brief period where women had the luxury of not working full time, say from the 1920s to the 1960s.

      1. American Mongrel   1 year ago

        Most likely birth control. Perhaps when science enables women to conceive as easily in their late thirties as they could have in their early twenties things will bounce back.

      2. Zeb   1 year ago

        Yeah, the nature of the full time jobs is the issue. It's not surprising that women trying to have a modern career have fewer children later (If at all).
        I'm sure government has contributed to the need for women to work. But I still question how much it's really necessary and how much it's just what people think they are supposed to do. Two income households with children often spend a ton on childcare and household upkeep. At least for people with above median incomes in places with reasonable cost of living I'm pretty sure they could make it work.

        1. Dillinger   1 year ago

          >>contributed to the need for women to work.

          used women to destroy the family.

        2. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

          South Korean culture apparently requires a career minded person to be an incredible workaholic. The one woman in the BBC article is doing so much work and work related study in her off time that she is taking IV drips on the weekends so she can have the energy to go back to work on Mondays. This is not a healthy work culture.

          1. Zeb   1 year ago

            No indeed. I've seen some of this. In the Korean branch of the automation company I work for basically has to live at customer sites because competition is so intense. Way more so than Japan, which is also known for some pretty intense work expectations.

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

          There's an article on Reason about the insane child seat requirements, basically meaning two children under 8 requires a three row minivan or SUV. That's the kind of incompetence I mean.

  26. Moonrocks   1 year ago

    "much of the spending Korea claims it does never gets to families, but is actually a morass of local government subsidies, grants, and other intermediated forms of spending."

    This can be said of literally every government program anywhere ever.

  27. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

    More reasons to limit use of Facebook.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/meta-adds-censorship-supporter-board-directors

    Texas billionaire John Arnold has long held a notorious position for many in the free speech community as the financier for efforts to establish massive censorship systems in the United States. While Elon Musk has been attacked for his effort to reduce such censorship at X (formerly Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have long pushed censorship efforts, even funding a commercial campaign to get people to embrace what they call “content moderation.” Now Zuckerberg has put Arnold on the Meta Board of Directors in a blow to efforts to get the company to accept free speech values.

    Arnold has given millions to organizations pushing censorship systems. The Washington Examiner has revealed how Arnold Ventures has given $13.7 million to five groups seeking to expand censorship programs in the name of combating disinformation.

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

      I recall John Arnold aka "King of Natural Gas" - big Obama supporter and free speech advocate.

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
        But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.

      2. damikesc   1 year ago

        ...yet he's backing censorship.

      3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        Damn, you're really a retard, aren't you.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

          By "free speech" you want to use government force to dictate how private companies edit their site.

          You are no libertarian. Not even close.

          You're a fascist like ML.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            LOL, shut the fuck up, you hicklib pederast. Your side was fine with the suppression of free speech in favor of DNC crafted narratives, don't act like a champagne marxist like Arnold is some free speech warrior.

            "All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others" is your motto these days.

            1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

              You are big-gov hypocrites.

              You opposed the Obama-era Net Neutrality rule which would prevent an IPS from selective throttling based on URL but you SUPPORT rules preventing a site from self-editing.

              You are nothing but naked partisan Team Red hacks.

              1. Sevo   1 year ago

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

              2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                You opposed the Obama-era Net Neutrality rule

                Zero surprises Buttplug supported Net Neutrality.

                "you SUPPORT rules preventing a site from self-editing."

                Look at the Nazi pederast pretending that it was the sites "choice" to follow DHS, DoJ, FBI and CIA orders to censor and spy on citizens. Fascist fuck.

              3. DesigNate   1 year ago

                Anyone who spouts off in support of Net Neutrality is a fucking big government demshill.

                Thanks for proving yet again that you are no “classical liberal”.

          2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            Look at Buttplug pretending that the FBI and CIA sending demands to the "private companies" was somehow the opposite of "using government force to dictate how private companies edit their site".

            And then the preening Nazi and occasional Klansman has the guts to call me a fascist. Stupid shill.

          3. Sevo   1 year ago

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

          4. R Mac   1 year ago

            Turn yourself in for crimes against children.

    2. Dillinger   1 year ago

      now I'll never use facebook even harder than I've never used it before.

  28. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

    “But there are other factors, too: South Korea’s graying population, for one”

    It couldn’t POSSIBLY have anything to do with the increase in women’s rights and options for self-direction leading to their choice not to birth as many children, could it? Maybe human society has evolved away from the desperate need to reproduce for survival to a more reason-over-instinct attitude just as it has over every other aspect of social organization. Maybe women find pregnancy to be too uncomfortable, inconvenient and dangerous; and since they no longer have to depend on men for support they don't have to make babies for them any more. Maybe nation-states will simply have to find a better narrative to make sure that the power-hungry have enough serfs to rule over.

    1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      Maybe it's just the penises are too small for their liking. Send in a boat or two of Nigerians to solve the problem.

    2. American Mongrel   1 year ago

      Its interesting that evolution evolved consciousness to eventually destroy its host organism in search of comfort safety and prestige.

      1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        If you want to assume that more people on the planet is essential to the survival of the human species, I guess there's nothing I can do to dissuade you, is there?

        1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

          The fact that a birthrate that is less than 2.1 per woman is not sustainable in the long term for the survival of the human species. A society whose values result in a birthrate of 0.64 per woman is doomed sooner than later.

          1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

            So, you're assuming that a falling birthrate now will never ever level off again at some point - why?

            1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

              It does not need to merely level off, it needs to more than double from the current rate in South Korea. This would seem to require a fairly radical cultural shift about what the society values.

              1. mtrueman   1 year ago

                " This would seem to require a fairly radical cultural shift about what the society values."

                It has nothing to do with shifting cultural values or any other airy fairy concept. It's about competition for land and resources. Fewer people mean less competition. Less competition means more energy available for raising children.

                1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                  Well, miscontrueman, if you think that way, you could make it easier on the rest of us and put your money where your mouth is.

                  1. mtrueman   1 year ago

                    "you could make it easier on the rest of us"

                    If my comments are too difficult, you should mute me. That will be easier.

                    1. Sevo   1 year ago

                      Your comments are not 'too difficult'; they are abysmally stupid.

                    2. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

                      It’s about competition for land and resources. Fewer people mean less competition. Less competition means more energy available for raising children.

                      Then take yourself out of the competition.

                    3. mtrueman   1 year ago

                      "Then take yourself out of the competition."

                      It's population density that affects fertility rates. I've tried to make that clear. If you still have trouble understanding after re-reading my comments, feel free to ask for further explanation. That goes for the rest of you morons.

          2. Sevo   1 year ago

            Well, I remember fearmongering over a high birth rate (up yours, Ehrlich), and it turned out to be nothing over than that.
            Prolly not a good idea to do the same over a low birth rate for a while.

        2. mad.casual   1 year ago

          No assumptions made.

          If you want ignore the fact that from exceedingly low levels to some of the highest forms of cognition consciousness exists and operates specifically to distort people's view of themselves and reality around them, I guess there's nothing I can do to dissuade you can I?

    3. Zeb   1 year ago

      Women have babies for men?
      I don't want a government program to encourage people to reproduce, but I do think it's a little troubling that prosperous populations are failing to reproduce at replacement rates.

      1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        No, women USED to have babies for men. If you depend for your survival on the support of men, AND there is a powerful instinct to reproduce, then – at least in the past – you look for the best man you can find to support you and hope you have lots of male babies to satisfy HIS instincts; and your village has lots of people to insure its defense against the raiders from neighboring villages and to produce necessities. All clear now? By the way, “replacement rates” is a measurement, not a goal per se. Who says the current population of the planet or any particular locale needs to be maintained? Why do we need MORE people?

        1. Zeb   1 year ago

          I see what you are saying now.

          I think it is very hard for a society to remain stable and prosperous with a declining population. People are going to do what they want, and if that means fewer children, then so be it. But it could make things difficult.

        2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          Not sure we need MORE people generically but we obviously need more productive people in prosperous cultures. Anecdotally, if my parents had not had children there would be at least 30 people that I can count off the top of my head that would not exist today. Every single one of them has employed their talents and ambitions in profitable pursuits. Collectively they have contributed far more than required to support the generations still living that came before. My father is 93 and currently 4 generations succeed him and he may live to see a 5th. That's a lot of people creating wealth. The problem as I see it is the creation of the welfare state. Here in the US the Great Society in particular which created perverse incentives. Welfare recipients see children as a way to increase their wealth. Productive people who actually pay the bill see children as an expense that they may not be able to afford. This naturally leads to fewer people creating less wealth to support more people creating none. Elon Musk famously wants to pass his genes on to as many children as possible. Seems kinda arrogant but I'm not sure he's wrong.

          1. mtrueman   1 year ago

            "Not sure we need MORE people generically but we obviously need more productive people in prosperous cultures."

            Productive people? I doubt people of the past were all that much different from people of today. It's technological development that's made people of today more productive than those of the past, not from any inherent change in humanity. If we want to maintain civilization with fewer people, it's technological innovation we need. 'Productive genes' is a fairy tale.

        3. mad.casual   1 year ago

          No, women USED to have babies for men.

          And, per your own "If you want to assume" stupidity above, you have this as documented fact? Or is it a blindly retarded speculation that you’re trying to use to argue against the fact that populations under-reproduce and get out competed or vanish of their own volition throughout the fossil/historical record entirely without regard for your “I think women used to be subjugated to men.” retardation.

      2. mtrueman   1 year ago

        "but I do think it’s a little troubling that prosperous populations are failing to reproduce at replacement rates."

        What's troubling about it? Populations of animals and plants constantly rise and fall over time. There's no reason why humans should be any different. Actually, there is a reason for concern, it's that capitalist economies require constant growth to function well. If you believe that the laws of economics must trump the laws of science, then let the hand wring begin. Otherwise, take it easy.

        1. Zeb   1 year ago

          I actually care about humans as more than just some population of apes.
          I don't believe anything "must" happen. But I do think some outcomes are preferable to others.

          1. mtrueman   1 year ago

            "But I do think some outcomes are preferable to others."

            I agree with that. But not if your goal is for South Korea's population to remain stable or steadily increasing. Especially not for economic expediency. Fluctuating populations are a fact of life on earth, for humans as well as apes and other animals, plants etc. That shouldn't be troubling.

            "I don’t believe anything “must” happen."

            Fertility responds to population density. It's a law of nature whether you believe it or not. Whether you are troubled by it or not.

        2. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

          "capitalist economies require constant growth to function well"

          Now who's repeating myths? There is no logical or factual support for this slogan anywhere in the history of economics. It is a slogan used by anti-capitalists and nothing more.

          1. mtrueman   1 year ago

            "Now who’s repeating myths?"

            Investors need a return for any investment to make sense. That requires a growing economy and a growing market. That's economic reality. If there's any myths being bandied about, it's that infinite growth of anything is possible on a finite planet.

            "There is no logical or factual support for this slogan anywhere in the history of economics. "

            I just gave you one. But you're right that constant growth is not necessary, as long as the overall trend is one of growth.

            1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

              "That’s economic reality."

              It's pure bullshit. Earning a return on your investment does not require a "growing economy" or a "growing market" and you've simply kicked the unsupported can further down the block.

    4. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      Long term, there is no society, whether it be a nation-state or some other form of political organization, without children. If your supposition is correct, then women's rights is not a sustainable ideological value for a society, and ones that are not based on sucha value will be the ones to survive. So you better hope that is wrong.

      1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        No, that is not the only conclusion one could come to if my supposition is correct. Also, the falling birth rate is a SHORT-TERM observation and says nothing whatever about the long-term birth rate. For example, it is possible that the birth will rate level off at some rate less than the replacement rate everywhere in the world and that world population will continue to drop gradually as productivity and standards of living continue to increase with new technology and social organizational improvements. It is even possible that a higher standard of living everywhere in the world will lead to women eventually finding pregnancies to be less onerous and return to a point at or near the replacement rate. Also, a lengthening average life span and later retirement ages will continue to contribute to trends.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          It is even possible that a higher standard of living everywhere in the world will lead to women eventually finding pregnancies to be less onerous and return to a point at or near the replacement rate.

          This has never happened in human history. Higher standards of living always correlate with lower birth rates. This is why open borders activists and the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP keep claiming that we have to continue importing third-world populations to make up for declining birth rates.

        2. BYODB   1 year ago

          You appear to disagree with yourself. You state birth rates are falling because women are now comfortable enough not to birth children 'for men' then go back and say well maybe being more comfortable will encourage them to have more children.

          Make up your mind.

          I can agree that it's probably a short term thing, but that's notably because the good times never last and eventually things will crash and people will be less comfortable again.

          In fact, one can argue that's a primary goal of WEF and their like.

          I also think your premise on women giving birth 'for men' is absurd at face value, but that really has no bearing on anything at all. Notably, even Lesbians have kids so I think you're operating on a flawed premise there.

          1. mad.casual   1 year ago

            You appear to disagree with yourself. You state birth rates are falling because women are now comfortable enough not to birth children ‘for men’ then go back and say well maybe being more comfortable will encourage them to have more children.

            You guys are being far too generous in the assessment as to whether he’s gone “full sarcasmic” or not.

            He routinely refutes the “Everyone around the world has documented evidence of concerning issue X that they were totally told by people like me not to worry about a scant couple years ago." with "But my just-now-made-up-and-completely-unsubstantiated evaluation of X that has modern SJW tropes (that have also been debunked) baked in proves they’re all wrong.”

            It’s below even Ron Bailey levels of propagandizing.

          2. mad.casual   1 year ago

            It’s like ENB’s retarded “Long held national opinion on abortion.” oral bedshitting a couple days before the Dobbs decision.

            The association between women’s liberty, women’s rights, prosperity, and fertility rates and birth rates that he asserts as some sort of bedrock fact has been utterly dissolved in several dimensions before he even spouted it. Chiefly, he conflates fertility rates with birth rates when, in fact, only one, fertility rates, could/or would refer to the “liberty, rights, and prosperity” retardation he’s spouting. While the other specifically refers to year-to-year and/or recoverable positions.

            Fertility rates refer to the total reproductions over a woman’s lifetime. If those drop to zero, or too close, done. No recovery possible. Moreover, they, by definition, take a lifetime or more to recover. It’s not like a woman in her 20s wants to marry a man and have six kids, gains the right to vote or lives to see the invention of the pill burns her bra and decides to have none.

            Further into his retardation, they aren’t saying “Women should be 2% more reproductive to maintain the comfortable 2% growth we’ve all known and loved.” they’re saying “Women have been under reproducing for a couple decades and we’ve leveraged ourselves to maintain growth. Now they’re to the point that even into the far future any comfort or standard of living numbers will be between more virtual than they are now and borrowed.”

          3. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

            "Make up your mind."

            BYODB, the two are not mutually exclusive but if you want to resort to overly simplistic interpretations of my opinions, go right ahead. I'm not going to write a doctoral dissertation in a blog page.

            "This has never happened in human history."

            RedRocks, just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen in future. In fact, all of my comments on this topic have been towards explaining why things might have evolved in this way up to this point, and why they might evolve differently under changing conditions later as the technology continues to improve and women become more comfortable with their evolving freedom.

    5. mtrueman   1 year ago

      "It couldn’t POSSIBLY have anything to do with the increase in women’s rights"

      No. The article doesn't mention it, but South Korea is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Taiwan is another densely populated island and also shows tendency of lower fertility. It's actually a world wide phenomenon where people have been abandoning rural life for the city and its surrounding slums/suburbs. Increased population density leads to lower fertility. It goes for humans, other animals, plants and bacteria. It has nothing to do with increased rights for women, women's independence, women's laziness, or any other failures of the female sex.

      "Maybe nation-states will simply have to find a better narrative to make sure that the power-hungry have enough serfs to rule over."

      Better narratives aren't going to change the dynamic. It's one of the fundamental laws of population biology.

      1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        I agree that there is a more subtle instinctual level force at work here, namely that fertility rates tend to be inversely proportional to crowding - at least in experimental rat populations - and that the South Korea case might exemplify this. How far you can generalize this to the rest of the world and any dire consequences of falling fertility rates for civilization, I have no clue. I do know, as pointed out above, that multiple contradictory trends can lead to seemingly perverse outcomes on the trend line.

        1. mtrueman   1 year ago

          "How far you can generalize this to the rest of the world and any dire consequences of falling fertility rates for civilization, I have no clue."

          If you have no clue you should be open to the possibility that falling fertility rates will lead to positive consequences for civilization. There will be less competition for scarce resources for starters. If South Koreans are choosing to be less fertile, I'm sure they have good reasons. My feeling is we have to respect these choices and not attempt any top down social engineering to gainsay their choices.

    6. mamabug   1 year ago

      I think that is a bit of a facile take. I don't discount that women working has an impact, however I would argue that the biggest factor is modernization itself and the increased cost for children to attain or maintain a position in the middle class or above.

      Looking at historical trends, you can see a reduction in fertility as a society goes from being agriculturally dependent (where children can start contributing to the family's economic stability at a very young age, economic independence around 18-20, almost no cost to train) to skilled trade dependent (age of economic earning around 12-14, economic independence around 21, marginal cost to obtain training) to modern (no expectation for contribution of earned funds to the family, age of economic independence 25+, potentially huge costs to obtain training).

  29. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

    "The Supreme Court has agreed to hear former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim that he is protected from prosecution for his role in plotting to overturn the 2020 election results"

    While it might be easy to dismiss Trump's claims as a light-weight self-serving exercise, the Constitutional issues raised in the process are critical here and I'm glad there's a chance that the Supreme Court will actually clarify an extremely convoluted question to prevent problems in the future. Although I'm not optimistic based on the Supreme Court's track record, Executive branch encroachment on the division of powers and checks and balances - both intentional and to fill a power vacuum created by the abandonment of its responsibilities by Congress over time - only the Judiciary has an opportunity to reestablish the balance with a clearly worded ruling now.

    1. Sevo   1 year ago

      Agreed, but you'd hope they'd start with an actual case, not one equivalent to his role in plotting to levitate the capitol.

      1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        It's a thinly disguised secret that the Supreme Court actively avoids cases that it would rather not rule on, while actively seeking out or even stimulating cases that it DOES want to rule on. Why would this one be any different?

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          I don't think they really have a choice here. This is a complicated and as yet unresolved constitutional issue that has arisen due to the unprecedented lawfare being waged against Trump. John Roberts famously seeks to rule on the narrowest possible grounds for a short term resolution. I don't think he can get away with it this time or in any of the Trump/J6 cases. They need to nail the door shut whichever way it goes. Of course the Biden regime will defy the order and brag about having done so.

        2. Sevo   1 year ago

          Because what he's accused of is not possible?

          1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

            No, because it's hard to ignore an appeal by a former President no matter how fatuous he appears. One possible way they could rule would be to point out that crimes committed while in office that are not in the normal course of carrying out the duties of that office (for example stealing your administrative assistant's purse from the cloak room) is not immune from prosecution, but murdering the leader of a terrorist organization in Pakistan by drone IS immune from prosecution. Helping to define the limits of immunity for officials at all levels of government now would be a tremendous step in the right direction. So, you are free to decide within that range whether calling election officials to ask them to declare the vote counting to have been tainted is within the normal activities of a politician in office or not.

          2. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

            Oh, now I get it. Even if it were impossible to have committed the crime he is accused of, it would not change the basis of his appeal. They are not being asked to dismiss the case based on the facts of the case or based on the unconstitutionally broad and vague law or the political motivation of the charges.

    2. SRG2   1 year ago

      It is not beyond the realm of possibility that one of Thomas or Alito says that presidential immunity extends to all official acts, and the president gets to decide what is an official act.

  30. Brandybuck   1 year ago

    Sorry, this is America and NO ONE HERE gets immunity. (Except diplomats, but we can still expel them). Trump is NOT above the law.

    If conservatives were honest with themselves, they would realize that this is a Good(tm) Thing. Doesn't mean Trump is guilty, it means that he is not immune from prosecution. Let the system work without whining that it's not fair to Orange Jesus.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      This shows a lack of actual understanding of immunity law.

      For example… Jack Smith, one of your current favorite people, cost Bob McDonnell years of his life, millions of dollars, and his job over a prosecution thr USSC rules unanimously was baseless and a corruption of the law. How has Jack Smith been charged for the prosecutorial overstep?

      This doesn’t even get into the fact you think someone can be charged criminally for petitioning courts and government if you simply declare it a conspiracy.

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        "...This doesn’t even get into the fact you think someone can be charged criminally for petitioning courts and government if you simply declare it a conspiracy."

        And this post hoc.

    2. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

      "NO ONE HERE gets immunity. "

      ....unless you are a protected class, illegal, or democrat

    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      "Let the system work"

      Hahahahahaha...hahaha... Have you been WATCHING the system work? A crooked judge and a fraudulent prosecutor are in the middle of stealing $300 million on charges of doing something that was always completely legal and legitimate. And he's not even allowed to appeal until he pays it all.

      That's your precious sYsTeM. It's the fucking bagman helping actual crooks rob your political adversaries. It's political corruption personified. Third world banana republic shit.

      1. BYODB   1 year ago

        Yeah, the fact the New York statute doesn't need any victims is one of those little things that Libertarians should have a problem with. It's asset forfeiture writ large.

        That it's designed this way systematically should be the first clue that the 'system' is actually the problem here and it's the very reason that businesses are leaving New York.

        Sadly, Brandybuck is one of those people who's brain was critically damaged by Trump being elected President. That, or they simply are not libertarian in any way, shape, or form. No true Scotsman required.

        1. Sevo   1 year ago

          Further, the law has never been used similarly until now. And it is now being used by a prosecutor and judge who ran on platforms of “getting Trump”.

          But TDS-addled assholes like brandyshit are just fine with that.

      2. HorseConch   1 year ago

        Does anyone believe this won't happen to every Republican the precious D's don't like going forward?

        1. DesigNate   1 year ago

          People like Brandy and Jeff?

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            They’d cheer it on.

  31. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

    If a us citizen has a Ukraine flag in their bio you automatically know it is a retarded traitor and deserves death.

    New draft rule, anyone with a Ukraine flag in their bio gets sent to Ukraine to fight the russians

  32. shadydave   1 year ago

    I've never heard of this Brian Riedl guy before this week, and now suddenly he gets mentioned twice in a couple of days?

    What exactly is the deal?

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      obviously no friend has punched him in the face for that Ukraine flag so we can start with he has no friends. maybe Liz knows him & feels bad

  33. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

    195 Republicans voted against the right to contraception:

    https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022385?Page=17

    Dammit- I keep aksing for that list of Gawd-Given rights and no one knows where it is.

    Well, wingnuts are going after birth control soon.

    #KeepWomenBarefoot&Pregnant

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

      Republican Opposition to Birth Control Bill Could Alienate Voters, Poll Finds
      A survey conducted by Americans for Contraception shows the overwhelming popularity of birth control, and suggests voters are primed to punish Republicans for opposing a measure to protect access to it.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/us/politics/republicans-birth-control-ivf.html

      Feb 26, 2024

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        How is protect access defined shrike? Given your source it is government funded or insurer funded. Which isn't access.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          If Plug was remotely libertarian he'd know not to try to push positive "rights" on an ostensibly libertarian board.

      2. Sevo   1 year ago

        turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
        If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
        turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    2. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      Or Republicans against positive rights.

    3. Sevo   1 year ago

      turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    4. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

      There is no "right" to contraception, you fascist fuck. Buy them or don't, but they're not rights.

      And if your weasels actually gave a fuck about contraceptives you'd stop blocking the FDA from letting the pill be sold over the counter.

      1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

        But then they'd be hard pressed to force insurance companies to pay for them.

    5. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      That's from 2022, asshole, and the Senate has sat on it. Congrats on finding news from over 18 months ago, retardo.

    6. DesigNate   1 year ago

      “ (23) Providers' refusals to offer contraceptives and information related to contraception based on their own personal beliefs impede patients from obtaining their preferred method”

      Just as I thought, this is about Democrats forcing insurance and businesses to provide contraception to women. It’s a back door around the Hobby Lobby ruling that you support because you’re a fucking bigot and a demshill.

  34. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

    "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in Tirana, Albania, appealing to the Balkan nations for defense support."

    I don't suppose it would be too much to ask that the European Union - you know, the nation that would be most directly and adversely impacted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine? - for military and economic support. Naw, I guess the United States' reputation for meddling everywhere around the globe over the last 75 years precedes us as the suckers we are.

  35. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>The Supreme Court has agreed to hear former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim

    who is filing O's amicus curiae?

  36. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    SCOTUS takes on Trump?

    Why not SCOTUS takes on dems lawfare?

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      mho was pretty imaginative both sides

      edit: plus if you think about it Roberts doesn't need any flashy headlines scaring him away he needs to be treated like a squirrel being baited to cross the street

  37. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>The far-right flank of Republicans in the House continues to pursue deep spending cuts

    just wait until after the election when T will have more flexibility

    1. MasterThief   1 year ago

      Don't they just mean the fiscally conservative or libertarian coalition of the GOP. In normal times they would be considered moderate or sensible

  38. Dillinger   1 year ago

    ya ... long live Richard Lewis.

  39. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Huge loss. If Democrats hated Mitch McConnell as GOP leader, wait til they see the ones who come next.

    no Democrat hated Mitch McConnell as GOP leader, Brian Riedl. do you get paid for your analysis?

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      I've seen three names popping up a lot recently. McConnell seems to want John Cornyn to succeed him. The base seems to prefer Mike Lee and Rand Paul, with Paul's name popping up more often.

      1. DesigNate   1 year ago

        As a Texan, fuck John Cornyn. He’s just another go along to get along GOPe controlled opposition fucker.

        Rand would be a freaking hoot and a half. Not sure how quick Charles would order some hit pieces on him though.

        1. Dillinger   1 year ago

          >>As a Texan, fuck John Cornyn.

          if I had socks I'd repost this using all of them.

      2. Dillinger   1 year ago

        Lee, Paul, Cruz

        1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          Yeah, that's 3 that would piss Dems off. Cruz, especially.

          1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

            Gotta love the nice quiet grey boxes.

  40. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>"Americans' satisfaction with personal life near record low," reported Gallup.

    what is their fucking problem? this can't be anything less than the most glorious time to be alive ... this time around anyway I bet Atlantis and all the other under-ocean cities were a hoot

  41. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in Tirana, Albania, appealing to the Balkan nations for defense support.

    this fucking guy is sitting on everything ... No Blood for Secrets!

  42. DaveH   1 year ago

    ... this man is 82. Let him spend the rest of his days eating ice cream cones!"

    Some of us old farts *want* to keep working. Productivity isn't all of life, but it's a big part of life.

    Admittedly, employment by the government is at best only very loosely related to concepts of productivity.

    1. Sevo   1 year ago

      But if you are found not competent to stand trial, you might not be competent to accomplish your work.

  43. DesigNate   1 year ago

    “…for his role in plotting to overturn the 2020 election results…”

    I feel like there is an “alleged” missing in there, seeing as it has not been proven. It just makes
    It sound like there was malicious intent when it’s much more likely his ego just wouldn’t accept a loss (signs of shenanigans notwithstanding).

  44. TJJ2000   1 year ago

    “plotting to overturn the 2020 election results”

    Ya know like how police officers, “plot to overturn a bank robbers vehicle during a getaway chase.”

    Isn’t it funny how all this is about the accusation being a crime.
    Talk about BS propaganda literally flipping justice on it’s head.

    People need to keep an honest mind (block the BS) and realize the FACT IS the only thing Trump did was questioned election integrity and rightfully so by any reasonable standard.

    That's no excuse for the leftard Nazi's to distort justice and claim that accusation is a crime in and of itself. The only thing that BS does is adds more evidence that the election was indeed stolen and most likely a large desire for it keep being stolen by prosecuting accusations.

    1. SRG2   1 year ago

      Except the election was not stolen.

      See this, for example:
      https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2024/02/29/trump-lake-stolen-election-voter-fraud-claims-false/72777547007/

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Az central is a dem supporting rag that ignores things like the signature verification data. Data sp bad Hobbs threatened to arrest Lake for tweeting out examples shown during a public hearing.

        Good work shrike.

        1. SRG2   1 year ago

          Is the writer of the piece a Democratic shill? Was he not hired by Trump? Or was he hired, found little fraud, wrote about it, and because it’s an article of your faith, as much as the Nicene Creed is to Christians, that the election was stolen, he can't be telling the truth. It doesn't matter what evidence is unearthed that shows there was no steal. True the Vote admit that they had no evidence to support their claims in “2000 Mules”? Did that shake your faith? No, of course not,

          You’re a true believer, and like all true believers, you’re a fucking idiot, with a faith as solid as granite, consistent with a brain of granite.

          Oh, and I’m still not shrike, but you know that.

      2. Diarrheality   1 year ago

        Sure it was, but because you like the thief, you willfully ignore his larceny.

        1. SRG2   1 year ago

          You remind me of the joke I've posted before, of a MAGA couple killed in a car crash who go to Heaven (they're stupid, not evil) and they're told they can meet God. They do so, and God says, you can ask me any question you like. The man asks, "the 2020 election was stolen, wasn't it?" God says, "no, it was generally fair and Biden legitimately won." The man turns to his wife and says, "this goes higher than we thought".

      3. TJJ2000   1 year ago

        If it wasn't stolen why is the accusation being prosecuted instead of being thoroughly investigated???

        Seriously leftards... What is the point in prosecuting the accusation?? It's downright a type of censorship about elections. The only true democracy is democracy that can't be questioned?

  45. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

    for his role in plotting to overturn the 2020 election results

    Which didn't happen.

    If he does not have immunity, a criminal trial will follow

    Which Liz obviously thinks is unnecessary.

    1. Sevo   1 year ago

      And I've yet to read HOW it could happen.

  46. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    Bus riders didn't resist too much, or they might have been Eric Garnered to death.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

  47. Liberty_Belle   1 year ago

    "The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen, handing at least an interim victory to Mr. Trump," reported The New York Times. "His litigation strategy in all of the criminal prosecutions against him has consisted, in large part, of trying to slow things down."

    So SCOTUS is just going to hand him the delay he wants ? Awful nice of them.

    1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

      The delay coincides with standard appellate procedure.

  48. Macy's Window   1 year ago

    "...his role in plotting to overturn the 2020 election results"

    Seriously? He "plotted to overturn the 2020 election results?"

    He wasn't questioning the validity of the putative results?

    No qualifiers? No temperance? Just "plotting to overturn?"

    LMAO. Ok, Reason.

  49. Diarrheality   1 year ago

    It’s going to be so rewarding canceling your vote out.

    Maybe you should step away from the screen for a while and get back to that housework you've been neglecting all week. A little more time spent on your sandwich-making skills probably wouldn't hurt either. Believe me, your husband will thank you for it, even though he, like most men, still won't give a shit what you think.

  50. Truthfulness   1 year ago

    No evidence provided for your claims. Call the police if you want to state otherwise. Get going.

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

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

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

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!