Thank God It's Over
Plus: Harris/Walz camo hats are not for rednecks, mobility vs. density, and more...

That was all right, I guess. Vice President Kamala Harris took the stage last night, closing out the Democratic National Convention. She hit mostly biographical notes in the beginning, smartly introducing herself to voters who never had the opportunity, the way they might during primaries, to hear about her background. Then she pivoted to framing former President Donald Trump as an existential threat to American democracy, to the security of our country, and to the rights of normal people.
"You are going to remember where you were on this night," said MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "This was an inflection point in history."
I'm not sure I would go so far.
It was fine! Harris did an OK job. But there was nothing especially surprising.
Harris has worked hard to cast "Project 2025"—a book of policy initiatives routinely published by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which this time contains a somewhat concerning chunk about turning civil servants into political appointees, swapping them out more easily with each administration—as an authoritarian handbook, acting like Trump has made his malevolent plans known.
She criticized his (actually fairly popular) foreign policy approach, striking more hawkish notes than he tends to: "I will not cozy up to tyrants and terrorists, like Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for Trump," she said at one point. Trump responded, via Truth Social, that "the tyrants are laughing at her, she's weak and ineffective."
She touted how she wants to create an "earned pathway to citizenship" to address the influx at the southern border, claiming it will once and for all be brought under control. This is kind of an insane claim given that she's had significant influence on Biden administration policies as the border czar.
"President [Joe] Biden and I are working to end this war such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination," said Harris at one point, addressing a sore within the Democratic Party that's been festering beneath the surface all convention.
Again, nothing surprising. She's an OK speaker. She refrained from any awkward wine aunt giggling. She wasn't obviously on beta blockers. She managed to stay away from talking about her beloved Venn diagrams. Harris has never been the strongest speaker, so the fact that it went smoothly and stayed concise was notable. (Happy for Maddow that it gave her the high she wanted, though.)
The anti-Hillary: One notable part of Harris' strategy is that she has had the identity-politics route available to her this entire time, thanks to the nature of her demographic characteristics. She could have chosen to run an "I'm with her" campaign, round two, but has made a deliberate choice to just let voters and media coverage fill in the demographic details on their own, emphasizing the first-woman-president part far less than Hillary Clinton did.
This week's DNC programming portrayed her as a likable person deeply invested in her family, despite the fact that Harris had no such thing up until she married Doug Emhoff at 49. Harris managed to pull it off fairly well: She was, seemingly, a hardcore career woman for most of her life, eschewing the typical route of getting married in one's twenties and thirties and having children.
What could have been a political liability was instead sort of nicely papered over by political strategists clearly advising her to emphasize her big, blended, extended family, and I think it probably worked.
Their main theme, though, was joy. How they're not mad about their (noble) democracy-defending role, but rather taking it on with joy this time. They're all smiles!
It felt pretty fake, but it was probably rhetorically effective (something The New York Times' Jane Coaston emphasized to me and Zach Weissmueller on yesterday's Just Asking Questions). A Democratic Party mired in bitterness, condescension, and self-righteousness is not one that wins; it's one voters get tired of hearing from.
"In the face of a truly challenging and erratic Donald Trump, Democrats have spent the past eight years positioning themselves as the defenders of democracy," wrote Reason's Matt Welch last night. "And now, in Chicago, they have christened a nominee who won zero primaries, fielded zero interviews, and couldn't even come close to winning her home state in the 2020 primary. In the absence of testing her against the voting public or the adversarial press, Democrats are attempting to incept her candidacy as a fait accompli, a feeling of joy you didn't even know you were experiencing. I do not begrudge anyone succumbing to that sensation. But I won't be joining them."
It seems like the political consultants working on this week's DNC messaging did the best they could with what they were handed. And Harris has been, of late, experiencing quite the bump in the polls. What remains to be seen is whether American centrists and fence-sitters, burnt out on politics, buy the joyful normie messaging. I, for one, am so glad all of the main-stage pageantry is over. True joy comes from having a federal government so small and powerless that one can easily opt out of politics.
Scenes from New York: Amtrak wants to "demolish part or all of three blocks in midtown to build a giant expansion of Penn Station immediately to the south of the current complex, at a potential cost of $16.7 billion," writes Nolan Hicks at Curbed. "This proposal is perhaps the most expensive evidence of the cold war among the three transit entities at Penn, which, instead of cooperating to make the most out of the current station, are pushing for an outcome that would effectively give each one their own. Amtrak would stay in Moynihan Train Hall, NJ Transit would take the expansion, while the MTA would be largely left to itself in the old Penn Station."
QUICK HITS
- No, the Harris/Walz camo hats aren't supposed to appeal to the Duck Dynasty demographic, they "were made for girls and gays, not deer-hunting rednecks in Alabama," writes The Free Press's River Page. "They are actually a nod to pop singer Chappell Roan, a lesbian and self-proclaimed 'drag queen' who sells a nearly identical hat [reading Midwest Princess] on her own website….Kamala's camo hat is meant to appeal to people who know what Chappell Roan merch looks like—almost definitionally people who would have voted for Kamala Harris anyway."
- Harris' "policy offerings have been largely limited to four-and-a-half pages outlining her economic agenda and a party platform, adopted during the convention, that contains repeated references to 'a second Biden term,'" bemoans Bloomberg. "Her website doesn't have a policy section."
- Tyler Cowen reflects on "mobility vs. density in American history."
- Good reminders:
Most Americans do not live paycheck-to-paycheck:
- The median American household has a net worth of $193k
- The median American household holds $8k in transaction accounts (checking/savings)
- 54% of adults claim to have cash savings that could pay for 3 months of expenses https://t.co/i61EXaq72J
— Matt Darling ????????️ (@besttrousers) August 21, 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
Thank God It's Over
It's never over. Stay vigilant.
Like any Hollywood horror franchise.
Keep back to the future a trilogy!
The Creature from the California Attorney General’s Office….
The California Creature Invades the Senate!
The California Creature Eyes the White House!
Rambo: NOTHING IS OVER!
Even if Wormer dropped the big one?
Double secret probation?
I think this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
If it ends with Bluto in the Senate, I'm in.
Blutarsky for senate 2024!
"True joy comes from having a federal government so small and powerless that one can easily opt out of politics."
Not seeing any likelihood of that ever happening.
I'm curious which god (or God) she was thanking.
She hit mostly biographical notes in the beginning, smartly introducing herself to voters...
Introducing herself WHILE ACCEPTING THE NOMINATION.
Made the deliberate choice to let people fill in the demographic details on their own while providing them with her biography and nothing else.
It's like a blind date. Meet your new nominee!
Can we pretend we've got an urgent phone call and have to report to surgery?
Would it be better or worse for Trump to be beaten by a "nobody"?
Trump won't be beaten.
Is the "fix" in already?
Then she pivoted to framing former President Donald Trump as an existential threat to American democracy, to the security of our country, and to the rights of normal people.
I guess she thinks someone should do something about that threat.
They tried but he missed.
Nice of her to get around to noting that normal people have rights, three and a half years later....
Is that your honest reaction when Trump says similar things?
"She's a San Francisco liberal who destroyed that city, destroyed California, and will destroy our country if she is elected," he said.
"If we don't win this election, I don't think you're going to have another election in this country," Trump said.
Oh hey, you totally missed the point:
https://youtu.be/kP-6_sxTnFQ
Someone on Kamala’s side tried to “do something about that threat”. Your whataboutism doesn’t work here.
“You are going to remember where you were on this night,” said MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
"Where were you when an imbecile fell ass backwards into a presidency."
Did she get a tingling feeling up her leg?
Which imbecile, in which election year?
“an imbecile fell ass backwards into a presidency.”
How dare you! She sucked a lot of dick to get where she is today.
Maddow?
Now that would be something.
“Where were you when an imbecile fell ass backwards into a presidency.”
Again.
Dear Fist: I was the only person I knew who wasn’t surprised/aghast at Trump’s win in 2016. OK, I was somewhat aghast at the ascension of a certifiable liar who touted his disdain for book-larnin’ as a feature, not a bug. Being right about the election outcome was one of those “being rights” I would rather not have been.
In November 2016 I was dividing my time between housekeeping and my volunteer gigs at the hospital. Mind you, I have mixed feelings about local voluntarism. In my town there are so many 65+ volunteers that full-time jobs, with benefits, are hard to come by for laid-off employees.
But I digress. In 2016 George Packer and Michael Moore persuaded me that Trump would probably win. They did so by reporting on their time in places like Upper Sandusky, Ohio, and Wichita, Kansas. They found that voters there were not exactly MAGA yet but responded favorably to Trump’s socioeconomic (“You’ve been screwed!”) messages. His illiteracy, hypocrisy, and dishonesty bothered them somewhat, but they were less turned off by those than by Hillary’s sense of entitlement, her patrician attitude, and her self-asserted elitism.
If I were a betting man, I could have hit the big time by putting money on Trump. Those betting on Hillary might have been sore (chagrined, perhaps) about owing me money, but unlike Trump they wouldn’t have tried to dodge their obligation using bankruptcy laws and expensive lawyers.
Don't give up already!
There's still the voting in the "rigged election" you've got to do for some reason.
What makes you think things will change if its all a "rigged election" from the get go? Just look at Venezuela.
What has changed in Venezuela? Maduro rigged the election, and remains in office.
Why vote if voting won't change the outcome?
Illegals are just better than you. Oregon group to give illegals 30k for down payments on housing. This will have no effect on housing markets. Food truck market to explode.
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1826660499360244031
They are inherently more interesting than people whose families have been here a "boring ass long time" (Moynihan and Welch).
How else will we get our toilets cleaned? (Nick Gillespie)
Reason staff need some swirlies.
They cost us nothing!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/city-of-denver-says-migrants-are-facing-evictions-at-a-growing-rate/ar-AA1pgTRI
Immediately after this report drops the NGO jobs programs start writing about all the free shit coming their way.
Oregon taxpayer fundedgroup to give illegals 30k for down payments on housing
FTFY, otherwise a fool and his money. Taxpayer funded on the other hand seems unconstitutional and certainly a retarded policy.
Why not just end homelessness and have the government pay for everyone's houses? That should work, right?
Pay? Printing more money takes too long. More like requisition the existing housing stock, and then apply equity principles.
Some California towns already require a certain percentage of homes or rental units be set aside, not just for low income citizens, but for "public servants" such as teachers, police and firefighters. Even though California police and firefighters have some of the highest paid jobs in the state.
The Atlantic has gone full Kamala. Says maybe we shouldn't listen to economists. Sarc nods his head in agreement.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/08/economists-kamala-harris-price-gouging/679547/?taid=66c739d62f1dc4000112483a&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=true-anthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Is this how we are gauging the gouging?
We are already gagging on gauging the gouging.
I should google "gagging on gauging the gouging" to gorge on the gaslighting.
Well played sir.
Well played, indeed.
That might get some unintended search results.
Buttplug Atlantic links incoming in 3... 2... 1...
He’s probably losing his shit right now, as RFK Jr. just ended his campaign and backed Trump.
The author admits they worked for Letitia James suing a distributor who raised the price of Lysol during the pandemic. Full on Marxist academic self-referencing to support a complete bullshit argument.
Charge more -- gouging.
Charge less -- predator.
Charge the same -- collusion.
It all goes together with another woke standard:
Words are violence
Silence is violence
The whole point is to make everyone guilty all the time so the state can pick and choose whom to go after for "totally not political" reasons.
It’s the democrat way.
Numbers are racist patriarchal oppression. Money, too.
This is why we can't have nice things.
When you understand how deeply, deeply authoritarian Democrats tend to be, you see why this tactic works.
The core of the Democratic Party's activism is young, college-age professionals. They are basically kids who spent their entire lives learning to accept arguing from authority. From teachers to book reports, to research papers, to doctoral theses the vast majority spent 16 - 20 years just finding the evidence that suits a given theory- either one mandated by their teacher, or the one they choose. Even many of these PHDs in soft studies didn't actually write their thesis on experimental research- they assimilated chosen works, synthesized it and produced new "research".
This is why these Democrats are so obsessed with Misinformation in a way that Republicans are not. When you are used to appealing to authority, the way to win debates is to ensure that only authorities you agree with are around.
And this is also why this article exists. Consider that the party of "Trust The Science!(TM)" has now floated obvious "Don't believe your lying eyes" misinformation, in a publication that is always wringing its hands about misinformation. The point is to get a hyper-link out there, so that Democrat activists on X, Facebook, and Reddit can appeal to authority. "As you can see [insert link only 5% will ever read], in this case we shouldn't have to listen to economists anyways..."
The Left has spent years not only telling these young dupes that they are the smartest in the room, but enlisting them in an ecosystem that lets them appeal to authority and purge the authorities that go against the narrative.
Remember when the core of their activism was working-class Americans.
It hasn't been that way since the mid 90s. My wife's family comes from those old school Democrats- mayor, state reps and senators. All of them worked jobs like managers of department stores, union rep at UPS, etc. But those people haven't advanced past cities for decades now. Now they claim to be for the middle class, but their ranks are filled with lawyers, and other lifelong academics and politicians. It is an intellectual elite who is telling the working class how to live, not working on their behalf.
Yeah, but now "work" is oppression, especially if based on meritocracy. In the modern Democratic vision, people are entitled to a comfortable material life just by being alive. And of course some people are more entitled than others.
This is a great summation of how the modern media-academic information complex works. James Lindsay wrote something very similar recently in talking about how liberals think, in short, "I'm smart and have these degrees, so anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot. These policies are supported by smart people, so if you don't support them, you're not smart."
You forget the next "logical" step:
"Since I am smarter than all those idiots, I have a mandate to tell them how to live."
The point is to get a hyper-link out there, so that Democrat activists on X, Facebook, and Reddit can appeal to authority. “As you can see [insert link only 5% will ever read], in this case we shouldn’t have to listen to economists anyways…”
But Team Red would never do such a thing. Oh no no no.
bOaf SiDEzz! says the totally not a leftist to any criticism of democrats.
So many facts and numbers Jeff. Amazing reply.
I am sure you can find some Team Red who attempts to appeal to authority. Nevertheless, on balance, Team Blue is far more guilty of it by a long shot.
Let's look at the war over de-platforming. Set aside the argument around private platforms, Team Blue's actions and activities are predominately "You can't say that." Team Red's has largely been "You must let me say that." The former is an authoritarian impulse (there is only one allowed truth) and the other is a deliberative impulse (my case must be heard).
Survey after survey demonstrates that the Democratic Party is the home to authoritarians- with overwhelming percentages in their ranks that believe it is okay to infringe on the First Amendment to combat misinformation, that we should listen to the CIA, FBI, NSA and IRS, and that if the Government says masking or vaxxing is important, we should confine people to their homes if they disobey.
Everyone has tendencies to confirm their bias, and to appeal to authority. But only the Democrats spent the last 16 years creating a massive infrastructure aimed at defining authorities, purging dissent through de-platforming and financial persecution. They are even doing it today as the Democrats, not the Republicans, attempt to bar RFK from running against their candidate.
Citations to surveys have been provided before to you, and can be provided again on request.
That's the fun thing. For at least a century, the vast majority of authoritarian systems have emerged from the left. (BTW, that includes Hitler and his buddies.). When is the last time a monarchy or theocracy really took over a society?
Iran? Although our own CIA played a role in that, allegedly.
Even in islamic countries, the revolutionary movements are increasingly Marxist.
The beauty of Marxism is that it engenders such an unmanageable tangle of internecine conflict that the populace will submit to the absolute control of those individuals who can bring the conflict to a resolution. Even the Taliban and Hamas are preferable to being torn apart by wild dogs or gangs of thugs.
The proper defense against Marxists is a suitably armed and educated citizenry.
And zero tolerance for any form of collectivist redistribution (or money or power) in government.
Want to drop out and live on a commune? Fine. Want to force commune morality on me? Let's go for a boat ride.
Excellent point.
Good example from America is health insurance. You often hear "It raises our costs" from some asshat wanting to restrict what others do. Even for things like smoking, being overweight, or riding a motorcycle, all of which LOWER lifetime medical expenditures.
But the facts don't matter. The ability to make the argument does, because people don't care about the truth so much as the emotion of the argument. So you need to have zero collectivist incentive, it just lets authoritarians justify the unjustifiable.
That's the way revolution works, though.
In Iran, and in other cases where things went pear shaped like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, what happens is that there's a revolution and someone wanting theocratic rule can slip into the power vacuum.
Khomeini was working with a pretty broad coalition at first, when he was still exiled, and an awful lot of the folks in the street weren't islamists looking for theocracy, they just got it because the theocrats were the most organized and most brutal as the Shah was run out.
And, yes, there's a lot of marxism behind political unrest these days. Amazes me how little people learn from history.
What does kamala and trump have in common?
Neighter received a Democrat vote for the nomination
The Atlantic went into full-on shitlib apologist mode after Obama was elected. Absolutely nothing they claim should be taken at face value.
The Atlantic has been dead to me for a couple of decades.
So step 1, tell us that Biden's economy is best ever.
Step 2, tell us that Harris will change the Biden policies that aren't working so well.
Step 3, watch as economists and even news outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post skewer the new plans from Harris.
Step 4, tell us the economists know nothing, and we won't actually see food shortages or higher home prices from her policies.
This is why Kamala doesn't speak on policy. Her campaign agrees with new 5T tax plan. Highest capital gains, corporate taxes, wealth taxes.
https://www.atr.org/5-trillion-list-of-tax-hikes-kamala-harris-just-endorsed/
Oh, joy.
The only tax increese I can get behind is all Marxists have a 100% wealth and property tax
How about volunteering them for a 100% blood donation.
Its not fair you have all that O neg blood. You have to give more in the name of equity.
I’ve been advocating for volunteering all democrats for a federal organ harvesting program. This should be very popular, given their support of butchering children’s bodies, and redistribution schemes.
No one expects the
Spanish InquisitionLive Organ Transplants!No one needs more than one kidney.
Fun idea, but do you really want a bunch of smelly bean bag chairs and ratty Che posters?
Well, even though the local stores will run out of food and houses will cost even more, you can at least feel good about sticking it to the greedy corporations as you watch your 401K balance plummet.
We could have had a decent, low-tax, low-spend Republican instead of a standard-issue tax-and-spend Democrat, but you guys thought it was a good idea to kill them all and replace them with a demented, narcissistic asshole who can't even get more people to watch his convention than a backroom-anointed, last-minute DEI hire.
Well done.
We're not the ones who didn't vote for Trump. And we aren't the ones who put Chase Oliver as the nomination.
Who the hell do you think you're fooling?
If you voted for Trump, you're partially responsible for the current Republican losing streak. You must like losing.
Man in Arizona threatens Trump while he visits the border. Secret Service is silent. Campaign is informed by Daily Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13769873/Arizona-shoot-trump-ronald-lee-syrvud.html
Syvrud is described as six-feet-tall, 220 pounds, and wearing glasses. His last known address is listed as Benson, Arizona.
Records show that he was a registered Democrat in the past, and owns a long rap sheet dating back to 1990 - including a conviction in 2000 for second degree sexual assault of a child, where he pleaded no contest.
Probably a conservative.
Is it just me, or could you swap out locations for his charges and describe about half of the men of antifa?
Arizona has a big antifa contingent in Pima and cochise counties.
Give those back to Mexico. Santa Cruz, too.
We got that land fair and square.
Fairer and squarer than Mexico and Spain got it, by a long shot.
But if we apply progressive morals, nobody got any land fairly. The first immigrants in any area despoiled nature--a mortal sin. And every subsequent group colonized the first.
(BTW, statements like this are why I got an F in my Critical Theory-Intersectionality class. I know the right answer is "white people are evil" but can't help myself.)
By catapult.
Or just get rid of the leftists there. Never give anything to leftists.
“including a conviction in 2000 for second degree sexual assault of a child, where he pleaded no contest.”
Of course he did.
The FBI murdered Craig Robertson, a crippled old man, for threatening Biden. I suppose we should be glad the secret police are so fucking bad at keeping the secret.
including a conviction in 2000 for second degree sexual assault of a child, where he pleaded no contest.
What a fucking shock, wonder if he's the guy who turned Joseph Rosenbaum into a kiddie rapist.
Didn't they execute another old guy who had talked about threatening Biden a while back?
Harris did an OK job. But there was nothing especially surprising.
If she didn't start her speech with a 20-minute, embarrassingly childish description of what a party convention is, she exceeded expectations.
A convention, is like a party, for the party.
Amazing how all non DNC elites can see the fortification, the lying, the cheating around elections by democrats, yet many others like jeffsarcshrike can't.
Dr. Jill Stein
@DrJillStein
Stop the gaslighting. Right now
@TheDemocrats
are trying to sue us off multiple state ballots, hiring spies and infiltrators to sabotage us, and even withholding public funds we qualified for months ago.
Democrats ABSOLUTELY cheat and change the rules to maintain their grip on power.
This follows the same complaints RFK campaign has.
Is this the breaking point that gets some of the old school liberals to finally break away from the party?
They make split to green party. If allowed on ballots.
Old school liberals still watch network news so they'll never even know.
Network news ratings are shit. While effective on some, the numbers are way less than they used to be.
YouTube prioritizes those sites, so their streaming numbers are fairly high.
Rumble needs to stop being just a political refugee site and start courting non-political/non-culture-war content too.
YouTube has onerous demonetization rules that even the most innocuous channels about animal rescue or model building can get their videos demonetized. They need to court those people too. They also need to create a way where content creators can essentially load to both sites at once.
A lot of YouTubers have been putting up their shit on Locals as well, although that's more like Patreon.
2010-2016 really was the peak of the internet.
Interesting. I see 2006 as the beginning of the decline of the internet.
It could be argued that the release of the iPhone in 2007 was the watershed, since it fully transitioned online interaction from something that most people had to set aside time on their computer to do, to a 24/7 capability, since they had an PC right in their pocket to get on the internet anytime they wanted.
It also launched the growth of tablets, and with Zoomers entering the primary school years, allowed parents to use electronic devices as self-soothing mechanisms for their kids that exacerbated this trend on a generational level.
However, this took a little while to manifest itself, starting mainly with Justine Sacco and the CancelColbert hastag started by that leftist whore Suey Park, but didn’t really turn until Big Tech freaked out about Trump employing social media to win a presidential election.
Yeah, we're thinking along the same lines about the events. I would add the launch of Twitter, the takeover of YouTube by Google, the start of the Facebook News Feed, and the majority of home internet connections becoming broadband as transformational events that year.
Phones with their tiny screens changed websites from information repositories to places for advertising factoids. No room for anything complex, long form, or detailed.
Definitely a turning point, and a massive milestone on the enshittification of the net.
Network news ratings are shit.
I know, and that's because retirees (old school liberals) are the only people who still watch them, but they are also the people who vote.
I dunno. Is this the breaking point for cat ladies to come to their senses and embrace rational behavior?
Not those. They are too emotionally invested in the party.
Amazing how all non DNC elites can see the fortification, the lying, the cheating around elections by democrats, yet many others like jeffsarcshrike can’t.
It's easy to not see things that they are not looking for, or straight up ignoring.
Do you think Stein will do a Kennedy?
Take a staffer for a quickie and drive off a bridge?
...emphasizing the first-woman-president part far less than Hillary Clinton did.
The only smart thing is realizing that might not necessarily be the big selling point to voters outside her staff's little bubble that they think it is.
They know you can’t have chicks in charge.
What if they have dicks?
Well, they do make the best women.
There are no chicks with dicks. Only guys with tits.
I was thinking about that while typing
Well, then they would have to explain how they know Harris is a woman, not being biologists and all.
On the other hand, her shills in the media and show business are certainly not quiet that think her having female genitals and slightly brown skin tones are the qualifications for her to be president they are the most excited about.
Skin color is the most important thing.
Does that rule out Michelle?
The first Big Mike president in history.
Chick with dick in charge.
She was, seemingly, a hardcore career woman for most of her life, eschewing the typical route of getting married in one’s twenties and thirties and having children.
Dems sometimes have a problem with that:
”Democrat deals ‘a low blow to Condi’ over Iraq”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/14/usa.tracymcveigh
Jeff hardest hit as USSC upholds Arizona law disallowing non citizens to vote when they simply check a check box.
Michael Whatley
@ChairmanWhatley
Huge win: the Supreme Court just ruled that the state of Arizona must REJECT state voter registration forms without proof of US citizenship.
This follows an emergency SCOTUS appeal from the RNC.
A seismic win in the fight to stop non-citizens from voting -- more to come!
Still not a complete win as Arizona is forced to use a federal only ballot available yo anyone who can check a check box. In 2020 over 17k "voters" used this fork to get around citizenship checks. Expected yo be over 50k this election.
Good thing for Jeff and the Democrats running the elections that they were planning to ignore the ruling and plow ahead anyway if they lost.
Equity!
I read that all the voters who already registered without providing proof of citizenship will remain registered and will not have to supply proof of citizenship.
Also, it’s starting to look like ACB is regularly voting with the leftist women faction on the Supreme Court. Other than the abortion issue, which isn’t a big issue for me personally, she seems to be much more left than anyone thought when she was appointed. Why is it that some Republican-appointed justices will become reliable leftist justices for the USSC, but you never see Dem-appointed justices reliably voting with the right-wing justices? David Souter is a great example of this, as well.
This week's DNC programming portrayed her as a likable person deeply invested in her family, despite the fact that Harris had no such thing up until she married Doug Emhoff at 49.
She seems to get a lot out of the men she latches on to, I'll give her that.
Sucks them dry, so to speak.
Leaves them with nothing but joy.
Well, for a few minutes, at least.
Then the itching starts.
It's funny from the other side that's left out as well. At 49, she married into a family where the youngest member was able to drive.
She's "deeply invested in her family" the way you might be deeply invested in a college room mate.
Yes, keep attacking older women who marry later in their lives.
To go along with attacking unmarried women, it's a great tactic, too.
In fact, just attack any woman who isn't already a tradwife. You know you wanna...
It was fine! Harris did an OK job. But there was nothing especially surprising.
The dnc leaked Beyonce would appear just to try to get viewers.
The two hilarious parts of her speech. Saying Trump was trying to throw away votes in 2020 in the same election the DNC threw away all primary votes. Said she stood up for Elder Abuse as she and the DNC abused Joe.
It was a pathetic convention. She’s a total moron. If she can’t avoid giving interviews and answering questions then it’s over, save for democrat cheating.
Trump must be very pleased with the ratings, then.
Oh, wait!
In the absence of testing her against the voting public or the adversarial press, Democrats are attempting to incept her candidacy as a fait accompli...
I'm sure this will be the last point in this election that they, shall we say, skirt norms to get their candidate in.
Norms are weird.
Is that because Norm used to be Norma?
Dead-naming!
Don’t forget about Oswalda Cobblepot, the new Penguin.
https://www.reddit.com/r/batman/comments/1ei8xqw/oswalda_cobblepot_and_clayface_caped_crusader/
I'm not sure when, exactly, the DNC was supposed to hold new primaries after Biden dropped out, but you seem to think that was a realistic option.
I mean, you're being honest, right?
Harris has worked hard to cast "Project 2025″—a book of policy initiatives routinely published by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which this time contains a somewhat concerning chunk about turning civil servants into political appointees, swapping them out more easily with each administration—as an authoritarian handbook, acting like Trump has made his malevolent plans known.
Even Chris Wallace and CNN can at least admit this claim is false, Trump does not endorse it. Why not you?
She touted how she wants to create an "earned pathway to citizenship" to address the influx at the southern border, claiming it will once and for all be brought under control. This is kind of an insane claim given that she's had significant influence on Biden administration policies as the border czar.
Legalizing crime doesn't stop the actions of the crime. In fact ignoring it leads to an increase, see shop lifting. Giving awards for doing so will make it even worse. Legal immigrants use welfare programs almost 50% of households. Spending on illegals is already 170B a year.
This policy is terrible.
spending on illegals is already 170B a year.
Illegals are about 3% of the population. Federal and state government spent about 10,000B last year. 170B is 1.7% of that.
Conclusion: Illegals are much cheaper than citizens, and aren’t getting their fair share.
Legal immigrants use welfare programs almost 50% of households.
I think you’re using some fingers-crossed private definition of welfare under which a similar or maybe greater proportion of native-born citizens use welfare programs. Do you have a cite from a reputable source that isn’t dedicated to bashing immigrants, including legal ones?
aren’t getting their fair share.
Holy crap.
Thought you might notice that one.
Their fair share is $0.
Ahh. The full retard argument. It is roughly 10% of the current deficit. These numbers do no include funds for roads, infrastructure, military, etc. Spending that benefits everyone. Look how much ignorance you rely on. Ot doesnt include their share of soending on federal departments. This is unique spending on top of the common spending. Lol.
God damn man. Going full dem retard today.
Your fault for being careless and sloppy with what you were including or not including.
Does your 170B counts enforcement costs? Then even if there were zero illegal immigrants we'd still be spending the billions on your wall, internal checkpoints, border patrol, and the jackboots necessary to periodically raid every workplace. Who are you going to blame the costs on then?
Not to mention the costs of all the grandstanding press conferences, which won't stop, because MAGA needs the border crisis much more than they need the solution.
I like how you call it mine so you can completely ignore the numbers. Ignorance is bliss for you though. Lol.
The data is from government databases. So I'm sure it is wrong. You can go back to ignoring it though as it hurts your precious narratives based on ignorance.
Double nice comparing roughly 2B to 170B a year. Doesn't make you look dumb and partisan at all.
You're doing well Mike.
Bullshit argument. If we build the wall and merely enforced our existing laws it would cost barely more than we’re spending on these illegals now. And it is THE LAW. Also a constitutional OBLIGATION of the executive branch.
I think you’re using some fingers-crossed private definition of welfare under which a similar or maybe greater proportion of native-born citizens use welfare programs.
And it got worse. God damn man. I’ve literally given you and others the links dozens of times. Do you just refuse to educate yourself.
An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.
Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.
Legal immigrant households account for three-quarters of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.
Less-educated legal immigrants make extensive use of every type of welfare program, including cash, food, Medicaid, and housing.
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrant-Households
There seems to be a strong correlation between intentional ignorance and being a liberaltarian.
You posted the same bullshit 5 days ago, I thoroughly destroyed your claims, and you never offered anything in return. You just offer discredited right-wing talking points.
https://reason.com/2024/08/18/when-attacks-on-anarchists-accidentally-improved-free-speech-law/?comments=true#comment-10691114
Within a week or two, he'll be claiming the exchange never happened, demand a cite, and then pretend he won when you decline to waste the time.
Please show me where you think Jeff won the argument. Difficulty, it can’t just be you agree with him.
He didn’t refute shit. But glad he could trick another open borders moron.
I mean jeffs entire argument was intentionally ignoring basic statistics by removing normalization of the data. A requirement to compare populations of disparate size. The fact you think this is a winning argument shows you don't understand shit about your beliefs.
You mean the costs of 360B in total is more than thr costs of 20B in total? Oh. My. God. He should get a Pulitzer for that assertion.
Have either of you ever taken a statistics course?
Lol. Full retard.
Is Dicksalad a Jeffy sock?
It's worse than that. When he "refutes" your CIS study, he does so by taking out the per capita basis and just looks at total amount. Yes, the larger number of native-born people are using more tax dollars, but are doing so at a lower RATE than the non-native born households, per the CIS study.
But then he cites CATO, which uses a per capita basis:
Based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we find that immigrants consume 28 percent less welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans on a per capita basis.
Why attack using per capita as the denominator for the CIS study, but cite the CATO study, which does use per capita? Other than trying to obfuscate, of course.
Oh FFS you people. I am not attacking the concept of using percentages. I am attacking HOW those percentages are used. Jesse & co. routinely wave around these percentages in a misleading manner to try to "prove" that welfare that immigrants get is this huge, huge problem. I am pointing out it is not nearly as big of a problem as they claim it is.
Yup. That's how he rolls.
Jesse tells the truth. You, Pedo Jeffy and your Sorosite child molester ally Shrike all lie regularly.
Lol. And sarc triples down.
Do none of you idiots understand basic math? Basic statistics?
How embarrassing for you three.
They’ve banded together after the daily ass beatings you and the rest of here have given them. Maybe they can form a band together. “Sarcasmic and the Pedos” isn’t a bad band name. I’m sure they could get get gigs at democrat venues if they performed songs about grooming and mutilating children, and threw in some bullshit about open borders.
Plenty of 250 lb, blue haired lesbians and soyboy beta males would eat that shit up. And on that note, SQRLSY could be their roadie. They could lay him with Jeffy’s voluminous bowel movements.
Lol. You didn’t destroy shit you retarded fat fuck. You simply tried inserting your own preferred numbers. You provided no counter evidence at all.
Who the fuck do you think you’re fooling Jeff?
Your argument was to convert the total dollars to total population. Which is now how you compare population samples you utterly retarded, math failing retard.
Do you even know why we normalize in population statistics?
What's funny you did the opposite when trying to prove crime rares, taking crimes / total population in US foe both groups.
Not only dishonesty but retarded as well.
Jeff. You're an intellectual moron.
You simply tried inserting your own preferred numbers. You provided no counter evidence at all.
LOL the "counter evidence" was the data that I provided. Why am I not surprised that you completely dismiss it. Why don't you try to show why you think my data is wrong? I have amply showed why your data is wrong.
Your criticism here is completely disingenuous. I calculated the absolute number of households in order to demonstrate the real magnitude of the problem. Your percentages give a misleading picture, as I explained in my previous post which you completely ignored because you have no satisfactory argument against it.
And converting the percentages into absolute numbers was only one part of a much larger criticism. Of course, because you are dishonest, you focus on this part thinking it is the easiest to criticize, and ignore all of the rest of my criticism because you have no answer to it.
Why don't you explain to us why you think it is appropriate to include school lunches as welfare counted against the immigrant household, considering (1) school attendance is mandatory and thus an unavoidable expense, and (2) very often, the student receiving the school lunch is a US citizen, not an immigrant, but since the head of the household is an immigrant, this 'welfare' is counted against the entire family as a whole as if the whole family is mooching.
Why don't you explain to us why you think it is appropriate to leave out Social Security and Medicare from the calculation.
Why don't you explain to us why you think it is a fair comparison to compare ALL immigrants with ALL native-born citizens, regardless of educational status or income. How is this even remotely an apples-to-apples comparison?
Why don't you even attempt to refute the recent NBER paper which concluded "if immigrants had the same demographic characteristics as natives their participation in means-tested programs would have been much less overall and much below those of natives." Go ahead, show us why they are wrong (if you can).
Why don’t you explain to us why you think it is appropriate to include school lunches as welfare counted against the immigrant household, considering (1) school attendance is MANDATORY and thus an unavoidable expense
So if it’s mandatory to receive the benefit, it’s not right to include it, right? Please then reconcile that with your next statement:
Why don’t you explain to us why you think it is appropriate to leave out Social Security and Medicare from the calculation.
It is not mandatory to receive a school lunch. It IS mandatory for kids to go to school. Counting school lunches as "welfare" by kids who are forced to go to school, in the same category as SNAP and WIC, seems like an unfair and ticky-tack way to classify it. And this is not even mentioning that in many cases, the kid is a CITIZEN and yet the 'welfare' that the kid receives in the form of a school lunch is counted against the household as an IMMIGRANT household.
You still seem to have missed my point. You are talking about how Jesse shouldn't include school costs or even free lunches in the CIS study (I don't think the CIS study even includes cost of schooling, but I haven't gone that much in depth), since kids are required to attend school. You are trying to make it seem as though Jesse or CIS is padding the numbers by including those costs.
At the same time you are asking why the study doesn't include receiving benefits from SS or Medicare as welfare. But seniors are REQUIRED to receive those benefits when they reach a certain age.
You are trying to manipulate what is counted as welfare, using one method that excludes that which the beneficiaries are required to receive, and another method which would include that which the beneficiaries are required to receive.
You keep changing your metrics depending on what would make your argument stronger. It's inconsistent and dishonest.
You didn’t destroy the claim though. You literally reinforced what he said:
“ From Table 1 of your source:
Number of native-born households: 104.60 million
Percentage using welfare: 30.2%
Number of native-born households using welfare: 104.60 million x 0.302 = 31,589,200 households
Number of legal immigrant households: 12.77 million
Percentage using welfare: 48.5%
Number of legal immigrant households using welfare: 12.77 million x 0.485 = 6,193,435
So, which group is using more welfare? The native-born households or the legal immigrant households? It is the native-born households, by over a factor of 5.”
His claim was that they use it at higher rates, not that they used it more in raw numbers.
But at least you’re finally admitting that they actually use welfare.
It is amazing to me. All he did is convert normalized data to total value and think he won the argument.
It shows an infantile understanding of the issue. Like not even a HS stats student would be this dumb.
Yet he was able to get Mike and sarc to think it was genius.
It was as bad as him "proving" illegal immigrants don't commit crimes by comparing:
Illegal immigrants crimes / US population
Compare to:
Citizen crimes / US population.
The retard doesn't understand how to normalize statistics. Literally chapter 1 of a standard statistics text book.
Read the entire discussion. The percentages that he uses are suspect.
The percentages you quoted from the primary source?
What exactly is the "fair share" we owe to illegal aliens?
That part was just snark.
My real open-borders position is that what we “owe” illegal aliens is not bothering them if they’re neither committing a real crime* or going on the dole, and deporting them otherwise.
And I mean individually, never collectively. JesseAz’s brand of libertarianism is all about punishing individuals for the statistics of a group they belong to.
—-
*I don’t buy the circular argument bullshit that it’s a crime because it’s illegal and should be illegal because it’s a crime. A gun grabber or vape banner could make the same argument.
You were only pretending to be retarded. Gotcha sarc.
Not pretending.
Fuck off commie bitch.
Jesse is fully on the Trump Train when it comes to scapegoating immigrants for all of America's problems. Tune in tomorrow when Jesse starts accusing immigrants of being cannibals.
Ahh. That’s why you constantly lie using retard math like in your link above Jeff? Thought you were all about math and data. Yet you intentionally ignore basic statistical concepts like normalization to compare different population sizes.
All you’re proving is how stupid you are.
Here Jeff. Learn Why you're retarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)
Dumbass Jeff is wrong in this case (again) with his dishonest use of numbers. I learned this in high school algebra 35 years ago.
Lol yeah. It is one of the first lessons for any course with population statistics. It is so basic. Yet Jeff completely fails at all aspects of math and logic. Truly one of the dumbest people here.
Your percentages are wrong, and you misuse the percentages to make misleading conclusions. And you didn't respond to any other criticism that I made of your data, nor did you even bother to offer any criticism of the data that I presented.
You focused on one thing that you thought was the easiest to criticize while ignoring the entire rest of my argument because you cannot refute it.
Please show where he has ever blamed all of America’s problems on illegal immigrants (talking about Jesse because it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Trump has said such a thing, though I’m inclined to believe he’s never blamed ALL of our problems on them.)
I have not. But that's the dishonesty of jeffsarcshrikeduck.
Not literally "all", no. But Jesse and his team spend an awful lot of time dredging up stories about illegal immigrants as well as all immigrants behaving badly. Did you hear the second half of Trump's convention speech? It was one huge gripe fest about how those damn illegals are ruining America. You do know that he compared illegal immigrants to cannibals a la Hannibal Lecter, right?
They are responsible for crime, for drugs, for welfare costs, for hospitals going out of business, for illegal voting, for cheating on taxes, for stealing jobs, it goes on and on and on. While they completely ignore the much more significant contributors to those problems.
Jesse & co. will bitch and moan all day about how those damn illegals are using up all this welfare. I showed that immigrants IN TOTAL, based on Jesse's own flawed numbers which invariably overstates the problem, consume FAR LESS welfare than native born citizens. Jesse spends about 99% of his time focusing on less than 20% of the problem. Why is that?
Jesse has mentioned over and over again about hospitals in rural Arizona closing because, according to him, all of the damn illegals flooding them with demands for uncompensated care. He does not mention how all of the insane government regulations pertaining to health care have a MUCH BIGGER impact on the overall cost of health care. Funny how Jesse & Co. never mention ObamaCare anymore as the problem. Now, the scapegoat is "the illegals".
Jesse & Co. go on and on about how those damn illegals are stealing jobs. Even the most immigration-skeptic economists like Borjas admit that the effect of immigration on native employment is small at best. This is for two reasons: (1) immigrants largely compete AMONG THEMSELVES for jobs, not so much competing with native-born citizens; and (2) lots of immigrants are entrepreneurs (aka "food trucks") so they create their own jobs, they don't steal anyone's job. But Jesse ignores all of this and just continues to go on and on about illegals "stealing jobs".
Point to virtually any problem, and Jesse & Co. will find a way to blame immigrants in some form or fashion.
Is this "earning" in the usual sense for Democrats? Like earning a UBI and all other free shit just by being alive?
Harris has never been the strongest speaker, so the fact that it went smoothly and stayed concise was notable.
She had had 32 days to practice reading. So presidential.
I will also opine --- why is turning civil servants into political appointees bad?
They are terrible. Corrupt as the day is long.
And virtually impossible to fire.
Who needs that? All of the problems of America circa 1900, which led to civil service laws in the first place, are exponentially worse. And the bureaucracy is a MAJOR driver why.
Make. SOMEBODY. Responsible. For. The. Bureaucracy.
As it stands, NOBODY is responsible so all of the problems are just, well, outside of the President's pay grade. Make it a core part of their job.
Turning civil servants into political appointees has a way of bringing corruption into government. Look at the Russian army. What did we find out, that political appointees running the army were not building the army but lining their own pockets. Businesses may not like the permitting process, but it is set by law and regulation. Will they like it better when the political appointee just wants a kick back. There is a reason democracies use a civil servant system.
I tend to agree, I don’t want a lot more political appointees. OTOH, making it easier for the executive to RIF swaths of entrenched self-serving bureaucrats would probably be beneficial. I.e., he can fire them, but not hire them. It shouldn’t take a decade to remove a Lois Learner and the IRS agents who followed her lead from their jobs.
Outlawing federal employee unions would be a good thing.
Even FDR understood that: “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
How about stripping voting rights from government employees?
I have been a long time supporter of this.
Holy fuck! I have been saying exactly that for years and had no idea that FDR said it 85 years ago. Thanks for the citation!
Outlawing the federal employee unions themselves would violate freedom of association. Even if it’s constitutional under some conditions-of-employment theory it still violates the spirit.
However, what we could and should do is: (a) eliminate any requirement to engage with them in collective bargaining, or for that matter engage at all, (b) forbid the feds from creating closed shops, (c) ban collection of union fees by the goverment regardless of membership, (d) give them no privileges to meet on federal property except what is granted to any other employee-formed group, (e) forbid any sort of recognition or certification of a particular group as representing all employees, and (f) require that agencies treat a strike identical to any other unexcused absence from work.
In other words, you can have your disgruntled worker’s club but we’re going to ignore it.
Wow. Don’t make your actual political leanings so obvious.
Unions are set up as a foil against corporate interests. With government their is no antagonistic relationship. In fact it is parasitical. A large subset of motivated workers who vote for their leadership.
These unions also hold the power to shut down government services that all taxpayers rely on. There is no corporate alternative to choose for government.
You really don’t think your left leaning beliefs through do you.
The more you talk the more you sound like Ole Mike Laursen.
Are you at all aware of how unions work, how they exist only because government has already taken sides and requires employers to not hire replacements when workers quit?
How the hell is that meddling constitutional?
I have no problem with workers ganging up on employers to threaten to quit en masse, to picket factories and stores, to contract with each other to only be hired en masse. I have every problem with government requiring employers to accept these conditions blindly.
It’s called stacking the deck coercively.
ETA: I see you have "(f) require that agencies treat a strike identical to any other unexcused absence from work." That's good, but it makes everything else unnecessary, which means you don't really understand the evil of government taking sides.
Don’t be a JesseAz, who spends a good fraction of his time attacking people who agree with him, because he thinks it’s some kind of trick.
I think we’re just miscommunicating over is vs. ought.
I understand how the law privileges unions, and trust that you don’t have a problem with any of (a) through (f), the point of which was to eliminate those privileges.
Of course you’re correct to point that (f) would make all the others unnecessary, but only in the long run. It should be made clear explicitly that unions should be legally nothing more than some individuals deciding to ask for the same things together, with no more legal expectation of being listened to than an individual.
I wouldn’t want a system where employers were required to negotiate collectively, even if they were allowed to fire strikers.
Consider the following progression:
1. A federal worker says he wants a pay raise, and if he doesn’t get it he might consider quitting.
2. Two federal workers happen to say the same thing.
3. Several federal workers privately get together and agree to say the same thing.
4. The workers insist they represent all the employees and want a group contract.
5. The NLRB steps in and enforces (4).
Short of suspending the 13th amendment you have to allow (1) and (2). Not the pay raise, and maybe even fire the person for threatening to quit, but I can’t see outlawing the request in the sense of arresting people for making it.
Since (1) and (2) are constitutional rights, exercising them can never be a conspiracy, and therefore (3) has to be allowed as well.
So I draw the line at Item (4), the step where the union gets certified. There shouldn’t be a vote, certification, or contract because employment is (or at least should be) an individual decision rather than a collective one.
I think you and JesseAz have internalized some of the feudal/Marxist model of masters vs workers, with the idea that the law should protect or balance the interests of both. I think the employment model ought to be consenting adults – or groups of adults – exchanging money for labor with either side free to walk away from the deal, and the law taking no interest until someone throws a punch or smashes equipment. And again, I understand that
Lol. Now you’re even adopting sarcs comments regarding me.
So you agree with Jeffs bullshit argument above despite any high school statistics class showing how much of a failure his argument is. Then you adopt sarcs strawman arguments. And now his attacks.
Do you get a coffee mug for joining jeffsarcshrike?
How about not being a dick? I recognized my original post was incomplete, added the edit for (f), said it made a-e pointless, and you come back by lumping me in with someone else and saying you draw the line elsewhere.
If you have to resort to insults by lumping people together, you are a collectivist, and your lip service to individualism rings hollow.
Leftists always project.
Don’t be a JesseAz, who spends a good fraction of his time attacking people who agree with him, because he thinks it’s some kind of trick.
It's because he argues against people, not what people say. So if someone agrees with what he says, he must attack the person. Or if someone says something he knows is correct, he must attack the person. He is ad hominem personified.
Boy that's rich.
I’m still convinced that you’re a sock run by some desperate, attention-starved piece of shit I have on mute. Say what you want. It’s nothing but lubrication for my hate-club’s circle jerk. Every post by you is another drip, drip, drip.
You are refuting what you claim to be ad hominem attacks by JesseAz without ever identifying a specific ad hominem attack, which makes your comment an effort to discredit his argument without actually arguing against his logic, which is, itself, an ad hominem attack.
Dissemble, deflect, distract.
Outlawing the federal employee unions themselves would violate freedom of association.
Prohibiting government from contracting with employee unions wouldn't violate shit. They would still be able to freely associate all they want. They just wouldn't be able to negotiate collective agreements with the government.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. The government shouldn't certify or recognize any unions, and therefore there wouldn't be any contract.
Dude, I’m 100% on board with outlawing all government unions.
The reason is that the customers have no choice.
If a private company unionize and the demands force the company to raise prices beyond what customers are willing to pay, the company suffers. People just buy stuff from someone else. If the union doesn’t wise up, everyone ends up unemployed.
When government unions cause their employer to raise taxes, people end up with higher taxes. Other than uprooting everything they know and moving themselves and their family to a different jurisdiction, there’s nothing they can do but suck it up.
So I would outlaw all public unions.
Pretty sure this is the one and only thing on which I agree with FDR.
Good job sarc.
^here's a post Jesse will never bookmark^
^here’s a post Jesse will never bookmark^
Because other people have said the same thing much more concisely and because it fails to identify who the worst offenders have been in promoting the PEU grift for decades.
A shitload of jurisdictions in CA and IL and other blue havens would have gone bankrupt in 2021 if not for being funneled COVID dollars to replace the taxes from businesses they shut down. Money that was promised to all taxpayers was instead siphoned off to government workers and retirees under rules that were promulgated by the Democrat Congress. It allowed those governments to lockdown that much harder.
Why would I bookmark it? Because you said something not retarded for once? Have I ever claimed you support public unions dumdum?
I bookmark your arguments you lie about constantly dummy.
If you were able to be consistently not retarded I wouldn't have any bookmarks.
FDR got this right.
The idea that banning pubsec unions is antithetical to freedom of association is laughable.
Unions aren’t a club. They have the very specific purpose of creating an entity with enough clout to collectively bargain with the management on the other side of the table.
This structure is completely corrupted when the people on one side of the table are paid for and voted in to that managerial position by the people on the other side of the table.
Public unions are a perpetual conflict of interest. The members of the union get to vote for the management and the negotiator. 15% of all workers in the United States are in the public sector,.
If we could disseminate the fact that 1 out of 7 workers is supported solely by the taxes paid by the other 6 (or, more correctly, by 3 of those 6), people might begin to understand how unsustainable the current system is.
Walks like a duck. More akin to what I meant by “outlawing federal employees unions”, which as you point out their right to associate. In hindsight, I should have focused more on the “ban the government from negotiating with them” etc. as you said.
I hate to agree with what feels an awfully lot like a sarc sock, though.
Parody.
I mean it sure isn't corrupt when 90% of federal workers form The Resistance and support one party. We never see corruption in federal agencies.
"Turning civil servants into political appointees has a way of bringing corruption into government."
It is very much already there with no plan to ever punish any of them. The FBI lied to courts to illegally spy on a President and suffered, oh yeah, no repercussions at all.
"Look at the Russian army. What did we find out, that political appointees running the army were not building the army but lining their own pockets."
That's different than here...how?
"Businesses may not like the permitting process, but it is set by law and regulation."
And a few bucks is all it takes to have a hack government slug ignore those regulations and laws.
"ill they like it better when the political appointee just wants a kick back."
They'd see no difference than now EXCEPT somebody would actually be responsible for it. The person who put them in office. The President.
"There is a reason democracies use a civil servant system."
To protect the state. Not for any altruistic reasons at all.
That last line is the key that statists absolutely refuse to accept. Over on Volokh, captcrisis spent several comments once defending NASA as more competent that SpaceX, and not Mercury-Gemini-Apollo NASA, but modern day NASA. You could practically smell the statism dripping off his knee-jerk defense of everything government.
Delusional is too weak a word for it. Brainwashed doesn't come close. Stockholm Syndrome since birth might do it.
Over on Volokh, captcrisis spent several comments once defending NASA as more competent that SpaceX, and not Mercury-Gemini-Apollo NASA, but modern day NASA.
Does that moron realize that SpaceX is putting around 85% of the government's satellites into orbit? He ought to be giving Elon a Kamala Harris for enabling his beloved government surveillance to take place.
Some people are just reflexive statists. I can't imagine any sane argument, and the only insane one I can imagine is that he thinks all that NASA equipment is better because it's built by government employees ... except it isn't.
The Volokh section on Reason is a strange place. Most articles/posts barely get comments but every Monday and Thursday they nearly get to 1000 comments yelling at each other about Trump.
I avoid the open threads, but sometimes follow a link there and regret it. They've got TDS bad.
And here we see the difference between the conservative and the New Right "counter-revolutionary".
Conservative: Let's reduce government and reduce the number of civil servants.
Damikesc and his fellow "counter-revolutionaries": Let's stack the civil service with political lackeys so we can wield power against our enemies.
DaMikeSC would actually prefer firing virtually everybody involved in the government and the President alone decides who is hired for whatever positions are needed. Fire 100% of civil servants and replace 25% of them with appointees. The other openings are not vital. At all.
"Conservatives" have accomplished exactly shit in regards to their goal over the last 70 years. They failed.
Does DaMikeSC favor that if the president is, say, Kamala Harris?
I'd say any decent proposal should take into account that the other side might win.
Oh no! We wouldn’t want a Democrat president to be able to have control of federal bureaucrats!
https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/02/12/political-donations-and-federal-employees/
Fucking idiot.
I would. Make SOMEBODY responsible for the bureaucracy. Even if it is a moron.
As it stands, the bureaucracy is ALREADY on her side as is. Make her own all of the shortcomings of them.
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Because his plan already reduces the bureaucracy by 75%. 25% of accountable bureaucrats is far more preferable than 100% unaccountable ones, even if they were all hardcore leftist.
(Did I math right? I’m fucking starving and not sure.)
The federal employees already support dems at 80-90%. Why would anybody worry of this happening when it already does exist lol.
It is like some of you are unaware of The Resistance.
Thanks for the three out of four civil responses.
I can see your point for civil servants that are in positions to propose regulations or exercise discretion in enforcement actions. They do lean strongly Democratic and changing policy is why we have elections.
We probably all agree than the DOJ is currently beyond redemption and needs a deep clean. As a general rule though, I wouldn’t want routine criminal cases interrupted to swap out all the prosecutors for no other reason than there was an election.
By the time you get down to air traffic controllers and engineers at Los Alamos I don’t see a lot of merit in automatically replacing them with politically selected newbies. At some level technical knowledge and experience are real things.
Shouldn’t the president have the ability to fire any executive branch employee at any level? In principle, sure, he’s the chief executive. Should the president actually do a clean sweep of technical specialists, without job specific reasons, just to get his own men in, or to look bold, or to satisfy his supporters' anger at government? No, that’s not going to make it better.
“Damikesc and his fellow “counter-revolutionaries”: Let’s stack the civil service with political lackeys so we can wield power against our enemies.”
Lying Jeffy likes this when his team is doing it.
Like Lois Lerner and her posse.
Parody.
Reason supported the unelected bureaucrats undermining the duly elected president for Trump’s entire presidency. Of course they think the president having control of those bureaucrats is a bad idea.
I agree. Civil servant is an oxymoron anyway. New CEOs routinely fire and hire at all levels, and I'd rather keep the deep state in a constant churn, where they know they might be replaced every 4 or 8 years and can't rely on that federal pension.
I will also opine — why is turning civil servants into political appointees bad?
We had that in the 19th century. The civil service was, formerly, a spoils factory for the party that got elected.
Is government run more efficiently now than it was in the 1800's?
I'm not seeing the evidence to bolster the claim.
Jeff prefers when the dems control the vast majority of the bureaucracy.
read a history book, dumbass. I don't have the energy to lecture you on how bad the spoils system was. it even got a president assassinated.
Why not you?
Because they need to get Cato's brilliant and totally-not-more immoral, insane, and corrupt immigration policy back into the spotlight.
Only Cato is allowed to rightthink with the DNC. The Heritage Foundation having ideas and sharing them publicly for anyone, even people like RFK, to pick from is evil and anti-individual liberty.
Why not who? Liz?
Yes, Trump has run away from Project 2025 as fast as he could (well, after endorsing the Heritage Foundation's work shortly before the manifesto's publication), and is officially on the record as knowing nothing about it (again, after praising the Heritage Foundation, but I digress), even though it basically mirrors his "official" policy and his VP's statements, and was written by a coterie of his ex-staffers (the ones who he didn't fire for disloyalty).
But the part that probably irks him most is that Project 2025 was originally drafted assuming DeSantis would be "the guy" in charge in 2025, not "America's biggest loser", Donald Trump.
They are actually a nod to pop singer Chappell Roan, a lesbian and self-proclaimed 'drag queen' who sells a nearly identical hat...
Why, that's situated smack in the middle of the bell-shaped curve, with the majority of American voters.
True, on college campuses.
I don't know a single thing about this person, but I'll admit I'm curious how one can be a 'lesbian' and also be a 'drag queen'.
Is this a dude? Wouldn't a female 'drag queen' just be a...woman?
Get woke! A person with a vagina can lust for other front holers, and also identify as a penis owner who enjoys pretending to be a caricatured fake female-type whenever the mood strikes. Cuz of fluids, or something.
Didn't they used to be called "whores"?
Her website doesn't have a policy section.
The "Obama Tabula Rasa" strategy of appealing to voters.
Trump was so generous, he made one for her.
Was it in ALL CAPS, too?
The median American household holds $8k in transaction accounts (checking/savings)
$8,000 sounds like a lot... 15 years ago.
$8,000 is probably not enough to cover the monthly bills in many metro areas. That's not the huge win that it sounds like.
Property taxes in Austin TX are between 2.5-3% (no income tax) and average home is over $500k which means $1000-$1200 per month just for property taxes. My 6.5% mortgage is $4k by itself.
I never thought I would long for the 8% income tax and no sales tax of OR, but TX is brutal and taxes rise regardless of income.
Some people like to brag about their state having no income tax, but that's like bragging your personal mugger used a knife instead of a gun.
Governments get all the revenue they can, whichever way they can, and all the peasants can do is hope to convince the mugger to use a different weapon.
Yeah, states with no income tax tend to fuck you over on property and/or sales taxes.
And no deductions allowed against property taxes. I paid more than 15% in state and local taxes last year and was well over the max for SALT with my distinctly middle class incone. Inflation only exacerbates property taxes. Brutal.
Move to Alaska.
Texas property taxes are fucking high as hell anyway, even if you have a homestead exemption. When we left the state, our mortgage dropped by $500 a month, and the lack of state taxes didn't really make up the difference.
In at least some fairness, Austin might as well not even be in Texas at all. It was a fun place...35 years ago. Today it might as well be Philadelphia.
Also, Austin is well outside the average for property valuations in Texas. Mostly thanks to California transplants buying property in cash when their tech jobs moved there.
That guy’s full of shit:
“U.S. consumers collectively owe a record $1.14 trillion in credit card debt, figures released Tuesday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York show. That's $27 billion more than the $1.13 trillion in credit card debt they carried during the second quarter of 2024.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/credit-card-debt-total-us-2024/
Biden/Harris/next Obama puppet will get on that, after forgiving medical debts.
“In the face of a truly challenging and erratic Donald Trump, Democrats have spent the past eight years positioning themselves as the defenders of democracy,” wrote Reason’s Matt Welch last night.
Welch has TDS. The attacks from media were totally Trumps fault though. Media is never to blame for dozens of lies and proclamation of world War.
That’s uh, that’s insane. Even for Mr. Red Wedding.
Wasn't he the guy caught "in disguise" wearing a Harris t-shirt at the DNC convention the other day?
https://x.com/JoePerticone/status/1826034047346421863
Harris did an OK job.
Who cares?
But who knew how hot her little sister is?
#MoreMaya
Kamala got zero votes, has given zero press conferences, has given zero interviews, and had to stage buying a bag of Doritos.
This is the most ridiculous, anti-democratic, laughable joke ever ever seen in politics.
This is the most ridiculous, anti-democratic, laughable joke ever ever seen in politics.
No, Mr Aborto-Maniac.
The Con Man TV reality-star with zero experience winning the GOP nomination three times is.
#NotADemocrat
You're such a liar.
I have never ever said a single positive thing about Kammy.
I DID say she is winning the "I won't vote for either of those two old geezers for president". That should be fairly obvious.
Sarc tried this yesterday. You also don’t criticize democrats, support them every election year and spend 99% of your time attacking conservatives. You’ve been propping up a bad economy for 3 years. You lie about actions from democrats. You push lie after lie to benefit the results of dem policy.
You push every false DNC narrative the media issues.
Why do you morons think not saying 1 sentence absolves you of your obvious biases?
The TDS-addled turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.
You’re such a liar.
I have never ever said a single positive thing about Kammy.
When I type something like "I do not and have never supported any policies promoted by Biden or Harris" and then Jesse goes to read it, the words and letters swirl around before becoming "I hate Trump and I love Democrats!"
He's got like partisan-dyslexia or something.
Such a victim.
I already said you tried this bullshit yesterday. Then in the very first article criticizing Kamala, what was your post?
When you type something like “I do not and have never supported any policies promoted by Biden or Harris”, everyone knows your lying. Because for a guy who doesn’t “support them” you sure expend a lot of effort both siding and running defense when they are attacked.
Only if you equate criticism of your guy as defense of the other guy.
Which you have to do, because you simply cannot find any posts where I defend Democrats. They don’t exist.
That's fine though. The only people you fool are your fellow binary-thinking, retarded defenders of the duopoly.
“This article does not exist!”
No. I equate bouts of both-sideism whenever the Democrats are caught being shitty, and knee jerk attacks whenever the Democrats are attacked, to be defending the Democrats.
If you weren’t FASD and had that ability to be introspective you’d realize what you do.
Riiiight. So when you say “Democrats did this and that makes them evil” and I say “Republicans aren’t much better, that’s why I oppose the duopoly” you see “Democrats are better and I vote for Democrats.”
What was your first post in all the articles critical of Kamala yesterday buddy?
Poor sarc. He imagines everyone else is as dumb as he is, and that he’s fooling anyone.
Demsalad and Jeff are desperately trying to join him at the finish line this morning.
He doesn’t have to say something positive about Kamala to be a Democrat shill. He’s been posting here long enough for everyone to know his schtick.
Mr Aborto-Maniac.
Are the Aborto-Maniac’s the people who lust for late term and partial birth abortion, or those that are against it?
winning the GOP nomination three times is.
It must shock you to no end that he wasn't just simply anointed by the party elites.
Voting for candidates is so old fashioned.
turd, the TDS-addled asswipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Nobody buys your bullshit. Turn yourself in for your crimes against children.
And she's going to beat Trump in November...
Why even bother to vote in a "rigged election"?
Unlike her big sister, Maya can pass for Black.
And according to what I heard of Michelle Obama's speech ("Black" "black" "black" "black" "racist" "black"). skin color is the most important thing.
Spoken like a real man.
She still looks Indian as heck unless she got a perm recently or something.
turd, the TDS-addled shit stain of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
– The median American household has a net worth of $193k
Housing equity is not cash that can simply be pulled. Current rates against equity are around 9 to 10%. Same with 401k.
Liz. Find real economists.
Housing equity is not cash that can simply be pulled
Wait until it’s declared a taxable unrealized gain. That’s when the fun begins.
Even corporate media has noted the issues.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmenickella/2023/11/01/financial-distress-leads-to-surge-in-early-401k-withdrawals-bank-report-shows/
Yet we are supposed to pretend people aren't cash strapped.
https://www.gao.gov/blog/american-credit-card-debt-hits-new-record-whats-changed-post-pandemic
Not cash poor though!
Not if it goes into their transactional accounts. Who cares if its fleeting, they're rich.
Well, they already tax the unrealized gain through property taxes at the county level. So they have the number.
Will I be able to claim child tax credit for my unrealized offspring?
Your local HELO on line 2.
311,457,587 people saw the original lie. 2,598 people saw the retraction.
It's almost like you have something against lying? Lol.
She actually repeated an unconfirmed story from Axios and Reuters suggesting that Trump had tried to sabotage an early (early, as in before the election) Gaza ceasefire/hostage release deal. Obviously, the last thing Trump wants is for Joe Biden to "solve" the Gaza crisis before the election.
I don't know what the stories were based on, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were true. Trump, after all, has form (and with "hostages"!). He infamously declined to preemptively pardon any of the J6 "hostages" during the three weeks he still had in office after J6. And then on the campaign trail he milked their imprisonment for all it was worth (and then some). Because those people are exactly where Trump wanted them...
(Happy for Maddow that it gave her the high she wanted, though.)
good lord, why? why would you be happy for Maddow for anything?
I'd be happy if she got fucked properly.
turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.
Wishing a rape upon people one doesn't like seems to be a growing trend. (q.v., Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear).
Shrike is disgusting slime.
More civilized people just wish ejaculation upon others (as long as the ejaculators feel bad about it after).
she is a lesbian. not cool man
Perhaps he was suggesting she should be welcoming of a ladydicking.
A democrat wearing a camo hat is like a democrat singing the national anthem, you know they don't really believe it.
They don't even know the words. That much was clear.
BS. The only way to know if someone singing the National Anthem gets it, is whether they scream the "O" in "O say can you" line.
I look for the tear in the corner of the eye - - - - - - - - -
In Atlanta, during MLB games, the focus is on "and the home of the Braves"
After four days of negative headlines rightly and harshly criticizing Democrat policy, Reason almost had the commenters here rethinking their long-held belief that it’s just an arm of the DNC campaign committee.
Then Liz Wolfe threw it all away with her lavish praise of Kamala’s speech.
Calling it OK was so lavish.
I get it though. Anything short of hateful ranting and raving equals genuflecting.
PROOF THAT REASON IS ALL DEMOCRAT!
They’re definitely not Republicans. And as we all know, any criticism of the GOP equals praise for Democrats.
Not usually, but with you two clowns, yes.
Poor Jeff.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Congrats demsalad. You've been accepted into jeffsarcshrikes clique.
For a guy whose name is sarcasmic....
I'll give chemjeff credit in that he did not try and sugarcoat the speech.
It was a tedious speech, one I imagine was word-for-word verbatim what was on the prompter.
Biden gave bad speeches. She gives insanely dull ones.
"Harris did an OK job."
Lavish?
You may need some of Sevo's Droxy.
Turd is a pedo, etc.
turd, the shit stain of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Go take your goddamn Droxy Sevo. You don't want the heebie-jeebies again.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit who is stupid enough to think mentioning Droxy is the height of cleverness.
He is a fucking pile of shit, ain't he?
Thanks sarc! The drunk finally found someone to accept his strawman.
The argument has always been selections bias and tone of the articles dumdum.
Reason has posted how many world War, anonymous sources say, media fabricated lies, Trump Russia lies, pro impeachment articles, sullum parroting document case lies. Etc etc. How focused were they on a certain Florida governor, don’t say gay lie, book banning lie. On the other side outside of this week during a convention how often do we see the other way?
But you liberaltsrians are incapable of seeing the bias. Because you agree with the bias. And justify it with this retarded strawman.
Nobody says they never criticize democrats. Nobody. But it is the lie you dem leaning fake libertarians lean on. Good work sarc.
There are worse people to be aligned with than sarcasmic.
Obviously I'm trying to yank your chain, but it's no strawman. There were multiple times last year where, at least in my opinion, you straight up labeled an article as pro-Democrat when it was plainly the opposite.
Nobody says they never criticize democrats. Nobody.
I'll count that as a rhetorical nobody rather than a literal nobody. There are several hundred thousand comments here and sad to say many of them make you look temperate by comparison. I'm confident that a thorough digital search for the words "never criticize" would turn up something.
How focused were they on a certain Florida governor, don’t say say lie, book banning lie.
FWIW I did note that and remarked at the time they were mischaracterizing the "don't say gay" law, which of course did not ban saying gay.
But yeah, I agree with Reason and their "bias". I'm a paid print subscriber, and since the demise of the old Liberty magazine there is no other publication that comes closer to my views.
Lol at tour first line. Guess you have to say that as you rush to push the same lying strawman argument.
There were multiple times last year where, at least in my opinion, you straight up labeled an article as pro-Democrat when it was plainly the opposite.
Provide an example. Sarc never can.
I’ll count that as a rhetorical nobody rather than a literal nobody.
Provide an example. Sarc never can. You agree with the strawman. So Provide an example.
But yeah, I agree with Reason and their “bias”. I’m a paid print subscriber, and since the demise of the old Liberty magazine there is no other publication that comes closer to my views.
Yet your first post was a strawman used against people who point the bias out. So fucking weird.
I think you’re well aware that Google doesn’t currently search or index Reason comment threads. (Try looking for an exact match of “JesseAz” on the site “reason.com” and it comes up nada.)
Also, Reason doesn’t make it easy to look at older general posts (not the print articles but just ordinary posts) from a particular date range.
Finally, while I like sarc, I’m not (yet) as obsessive about you as he is, so I haven’t bookmarked your comments to hold them against you later.
But, I don’t want you to have the unearned pleasure of doing the hip-waggling victory dance and saying I made it up. So sometime when I’ve got a boring weekend and nothing overdue at work, I’ll come back to this one (which I have bookmarked), click 140 times on “More” to get to postings from last year, and post the examples that you’ve requested and know damn well exist. Feel free to up the stakes by reminding me now and then.
He'll just lie about it. Remember that he has no shame.
We get it. Your bald assertion/strawman is true because you say it. Nobody can ever deny that!
Meanwhile sarc has been using this strawman for 4 years. And never a citation either.
I get it. You've gone full retard. Happy for you.
“I’m confident that a thorough digital search for the words “never criticize” would turn up something.”
So confident you didn’t do it.
“But yeah, I agree with Reason and their “bias”. I’m a paid print subscriber, and since the demise of the old Liberty magazine there is no other publication that comes closer to my views.”
Kind of embarrassing we didn’t realize Mike Liarson was back with an alias sooner.
Actually I did run it in Google, and it didn't even find today's comment. I guess Reason is blocking bots from indexing the comment threads. Perhaps they're not proud of our contributions.
However, don't fear. Someday I'll go find it, or even more likely one of you will do it again, and then we'll revisit this.
BTW feel free to call me a sockpuppet, but I'd never say the same about you. Because you're bad in a way that is quite uniquely yours.
They’ve been blocking comment scrubbing for years which is why we have been bookmarking the lies from Jeff, Shrike, sarc. I guess I’ll start bookmarking yours, like above where you pretended Jeff refuted the numbers for welfare by denormalizing data to compare totals from disparate population sizes. Guess that type of analytics works on retarded people though.
Meanwhile, join in on sarcs lies, bald assertions, etc. You’re at his level Mike.
What is ironic is Reason started doing so because of the attacks on advertisers for sites like The Federalist which I bet you support. We know Jeff does. And you and him are basically the same leftists.
So you’ve got nothing but assertions.
And coming from a lefty, thanks!
The biggest tell was the ridiculous repetition of "credible" during the Kavanaugh debacle. It destroyed the credibility of anyone that participated.
Because real victims wait over thirty years. /sarc
Sullum is still using the photo of Mar A Lago with cover sheets in his articles as evidence even after the DoJ admitted in court they brought the cover sheets. This after multiple articles of it was (D)ifferent with Joe because he gave documents back, not found in the law. After Joe kept them for 30 years, took them as a Senator, and used them for a biography, giving the information yo his ghost writer.
But no bias here.
"The argument has always been selections bias and tone of the articles"
I thought the selection bias and tone of the articles was a to-be-expected result of the strategic and reluctant voting records.
Reason publishes articles that are of interest to a wide range of readers, not just the readers in the right-wing media bubble complex. So of course the readers like Jesse who thinks The Federalist tells straight news, and the readers like ML who thinks that Trump did not tell even a single lie during the debate, are going to be upset at Reason for even daring to post articles that aren't full-on agitprop for Team Red.
Ok, Mike.
“and the readers like ML who thinks that Trump did not tell even a single lie during the debate”
You still haven’t come up with an actual lie he told yet, you Stalinist clown. You lying about how import brokering and tariffs work isn’t proof of anything.
You still haven’t come up with an actual lie he told yet
lol, oh yes I have, you just refuse to acknowledge it, and I think everyone has seen what a pathetic Trump-defending shill you are for your failure to admit basic, basic lies that he told
What lie, DNC fifty-center? Spit it out.
I've done this many times. I'm not going to play your games anymore.
I've told you, over and over again, several lies that Trump told. You refuse to admit they are lies, instead you try to weasel out of them, lawyer and nitpick them, try to do Trump mindreading of "well AKSHUALLY what he REALLY meant was..." and crap like that.
YOU LIE ON BEHALF OF TRUMP. That makes you a shill. Just own it.
Lol. All you've done is claim use of hyperbole is a lie.
And then denied actual factual lies from Biden.
You're a fucking Democrat in denial. Who has now proven failed basic statistical courses taken.
Real me is a pathetic fool.
Imagine spending 14 hours a day obsessing over a foreign country's politics.
I'm not ML. Just won't give him back the non spoofed ML out of principle.
On other words, selection bias.
God damn Jeff. Are you this fucking stupid?
And look at tou switch to immediate ad hominem attacks so you can ignore links that are against your preferred narratives. Liz Wolfe was a writer at the Federalist. Harsanyi is there now after a stint at Reason.
Please give us the examples from Daily Beast.
Amazing how you clown yourself in your responses admitting you hate valid information if it farms your leftist Marxist narratives. Got any more dark Brandon fan fic you want to post?
You've never actually refuted any information from those articles, why you have to try to dismiss the source. Lol.
On other words, selection bias.
Yes, YOUR selection bias. YOU demand conformity to the right-wing narrative and when that doesn't happen, you complain that it is THEIR problem, and not your blind loyalty to a narrative.
I don't claim the Daily Beast is straight news. I don't cite statistics from right-wing anti-immigration sources and then run away the moment they are challenged, and then continue to repeat the same bullshit day after day as if it were truth. That is what you do.
You couldn't critically think your way out of a paper bag. Without Twitter and Federalist telling you what to think, you'd probably die of dehydration because no one told you to drink water.
Let me put it this way.
Why should Reason become just another right-wing opinion site? You have:
Breitbart
Federalist
Fox News
Conservative Treehouse
American Spectator
American Conservative
Zerohedge
Gobs of content on Twitter
And those are just off the top of my head. There are of course many more.
Why do you demand that Reason become just another clone of these places?
“Why should Reason become just another right-wing opinion site?”
It shouldn’t, but it also shouldn’t regurgitate Team Blue lies and propaganda, while ignoring actual libertarian issues because they reflect poorly on The Message.
"regurgitate Team Blue lies and propaganda" = "telling facts that are not a part of the socially constructed reality of the right-wing media bubble"
"telling facts that are not a part of the socially constructed reality of the right-wing media bubble"
Okay Nazi shill. Give us an example. You don't even have to give us a citation, just an example.
What “facts” would those be?
Well, we can start with the fact that violent crime is not "way up" the way Trump thinks it is. When Sullum or I point this out, we are entreated to cries of "but the statistics are wrong" or "but here's this anecdote which proves all of the data wrong" or "you just are in the tank for Biden" or somesuch. Those facts.
The crime data, being severely lacking by the FBI’s own admission, is hardly a fact.
What libertarian issues are they ignoring?
Libertarian issues tend to be things like, I dunno, free minds and free markets. Both of which you are openly hostile to. So what, pray tell, are these libertarian issues that are being ignored?
J6 convictions against non violent protestors. Mackey. Daedelin. Face act violations. Kamalas tax plan. I can go on and on.
J6 convictions against non violent protestors. Mackey. Daedelin. Face act violations. Kamalas tax plan. I can go on and on.
They have talked about Kamalama's tax plan. They've concluded it's terrible. But, that's not good enough for you I suppose.
Start here: https://reason.com/tag/kamala-harris/
What is Daedelin supposed to refer to?
As for the rest - Reason has discussed all of those, in fact, Robby Soave brought up the Mackey case just a few days ago:
https://reason.com/2024/08/08/tim-walz-was-dead-wrong-about-misinformation-and-free-speech/
But they don't obsess over them like in right-wing media circles. Reason isn't ignoring those issues, Reason disagrees with you on those issues.
Wow! Did you really think you’d get away with playing that, you drunken retard? We’ve been bitching about this for eight years now, and I know you’ve got the memory of a goldfish but even some of it must have sunk in.
UK riots and threats by UK officials against the free speech of Americans.
The repression of the Mouvement des gilets jaunes in France.
Brazil and the EU commissioner threatening Musk for not censoring X.
The FBI threatening Americans like Catholics and PAC’s for opposing Abortion and porn in schools. The FBI illegally tapping Tucker Carlson’s phone, the DHS putting Tulsi Gabbard on a watch list and having agents tail her, the SS shenanigans during the Trump assassinations attempt.
They completely ignored the Twitter files which showed government censorship at a level never before seen.
Completely ignoring the revelations on the Hunter laptop, and the fact that Biden, top CIA officials, and the FBI tried to portray it as fake in order to illegally influence the election.
I can go on and on too, retard. How many more do you want?
Many of those things have been covered by Reason. An easy way to search for them is to search for me saying “La la la this article doesn’t exist la la la I’m ML and I’m Canadian and I have my fingers in my ears la la la I can’t hear you!”
Cite them all buddy. Compare number to trump Russia lie articles, j6 conviction defenses, etc.
Who here is demanding they become a right wing site retard?
Meanwhile you run into every thread demanding all facts and evidence in the comments only come from corporate media or leftist media sites.
Again. You're going full clown show.
I don't care where you get your data. I'll counter it. I love reading your Dark Brandon fan fic to show how leftist you are.
I don’t care where you get your data. I’ll counter it.
Why would you try to counter data that is accurate?
Oh wait, I get it. You are going to knee-jerk oppose everything I write even if it is correct.
Since 2015 they’ve slipped a lot, to the point that most writers don’t even attempt to frame their articles in a liberty focused manner.
More like, shit has gotten so bad that the only way to not say anything about it is to claim to be blind.
What's funny is many of these criticisms are made only after WaPo or NYT actually criticize it.
"Oh, we're allowed to say this out loud now? Well then..."
But Kamamalama is a communist. And everything that a communist says has to be denounced in the strongest possible terms. Don't you see? So saying that the speech was "OK" is giving aid and comfort to communists that murdered millions. Liz Wolfe is literally justifying Stalinist show trials! How dare she!
Can you enlighten us with what data and fact filled information you attempted to post here? Or did you just see a Sulu or Katie Hill tweet with the same retarded argument?
Oh, fuck off, jeffy. Kamala is is a weak strongman. She is the worst case scenario. She will call up the thugs to enforce the will of the Republic and then find herself unable to reign them in, just like the Jacobins of old.
Then you'll learn how "tolerant" they are. Good and hard.
You’re just repeating what I said. Supporting Kamalamadingdong – heck not even supporting, just saying something blandly neutral like “the speech was OK” – is the same as supporting authoritarian Jacobinism and supporting terror death squads murdering people in the street. Got it.
Supporting Kamalamadingdong – heck not even supporting, just saying something blandly neutral like “the speech was OK” – is the same as supporting authoritarian Jacobinism
Correct. If you can't see that you simply are not paying attention. Remember when Democrats arrested the unmasked, let rioters run loose in summer of 2020, refused to call up the National Guard in DC on 1/6 and then refused to release the National Guard in DC after nothing happened during the inauguration? That shit gives off serious Great Terror vibes.
Correct.
lol
You must have been bullied a lot as a kid. You sure are good at running away.
Anyway, here’s hoping you and your fellow Jacobins get exactly what you want. Anarchy in the USA. You better stockpile a shitload of cookies.
you are ridiculous. Saying "she had an OK speech" is not the same as supporting Jacobite terror squads. You are a paranoid nutjob who should have a threeway with RFK Jr. and MTG.
Check your premise, dimwit. Nobody said that except you. You are normally bad at reading for comprehension and when you get pissy, you just flail blindly.
Plus, your insults are limp. I don't follow those people and so have no idea why I should feel insulted by the comparison. You will find it impossible to locate any evidence that I am paranoid or a nutjob because I don't post anything remotely like that. Unlike you, I never compared walking around without a mask to transporting a man-eating bear around town in the trunk of my car.
Poor Lying Jeffy. Broken like sarc.
I mean, governments that pursued communism objectively killed more of their own citizens than Germany and Italy, so yeah, they SHOULD be condemned the same way we condemn Nazi fucks like Misek.
But Kamala isn’t a communist. She’s a big standard fascist. Like textbook definition. Which, to be fair, should ALSO be condemned in the strongest way.
I thought Liz was supposed to be their lil' Reason MAGA darlin'?
She sure seemed deflated in this article, though.
Oh well, maybe they'll have to finally stop reading the reprehensible libertarian magazine which causes them so much obvious distress? And coming back for more abuse, hour after hour, day after day, week after week...
They couldn't pay me enough!
J Powell just signaled Sep rate cuts.
Let the Wingnut gnashing of teeth begin.
Why?
I guess you need to catch up on wingnut.com but the Fed
1- has signaled inflation has been defeated
2- will be accused of helping Democrats with stimulus
3- the negative economic effect of the pandemic has ended
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
1) HE said the target was 2% inflation which it still is not. It's 50% above it.
2) He undeniably is doing this to benefit the Dems. Hell, they have admitted (so far) overstating job numbers by 818,000 (and this is after pretty routine month-by-month reductions in original numbers)
3) Return of inflation before election might not play well.
Saying 3% inflation is 50% above target is as honest as when gun grabbers declare that school shootings are up 100% because there was one previous year and two during the current. It is factually correct, but deliberately misleading.
Math is misleading?
Probably. But definitely racist and sexist.
Not sure how saying 3% is 50% above 2% is, in any way, misleading. It is pretty simple math.
Mind you...it was below 2% when Biden/Harris took office.
It’s just something I’ve noticed, when the numbers themselves aren’t impressive, like 3% compared to 2%, big whoop, people with a political axe to grind will say “OH MY GOD IT’S 50% ABOVE TARGET!”
By the way, if Trump had actually won the election we still would have had massive inflation thanks to all those checks with his name on them, and he’d be quite unpopular right now. That money just hadn’t made its way through the economy yet.
Did you notice it on google.com as a way to dismiss facts and evidence in support of your economy is good argument?
By the way, if Trump had actually won the election we still would have had massive inflation thanks to all those checks with his name on them
Did Jen Psaki tell you this. The IRA and other dem led spending bills had no effect? Regulatory policies against energy exploration had no effect. Importing and funding 5M more people into a market had no effect?
How are you not defending democrats again?
Wait wait, Jesse really believes that inflation is ENTIRELY Biden's fault? Well, that tracks.
You see when Trump signed The CARES Act with great fanfare, he was not responsible and it didn't count. That’s because Congress writes the laws. If you don't understand that then you don't understand how government works.
But when Biden signs legislation it totally counts and he's 100% responsible.
See the difference?
And here we see Jeff immediately create a strawman lol.
And sarc doubles down on the pure strawman.
Jeff. How does “had an effect” equate to “solely” in your retarded head?
Sarc was the one saying it would be the same you dumb retarded fuck.
We see you failed math above, did you fail English too?
I agree that Biden's policies had an effect on rising inflation.
Do you agree that Trump's policies also had an effect on rising inflation, particularly the COVID stimulus checks?
Thank god you're back jeff. Sarc has been missing his daily affirmations from you.
I’ve never said the covid spending had no effect retard Jeff. That was a strawman you created out of thin air lol.
Why did you create a strawman jeff?
But I also point out every covid bill he signed had 90 votes in the senate. Unlike the IRA that Kamala was the tie breaker on and could have been vetoed.
Dishonest fuck.
Oh, okay. So Trump's spending policies did have an effect on inflation.
So when sarcasmic wrote "By the way, if Trump had actually won the election we still would have had massive inflation thanks to all those checks with his name on them", you now agree with him. Got it.
@sarc: the blame they get is to the extent that the president pushes for the spending and supports it. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what the president asks for, it only matters what the Congress gives him.
@jeff: the thing is, without the Democrat controlled Congress, you know the ones that actually write the spending bills and accuse republicans of wanting to kill grandma and shut down national parks just to piss people off, the inflation wouldn’t have been “massive”. Because the nearly 7 trillion dollar budgets of the next three years wouldn’t have been passed.
Damikesc: 1) HE said the target was 2% inflation which it still is not. It’s 50% above it.
Sarc: “OH MY GOD IT’S 50% ABOVE TARGET!”
So dishonest.
How do you figure we would have had “massive” inflation? Is the counter factual you’re running with that Democrats kept control of the house and senate?
Add math to the big list of elementary school subjects Sarcasmic doesn't understand.
Debating if this one is worth bookmarking. He'll probably keep repeating this retardation for a few months.
What part of “It is factually correct, but deliberately misleading” led you to believe I don't understand math?
Again, POWELL made the determination of 2%. They aren't there. Not even super close. Saying he has changed his mind by 50% is more than fair.
At least you say what the actual numbers are. Most of the time when people tout percentages they conveniently leave out the actual numbers so that dramatic “FIFTY PERCENT OH MY GOD” isn’t shown to be three vs two.
Regardless, I’ll take 3% over the peak of 9%.
An entity best known for hyper-parsing of every syllable any of them utter is NOW going to be "We'll just wing it"?
Nah. I do not buy it.
He needs to explain why his own set requirement is not required now.
Sarc imagines everyone else is as dumb as he is.
Math. Another subject sarc doesn't understand. Then again you've been pushing the economy is good narrative lately.
Do you really believe it’s only 3%?
Inflation is still 50% above target and PPI is set to increase above 3% again.
But go on.
All it took was lying for a year on jobs reports.
That, and the last few months of an election year.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
How bad are hate speech laws in the UK? Saying "it's OK to be white" can result in a harsher sentence than child pornography.
@abigailandwords found numerous cases in which UK judges jailed thought criminals while letting actual criminals off the hook.
The list is shocking. [thread]
Words are dangerous.
Silence is also violence.
White people existing is terrorism.
They probably said these things multiple times and are therefore repeat offenders. Also, online posts count for each view, therefore do much more damaging.
Democrats take notes.
Don't talk bad about the people who jack off on gang-rape victims.
Is that the mostly peaceful part?
coming to america soon
Until it splits off from Not America, at least.
What if you say it's OK to be a white child pornographer?
Another reason why you should never support anyone who threatens to “terminate…the Constitution” when it’s inconvenient for them.
The US is unique in the world for it’s robust protection of speech (as opposed to the weak or even false protection of speech commonplace elsewhere).
The Constitution matters. Don’t fuck with it.
'Harris has never been the strongest speaker, so the fact that it went smoothly and stayed concise was notable. (Happy for Maddow that it gave her the high she wanted, though.)'
Maybe Rachel has a thing for Kamala.
Rachel loves the idea of a boot stamping on a human face forever. She knows that the only way Kamala gets anything done is calling up the jackbooted thugs.
"Google kills bills that would have forced it to pay a fee for using local news"
[...]
"The state and the tech companies would pay a combined $250 million over five years, with the money distributed by the UC-Berkeley journalism program. Google’s share would be, at most, $105 million..."
https://padailypost.com/2024/08/22/google-kills-bills-that-would-have-forced-it-to-pay-a-fee-for-using-local-news/
Uh, where does the requirement that the voters pay "journalists" come from?
lol how did google kill the bill?
oh they mean "google bribed legislators same as everyone else"
got it.
What is disconcerting about Project 2025 is that it envisions having a lazy pliable President and Trump fill the bill so well. Trump can watch TV all day and let the authoritarian minded minions impose this unrealistic vision on the country.
I love seeing you label anybody as lazy and pliable given the current occupant and VP in the WH.
But that's good star chamber governing.
It' possible he's not lazy, but he is pliable, ductile, malleable. He's like Silly Putty.
Parody.
I read an article that said Project 2025 would abolish no-fault divorces.
I didn't even know that was a (perceived by wingnuts) thing.
Banning porn? Yeah, that has always been a wingnut thing. Sen Mike Lee would do it today.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
"I read an article that said Project 2025 would abolish no-fault divorces.
I didn’t even know that was a (perceived by wingnuts) thing.
Banning porn? Yeah, that has always been a wingnut thing. Sen Mike Lee would do it today."
From bastion of right-wingery, checkyourfact.com:
“What is false?
“End no fault divorce.”
There is nothing in the document that mentions divorce. Project 2025’s tweet states, “Divorce is not mentioned in our policy handbook, Mandate for Leadership.””
…maybe try researching a tiny bit, “not-a-Democrat”
Turd lies.
Did you bother to find out if it was true?
Of course not. Not a Democrat though.
I read an article that said Kalmala Harris is a cock-sucking lizard person.
Cite?
No, really, that could explain a lot.
Project 2025's "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise"
Ctrl-f divorce
No search results. Try again with a broader query.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise
ctrl-f pornography
Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out.
From the actual document:
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
p. 38
...And?
You expect anybody to defend every single thing from a 900 page think tank piece?
No, but I do expect people to accurately represent what the document actually says.
Yep. That is in there too. There are a few other fleeting references to porn that I skipped over as not material. I focused on the "Congress should.." part as the policy statement. The above is in the document, though, and that part is wrong to me.
You would have done better just ignoring this. He caught you blatantly misleading about "banning porn" being in the Project 2025 manifesto, and then you admit to having known that it explicitly says, "pornography should be outlawed", dismissing this obviously on-point contradiction with, "skipped over as not material".
Lol.
No, I didn't. I was ctrl-f-ing through the document. Several mentions of pornography were made that were not material to the notion of banning it, just complaining about it being bad. I go to that one and in the context, without reading the full sentence, it seems like the previous mentions. I got to the one that said "Congress should.." and said, well, this seems material. Jeff pointed that section out, I admitted my mistake in having not read enough of passage (in the search process it seemed to be just another of the "in passing" references, my mistake), agreeing that is was indeed in there and pretty plain. I then disagreed with the premise promoted: porn should not be outlawed, that's a proposition in the document I certainly disagree with. WTF more do you want from me?
Considering this is Reason's comment section, a grudging semi-admission of error is actually more than I expected to get from you. (I don't mean you personally, I only remember a few of the more extreme personalities by name.) Thanks.
I don’t see anything in the document about banning no-fault divorces. That is probably made up.
However, the entire document is about using the government to support, subsidize and encourage the traditional conception of marriage and family, with a heavy dose of Jesus thrown in for good measure. In their world, families headed by a same-sex couple don’t really exist, and single parents should be shamed and hounded by their own government to find a marriage partner for raising the kids.
Sounds like quite the calm and rational review of a policy document.
Is that why Trump has furiously backpedalled from it?
Sure, there’s plenty of stuff not to like, which is why making stupid shit up that is easily demonstrated to be false is fully retarded. The out, of course, will be “I read an article…” Shrike has learned to use to make the fallacious appeal to authority (an anonymous, and potentially non-existent authority). I.e., there may never have been any such article but saying there was allows the fallacious deferral of veracity, as we can’t prove he did or didn’t read an article that may or may not exist even if the purported substance of the mystery article is bullshit. “I didn’t say it…’they’ said it.”
It's like a whole BlueAnon in his head.
Oh, watch the little goose-steppers like ML and Jesse rush in to insulate Donnie from Project 2025. It is their current assignment.
turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.
turd is a TDS-addled lying, stupid pile of lefty shit.
Oh, and look at the lying pile of TDS-addled shit turd trying desperately to somehow tie Trump to P 2025; the only connection found so far found has it that he gave a speech to some of the people who later wrote it.
FOAD, asshole.
Trump did not write it. Does not endorse it. Has his own policy agenda. These have been written for LITERALLY every Presidential election cycle.
Mr. "Not-a-Democrat"
what's the objection to project 2025?
Democrats keep bringing it up. So it is the worst thing ever. But shrike isn't a Democrat.
Here’s project 2025, Pedophile. Maybe you, your pedo pal M4E, and the idiot drunk can explain where it says the shit that you are claiming that it does:
https://www.project2025.org/truth/
Secure the Border
Project 2025’s policy reforms would end America’s decades-long border crisis by:
Thoroughly enforcing existing immigration laws.
Aggressively constructing a wall on our southern border.
Efficiently identifying and rejecting fraudulent asylum claims.
Restoring the “remain in Mexico” policy for people awaiting asylum claims.
Arresting, detaining, and removing of immigration violators anywhere in the United States.
Unleash American Energy
Project 2025’s policy reforms would secure abundant access to energy for the American people, including low-cost gasoline, by:
Ensuring access to abundant, reliable, and affordable energy.
Removing efforts to push sustainable-development schemes connected to food production.
Stopping collaboration with and funding of progressive foundations, corporations, international institutions, and NGOs that advocate for climate fanaticism.
Ending the Biden administration’s war on fossil fuels in the developing world and supporting the responsible management of oil and gas reserves as the quickest way to end wrenching poverty and the need for open-ended foreign aid.
Ensuring that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission facilitates rather than hampers private-sector nuclear energy innovation and deployment.
De-Weaponize the Federal Government and Dismantle the Deep State
Project 2025’s policy reforms would restore self-governance to the American people by:
Firing supposedly “un-fireable” federal bureaucrats.
Closing wasteful and corrupt bureaus and offices.
Eliminating woke propaganda at every level of government.
Restoring the American people’s Constitutional authority over the administrative state.
Returning governing power to the Congress and President instead of unelected bureaucrats.
Improve Education
Project 2025’s policy reforms would strengthen our education system by:
Expanding school choice, so all children have the option of a great education, regardless of zip code.
Promoting parents’ rights in public education so American schools serve parents, not the other way around.
Removing critical race theory and gender ideology curricula in every public school in the country.
Returning education control to state and local governments.
Shifting some functions of the Department of Education to other departments including Labor, Justice, and Commerce.
Only a goosestepping Klan Kleagle like Buttplug would have a problem with that.
It is on the Heritage radar:
'Let this sink in': Org behind Project 2025 once praised Stalin for ending no-fault divorce
...
The far-right Heritage Foundation — which is the chief group pushing the authoritarian Project 2025 initiative — once heaped praise on Russian dictator Joseph Stalin for his socially conservative policies.
On the social media platform Bluesky, journalist Faine Greenwood posted snippets from a 2022 post on Heritage's website by researcher Emma Waters. In the article, Waters — whose bio notes that she works at Heritage's "Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion and Family" — made the argument that the totalitarian Russian leader was pro-family despite his regime killing millions of people.
...
Citing economist Elizabeth Brainerd, Waters praised Stalin for overturning the no-fault divorce law and introducing policies that were "designed to encourage family life." Notably, one of those policies was an extra tax on "single people and married couples with fewer than three children." She also heaped praise on Stalin for outlawing abortion and making divorce so "expensive and complicated" that he effectively instituted a "prohibition on divorce."
We are all well aware that family/social engineering is something you Christo-Fascists are working on.
FYI, the LIBERTARIAN position is let people do whatever they are inclined to do without Big Gov Christian Authoritarian Engineering.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/let-this-sink-in-org-behind-project-2025-once-praised-stalin-for-ending-no-fault-divorce/ar-BB1qTD1Q?ocid=iehpLMEMhP
#MAGA-LOVES-Russia
"‘Let this sink in’: Org behind Project 2025 once praised Stalin for ending no-fault divorce"
Org running Kamala lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting to defend slavery. Then spent the better part of a century terrorizing minorities.
Just sayin'.
“Let this sink in’: Org behind Project 2025 once praised Stalin for ending no-fault divorce”
Who the fuck cares!
Your association fallacy has nothing to do with the fact that it does not say what you claimed it said. You were lying. I showed that you were lying and an association fallacy is your only comeback?
Also, you didn’t read your own link again did you? Waters didn’t “praise” Stalin.
Here’s what Waters actually said: “Let this sink in. Even the monstrous Stalin, who is responsible for millions of deaths and atrocities, saw that a society needs intact families with both mothers and fathers, if it is to flourish,” Waters wrote
You know what Shrike? Waters was right.
"...Also, you didn’t read your own link again did you? Waters didn’t “praise” Stalin.
Here’s what Waters actually said: “Let this sink in. Even the monstrous Stalin, who is responsible for millions of deaths and atrocities, saw that a society needs intact families with both mothers and fathers, if it is to flourish,” Waters wrote..."
TY. That's the reason I qualified turd's claim with "supposed". turd lies; it's what turd does.
"family/social engineering"
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of
the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private
gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this
state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians,
and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both
will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime
we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by
social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which
you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.?
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents
and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the
25 Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists
family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple
articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
“‘Let this sink in’: Org behind Project 2025 once praised Stalin for ending no-fault divorce
…
The far-right Heritage Foundation — which is the chief group pushing the authoritarian Project 2025 initiative — once heaped praise on Russian dictator Joseph Stalin for his socially conservative policies…”
Let THIS sink in: The steaming pile of TDS-addled lefty whitch which is turd is not trying guilt by association:
Someone at the organization which employs several of those writing P 2025 supposedly said something positive about Stalin!!!! And Trump once gave a speech there!!!!
Therefore P-2025 = TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Does he have to connect the dots for everyone?!?!?!?!
What a fucking dishonest ignoramus! turd ‘s family probably doesn’t want anyone to know they’re related.
...turd is *now* trying...
Removing critical race theory and gender ideology curricula in every public school in the country.
So tell us why the federal government should be micromanaging public school curricula in this way, particularly when the rest of the document talks about "school choice" and "putting parents in charge".
People that want to get the federal government out of education have no say in educational policies in the meantime.
— Lying Jeffy
Same reason they should have forced integration.
For the same reason, to boot.
The 2025 Project is certainly not a libertarian document.
But if that is your damning indictment of the whole thing, I'm afraid the shrill concerns of conservative theocracy are pretty overwrought. I will happily accept legislation that opens up school choice, at the cost of adding the guard rails of "thou shalt not preach marxist dogma."
And I think this would be a far lighter touch than what is currently done via Title 9, Civil Rights Act, and other nonsense at the Dept of Education. *shrug*
But if that is your damning indictment of the whole thing
No, not the "damning indictment of the whole thing", it is just one illustration of how the Republican conception of "school choice" is hypocritical. It is not really "school choice". It is more like, "we will permit you to select an option from the menu that we have labeled "school choice" and we have pre-selected the acceptable options for you".
I will happily accept legislation that opens up school choice, at the cost of adding the guard rails of “thou shalt not preach marxist dogma.”
Oh, so you are willing to compromise libertarian purity in order to make a pragmatic deal. Then let me tell you about this guy named Chase Oliver....
There is nothing hypocritical about it unless you use a straw man of the Republican argument towards school choice.
No Republican has argued that the concept of “school choice” means “any schooling you want, without restriction”. That is just a fiction you have made up so that you can call them hypocrites.
“Oh, so you are willing to compromise libertarian purity in order to make a pragmatic deal. Then let me tell you about this guy named Chase Oliver….”
How am I compromising libertarian purity? You continue with the straw men.
If I was given a choice between Chase Oliver and Trump or Captain 2025 Project, I would choose Chase Oliver. Which is why I will be voting for him. But, to restate what I said earlier, if you were to offer me a trade: massive adoption of school choice with this one limit on their teachings? I would take it in a heartbeat.
That isn’t a compromise of my principles it is hewing to them. Because a world with School choice and a prohibition against teaching the leftist version of Intelligent Design is far better than the one we have today- especially by libertarian principles.
If I was given a choice between Chase Oliver and Trump or Captain 2025 Project, I would choose Chase Oliver. Which is why I will be voting for him.
Good for you.
Oh. My. God. Some people will counter the Democrat lies. Chris Wallace must be MAGA now. Same with Tapper. Both pointed out the lie on air. God damn. If Trump got Wallace and Tapper on his side, Kamala has no chance.
Trump can watch TV all day and let the authoritarian minded minions impose this unrealistic vision on the country.
This is fucking hilarious coming from you, considering how the current bureaucratic apparatus already does this in service of your fellow Democrats. Which just shows that it's not the actions that bother you, it's the possibility of competition.
How insanely dishonest are these “not a Democrat” leftists going to get with their lies in the next three months?
I do not begrudge anyone succumbing to that sensation.
Why the fuck not?!
"I won't begrudge anyone who decides to enjoy their brainwashing session."
What the fuck is wrong with you? Does voluntaryretard.com suddenly redirect here? WTHF?! After COVID?! After gender lobotomies?!
This isn't Reason [drink]. Fuck you, you braindead asshats.
There's an old adage about MLB: The worst teams will win 60 games, the best teams will lose 60 games. It's the outcome of the other 42 games that make all the difference.
There are 60M in each party people who will vote for a literal shit sandwich if it has the proper letter after its name. ITs what the other 40M do that makes the difference.
>There’s an old adage about MLB: The worst teams will win 60 games, the best teams will lose 60 games. It’s the outcome of the other 42 games that make all the difference.
I note that the current White Sox record is 31-97.
Zing!
And yeah, sometimes it's a blowout, like Reagan/Carter.
it's even more narrow than that.
It's a few million people spread across four or five major metropolitan areas of certain states who matter. that's it.
I was a bit more focused on those who will vote for literally anyone the Party puts forward, but don't dispute that it's probably the purple suburbs of a few blue cities that ultimately tip the scales.
The reality of the last election is that it is the people counting the ballots in those cities that actually decide the election.
Fortification for the win.
And for all but maybe a fraction of 1 percent of them the only option that will occur to them is to stay home. They will NOT switch sidez.
Heck, even the 'undecided' vote is really just undercover R or D voters that will observe the same behavior stated above.
After each election the press say the undecided voters 'broke' this way or that. They did not. They voted their undeclared preference down the line. Any deviation from the proportions of declared voters would be due to the stay home effect - or, i guess the enthusiasm gap. That - and the gaslighting of pollsters and media prior to the vote.
Sounds like there are 60 games too many...
No, the Harris/Walz camo hats aren’t supposed to appeal to the Duck Dynasty demographic, they “were made for girls and gays, not deer-hunting rednecks in Alabama,” writes The Free Press’s River Page. “They are actually a nod to pop singer Chappell Roan, a lesbian and self-proclaimed ‘drag queen’ who sells a nearly identical hat [reading Midwest Princess] on her own website….Kamala’s camo hat is meant to appeal to people who know what Chappell Roan merch looks like—almost definitionally people who would have voted for Kamala Harris anyway.”
Is this an ad for some YouTube pop-princess’s merch whose career the music industry and/or Walz/Harris campaign is trying to make happen?
It’s not a 1985 portrayal of 1955 where you assume someone in an orange vest just jumped ship and anyone in olive drag pants just got done being a “commando”. Camo and even urban digital camo has been fairly mainstream for almost a quarter of a century now.
Edit: Duck Dynasty demographic At this point in history, we are further from the last season of Duck Dynasty than the last season of Duck Dynasty was from the first. There is no 'Duck Dynasty demographic'.
Boozy Floozy/Elmer Fudd 2024!
We are all Corporal Klinger now.
There are a lot of fucking Radars out there.
"Her website doesn't have a policy section."
To find about about her policies, you will have to visit Donald J. Trump's campaign web site.
https://www.kamala2024policies.com
Those policies are fascist until the second they are copied and pasted onto the DNC webpage.
Those policies are CALLED fascist until they are copied to the DNC website.
Then they actually become fascist.
I don't know about her website, but the Democrats released their Party's platform document last Sunday, before the convention. In case you're having trouble finding it, here's a link:
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf
An erattic trump?
Welch he has been saying the same things since 2014.
Just because your retarded doesn't make you right
Erratic: DC insider code word for somebody who violates establishment norms and would probably make a scene at a cocktail party.
he's literally the opposite of erratic.
make a scene at a cocktail party
Worse. Show up the host.
Somebody who doesn't respect authority and doesn't cocktail party like Welch and all of his diverse and inclusive 'friends' who understand the inherent evil of nativism/populism/xenophobia and, thus, the necessity for open borders and sanctuary cities.
And "just enough" socialism.
Brilliant! Find a presidential candidate who fits the needed role for a non-white woman candidate and a vp with small town charm (if you don’t think of the creepy scoutmaster smile) and voters will forget all about what petty, condescending assholes democrats really are.
who cares if they are petty and condescending? I dont.
I care that they are fucking bolsheviks.
Most “normies” don’t know what Bolshevik means.
who cares if they are petty and condescending? I dont.
[tilts hand]
Honest, altruistic, and truly equitable people tend not to practice lawfare against or short the protection and personal security of people they don't like.
I support someone's right to engage in petty behavior but people consumed by it, to the point of habitually calling for an end to civility and then issuing token reset buttons only to turn around on any olive branches that they offered, are pretty definitively psycho-/sociopathic if not just morally bad.
if you don’t think of the creepy scoutmaster smile
Seriously, the dude grins like he got hit with a dose of the Joker's Smile-X gas.
we absolutely MUST limit the franchise to net taxpayers only. And continue limiting it from there but that's a good start.
That would be like limiting who can be a candidate to those who actually received votes.
That would be like limiting an election victory to those who actually got more votes.
Nope. Every citizen should have the right to vote.
For as much free shit as the mob wants, right?
Nope. But if the government is going to have authority over all the citizens, then all the citizens ought to have a voice in how that government is selected.
Then how would you stop majorities voting themselves confiscation "rights" for the property of the minority?
Umm. Jeffy is all for that. Feature, not bug. Don't you libertarian?
You can't, really. I guess you can put in safeguards like limiting what Congress is permitted to spend money on, but as we have seen, they are all fungible.
The only way to do that is to sell the libertarian case to the people. And that is our job.
How about a "Constitution and Bill of Rights"?
Nah, that could be "terminated" at any time...
Ah, the sweet smell of democracy*...
* Anyone can vote, so long as we get to stay in power.
She perfunctorily read the words, so now we know she can read.
That is my only takeaway.
Maybe it’s too obvious to mention the fact that Kamala comes across as a complete phony.
Tyler Cowen reflects on "mobility vs. density in American history."
your periodic reminder that Tyler Cowen is the worst form of technocratic shitlib with a 125 IQ who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.
Harris' "policy offerings have been largely limited to four-and-a-half pages outlining her economic agenda and a party platform, adopted during the convention, that contains repeatd references to 'a second Biden term,'" bemoans Bloomberg. "Her website doesn't have a policy section."
She may not have a written platform but every single thing she has actually offered up as a policy proposal is the worse idea I could imagine. Even if you tried to come up with a worse option for president than Kamala i think you couldnt.
The Democrat's 2024 policy on guns is:
"Democrats will establish universal background checks, a step supported by the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners. We will once again ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We will require safe storage for guns. Democrats will end the gun industry’s immunity from liability, so gunmakers can no longer escape accountability. We will pass a national red flag law to prevent tragedies by keeping weapons out of dangerous hands. We will increase funding to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for enforcement and prosecution, and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for firearm background checks. And, because the gun violence epidemic is a public health crisis, we will fund gun violence research across the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as community violence interventions."
It's bad, but it could still have been worse.
She refrained from any awkward wine aunt giggling.
It's tough to imagine the degree of fucked up, national-level, psycho-/sociopathy where someone gets to the point of the nomination for President and has to be told not to laugh in public, but here we are.
awkward wine aunt
Isn't this just a type of childless cat lady?
And eunuchs!
"Isn’t this just a type of childless cat lady?"
The childless spinster aunts I know absolutely adore pussy.
RFK Jr laying the hammer on the MSM and Democrats. I look forward to hearing the left wing talking points response from jeffsarc and dicksalad ( aka Mike Liarson) shortly.
They need the hammer early and often.They've spent a long time and a lot of money earnign that hammer.
Robby Soave has a melt-down.
Why would anyone talk about RFK Jr's latest brain worm? Trump deserves him!
Tyler Cowen reflects on "mobility vs. density in American history."
The conflict is not between mobility v density. Density is a consequence of multiple options of transportation. Post-WW2 development in the US is because we scrapped all other forms of transportation (for utility purposes) and concentrated entirely on the one form - car. That monofocus is what created the sprawl of suburbs - and eliminated much of the previous density of cities (because each form of transport will also tend to have a max possible density that causes traffic).
we scrapped all other forms of transportation (for utility purposes) and concentrated entirely on the one form – car.
Most of America didn't go all in on subways, trains and buses - the preferred transportation of molesters and the mentally ill.
Stranger danger never assumed that kidnappers take the subway or wait to take a bus
What a strange non sequitur.
You should lookup what it means for a woman to take a train ride in India. I have personally experienced both perverts and the dangerously mentally ill on public buses.
He's an imbecile.
No chance that some people actually prefer their own house surrounded by their own open space, with neighbors relatively close but not on the other side of the wall?
Everyone prefers whatever they prefer. Choice in transportation options will always allow more people to find what they individually prefer. It’s why more people move there and it becomes denser.
Your particular preference is not just about you but about everyone around you. You are also saying no one else should be nearby. Not on your land but on their land. That every place you might want to go also must be accessible by car. Which means for example that every store must have a big parking lot if they are to attract the customers they need to make money and also pay for all that parking lot land. That because roads are very expensive, that govt buy the land for roads, maintain them, collect no rent/taxes for that land, and eliminate any spending that might conflict with the road
There is a place where your preferences work. Called the suburbs. But because of your insistence on roadland set aside, what you are doing is denying cities the right to even exist. Millions of people were rendered homeless so that highway exits could be put in the downtown of cities. Those people all were harmed by what was done – not just in the displacement but in the reduced quality of life living anywhere near a highway. Why are you so oblivious to that?
Cite?
No really, that all rings true.
Matt Darling's stats are supposed to be some kind of good news?
Sure, Bernie is exaggerating when he says that 60% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, but countering that by saying 50% have 8K in the bank is hardly reassuring. That's about 2 months' expenses, despite their claims to be able to cover a whole whopping 3 months. And the 193K net worth is mostly the (inflated) value of their homes.
Yep. For a family of three or four living in a relatively expensive area, $8000 in the checking account IS paycheck-to-paycheck.
Knife attack in Germany that killed three seems to have been carried out by refugee attached to ISIS. Keep importing them! Good for society! Don't protest the increased presence of "refugees" who would prefer to convert your country to an Islamic caliphate and kill every last one of the original populace, because that would be racist and xenophobic (because some of them are not bad at all...they will only jack off while the really bad ones are gang raping a 15-year old, so deportation is not fair).
It's the price we pay for doing the right thing, unfortunately. The vast majority of refugees are not violent terrorists--many of them are simply fleeing violent terrorists themselves.
There is also a price society pays for allowing its citizens to own guns. Only that society can determine if the price is worth paying. Maybe Germans will now resile from the various asylum conventions they have signed and close their borders to refugees? Maybe Americans will repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban guns?