'Super' Week
Plus: A partial budget deal, Super Tuesday, the State of the Union, Harris calls for a cease-fire, and more...

A Wild Budget Agreement Appeared! House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) unveiled on Sunday a set of six budget bills that would avert a partial government shutdown if passed by Friday's deadline. Cumulatively, the six bills would cost about $460 billion and would fall within the $1.7 trillion discretionary spending cap that both sides previously agreed to impose, the Associated Press reports. If passed, they would fund portions of the government through the end of the fiscal year in September.
The 1,000-plus-page package needs to be passed by both the House and the Senate this week, and it's not immediately clear whether objections in one or both chambers could derail the process. The other six appropriation bills representing the larger half of the annual discretionary budget also have a looming deadline, in their case March 22.
The package reportedly excludes one major goal sought by conservative Republicans: a reversal of the Food and Drug Administration's decision to allow the abortion pill mifepristone to be sold over the counter. Republicans did achieve some other policy wins in the package, including a cut to the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, a provision that will ban the sale of oil to China, and one that will limit gun-buying background checks for veterans.
In a statement, Johnson urged his fellow Republicans to support the deal, which he said "secured key conservative policy victories, rejected left-wing proposals, and imposed sharp cuts to agencies and programs" favored by President Joe Biden.
Schumer, meanwhile, bragged about getting a $1 billion increase for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and blocking a Republican proposal to limit what foods are covered by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as food stamps.
There may be some drama to come before Friday's deadline, as some Republicans, including Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) and some members of the tempestuous House Freedom Caucus, have signaled their unhappiness with the package.
Consolation prize. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley won her first presidential primary on Sunday—the one held in Washington, D.C., a city that apparently contains at least a few thousand registered Republicans. More than 62 percent of the 2,035 ballots cast went for Haley, while former President Donald Trump picked up a scant 33 percent of the vote.
Haley getting her first (and perhaps only) victory in D.C. is a perfect illustration of the cultural divide that defines the conservative movement. Generations of Republicans—dating back to at least the Newt Gingrich-led House takeover in 1994—made electoral hay out of running as outsiders against the supposedly corrupt "establishment" in Washington. Of course, once elected, the victors became the targets for the next wave of anti-establishment candidates.
Trump has broken that cycle. He and his allies are the dominant faction in the party—the establishment in everything but name—yet he's managed to maintain the image of the outsider. Haley is the candidate for D.C. Republicans, and they have never been more powerless.
The End and the Beginning. Whatever small hope remains of voters preventing a Biden-Trump rematch in November will likely die this week, as 16 states hold primary elections on "Super Tuesday." Voters will go to the polls in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia. Additionally, Republicans will vote in Alaska and Democrats will vote in Iowa and American Samoa.
This week's contests will award more than a third of the total delegates to the Republican convention; winner-take-all thresholds that kick in at various levels in different states make it likely that Trump will win the vast majority of those delegates. If Haley is able to prevent a clean sweep on Tuesday, Virginia is probably her best bet—a February poll showed her trailing Trump by single digits in the commonwealth, though other polls of the race have Trump much farther ahead.
The Democratic race has even less drama heading into Tuesday, but the Biden campaign sees this week as a crucial moment nonetheless. Tuesday's primaries followed by Thursday's scheduled State of the Union address give the incumbent a chance to outline the contours of the race. Quentin Fulks, a deputy campaign manager for Biden, tells The New York Times that this week is "the kick-off to the general election" (which leaves me wondering who is playing the halftime show).
Absent the intervention of a doctor or a mortician, the rematch no one wants will be effectively confirmed by tomorrow night. Just 245 days to go.
Scenes from Virginia: Former President Donald Trump held a campaign rally on Sunday night in Richmond, where he played all the hits: spreading conspiracy theories about election fraud, once again confusing Joe Biden and Barack Obama, and stoking fears of a "migrant crime" wave (read Reason's Fiona Harrigan on why that's a myth).
Conspicuously absent was Virginia's Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who has also refused to endorse Trump (so far).
QUICK HITS
- For months, progressives have been pushing President Joe Biden to call for a cease-fire in Gaza. On Sunday, the White House trotted out Vice President Kamala Harris to call for "an immediate cease-fire" in the conflict, which she called a "humanitarian catastrophe." But her comments raise another question: Does anything the vice president says really matter?
- The Supreme Court hinted that a ruling on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims could be announced Monday.
- A majority of voters who supported President Joe Biden in 2020 now say he is too old to effectively lead the country, according to a new New York Times/Siena College poll.
- JetBlue Airways and Spirit Airlines are calling off a planned merger following a federal antitrust lawsuit.
- How President Javier Milei's free market reforms could resurrect Argentina's film industry.
- The robots are coming (to work)!
- ICYMI: Reason editor Matt Welch appeared on CNN this weekend to throw cold water all over the No Labels third-party presidential bid: "I'm not sure there's this big centrist groundswell in American politics right now. People are fed up with establishment politicians," Welch told Michael Smerconish.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cumulatively, the six bills would cost about $460 billion...
Still, I'd hate to be on the hook for that bill.
...would fall within the $1.7 trillion discretionary spending cap that both sides previously agreed to impose...
Discretionary? More like TOTALLY ARBITRARY. Am I right, fellow tax-money-spending enthusiasts?
in all seriousness, the breakdown between discretionary and non-discretionary is a fiction.
They chose to call certain expenses non-discretionary and they can go back on that at any time. It's a ploy.
Why would our government lie to us?
For your own good.
America Blew Almost $2 Trillion. Make It Stop.
The expiration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act offers an opportunity to get the federal budget under control.
.
In 2017, Congress passed a law commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Its authors sold it as a fiscal miracle drug: It would simplify taxes, make businesses more competitive, increase wages, create better jobs, boost economic growth and raise revenue. Now the evidence is in, and the TCJA looks set to be remembered as an outstanding fiscal disaster. By 2027, it will have cost almost $2 trillion, while failing to deliver the promised benefits.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-04/america-s-big-tax-cut-wasted-almost-2-trillion?srnd=homepage-americas
#Donnie-KingofDebt
How much are tax revenues up since then buddy?
I get it. You think government should be able to spend as much as they want despite what taxpayers want.
Meanwhile Biden is raising the deficit by 1T every 100 days due to increased spending.
Yes, a clear tragedy when American families across the entire income spectrum got to keep more of their own money.
the problem is that they didn't reduce any spending when they cut that revenue. the GOP showed that they also think the government should be able to spend whatever it wants..... they just don't think anyone has to actually pay for it.
I'm all for tax cuts....... but you gotta do the spending cuts too.
Only one half of one party is pushing those spending cuts. The half most derided in media including Boehm in this roundup.
Even sans estimates from loss of revenue per tax cuts, the spending greatly increased more than revenue "lost."
Man, if only some people kept harping on cutting spending.
Oh well, let’s accuse them of wanting to kill old people and make disabled vets eat dog food.
Man, if only some people kept harping on cutting spending.
Those would be the "tempestuous" ones, correct?
Correct.
Plugs wishes he could blow 2 trillion.
What's the over/under on tax money spent on hookers and blow? Not officially of course, but of all money collected as taxes in the united states what is the number spent on whores and cocaine? Hunter alone adds a few million.
Children?
Lol. And accurate.
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.
Tax cuts don’t cost money you stupid pedophillic twat. Spending costs money.
I'm convinced that being unlibertarian on an ostensible libertarian website is part of Buttplug's schtick.
Totally not a democrat pushes completely destroyed bullshit about the tax cuts costing the federal government money.
#DefendDemocrstsatAllCosts
Let's just have a look at revenues vs spending
2017 3,316,184 3,981,634 -665,450
2018 3,329,907 4,109,047 -779,140
2019 3,463,364 4,446,960 -983,596
2020 3,421,164 6,553,621 -3,132,457
2021 4,047,111 6,822,470 -2,775,359
2022 4,897,399 6,273,324 -1,375,925
2023 estimate 4,802,483 6,371,827 -1,569,344
2024 estimate 5,036,384 6,882,738 -1,846,354
So revenues following the JCTA still increased by 47% over 5 years.
But spending increased 57% over 5 years.
Revenues increased every year except 2020 (COVID year, which was still quite robust in revenue, only $42B lower than the prior year). Meanwhile COVID spending added about $2.1T to the budget, which is now pretty much permanently baked in as this year's budget estimate is higher by $330B than the spending during the COVID emergency. And seemingly nothing can be cut.
As COVID emergency spending wore off, the deficit dropped marginally, but now is climbing, 2024 spending $500B higher than 2023 spending, and for what? Paying for the debt, mostly, but also for student loan forgiveness and all the other vote buying activities Biden has been running up. And wait until the federal spending for illegal aliens is ordered by Biden.
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley won her first presidential primary on Sunday—the one held in Washington, D.C., a city that apparently contains at least a few thousand registered Republicans.
Oof. This one isn't even worthy of a lame joke.
The Swamp has annointed the New Swamp Fox.
Lets not sully a legendary name with a Nikki Haley association
Admittedly I did feel some qualms about typing that. But if South Carolina doesn't want its history sullied than it should send less sullied candidates to DC in the present.
It does work on quite a few levels, ill give you that
It is weird that he calls Trump the establishment later despite not winning the establishment vote.
Only weird if you’re unaware of Boehm’s work.
I was going to, but it's just so sad.
https://twitter.com/JoelWBerry/status/1764474417113972825
Whatever small hope remains of voters preventing a Biden-Trump rematch in November will likely die this week...
Don't use the word "die" when talking about octogenarian presidents! It's like Sarah Palin using targets in her ads or whatever knowing full well Jared Lee Loughner was following her every word.
Freudian wishful thinking?
Former President Donald Trump held a campaign rally on Sunday night in Richmond, where he played all the hits: spreading conspiracy theories about election fraud, once again confusing Joe Biden and Barack Obama, and stoking fears of a "migrant crime" wave...
Today's conspiracy theories are tomorrow's "we never said that didn't happen!"s.
To be fair, Joe Biden is also confusing Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
He also thinks Kamala is president half the time.
Who does he think it is the other half?
A mix between Hilary, Obama, and his pet rock.
Jackie. Is she here? Stand up.
Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!
🙂
😉
So confused *with* Joe Biden and not *of* Joe Biden?
"$1 billion increase for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children"
Seems more than a little sexist.
Well, yeah. It's ageist too.
Back to back non biologists weigh in.
My wife often calls me a child or infant. If I claim to be a woman can I get some of these freebies?
Yes. All tax payer programs are free. So have at it. Like a child at an unattended candy bowl on Halloween.
Where's Liz?
She was too libritarian, so they brought it the progressive kuck that is bohem. I don't think reason realizes there isn't a single reader that respects bohem as a writer
Sarc is trying to get your attention.
He's gonna have to wait a bit. After 5 month of bringing nothing to the table I muted him
Behind the paywall.
Wasn’t she the one who told everyone how to break paywalls?
On Sunday, the White House trotted out Vice President Kamala Harris to call for "an immediate cease-fire" in the conflict...
Then you know they're serious about it.
Think how much more serious they would be if they air-dropped the VP with the next batch of MREs.
The Supreme Court hinted that a ruling on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims could be announced Monday.
Can we get a THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN please?
Well, they just voted 9-0 that Colorado can't remove him from the ballot, and neither can those two swamp creatures in Maine and Illinois.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-election-colorado-51e79c0f03013034c8a042cb278b6446
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they agreed that allowing the Colorado decision to stand could create a “chaotic state by state patchwork” but said they disagreed with the majority’s finding a disqualification for insurrection can only happen when Congress enacts legislation. “Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President,” the three justices wrote in a joint opinion.
So they realize the chaos this would entail, but complain they wouldn't be able to generate future chaos?
More or less. But they're the diversity hire justices, so it's literal white supremacy to expect any of them to be functionally literate.
If the Supremes fail to declare The Donald to have immunity, can we file murder charges against the last ten Presidents of the United States for all the drone murders of innocent people overseas? I'm sure that's against the law in at least Georgia or maybe Massachusetts or New York.
In a surprise to no one, except progtards, SCOTUS administered a 'mega bench slap' to the CO-SC.
Because the Constitution makes Congress,
rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3
against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse
He and his allies are the dominant faction in the party—the establishment in everything but name—yet he's managed to maintain the image of the outsider.
The irony...
yet he’s managed to maintain the image of the outsider.
When the opposition fights like hell to keep you out of the race, you'll have that.
The fact that he and his minions dominate the GOP establishment makes him the establishment candidate.
Sort of like how the former resist nerds can never accept that they're the establishment, too.
Nor how #resist and #notmypresident amounts to election denial, nor how Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and host of Democrats all claimed (without evidence) that the 2016 election was rigged, stolen, hijacked...
"When the
oppositionfederal government and the courts fights like hell to keep you out of the race, you’ll have that."Fixed. Also I see that sarcasmic is pretending that popular support means establishment support.
I see ML is pretending GOP establishment support is not establishment support.
This is what 'establishment' support looks like:
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1764468572372251071
That’s what media establishment support looks like. Republican Party establishment support looks kind of orange with a bad combover.
So your theory is that there are multiple types of establishments, somehow, defined however suits you, and if one of them supports the candidate you don't like, that makes them the establishment candidate?
That's a lot of jumps and assumptions to make a point. It would be simpler and more concise to say 'I was wrong'.
So your theory is that there are multiple types of establishments
Yes. If you read the sentence I quoted it was specifically talking about the Party establishment. Not the media or government or whatever other red herring you want to try to distract with.
What do you suppose was the subject of the article I linked?
This is why him and Mike spent so mucj time trying to pretend there is no deep state or active opinion of federal bureaucrats.
Except I never said that. But I'd be shocked if you argued against something I actually said.
Pour sarc.
The Party Establishment has been hardcore NeverTrumpers since day one.
Or do you not consider the Bushes, the Cheney’s, et al the Party Establishment?
Not anymore. No.
I disagree as they have been obviously trying to thwart Trumps campaign while also hobbling the base.
Just because he’s popular with the base doesn’t make him the establishment. Shrug.
Allegiance to Trump is a purity test in many state Republican party establishments. You’re with Trump or you’re a RINO.
The head of the Republican Party in my state is about as anti-Trump as you can get as a Republican, and he's exactly what I think of when I think of 'establishment republican'.
I believe you. There's 49 others.
You’re a RINO if you’re not with the base or to paraphrase the great Javier Milei “if you give shit leftist an inch”.
Edit: I really think the base would happily follow anyone who followed those two points.
We can add “establishment” to the list of words sarc doesn’t understand.
A list of words he does understand might be a whole lot shorter.
There's nothing really ironic about it. He snatched the party's voters out of the GOPe's hands due to cultural politics, and they gave it up without much of a fight, much like any other culture war battlefield over the last 35 years or so.
To the extent that he controls the "establishment" is mostly due to the party's voters dominating the nomination process and political agenda, versus the Chamber of Commerce/globalist wing that dominated from the mid-60s to late 70s, and again from the late 80s to mid-2010s.
This is simply the latest episode in the decades-long struggle between the party's working-class populist voter base and its country-club donor class going back at least to Goldwater. It's something that the neocon wing never fully understood, and still can't grasp, because most of these people are in the upper middle class/elite tax brackets, wrap themselves in the flag while selling the country out to the highest bidder, never have to suffer the consequences of their preferred policies, and don't have the spine to actually push back against the left.
The ones who do, tend to be viewed with alarm because if it's one thing the neocons are absolutely terrified of, it's the activist left and their media allies, and will do anything it takes to placate them.
I mean that it's ironic in the same sense as "alternative" music.
So popular support means establishment support now, huh?
GOP establishment support means establishment support.
What does "establishment" mean?
I figure it's the people who control things and make the decisions. In the case of the GOP those people are firmly behind Trump, making him the party establishment candidate. The party was the context of what I quoted. Not media or whatever other red herring people are throwing out as a distraction.
I don't think that's unreasonable. Though a lot of people I think still think of the establishment as the sort of old guard of the RNC, who haven't yet been entirely displaced by the Trump supporting populist wing of the party. It will be interesting to see where the party goes after Trump has had his run.
For the last fifty years the GOP had been the anti-abortion party that evangelicals flocked to over that one issue. Now that RvW has been overturned, they don’t really have a central issue to unite them anymore. Instead they’ve united around a man. As I see it, the “old guard” as you call it was those anti-abortion Christians. Not even sure what the party stands for anymore other than Trump. Lower taxes? Guns? Culture war?
Always seemed to me that the anti-abortion stuff was more the bone that was thrown to the populists to keep the base rilesd up and the establishment was more about the "pro business" chamber of commerce types and the warmongering neocon world-police types who don't care so much about the social issues.
For the last fifty years the GOP had been the anti-abortion party that evangelicals flocked to over that one issue.
Thank you for admitting that your opinion of Republicans boils down to a childish caricature.
Always seemed to me that the anti-abortion stuff was more the bone that was thrown to the populists to keep the base rilesd up
It attracted single-issue voters. Lots. I have family who were lifelong Democrats who switched because of that one issue. They weren't alone.
the establishment was more about the “pro business” chamber of commerce types and the warmongering neocon world-police types who don’t care so much about the social issues.
I suppose. Though both parties are pro-business and pro-war. Just depends on the business or the war.
I don't think Trump has given a direct answer on the a-word.
Can you imagine a candidate getting away with that before RvW was overturned?
Trump did, didn't he?
Yes. Sarc’s either lying or being intentionally ignorant again.
I don’t think so. Do you know his stance?
Last I checked it was between wishy and washy.
I mean Trump got away with it before RvW was overturned.
True. Well there goes my theories.
I've actually seen that claim made by the Dispatch crowd and its members. It's mostly sour grapes due to the fact that they aren't the ones controlling the agenda anymore.
These people are salty as fuck about the 9-0 Supreme Court decision, too. The lefty members demurred on some aspects of it, but I suspect Roberts made it clear that there needed to be a unanimous decision, in order to leave no doubt as to whether states can determine who is on the ballot and who isn't, based on their own subjective interpretations of Constitutional amendments.
These NeverTrump idiots would have thrown the entire American electoral system into chaos just to get Trump, over their fury of their made-up fantasy that he incited an insurrection, and like they always do, would have blamed anyone but themselves for the consequences of their short-sighted, self-justifying thinking.
It’s something that the neocon wing never fully understood, and still can’t grasp, because most of these people are in the upper middle class/elite tax brackets, wrap themselves in the flag while selling the country out to the highest bidder, never have to suffer the consequences of their preferred policies, and don’t have the spine to actually push back against the left.
Except for the upper class part, describes sarc to a T.
Someone tell this guy to please keep me on mute? If he wants to talk shit like this, then that’s fine with me. Much more easily ignored than direct comments full of lies intended to goad me into defending myself.
Well, The Party has been "in name only" for a very long time. It was ripe for a hostile takeover and The Donald is the personification of hostile takeovers!
I think that’s a fair assessment.
A majority of voters who supported President Joe Biden in 2020 now say he is too old to effectively lead the country…
Is this election a referendum on his handlers then?
"A majority of voters who supported President Joe Biden in 2020 now say he is too old to effectively lead the country"
Well they're clearly not reading Reason's comment section. Biden's #1 fan will tell them he created the strongest economy ever and defeated Putin a year ago.
If that's not "effective" leadership I don't know what is.
#DefendBidenAtAllCosts
He’ll rush in soon to talk about exploration rig counts, and how the economy is doing much better than during the Covid lockdowns, and how precious metal prices are deflation.
The robots are coming (to work)!
Our water coolers are going to be replaced with coolant coolers!
"AccountsPayableBot just got hauled up to HR for sexually harassing the Okidata."
I didn’t know Bender got hired into accounts payable.
"Hey, baby. Wanna kill all humans?"
I heard that in Bender's voice. 🙂
I always visualized Bender as a Transhumanist lawn jockey.
🙂
😉
"Kiss my shiny metal ass!"
Hey, are you AI or a human plagiarist?
Will there be coolant cooler gossip? A vending machine for canned air? DEI struggle sessions from Google's AI?
🙂
😉
I'm not sure there's this big centrist groundswell in American politics right now. People are fed up with establishment politicians," Welch told Michael Smerconish.
Welch later went on to add" I know this because my last article discussing that it's troubling that the dems use the law to attack political opponents is bad, because when the Republicans are in power they might do the same thing. Made all of the libritarians and Republicans pissed off. The pedos and facists still loved it"
I've been saying for a while that the center-right is absolutely deluding themselves into believing that there's this "horseshoe" with a massive centrist population that just wants "normal" to come back.
What's their fucking evidence for this, other than a bunch of insincere Democrat partisans who lie about being "independent" and trick these self-important goofballs into believing how much they supposedly respected the "old GOP that at least had principles," despite all evidence to the contrary in every comment board and news article going back over the last 60 years? Every Republican, no matter how moderate he actually was, was a closet fascist who was going to get us into World War III, restore Jim Crow, and take us back to the Middle Ages socially.
Who other than a willfully ignorant moron would believe that anyone bitching about the GOP from the left, regardless of the era, ever had any respect for the "old GOP"? Just a bunch of clueless naifs afflicted with a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.
I have lately been trying to imagine the current political factions in the US, and how they form alliances mostly under the D vs R banners. Off the top of my head (with lots of overlap):
Team Blue
Progressive, CRT, Marxist Green activists
Upper middle class white college grads
Black and brown working class (but with shrinking D allegiance)
White labor union members
Tech and finance
Academia
Media and Hollywood
Team Red
Christian fundamentalists
White working class populists (less dedicated union members)
Rural county residents, including farmers and ranchers
Small business capitalists
That seems about right, although I'd add exurban residents to the Team Red, side, too. Not exactly rural, but the farther people get from the cities, the more conservative their politics tend to be these days. They're mostly upper-middle class whites as well, but they aren't nearly as blue as their inner ring suburban counterparts.
On the Team Blue side, add in the major tourist resorts. These places are technically rural, but socio-economically, their populations consist mostly of champagne socialists and peon labor of various races.
I live in a rural area with a ton of former blue collar d's who are firmly Trump voters at this point. I'm not sure what that means when he's out of the picture, but the d's have left them so far behind it's hard to imagine them returning to being loyal lapdogs.
I’m not sure what that means when he’s out of the picture, but the d’s have left them so far behind it’s hard to imagine them returning to being loyal lapdogs.
Probably not much, to be honest. The Dems media lapdogs such as Morning Joe are calling these people the biggest threat to the country.
Not even Russia or China, mind you–a bunch of hayseeds living out in the sticks are the nation’s biggest threat, because they don’t shut up and be grateful for all the welfare the Dems promote instead of actual jobs and industries to keep their communities viable, and might have a problem with overeducated, mentally ill activist teachers encouraging their offspring to believe they’re born in the wrong body and need to mutilate themselves to feel better.
The GOP really isn’t any better in this respect, because this demographic is way too politically volatile and populist, which goes against the inherent risk-averse nature of the party’s donor class. Trump’s a nice middle finger to all these folks, but a real problem solver would be promoting the return of productive industries that people with a high school diploma could perform, de-scaling cities to cut down on urban-derived social neuroses, helping rebuild the dying small towns in middle America into viable, high-trust communities, breaking up the tech monopolies to cut down on the massive liquidity the industry has via remote workers, which negatively distorts the cost of living for existing residents, and closing down the border to ensure the cities didn’t just replace the departing citizens with new swaths of peon labor.
Democratsoke Marc Elias are actually bragging the Haley victory in D.C. is proof Trump won't get a fair jury pool in D.C.
Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
In a city of 700,000, Donald Trump got 676 votes in the GOP primary. A tough jury pool....
Sounds like Buttplug. Neither of them are big into fair trials but they do love a good kangaroo court.
Yeah, I'm absolutely shocked that the center of America's Axis of Evil preferred Haley.
The Swamp does love a good Swamp Fox.
He is a very dangerous man = Marc Elias.
Meet the other Ukrainian energy company Hunter was paid to help avoid prosecution.
Hunter Biden offered to help Firtash try to “influence or attempt to quash” his federal indictment;
Galanis believed either $5 million or $5.5 million was delivered to Boies, where Hunter worked as a lawyer. The payment was to compensate Hunter Biden for trying to resolve Firtash's U.S. legal issues;
Youseff became “very unhappy” with Hunter Biden’s work on the matter because of the lack of progress resolving Firtash's criminal case;
Eventually, the effort ended and Youseff arranged to transfer $3 million of Firtash’s money to a tech startup associated with Galanis and other Hunter Biden business partners called mBloom.
mBloom then sent about $300,000 of that money to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a firm where Hunter Biden often got paid for his Burisma work.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/monhunter-biden-sought-5-million-try-quash-indictment-ukrainian
Yes, but after his father-in-law left the Whitehouse, the investment company Jared Kushner worked for was asked to invest a billion dollars by a foreign government.
Same-same.
That's why we need to make sure and send them all of our money to keep democracy going.
Per the AP, if you discuss the negatives of mass illegal immigration youre pushing Russian disinformation.
In recent weeks, Russian state media and online accounts tied to the Kremlin have spread and amplified misleading and incendiary content about U.S. immigration and border security. The campaign seems crafted to stoke outrage and polarization before the 2024 election for the White House, and experts who study Russian disinformation say Americans can expect more to come as Putin looks to weaken support for Ukraine and cut off a vital supply of aid.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-election-trump-immigration-disinformation-tiktok-youtube-ce518c6cd101048f896025179ef19997
I just watch Mayorkas declare that DHS staff are now forbidden to call illegal aliens, "illegal aliens".
Reading some of the laws as written now is going to be hard, but maybe that's the point.
Believe the official administration wording is now "newcomers."
Future dependent voters?
How about "filthy foreigners?"
Wetbacks?
A return to former glory: "wetbacks".
Easier to say, and more accurate.
Trying to help sarc with his cost free immigration narratives. Out of Maine, New program costing millions will give illegals free rent for 2 years then 30% taxpayers funded discounts after that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13145591/maine-taxpayer-funded-apartment-complex-migrants.html
I'm going to cross the border and live there illegally on Sarc's taxes.
Here's something you probably don't know. Immigrants who claim asylum aren't allowed to work until they go to court, and that can take years. Their only legal option to feed themselves is welfare. They're forced into it by policies that prohibit them from working. Little things like that are what your biased sources don't tell you. It's called lying by omission. It's also disgusting, to me anyway, that the government makes criminals out of people who would provide for themselves.
But would they provide for themselves?
How long have laws like this been on the books? If someone comes to a country knowing the government will give provide all that free room and board and forbid working, how can you possibly claim they all want to provide for themselves?
When Google and other Silicon Valley companies were including free lunches and snacks in compensation, they were expressly doing so to attract workers. Is it not the same when the government forbids “newcomers” from working and provides free room and board?
Are you defending laws that make criminals out of people who want to get a job to feed themselves?
Are you refusing to answer my clear question?
I think most people, even immigrants, have a sense of pride and would rather provide for themselves than take handouts.
Your turn. Are you defending laws that force immigrants to take handouts instead of working?
Answer: Yes, you are refusing to answer a very clear question.
So much for /sarc wanting a "good faith discussion".
I answered your question. You just didn’t like the answer. Then accused me of arguing in bad faith. Is this Irony Day?
You answered nothing except the ravings in your own mind. Let me ask it again.
Did those “newcomers” come here knowing they were forbidden from working, and knowing they were going to get free room and board? Is this not the same as companies providing perks to attract employees?
I'm not arrogant enough to presume to know what they know. I do however presume that they're human beings who, like most human beings, want to provide for themselves and their families.
In other words, you don't know enough about them to answer my question, but you do know enough about them to answer your own question.
Oh ok, you're doing your usual bad faith runaround. I should have known better. My fault.
The only thing you've got right.
FWIW, you're your own worst enemy. I'm an open borders guy, and I do think most people want to provide for themselves, even these immigrants. But the key word is "most", and in your fear of showing the slightest hint of any problem with this flood of illegal immigrants, you can't even admit that government incentives encourage more bums and criminals to come in along with the honest immigrants.
You're one sorry sad sack, so scared of the truth. But I don't feel sorry for you. I assume that you too have agency, and if you wanted to be an honest person engaging in honest discussions, you would. That you don't just shows you would rather be a dishonest dissembling sad sack.
you can’t even admit that government incentives encourage more bums and criminals to come in along with the honest immigrants
That was covered when I said most of them want to provide for themselves. They’re the ones who aren’t “most.”
if you wanted to be an honest person engaging in honest discussions, you would
Why don't you try conversing in good faith instead of assuming the worst possible implication of what I say?
When you don't answer the question, and think saying "most" as an answer to some question in your head that no one else asked, what are people supposed to think, especially from someone with your reputation and your handle?
And don't come back with those lies about forgetting your password and email address. That was shown to be a lie a year ago.
https://reason.com/podcast/2022/12/02/you-asked-we-answered-with-libertarian-explanations-animals-andcookie-dough/?comments=true#comment-9817526
When you don’t answer the question
I answered your question. You just didn’t like the answer.
And don’t come back with those lies about forgetting your password and email address.
I never said that. That’s a lie spread by the usual suspects. What happened was someone impersonated me by using my handle when I wasn’t on Reason, as in evenings and weekends. For a long time. To the point where things got confusing for me because people would start yelling at me for things I never said. Finally I caught on (I felt what gaslighting must feel like because I saw me in conversation I never had) and the people who invested hatred at the impersonator still insist it was me.
Awe, pour sarc. We made him this way.
Whats hilarious about this back and forth is every link I post mutes both hacked and unhacked versions of sarc with one click.
""I think most people, even immigrants, have a sense of pride and would rather provide for themselves than take handouts.""
Not what I'm seeing in NYC.
The reality is they are sucking up resources like a plague of locus.
Do you think the taxpayer is obligated to provide for them?
The reality is they are sucking up resources like a plague of locus.
It's criminal for them to provide for themselves. How else are they going to get a roof and something to eat? Don't want immigrants on welfare? Let them fucking work. Welfare is a symptom. Laws against working is the cause.
“How else are they going to get a roof and something to eat?”
Stay in their home country? (Semi-glib answer tbh)
Once again, going on welfare is a symptom. The cause is laws making them criminals if they try to provide for themselves. The people railing against immigrants because they go on welfare are deliberately and dishonestly ignoring the fact that many or most of these people would rather work. How do I know that they'd rather work? Because they're people. Just like you and me.
Nope.
Most of us know the work restrictions imposed on asylum claimants. And most of us also reject the welfare state solution to all problems. And we also understand how economic incentives motivate people.
Your omission is the legal option not to storm the border.
Your omission is the legal option not to storm the border.
When the context is people who have already entered the country, that "omission" is a red herring.
No. It's not. You can't stop them until they've 'already entered the country'. Calling that a 'red herring' is dishonest.
As Jeff has admitted multiple times: the “asylum” seekers are gaming the immigration system.
What other option do they have (once here) other than working illegally?
Once here, I don’t know.
But they didn’t HAVE to come here, knowing full well they wouldn’t qualify, yet still applying for asylum. And nobody should be encouraging them to do so.
I can say for certain that I wouldn’t want to live the lives they left. Doubt you would either. Maybe welfare factors into their decisions. Maybe it doesn’t. What does is that where they live, life is pretty shitty.
That’s not what qualifies someone for asylum. That’s the fucking point.
It takes years for courts to decide if they qualify. In the meantime work is forbidden and welfare is pushed. I think they'd rather work, and anyone who argues otherwise wishes they could get welfare.
You already said this several times and it doesn’t address my post whatsoever. Retard.
i know your intent is to try and quiet the anger by explaining this.... but you are actually explaining why so many people are pissed off about it all.
this is why our asylum system is being so grossly abused. these people are not coming here to contribute. as you just said, they can't contribute. they are coming here to get free shit for a couple years, over 90% will ultimately be denied...... and when they are finally denied, they will have been here for years, had kids, and be begging for sympathy that we want to deport the freeloaders and break up their family. the people who honestly want to come to work will go to a place where they can work in a way that lets them work. (like the several other countries they walk through to get here.)
this is why, as much as trump was wrong, he was right on with the stay in Mexico policy. (bigger changes are needed, but it is a good start.) if these people want to overwhelm our asylum courts with claims they know are not valid.... fine..... but they don't get to stay here and get free shit for doing it.
this is why, as much as trump was wrong, he was right on with the stay in Mexico policy.
Only because they can't work. Let them work and I don't care how long they wait to get a decision on asylum or not.
either way, none of them are contributing anything. there might be more than one answer to that problem, but those that are coming right now are not coming here to contribute anything...... they are coming here for free shit. and that is why people are so pissed about it.
i would say just "letting" them work isn't enough. i think it should be a condition of entry that they don't get one dime of taxpayer money from any source. they MUST work.
none of them are contributing anything
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Many are washing dishes, wheelbarrowing concrete, and other jobs for cash under the table. Because it’s illegal to work legit.
i think it should be a condition of entry that they don’t get one dime of taxpayer money from any source.
I’d settle for just letting them legally work for a start.
"I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Many are washing dishes, wheelbarrowing concrete, and other jobs for cash under the table. Because it’s illegal to work legit."
if you really buy that, then they are double dipping..... getting taxpayer funded welfare while working a job they don't have to pay taxes on..... no matter how you try to twist that, they have a net negative impact. and there is no reason to believe they would do any different if you just make it legal to work legit.
"I’d settle for just letting them legally work for a start."
saying "but you can still have free shit if you don't want to" is not a very good incentive. i am glad you understand there is a problem, but i don't get why you hesitate to stop giving them free shit. "letting" them work does not fix the problem.
if you really buy that, then they are double dipping….
Doubtful. The ones on the dole have an incentive to not break the law. The ones here illegally work like motherfuckers. Or are actual criminals.
you have kind of talked yourself in a circle, here. you are trying to completely side step the issue we are talking about, which is those abusing the asylum laws.... and say they are not the ones working at all, that is just the illegal immigrants...... when them supposedly doing this was your earlier attempt to say they do want to work.... and you are only backing off now when it is brought up that means they are double dipping.
i don’t get why you hesitate to stop giving them free shit.
I hesitate because I believe that if these human beings were allowed to provide for themselves, then most would not seek out free shit. Result is a lot less use of free shit.
you know what results in even less free shit? no free shit. if these fine human beings who are deliberately abusing our asylum laws really just want to make their own way, then why not take away the free shit?
we can take away the free shit and let them work. why can't you accept doing both things? why do you want to keep the free shit if you are so sure they won't seek it if they can work? why do you want to close one loophole but not the other? i am starting to think you don't actually care if they work, you just know that issue stands in the way of you wanting to claim they contribute. (even if unfounded, that is easier for you to work with than impossible.)
“….they’re forced into it….” “….to feed themselves..”
This might make sense if they were so weak from malnourishment that they could barely walk across the border, much less climb over barriers. And if they didn’t have cellphones, etc….
As much as you drama queens wanna make this sound like life or death, it’s not.
You’d probably make a good climate alarmist if you wanna change up your schtick.
Let’s not give the idiot any ideas.
NY Gov seems to be ready to hire illegal aliens into her government
-------------------------
This comes as Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) announced a proposal that she is easing up requirements in New York so that illegal immigrants can quickly get a job in the U.S.
The proposal would require illegal aliens to obtain legal work authorization from the federal government. However, other requirements-- such as the New York Department of Civil Service relaxing English language proficiency requirements-- would be eased for thousands of government jobs. An education verification and certification would also be omitted from the job qualification.
California says "Hold my beer"
California Introduces Bill to Allow Undocumented Immigrants Eligibility for First-Time Homebuyer Loans (msn.com)
This bill seeks to modify the state loan program's eligibility requirements, ensuring that undocumented immigrants can access loans for first-time homebuyers, broadening the scope of who can achieve the American dream of owning a home.
[Seemingly illegal aliens can live the American dream completely without a sense of irony.]
The overwhelming demand for the California Dream for All program led to its rapid reach of the application limit last year, prompting a shift in approach this year.
To distribute opportunities more equitably, the program will move from a first-come, first-serve basis to a lottery system, allowing all eligible applicants an equal chance at homeownership.
[So, not only is the program out of money, but now they want to insert illegal aliens into a lottery system, which implies that citizens who are otherwise eligible for the program will lose benefits to illegal aliens.]
New York Post
@nypost
Judges improperly enhanced sentences of more than 100 Jan 6 rioters, appeals court rules https://trib.al/1K64iju
There really needs to be another judges trial a la Nuremberg for these fascists. At least give them equivalent jail time as their victims.
Ooof...
"A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department’s argument that convicted rioters merited lengthier prison sentences for interfering in the “administration of justice” when they stormed the Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.
“[T]he phrase ‘administration of justice’ does not encompass Congress’s role in the electoral certification process,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote in the court’s unanimous ruling.
“[T]ext, context, and commentary show that ‘administration of justice’ refers to judicial, quasi-judicial, and adjunct investigative proceedings, but does not extend to the unique congressional function of certifying electoral college votes,” she added."
Yeap. Basically after the USSC took up the case on the DoJ misapplying the law in regards to obstruction, the judges are trying to pull back from what they were endorsing. This applies to hundreds of J6 defendants and plea deals.
and what about the guy who wasnt even in DC on that day but got 22 years?
Slow process of appeals. I expect a todal waive of appeals for J6 after the USSC decides the obstruction case before it.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/cdc-almost-500-deaths-a-day-occurred-from-excessive-drinking-during-covid-pandemic/
Weird. Somehow doesn't show up on all those excess death stories.
Covid deaths.
Excessive drinking with COVID, or of COVID?
Who would drink COVID?
(more truthfully known as "The Communist Chinese Virus')
Shhhh!...Qanon-ers might be brewing something up as we speak!
🙂
😉
Drinking because of COVID (or more accurately, because of lives fucked up by COVID restrictions).
Of Covid or with Covid?
There may be some drama to come before Friday's deadline, as some Republicans, including Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) and some members of the tempestuous House Freedom Caucus, have signaled their unhappiness with the package.
Imagine a libertarian economics writers calling those looking to reduce spending tempestuous. Wait. Don't have to.
Trump has broken that cycle. He and his allies are the dominant faction in the party—the establishment in everything but name—yet he's managed to maintain the image of the outsider. Haley is the candidate for D.C. Republicans, and they have never been more powerless.
Mitch McConnel and other GOPe senators will beg to differ.
"Imagine a libertarian economics writers calling those looking to reduce spending tempestuous."
Are you implying that Boehm is a libertarian?
I'm not a biologist.
tem·pes·tu·ous
/temˈpesCH(əw)əs/
adjective
1.
characterized by strong and turbulent or conflicting emotion.
Why do you find that so offensive?
Why do you find that term, and its negative connotations, accurate?
Why are the connotations all negative? Could be interpreted positively to mean passionate.
Light or moderate rainfall is not tempestuous. Tempestuous specifically evokes a tempest i.e., a violent and dangerous atmosphere.
You might mistake a passionate argument for a tempestuous argument, but there is no context in which describing it as tempestuous is intended to reflect positively on the merits of the argument.
Tempestuous
adjective
tem·pes·tu·ous tem-ˈpes-chə-wəs -ˈpesh-
Synonyms of tempestuous
: of, relating to, or resembling a tempest : TURBULENT, STORMY
tempestuous weather
a tempestuous relationship
Sound's "passionate" to me.
"Consolation prize. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley won her first presidential primary on Sunday—the one held in Washington, D.C., a city that apparently contains at least a few thousand registered Republicans. More than 62 percent of the 2,035 ballots cast went for Haley, while former President Donald Trump picked up a scant 33 percent of the vote."
33% in the lion's den itself should be considered amazing. I bet the FBI are hunting them down as we speak.
Gov Haley and DC deserve each other.
I bet the FBI are hunting them down as we speak.
The ones in the office that didn't draw short straws anyway.
Am I the only one who saw the caption over the shit-sandwich and giant-douche we're allowed to choose between for president and initially saw 'Weak' instead of 'Week'?
You are not.
It's not "shit-sandwich and giant-douche".
It's shit-sandwich and a polonium milkshake.
If you're going to go that far then it would be hemlock tea or polonium milkshake. Neither is going to do dick about the debt or deficit, which is going to break the government in a matter of decades.
Nope. Trump might be gross, but as his last term proved he was nowhere near as deadly.
$8T would say otherwise, at least as far as deficit and debt goes.
Gee Sarcasmic, are you sure?...
U.S. began adding $1 trillion in debt every three months last June
The publicly held debt has increased by roughly 25% since Biden took office and he's got almost a year to go. I guess there must be a pandemic like during Trump's presidency and the governors have their states locked down right now, and congress is writing all sorts of emergency spending bills too, huh?
Excuses excuses. Fact is the debt, deficit, and baseline budget all ballooned while Trump was president. Emergencies become the new baseline. See 9/11 and the housing bubble.
One trillion dollars every three months, Sarckles.
One trillion dollars.
Before the pandemic and Covid lockdowns how much debt was being incurred under Trump?
Was it one trillion dollars every three months? Was it a tenth of that? A hundredth of that? Even less?
You can't dodge the historic facts. Your boy Biden is stage 3 cancer compared to a pimple.
Put down the bottle of maple liquor and read what I typed. It doesn't contradict anything you said.
As mentioned a couple of weeks ago, some agency is tearing down dams in CA, regardless of the fact that CA is seriously short of water storage facilities, in the hopes of 'restoring' former salmon populations. I guess there is some magic "proper" salmon numbers.
Well:
"Hundreds of thousands of juvenile Chinook salmon die in Klamath River while moving through dam"
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/03/03/chinook-salmon-die-klamath-river-dam/
AP finds neverTrumpers!
"A chunk of Republican primary and caucus voters say they wouldn’t vote for Trump as the GOP nominee"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-chunk-of-republican-primary-and-caucus-voters-say-they-wouldn-t-vote-for-trump-as-the-gop-nominee/ar-BB1jfDnZ
they are so desperate you can practically see the sweat dripping down their faces as they write these things.
Guessing this was done similarly to the 'who's gonna win' polls; taken in Madison, WI, Berkeley, CA, NYC and Chicago.
"...Trump has broken that cycle. He and his allies are the dominant faction in the party—the establishment in everything but name—yet he's managed to maintain the image of the outsider..."
Yep. It's easy to tell, what with the way the legacy media fawns over hi, the way he can do no wrong according to the DOJ and various prosecutors...
Boehm really did write that sentence!
SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Colorado.
Good. Calling J6 an insurrection is as honest as calling a flood of immigrants an invasion.
Non-sequitor, which seems to be all you're good for. Have you read the decision? Hard to imagine all nine ruling on the insurrection bit when there's much lower hanging fruit to rule on.
The purpose of calling J6 an insurrection was to trigger laws preventing Civil War losers from office. It was dishonest from the beginning.
Likewise the purpose of calling immigrants an invading force is to trigger laws authorizing military force against armed soldiers. It's totally dishonest.
Again you refuse to answer a clear question. Let me ask it again:
Have you read the decision?
They kicked it to Congress. Doesn't make what I said wrong.
Again, no answer.
I can answer. Youre asking if he read a primary source on a topic. The answer is always no in regards to sarcasmic. He is waiting for the proper narrative to be sent before he weighs in. And if you criticize his posting of said narrative, he was only saying what others said.
Naah. S/he's good for assorted lies, just plain bullshit and acting the victim whenever the steaming pile of shit gets call on it.
Don't know what the gray box is claiming but I'm reading the decision and they have ruled that states do not have the authority to disqualify candidates for federal office under sec. 3. Period.
"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude
that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting
to hold state office. But States have no power under the
Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Heh, I assure you the gray box would never stoop so low as to actually quote the decision like that.
Skimmed it. So far I got, it is the role of Congress to allow/disallow candidates under 14th, states have no say in a federal office election.
Which is the proper ruling in my mind. Don’t need Scotus interjecting whether J6 was insurrection, as they stated that is role of Congress.
In the dissent (they held the main but said the ruling went too far) the liberal court is complaining that they expanded it to all state actions as they still want states to be able to modify the rules of federal elections.
Ya, its not fair to call it an invasion when one party is flashing the "free shit, vacancy here!" sign. It would be an invasion if the political left actually cared about borders and had some sort of reasonable policy. In that setting, millions of border crossings against a country's will is absolutely an invasion. Unfortunately, the left has made their position "come here and we will give you free shit so you can support us forever".
Coincidentally, that position is grossly unpopular and unsustainable, and the people pushing for that policy will be punished for it.
Were Irish immigrants an invading force? German? Chinese?
You expect anyone else to answer your questions, when you won't answer their questions?
Were they coming over in the millions and trying to exploit the asylum system, knowing they didn’t qualify? No? Then they weren’t an invasion.
Were they mostly entering in through our ports and thus identified and at least checked for communicable diseases (as best we could at the time)? Yes? Then they weren’t an invasion.
They used the system that was in place.
I'm all for having more legal points of entry and allowing people in if they're not criminal or diseased. And letting them work.
“I’m all for having more…… and letting them work.”
We don’t have jobs for all, or even most of them. You might not have heard, but the numbers coming in are out of control.
Your virtue signal narrative is way outdated, but you won’t let go of it.
even you must know how stupid and incorrect of an equivalency this is
First immigration laws were passed because of Chinese laborers.
Very equivalent.
Calling J6 an insurrection is as honest as calling a flood of immigrants an invasion.
Now this is proper trolling. Conceding a point that was never made to insert a new argument that he knows people will disagree with. Still not in good faith, but I would give an A- for the effort.
He's not our brightest troll but sometimes he hits a homer. A special mention for when he demands a citation of something he said, and then calls you a creep when you give him one.
His new thing is to then ask for a link. And when you provide one be screams context without citing other posts proving his lie about his prior statements context.
Sure, except you stopped doing links when I started quoting context. Your lies only work on dickheads and newbs.
I'm shocked that the low-IQ diversity check-box wing of the court were able to come to the correct answer on this.
Everyone can figure out if the ballot option is removed, only the bullet option remains.
They will let Trump be on the ballot, just not let him win.
Ya, same here. Really surprised KBJ, the "we need affirmative action because black babies have a two fold chance to live under the care of a black physician" judge, who is so easily manipulated by statistics designed to fool the dumbest of the genpop, was able to see reason here.
Sotomayor had some dooseys in the past too. These are absolutely activist diversity hires and its rare they can see past their ideology
Who can forget "millions of babies on ventilators"?
You shouldn't exaggerate. What she said was stupid enough on its own merits.
The actual number, confirmed by the CDC, was under 3,500 children hospitalized with COVID. And, considering that COVID was endemic in hospitals at the time, that statistic was meaningless as to the danger children faced from COVID.
I am genuinely surprised it didn't land 6-3. Despite it being the most obvious decision, leftists usually land on the political decision, and damn the long term and unintended consequences. In this case, they appropriately saw what a shitshow this would create, with every state having free rein to kick off whoever they want with whatever reach of a political decision that was popular that day.
Again, a completely easy free-throw of a decision, but you rarely expect activists to make the right call.
My worry is with what Roberts promised them later for a unanimous ruling now.
Nick, Matt, Suderman and ENB discussing various agreements on the Vibecession and other topics.
Vibesession? Does that involve Flashlights and Steely Dan's?
🙂
😉
I was going to make a Pretzel Logic joke but I realized that’s not the Steely Dan you’re referencing.
"The government is undercounting fatal police chases, keeping hundreds of deaths hidden"
[...]
"The federal agency charged with keeping drivers safe is significantly undercounting the number of people killed in police pursuits, skewing the picture of one of the most dangerous law enforcement activities in America.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is widely viewed as the authoritative source for statistics on pursuit-related fatalities. NHTSA’s data is routinely cited in reports by other federal agencies, researchers, media outlets and organizations that make policy recommendations and guide local police departments on when they should initiate chases.
But NHTSA did not record at least 662 people killed in pursuits from 2017 through 2021 in its publicly released count, the Chronicle found in an investigation..."
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/police-chases-undercount/
This could be true, but it is reported by the Chron, so a helping of salt is indicated.
Further, the dead-tree version has a photo of a young man standing against a wall, wearing a T-shirt with a name on it, seemingly his son who died in a chase 'after a traffic stop'. Not one word regarding who initiated the chase by trying to flee from the cop.
The 1,000-plus-page package needs to be passed by both the House and the Senate this week
What's the carbon footprint of passing a 1,000-plus-page package by both the House and the Senate this week?
'Schumer, meanwhile, bragged about getting a $1 billion increase for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and blocking a Republican proposal to limit what foods are covered by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as food stamps.'
I hope the new provisions let people spend food stamps at all those delicious new food trucks.
When my dad was teenager he worked as a bagger. Number one thing people would buy with food stamps was cigarettes.
1. Buy food with stamps
2. Return food for store credit/cash
3. Buy cigarettes
Not sure if this loophole still exists.
the loophole is intended.
Damn Big Tobacco!
Bullshit...
Back in the day, when they had paper food stamps, less scrupulous shop owners would straight up sell you cigarettes at a higher price.
Once they introduced the cards, people would trade the cards for cash at varying rates.
Wanna see turkeys turn into dope? Park yourself a couple of blocks away from Glide Memeorial Church on 'free turkey' day; the day before T-giving.
In the seafood dept they can’t get shrimp steamed with food stamps. There are all sorts of ways they try and get around it. And many managers will do it for the sake of a sale. But I’m fairly ruthless about it.
I was out of job in 2008 just when the subprime mortgage thing hit. I ended up starting out at giant for minimum wage $7.59 at the time. While I lived alone with a rent that went up 40%. I was working every second I could and paying my rent with fucking advances on my credit card. I had friends that cooked a month worth of meals for me so I could eat.
So when I first experienced people bitching at me because I couldn’t steam their free colossal shrimp and lobster for them I kind of got bitter about it. That and the $1700 free snow crab party taxpayers funded for Baltimore county residents between 2020 and 2021
Oldie but a goodie, Hipsters on Foodstamps (salon.com)
"I'm sort of a foodie, and I'm not going to do the 'living off ramen' thing," he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he'd prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes.
---------------------
n the John Waters-esque sector of northwest Baltimore -- equal parts kitschy, sketchy, artsy and weird -- Gerry Mak and Sarah Magida sauntered through a small ethnic market stocked with Japanese eggplant, mint chutney and fresh turmeric. After gathering ingredients for that evening's dinner, they walked to the cash register and awaited their moments of truth.
"I have $80 bucks left!" Magida said. "I'm so happy!"
"I have $12," Mak said with a frown.
The two friends weren't tabulating the cash in their wallets but what remained of the monthly allotment on their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program debit cards, the official new term for what are still known colloquially as food stamps.
Magida, a 30-year-old art school graduate, had been installing museum exhibits for a living until the recession caused arts funding -- and her usual gigs -- to dry up. She applied for food stamps last summer, and since then she's used her $150 in monthly benefits for things like fresh produce, raw honey and fresh-squeezed juices from markets near her house in the neighborhood of Hampden, and soy meat alternatives and gourmet ice cream from a Whole Foods a few miles away.
"I'm eating better than I ever have before," she told me. "Even with food stamps, it's not like I'm living large, but it helps."
Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.
"I'm sort of a foodie, and I'm not going to do the 'living off ramen' thing," he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he'd prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. "I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it's great that you can get anything."
Do big No Labels donors doubt the organization has been making a good-faith effort to find candidates who meet their criteria? Were they expecting to be nominated themselves? Or do they just think they were scammed out of money? I'd take the organizers at their word that they couldn't assemble a winning ticket if they said so.
'But her comments raise another question: Does anything the vice president says really matter?'
Can we see that as a Venn diagram, perhaps with one circle representing things the VP says and another circle for things that matter?
The 1,000-plus-page package needs to be passed by both the House and the Senate this week,
*needs* to be? I dont think so.
'once again confusing Joe Biden and Barack Obama'
You know who else confused Joe Biden and Barack Obama?
Not Hitler, right?
Well, maybe a black female (trans) Hitler generated by Gemini - - - - - - - - - -
Damn, Gemini was my second answer.
Too easy: Joe Biden.
>>The Supreme Court hinted that a ruling on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims could be announced Monday.
right after this message from the people at GoldLine Investments ...
>>"I'm not sure there's this big centrist groundswell in American politics right now. People are fed up with establishment politicians," Welch told Michael Smerconish.
fails to see T is most centrist, least establishment "politician" on earth #redwedding
Welsh was on some talking head show a week or so ago, and noted how Biden had broken the law regarding classified docs, but then said 'Trump has broken many more' without bothering to mention one.
Welsh is an archetype of a TDS-addled shit with a forum.
>>with a forum
upkeep reportedly very expensive
scheduled State of the Union address give the incumbent a chance to outline the contours of the race.
Aka, the cause of the Adderall shortage.
What is the gambling line on Biden standing unassisted for one hour?
Probably none. Watch how much he leans on the podium.
>>Trump has broken that cycle. He and his allies are the dominant faction in the party—the establishment in everything but name—yet he's managed to maintain the image of the outsider.
ah, it's the new talking point here ... T = Establishment lolz
According to some, if you win the nomination, that makes you establishment.
the T/Rand Paul ticket might cause eyes to bleed.
Sounds like Tulsi has a good chance at VP.
long as she's not a plant.
>>If Haley is able to prevent a clean sweep on Tuesday ...
you started a run-on sentence with this ^^ from your hope chest but didn't finish what the wish was you just trailed off ...
Lol. Didn't notice that first time through.
and they want us to pay them 🙂
>>As a past commenter you have been granted commenting privileges on a temporary basis.
are you putting up a clock to run out? I really don't want to be faced with you cannot comment here! I'd rather leave as friends
I only noticed that today, too.
source of anxiety all weekend dammit lol
>>The robots are coming (to work)!
fuck at least somebody is coming to work g.d. utes