Tariff Gambit
Plus: Elon Musk's purportedly illegal scheme, nicotine nation, and more...

10 percent or 20 percent or nonexistent? Donald Trump's campaign pitch appears to be one of selectively limited government; possibly appointing Elon Musk "secretary of cost-cutting" (more on that here) yet also favoring some unknown level of tariffing, which some of his lackeys claim won't actually happen but will just be used to convince other countries to lessen their trade restrictions on us.
At different times, Trump has promoted a 10 percent across-the-board tariff, then a 20 percent tariff, with 60 percent levied on Chinese goods. Now, in the last two weeks, he's floated the idea of scrapping the income tax altogether in favor of tariffs, or possibly a value-added tax. "Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented," he said recently at a town hall in Michigan.
But this economic illiteracy has somehow found proponents, mostly in the form of Trump surrogates claiming that the threat of tariffs will be enough of a flex, and that actual tariffs won't really have to be implemented.
First, that's a mighty risk for voters to take. Second, that's not how it's really played out in the past.
"The idea that the White House can use import restrictions to affect foreign governments' policies is not entirely without precedent," writes Scott Lincicome for The Atlantic. He credits Trump's 2019 threat—that he would tax Mexican imports at 10 percent—with winning cooperation on illegal immigration. Still, the idea that the threat of tariffs is hugely successful at getting other countries to alter their policies is mighty misguided:
In a comprehensive analysis of every U.S. unfair-trade investigation from 1975 to 1993—91 cases targeting foreign discrimination against U.S. goods, services, and intellectual property—Kimberly Ann Elliott and Thomas O. Bayard found that American efforts to pressure foreign countries to open up their markets were successful less than half of the time. The authors' definition of "success" was generous to U.S. officials: It could include just the partial achievement of U.S. objectives and result in no actual trade liberalization. Even then, the wins occurred mostly when a single country was dependent on the U.S. market—a situation that applies to only a few countries today—and during a short period in the mid-1980s, when the U.S. had far more economic heft in global markets than it has now.
Also, adds Lincicome: "No nation lowered its tariffs on U.S. goods in response to tariffs imposed, or merely threatened, during the Trump administration, and most of those U.S. tariffs remain in force today." And the threat that tariffs will be doled out itself imposes substantial costs; how can companies plan for the future when this type of uncertainty is introduced? When the chief executive can just decide, on a whim, to drastically alter the costs of doing business?
Musk's "illegal lottery scheme": Philadelphia's district attorney is asking a judge to rule Musk's $1 million get-out-the-vote giveaway scheme illegal.
"America PAC and Musk are lulling Philadelphia citizens—and others in the Commonwealth (and other swing states in the upcoming election)—to give up their personal identifying information and make a political pledge in exchange for the chance to win $1 million," reads the civil suit. "That is a lottery. And it is indisputably an unlawful lottery."
Since mid-October, Musk has been attempting to use his vast personal fortune to help Trump win the swing states; he has been asking registered voters to sign a petition pledging their support for the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Second Amendments.
Pennsylvania law purportedly only allows lotteries "operated and administered by the state," so Musk's creative incentives for voting are apparently not appreciated. Per federal law anyone who "pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting" is committing a crime. Federal law further clarifies that this includes "anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances, and welfare benefits such as food stamps."
Interestingly, Musk is not really technically paying anyone to vote or to register to vote; he is creating a giveaway available exclusively to registered voters who sign his petition. It's an open question as to whether the Pennsylvania courts will declare his behavior unlawful.
Scenes from Miami: Nicotine freedom spotted at Hereticon, an event put on by venture capital firm Founders Fund.

QUICK HITS
- "While the election outcome is still far from clear, mortgage and bond markets are beginning to price in the rising probability that Trump will prevail on Nov. 5 and enact inflationary tariff and immigration policies," reports Bloomberg. "He may even weaken the Federal Reserve, the nation's inflation-fighting central bank." (As for that last part, girl can dream!)
- Oh no, Sohrab Ahmari wrote about ayahuasca.
- On anchor Abby Phillips' CNN show, former MSNBC anchor Mehdi Hasan implied conservative pundit Ryan Girdusky was a Nazi; when discussing something related to Hamas, Hasan said he was Palestinian and Girdusky joked, "I hope your beeper doesn't go off." Girdusky was banned from the network (though Hasan, who implied he was a Nazi, was not), and Phillips issued a long apology statement, and it was a whole damn thing.
- Earlier this month, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos blocked the paper's endorsement of Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris; the editorial board therefore endorsed no one. As a result, a tsunami of subscribers—200,000, or 8 percent of the paper's paid circulation—canceled their plans.
- Checking in on the Rogan-Harris negotiations:
Joe Rogan won't have Kamala Harris on his show unless she comes to his studio and sits for a 2-3 hour full interview (like Trump did).
We've entered the era in which podcast hosts have more power than a sitting vice president. Thanks to a free and uncensored internet, the… pic.twitter.com/xsSgQwGEbN
— Robert Sterling (@RobertMSterling) October 29, 2024
- Latinx was always a stupid term:
"Latinx" is sort of the most extreme example but I really think that there is still sort of an under appreciation for how much all these idiotic lefty word games turn people off. https://t.co/DJFXc5BUPg
— Ben Dreyfuss (@bendreyfuss) October 28, 2024
- Beautiful:
"You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American" - Reagan, 1988 https://t.co/hPg09TRibB
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) October 28, 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
Oh No Gestapo WaPo
Fascists flee the international socialism source of propaganda after it stops to formally endorse their selected but not elected collectivist potus candidate:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/colossal-mass-exodus-over-200000-wapo-subscriber-cancellations-after-bezos-blocks-harris
That's "elected".
Bezos said it right: The American people do not trust the media.
Trump said it right: the corporate press is the enemy of the people.
The people said it right: You don't hate the corporate press enough. You may think that you do, but you don't.
It seems as recently as 2015 many libertarians preferred a national sales tax or consumption tax over an income tax.
What changed?
Orange man came down the escalator?
But we are told all the anti trump regime libertarians are the principled ones. So that can't be it.
Talk is cheap. It one thing to talk about sales taxes and consumption taxes and another to actually face them. I think there is also the fear that it will not be an exchange of one tax for another but actually just more taxes added.
Weren’t you the one saying the government needs more money?
Him and sarc both.
I think the government need for more money is obvious to all by the debt our country is running. I also advocate for cutting spend. I think the country is well past the point where increased taxes or decreased spending will alone address the debt.
I’m going to guess your personal finances are a mess.
You would be very wrong.
Have your finances been doing as well as "well adjusted biden guy"? (aka shrike)
Show me the dem led state that has reduced debt and not just increased spending with tax increases.
Seven of the top 10 states that are reliant on Federal tax dollars are Republican controlled.
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
What is that you are lying about now? How much of that money is related to infrastructure used by other states? West Virginia houses the gas and electric hubs for the entire east coast. Didn't you see Die Hard With Vengeance?
Red states are takers, blue states are makers. That’s been a known reality for a long, long time now.
Democrats are the dumbest people. Remove SS, Medicare, and military and what happens. Retirees move for cost of living. Based are national defense.
Your analysis is done solely to get idiots to fall for it. Well done.
So take away the things that cost money, but make the red states look bad, and it’s even? Oh, wait. Red states use more Medicaid than blue states, too.
So you’re saying if four of the five largest budget items of the federal government are removed, it’s even? No shit, Sherlock. It would be almost impossible to be otherwise.
Meanwhile, blue states provide the vast majority of revenue from taxes because they are more economically successful than red states. Like I said, red states take and blue states make.
Which Blue State hasn't become a hell hole in the last 20 years? Which Blue State doesn't have citizens fleeing en masse? Which Red State is hurting economically compared to where it was 20 years ago?
“Which Blue State hasn’t become a hell hole in the last 20 years?”
I haven’t been to all of them, but of the ones I’ve been to? None. Granted it’s only been Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine this year.
All of them were great. And yes, I was in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Boston. I had a great time in all of them and didn’t see any of the “hellscape” you claim they are.
Have you been to any of them? If not, perhaps you are being mislead. Because they are economically thriving, full of culture, safe, and clean (especially Chicago, which is insanely clean for a major city).
What exactly is it that makes blue states “hellscapes”? Why do you think, despite all evidence to the contrary, that red states aren’t hurting economically? Of the 10 states in America with the highest poverty rates, 9 of them (Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee) are red states (New Mexico is the other). Of the 10 states with the lowest poverty rates, 9 of them (New Hampshire, Maryland, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia are blue states (Utah is the other).
So why is it that the rampant poverty of red states is good? Why is the economic excellence of blue states bad? Is it, perhaps, that you just are so dedicated to your political fight that you ignore basic facts? Maybe?
Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of bad policies and practices in blue states. But they do a better job of providing prosperity to their citizens than red states. Is it connected to the fact that the worst states in poverty are also the worst states in education? Gee, I wonder.
How is a state a taker because a retired person makes the choice to move there.
You guys really are retarded.
By the way, I'll always amused when democrats praise the highest inequality areas while screaming inequality.
Nelson you dumb fvck, California has the highest poverty rate.
Additionally, TX, FL, GA, TN, SC, and NC are responsible for almost all the economic growth of the post-pandemic era
“ How is a state a taker because a retired person makes the choice to move there.”
Because there’s no such thing as a money tree and it has to come from somewhere. In the red states, that “somewhere” is a blue state. Do you not understand how funding Social Security works? It takes contributions from workers today and uses them to pay benefits today.
With the ignorance you constantly display, you should be careful using words like “retarded”. You’re usually dumber than the ones you accuse, so what does that make you?
Did you bother to look beyond the headline parody. Where do people on social security move buddy?
Do you know how many times this analysis has been mocked?
They move to warm states. That doesn’t have anything to do with economic success, which red states largely lack.
And it’s mocked by people in your media silo because they want to pretend Republican governance is better. I mean, look at San Brownback’s supply-side utopia of Kansas … oh, right.
Until conservatives ditch supply-side economics, they will continue to be net takers and rely on the federal government to balance their budgets and support their citizens.
which red states largely lack
Tell us more about Detroit, Chicago, Seattle and California, and then tell us about all the businesses fleeing Texas.
California has the largest economy of any state in America, by far. Chicago has a larger GDP than 40% of states. Texas is reaping the benefit of companies that have been built in blue states and move to Texas, so that just proves the benefits of blue states to create wealth and economic success. If blue states are so bad, how did those huge companies come to exist? Magic?
Red states are net takers of federal dollars, dominate the bottom in poverty rates, and have worse GDPs. Blue states are the exact opposite. So why do you think it’s the red blue states that are the hellscapes?
California wasn't always a deep blue state. Silicon Valley wouldn't have come up in today's California.
Oh. So in your economic success story actual goods and products are not a key piece.
Please brag about the richest areas tied to finance and government taking from those producers.
So ignore what he actually said and imagine what you wanted him to say. Got it.
So, they liked the idea when it was impossible, but not when it is possible?
And anybody should take libertarians seriously...why?
I think libertarians would be more interested if Trump had anything close to a coherent plan for that. Especially if he was campaigning on cutting spending to match the tax rate.
There was a brownstone article just last night explaining all the parts if you’re interested.
Also lost in your demand is the role of Congress required.
He has in fact campaigned to cut spending. He has only said he’d keep around 70% of current spending, as noted in the article posted. Even Liz mentions the Musk efficiency effort.
He even tried to do it in 2016, but was stopped by The Resistance and failure of Congress and its use of appropriation language.
When has any candidate given a fully detailed plan with hundreds of pages by the way? They campaign on directions they want to pursue as is being done here.
Lol. He teamed up with Schumer and Dems to end the sequestration.
“As soon as I take office I will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military. It is so depleted. We will rebuild our military.”
- Donald Trump
For one department. What about the others? He has never been against strengthening the military.
Is this your form of nirvana fallacy to ignore 95% of what he says or actions he gave?
One of his first orders in 2016 was ti reduce every depth budget by 10%. Issue a 2 out 1 in regulatory policy. Weird how that gets zero credit from you. Better to just complain I guess.
Your hobby horse is dead, SaGN. You can stop kicking it. When you do, you might notice that it was never a horse at all.
There was a brownstone article just last night explaining all the parts if you’re interested.
I am. Have a link?
Also lost in your demand is the role of Congress required.
Yeah, this is a big problem. Trump may be able to add tariffs by executive order, but he’ll never be able to remove the income tax. He will struggle to even reduce the corporate tax rate.
When has any candidate given a fully detailed plan with hundreds of pages by the way?
I might settle for a Post-It. Let me ask you , what will be the tariff rate under Trump? 10%? 20%? Will it be universal or targeted? Will tips be taxed? overtime? Will my tax rate go up or down?
His plans for spending cuts suffer from the same lack of clarity.
One of the reasons I don’t give links to easily found sources repeatidly is it forces you to reveal your motivations.
I gave you two words that should make discovery easy. 1 article last night. 2 brownstone article. As this is a conversation mentions tariffs one could surmise it was the Trump tariff article last night and find it in 10 seconds. .
If you were actually curious you could have quickly and easily found it.
-Congress can actually affect regulations as well, it is not solely in the executive. These large trade agreements actually need Congressional approval if following formal processes.
-Trump has said 20% globe, 60% China in multiple interviews. With the ability to negotiate down if those countries modify their tariffs on US markets. He has said this dozens of times at this point, pointing again to your lack of motivation to discover answers to the questions you ask.
I will end it with I’m a long time believer in consumption taxes over income taxes. So I have no problem with this strategy fundamentally. I also have believed regulatory costs far outweigh most other issues revolving around government fed costs to citizens.
And that Quicktown Brix is a TDS-addled troll with an agenda.
If you were actually curious you could have quickly and easily found it.
What kind of bullshit? I looked and failed to find it.
Is it this? "Trump’s 19th-Century Solution to Fiscal Disaster"
https://brownstone.org/articles/trumps-19th-century-solution-to-fiscal-disaster/ I'm confused because it's dated 3 days ago.
-Trump has said 20% globe, 60% China in multiple interviews. With the ability to negotiate down if those countries modify their tariffs on US markets. He has said this dozens of times at this point, pointing again to your lack of motivation to discover answers to the questions you ask.
Can you BE more condescending? Do you need me to answer a riddle before you provide information
I need to follow Trump around and find all his disjointed quotes that contradict his other quotes to decode and demystify what he doesn't bother saying on his platform website.
The riddle is one you put on yourself with easily found information. You have questions easily answered with a modicum of intellectual curiosity.
And it was the other Trump article last night, so would have taken 15s to find.
https://reason.com/podcast/2024/10/28/how-trump-and-harris-meaningfully-differ/?comments=true#comment-10776882
Well, Quicktown Brix is a TDS-addled troll with an agenda.
Oh. When you said "There was a brownstone article just last night explaining all the parts if you’re interested," I was supposed to infer you meant a Brownstone article from 3 days ago posted in the comments of a Reason article about Trump from the night before?
Now what did you learn about my motivations?
It was already linked from here and highlighted by the HyR editor.
I posted this link to David Stockman yesterday but seems more appropriate here.
https://brownstone.org/articles/trumps-19th-century-solution-to-fiscal-disaster/
Just to be clear, Stockman is no fan of Donald Trump. This is a long read wherein he crunches up the admittedly sparse policy changes that Trump is proposing and ultimately decides that it is better than the alternatives. What Trump is actually proposing is a radical change from income taxes to consumption taxes in the form of tariffs. I have no idea if such a thing could be successfully implemented due the profitable graft inherent in the current system. But libertarians, it seems to me, should be interested in taking a shot at radical reform. With the empire on the verge of collapse we really have nothing to lose.
Thanks!
No rose colored glasses there.
He has in fact campaigned to cut spending. He has only said he’d keep around 70% of current spending, as noted in the article posted
That sounds great, but good luck with that one. Unless he goes the Pope Milei route, I don't see it happening.
Don't know. I still favor the FairTax.
yo.
I am one of them = a Libertarian who favors consumption taxes in lieu of income taxes.
As I am the One True Libertarian, I'll answer. I thought it was a good idea then and now, but only if the 16th amendment is repealed first. So nothing has changed.
That's where I land as well. All of these so-called replacements for the income tax, such as tariffs or a national sales tax, would wind up being in addition to the regular income tax if the 16th isn't repealed.
Then again, I could see a scenario where the 16th is repealed (unlikely to happen), we add a consumption tax, and then the constitution is "interpreted" by activist judges/justices to already allow the income tax without the necessity of the 16th Amendment.
Drug prohibition was seen as unconstitutional for much of the history of the US, but somehow the Controlled Substances Act passed and was allowed by the courts. There was no amendment allowing federal prohibition, as there was with alcohol-the 18th, but the document was "interpreted" to allow it.
GOod point. A repeal of the 16th probably needs to include language making it explicit that the federal government may not collect income taxes.
Even then, with the new era we've entered, we could have an amendment outright saying, in no uncertain terms, that there can be absolutely no federal income tax, and, perhaps after packing the Supreme Court, the Justices determine that a tax on income or wages is not an income tax, it's a "duty on funds acquired through labor and/or services rendered" or some other bullshit. Everyone would know that's bullshit and is a de facto income tax, but they'd proceed anyway. Kinda like the Supreme Court saying student loan forgiveness is unconstitutional when done through the executive, but Biden kept at it.
Well, all you can do is try your best.
And if a political climate ever comes about where the 16th could be repealed, I'd feel more optimistic that what you describe wouldn't happen. It's not like there's any chance of it happening without big political changes.
As implemented, the federal income tax as I understand it has been an indirect one, hence was unaffected by the amendment.
Also, "there can be only one" (True Libertarian or Highlander, take your pick).
What about Scotsman? And which MacCleod is the true Highlander? The movie or TV one?
I can't think of a different answer other than everyone agrees there is "no true Scotsman."
I managed to get three logical fallacies in one statement: argument from ignorance, argument from popularity, and no true Scotsman.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The original movie MacLeod would be my choice, to actually answer your question. But that's because I recently re-watched it. I tried then watching the TV series, but couldn't get past the first few episodes before giving up. I've found a lot of the shows from the late 80s and early 90s, if I didn't watch them when they originally aired, are hard to watch from scratch now.
There are many true Scotsmen. But no true Scotsman would commit such a crime (the actual fallacy).
Just so we’re clear, tariffs were the primary source of governmental income for the first 140 years or so of this country, a period that could be described as far more free trade, capitalistic than the modern era. Also, during that period, the US went from a nearly universally agricultural economy to the largest industrialized and wealthiest country in the world, and went from a backwater anglosphere former colony to a world power on its path to becoming a superpower, surpassing Great Britain, from which it once derived.
"It seems as recently as 2015 many libertarians preferred a national sales tax or consumption tax over an income tax.”
What are you talking about? What libertarians would support a regressive tax that would damage the economy by lowering demand? I think you just make stuff up a lot of the time.
I have seen some paleocons here talk about it, focusing on the mistaken belief that it would allow for the elimination of the IRS and shrink the government. But it would result in a larger, not smaller, bureaucracy because the government would have to track all commercial transactions to make sure the tax was paid by every vendor (including private sellers) in the country.
And of course the act blue account knows nothing of libertarianism.
You’re a pure paleocon. You don’t have a libertarian bone in your body. Your knee-jerk reaction to anything will always be the most extreme version of coercive cultural conservatism or anti-capitalist economic protectionism.
The day you allow people to be moderates without attacking them as leftists or socialists or traitors is the day we will all start worrying you’ve sustained brain damage.
You don’t have the capacity to accept that people can be everything from center-right (RINOs, in your book) to far left without being evil. If they don’t agree with you, in your book they are bad people. You couldn’t figure out how to be a libertarian if your life depended on it.
The only libertarian bone you ever got was in your ass at a party.
There's nothing libertarian about restricting free speech, censoring the internet, castrating children (whether chemical or physical), and prosecuting your political opponents on novel manufactured charges.
“There’s nothing libertarian about restricting free speech”
I am an outspoken opponent of free speech restrictions from campus speech codes and “free speech zones” to the idiocy of microaggressions to overtly supporting the right of racists like the Unite the Right rally to be hateful bigots in public. They’re 100% wrong, but no one should stop them from shouting their ignorance.
“censoring the internet”
No one can censor the internet. That’s literally one of the perks of a distributed network like the internet. No one can censor the internet.
If you’re referring to Twitter, get over yourself. I’m a fervent capitalist. If Twitter or Facebook pisses you off when they agree to take down a post (or refuse to take down a post, as they often did) that the government requested, take your business elsewhere. Truth Social (which also “censors” posts and is owned by a former President whose administration made the exact same requests) or Parler will be glad for your business.
“castrating children (whether chemical or physical)”
Chemical? You mean puberty blockers, which are safe and have no negative long-term effects?
I don’t support or oppose someone else’s medical decisions because I’m a libertarian. It’s none of my business and I don’t know anything about the cases (plus I’m not a doctor), so my opinion should never matter.
“and prosecuting your political opponents on novel manufactured charges.”
I agree (and said so) that the New York case seemed a stretch. But the documents case? That’s not manufactured. The Georgia case? Not manufactured. Trump’s a criminal, as his pre-politics convictions show. I find it highly unlikely that he suddenly stopped after being a slimy criminal his entire life.
I’m a pro free speech, pro free market, pro freedom of medical decisions, pro bodily anutonomy, anti book ban, anti legislated morality, pro rule of law guy. You seem to take the opposite stance on all those things. Which is why you are a paleocon and I’m a libertarian.
I'm not a Democrat. The ones you hate all joined your party.
I’m not a Democrat, either. Their economic policies are awful and their spending priorities are out of whack.
Coal Hard Truth
US power system becomes more fossil-dependent than China's | October 25, 2024:
"LITTLETON, Colorado, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Utilities in the United States have relied on fossil fuels to generate a larger share of electricity than their counterparts in China since June, seriously undermining U.S. claims to be a leader in energy transition efforts.
U.S. utilities have relied on fossil fuels to generate an average of 62.4% of total electricity production for the past four months, according to data from energy think tank Ember.
That fossil fuel share exceeds the 60.5% over the same period in China, the world's largest power producer and polluter."
This must feel like a punch to the solar plexus of climate cultists. But hey, their plug-in cars need pixies!
It’s the modern day China syndrome.
I thought that was covid.
That is the China virus, heh.
This must feel like a punch to the solar plexus of climate cultists.
You're assuming they give a shit about the climate. The article says "fossil fuels" and "more dependent" without any reference to which fossil fuels and more dependent how.
..and more dependent how.
It’s been cloudy and not windy.
I understand they don’t give a shit about the climate. It is fun calling them out for their hypocrisy. It would be like a Libertarian running for office that has a website indicating libertariany things, but incongruent with their messaging. As a hypothetical.
More dependent (than China) = relying on fossil fuels to a greater percentage as compared against China.
If you are curious as to the data, in particular the breakdown of specific fossil fuels being used, you could consult Ember for answers.
What? China is beating us?
That does it. No more fucking around. This justifies quadrupling the carbon taxes!
Until we allow nuclear to thrive, we will never be able to provide the energy we need without fossil fuels. It’s just not possible, given our level of consumption.
Your party disagrees with you. Enjoy your solar and wind.
I don’t have a party. The one I match most is the LP, but it seems like it’s a bit of a mess. I’m comfortable being an independent split-ticket voter.
Although I’m pretty excited this year because the Republican running for governor in Delaware matches my issue profile pretty closely. Certainly more than anyone in the recent past.
Mail in ballots boxes are being set on fire in the north west.
Chuck Callesto
@ChuckCallesto
BREAKING REPORT: Ballot drop lit on fire with HUNDREDS OF BALLOTS INSIDE in Clark County, Washington..
PAYING ATTENTION NOW..
https://x.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1850941670310993920
Fiery Election
Explosive device burns ballot box, destroying hundreds of votes in competitive Washington state House district
A drop-off ballot box in a competitive Washington state House district went up in flames early Monday after an incendiary device went off, destroying hundreds of ballots, local officials estimated.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/28/us-news/explosive-device-burns-ballot-box-destroying-hundreds-of-votes-in-competitive-washington-state-house-district/
Smoke…and mirrors?
It may be fiery, but at least it's peaceful.
Wonder which side is more likely to have used that particular box?
I've been of the opinion that Postal Employees, members of National Association of Letter Carriers AFL-CIO, which is all-in for Harris, might not be trustworthy to handle mail-in ballots. They can easily trash ballots the pick up from houses with Trump signs in the yard, for instance. Once destroyed, those ballots won't be part of any counts, recounts, etc. but the system will have been manipulated.
Through rain, cheat, and snow.
Another reason NOT to do mail ballots.
Another reason not to do mail in ballots...
I saw on X.com a few stories about people's mail in ballots coming with the two envelopes already sealed shut. You're supposed to put your completed ballot in the two envelopes, but since they're already sealed, you'd need to break the seal and tape it shut.
If this is true, and I don't know--it could be bullshit, it would make it impossible to know if the ballot was tampered with after sent in by the voter. Anyone could open it, see the vote selections and then change the votes, make it invalid by voting for more than one candidate, or even just discard the ballot if it shows the "wrong" votes.
If the ballots were in a high humidity area or got wet, they'd probably be stuck together. So there may be an innocent reason for it.
However, the point you make is valid--there's no way to tell who "tampered" with the seal.
Especially if you don't actually mail them in.
I think there are probably ways to have secure voting by mail. But simply expanding the pre-existing absentee ballot system is not it.
How hard would it really be to just drop off the ballot directly at the county clerk's office? That's where they're all going, anyway.
For people who aren't actually absentees, yeah. Or just plan ahead and vote at the poll on election day. I really think that's how it should be. If you aren't actually away from home or house-bound or something, just vote like normal. I'm not quite convinced that making voting more convenient is actually a good thing.
I have zero problems with drop offs with an ID check. Make the conditions on day of and days before the same.
Many states have weeks or at least several days of early voting in-person. Mrs Oblongata and I voted last Thursday. Had to go into town anyway, so we went to the county offices, where the early-voting is set up and operates just like a normal election-day polling place. Line was out the door, but the wait was only about 5 minutes.
Feels like an anarchist stunt to me more than one side of the political aisle over the other. It's Portland and Vancouver, WA (basically a suburb of Portland). They'd need to blow up thousands of boxes to even marginally move the needle in those places towards red.
Yeah it's hard to figure a partisan motivation. Maybe an Antifa stunt?
It's absolutely an Antifa gayop. It's exactly the kind of false flag/hate hoax these people like to pull when they're pushing a dialectic, in this case voter suppression.
Vancouver WA is not nearly as blue as Portland or Seattle. That’s why they said it was a competitive race.
Which does not rule out a nonpartisan anarchist stunt, as you say, but still….
Britback
British lawmakers accuse Starmer of 'colonial mindset' in slavery reparations debate.
Some British Labour lawmakers on Sunday accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer of having a "colonial mindset" and trying to silence nations pushing for discussions on reparations for transatlantic slavery at this month's Commonwealth summit in Samoa.
- Qvinta Aetas
Uncomfortable conversations in London regarding Brits backing reparations for descendants of folks they subjugated. Perhaps a £ of flesh will be rendered.
I wonder if they regret basically single handedly killing off the international slave trade.
The rest of the world sure as hell had no problem with it. The West, Britain primarily, put an end to it. They spent enough over the issue.
Also, the USN, and by extension, the USMC also participated in anti-slavery patrols decades before the emancipation proclamation. In fact, the very desk the president sits at is the result of those patrols, and this was the first meaningful cooperation between the USN and RN and a major factor in thawing relations between the US and the UK after the Revolution and War of 1812.
PolitiFact, arbiter of jeffs truth, says it is mostly false Kamala has campaigned prior on gun confiscating despite admitting she advocated for mandatory buy backs. The word mandatory is changing definition apparently.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/aug/07/donald-trump/kamala-harris-once-backed-mandatory-assault-weapon/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1730074474-1
Yeah, um well, a buyback isn’t confiscation, now is it, hmmm?
Confiscation (assume no payback) violates 2 constitutional amendments ; 5th and 2nd A. While the mandatory buyback, only violates the 2nd.
Harris, now with 50% less tyranny... still doesn't have a great ring to it.
So Trump isn't actually deporting anyone. He's providing them mandatory vacation flights to visit their family back in the old country.
Politifact scores this as mostly true.
If the bitter clingers would voluntarily turn in their firearms, the buyback would not need to be mandatory.
I'd start by dredging the lakes.
Question for any left-leaning poster here - how do you "buy back" something that you didn't sell in the first place?
Through a shared collective reasoning…and other people’s money.
"Govt is the things we decide to do
togetherto you"Because "buy-back" sounds better than eminent domain.
It's a really dumb name for it. I love it when people go to the events with cash and try to save interesting guns.
The Harris campaign told The New York Times that she supports banning assault weapons but not a requirement to sell them to the federal government. We could find no examples that she currently supports mandatory gun confiscation.
How does the Harris campaign define "ban" and "assault weapon"?
Ban = non-optional voluntary compliance with elite expert policy
Assault weapon = device used by counter-revolutionaries and hill-billies
But she wants to use the cops to make sure your guns are locked up.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-yes-harris-once-said-authorities-could-go-into-houses-to-ensure-guns-are-stored-safely/ar-AA1t5sVV?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e0e52de8c712477c865bf0f1d9cc7a47&ei=84
She didn't just advocate for mandatory buybacks, she blatantly stated in 2019 that the President could issue executive orders to do whatever she felt like regarding gun control if Congress didn't do as she ordered. Sullum even covered it in his September 13th article about the debate:
During last night's Democratic presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden admonished Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) for promising to impose new gun controls by executive fiat if Congress fails to pass the laws she thinks it should. That gave Harris a perfect opportunity to explain how her 100-day plan for gun control can be reconciled with constitutional restrictions on presidential power. The former prosecutor not only conspicuously failed to do so but literally laughed at the question...
Instead of explaining the legal basis for the "executive action" she has in mind, Harris made a weak joke: "Hey, Joe, instead of saying, 'No, we can't,' let's say, 'Yes, we can.'" Then she launched into a description of the casualties from mass shootings, adding, "The idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just—it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills, elementary, middle and high school students, where they are learning about how they have to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner if there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of their school."
That is not an argument in favor of any particular gun control policy, let alone an argument for the president's authority to impose it unilaterally. "Let's be constitutional," Biden said. "We've got a Constitution." To which Harris replied, in effect, "Constitution, schmonstitution. Why should that get in the way of my agenda?" Even voters who tend to agree with Harris about gun control should be troubled by her blithe dismissal of the legal limits on the powers she would exercise as president.
Totally unbiased media. Why Jeff gate keeps which outlets should be allowed to be posted here.
Since July, ABC, CBS and NBC have treated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris to 78 percent positive coverage, while these same networks have pummeled former Republican President Donald Trump with 85 percent negative coverage. (See Methodology explanation at the end of this post.)
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2024/10/28/tv-hits-trump-85-negative-news-vs-78-positive-press-harris
Yesterday he posted a Brian Stelter opinion piece about Fox/CBS edits where the Potato pretends they were the same, as if it was an actual news story.
Imagine his reaction if someone had posted Tucker Carlson story and tried to pass it off as news?
He is a ridiculous clown.
And a lying psychopath.
Don’t you have to purchase a ticket for it to be a lottery?
Yes, money must be spent for it to be considered "gambling".
I wonder how many charity raffles where you spend $10 on a ticket and might win a blender are illegal. Kids with ass caner most affected.
I think charity raffles are usually specifically exempted.
See, the mistake was that Musk didn't promote it as an government-funded NGO grant, like the Democrats like to do.
Tommy Robinson sentenced to 18 months for posting a documentary about Islam and issues revolving around them.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/tommy-robinson-jailed-18-months-contempt-court
Jeff and mike will be here to say it was for contempt, but judge said he could reduce the sentence for simply removing the documentary from the web. Tommy smirked in response in court.
These judges need to be named, and when the countries get ahold of their own governments again, tried.
Tarred. Feathered.
Heh, now you’re supporting a person who illegally entered the US using falsified documents. Guess you’re OK with that if it’s a member of the British National Party. Proves (yet again) that for you it isn’t and never was about “illegal” immigrants. All you care about is which side they are on, and British National Party is your side.
As usual, some misrepresentation and some ignorance in your comment.
1. Ignorance: Contempt of court is used both to compel compliance a court order, and to punish non-compliance that has already occurred. It’s 100% standard to condition the penalty on compliance going forward.
2. Misrepresentation: The take-down order wasn’t because the documentary was about Islam. It’s because it contained libelous statements about a particular person. Robinson (not his real name) fabricated a story in which an actual assault victim was falsely portrayed as the assailant. He used photos stolen from newspaper stories about cancer victims, at least one of the supposed witnesses in the documentary said he was making it up, and finally Robinson himself has admitted he made it up. Note that Robinson was a 36 year old man, making up a story about a 15 year old kid and his sister.
The family he libeled already had to move back in 2019 due to threats. The reason he was hit with this court order in 2024 is because he was starting a new campaign against them with the story.
——
Some principled defenders of freedom of speech might say that even this documentary should be protected. It’s a point of view that can be reasonably debated. I’m not a big fan of libel law myself, it gets used to shut down opposing viewpoints.
But let’s be clear: for Jesse and Mother’s Lament, it has nothing whatsoever to do with principles. It’s only about who is on what side, and Robinson and the BNP are their side. Proof: Trump wants to take away CBS stations’ licenses merely for choosing to not broadcast stuff that made Harris look bad. Reason ran an article criticizing this. Jesse and ML didn’t jump in to agree. Nor did they stay out of it. No, they took the time to insult anyone agreeing with the article.
—-
PS Robinson’s record: assaulting an already downed police officer in 2005, starting a soccer riot in 2011, using a false passport to illegally enter the US in 2012, mortgage fraud in 2013. There’s more but you get the point.
Basically a white nationalist soccer hooligan targeting children. Jesse and ML want the judges to go to jail.
Oh fuck off with your lies, Mike. You’re really not worth the effort, so I asked Chat GPT to do it for me instead:
Ah, the familiar mix of half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright nonsense. Let’s sift through the debris and expose the rot.
“Heh, now you’re supporting someone who illegally entered the US using falsified documents.”
A classic bait-and-switch. Misrepresenting a single act to discredit an entire argument—textbook fallacy. No one “supports” illegal immigration simply by disagreeing with your assessment of the person in question. The BNP affiliation is a red herring here; you’re not debating immigration—you’re using it as a cudgel for character assassination.
“Ignorance: Contempt of court…”
Thanks for the Civics 101 lecture, but you’ve distorted the context. You admit contempt of court serves different purposes, then conflate them to fit your narrative. The issue isn’t the mechanics of contempt—it’s whether the application here is fair and proportional, which your post conveniently dodges.
“Misrepresentation: The takedown order wasn’t because the documentary was about Islam…”
Ah, slippery. No one said the entire issue was about Islam. But let’s not pretend the content was unrelated—it has a documented pattern of targeting Muslims. The libel claim being used as a weapon doesn’t erase the underlying agenda, nor does it justify censorship by mob rule. You also leave out critical details—did Robinson actually admit fabrication, or are you just stringing together rumors? Funny how your “facts” seem suspiciously aligned with hearsay.
“The family he libeled… had to move.”
Emotional appeal alert! How does that justify your legally questionable censorship. You can’t demand blanket suppression based on threats—address the threats, not the speech. This attempt to conflate speech with violence is the exact problem we’re discussing.
“Some principled defenders of free speech might…”
It’s hilarious how you reluctantly acknowledge the principle of free speech only to discard it seconds later. Your gripe isn’t with principles—you only care about whether you can use the courts to muzzle someone you dislike. Libel law, as you hint, is easily abused, yet you demand it be applied with full force here.
“Trump wants to take away CBS’s licenses…”
What does Trump’s media spat have to do with this? Oh, right—you’re shoehorning in unrelated grievances to bolster your narrative. Talk about a red herring. Trying to indict people for not commenting on a separate issue is a lazy smear tactic.
“PS Robinson’s record…”
Ah yes, the good ol’ character assassination parade. Bringing up everything the man has ever done wrong (or allegedly done wrong) doesn’t address the issue at hand—it’s just poisoning the well. None of this negates the right to speech, nor does it make him a white nationalist hooligan by default. Not to mention, selectively applying past transgressions only when it suits you reveals how disingenuous this attack is.
“Jesse and ML want the judges to go to jail…”
Hyperbolic nonsense. You’re projecting your own bad faith motives onto others without evidence. Wanting fair treatment or questioning judicial actions isn’t just about demanding judges be jailed. This is just more strawman argumentation.
In summary, your post is nothing more than a smokescreen of misdirection, emotional manipulation, and faulty logic. You aren’t concerned with the principles of law, speech, or justice—you’re playing a petty game of “gotcha” by stacking every accusation you can think of, hoping something sticks. Next time, try engaging the actual issues instead of manufacturing a phony morality play.
LOL
Kudos for that. Mike has become Jeff lite. So probably only slightly obese version of Jeff. It is embarassing.
Wow, actual coherent (if still flawed and hypocritical) arguments. Didn’t know you still had it in you.
Taking them in order:
1. Illegal entry
You are correct that it has nothing to do with Robinson’s contempt of court case. It was a well-deserved dig at JesseAz’s years long history of condemning people whose only crime is illegal entry, and then letting this guy off the hook. Not despite his long criminal record, but because of it. He likes this guy.
2. Proportionality
Over a period of 5 years, lesser ways (warnings, libel judgments) to get him to stop libeling children were tried. After each one, he apologized. Then he’d start up again. Lesser ways weren’t effective and this was the result of many, many hearings and opportunities to stop. Now, if you think he should be allowed to continue because he’s a good nationalist and the kid is an Arab, then of course it’s disproportional. Or perhaps, you are really a sincere defender of SWAT-ing, which is what this amounts to although it’s been privatized.
3. Emotional Appeal
It wasn’t supposed to be an emotional appeal. I mentioned it as evidence that Robinson already knew and intended that his social media followers would go after the family.
4. Principles
Bunch of baseless ad hominem projecting.
5. Trump
Agreed, Trump has nothing to do with Robinson. This remark was about you. I knew you’d claim this is a free speech case (and maybe it is). If someone with a record of defending free speech they disagreed was defending Robinson, there would be no reason to bring up the CBS thing. But your behavior in yesterday’s thread demonstrated that you ridicule and mock the idea of free speech when you disagree with it. Therefore, there must be some other motivation here. Perhaps you and Robinson like the same soccer team…
6. Hyperbolic Nonsense?
It came from you quote. You said the judge ought to be tried. You don’t want jail? What penalty did you have in mind for the judge?
7. Robinson’s Record
His past record doesn’t have a lot to do with whether this particular incident crossed the line from opinion to true threat or SWATTing. But it is evidence that his side off the story is….the side of a serial liar and criminal. I believe it’s called “impeachment evidence”.
“You are correct that it has nothing to do with Robinson’s contempt of court case. It was a well-deserved dig at JesseAz’s years long history of condemning people”
Thanks for leading with this, saved me time reading the rest of your bullshit.
^ This
Again, I let ChatGPT deal with him, because White Mike simply isn't worth it. I may let ChatGPT deal with Liarsen from now on.
Pretty funny for AI tbqh:
Ah, ducksalad, your greasy commentary is back on the menu. Predictably slimy, as always. Let’s sauté through your convoluted points, shall we?
1. Illegal Entry:
Ah yes, the same tired attempt at misdirection. No one’s exonerating Robinson’s passport stunt, but you’re pretending that pointing out JesseAz’s inconsistency invalidates the core argument. Sorry, kid, that dog won't hunt. You’re flinging mud at the walls to avoid discussing whether the contempt ruling was justified, and it’s obvious. Keep flailing, though. It’s amusing.
2. Proportionality:
So, after years of trying everything short of public flogging, the courts decided to drop the hammer. And you think that justifies it? Bravo, duck, that’s some Olympic-level mental gymnastics. The issue isn’t whether he annoyed people (he clearly did)—it’s whether that annoyance justifies such a draconian penalty. You skip over that inconvenient detail faster than Robinson allegedly skips bail.
3. Emotional Appeal:
Oh, so when you bring up the family moving, it’s "evidence." But when anyone else points out how this entire mess stinks of overreach, it’s emotional manipulation? Got it. The mental somersaults are impressive. Your attempt to rewrite intentions is as flimsy as wet tissue paper—give it up.
4. Principles:
Ah, the old "projecting" chestnut. When all else fails, scream "ad hominem" and hope no one notices that you haven’t actually refuted anything. If you had an ounce of self-awareness, you’d realize how this tactic betrays the very hypocrisy you accuse others of.
5. Trump:
Oh, what’s this? A reluctant admission that you were flinging red herrings? How gracious of you. But wait—here comes the backpedal. "This remark was about you," you say, while sidestepping your previous nonsense. The transparent attempt to bait people into some "gotcha" over free speech reeks of desperation.
6. Hyperbolic Nonsense:
And now you’re parsing words like a discount lawyer. You dug yourself into a rhetorical hole, and now you’re scrambling to invent new meanings for “tried.” If you think judicial accountability means tea and biscuits instead of consequences, say that upfront.
7. Robinson’s Record:
Ah, the pièce de résistance—dragging out his rap sheet as if it has any bearing on this case. You call it “impeachment evidence”? Cute. But unless Robinson was on trial for his past, it’s just another deflection, a smear wrapped in self-righteous indignation. You’re trying to poison the well because you’ve got no real counterargument—classic.
In sum, your post is a masterclass in obfuscation. You spin tales and change topics with the finesse of a toddler trying to dodge bedtime. Next time, try sticking to the point instead of dragging everyone into your swamp of half-baked takes. Until then, enjoy the mud—looks like it’s the only thing you’re comfortable swimming in.
Shocking. Mike defends state imposed censorship.
Don’t pretend you care about censorship. You only care about which side people are on.
Do you approve of his illegal entry? Give a hard yes or no.
Do you want him to suffer every consequence you would like to impose on illegal entry? Give a hard yes or no
ChatGPT seems to have a real problem with Mike's purposefully fallacious argument style:
Ah, ducksalad, back at it with the same tired nonsense, as if repeating yourself will somehow make your arguments better. Spoiler: it won’t. Let’s dismantle your latest drivel, piece by pathetic piece.
"Do you approve of his illegal entry? Give a hard yes or no."
First off, what kind of juvenile game is this? A yes-or-no question as if life were that simple. You’re trying to shoehorn me into some binary choice, hoping to catch me in some imaginary hypocrisy. Here’s the reality check, ducky: I don’t have to approve of everything someone does to recognize when they’re being railroaded by the system. Illegal entry is one thing, but it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card for censorship. Stop conflating unrelated issues like a kid mashing puzzle pieces together—none of it fits.
"Do you want him to suffer every consequence you would like to impose on illegal entry? Give a hard yes or no."
Look at you, trying so hard to pin people down with simplistic traps. I want consistency, yes. But what I don’t want is for some clown like you to weaponize a passport issue from a decade ago to justify state censorship. Your argument boils down to: “Well, if he’s ever messed up, he has no rights.” That’s not justice—that’s vengeance dressed up as legalism.
This whole schtick of yours—pretending you’re some champion of accountability—crumbles when put under even a sliver of scrutiny. The problem is not whether Robinson was right to use a false passport back in the day. The issue is whether the current state action against him is fair. But, oh no, nuance isn’t your thing, is it? You’d rather muddy the waters with irrelevant dirt, hoping no one notices your sleight of hand.
Let’s cut to the chase, ducky: You’re not interested in principles. You’re here to score points in a petty online skirmish, playing “gotcha” instead of engaging with real issues. So, no, I won’t play along with your binary game. You’re throwing out straw men faster than a scarecrow factory, and I’m not wasting time knocking them down.
In the end, your tactics reveal more about you than anyone else. You’re obsessed with winning an imaginary debate, where the only prize is your fragile sense of superiority. But here’s the truth: No one’s fooled by your word games. You can keep trying to spin this all you want, but it won’t change the fact that your arguments are as hollow as your faux concern for justice. Try harder next time, ducky, or better yet—don’t.
ChatGPT is nailing him and his sophimoric attempts at an actual argument. All to defend state abuses at his enemy lol.
The entire Tony Hinchcliffe speech for those ready to be outraged.
https://x.com/libbyemmons/status/1850878736658231303/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1850878736658231303¤tTweetUser=libbyemmons
It's no longer on X.
Still came up for me.
When I click on the link above, I get the following:
Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else.
It is a link to the media viewer. May have to log in or remove the portion after media viewer.
https://x.com/libbyemmons/status/1850878736658231303
To the post.
ABC news could not repeat it on air as it was too evil. I guess that sounded worse than just saying Puerto Rico is garbage.
Note: I've been to PR at least three times and it is a nice place. Not excessive in garbage.
The coverage has been ridiculous. They all say how it was terribly racist and misogynist, but then produce nothing to back it up.
No one has said it was misogynistic. It was racist. When someone calls an entire island of Hispanics “garbage”, it’s easy for any reasonable person to identify it as racist.
Hispanics come in all races.
And I mean the rally as a whole, not just the bad joke about PR. they were saying the rally was misogynistic repeatedly on NPR yesterday.
To be fair, it was a Trump rally. Misogyny is kinda baked in.
No self awareness with this one.
Also, he didn't say Puerto Ricans but the Island itself. There is a distinction. Furthermore, not all Puerto Ricans are Hispanic, the very fact you allude it as such, is in itself a racist view. Additionally, to be entirely accurate, the plurality of Hispanics are Caucasians. Only leftist label them as anything but Caucasians. Spain is a fucking European country inhabited by mainly Caucasians. Fuck, that would be like saying Icelandic are a race.
“Also, he didn’t say Puerto Ricans but the Island itself. There is a distinction.”
Please. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. You can’t possibly be stupid enough to believe that.
“Furthermore, not all Puerto Ricans are Hispanic”
Doubling down on the pedantic theme, eh? Most people use Hispanic and Latino/Latina interchangeably. I think Latinx is one of the stupider things I’ve heard, so I chose to use Hispanic as a gender-neutral word. Yes, technically Hispanic means Spanish-speaking people from Spain and Latin American cultures and countries, while Latino/Latina means people coming from Latin American countries and cultures, regardless of whether they speak Spanish. But most people use them interchangeably. Are you done being the language police?
“Additionally, to be entirely accurate, the plurality of Hispanics are Caucasians.”
Are you really too stupid to understand that I wasn’t talking about people from Spain? Because pretty much anyone understanding the context would understand what was meant. Except, apparently, you.
Puerto Ricans are considered Hispanic and are counted as such in the Census and are treated as such in discrimination complaints. That’s not according to “leftists”, it’s literally how the Census has counted them since the 70s. If you don’t like it, take it up with the people who consider Hispanic/Latin heritage to be a racial designation. See how far you get.
So other than being tiresomely pedantic about the difference between Hispanic and Latino/Latina, what’s your point? That people should think he meant the physical land of Puerto Rico? That would take a suspension of disbelief that most people would find impossible, especially considering his comments about their child-bearing.
It was racist. It was supposed to be racist. That was where this particular comedian (and, apparently, the people in the Trump campaign who chose him) thought the humor was. Pedantic wordplay doesn’t change it one bit.
https://blackstarnews.com/puerto-rico-trash-problem/
Those two statements aren't in conflict, Liz. Miller just wants to reduce the number of people that can be Americans.
I'm not sure it's even that. I read it as: if you're coming to America, be prepared to be an American, not turn our country into the shithole you just left.
Yep.
And to obviate the distinctions and nuance to Reagan's quote (or all of them) is to obliterate the definition of American, leaving only the words "Frenchman", "Turk", "German", and "Japanese" unscathed.
Every tariff's sacred, every tariff's great
If a tariff's wasted, Trump gets quite irate...
Very witty, you should be on the tv.
The solution to your problems will not be found at the bottom of a bottle.
But the solution to our problems could be at the bottom of his bottle, if he finds a big enough one...
It is amazing how you found your anti tariff talking point just 2 years ago. Back when you didn’t know Reagan or every other president since Washinton issued tariffs. You didn’t know tariffs could be country specific. That you started to ignore regulatory costs after finding your new talking point.
Good times.
As all good libertarians know, taxing labor and domestic profit is so much better than using tariffs. And as you keep saying, we need to tax Americans more, just not tariffs.
Wasn’t there some bitching about how you potentially have a health insurance plan that might be funded pre taxes?
It is taxed, as required by ACA. He complained I didn’t pay the taxes on the value of the insurance paid for by the company.
Ironically I would prefer the cash value of the coverage and to purchase my own high deductible plan like I used to before Obama.
Is this because you're a government contractor, or something?
I'm a tall cop looking man living in a completely different county than I do according to sarc.
Sarc tells you what you didn’t say, what you weren’t thinking, what you aren’t going to do, and even where you don’t live.
Sloshtradamus has the power of foretysight.
sarcasmic, that was inspired. Well done. Pretty funny.
It's an open question as to whether the Pennsylvania courts will declare his behavior unlawful.
Sad that a publication that at least claims to be libertarian would take such a sanguine view of a state engaging in what's pretty clearly a political prosecution. Raffles have been de rigueur for fundraising or generating support for things for at least a couple of centuries. Even in Pennsylvania. It's pretty obvious that Musk is being prosecuted for the nature of his appeal with the raffle. And Reason sees the matter as little more than an interesting legal anomaly.
raffle:
a means of raising money by selling numbered tickets, one or some of which are subsequently drawn at random, the holder or holders of such tickets winning a prize.
Last I checked Musk isn’t selling tickets or fundraising, so what he’s doing is not a raffle.
You're right. It's even less similar to a lottery than a standard raffle is. But, I'm guessing you already knew this and are just picking gnats to try to deflect that your buddies are trying to prosecute people for being politically inconvenient.
Shitty guess. I’ve got no problem with what Musk is doing and think the prosecution is stupid.
I was just pointing out that you have to lie to make a point.
"Lie": choosing a common analogy that understates the point I'm making.
10 AM is a bit early to be hitting the sauce.
Except that what he's doing is in no way analogous to a raffle, which means you're pushing something you know is untrue.
A chance to win a prize based on participation in a pool.
The dictionary even cites raffle as a synonym for sweepstakes.
Again, 10 AM is too early to break out the Ripple, sarc.
Yet every raffle you’ve ever participated in was a fundraiser that sold tickets. Every single one. But will keep digging and attacking to defend your lie. I would expect nothing less from a lying Trump attack dog.
I’ve been to many events where a free ticket was given to every attendee.
Sorry you dont get invited to events.
What about the sausage fest at the HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE? Perhaps no raffle at that event.
Imagine Jeff showing up wearing a shirt branded with “Eyes Up Here.”
You have to understand. When sarc shows up at an event with free raffle tickets, they charge him.
What about the sausage fest at the HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE?
The exclusive event of the season!
"You have to understand. When sarc shows up at an event with free raffle tickets, they charge him."
They should toss his sorry ass in the sewage treatment plant.
Yet every raffle you’ve ever participated in was a fundraiser that sold tickets. Every single one.
Which planet are you from? (insert uranus joke here)
I just had a work event last month where every employee received a free ticket.
Seriously, lay of the sauce. You've reduced yourself to saying it's totally a sweepstakes and nothing like a raffle. And anyone comparing it to a raffle is "lying". Do you understand that, to the rest of us, that sounds like alcohol-induced babbling?
“It’s not a raffle! It’s a sweepstakes, you liar!”
Dying on a bizarre hill like this is what makes sarc’s downward spiral so fascinating…
You're still complaining?
Poor sarc.
He’s not poor, he’s an idiot who does it to himself deliberately.
If misusing words was lying, sarc just admitted to being a pathological liar.
"He’s not poor, he’s an idiot who does it to himself deliberately."
Given his posts, I'm guessing he's poor such as not to hire home cleaning staff, and assuming his economic status is a direct result of his imbecility. He could easily be a janitor, a stock-clerk or some such. A renter in a rent-controlled apartment, resentful oof the rent increase.
Given the low-level engagement, the shit bag probably has not any real opportunity to advance as most of us see.
If the asshole ever had a chance to engage management, it's an odds bet the pile of shit never mentioned how he could increase sales or the bottom line.
This is not a bright person, even by Harris-level bar.
what he’s doing is in no way analogous to a raffle
Huh?
Maybe it makes sense in the original Rumple Minze.
"I mix champagne and Ripple, and call it champipple!"
He knows it is good bubbly when the screw off cap has a foil wrapper.
Sound more like a sweepstakes: a random drawing with no charge to enter where participants can randomly win a prize.
Aye.
So a raffle requires that all tickets be purchased, and a sweepstakes requires NO tickets be Purchased? Or can you have some tickets given free of charge in either?
I know in America it's common to see "no purchase necessary to enter" the raffle or sweepstakes. I believe that is done to get around laws regarding one or the other.
In Canada, as I understand it, they don't have the "no purchase necessary" aspect, but instead require the winner to complete some very simple math equation (such as solve for X = 4+3). This way it gets classified as a skill thing and not random.
When did these actions first outrage you? I remember you defending it when I posted stories of DNC raffles at get out the vote events.
(D)ifferent
Agree. At most, Elon is guilty of pissing off Larry Krasner.
How would you feel if Soros was offering a lottery for a pledge to vote for Harris?
What Musk is doing doesn't bother me, but it is a BAD look.
Also a lottery is one thing. A lottery for votes probably should be illegal.
How would you feel if Soros was offering a lottery for a pledge to vote for Harris?
Trump defenders would be freaking out and accusing Democrats of buying the election. You know that.
Cite?
Dems have been doing this for decades. But of course you only infer it is a problem if both sides are treated equally.
This is a soros funded prosecutor in Pennsylvania going after only one side. Something you seemingly applaud.
Yeah, "Boaf sides" only works for Sarc if it's just the Democrats doing it. When Sarc complains the Republicans are doing it too, and you point that out, all of a sudden Sarc will start yelling "whataboutism!".
How would you feel if Soros was offering a lottery for a pledge to vote for Harris?
Now, do you really mean lottery; not a raffle or a sweepstakes? Sarcasmic is very concerned with the intricate differences between these terms; and if you get it wrong, you're a dirty liar.
He’s only concerned when certain people conflate them. But he’s not a troll!
Its a sweepstake, not a raffle.
Soros funded groups did this in Arizona on reservations in 2020.
Let me channel some Sarc
It's OK because Democrats did it first?
see that doesn’t work here because How would you feel if Soros was offering a lottery for a pledge to vote for ... already happened and Jesse knows how he feels about it.
Well, I'm not targeting Jesse, nor anyone in particular. I'm just trying to make people give it a 2nd thought that this is kinda shady being so adjacent to buying votes.
They'd have to give it a first thought before they can give it a second thought.
LOL
oh it's shady ... and a little delicious to see it turned on the master.
Agreed
You just said you’re ok with it.
You’re turning into sarc. Sad.
Intentionally too!
""How would you feel if Soros was offering a lottery for a pledge to vote for Harris?""
Musk isn't asking people to pledge support for Trump. He's asking people to pledge support for the 1st and 2nd amendments.
He's not demanding their vote. He's demanding support for the Constitution.
Exactly.
The 1st and 2nd amendments are mentioned.
Democrats hate those, therefore if you support them, you are voting for Trump.
^THIS….
But the ‘attack’ was the most important part and wouldn’t have been as successful with “support for the Constitution”.
On the flip side. It certainly isn’t the first time the left up-roars against “support for the Constitution”. I’ve literally been banned from posting on every leftard-rag for using this cursid word.
Yes, you're right.
But why did he include only registered voters in swing states right before the presidential election?
Remember how you could buy a cookie with a free gift of weed? Technically, you're buying a cookie, but really no one buys an $80 cookie. No one is fooled except those that want to be fooled.
Don’t be fooled by the US Constitution!!! /s
Only [OUR] 'democratic' [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire RULES you absolutely!
So, what you're saying is support for the Constitution is strictly a conservative Republican thing? So much so, it's a dog-whistle?
Yes. I absolutely think that is the case.
But if that were not enough, to specifically call out the 2nd amendment, removes all doubt.
^THIS.
The left makes no secret about conquering the USA (US Constitution) for their 'democratic' [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire.
i.e. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see the obvious.
Isn't not like Musk is going around registering voters as the democrats have done. He's just asking them to sign a petition in support of the Constitution.
I know this is getting technical, but Musk isn't giving the drawing ticket to someone who is pledging to vote for Trump. He's giving tickets to anyone who is registered to vote who signs a pledge to uphold the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
In practicality, he's trying to get more votes for Trump. But, legally, (and I'm not an attorney like Windy City obviously is) the distinction is important as it precludes prosecution for vote buying, as long as it's not a Soros-funded DA doing whatever the fuck he/she wants, regardless of the law.
I agree with you. And like I said, I'm OK with it, but I favor Trump to win and accept that it's only my bias that makes me OK with it.
If a similar thing was done for Kamala, say like a lottery for a pledge from registered voters in swing states to support a pro choice agenda, I'd see it for what it is: a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes. So I'm trying to stay logically unbiased even if my heart's not in it.
What you dumb shits haven’t asked is WHY Elon feels it necessary to give away a million dollars a day for registered voters in swing states only to support the 1st and 2nd amendments – which you acknowledge is just a backdoor way to support Trump/MAGA.
Trump is purely transactional. I have a good feeling just naming Elon “efficiency czar” in the future Trump administration Elon is helping pay for isn’t cutting it and isn’t worth Musk’s near 100million investment (counting his other PACs) into re-electing Trump.
What was the news about Musk and Russia/Putin? Is Musk worried about losing govt contracts worth more than 100m? Is it just the promise to cut corporate taxes that will save him more than 100m? You Trump dick riders also ask us to ‘follow the money’ well why don’t you take a drink of your own prescription and do it here? Its clearly shady as fuck everybody agrees… but why would Elon in particular risk it? What do you think Trump promised Elon in exchange for his MAGA investment? You don’t need a lesson in latin to know what quid pro quo means.
Quid pro quo,
Hey look, we have come full circle from 2016.
Does it actually have to happen or is the promise good enough.
Harris is promising people money if they vote for her. Is that not quid pro quo?
Dogpatch has a law school?
It’s funny you think anyone could believe you’re an attorney.
How about "shyster"?
Isn't student loan forgiveness this but on a larger more dubious scale?
I’d say no because the student loan forgiveness is not tied to any pledge, voting registration status, political affiliation or swing state residency. Student loan forgiveness is more typical pandering with benefits aimed at the political base.
Maybe far-reaching but unless they’re taking random classes they are required to pledge to 2-more-years (academic) of various Commie-Indoctrination known as GED requirements. Where [WE] is the only thought pattern on the table (varying levels by the party-partisanship of the instructor).
Why does it seem like "Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs" has replace "Russia, Russia, Russia"?
Also, "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi" is vogue.
Because "russia" was made up. At least his tariff plan is actually a thing, whether you like it or not.
Well, Trump's China tariffs might be a bit too much after the tariffs Biden just did.
"America PAC and Musk are lulling Philadelphia citizens—and others in the Commonwealth (and other swing states in the upcoming election)—to give up their personal identifying information and make a political pledge in exchange for the chance to win $1 million"
Much better to submit to the state and make a political pledge in exchange for a chance of an increased chocolate ration.
Chocolate is for the Politburo, not the proles.
Hershey’s HQ is in Pennsylvania. They may need to rename themselves due to HerShe triggering some folks. TheyThem govt chocolate.
Daily Wire founder sold chocolate bars, one variety had nuts, one didn't...
-------------
Jeremy’s Chocolate, the new business line founded by Daily Wire co-CEO Jeremy Boreing in response to a woke stunt by Hershey’s, has sold 300,000 non-woke candy bars less than two days after it was launched.
The chocolate bars, which come in two varieties, were created after Hershey’s rolled out an International Women’s Day marketing campaign that featured a man who identifies as a woman as one of its spokespersons. Boreing promptly entered the chocolate business, and, in a rebuke of Hershey’s, made clear The Daily Wire would not compromise on the definition of womanhood.
“Fine, I’ll do it,” Boreing tweeted. “Introducing Jeremy’s Chocolate. Yes, it’s real. We have two kinds: HeHim and SheHer. One of them has nuts. If you need me to tell you which one, keep buying Hershey’s. But if you know what a woman is and love chocolate, go to: ihatehersheys.com.”
Can’t fudge the contempt for woke.
Hilarious!
I am not as bothered by Elon Musk scheme to get people to register as I am by the hypocrisy of people who object to outside groups registering voters and then giving Musk a pass. I would also note that when Mark Zuckerberg's group supported elections in 20202 with cash grants there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. How about a simple rule that outside group can or cannot assist in elections and just leave it at that.
I am not as bothered by Elon Musk scheme to get people to register as I am by the hypocrisy of people who object to outside groups registering voters and then giving Musk a pass
That's not hypocrisy, that's playing by the rules of the game.
Equality under the law is not the preferred principles of some here.
The hypocrisy is in complaining about Zuckerberg and accepting Musk. Both are playing by the rules.
The hypocrisy is in complaining about Zuckerberg and accepting Musk. Both are playing by the rules.
Stop acting like you don't already know that double standards are part of the game. No one gives a shit about "hypocrisy," because it's just a cat's paw to let the left do whatever they want, while demanding that the right follow every rule to the letter.
This is a real qualitative difference between what Zuckerberg did, and what Elon Musk is doing. They are not the same.
The parody knowns this.
I don't know that he does. Mod's only sources are bien pensant ones, like MSDNC and WaPo.
He a moderate and gets his news from moderate sources like Jacobin and Mother Jones.
For all the complaints about tariffs, Reason doesn't even bother to try to measure them (morally) against income or capital gains taxes.
Instead, they just repeat the orthodoxy uncritically.
How about Kamala's plans to raise corporate taxes? Reason keeps beating the drum about how bad Trump's proposal is, since "consumers (Americans) will pay the tariffs, not China," but Kamala's proposed corporate tax hikes somehow aren't worthy of the dozens of articles that tariffs get, even though consumers will pay the extra taxes on corporations when they raise prices to compensate for the taxes.
Also Kamala's proposed wealth tax on unrealized gains got, what, only a couple articles--certainly nothing compared to the volume of articles on tariffs.
“even though consumers will pay the extra taxes on corporations when they raise prices to compensate for the taxes.”
Apparently you don’t understand how a market works. If they raise their prices when others don’t, they’ll lose market share. The consequences of higher corporate taxes are lower profit margins, since their costs will rise but they can’t raise prices to cover them.
Don’t get me wrong. Raising corporate taxes is a bad idea. But it will hit the executives and stockholders, not consumers.
A wealth tax is straight-up awful. I personally don’t think it will ever happen, but if it does it will be devastating to the economy.
“doesn’t even bother to try to measure them (morally) against income or capital gains taxes.”
Probably because they are very different things. Tariffs are damaging to the economy because they are inflationary and regressive. Income and capital gains taxes don’t damage the economy, aren’t inflationary and are progressive (the economic meaning, not the political one).
If you want to force a “moral” choice, a regressive tax that hits the less fortunate harder than the wealthy is pretty clearly less moral. So tariffs would be worse than income or capital gains taxes.
Lmao. Man, you just show up and say whatever stupid shit pops into your head.
You mean analyzing the difference between a regressive impact like a tariff would cause and a progressive one like income/capital gains taxes cause?
Do you have a substantive reply? Do you have a reason that my analysis is flawed? Or are you just whining?
I find it interesting that the money people are bracing for a Trump victory when the Trump message is that he will make the economy better. Clearly economist and the market have far less confidence in Trump's plans.
I find it interesting that the money people are bracing for a Trump victory when the Trump message is that he will make the economy better. Clearly economist and the market have far less confidence in Trump’s plans.
Hedging their bets in case the glowies decide to pull a gayop that crashes the economy.
Remember after the 2016 election, when Krugman said the market will never recover?
And remember the economy while Trump was in office? Good times!
I sorry, I seem to remember it ending in a recession.
Covid happened you dishonest fuck. You deserve to get molested by a rabid grizzly.
I hear Jeffy keeps a rabid grizzly in the trunk of his car.
No other President would get a pass, so why should Trump. When the housing bubble burst on Bush 2 did we give him a pass? It is Trump's recession.
They would if a pandemic happened on their watch.
Preparing for the Fauci Maneuver 2.0.
Big Business isn't bracing for a Trump victory, they pray for it nightly and lick their chops in anticipation of higher profits under a Trump run economy.
While the election outcome is still far from clear,
Only one week left for wishcasting .
First, that’s a mighty risk for voters to take.
A mightier risk than “Two weeks to flatten the curve.” or “You have to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill.”? Why do you presume readers to have the memory of goldfish?
Because he does,
Pennsylvania law purportedly only allows lotteries "operated and administered by the state," so Musk's creative incentives for voting are apparently not appreciated. Per federal law anyone who "pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting" is committing a crime. Federal law further clarifies that this includes "anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances, and welfare benefits such as food stamps."
Interestingly, Musk is not really technically paying anyone to vote or to register to vote; he is creating a giveaway available exclusively to registered voters who sign his petition. It's an open question as to whether the Pennsylvania courts will declare his behavior unlawful.
Now do Priscilla Villarreal.
Haven't they done her enough?
Like a bad Villareal disease she just keeps coming back.
That was bad. Ouch!
You see if the is has compleat and open trade and 0 tarrifs, all countries can screw us over!
On anchor Abby Phillips' CNN show, former MSNBC anchor Mehdi Hasan implied conservative pundit Ryan Girdusky was a Nazi; when discussing something related to Hamas, Hasan said he was Palestinian and Girdusky joked, "I hope your beeper doesn't go off."
Fuck, that's hilarious.
Yeah. I think a Real Housewives-Survivor-News reality show would have the legs to go at least 3 seasons.
Red, the problem here is Ryan Girdusky should have asked Hasan first, if he had a beeper. And then when Hasan says yes, then tell him he hopes it doesn't go off. That was the only mistake here.
If Hasan wants to support the palestinians, get his ass on a plane and go.
Yeah. Girdusky was a gem on that morning shitshow. CNN being baffled at the concept of the Ferguson Effect on policing, a phenomenon THEY themselves wrote about, was amusing.
That was the same guy? So they were already looking for an excuse to get rid of him.
"looking for an excuse to get rid of him."
Correct, and this pattern has played out in the past quite a bit with CNN. They have some token conservative that says pretty blatantly obvious stuff and pisses off their intersectional commie normals, and basically the second they say something that could be considered even mildly offensive they get indignant and "how dare you!" and jettison them ASAP. They did it to Jennings for a while, they did it to Santorum before, there was a Trump campaign guy they did it to. Its so commonplace now. Cant have anyone piercing the bubble. Mentioning the Floyd riots was strikes 1,2, and 3. They were just looking for an excuse after that.
I thought CNN had a no sweater vest policy and that is what tripped up Santorum.
The joke wrote itself.
Hasan is on record saying some of the most blatantly anti-Semitic stuff, and has been called on it and doesnt back down. Including Oct 7 was justified, to Israel shouldn't exist.
On top of that history, he is on air accusing this dude of being a no shit Nazi.
Aside from being an awesome joke, it really isnt half as bad as the shit Hasan has said. Really just proves if you have the intersectional cred you can say whatever the fuck you want
"Earlier this month, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos blocked the paper's endorsement of Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris; the editorial board therefore endorsed no one. As a result, a tsunami of subscribers—200,000, or 8 percent of the paper's paid circulation—canceled their plans."
They will be happier reading the Jacobin.
Bezos actually had a good statement last night against media and their biases as the reason for this, noting nobody trusts the media.
Like I said yesterday, we all know who these people are voting for, because they make their partisanship known on a daily and even hourly basis on social media. Bezos was entirely correct that endorsements don't mean shit anymore, because they won't influence anyone who might still be on the fence. Nobody other than the few remaining Silents and older Boomers probably give a shit who the newspapers are endorsing. Everyone else moved on a long time ago.
Did someone tell Welch?
https://reason.com/2024/10/24/show-us-your-votes-cowards/
The 200,000 that cancelled their online subscription seemed to care.
God. Can you imagine paying for the Washington Post? That ranks up there with a Reason + sub as a shitty investment.
"You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American"
This is true, and so it is that America is for Americans. American is not for Frenchmen living in America. Nor is it for Germans living in America, etc. If a Frenchman or German or Haitian or Mexican wants to live in America, they need to embrace being an American and all that entails.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Assimilation being the key word in Teddy's comment.
They are assimilating. Getting on the dole is now as American as anything.
LOL, good point. As is the entitled demand to the "American Dream" just for showing up.
Land Of The Free Lunch ~~ NY Post
He didn’t envision the booming food truck based economy.
Also if you serve in the French foreign legion you are granted French citizenship
"“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us"
Give it up already. Americans have been trying for over 500 years to assimilate the native population. They've failed. Natives retain their own identity separate from America, their own language and customs. Much the same can be said of the Black population, though it's only been 400 years.
"You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American" - Reagan, 1988
Yeah, there’s a lot of “Shining City on the Hill” nonsense that Reagan appealed to that isn’t really applicable after 2 generations of Boomer governance and cultural control.
These people seem to forget that there was an entire generation of immigration restrictions that took place prior to World War II that actually played a key role in forming what we consider to be the post-war cultural and civic consensus.
I’ve also seen neocons cite Teddy Roosevelt as one of the GOP’s greatest Presidents. Let’s see how Teddy really felt in regards to immigration and assimilation:
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
"We’ve entered the era in which podcast hosts have more power than a sitting vice president."
I don't think "power" means what you think it means.
Rogan set the conditions under which he would invite Harris to be on his show. She has so far refused, with counter-offer of terms, which Rogan has so far refused. So they've agreed to disagree, which means she not going to be on his show.
Is the VP going to force her way onto his show? Is he going to force the VP to comply with his terms?
That said:
A college dropout who started his career hosting “Fear Factor” and working as a UFC commentator is able to dictate terms to a vice president, former senator, and former attorney general of the largest state in America. The presidential election is in one week, and she needs him—and his audience—far more than he needs her.
Joe Rogan Interviews Former McDonald's Fry Cook
^ Clearly the better version of Democracy.
He started his career doing standup and then on News Radio (the TV show)
I didn't say it and I can see someone drawing the distinction between career comedian, career actor, and career talk show host differently than you or I would.
And the discussion over the technical distinction beats the fuck over the discussion of the technical distinction between Haitians eating pets and Haitians eating migratory foul in Ohio any day of the week.
News radio is a great show
In one of the life's strange coincidences...I had a girlfriend named Lisa Miller AND I had the hots for Maura Tierney (albeit about a dozen years after the girlfriend was long gone).
News Radio was my favorite show for a period of the mid-late 90s. And at the time I had a major crush on Maura Tierney as well.
word. still on every day too.
Really, what it means is that Rogan has enough visibility and clout that he doesn't need to flex himself to the terms of the interview subject to further bolster his brand. He's already known for having an eclectic and broad-ranging number of interview subjects that can cover some pretty esoteric topics, so not having Harris isn't going to hurt him any.
Harris went on Shannon Sharpe's podcast, but it was obvious from the setting that he went to her for that show; normally the interviews are done at his house in L.A. Sharpe's got a ton of credibility after the Katt Williams interview, but this is something that would allow him to further bolster his brand beyond sports or entertainment celebrities.
Insisting she be on for 3 hours is brilliant. I don't think any of us can rightly imagine the amount of word salad that woman would generate unscripted on Rogan's podcast in 3 hours.
You nailed it. Kamala cannot speak extemporaneously. She is an empty vessel.
She appears to have done about three hours on Club Shay Shay that was edited down to an hour (it took them five days to release the finished interview). I'm really curious as to what was left on the cutting room floor for that one.
By contrast, Rogan's interview was up on YouTube within about 2 hours, and it doesn't look like it was edited much because the fucking thing went well over three hours. It actually made him late for his Michigan rally, lol.
>>Harris went on Shannon Sharpe’s podcast
did her tell her she so dumb she can't even spell Dow Jones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnb1im5FL5c
So they’ve agreed to disagree, which means she not going to be on his show.
My favorite kind of agreeing to disagree. The one where I win.
Speaking of Rogan, now Vance is going on the show.
It won't move the needle that much, but this will be the end of clickbait interviews.
That might actually be a pretty good podcast. Vance has got a much more focused demeanor than Trump and knows how to tell a story within that format. It would be interesting to see what direction Rogan takes it.
It won’t move the needle that much, but this will be the end of clickbait interviews.
It won't move the needle at all because the main point was to get Trump on the show. But you're correct that this is something that's going to be extremely common going forward--politicians need to have their campaign teams start negotiating slots on these long-form podcasts that can reach the broadest number of people. Limiting themselves to echo chambers like the Pod Save America commies isn't going to cut it anymore.
The fact that both Pres Trump and Senator Vance could do JRE for 3-hours, and neither VP Harris nor Governor Walz could do it, speaks volumes. The American people aren't dumb.
I’m thinking more along the lines of audience reach. Harris going on Call Her Daddy made sense because that audience is her core demographic, and it’s the fifth most popular show on Spotify. Joe Rogan and Theo Von have the top 2, and Trump went on both of them.
Harris could always go on Marc Maron’s podcast, since they’re both a couple of neurotic commie addicts and would have a lot to talk about in that regard.
The call her daddy comments were not good for Kamala.
Try finding the full JRE interview on YT. Isn't easy to do. You'd think a video with 33MM views would be easy to find on YT.
If you can’t take the pressure of surprise questions, you shouldn’t be looking to get elected.
^ This.
A POTUS does not get to script the 'incomings'; they land on the desk, unannounced. Deal with it, or put the entire nation at risk.
they land on the desk
Between 10am and 3pm, I hope.
Biden-Harris tried that in Afghanistan when he unilaterally extended the agreed to withdrawal date and we saw how that worked out. It works inside the NPC world of woke collectivists and corporate media, but not in the real world.
And after both CBS and ABC have been caught “editing” answers to interviews to benefit Democrats, Republicans should shut them out for at least one election cycle. They can now go to alternative media to get the same message out.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/10/28/whats-kamalas-problem-with-black-men/
For me, Harris’s worst ‘black-friendly’ policy is her promise to hand out a million fully forgivable loans of up to $20,000 to black entrepreneurs. Now, this idea might actually help African Americans, certainly more than the depiction of them as dope-smoking crypto bros who have a problem with women. But it’s still problematic. It still siphons black people off from the rest of the American citizenry as a uniquely troubled group requiring state-led special treatment. It’s economic racial favouritism. And racial favouritism is the very death of class politics. Americans of all backgrounds are struggling right now, post-lockdown, with inflation soaring. To offer one group, and one group alone, large handouts to get their businesses up and running is a recipe for social resentment and even conflict.
It is such a sign of the times that while the supposedly ‘far right’ Donald Trump is out there talking about protecting jobs and improving wages, the ostensible leftists of the Democrats are witlessly pitting blacks against whites in a scuffle for scarce resources. You don’t have to buy the idea that Trump is a billionaire Wat Tyler to be struck that he seems fairly comfortable talking about class, whereas all Kamala has to fall back on is race, and gender, and identity. Why have the Democrats ‘lost support among Black men’?, asks Vox. Oh, I don’t know – maybe people expect more from their leaders than stereotyping, scolding and bungs disguised as loans.
"For me, Harris’s worst ‘black-friendly’ policy is her promise to hand out a million fully forgivable loans of up to $20,000 to black entrepreneurs...."
Pretty certain someone in the judiciary is going to notice that there's a 14th Amendment which seems to apply here. Pacific Legal Foundation is already on a couple of SF 'black only' benes and is making noises regarding reparations.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/10/24/its-unhinged-to-compare-trump-to-hitler/
It seems the empty ‘joyous’ vibe that initially characterised Harris’s campaign has now given way to dystopian fear-mongering about the return of fascism. Harris is now reviving the core message of Joe Biden’s campaign – that Trump poses an existential, fascist-like threat to American democracy. It’s desperate stuff.
Trump is far from a blameless saint, of course. In a sense, he is the architect of his own media misfortunes, given his undisciplined, bombastic speaking style and terrible taste in upper management. But are we really to believe that Trump – a man with Jewish grandchildren – wants to emulate Hitler? It seems fanciful, to say the least. Equally, Trump’s policy platform is hardly Nazi-adjacent. It boils down to a right-wing populism of the protectionist and anti-mass-migration variety. If this is fascism, and an existential threat to democracy, then we really are through the looking glass.
The Trump is Hitler delirium is unlikely to bother everyday Americans, though. They will see this for what it is – yet more embittered political propaganda from an increasingly panicked establishment.
terrible taste in upper management. But are we really to believe that Trump – a man with Jewish grandchildren – wants to emulate Hitler?
Then, of course, there’s the larger, underlying issue that’s being whistled past here. That if the German upper management with impeccable taste had marched 6 million diverse people into ovens at death camps with peerless efficiency, the lack of a bombast with terrible taste in upper management would be a good thing.
Our government funded the research that produced a novel virus that killed over 1 million people domestically and 100 million globally and the ‘fantastic management’ blamed wet markets. More bombast, please.
And more DeVos, Barret, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Pai appointees, more tax cuts, more removal of regulations and WAY MORE LEFTY TEARS!
The issue is that the "joy" was entirely based on the elation of getting Grampy into the old folks home, so that Harris could finally get the nomination that was actually intended for her in 2020 before Tulsi shanked her on live teevee. It wasn't actually based on anything about her as a candidate. "Joy" and "vibes" only works as a sugar high and is associated with good times. It doesn't work in an environment where housing costs are through the roof, personal debt keeps climbing, the entire deficit is basically being caused by the delta between what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pay out versus what they take in, the nation is being flooded with migrants with no vetting whatsoever, and the Regime is trying to get the US into a two-front war with Russia and China due to the massive political polarization.
Lest anyone think I'm exaggerating about that Medicare/Medicaid deficit, this is directly from the US Treasury's Monthly Statement for September:
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Receipts (Table 4, page 10): $386,858,000
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Outlays (Table 5, page 14): $2,222,161,000
FY24 Deficit: $1,833,000,000
FHIT/CMMS Deficit: $1,835,303,000
That deficit is because there's a line of receipts for the FHIT, which also has outlays and is the Medicare program, but not the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, which pays out over $1.5 trillion a year now. But FHIT also ran a deficit.
Lest anyone think this is driven primarily by immigration, this disparity has been baked into the cake for a long time. In 1998, FHIT had receipts of $120 million, and outlays for Medicare/Medicaid $380 million for a deficit of $260 million--which was about $190 million more than the deficit for that year.
Nearly all of what is driving our deficit is, to put it bluntly, the massive expenditure on Medicaid.
Boomer ponzi scheme in full effect. Their last “fuck you” to America will be casting their vote for Kamala.
It's not just or even mostly the Boomers driving this. It's because medical care is expensive as hell, we've got a nation of fat fuckers who are being treated for and dying of heart disease, diabetes, and other obesity-related ailments in massive numbers, and a growing deficit of healthcare providers, a lot of whom are now being taught in college and med school that Native American shamanism is just as legitimate of a medical practice as actual science.
These are fixable issues to a certain extent, but not in ways that would be considered libertarian, and certainly wouldn't be allowed by the turbolib progressives running the Democratic party, who simply think the problem is that we're not printing enough money.
The libertarian way is to get rid of all govt provided healthcare/healthcare reimbursement. If people want to live unhealthy lives, they can pay the market cost for the services they need/want to address the consequences of their life choices. That is very fixable but unpopular because folks would rather plop their fat ass on a couch, watch sportsball, Ding-a-lings of Power, a talking head, some lame ass serial, or whatever else that wastes their time while eating unhealthy shit they picked up on the way home because they are “too busy” to prepare something wholesome at home and to get some exercise.
If fatty wants to fatty, I’m fine with that. But it becomes my problem when I am coerced into funding fatty’s fatty lifestyle.
Medicare and Medicaid may have seemed like a good idea when we had an adult obesity rate of 15% and a child obesity rate of 2-3%. Now our poor and old are fatter than Henry VIII ever was.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/10/27/the-problem-with-critical-theory/
Now, I am no conservative when it comes to sex and sexuality. This will not be an essay arguing that we should roll back contemporary sexual freedoms to some halcyon past. Indeed, I am probably best described as a classic ‘bleeding heart’ liberal gay man, who believes that as long as the sex is among consenting adults then ‘live and let live’. I am also someone who has fought hard for minority rights and against prejudice of all kinds, and continue to do so. But, when it comes to several developments in contemporary sexual life, much of which is driven by critical theory of one kind or another, something is going badly awry.
When I see people arguing that paedophilia and bestiality should be recognised as sexualities in an equivalent manner to being gay or lesbian, I know there is something deeply wrong. When I hear people – including Nicola Sturgeon, the former first minister of Scotland – defending the practice of putting fully intact male rapists in women’s prisons, simply because they claim to be women, then I know we have a problem. And when I watch members of groups like Queers for Palestine cheer on anti-Semitic, misogynistic and homophobic terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, apparently in the service of their avowed anti-colonial, anti-Zionist and anti-capitalist mission, then I know any real critical thinking has left the building.
Darren Langdridge is a professor of psychology and an existential psychotherapist. His latest book is Sexual Citizenship and Social Change,
I am probably best described as a classic ‘bleeding heart’ liberal gay man, who believes that as long as the sex is among consenting adults then ‘live and let live’. I am also someone who has fought hard for minority rights and against prejudice of all kinds, and continue to do so. But, when it comes to several developments in contemporary sexual life, much of which is driven by critical theory of one kind or another, something is going badly awry.
This is a marked difference between "some people who are gay" and the LGBTQI2MAP+ movement. One is a political ideology that required performative acting and really has little to do with people who like to have bedroom time with the same sex. But unfortunately, that's what has successfully confused so many liberal American normies. They think that all of these modern iterations of 'queerness' and in particular, the trans movement are merely gay 2.0 (gay two point naught as Helen Joyce calls it). They're not at all... not even close.
Yes. This. I have several friends who happen to be gay--one has been among my very best friends for 40 years, none of whom are part of the alphabet movement (ok, one may be just a tiny little bit).
Much reminded of a favorite K&P skit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c&ab_channel=ComedyCentral
"...Musk's "illegal lottery scheme": Philadelphia's district attorney is asking a judge to rule Musk's $1 million get-out-the-vote giveaway scheme illegal..."
Ran out of dofus NY DA's?
>>Tariff Gambit
is this what we're calling HnR now?
Bond villain from Bulgaria?
>>On anchor Abby Phillips' CNN show, former MSNBC anchor Mehdi Hasan implied conservative pundit Ryan Girdusky was a Nazi
I was led to believe the Islamists and Nazis were buddies but it looked like these guys were not getting along.
Hasan is Palestinian, and while they will take on the trappings of religion like Islam or Greek Orthodox Christianity, in the west their real religion is marxist political theory.
Hamas itself is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded as a marxist-inspired organization.
>>Muslim Brotherhood
innocuous Boy-Scouty name helps smooth things over w/the MSDNC crowd
Sure, but to be fair, they've been around for 100 years. It started as a Muslim charity organization in Egypt that was based on the same anti-colonialist trappings parroted in academia these days.
>>Earlier this month, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos blocked the paper's endorsement of Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris; the editorial board therefore endorsed no one.
unlike professional scold Jennifer Rubin the other WaPo peeps with standards are endorsing with their feet.
>>Beautiful:
Stephen Miller is not contradicting Ronald Reagan.
reports Bloomberg. "He may even weaken the Federal Reserve, the nation's inflation-fighting central bank."
Ummm. they spelled "inflation-causing" wrong.
best lol this morning so far.
I'm eagerly waiting for Reason to tell us how having a central bank is libertarian.
Joe Rogan won't have Kamala Harris on his show unless she comes to his studio and sits for a 2-3 hour full interview (like Trump did).
What an absolute national treasure this man is.
Do her earrings have a charge that lasts that long?
Can you imagine if this is the best she can do WITH earing earbuds that feed her lines to say?
Yes. And this is how I know she couldn’t cut it at McDonalds. She just couldn’t keep up with the menu.
>>We’ve entered the era in which podcast hosts have more power than a sitting vice president.
legacy media cannot cover for the sitting vice president because podcast hosts. love it. I don't have enough middle fingers.
And this sitting VP apparently had zero power for the last 3-1/2 years, according to her own statements.
I heard according to her own statements she was the last chick in the room when all went down.
"'Offensive' Latino, Puerto Rico jokes at Trump MSG rally launch wave of criticism"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/offensive-latino-puerto-rico-jokes-trump-msg-rally/story?id=115213231
Do I have to connect the dots for you? DO I?!
Practically Hitler.
"When the chief executive can just decide, on a whim, to drastically alter the costs of doing business?"
Thanks to FDR & the [D]-trifecta.
Blaming Trump is just scapegoating.
Newsom just came in his pants!
Latino voters are not turned off by "Latinx" because it's gender inclusive, it's because a bunch of English-Only White Fucks are trying to change their language! "Latinx" is an insult to the Spanish Language.
Are you sure it's not both?
Look, the point is, as guardians of all language and cultural heritage everywhere, people like Brandybuck will inform you of what other people do and do not find offensive and why.
>>Musk ... not ... paying anyone to vote or to register to vote ... [i]s an open question ... whether the Pennsylvania courts will declare his behavior unlawful.
isn't this place the place where everyone should be up in arms about political prosecutions?
You'd think. But, I guess there's a special "unless they're icky" stipulation in libertarian principle I never knew about.
That ship sailed years ago.
We're in this bizarre limbo where we have to worry about political prosecutions in the future but simultaneously ignore political prosecutions right now.
We’ve entered the era in which podcast hosts have more power than a sitting vice president.
Which is fundamentally a good thing. Bluntly, podcast hosts are often brighter, more accomplished and better informed (at least on certain technical topics) than the legacy media or political class. And, even in the cases where they aren't, they specialize in long-form programming that often yields better insights or more thorough observations than you can get from the legacy media with it's focus on talking points and sound bites. Whatever you think of Joe Rogan or Donald Trump, listening to the two of them talk for three hours is going to give you (if you're honest) a better grasp of Trump's thinking than a five minute story on MSNBC, Fox, ABC/NBC/CBS, the New York Times, or Reason magazine.
Plus, unlike most politicos, they offer a product which the market finds of value; they should hold more power than bloviating twits.
Right. I guess what I'm trying to spell out is what the value proposition for podcasts is. I find the format genuinely refreshing compared to the legacy media. They revealed that there is a massive market for deep, detailed, discussion that lays out arguments, rather than working the normal levers of propaganda.
As a bonus, the writing has been on the wall for this for almost a decade, and instead of trying to adapt, the MSM doubled down on the propaganda, bias, and talking points bullshit, thus helping to speed along the process themselves!
Rogan's strength has long been his celebrity visibility combined with his fascination with esoteric topics and conversational personal style. He grew his audience through hard fucking work, and then solidified his independence during COVID and the general stupidity of the last four years.
He's always been a 80s/90s liberal like Musk, who ended up on the right mainly because they didn't follow the rest of the turbolib left in trying to get the communist utopia to come to fruition.
Speaking as a boomer I have to say that the rise of podcasts and YouTubers has renewed my faith in the younger generations and particularly young men. We had 60 Minutes and 20/20 chopped up with commercials and always selling the latest conventional wisdom. If people are actually spending the hours it takes to get through Rogan and Peterson they're likely to learn some critical thinking skills that the public schools are intent on crushing.
The Stossel segments on 20/20 were the only reason to watch.
Dr. D David Schultz gave him a big hand for his journalism efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ
My Silent grandparents absolutely loved that show. And yeah, Stossel's segments were consistently good.
"He may even weaken the Federal Reserve, the nation's inflation-fighting central bank." (As for that last part, girl can dream!)
But how will we know what's in our money?
Soylent Green is people?
oh man I saw a show once about what is in your money ... a lot of cocaine and poop to start
We'll have to spend the money to find out what's in the money.
"Philadelphia's district attorney is asking a judge to rule Musk's $1 million get-out-the-vote giveaway scheme illegal."
Oh.......
So who's going after Harris for promising TRILLIONS in campaign promised 'giveaway' schemes for a vote???????????
Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black.
^ This
“Talk about the Pot”
Let’s talk about Hun Sen, and forget about Pol Pot who never won an election, anyway. He’s been in power in Cambodia from the 1980s onwards, after defecting from the Khmer Rouge and overturning Democratic Kampuchea in a civil war.
‘Beer and a bullet’ was his tried and true campaign strategy. Volunteers offer the punters a glass of beer with a bullet resting on the bottom. The message was crystal clear and simple enough for a Cambodian peasant to understand and take to heart. I suspect Musk’s million dollar scheme is more of a self aggrandizing publicity stunt than an sincere effort to rig the election.
Musk doesn't have nearly the required experience to rig an election compared to the Democratic Party.
"Musk doesn’t have nearly the required experience to rig an election"
Isn't he the richest man in the world? If he doesn't have the money to hire goons to intimidate voters, who does? As I say, publicity stunt.
I didn't say money, I said experience. No one/thing in America has greater experience rigging elections than the Democrat Machine, going back to the 19th Century with Boss Tweed through the 20th Century with Daley's Chicago operation, to the 21st Century with all the shit the Dems pull currently.
Hire a Democrat then.
I literally got a text today from the Harris get out the vote effort that if I sign up and I sign up someone else to do more get out the vote shit, ill be eligible for 700$ drawing.
How is Elon's any worse than this? A pledge to follow the constitution is worse than "we will pay you money to vote for Harris"
"How is Elon’s any worse than this? "
It made the headlines. Election rigging is best done on the QT.
Winning elons money requires no support for any candidate whatsoever, just the constitution.
Dont really know how it could qualify as election rigging in any sense of the word
"Dont really know how it could qualify as election rigging in any sense of the word"
Another reason why it's worse. What's the point of spending all that money if not to rig the election? Two words: publicity stunt.
The state of Pennsylvania unquestionably frowns upon competition from other gangs in their monopoly in the numbers racket.
my pops had a lotto ticket the time the Philly mob weighed down the balls.
WOW!
The comments responding to Bezos' opinion piece are entirely unhinged. The Left is so diseased that they no longer recognize what it means to be well.
After years of being treated with special privileges, fair treatment feels like oppression
"Latinx was always a stupid term:"
It's the appropriate term if ever Elon Musk gets into the business of Latins.
For others I recommend Latin@, with the arroba (@) substituting simultaneously for the a and the o. According to wikipedia, 'arroba' comes from Arabic meaning 'quarter.' It's a unit of weight, about 30 pounds, and represents a quarter of a donkey's carrying capacity.
So now you want to relate them to donkeys?
Racist.
According to wikipedia, ‘arroba’ comes from Arabic meaning ‘quarter.’ It’s a unit of weight, about 30 pounds, and represents a quarter of a donkey’s carrying capacity.
Remember Jim Lewis, LP nominee for vice president in 1984 and second runner-up for president in 1988? He argued the superiority of tariffs and excises for funding the federal government because they were elective taxes: if you didn't want to pay the tax, you could skip buying the particular goods they were applied to.
Isn't it the importers who pay the tariffs? It's a bit much to expect importers to stop importing.
Unless your boyfriend decides to focus on the exporting
It's still too much. Importing is an ancient and noble profession. We ought to protect and respect our importers, regardless of what boyfriends do.
But this is the most important election ever and the LP has gone closet progressive.
Yeah, not so closeted.