Vivek's Vision
Plus: Iranian Trump plot, Newsom's stand against parental rights, Biden tries SCOTUS term limits, and more...

Fealty: Last night, the Republican National Convention (RNC) was all about kissing Donald Trump's ring. Those he failed to vanquish delivered their (obsequious) speeches, one by one: first, Vivek Ramaswamy; then Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley; and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. "The imagery was more like the Roman Colosseum, with an emperor looking down from his box in judgment as those audacious enough to cross him tried to find their way back into his favor," writes The New York Times' Jonathan Weisman.
"Haley, Vance, DeSantis, Marco Rubio [whom Trump beat in 2016], and even Vivek Ramaswamy—who remained steadfastly in support of Trump even when he was technically running against him—all represent somewhat different ideological tendencies on the right, from neoconservatism to populism to the new right," writes Reason's Robby Soave. Flashing back and forth between conservatism of yore and conservatism of the future—which seems to barely resemble anything proffered by William F. Buckley or Ronald Reagan—was vertigo-inducing, especially upon realizing that even the old-school conservatives have integrated Trump's animus toward immigrants into their messaging.
Do you feel the Ramaswamentum? Perhaps the lone bright spot was Vivek Ramaswamy, who properly diagnosed the problems that keep many right-wingers up at night, but managed to articulate a more positive vision for where he thinks the party and the country should go. "We're in the middle of a national identity crisis right now," said Ramaswamy from the main stage. "Faith, patriotism, hard work, and family have disappeared, only to be replaced by race, gender, sexuality, and climate. But we're not going to win this election just by criticizing the other side; we're going to win this by standing for our own vision of who we really are."
"We believe in the ideals of 1776," he continued. "We believe in merit, that you get ahead in this country not on the color of your skin but on the content of your character and your contributions."
Being an American, he said, "means we believe in the rule of law.…That means your first act of entering this country cannot break the law. That is why we will seal the southern border on Day One. It means the people who we elect to run the government ought to be the ones who actually run the government, not unelected bureaucrats in the deep state," he added, in a pointed jab.
To millennials, he added: "Our government sold us a false bill of goods with the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis, loading up our national debt that falls on our generation's shoulders, telling us that if we took out college loans, we'd somehow get a head start on the American dream when it hasn't worked out that way. But we can't just be cynical about our country, because the United States of America is still the last best hope that we have."
Over and over again, he rejected what he calls the focus on "group identity," "victimhood," and "grievance" from the left and forcefully made the case that "we don't have to be this nation in decline; we can still be a nation in our ascent."
Keeping it measured: Later, the speeches veered into the actual theme of the evening: "Make America Safe Again." Viewers heard from an array of normal Americans who'd had their lives disrupted primarily by the crimes of illegal immigrants. But over and over again, "speakers painted an exaggerated picture of the link between immigration and crime," writes Reason's Fiona Harrigan, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at one point suggesting that "Americans are dying, murdered, assaulted, raped by illegal immigrants that the Democrats have released," as if the country is in the grips of some sort of wild migrant rape-crime wave.
But contrast this dark, untrue, and unimaginative messaging—more cops and deportations needed, and thus evil will be once and for all tamed—with Ramaswamy's vision: perma-focusing on "grievance" is wrong, take charge of your life, judge people on merit, hold those in power accountable, and do not believe that the best days are behind you.
Ramaswamy and GOP vice presidential pick Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) invite comparisons to one another; they were classmates at Yale, and they're both promising youngish politicians who have managed to ingratiate themselves with former President Donald Trump. But Vance is perhaps the dark version, promoting a conservatism that attempts to wield the power of the state to punish enemies who he perceives as having captured the institutions that matter, while Ramaswamy manages to be the light version, promoting a conservatism that attempts to return to Founding ideals, while still indulgently sparring in a few culture-war skirmishes (alas).
Scenes from New York: Goodbye to restaurant critic Pete Wells (resigning, not dying), who was always the right amount of scathing. "There are restaurants like this in almost every major city now, imitation pearls on a string that circles the world," he wrote of a Korean fine-dining restaurant that will cost you, conservatively, $400 a head. "How did chefs who prize both originality and a sense of place decide that the most appropriate backdrop for their food would be copycat rooms done in a blank-faced global style?"
Read his harsh review of Peter Luger—itself a New York institution, though not to the same degree as Wells—and hope that whoever succeeds Wells can measure up.
QUICK HITS
- California just became the first state in the nation to pass legislation that "prevents educators from having to notify parents if their child asks to switch names or pronouns," reports The New York Times. This is an infringement on parental rights that makes me never want to move to that sorely lost state, despite my undying love for both West Coast beaches and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
- Every single President Joe Biden interview makes me more confused as to how Democrats could possibly think he can serve another four years:
Want everyone who is mad at me for talking about the Biden nomination still to sit with this clip. This is the gamble you want to take? With the stakes as great as they are? The risk is astronomical. pic.twitter.com/TetfU5O7HW
— Tim Miller (@Timodc) July 16, 2024
- "Like most Republican politicians these days, [Sen. J.D.] Vance has signed on to Trump-directed changes to the GOP platform—they remove from the Republican platform a longstanding call for a federal prohibition against abortion, seemingly in favor of state regulation of abortion," writes The Pillar's J.D. Flynn. "For some pro-lifers, this has played as a betrayal of their long-standing loyalty to the GOP. But from a Catholic moral perspective, this question is a matter of prudential judgment—while the Church is clear that legal protection for abortion is immoral, it does not suggest the level of government at which abortion should be regulated. But Vance has gone beyond that."
- Biden appears set to try to pass legislation that would institute term limits for Supreme Court justices.
- The Secret Service had allegedly increased security at the Butler, Pennsylvania, rally on Saturday following intelligence that Iran was looking to target Trump. Of course, turns out the Iranian plot was actually unrelated to the assassination attempt (as far as they know).
- "The broad strokes of Trumponomics might not be different from what they were during his first term," reports Bloomberg Businessweek, following a Mar-a-Lago sit-down with Trump. "What's new is the speed and efficiency with which he intends to enact them."
- God bless America:
We are so back pic.twitter.com/od2bgZYKD6
— Alex Cohen ???? (@anothercohen) July 16, 2024
- Nate Silver is responding to none other than the Democratic National Convention chair himself:
There's no 8/7 deadline. You're making that up. Ohio passed legislation so that whomever is nominated at the Democratic Convention will be on the November ballot. Have some guts and defend your party's ability to follow its own process. And stop lying to the American public. https://t.co/OXl0SAPpld
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 17, 2024
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
...the Republican National Convention (RNC) was all about kissing Donald Trump's ring.
That's odd.
I bet the DNC will be full of hard-hitting political speech aimed to fix everything that ails our nation. Even better, the Reason crew will hit back at them at least as hard as they do anything Trump.
And everything that is wrong is due to Trump and his MAGA orcs, and every solution will include sending Sauron into the abyss. And more taxes.
But I thought orcs represent black people. An anti-racist told me so.
Only when they’re using it to slander their enemies.
In the latest iteration of D&D 5e, orcs are Mexican. They must think that is somehow better.
From the Bee last year: "Orc Resistance Fighters Bravely March To Decolonize Helm's Deep"
Drain the Ramaswamp, and the foundations of Helm's Deep will crumble.
Yeap. Yahoo writer/dem hack Rick Newman was saying that Trump was to blame for inflation rates already
Which is completely unlike every major party national convention since they have been televised and been a pro forma coronation of the party's candidate.
DNC doesn't do ring kissing. They are more the party of dick sucking.
Everyone that identifies as a woman is going to line up to get their hair sniffed.
As shown in the Robbie thread, this is true because DailyBeast and Jen Psaki agree with the narrative.
What about the White House press room diversity muppet?
Has she even done a press conference this week to embarass herself?
I don't think that is possible. The embarrassment thing.
If you're gonna work for Biden, you'd better drop any sense of shame you might have.
I mean, are we supposed to be surprised by this?
Ted Cruz famously got mega cucked and still came over to the Trump side eventually, the party is very behind Trump like it or not, and oh by the way he also just got gigachad powers by surviving an assassination attempt.
You think Desantis, Vivek, Cruz etc are going to come out now, of all times, and do anything other than be cheerleaders at the RNC...lol
Plus, pretty sure Vivek only ran to get himself out there as a potential heir apparent in the minds of the Trump base. Him kissing the ring is both predictable and inevitable.
I do think he is one of the most articulate, intelligent, and charismatic of the up and coming crop of Republicans. Will be interesting to see if he gets any traction in the next cycle.
To be fair, it's a way to establish the theme of that section of Roundup. I'm just taking the piss.
Glad to see the Iranians are the new enemy after they couldn't keep a moron off a roof within range of the typical 9 year old marksman.
The feds should have tried delivering a pallet of cash to Crooks' house.
He wouldn't have done it if they sent the cash first.
Point of order Nikki Haley is not a republican, she is a deep state uniparty pos.
Not a big enough GOP tent?
For traitorous cunts? Nope!
And that is not-Republican how exactly?
From your description Peter wells seems to be a pretentious douch, who criticizes other pretentious douches. Nobody cares about these people, expecially the fine dining group.
Diner drive in and dives is extremely popular because it shows the hole in the wall places that focus on the food and not "the experience" or any other bs
Fun fact: whenever my wife and I travel, we look and see if there’s any DDD episodes from where we’re going and watch them. We’ve eaten some really good food doing that.
Same here! We also ask local collage kids for good places. If you want cheap and good they know the spots.
I'm amused that Liz is part of the cult that fancies a food critic more concerned with the restaurant's interior decor.
Funny, in my town the DDD place is a socialist hangout that throws planned parenthood fund raisers and serves terrible food.
Fuck off, Jeff.
So clever.
I've been to one DDD place and it was not great. i will admit though it was not the same owner anymore and think the new owners were living off of the fact that it was good at one time.
note lots of "chefs' will start a new restuarant and sell after the first year on speculation since the first year is often the best year only because its new and everyone goes to try it out. after that the locals get bored unless it is really good. We have a couple of consistantly good places in our town the rest are marginal and only stay afloat due to demand for dining
Not sure if it's been on triple D, but as I've been stuck for nearly three weeks in Rochester, MN for my wife's health problems, I'll give some recommendations: Zinn's Philadelphia Cheese Steak, get the original, order the small fries (hand cut everyday and if you order the large order, you'll be able to feed a rifle company) and Honkers, go with the Walleye Sandwich and pair it with fresh squeezed lemonade and the blueberry mule (their riff on a Moscow Mule).
They're both right across the street from the St Mary's campus of Mayo, right across from the Francis Tower entrance.
And the cafeteria in the Francis Tower is also fairly decent. Better than any hospital food I’ve ever eaten and much more upscale in their presentation. The Steakhouse salad is really good, as is the Portebello burger and the Mahi Street Tacos.
Thanks. I hope your wife is well.
Long road ahead but doing well enough we can finally fly home, but of course TSA took half an hour to clear her because of her medical equipment and her tracheostomy and feeding tube. Yeah, the woman who is breathing through a tracheostomy and eating via an NG and requires a wheelchair to get around Minneapolis St Paul Airport, because she can only walk short distances, is the security threat. DHS cnar figure out a roof 130 M from Trump is a security risk, but my wife's antibiotics are.
And her suction tube.
I wish your wife good health.
So sorry to hear about your wife's health issues. Hope she has a speedy recovery.
"What happens?! I don't plan on having another parmesan medal."
California just became the first state in the nation to pass legislation that "prevents educators from having to notify parents if their child asks to switch names or pronouns," reports The New York Times. This is an infringement on parental rights that makes me never want to move to that sorely lost state, despite my undying love for both West Coast beaches and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Their child's schoolmates will out them!
And, because of this, Twitter and SpaceX are permanently moving to Texas.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/16/elon-musk-says-spacex-hq-officially-moving-to-texas-blames-new-ca-trans-student-privacy-law.html?taid=6696cbba67ef6400011641d2
This was only a matter of time, but I like that he used this specifically as the final straw.
Well, he did also say:
"Have had enough of dodging gangs of violent drug addicts just to get in and out of the building"
See, Musk hates diversity and equity!
Agreed, look at the photos from Twitter, after he took over he fired all of the white lib chicks, now it's only Asians, whites, Hispanics, and Indians that are good at their job
I bet that rich bastard doesn't even appreciate a good food truck.
Lying Jeffy’s moving to Cali!
The age of consent in California was once ten years.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/464/
California's statutory rape law had its origins in the Statutes of Westminster enacted during the reign of Edward I at the close of the 13th century (3 Edw. 1, ch. 13 (1275); 13 Edw. 1, ch. 34 (1285)). The age of consent at that time was 12 years, reduced to 10 years in 1576 (18 Eliz. 1, ch. 7, § 4). This statute was part of the common law brought to the United States. Thus, when the first California penal statute was enacted, it contained a provision (1850 Cal.Stats., ch. 99, § 47, p. 234) that proscribed sexual intercourse with females under the age of 10. In 1889, the California statute was amended to make the age of consent 14 (1889 Cal.Stats., ch.191, § 1, p. 223). In 1897, the age was advanced to 16 (1897 Cal.Stats., ch. 139, § 1, p. 201). In 1913, it was fixed at 18, where it now remains (1913 Cal.Stats., ch. 122, § 1, p. 212).
Pluggo wishes he had a time tunnel or a flux capacitor!
Some posters might cite this as reasoning for why having sex with a child isn't all that bad, because "once the law said you could have legal sex with a 10-year old, and the law hanged to make that illegal, but the law could be changed back since laws change."
California’s age of consent is technically at 0, I’m sure people like Shrike would be thrilled to argue that position.
To be fair, I'm only in favor of the death penalty for those who have sex with prepubescent children. The others can go to prison.
Fuck off, Jeff.
Didn't jeffsarc used to bitch constantly about handle spoofing?
That's (D)ifferent.
It should tell you something about the person doing the spoofing here, that he thinks this is some kind of zinger:
“To be fair, I’m only in favor of the death penalty for those who have sex with prepubescent children.”
The fat fuck really can't help telling on himself, can he?
Lmao, I’ve got it muted, but that’s hilarious.
Once enough Muslims make to the legislature they will lower it to nine. Just like Mohammed intended.
Everyone talks about unity and coming together, and when it happens we fucking vilify it.
Reason #4,839,267,789,043,672,805 for why I hate politicians.
Every single subhuman cancer in California that supported hiding things from parents deserver to have their kids raped and murdered.
They flat out stated that attacking children is acceptable so they deserver to have their Childers attacked. And for the loosers that don't have kids, they can be deported to the middle of the ocean
Anyone who voted for Newsom and his comrades should be required to live out their lives in California.
I'd imagine his team is working on that.
They were talking about taxing people for 10 years after they left.
Um, no. The children don't deserve that. The parents, maybe, but not the children.
Agreed.
California just became the first state in the nation to pass legislation that "prevents educators from having to notify parents if their child asks to switch names or pronouns," reports The New York Times.
To be clear, this bill goes beyond names and pronouns. This is state-sponsored child grooming.
I was asked earlier this week if I condone political violence in the current political climate.
Yes I do.
Glad I'm not the only one. And once again, assassinating newsome is not what I'm talking about.
assassinating newsome is not what I’m talking about.
Just scare him real bad with a fire extinguisher. To the point where he feels he could've been raped at any second.
FYI that’s not the real ML.
Reason Plus needs to start handing out check marks.
Just use the mute button, hides the fake account and can still see the og.
Exactly why I've muted that twerp. It's the first time since Reason instituted the new system that I've had to mute anyone (used to do it to the spammers all the time).
Fuck off, Jeff.
Maybe it’s Mike Liarson back for revenge.
It doesn't really matter who it is, Lying Jeffy, Sarckles, White Mike, or DOL. They're all the same thing.
Biden Planning New Assault On Supreme Court Independence
Well, not Biden, but the junta of weasels using the senile meatpuppet as cover.
"President Biden is seriously considering legislative proposals that would dramatically alter the Supreme Court, including imposing term limits and an enforceable code of ethics on the justices, according to a person familiar with the ongoing discussions.
Mr. Biden’s proposals to overhaul the court, which could be unveiled in the coming weeks, would need congressional approval, something that is likely to be a long shot given Republican control of the House and the slim Democratic majority in the Senate….
In a virtual meeting over the weekend with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Mr. Biden said he was considering changes to the court but did not provide any specifics to the lawmakers.
“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out,” he said, referring to the proposals under consideration. “I don’t want to prematurely announce it, but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court and what we do.”
But legally he can't do jack, because term limits and an ethics code would be subject to congressional approval, which would face long odds in the Republican-controlled House and slim Democratic majority in the Senate. Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require 60 votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles, including two-thirds support of both chambers, or by a convention of two-thirds of the states, and then approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Success, however, is not the point. Biden needs an enemy to run against. That’s harder now that the near-assassination of Trump has cause direct public campaign attacks on Trump to be less effective.
So the new enemy will be the court.
Wouldn't term limits on the Supreme Court require a constitutional ammendment? Ie 3/4 states to agree?
Yes
Yes.
Not to mention 2/3rds of both houses of Congress.
Consti-what?
Of course not. The words in the Constitution mean what Joe says they mean.
Of course not. The words in the Constitution mean what Joe
saysmumbles they mean.FTFY
That's my understanding. And an ethics code is problematic as well, since the Judiciary is an independent branch of government. I'm sure his handlers understand all this, but they're hoping the voters are to stupid to understand this.
Well, the voters who support this are dumb enough to believe he can do it, so they’re kinda right.
I think the Dems have just written off this election entirely (try for a comeback in ’26 and ’28). So why not just go for a blatantly anti-constitutional power grab like this and see what happens?
Yes, and it's highly unlikely any such amendment would make it out of Congress to the states, much less even be ratified by the states.
Of course, Joe and the Democrats, being the tenacious dipshits they are, will probably try an end-run around the Constitution to enact it.
The good ole moderate who would return to normal.
Strategically and reluctantly voting for more Marxists on SCOTUS.
I'm thinking Joe might come up with a plan to give everyone $1M a year, just so he can claim "Republicans wouldn't let me!".
It’s only about 45x his proposed annual budget of $7.2 Trillion, which amounts to $22k per person. Not taxpayer, person.
why have an ethics code when the left leaners will ignore it and only punish those they disagree with, and where are the reports of lefty Judges getting free vacations we know they are or are they just better at making them into "business trips" for selling books that no one buys except unions in bulk just so they can store them in a warehouse
So the new enemy will be the court.
Every day I am less and less surprised that our country is run by a brain dead moron who can’t remember what happened two weeks ago.
He literally proposed this in his last campaign until polling revealed that he was effectively setting fire to his own base by doing so.
So the legislature passes this legislation and the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional 9-0. Will federal marshalls take them out of the courthouse in handcuffs? WTF.
They will once Biden sets up the Congressional Police Force, like in Barb Wire
I'll vote for a Constitutional Amendment that forced term limits on all elected federal offices, and make it cumulative. Say 12 years total. So, if you serve a term in the Senate you can then only serve one term as president because you'll have accumulated 10 years service, meaning if you want to be elected to any further office, you can only run for a single term as a representative. In exchange for this, I will be okay with something like 20 years as a federal judge or even 12 years as a federal judge, and then an additional 12 years as Supreme Court Justice. If you serve in elected office, it counts towards your term as a federal judge, if so appointed, and anytime served in a Senate approved executive branch office also counts.
'telling us that if we took out college loans, we'd somehow get a head start on the American dream when it hasn't worked out that way'
Apparently those students were not listening when anyone suggested that field of study and career choice matter, and that, except for the truly wealthy or the priesthood (including new-age and woke religions) spending money and time getting a college degree should be evaluated like any investment.
Just like my investments at the roulette table, my losses should be covered by someone else
And also that "loans" require "payments".
Remember that the average IQ is 100.
Also, the people selling the colleges and loans to the sub 100 IQ teenagers that we rightfully acknowledge are highly impressionable, aren't being told that field of study matters. Nor are they aware of how impactful 50k @ 10% over 30yrs is.
Show some grace. Sexual grooming is not the only type going on. This "you must go to college" type grooming is far more pervasive.
And more damaging. Like the home-school kids being taught that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time; far less damaging than 12 years of socialist indoctrination.
Fuck off, Jeff.
'a Korean fine-dining restaurant that will cost you, conservatively, $400 a head'
Holy shit snacks! But the coastal urban elites are just like us, right?
This is why we need one-size-fits-all nationwide solutions to everything.
And the "all" in one-size-fits-all is the elite class (or the cartoon vision they have for the peasants), right?
My feeling is that the so-called 'elitists' are not as elite as they think they are, and have a tremendously difficult time imagining people and situations outside of their immediate bubble of experience.
Street food is often better than pretentious food.
One of the things that always gets me is how much the 'high dining' menus are riffs on what traditionally has been considered peasants fare in their home country.
The French originally ate frogs and snails because they were cheap.
It's location adjacent to the pound is very suspect
Ha! That's so 20th century. Soon we will make snide jokes about ethnic restaurants that source their own bugs, instead of USDA invertebrate protein.
"speakers painted an exaggerated picture of the link between immigration and crime," writes Reason's Fiona Harrigan
Yeah:
"Lastly, there was Michael Morin, a man who prayed that the illegal alien who raped and murdered his sister - a loving mother of 5 who should have been nowhere near a convicted murderer from El Salvador - would find Jesus Christ." (my emphasis)
That guy sounds like he was really straining credulity on the link between the crime against his family, and illegal immigration.
https://notthebee.com/article/come-watch-the-three-rnc-speeches-that-actually-matter
The point is that the threat of crime from illegal immigration is vastly overstated. Just look at Jesse’s claim of 66000 crimes from illegal immigrants in the past 3 years. If you actually do the math that works out to a crime rate that’s even less than Chicago’s.
It is the panic from terrorism all over again. That led us to things like the Patriot Act. This irrational fear of terrorists hiding under our beds everywhere.
Violent crime from illegal immigrants is bad.Just like acts of terror from terrorists are bad.But we need to keep them in proper perspective.Not lose our shit and not decide to give away all of our rights in the name of fighting a statistically rare threat
I count at least 4 million crimes from illegal immigrants in the past 4 years, minimum. That's how many entered the country illegally in that period. That we know of.
Anything on top of that is extra.
I am referring to *violent crime*, as in the type of crime that you described above. Not all of those 4,000,000 people are guilty of *violent crime*.
Also, I noticed this comment of yours on the previous discussion:
https://reason.com/2024/07/16/rnc-speakers-give-exaggerated-impression-of-immigrant-crime/?comments=true#comment-10644911
Do you really believe that the person who murdered your friend back then, is no different than the migrants who are here now? One of them murdered your friend so now they are all murderers?
Lying Jeffy has been told that some countries are shipping criminals here to get rid of them.
Is he really ignorant here, or just lying?
Violent criminals are among the people streaming unchecked across the southern border, yes. Many have been discovered in that group with violent criminal histories in their countries of origin. DHS released a report last year detailing how Venezuela was emptying its prisons to deliberately send their violent criminals here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/tren-de-aragua-venezuelan-gang-members-slip-into-us-rcna156290
Are you saying that ALL of the violent criminals Venezuela emptied their prisons of and sent to the US are violent criminals!?
–paraphrasing chemjeff
Just give us a number, Jeff. How many is too many? Can you do that?
What’s a little rape and murder between friends, right Jeff?
How many is too many, Mr selectively nuanced defeatist?
The count is 66000 under Joe based on analysis a few months back. Many violent.
Jeff calls this rare.
It is rare, when put into context.
But you and your team love taking things out of context and magnifying the danger in order to push an agenda.
JUST LIKE the gun control crowd on the left. They exaggerate and take out of context the danger associated with guns, in order to push their gun control agenda.
Both you and them are two peas in a pod. Manipulate people via deception and emotion in order to slither your agenda through.
Jeff literally thinks any crime rate less than the worst in the nation is rare.
"a crime rate that’s even less than Chicago’s"
That's a good point. It's not as though Chicago is known as some paragon of safety.
Lying Jeff, how many illegals have you taken into your home/basement. You know to help them out. Or do you just virtue signal like Reason does?
"If you actually do the math that works out to a crime rate that’s even less than Chicago’s."
Spoiler: Lying Jeffy didn't do any math.
Also, even if he was telling the truth and it was a "crime rate less than Chicago’s", that's still really, really, really bad.
I actually did, 4 days ago.
https://reason.com/2024/07/13/biden-and-trump-hope-to-tip-the-election-scales-with-working-class-proposals/?comments=true#comment-10638517
I continue to be amazed how you can tell such brazen lies in such a confident manner. This superior gaslighting technique of yours is clearly why you are paid to shill here.
...because Chicago is often held up as a place that does not have an out-of-control crime problem.
I'll post it a third time, just to make sure you see one of them.
You literally think any crime rate less than the worst in the nation is just hunky dory and rare.
"a crime rate that’s even less than Chicago’s"
It's not even that. Jeffy's "math" calculates a illegal alien crime rate off of the entire population of the US rather than the number of illegals.
Lol, who do you think you're tricking. It's not 18,858 crimes per year, divided by a population of roughly 330 million. It's 18,858 crimes per year, divided by a population of somewhere under 20 million.
You constantly pull this dishonest horseshit that even a drunk toddler would see through.
Why 20 million?
The crime rate is NOT the probability that a particular individual in a population is likely to be a criminal. The crime rate is the probability that a particular individual in the population of potential victims is to be the victim of a crime.
"Why 20 million?"
Because there is no exact figure for the number of illegals in the country, but it is possibly as high as 20 million. This figure gives you an advantage of lowering the crime rate by almost half, than if I had gone with the 2021 official estimate of 10.5 million.
At best, that's 94.29 crimes per 100,000. If the illegal population was still at the 2021 estimate then it would be 179 per 100,000.
"The crime rate is NOT the probability that a particular individual in a population is likely to be a criminal."
That's not what you were calculating, weasel, and anyway, if that's what you wanted to calculate then the numbers would all be pure supposition on your part.
Why are you dividing the crime rate of crimes done by illegal immigrants against the entire population of the country?
If I divide the number of murders committed annually in St. Louis by the entire population of the globe, that number seems real fucking low too.
All I have is Jesse's "66,000" figure for violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants across the entire nation. What number would you choose in the denominator to calculate the crime rate?
Oh, and naturally Jesse didn't provide any source for his data, so I am just assuming that it is correct. It probably isn't though.
Perhaps Jesse could provide a source which would permit us to calculate a crime rate more specific to particular areas of the country. But I doubt he will.
“What number would you choose in the denominator to calculate the crime rate?”
Is Lying Jeffy really this dumb, or is he lying?
There were only about 13,000 drunk-driving fatalities in the US in 2023. Why do we even have laws against drunk driving if ONLY 13,000 people died from it last year? Are you trying to say that everyone who drives is a drunk driver?
We should just get rid of all laws proscribing drunk driving, since it only affects a small number of people, and anyone who lost family to it should just shut up.
--using chemjeff's reasoning on illegal immigration crime applied to drunk driving
Using Jesse’s and Team Red’s logic:
“Look at that number, 13,000! It is huge! Each one of those instances represents lives cut short and untold tragedy to innocent victims! Each one of those drivers should not have been behind the wheel in the first place! So to take care of this OBVIOUS and MONUMENTAL problem, we should have sobriety checkpoints on all the roads, have mass surveillance of all the bars, and lock down this country until this problem is taken care of.”
We should just get rid of all laws proscribing drunk driving,
nope – I never dispute that those 66,000 violent crimes are real crimes affecting real people and every one should be punished. What I am not doing is going apeshit bananas over it and using it to justify imposing a much broader agenda – just like the gun grabbers tend to do.
Each one of those drivers should not have been behind the wheel in the first place!
Yes, that's the point. Talk about a self own for you there. The drunk drivers should not have been behind the wheel in the first place.
The illegals who committed violent crime also shouldn't have been in the country in the first place either. How can you be this obtuse?
I dont know why Jeff continues to think he is intelligent.
Yes, that’s the point. Talk about a self own for you there. The drunk drivers should not have been behind the wheel in the first place.
Okay, so time for sobriety checkpoints on every street and mass surveillance of every bar? After all, "they shouldn't have been driving in the first place", right?
Is he that obtuse, or a shameless liar?
It's more like "13,000 people are already killed annually by 10 million drunk drivers. What's the big deal if we import a million more drunk drivers? They will only kill 1300 more people."
Tell me you've never been to Chicago without telling me, Jeffy.
Look, Jeff, just one crime committed by a person who should not be here is too many.
Radical individualists for excusing rapes with statistics!
"Just one act of terror committed by a terrorist is one too many."
"Just one overdose death by a person who shouldn't have had the drugs in the first place is one too many."
Okay, fine - so what is the plan? A zero-tolerance policy which steamrolls over all of our liberties?
All I ask is that we don't permit ourselves to be manipulated by emotional anecdotes and we put the problem into proper context.
"we don’t permit ourselves to be manipulated by emotional anecdotes "
It seems to me that was the entire point of your recent list of hate crimes against gays. In which you included everyday crimes where the victim happened to be gay and who's orientation played no part in the crime. You seemed to want to paint a picture that overstated the frequency of hate crimes, the nature of those crimes, and the population of the offenders in those crimes--you were trying to manipulate with emotional anecdotes.
Didn't he accidentally establish a trend of these murders being committed by immigrants?
He did. But dimissed the immigrant factor as anecdote like the goodest idiot he is.
He dismissed his own stream of posts as anecdotal. I suppose he was right to do so, but doesn't that mean his original point in posting them was also anecdotal?
Edit: below he admits he made those posts solely because he was mad at another commenter. Why is it that all the left-leaning commenters here are so childish?
I broke him and he will never recover lol.
I posted that list because I was pissed off at Jesse. He continually slanders and defames me and accuses me of being some sort of pedophile or being in favor of child rape or some other highly slanderous insult.
I absolutely think Jesse wouldn't mind being in a world where violence against LGBTQ people was more commonplace than it is now. I don't think Jesse himself would do it - he is too much of a coward - but I don't think he would shed a tear if it happened. Who gives a shit, they are just fags and groomers and the world is better off without their ilk. Right?
So if you want to know why I posted all of those stories, that is why. It wasn't to try to manipulate anyone into thinking that violence against LGBTQ individuals is worse than it really is. It was to show that it happens AT ALL, and that Jesse and his crew tacitly approve of it.
That is in contrast to all of these stories that you read in the right-wing media, dutifully repeated here by their piss-boy Jesse, about violent crime committed by illegal immigrants. It is to manipulate people into thinking that the problem is worse than it really is.
So now that we have this silly little diversionary tactic out of the way, what do you think? Should public policy be crafted based on emotional manipulation via anecdote? If so then I guess what the gun-grabbers on the left are doing is exactly on target. They take every instance of a mass shooting and use that to push gun control, ignoring all of the facts and reason and statistical evidence surrounding the use of a gun. They do this because they know people can be manipulated like this.
You spent a entire day defending the decriminilaztion of soliciting children for sex because you think it targeted the LGBT community unfairly. Making up anecdotes about 18 yo and 17 yo kids. Then blamed everybody who wanted to put kiddie diddlers in jail for homophoboc attacks that were, checks notes, committed by immigrants or people of color. Gee, I wonder why people think you support pedophilia?
Because he supports pedophilia?
All untrue or highly misleading. Which you KNOW is untrue or highly misleading.
But these are the bullshit games that you play. Deliberately misconstrue the point just so you get the cheap thrill of calling your opponents vile names. It's no different than when Team Blue was running around calling everybody a racist bigot - it was a cheap and offensive way to dismiss opposing arguments while at the same time dehumanize the opponent as being unworthy of discussion at all.
A fourth time, Jeffy. You believe that any crime rate less than the worst in the nation is rare and acceptable.
“a crime rate that’s even less than Chicago’s”
How is it untrue? You know your posts are still up?
Yes, go read those other posts. I am not going to relitigate it all here, and I am not going to indulge your distractions. In other words, fuck off.
Thanks for admitting defeat.
whatever you want to tell yourself. You cam here to distract, deflect, and dogpile.
"I posted that list because I was pissed off at Jesse."
"All I ask is that we don’t permit ourselves to be manipulated by emotional anecdotes and we put the problem into proper context."
omg! I'm not a Vulcan! It's true!
so you can either condemn me for letting Jesse get to me, or you can address the substance of the issue.
The substance of the anecdotes?
I did address the substance of the issue, above.
Here, I'm simply pointing out that you admittedly do not hold yourself to the standards of behavior and argument that you demand of your ideological opponents.
We should all try to adhere to our own standards, at the very least. I don't always succeed at it, either, but I do try to tackle the substance of an argument, generally, rather than attacking the person making it.
And ironically he claims others here are arguing from emotion.
Pure hilarity.
Poor Lying Jeffy:
https://x.com/DefiantLs/status/1813524040059080930
Wasn't jeff emotionally calling Trump Hitler?
Thread: https://reason.com/2023/12/19/texas-new-immigration-law-will-lead-to-more-policing-with-less-accountability/?comments=true#comment-10364358
LOL I don't even appear in that discussion regarding Trump.
You make it more and more obvious every day that you really are just dumb and you regurgitate simplistic idiotic right-wing narratives because they are the most complicated things that your brain can handle.
Yeah, he’s not selectively nuanced like you, Jeff.
How many is too many, Jeff? Give us a number.
He would never, he's promised he never used speech like that.
The proper context is that non-citizens have less rights than citizens.
This has always been the case, as any government that serves foreigners over citizens is immoral and treasonous.
In other words, what is your reaction to someone like Jesse saying "All I ask is that we don’t permit ourselves to be manipulated by emotional anecdotes and we put the problem into proper context." about your hate crimes anecdotes?
If Jesse were to say something like that, it would only be after he had a lobotomy.
And you're one to talk about dehumanizing people?
Leftists always project.
Whats hilarious is i use actual statistics and data while jeff uses narratives.
You use bullshit, out-of-context statistics, and discredited studies like the Lott study, to push an agenda despite the evidence.
What was that, Mr. Bears-in-trunks?
Give him a break, he probably only said the bears in trunks thing because he was mad at the other commenters.
"I'm not a Vulcan!"
For shits and giggles. The thread:
https://reason.com/podcast/2021/10/25/freedom-responsibility-and-coronavirus-policy/?comments=true#comment-9176512
And terrible analogies like bears in trunks and snow white.
Lying Jeffy just conflated committing aggression against others to over dosing on drugs. Because he’s a libertarian.
"Okay, fine – so what is the plan? A zero-tolerance policy which steamrolls over all of our liberties?"
The liberty to be killed by an illegal is one I freely give up.
"All I ask is that we don’t permit ourselves to be manipulated by emotional anecdotes and we put the problem into proper context."
"They're only as bad as Chicago" is not quite the defense you think it is.
A crime rate less than Chicago’s!?!? Wow, what a high bar!
Lol, fucking idiot.
Oh, Chicago crime level is your bar? Pretty low bar, chemjeff. Why do you accept that? I don't.
The fact is, most of these illegals contribute nothing to building American culture and society; and, represent a drain on our national treasure. Why are you 'for' that?
Come in through the front door, and do not break the law.
Oh and now we have it. It's not really about the crime it's because they are inherently bad people, and crime is just a manifestation of that.
Your interpretation of what he said was as honest as his argument was rational. Kudos.
Fuck off, Jeff.
Lying Jeffy doesn’t care about people living of other’s tax dollars. Because he’s a libertarian. Just ask him, he’ll tell you.
That's still 66,000 crimes committed by people who should never have even been in the country.
“One death from a drug overdose is one too many.” Does that mean we ought to fight the drug war harder?
Haha, he did it again. It’s like he doesn’t even know about the NAP!
Or he’s just being dishonest.
Nope. I don’t think we should fight the drug war at all. If someone wants to use drugs, they do so knowing there is a risk of overdose. Just like if someone enjoys parachuting, they know there is a risk of the chute failing. If they die, they die, that’s on them.
In fact, I've argues here before that I think the government should just take over the drug trade, providing "clean" drugs to anyone who wants them. It would be a lot cheaper than the drug war, and once we got through the wave of OD deaths from having free access to high-quality drugs, I'd expect the number of people using those drugs would go way down.
I largely agree with you. However:
"But that means we will have more kids dying from drug overdoses! HOW DARE YOU!"
That is the type of response that you and I both will get, which is just bullshit emotional manipulation. The exact same thing is happening here, with illegal immigration and violent crime. The correct response is to not fall for emotional panics, put the problem into proper perspective, and don't endorse 'solutions', like the drug war, which steamroll over all of our liberties.
“The correct response is to not fall for emotional panics”
Have you ever evaluated your response to COVID?
Lying psychopaths never evaluate anything they do.
For some reason he thinks crimes aren’t additive to the number of violations being extended against the NAP.
And he continues to deny other negative externalities like costs, 150B a year, Healthcare, large cost shift to taxpayers and insured Americans, effects on schools, etc.
While he emotionally screams think of the poor children and migrants.
I once thought he could not come up with a worse analogy than his bears in trunks one.
He routinely proves me wrong there.
“a crime rate that’s even less than Chicago’s”
So anything less than the absolute worst is OK with you?
Good Gravy man, you don’t even know how to do a proper strawman any more.
Nope. I only picked Chicago as an example of a city that we all know has a high crime rate, and I showed that the violent crime rate from illegal immigrants is less than that. It is to push back against the right-wing narrative that illegal immigrants are somehow disproportionately and inherently more prone to commit violent crime. They are not.
"I only picked Chicago as an example of a city that we all know has a high crime rate, and I showed that the violent crime rate from illegal immigrants is less than that."
You admit that you intentionally picked a high crime rate so the immigrant crime rate would be less.
I have never met anyone so dumb.
Look, the prevailing narrative around here is that illegal immigrants are a population that are disproportionately inherently violent.
So I showed that the crime rate from illegal immigrants is not higher than the crime rate in one of the cities that has a rather large amount of crime.
I'm not trying to prove that illegal immigrants are all saints. I am trying to demonstrate that they are not inherently, disproportionately, particularly violent.
"That car is fast."
"No it isn't, it's slow. It's so slow, it's slower than an Indy car."
If you don't like that comparison, then go here:
https://www.deepsentinel.com/blogs/home-security/the-top-10-safest-cities-in-america/
According to this site, the safest city is Greenwich, Connecticut, with a violent crime rate of 22 per 100,000 residents.
That is even more than the rate calculated above for illegal immigrants using Jesse's own data.
Happy?
Which denominator did you use on that one? The one that divides it by a number that includes 94% not-illegals?
If you divide the total violent crime committed by illegal immigrants, by our best-guess total of the number of illegal immigrants, instead of the entire population of the country, you're going to get a rate that is 16-22x higher than the one you came up with.
(Our best-guess estimates on the total number of illegal immigrants residing within the USA range between 15 & 20 million, or approximately 4.5% - 6% of the total population.)
Your initial number, posted above, is therefore off by approximately 1.2 orders of magnitude. Which, in estimating, is quite a bit.
And, for the record, a 1.2 order of magnitude jump in a rate statistic like what you've attempted to calculate is a *very* large difference. It's the difference between:
a) 0.5% of selected group is 'X' (1 in 200)
b) 10% of selected group is 'X' (1 in 10)
Or the mother whose son, an Afghan War vet, was murdered in NYC and who Bragg dismissed the murder charges against. Two of his assailants weren't even charged, one got off with time served and the other only seven years.
‘This is an infringement on parental rights’
Good luck, parents, with an ideology that combines “it takes a village” and “you didn’t build that”. Also a cult that needs to steal children since they don’t make many the old-fashioned way.
Of course, when this ruins the child's life, it won't be educators having to clean up the pieces.
Are you sure? Government therapists, in schools and public health agencies, would be happy to "clean up" the mess. For a few billion tax dollars each year.
'Biden appears set to try to pass legislation that would institute term limits for Supreme Court justices.'
Constitution, schmonstitution.
But he says he supports the Constitution, so sarc’s good with it.
Ahem. It is recognizes.
sarcasmic 12 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Why wouldn’t there be? Despite all his faults, at least Biden recognizes the Constitution. Can’t say the same about Trump.
Sure ignore the USSC, student loans, regulations, lawfare.
Maybe he meant he recognizes it in order to violate it? Wait, nevermore. Sarc will break out Trumps quote regarding firing political appointees again because sarc is a fucking idiot.
My mistake.
He got really upset when I said supports instead of recognizes despite the difference being meaningless.
He supports using its pages as diaper liner.
I really wish Wolfe would get rid of that horseshit Scenes of New York bit in the column. Who gives a flying fuck.
I adore it. Like after the residents of Springfield try to bring back the former sanitation commissioner following Homer's giant fuck up.
"It's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye."
I mean we've all been demanding they get out of deep blue urban centers that obviously bias their takes on libertarianism. But they need cocktail party invites.
And stop lying to the American public.
Nate yells at clouds
I'd vote for Vivek over Trump.
Of course the media-indoctrination on a Vivek Administration would be even worse than Trump. Nazi's don't like having anyone taking shots at their Nazi-Empire. (i.e. "Hollowing out their public institutions", right there in the DNC platform)
Vivek consistently had the most detailed plan to try to remove power from Washington. The applause he got was pretty strong. He should have a large role in the administration, although they are also talking taking Vances senate seat.
I think he’d be much more useful in the administration than the senate.
^This.
I don't know, if Republicans control the Senate, and Trump and Vance are in the administration, Trump and Vance's handpicked replacement for Vance will have a lot of power in the Senate. Even the Turtle couldn't deny him power.
His specific plans on how to get rid of bureaucrats can only be accomplished by the executive.
He's already been promised a role in the administration:
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-promises-vivek-an-administration-position-running-white-house-convenience-store
I was reading about that now iconic photo of Trump with his fist raised surrounded by agents and the flag, and I saw that it was taken by the Associated Press’ chief photographer and Pulitzer prize winner. And I started to wonder, why would the Associated Press send their prize-winning chief photographer to a Trump campaign whistlestop in Bumfuck, Pennsylvania?
I’ve got other questions;
Why was Trump’s security detail understaffed, under-resourced, stretched to its limits, and begging for help, while Biden’s security regime reportedly diverted even more resources to a hastily planned Jill Biden event that just happened to be in the area?
Why did Biden’s Secret Service director order law enforcement and counter-snipers off the roof the assassin used because it was kind of sloped, despite the fact the other roofs they were placed on in the area all had steeper pitches?
Why did the SS agent in charge refuse to block the line of sight from the assassin’s perch to Trump’s location?
When law enforcement radioed in a suspicious person using a laser range finder at the building and even took photos of him, why was nothing was done to detain the kid?
The assassin was so obviously a threat that bystanders at the event begged law enforcement to stop him, but nothing happened. And even as snipers on the roof near Trump saw a gunman on the other roof, why did the SS officer in charge not have agents immediately surround Trump or remove him from the stage to protect him from being shot?
Why was the shooter the only person on Earth not on the internet?
Why did the FBI tell us almost immediately that while it couldn’t open the assassin’s phone, it knew he acted alone? That’s kind of weird, when you think about it.
Why did they tell us almost immediately that they identified him by DNA, despite him having no criminal record?
I work in a related field and the speed at which they identified him by his DNA was faster than anything I’ve ever seen, by a factor of four.
And why didn’t they just identify him by his plates or registration or next of kin?
Or from revolver
Why did the shooter know the roof would be unguarded?
There are many unanswered questions.
But not to worry, the FBI (and DOJ) are on the case. You know how those alphabet agencies are. Do you think anyone will be held accountable? I doubt it.
Did those same agencies that harmed President Trump during his first term indirectly assist Crooks? That is a legit question. I do not trust them. They lie incessantly. They have interfered with multiple elections, here and abroad.
I’ve been trying not to jump to conclusions, but there are so many things about it that don’t add up…
By now, the best I can see is: "Never assume cunning when stupidity will suffice".
Remember, they all work for Joe and his 'competence' sets the standard.
Except the amount of stupid it would take for that many things to occur would require the people involved not wearing tied shoes.
I can buy a combination of stupidity and decision paralysis. I've seen it myself - managers that work for me just making incredibly poor decisions out of fear of fucking something up, and managing to fuck things up more than the "risky" decision ever could.
Well they're government employees so incompetence, complacency and shirking of responsibility is the norm.
I haven't seen any evidence they were wearing tied shoes.
Touché
We all know the answers.
I work in a related field and the speed at which they identified him by his DNA was faster than anything I’ve ever seen, by a factor of four.
The whole movie keeps playing over and over again in my head.
Why was the shooter the only person on Earth not on the internet?
This is the most suspicious part of the event for me. You mean to tell me Trump got shot at by the one Zoomer in the country with absolutely no social media presence whatsoever? And then the FBI claims that they can't get into his phone, when acting agents are getting caught on Facebook and Twitter lamenting that he wasn't killed? Yeah, right.
That's a situation where I wouldn't be surprised at all if the guy got groomed by Stzrok types in the FBI or CIA, and they did him the favor prior of getting the NSA to completely wipe his online presence other than that Republican registration and ActBlue donation to muddy the waters. Whether Mayorkas signed off on it or it was rogue actors in the bureau, it's a bad look.
And what would be the purpose for doing something that stupid? Well, if he kills Trump, problem solved and they don't have to worry if he'll start cleaning house in 2025. Furthermore, if the right says it's "go time," they're now justified to bring the full brunt of the state against their political enemies to try and snuff out conservatives permanently. If they don't, they know they can still get away with killing anyone on the right without consequence. Either way, it's a win-win.
Of course, they sent a boy to do a man's job and he fucked it up. Now if it happens again, people are just going to assume they were told to do so by people in DHS, and the country tears itself apart anyway.
Except for guilty moments I try to avoid conspiracy thinking. But in this century in the US will we ever see another moment when such a conniving, facile-lying, megalomaniac-style establishment is trying to "eliminate" such a charismatic, polarizing figure?
I hope not.
Update:
he officer who confronted Thomas Matthew Crooks on the roof radioed a "blanket tactical channel" that there was "an individual on the roof with a weapon" before the assassination attempt on President Trump.
Why wasn't President Trump immediately evacuated?
Was the Secret Service listening to this "blanket tactical channel"?
Two officers went to the lowest point of the building. One officer boosted the other high enough to reach the roof, where he saw the shooter with a weapon.
Crooks turned and pointed his weapon at the officer, who then ducked and fell off the roof.
"The boosting officer and the officer that fell were both on the radio indicating that there was an individual on the roof that did, in fact, have a weapon."
"There was a blanket tactical channel being used. Everyone who was on that tactical channel heard it."
How much time was there between that radio communication and the gun being fired at President Trump?
It's bad enough that the Secret Service didn't put anyone on the most obvious roof 150 yards away.
But after two police officers radioed in that there was a guy on the roof with a gun, why wasn't President Trump immediately evacuated?
https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1813633089454911622
"Jack Black’s band cancels tour after backlash to bandmate’s comment on Trump assassination attempt"
[...]
"ack Black’s comedy rock band Tenacious D has canceled its remaining tour dates after band member Kyle Gass sparked a backlash with an apparent joke about Saturday’s assassination attempt on former US President Donald Trump.
Footage posted on social media from the band’s concert in Sydney on Sunday showed Black presenting Gass with a birthday cake onstage and telling him to “make a wish.”
Gass responded: “Don’t miss Trump next time.”..."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jack-black-s-band-cancels-tour-after-backlash-to-bandmate-s-comment-on-trump-assassination-attempt/ar-BB1q4FsJ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=1d960a8dd95446598e5eda24e83ddff8&ei=15
Credit is due to Jack Black for apologizing and doing something about it, and credit is due to Kyle Gass too for actually giving a real apology that wasn't mealymouthed, when neither had to, and they would have gotten more progressive cred if they hadn't.
It's a lot easier to get an apology when their livelihood is threatened. Freedom of speech is paramount, but not buying tickets to watch a couple assholes is also a free expression.
I heard that a bunch of venues actually canceled them because their concerts became uninsurable, but I can’t find where I saw it, and I don’t know anything about venue insurance.
Gass would be due a lot more credit if the asshole hadn't made the comment at all.
It's definitely in bad taste, but I can appreciate it as an edgy dark joke that aligns with his politics/feelings. Less ok if he genuinely meant it, but he has free speech. There's certainly plenty of people I'd rather see on the other side of the dirt, but announcing it is a bad look and has repercussions
And this is why NBC put Morning Joe on lockdown on Monday. Those execs all but admitted that if they didn't put a muzzle on them, the panelists would say something inflammatory to the point that it might actually get people appointments with woodchippers.
And then Joe has the balls to complain about it the next day and threaten to quit if it happens again. If I was an NBC exec I would tell him, 'don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out' but NBC won't.
Or worse, threaten some advertising contracts.
I'm not a fan of Black or Tenacious D, but I could see how there might be a legitimate mistake. I've certainly skirted or run afoul of "the 24 hour rule" once or twice and this bit is as funny now as it was then.
"Those he failed to vanquish delivered their (obsequious) speeches, one by one: first, Vivek Ramaswamy; then Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley; and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. "
I don't think the words "failed to vanquish" mean what you think they mean.
He completely vanquished all of the above.
"prevents educators from having to notify parents if their child asks to switch names or pronouns"
Emphasis added. So, educators can still *voluntarily* so notify parents?
It’s not about whether or not a school bureaucrat will inform the parents after she begins gender transitioning their child, it’s that the school bureaucrat even has this authority to begin with.
Or that people who would even want to do such a disgusting thing are working with kids in the first place.
Here’s the legislation. If you can figure it out, let me know.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1955
The bill prohibits schools or districts from enacting a policy requiring the teacher / employee to share information with any other person besides the pupil, including the parents.
It does not prohibit the school or district from enacting a policy that prohibits the teacher / employee from sharing that information.
So, the answer to whether the educator can still voluntarily share that information is: Possibly Not.
“Flashing back and forth between conservatism of yore and conservatism of the future—which seems to barely resemble anything proffered by William F. Buckley or Ronald Reagan—was vertigo-inducing, especially upon realizing that even the old-school conservatives have integrated Trump’s animus toward immigrants into their messaging.”
Change is hard; and when has it not occurred? It is not the same Republican Party of 1860, 1880, 1900…, or 1980, but somehow it should be tied to Buckley and Reagan or it’s oh my God how can this be?
Neither party over the past 40+ years has represented the American citizen in a way that would enjoin their support. When that happens, it is quite natural that an organic change will occur vs. holding on to cherished reminiscences.
We seem to be in a populist cycle, more on the right but also on the left (at least rhetorically). Many voters are now asking "What can you do for me?" Who knows, this might be a refreshing change from 100% culture war politics.
Many voters are now asking “What can you do for me?”
That’s part of it, but a lot of people are also now asking “Why do you keep taking my money and using it to blow up people all over the world?” Which makes Reason’s consistent attacks on the movement so disgusting.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are largely responsible for moving me from GOP conservative to a more libertarian constitutionalist. I'm anti-war in that I don't want unnecessary loss of lives and resources. I have no problem with engaging in necessary wars, but they need to be executed in a way to end things quickly and decisively. I saw that winning and going back to worrying about our own problems wasn't the goal. This is the sort of thing that makes the MAGA stuff resonate. Stop worrying about killing people around the world and focus on serving our population.
This. Bush should have asked for a declaration of war on 9/12 against Al Qaeda and anyone who supported them. Went in with everything and wiped them and the Taliban out and then got the fuck out of Afghanistan, a country that's never been governable.
Afghanistan is a country, in the words of the late great Sir Terry Pratchett, that exists largely because cartographers hate blank spaces on a map. Its inhabited by a multitude of different people's, mainly who have allegiance to tribe or clan, with minimal infrastructure, much of the population is geographically isolated from one another and has polyglot.
Should read and is polyglot.
>>Which makes Reason’s consistent attacks on the movement so disgusting.
this! masks. off.
Agreed; Trump and Vance are not conservatives, they are populists. And the [former] Republican Party is now the home of the working class American.
Amusing to see how hard it is to watch pundits and media get their collective heads around this.
they can't ... or won't yet
"Our government sold us a false bill of goods with the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis, loading up our national debt that falls on our generations shoulders"
Not going to argue the point, as made. But let's consider the period between 2003, which is the start of the war, to 2011, which is when troops were officially withdrawn. And that period covers the 2008 crisis Vivek references. During that period the nation debt increased by about $8T ($6.228T to $14.790T).
By way of comparison, between 2020 and today, which covers the COVID pandemic and Biden's tenure, the national debt has increased by about $12T ($22.719 to $34.912T). In half as much time, we've increased debt by 150% more than the whole war and financial crisis did.
Those he failed to vanquish delivered their (obsequious) speeches
Wait, wasn't there some Reason staffer, I think a...Liz Wolfe who insisted the Libertarian Party was in "disarray" because not all the party faithful gave their full-throated support to Chase Oliver? Man, you and her should definitely have a debate! I'm sure you'd completely trash her insistence that the party faithful have to get behind the nominee.
Lol, good catch.
lol ouch.
+1
"California just became the first state in the nation to pass legislation that "prevents educators from having to notify parents if their child asks to switch names or pronouns," reports The New York Times. "
Another thing Jeff said wasn't happening, or is not common, or is not policy, or something like that.
Please show where I stated that this "wasn't happening".
I doubt I ever said that it "wasn't happening". I did say that I don't support teachers hiding transgender issues from parents.
"I skimmed through that document and I don’t see mention of the relationship between students’ rights and parent’s rights. I suppose one could read the document uncharitably and assume that when the authors say “students have a right to do X” that they mean “…even if their parents disagree”, but I am not sure."
It was 6 days ago. Since I didn't go back to the source before making the previous comment, I clearly and intentionally hedged "Jeff said wasn’t happening, or is not common, or is not policy, or something like that." I recalled positing the NEA's guidelines to members, you taking issue with it because you just skimmed it, and having to point out the specific terms, after which you disappeared.
Just hit Ctrl-F then enter the word “parents”.
I don’t have to uncharitable. I just have to read the words.
Page 6.
Privacy for transgender students. Students
must be able to decide when, with whom,
and how much highly personal information
is shared with others. Students have the right
to control the disclosure of highly personal
and private information such as gender iden
tity, transgender status, or sexual orientation.
Administration and faculty should not disclose
a student’s actual or perceived sexual orienta
tion, gender identity, or gender expression to
others, including other students, parents or
guardians, or other school personnel, unless
required to do so by law or unless the stu
dent has agreed, or unless the student makes
requests that require such information to be
disclosed, such as when a student requests to
be called by a certain name or pronoun or to
use a restroom or locker room that conforms
with the student’s gender identity.
Administration and faculty should not disclose
a student’s actual or perceived sexual orienta
tion, gender identity, or gender expression to
others, including other students, parents or
guardians
You are interpreting that to mean that administrators should not disclose a student’s gender identity to the student’s OWN PARENTS, that the word “other” does not also modify the word “parents”.
It could mean, however, that the administrators should not disclose a student’s gender identity to OTHER PARENTS that are not the student’s, that the word “other” does also modify the word “parents”.
It’s not entirely clear what is meant by that sentence. I understand you interpret it in the most uncharitable way because they are villains to you. I am trying to interpret what the words actually say without first assuming they are villains from the outset.
And even still. In that discussion I did not say flatly "no it wasn't happening". I hedged as well when I said "I am not sure", because - get this - I am genuinely not sure.
So to review, you made an accusation, I questioned it but did not flat out reject it, and because of that, you then declare that I rejected it.
Lol, keep going Lying Jeffy, it’s going great!
It's perfectly clear.
"other students" (comma)
"parents or guardians" (comma)
"or other school personnel"
A list of 3 things, 2 of which are modified directly and intentionally by the use of the word "other". 1 of which conspicuously does not.
Or, it could be:
"other students, parents or guardians" (comma), "or other school personnel".
The grammar is awkward here due to the unclear use of commas. Again it's just not clear. You all may be right, the teachers may be demanding that the teachers hide gender identity issues from everyone. But it is not clear from the text.
How can you be so obtuse?
A dystopian police state is a small price to pay if it means cleansing the blood of the nation of those vile, villainous vermin.
A) Hitler reference
B) continued lies about deportation being door to door.
C) yells vermin while ignoring the long history of usage by his team
Judges: 8 jeff head pats!
Hitler reference: " I respected my father, but I loved my mother."
Poor, braindead sarc. Always the idiot.
GFY
“A dystopian police state”
How long will it take trump to get this going? His entire term? Will it be done by the midterms in ’26?
Can we get some goddam specifics?
Edit - Meant as reply to
dispshitsarcasmic above.Would you settle for a utopian police state?
>>utopian police state
Brandon: "... but you repeat yourself."
In the first paragraph, Liz is going along with the NYT?
Yet another author at Reason added to the "skip straight to the comments" list.
Seems like a fairly accurate description of party conventions in general. Though somehow I doubt that the NYT will describe the D convention in the same way.
Seems like an apocryphal description of the Colosseum to me.
It’s almost certain that political executions took place at the Colosseum but such… socio-political demonstrations of alignment or realignment were more the content of The Forum or potentially a temple.
Capturing Brooks alive and pitting him against James Hodgekinson or Brooks, Hodgekinson, and Pelosi’s attacker, together against a lion, or tying them to posts for a lion to disembowel was more a spectacle for the Colosseum.
Fascist Jeffy has a sad:
BREAKING REPORT: Peter Navarro has been RELEASED from prison after serving 4 months on a CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS charge.
Navarro is headed DIRECTLY to the RNC convention..
https://x.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1813577587475828760
Btw, was anyone ever able to get him to denounce the unequal application of law?
Nope. He fully embraces political lawfare and rages when it fails.
Good to see some of the political prisoners being released to make room for all of us that Trump will go door to door to lock up.
Why is contempt of congress a crime?
To throw Trump’s people in prison.
The official crime is actually "Republican contempt of Democrat congress." So you see, Garland couldn't be guilty of it.
And here we go again:
Mayorkas Is Blocking Secret Service Director From Testifying
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2024/07/17/mayorkas-reportedly-blocking-secret-service-director-from-testifying-n2642065
What? What?
Liz writes:
California just became the first state in the nation to pass legislation that "prevents educators from having to notify parents if their child asks to switch names or pronouns"
My best interpretation: the new legislation forbids from requiring teachers to notify parents.
So that leaves the teacher free to use her own judgement and viewpoint to notify parents or not, right?
It's a little hard to work up outrage when you're not sure what the story is.
Whatever it means, Elon Musk didn't like it. He's moving all his businesses to Texas.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13642815/Gavin-Newsoms-four-word-riposte-Elon-Musk-billionaire-launched-blistering-attack-against-decided-Tesla-X-headquarters-Texas-governors-new-gender-identity-laws-workers-brace-job-cuts.html
"Whatever it means"
I thought you were a regular user of google.com ?
Better interpretation: The new legislation allows teachers to hide things from parents.
Hide things that should never be hidden.
Because the information has to do with a child making a significant life change and the person the school might decide not to inform is the child’s legal guardian.
For all the whinging that the NeverTrumpers do about Trump voters, they don't even compare to the no-shit cult-like behavior of marxists. It's a textbook example of what they do to isolate people from their friends and family members so they can control them.
It means teachers have the backing of law to groom kids without so much as informing parents. The school nurse has to call me to let my kid take a midol, but California doesn't think I should be aware that they are calling my kid John and providing access to hormone drugs.
Do you think that there is any Democrat anywhere who would have actually been upset if the assassination of Trump had been successful? Could you name one?
Can you think of a single MAGA who would do anything but cheer if someone shot up the DNC?
Of course that's ok though. Because Democrats did it first and worse.
So you can’t think of a single Democrat, and instead throw a squirrel.
And, although not a MAGA, I wouldn’t cheer. I’d be upset.
Sarc just boaf sidez an assassination attempt.
Yeap. And it is bookmarked.
"Because Democrats did it first and worse."
How broken are you? To say this about a hypothetical attack, when the real version occurred less than a week ago?
It's par for the course for the left. Just see all of the outraged panicking that Trump might possibly weaponize the justice department against political enemies, as they weaponize the justice department against Trump and MAGA.
" Could you name one?"
Is Lieberman still alive?
In fairness, I wouldn't be too upset if Biden had a fatal accident. Assassination brings its own list of concerns, but the initial emotional reaction would be "fuck that guy." I don't want Biden in power and they don't want Trump in power. The difference is only really in how supportive each is of the means.
Lester Maddox?
Meant as a reply to Jerry B.
"The broad strokes of Trumponomics might not be different from what they were during his first term," reports Bloomberg Businessweek, following a Mar-a-Lago sit-down with Trump. "What's new is the speed and efficiency with which he intends to enact them."
I hope this isn't all us non-subscribers get here about this.
Mee too. As a fellow non subscriber, I am living on borrowed time here.
How long is our 'temporary' ability to comment going to last anyhow?
As long as they want an active comments section, I'll wager.
>>which seems to barely resemble anything proffered by William F. Buckley or Ronald Reagan
I fucking love it! this place has no fucking clue what Buckley or Reagan were about but you guys sure as shit can group-scold as though you were around for and paid attention to either.
>>Nate Silver is responding to none other than the Democratic National Convention chair himself:
neither deserves the reverence.
>>Every single President Joe Biden interview makes me more confused as to how Democrats could possibly think he can serve another four years:
will be less confusing when you see your premise is incorrect.
He isn't serving now.
He is just the meat puppet for the cabal.
38% of Americans don't seem to care ... sad face.
>>Those he failed to vanquish
to be fair T didn't have Absolute Immunity yet.
Last night, the Republican National Convention (RNC) was all about kissing Donald Trump's ring.
Well… except for Chris Christie. He’s a part of the rump Republican Party— consisting of maybe 5% of its members— that have any principles. The rest is dedicated to principals. That 95% basically sucks ass— including Vivek. Fuck that tech bro dipshit and his corrupt biotech company.
love the satire!
Every line uttered against your fucking God king must seem like satire to someone in so deep.
Remember when you told us trump was hit by pieces of a teleprompter?
lol my what what?
Assholes like you almost make me wish for Trump to actually set up a police state and round up "undesirables".
How is your 400k account doing?
Good. Why?
I'd like some more specifics. You stated that the balance was around 1k, so low that you forgot about it, to find out that it had ballooned to 400k.
I'd like to know how you achieved this kind of return, and more specific start and end dates.
Ask about his multiple millions in 401k, and houses, etc.
No one believes you sarcasmic sock, sorry, Biden Guy
Chris Christie, principled, lol? The George Washington Bridge has entered the chat.
>>Biden appears set to try to pass legislation that would institute term limits for Supreme Court justices.
this should be a piece not a blurb.
Can we just contemplate the utter cruelty of the universe? I mean, we sit around for 10^100 years waiting for the heat death of the universe and while we’re waiting Shannon Doherty, Richard Simmons and Dr. Ruth die. And all the while God wants to save a bit part actor from Home Alone 2 who can’t even deliver his fucking lines to Macaulay Culkin in a believable manner. Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him, God, you fucking piece of shit. You don’t exist.
#sorryhemissed right shrike?
I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence by claiming that I’m happy he’s still around to harass the women on his staff. Nono. That guy was just carrying the logic you guys propose when talking about the 2nd amendment, correct? I’ve seen all this wood chipper talk here so I’m familiar with your violent rhetoric. What’s wrong with taking that logic to its conclusion? I’ve give the shooter this credit… at the very least he went after the head hancho of the modern fascist movement and didn’t go after soft targets— a synagogue, a church, an island full of children— like your ideological compatriots did. He gets a Yelp rating of 3 out of 5 stars— mostly because he turned out to be a Squeaky Fromm when he should have been a Lee Harvey Oswald.
Dems for murdering our political opponents because reason commenters have “woodchipper” in their handles.
"well adjusted biden guy" good lord
He also mistakingly believes he's smart, when he's actually the poster child for why long term, heavy, marijuana usage can be a bad thing.
You forgot LSD, MDMA and the occasional things I put up my nose. I have to live with moral scolds and assholes in America so don’t count my occasional indulgences against me, ok?
>> LSD, MDMA and the occasional things I put up my nose.
word. well, I stopped snorting things but those first two anytime.
That sound is the point going over your head, moron. You're Tommy Chong level thinker without the sense of humor.
Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair, biden bitch boy.
Haha.
>> writes The Pillar's J.D. Flynn. "For some pro-lifers, this has played as a betrayal of their long-standing loyalty to the GOP.
are more than two opinions required for the "some" here or is the author free to hope-scold without actual statistics?
Uhoh. Trump has lost the Nick Fuentes vote, because JD Vance has a brown wife.
https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-wife-attacks-maga-trump-running-mate-1926194
what's a Nick Fuentes?
Some shithead kid that the media keep around in case they need a "white supremacist" to point to.
ah makes sense I don't recognize the name. gracias.
He's the guy Trump was hounded to disavow every time he gave a press conference during his 2016 campaign.
A guy that Trump had dinner with at Mar-a-Lago.
That the whole story, Lying Jeffy?
Trump has lost the Nick Fuentes vote
And? He fits better with Biden and the white savior Leftists. Good riddance.
This is a good article that starts to get at the problem with the violent rhetoric that comes from the right.
https://time.com/6998601/trump-rally-shooting-rhetoric-political-violence/
It is about why using a "war" analogy for politics is very problematic. Here is a good passage:
Haven't elections always been compared to war? Even the word "campaign" is an allusion to war.
Haven’t elections always been compared to war?
Only in the battleground States.
tell me you've heard about Brandon's Battleboxes?
Haha, yes.
“War on (fill in the blank)” has been common practice in political rhetoric for many decades now. Here comes Jeff to show us why it’s wrong now. Similar to how dehumanizing language is only bad when his enemies do it.
Dehumanizing language is not great when anyone does it, but it is especially problematic when people who wield power and influence start using it on large swaths of people.
Me calling a lawyer “scumbag” is merely impolite, but a politician calling a large number of people “vermin” is not *only* impolite, it has greater ramifications.
But really this boils down to you being perfectly comfortable with a politician dehumanizing and therefore unpersoning large numbers of fellow citizens, as long as they are the “wrong” kind of citizens.
It tends to show that your team, much like you accuse the Left of being, demand submission to your worldview. Lefties who believe in things that you don't like, cannot merely be opponents with ideas you reject, they must be 'vermin' and treated as if they weren't even human.
We know, we know. We're all nazis here jeff.
I've never said you are all Nazis.
Oh, silly me. And I guess even if you did say it, or imply it, we should chalk it up to one of your non-vulcan lapses.
Do you have anything of value to say, or are you going to just chase me around and try to fling gotchas at me?
Hypocritical assholes should be called on their bullshit.
Rather, it seems as though you go looking and hunting for hypocrisy even where it does not reasonably exist, in order to try to generate a gotcha against someone you already don't like.
I'm not sure exactly what a scumbag is in a literal sense. But it seems like it would be something that can be disposed of at least as casually as vermin.
If you had someone with power and influence calling large groups of people 'scumbags' then yeah that would be a problem.
What about "MAGA extremists" or "deplorables"?
I don't really see those as "dehumanizing" in the same way. Yes they are false generalizations and offensive, but it's not stripping people of their humanity. It's not saying "they aren't even human and don't even deserve basic dignity".
I know. The problem is when the allusion becomes more concrete.
“The problem is when the allusion becomes more concrete.”
A not-so-subtle way of saying, “ignore all the other instances of this, the only ones to focus are the ones by my opponents”
No, for everyone.
You know, you are reminding me why I had you on ignore for so long. It's like you're a chihuahua, following me around, barking and nipping at my heels.
"OMG dehumanizing language!" Yup, rude, but since I lack any significant platform or voice, I'm pretty sure it won't lead to your unpersoning.
So since you don't "wield power and influence" your dehumanizing language is okey dokey? Doesn't the left use that standard to say non-whites can't be racist, because the lack the power plus prejudice that they've redefined racism as?
If he was honest he’d admit he has different standards for Trump and be done with it.
He also routinely bitches about dehumanizing language by commenters here that he doesn't like - as if any of us "wield power and influence."
Because it's rude, not because I actually think you are going to inspire someone to go on a murder spree based on the language.
Not 'okey dokey'. I said it was impolite.
You all seem so intent on trying to find 'hypocrisy' that you are missing the entire point of this.
The entire point here is that when you have a person with power and influence to be making irresponsible comments and dehumanizing language, someone might take it the wrong way and, say, attempt to assassinate a presidential candidate. People with large platforms ought to use those platforms responsibly. Isn't that what we have all been talking about these last several days?
At least when irresponsible people call Trump a Nazi, Trump has Secret Service protection to guard against the violence. What about all of the ordinary people out there whom Trump labels as "vermin"? If someone takes Trump's words literally (the way you all claim the wanna-be assassin took the 'Trump = Hitler' language literally), and start to 'exterminate' the 'vermin', then what?
Let me guess - "that's okay because they have it coming"?
Orange Man Bad
Chem Jeff Stupid
Never forget.
https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2022/01/poll-45-of-dems-support-internment-camps-for-unvaccinated-59-support-home-lockdowns/
Poll: 45% of Dems Support Internment Camps for Unvaccinated, 59% Support Home Lockdowns
Gee, that's pretty shocking.
Guess that means we all have to vote for Team Red now.
It was in response to your post about the violent rhetoric of the right, lol.
So dishonest.
If the Left didn't have double-standards . . .
Look at Leftist Jeffy sharing leftist propaganda!
https://x.com/DougMackeyCase/status/1813439884964647324
The Democrats charged a young guy with felonies for doing burnouts on a "Pride" crosswalk. The prosecutor wanted to throw "hate crime" charges at the guy before realizing it was not tenable "because the crosswalk could not be considered a victim" (lol).
The state prosecutor and fake groups such as the "Palm Beach County Human Rights Council" asked the judge to sentence the guy to jail.
The president of the PBCHRC, Rand Hoch, pushed for "hate crime" charges because the victim--a sidewalk--is a "protected class" (You can't make this stuff up).
Instead of prison time, the judge made him write a 25-page book report on the Pulse Nightclub shooting.
These people are unhinged.
-----
FUCK these people. We are at war.
>>"speakers painted an exaggerated picture of the link between immigration and crime," writes Reason's Fiona Harrigan
... who shockingly hasn't turned a tv on in six months.
...managed to articulate a more positive vision for where he thinks the party and the country should go.
BS or not, he's an Obama-quality speaker.
Also very clean.
This is an infringement on parental rights that makes me never want to move to that sorely lost state,
Get rid of public schools. Problem solved.
California just became the first state in the nation to pass legislation that "prevents educators from having to notify parents if their child asks to switch names or pronouns...
As a parent I would want to know if my child was failing grammar.
Me to.
me fail engwish? that's unpossible!
Every single President Joe Biden interview makes me more confused as to how Democrats could possibly think he can serve another four years...
They know his handlers and their clone-progeny can serve for a hundred years.
For some pro-lifers, this has played as a betrayal of their long-standing loyalty to the GOP.
I'm sure the Democratic or Libertarian Party will go above and beyond what the GOP has in protecting unborn life.
Biden appears set to try to pass legislation that would institute term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Ha. That would never come back to bite them.
The Secret Service had allegedly increased security at the Butler, Pennsylvania, rally on Saturday following intelligence that Iran was looking to target Trump.
This makes it seem Iran is the only reason Trump had any Secret Service protection at all. The only level lower than what he had would have been none.
More likely - this 'Iran assassination plot' is planted bullshit. An attempt to drive an emotional reaction towards war with Iran. A complete fraud where the intelligence will never be sourced and will merely serve to hype the heat towards war.
More likely, JFucked
Is.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
FOAD, asshole.
Thank god for elon musk. I cant believe how lucky we are to have a billionaire like that. Fuck california
Not to worry. The assassination attempt was "unacceptable", and "the buck stops here".
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id=111962314
In case anyone's wondering:
Cheatle said she would not resign from her role.
Also note the blaming of the local cops.
She should be fired, NOW! She has failed her primary mission, period.
Not gonna happen.
Remember when the head of the CDC was on TV crying her eyes out, spazzing over the horrors of a covid wave (that didn't happen)?
Someone in that position should hear the words "You're relieved" and their deputy instantly appointed until they can be replaced. That's someone completely unfit for leadership.
Same is true of whatsherface at the SS. That chick is completely unfit for leadership... but she's a political appointee and a DEI hire and will get to tough it out. One more reason to not vote for Brandon, I guess.
I hear she's Queen Jill's fave, so no dice.
The broad strokes of Trumponomics might not be different from what they were during his first term...
Burdened by what has been.
Lol. This one should have been up top.
Last night, the Republican National Convention (RNC) was all about kissing Donald Trump’s ring.
ummm, that's what conventions are for. You crown the nominee and back him . Have you ever watched a DNC convention?
Make America Safe Again = Make Crime Illegal Again
"Last night, the Republican National Convention (RNC) was all about kissing Donald Trump's ring."
don't think the ring was the target. they were aiming rather farther south ...
If she is a real person, her job at Reason is to repeat "open borders" over and over. And whatever else Uncle Charles needs.
Future Fiona article
Researchers find a cure for cancer. How this helps open borders and more immigration is clear"
I think it works the other way. "How open borders and more immigration will cure cancer".