Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Immigration

Workplace Raids

Plus: Land acknowledgements, New York's migrant expenditures, and more...

Liz Wolfe | 11.11.2024 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Tom Homan | Annabelle Gordon/CNP / Polaris/Newscom
(Annabelle Gordon/CNP / Polaris/Newscom)

Donald Trump's border czar: Thomas D. Homan will serve as the incoming administration's new handler of immigration and the southern border. The former director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "will be in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin," the president-elect wrote on Truth Social.

Homan, throughout his time at ICE in 2017 and 2018, was a chief architect of the family separation policy, which involved separating children and parents who had crossed the border together so that parents could be criminally prosecuted. In 2018, Homan said the Department of Justice ought "to file charges against the sanctuary cities" and "hold back their funding."

Reason Roundup inline form

The Reason Roundup Newsletter by Liz Wolfe Liz and Reason help you make sense of the day's news every morning.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

When 60 Minutes' Cecilia Vega told Homan last month that one estimate "says it would cost $88 billion to deport a million people a year," Homan replied: "I don't know if that's accurate or not."

"Is that what American taxpayers should expect?" continued Vega.

"What price do you put on our national security? Is that worth it?" responded Homan.

"Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?" pressed Vega.

"Of course there is," responded Homan. "Families can be deported together."

Homan last year defended the old family separation policy by declaring that actually families "chose to separate themselves" when they violated the law.

This new round of mass deportations will be a "humane operation," Homan claimed on Fox News yesterday. "It's going to be a well-targeted, planned operation conducted by the men of ICE. The men and women of ICE do this daily. They're good at it." Given Homan's defense of the family separations the first time around, it's not clear what he considers to be "humane" or whether that is out of step with the American public.

"You concentrate on the public safety threats and the national security threats first," Homan told Fox, claiming that many terrorists slipped into the country under President Joe Biden. This emphasis on violent criminals (some of whom have surely been let in, but are relatively few in number) is an attempt to whitewash what is actually planned for Trump's second term: workplace raids for low-wage workers whose only crime is simply crossing into the country in the first place, who have in many cases tried to pursue legal pathways to firm up their status but have few options available.

This type of raid has not happened under the Biden administration, but Homan says they will resume after January 20, when Trump returns to office.

Such crackdowns—like the 2018 raids that targeted meat processing plants in Ohio or the 2019 wave targeting chicken processing plants in rural Mississippi—can throw entire communities into disarray, screwing up their economies and leaving tons of vacant job openings at the workplaces ransacked by immigration enforcers.


Scenes from New York: Relevant to the above, but a bit of a New York tangent.

"President [Donald] Trump's [deportation] plan is going to be a cost savings for the American people," Tom Homan told Fox. "Because this administration is paying for free airline tickets all over the country, free hotel rooms at $500 bucks a night, free education, free medical care, and that's in perpetuity…they're paying $500 bucks a night for a hotel room in New York City, meanwhile there's empty ICE beds at $127 dollars a night! So President Trump's plan is going to save taxpayers money over time."

Homan's numbers are exaggerated, but the point is at least partly fair. The budgetary commitments get more disturbing the deeper you dig: The city comptroller's office reports, as of last year, that the city Department of Homeless Services (which also handles asylum seekers awaiting court dates) is contracting with some three dozen hotels, being paid daily rates of $55–$385 per day. Our mayor, Eric Adams, has started a "reticketing" program, in which migrants may request one-way plane tickets, either domestic and international, and have them paid for by taxpayers, as part of an initiative to get illegal immigrants—who are costly to taxpayers because of the city's right-to-shelter consent decree (which now terminates after 30 days)—out.

The governments of Texas and Florida are, of course, not fiscally innocent, having spent a fair chunk of change busing migrants to New York, Sacramento, Chicago, and Martha's Vineyard as stunts to get blue-state liberals to start shouldering some of the welfare cost.

The thing that's perhaps hardest to swallow about how much taxpayers have been forced to pay for: To what degree does this politically sabotage the case for increasing legal immigration quotas? When immigrants are seen as welfare mooches, not productive members of society and the workforce, there's surely more political will behind deportation squads.


QUICK HITS

  • I am very excited for the relaunch of Just Asking Questions. We're starting fresh on a separate YouTube channel, which you can subscribe to here. If you watch the show, you know the types of guests we have on: Glenn Greenwald, Stella Assange, Mary Katharine Ham, Dave Smith, Jesse Singal, Mike Solana, Ford Fischer, Nate Silver, Vivek Ramaswamy, Trent Horn, Bryan Johnson, Michael Moynihan, Bob Murphy, Kyla Scanlon. That cool dude from the Cajun Navy. Klaus Schwab's coauthor (lol) who I definitely pissed off. Over the next few months, we have a lot more big and unexpected guests planned, so it's worth subscribing since we're getting the boot from the main Reason YouTube channel!

we're relaunching our show, Just Asking Questions (cc @TheAbridgedZach) on a separate youtube channel. it's going to be bigger and better than before. subscribe. pic.twitter.com/zIrzgAnyX6

— Liz Wolfe (@LizWolfeReason) November 8, 2024

  • Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat, just won re-election to her seat in a rural red district in Washington. She has some choice words for her own party: "The fundamental mistake people make is condescension. A lot of elected officials get calloused to the ways that they're disrespecting people."
  • "About a week after the September debate, Mr. Trump started spending heavily on a television ad that hammered Ms. Harris for her position on a seemingly obscure topic: the use of taxpayer funds to fund surgeries for transgender inmates. 'Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access,' Ms. Harris said in a 2019 clip used in the ad," per The New York Times. "But the ad, with its vivid tagline — 'Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you'—broke through in Mr. Trump's testing to an extent that stunned some of his aides."
  • "The incoming Trump administration would in theory be able to replace heads of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on day one, at least on an interim basis," reports Bloomberg. "Both of those officials are crucial to the process to propose and enact the new regulations, and banks are already seizing the moment to begin advocating for appointments seen as more friendly to the industry."
  • Interesting:

Well then! Trump announces on Truth Social he will "not be inviting former Ambassador Nikki Haley, or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, to join the Trump Administration, which is currently in formation" pic.twitter.com/aKZuYd2yx9

— Meridith McGraw (@meridithmcgraw) November 9, 2024

  • Call me cynical, but the land acknowledgements were never actually for Natives in the first place; they were a way of signaling to other upper-middle-class progressives.

Land acknowledgements from now on should acknowledge that Native Americans voted against the ppl who do land acknowledgements. https://t.co/UEE1g8EsVE

— Alice (@AliceFromQueens) November 11, 2024

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Feds Use ‘Border Security’ To Justify Social Media Surveillance

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason.

ImmigrationMigrantsBorder patrolDonald TrumpCampaigns/ElectionsElection 2024Federal governmentPoliticsPolicyReason Roundup
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (496)

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

  1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    Better put Fiona on suicide watch.

    1. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   1 year ago

      Or send her, bohem, and sullum to Canada.
      They have a great way to help with depression

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

        None of the TDS-addled piles of shit seem to be able to find their way to the airport. I would gladly pay a taxi to take Sullum to, well, the nearest body of deep water and toss his sorry ass in. With concrete boots.

    2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      I would watch her suicide.

      1. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

        M!A!I!D! M!A!I!D! M!A!I!D! M!A!I!D!

  2. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   1 year ago

    I acknowledge that the land I bought and currently reside on is mine, all property tax it teft from the goverment saying I don't actually own the land, and the gov will at any time send a goon squad to try and kill me if they want the land

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      You don't own your land. You rent it from the public schools.

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

        LOL! Now that is an astute observation.

        1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

          A rare moment of clarity.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

            Maybe. Sarc could have been trying to make fun of the alt-Rev.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Or maybe I was making a joke that's funny because it's true. Ever think of that? No? Didn't think so.

              1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                Still waiting on your cite for the VAST majority of your posts being more moderate. Did you choose a week yet?

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Still waiting for you to get a life.

                  1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                    So no.

                    It would just be easier to admit you're a pathological liar =)

              2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                And... you ruined it. It is no longer funny once you sarcsplain it to us.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  I already took a shit this morning, so no need for your opinion.

                  1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

                    Do you ever wonder why nobody respects you? This thread right here. You so clearly troll for abuse. It is fucking pathetic.

      2. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

        Good one.

      3. Chumby   1 year ago

        +10 points for Sarcasmic.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

          Still leaves him well in the red though.

          1. Chumby   1 year ago

            +15 points for ITL

      4. damikesc   1 year ago

        You're not wrong. It annoys my in laws when we discuss how if you do not pay your taxes, the government will just seize your property. Total BS.

    2. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

      This is somewhat surprising. Growing up on the rez, the rez almost universally voted blue, however, a large percentage of Amerindians are veterans, gun owners, fairly conservative in their social outlook etc. Still, all my Amerindian friends on Facebook are still whining about Trump winning. So, I wonder if this is a rez Indian vs non-rez Indian thing.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        65% of Native Americans voting for Trump is just begging the Democrats to do another Trail of Tears.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          I think many Democrats are on their own trail of tears this week.

  3. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    Trump announces on Truth Social he will "not be inviting former Ambassador Nikki Haley, or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, to join the Trump Administration,

    Guess he learned a thing or two.

    1. Chumby   1 year ago

      I just saw Haley’s comment.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        sweet. 76 years until the next.

        1. tracerv   1 year ago

          Ha. +1

          Need a damn like button around here.

      2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

        What was Haley's comment to it? I haven't seen it.

  4. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   1 year ago

    It should be noted that all criminals get seperate from their children when they go to prison

    1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

      The unvoiced argument is that the wife usually remains free and can take care of the children, whereas both immigrant parents are criminals.

      I have a sneaking suspicion that most burglar wives know darn well their husband is a burglar, but DAs don't want to have to prove that and juries might be reluctant to convict them and force the children into foster homes.

      1. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

        But when both parents are in on th he crime? And in many cases they aren't even the parents, that's just a Leftist stolen base for a talking point.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      That's why all criminal prosecution is "unjust".

    3. mad.casual   1 year ago

      It should also be noted that, rather than mass deportations, separated or together, the families are free to walk right back across the border together.

      1. The Margrave of Azilia   1 year ago

        The family that self-deports together stays together.

    4. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      Hell, sometimes they don't even need to be in jail. CPS just pops in and yanks them away, although this seems to happen more often in suburban whiteopias rather than vibrant ethnic ghettos.

  5. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    But the ad, with its vivid tagline — 'Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you'—broke through in Mr. Trump's testing to an extent that stunned some of his aides."

    Facts are facts. They don’t change.

    1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      Trumps ad campaigns were incredibly cost-effective. Most of his ads were just news footage of Harris speaking...e.g., "Not a thing comes to mind."

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

        She was campaigning for him the entire time, every time she opened her yap.

        1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

          I said that (she was an empty vessel that cannot speak extemporaneously) the day Biden was removed, in a bloodless political coup, and Kamala was installed.

          They/them vs You ad was simply brilliant.

          1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

            Apparently, the Trump campaign had to tamp down on the messaging for that campaign. Too many focus group members did not believe the true Democrat positions on those issues were real.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

              “Reality is unrealistic”.

            2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

              Well it helps when the ad is of Kamala speaking the "unreal" positions herself.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Facts are facts? How dare you! Did you go to Columbia J-school?

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

        I don’t think he does journalisming, dude.

      2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

        And, what, next you're going to tell me that facts don't care about my feels.

    3. Chumby   1 year ago

      That was the ad which I thought, “Trump did a solid there.” Iirc, it had video and audio of Kamala talking about US citizens funding transitions of illegal aliens.

  6. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    It looks like New York doesn’t want a food truck based economy after all.

    1. Ska   1 year ago

      There's only so much curbside space in midtown.

  7. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   1 year ago

    “The incoming Trump administration would in theory be able to replace heads of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on day one,”

    Day one
    Trump ” I am granting Ross Albright a full pardon. He will now be offered a position on the consumer protection board.
    I also grant Douglass Mackey a full pardon, and will offer him a board position on the fec.

    Last I offer Edward Snowden a full pardon, hey cia and nsa, guess who your new boss is! “

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

      ^+1

    2. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

      Awesome picks. A sure signal to the swamp.

    3. mad.casual   1 year ago

      Last I offer Edward Snowden a full pardon, hey cia and nsa, guess who your new boss is!

      Hitler? Russia?

    4. Eeyore   1 year ago

      Good ideas.

    5. shadydave   1 year ago

      I'm still holding out for Alex Jones as White House Press Secretary

      1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

        Michael Malice as Press Secretary!

  8. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    You really can't hate the deep state enough

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fema-worker-fired-after-directing-workers-to-avoid-helping-hurricane-survivors-who-supported-trump/ar-AA1tNGCw

    AFederal Emergency Management Agency worker has been fired after she directed workers helping hurricane survivors not to go to homes with yard signs supporting President-elect Donald Trump, the agency's leader said in a statement Saturday.

    “This is a clear violation of FEMA’s core values and principles to help people regardless of their political affiliation,” FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell said. “This was reprehensible.”

    The agency did not identify the employee, nor did it say where it happened.

    But Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, calling it “targeted discrimination” of Florida residents who support Trump, said it happened in Florida.

    DeSantis said he has directed the Florida Division of Emergency Management to begin an investigation into the matter.

    “The blatant weaponization of government by partisan activists in the federal bureaucracy is yet another reason why the Biden-Harris administration is in its final days,” DeSantis said on social media.

    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

      They've identified who it is. Now she is claiming FEMA workers were under violent threat so she was protecting her employees and doing so at the behest of her bosses.

      1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

        Too bad for Marni there is no corroboration of violent threats in FL where she and her team were working.

        I just want to know the law that was broken, and the maximum penalty. Is there jail time?

        1. Marshal   1 year ago

          Too bad for Marni there is no corroboration of violent threats in FL where she and her team were working.

          I bet $1,000 she's working for the education system within 6 weeks.

        2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          IANAL...and deleting the "if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill" segments as they do not seem applicable...

          18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

          Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both

          42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

          Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

          18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

          If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same...They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

      2. Chumby   1 year ago

        She better have documentation of that or her nee career as an unemployed former government employee will be hard without that federal paycheck and benefits package.

        1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

          Probably not, since it was the workers she told not to do the visits to Trump supporters who turned her in. First she told them verbally and then she was stupid enough to say so in a group chat with no explanation. She also never cleared it with her superiors. Not the brightest bulb on the tree if she thought this wouldn't come out.

          1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            And this first came out in the media last week, but the complaints from the whistleblowers were known to FEMA weeks ago, yet they originally just reassigned her and hadn't fired her until today when they got called to Capitol Hill to explain.

            1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

              It was awfully convenient for the Dems that this story didn't break into national news until a couple days after election day.

    2. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

      Depending on the circumstances, this can be attempted manslaughter, up to actual manslaughter.

      FEMA not identifying the agent is conspiracy.

      1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

        https://nypost.com/2024/11/09/us-news/fema-official-who-allegedly-told-workers-to-avoid-florida-homes-with-trump-signs-fired-report/

        1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

          Thanks, but she still needs criminal charges.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Say her name! OK, Marn’i Washington.

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

        This is why you can’t have chicks in charge.

  9. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    Brutal but true...

    "Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?" pressed Vega.

    "Of course there is," responded Homan. "Families can be deported together."

  10. lwt1960   1 year ago

    I'm amazed at how Liz twists herself into a pretzel to make her point. Does she not remember all those pictures of separated families were actually from the Obama administration? What is out of step with the American public is the view that people crossing the border illegally should be afforded extra-legal rights not afforded American citizens. Read the room!

    As for the impact on legal immigration, so long as illegal immigration sucks all the air out of the room, legal immigration discussions will be suffocated. Fix the first, then deal with the second in a sober manner without the stench of criminal gangs storming the border hanging over the discussions.

    Trans inmate surgeries. As Libertarians, you should have a basic understanding of economics. All resources are scarce and economics are about allocation of those resources. Medicare/Medicaid are broke and will eventually break the public bank. So why are we allocating what remains of a very scarce to a fringe issue of an elective surgery for someone who willfully violated the social contract? It's the same dog with different fleas as housing illegal immigrants in hotels and giving them pre-laoded EBT cards while citizens are losing their homes due to inflation. This isn't brain surgery.

    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

      She also ignores that the families were reunited after a DNA test. What DHS found was many of the children were not related to those claiming family relationships.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        And, given the astounding odds of what transpired when OH enacted its "abortion ban", that’s still whistling past the graveyard.

      2. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

        There’s a substantial amount of human trafficking going on with minors crossing the border. You have to wonder how many of them wound up at Diddy parties, Epstein type places, and Comet Pizza.

    2. Muzzled Woodchipper   1 year ago

      I’m totally willing to hear her perspectives and give her an honest intellectual reading. She might be wrong about many things (she is, but then so are we all). Her pet projects may seem trite (they certainly are when the average person can’t afford groceries).

      But in the end even she saw the writing on the wall and, reluctantly or not, pulled the lever for Trump. For a fairly young white, college educated woman residing in NY who cares deeply about access to an abortion, she was perfectly able to wade through the non-stop mud of “Trumps abortion ban”, Handmaids Tales screeds, etc (along with the standard Trump = Hitler stupidity) and see what really matters: that affording groceries is higher on the priority list than whatever pet projects or ideas might be important in times of plenty. And, perhaps moreover, properly understood that abortion is no longer a federal issue, and that Trump isn’t a threat to that. She was able to drop her luxury beliefs, or at least prioritize them, in a sane way.

      Even in this article she shows that she’s coming around in other issues in ways most would never give her credit for:

      Homan's numbers are exaggerated, but the point is at least partly fair. The budgetary commitments get more disturbing the deeper you dig:

      Sure, she still shows her squishy (and maybe a bit racist) side on immigration (whole communities will be affected if illegals are deported, and what will happen to chicken processing plants!), but being able to see and state the obvious problems is important, and she does that, just as she did when deciding to vote for Trump, even if she has misgivings.

      Liz is not always right. In fact, she’s often wrong. But she is using reason in her decision-making when making real decisions matters. When she doesn’t have to spend $400 on less than a week’s worth of food at the store, fighting for *insert pet issue here* is a reasonable decision. But when the entire nation is under the boot of Democrat-led inflation (with the promise for more economic calamity), or when the entire nation is run based on the craziest ideas from the most left leaning faculty lounges in the country, she was able to set aside the things that otherwise might be important to her. That’s the hallmark of intelligence, even if we can’t always agree.

      1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

        Liz Wolfe is openly against abortion. She's probably one of the few, possibly only, writers at Reason who isn't pro-choice or pro-abortion.

        Also, she didn't say she was going to vote for Trump in the Reason article where everyone announced his/her votes. She hinted that she may very well do so, but wasn't sure.

    3. MoreFreedom   1 year ago

      Yeah, as long as illegals can come here without screening, they will and many of them will overwhelm the welfare, education, and medical systems. More importantly, the Democrats won't come to the bargaining table to increase legal immigration, of good people who aren't criminals and don't use welfare.

      It doesn't represent government protecting citizens' lives, or their tax money.

  11. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    It seems like Fiona or Shikha helped write today's column.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Do you think either of them got out of their pillow forts?

  12. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

    If the answer is anything other than "Yes, Sir!", then how is this not coup plotting?

    New: Pentagon officials are having informal conversations about how the DOD would respond if Donald Trump issues orders to deploy active-duty troops domestically and fire large swaths of apolitical staffers, officials tell @NatashaBertrand and me

    1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

      The claim is pretty vague. There are certainly limitations on the use of troop domestically outlined in the Posse Comitatus Act. Refusing such an order would be appropriate in some hypothetical situations.

      As for firing staffers, that seems like his privilege as Commander in Chief.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        That's stuff that they were taught in officer school. Why do they need to make contingency plans?

        "Say Quicktown, I don't like the new manager. Let's talk about potential ways we don't have to listen to what he says". That would be bad in a workplace situation. It's treason in the military.

        1. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

          I admit to being entirely ignorant about officer training. I see your point here, though.

        2. ducksalad   1 year ago

          False. Treason is defined in the Constitution, and the Constitution makes zero distinction between military and civilian.

          Quicktown Brix, with all due respect, you don't need to know about military training, because no amount of training can trump the Constitution and or create a new definition of treason. ML is just making stuff up. Disobeying an order to, say, peel potatoes or deport citizens is not and never has been treason. Even in time of war it would be classified as mutiny, not treason.

          1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

            Hey Mike, you’re aware that the Feds have jurisdiction near the border correct? Or you just winging your knowledge again?

            You may not agree with it, but troops can constitutionally be sent to the border.

            But knowledge was never a forte of yours.

            1. ducksalad   1 year ago

              Troops can be sent anywhere. They get ordered from post to post all the time, and the posts don't even have to be near the border. Amazing that you didn't know that, dumbass.

              As far as the feds having jurisdiction near the border, you're correct but misleading. The feds have jurisdiction throughout the United States.

              Perhaps you have some ignorant belief that there's a special federal zone near the border. No. You're probably thinking about the SC ruling that allowed checkpoints within the US but near the border, which the feds have interpreted to be less than 100 miles.

              But anyway, your whole "point" is off the mark, because you don't understand the conversation. We're talking about ordering the military to do something illegal.

              1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

                ""You’re probably thinking about the SC ruling that allowed checkpoints within the US but near the border, which the feds have interpreted to be less than 100 miles.""

                Doesn't that create a defacto special federal zone?

                1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                  Shhh. Let Mike work through it.

                2. ducksalad   1 year ago

                  Not even a little bit, and if you read the SC opinion, they specifically said they were NOT creating a constitution-free zone. All they were doing was stating what was a "reasonable" search incident to a border crossing.

                  The decision also had zero to do with the military. There are situations where the military can do law enforcement. None of them depend on whether it's near the border or not. If it's legal for them to make arrests at the border, it's legal for them to make the same arrest anywhere. Conversely, if it's not legal in Kansas, it's not legal in South Texas.

                  Of course the President could assign the military to duty that happened to be in South Texas and not in Kansas. But that has nothing to do with some kind of special zone with reduced civil liberties.

                  1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

                    “”and if you read the SC opinion, they specifically said they were NOT creating a constitution-free zone. “”

                    You said a federal zone, not constituion-free zone.

              2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                Man. That's a lot of words to say I'm right and you ignored what the discussions were in regards to Mike.

                Jeff has trained you well in saying a lot and trying to hedge what you mean.

                1. ducksalad   1 year ago

                  I said you're misleading. The word "but" after correct confused you, just like it causes you to misread Reason articles.

                  Let me be more plain. You were and are a gaslighting liar. Your comment was in support of a general plan of gaslighting and lying, regardless of anything you incidentally said that is correct.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

                    You speak of gaslighting, Mike? You're one of the biggest gaslighters here outside of Jeffy and I mean that both literally and figuratively.

          2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

            "False. Treason is defined in the Constitution, and the Constitution makes zero distinction between military and civilian.

            Explain how this contravenes anything I just said, you discount shill.

            1. ducksalad   1 year ago

              This is your false statement:

              That would be bad in a workplace situation. It’s treason in the military.

              Note that I did not call you a liar. This one is just ignorance.

              1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                Sigh... If the workplace employees conspired against the incoming manager, you purposefully stupid fuck, it's not constitutionally treason. When the Pentagon brass do it to the Commander in Chief appointed by the people it is.

                Are you just flinging shit, or did you honestly think that was an argument?

                1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

                  Actually, it is mutiny, which is a capital offense.

                  1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                    Depends on the circumstances. It can be either, or both, depending upon what the orders are, and how you conspired not to obey them.

                2. ducksalad   1 year ago

                  I'll respond to you, although you're just one of the idiots .

                  1. The quote was "how to respond" not "how to disobey".

                  2. Somehow you, not anyone in the military, turned that into "plotting a mutiny".

                  3. You yourself believe any order Trump is planning to give would be lawful. Planning how to respond to expected or potential orders is normal, and in fact part of the job description for those at a high enough level.

                  Turning the border into the Southern Front would be a large and complex operation. It would be irresponsible not to plan.

        3. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

          No it is not Treason. Treason is narrowly defined as waging war against the usa or giving aid and comfort to an enemy.

          1. BYODB   1 year ago

            What, like giving billions in cash to Iran that gets directly used to attack American soldiers?

            I mean, if that isn't no shit treason than nothing is.

          2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

            or giving aid and comfort to an enemy.

            So like what Milley did with the Chinese generals then?

            “Treason is narrowly defined as waging war against the USA”

            The Constitution defines it as “in levying War against them (the US)”, not waging war.

            Criminaldefenselawyer[dot]com explains:

            “Levying war isn’t limited to formally declaring war. It includes any forcible opposition to the execution of a public law.”

            So what the Pentagon is doing then is either Conspiracy to levy war or Seditious conspiracy. Up here it would just be plain old treason.

            1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

              Don't think China is a declared enemy of the USA. You right levying, was going off memory. Most likely charge is mutiny/sedition or willfully failing to follow a superiors lawful order; all of which could be deemed as capital punishment depending the circumstances.

              And yes, Treason is different in USA and Canada, probably due to the fact the founders of America all committed treason against the crown whilst your country still has politicians swear an allegiance to the crown, see recent Yukon city council protest over this.

              1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                You wouldn't believe the stupid, authoritarian shit that oath prevents lawmakers who aren't really limited by the constitution from doing though.

          3. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            It can be either or both, depending on the circumstances and the orders given.
            California erupts in armed revolt, and the generals refuse to fight them, yeah, it very well can be considered treason.

            1. ducksalad   1 year ago

              You know, Trump isn’t president until January 20, 2025.

              Suppose Biden ordered the generals to come up with a contingency plan in case (for example) they received an order to deploy domestically and arrest US citizens. Let’s go whole hog and say his order was quite specifically to plan for resisting the order.

              Is it mutiny to make the plan? Or mutiny to resist orders to make the plan to resist the plan?

              1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                He is the president elect, which means if they do plot to disobey him, it's still illegal under the UCMJ, because he will have authority on 20 Jan. Plotting to subvert or ignore an incoming commander is still illegal. Nice try dip shit but you're still wrong on this. Biden can order them to do this, but that is actually an illegal order.

                1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                  And the reason that is an illegal order is you cannot order a soldier to be insubordinate or disobey a lawfully appointed superior. There is actual JAG case law, that is surprisingly extensive, for this exact scenario, one superior commanding his troops to disobey the incoming superior. It's illegal as hell.

              2. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

                You know, Trump isn’t president until January 20, 2025.

                Nor was Lincoln until March 3, 1861, but that didn't stop the Democrats in South Carolina from seceding at the end of 1860.

                Nice try at strawmen, dipshit.

      2. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   1 year ago

        Obama fired all those not loyal to the global homo agenda

        1. Dillinger   1 year ago

          well yeah … he had to know which ones would welcome him thinking about them daily.

      3. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

        ""Posse Comitatus Act""

        How much of that is left after the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act?

    2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      Making plans in case soldiers refuse to take military action against fellow Americans is coup plotting? What the fuck?

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        Yes, you stupid fuck. They all know what an actual illegal order is. You reply with a "no sir". They don't have to "plan" how to deal with it.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          You reply with a “no sir”.

          You just said that any answer other than “Yes, Sir!” is coup plotting.

          Make up your mind.

          1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

            Planning ahead to refuse orders is plotting.

            1. ducksalad   1 year ago

              All I saw was planning how to deal with it.

              They plan for action in the South China Sea, in case it's ordered. They plan for a domestic deployment, in case it's ordered. They plan for large scale firing of staffers, in case it's ordered.

              What's wrong with any of that? It would be irresponsible not to have a plan for how to operate with large numbers of staff gone, especially when the POTUS-elect's team is saying large numbers of staffers will be gone.

              Only in the mind of someone like ML is the entire planning for an engagement in the South China Sea limited to "We will say Yes Sir".

              1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

                There is a very fundamental difference between planning to execute orders you may receive, and planning to not execute the order you may receive.

                1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                  He knows. He's a piece of shit, attempting (poorly) to spin away any criticism of the Democratic Party and their agents.

          2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

            No sir to an unlawful order. Neither of the examples they presented is unlawful, and I know you know that.

            1. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

              And the 'unlawful order' exception is a two edged sword, because you have to prove the order was unlawful or face the consequences. It isn't a carte blanche to disobey orders you disagree with. It has to be blatantly illegal, as in war crimes level illegal. Like Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, death squad level illegal. Not I don't like those orders and I think they're legally gray.

        2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          They don’t have to “plan” how to deal with it.

          If their Commander in Chief values loyalty over the law (which seems to be the case) then they do need to make plans.

          1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

            Wrong.

          2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

            First, that isn't true. It's actually your team that's been breaking laws like madmen. Secondly, they all know what an illegal order is and what to do it they get one. This is looking for an excuse to rebel and, wait for it... planning insurrection.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              I know I won the argument when you have to argue against a strawman named “your team”.

              1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                Okay, let's try again. I'll take "your team" out:

                First, that isn’t true. It’s actually the Democrats that’ve been breaking laws like madmen. Secondly, they all know what an illegal order is and what to do it they get one. This is looking for an excuse to rebel and, wait for it… planning insurrection.

                Alright, GO!

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  I don't make excuses for Democrats, and I'm not going to start now.
                  I see it as a plan for dealing with those who refuse unlawful orders.

                  1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                    Lol.

                    So you never say they have good intentions?

                    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                      I think most people have good intentions. There are exceptions of course, like you for example, but I think that for the most part even Democrats have good intentions. Problem is that their well intentioned policies have terrible results. They only see their good intentions, so they look around for someone else to blame when it goes wrong. You, being the very definition of a bad faith actor, see the bad results and claim that was their true intention. That’s because you project your bad intentions and ill will onto others. That’s not making excuses though, just an explanation as for why their efforts end so badly, and why you’re a worthless prick.

                    2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

                      Sarc and his “ambassador”.

                    3. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                      Don't make me mute you again DLAM. Wait. You were already on mute...

                      I took you off mute...

                      Man this is tiring yet sarc does it all the time.

                    4. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

                      You muted me?
                      Ohh, sick burn.

                    5. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                      DLAM got muted? But that's the worst punishment there is!

                  2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                    I see it as a plan for dealing with those who refuse unlawful orders.

                    But they didn't say that's what they were doing.

              2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

                Good thing jeff never uses that phrase.

              3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                Yup, you should read the screeds he posted yesterday. Entirely strawmen directed against some imaginary enemy in his mind.

                1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

                  Speaking for yourself again, Jeffy? You’re the strawman king around these parts.

                2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                  What the fuck are you babbling about now, fifty-center?

          3. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

            Man, guess tour pivot to the center ended months before I thought it would.

            Then again you have been consistent with believing the unelected bureau should be more powerful than the president.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Then again you have been consistent with believing the unelected bureau should be more powerful than the president.

              I have been consistent in wanting to tear down the bureaucracy you lying sack of shit.

              1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                Speaking of lies.

                You’ve been here for months saying Trump was going to go on a revenge your.

                Just Saturday you said this in a post about FIRING federal employees calling it a firing squad.

                You’re such a fucking dishonest pathological piece of shit lol.

                Hint. The day is in this post if you want to continue lying like the shit weasel you are.

          4. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

            At this point, no unlawful orders have been given. The only "plan" needed should one ever be given is to say "No sir, I cannot comply with that unlawful order."

          5. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

            What objective evidence can you cite to support that = ...their Commander in Chief values loyalty over the law (which seems to be the case)...

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              I used the word "seems" because the evidence is what people who worked in his first administration said. I doubt they're outright lying, but they could be exaggerating.

              1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

                You are too afraid to even say Gen Kelly lol. One person. Who has lied multiple times in regards to Trump.

                But you accept his version because he is a darling of MSNBC while ignoring the many others who said Kelly was lying.

                This is called cognitive bias sarc.

                You believe the 1 known liar over the many who dispute the claims. Solely because it supports your predisposed beliefs.

        3. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   1 year ago

          Did you order the code red?

          1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

            You can't handle the truth!

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

              "You need me on that wall!"

              "What wall?"

        4. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

          Yeah, Sarc and WhiteMikesalad are being deliberately obtuse. There is a chain of command and only an officer actually given an illegal order has the authority to refuse. There is no denying that, "having informal conversations" or, "making plans" in this context is plotting to defy the CinC.

          Treason is specific to waging war and/or aiding enemies. This is more along the lines of conspiracy to mutiny. At the very least, the proper response would be a court marshal and a dishonorable discharge.

          1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

            A voice of reason.

          2. ducksalad   1 year ago

            Since you at least know some law: how is "planning to respond" the same as "planning to refuse".

            The military makes contingency plans all the time.

            1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

              The military never makes contingency plans to refuse their superior officer's orders. Never. This is a first and should result in court martials.

            2. Uilleam   1 year ago

              Who is ‘The military’ you insufferable dishonest twat? Each individual in ‘The military’ takes an oath to obey all lawful orders. We also swear to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic and that oath never expires. We don’t need a decision tree you retard. If 'they' are ‘planning’ on how to respond to lawful orders, then they aren’t planning anything legal.

              1. See.More   1 year ago

                > ... and that oath never expires.

                ^ This!

              2. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

                In fact, the very reason the founding fathers put the military under elected civilian control was to avoid the generals from doing exactly this.

            3. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

              You don't ever, ever, plan a contingency to disobey your superiors. That's how you end up at Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks. You never plan this shit. That's called a conspiracy and CID will come down on almost any soldiers (except the vaunted Pentagon oligarchs) with both feet and JAG will give it to you raw without lube. Fuck, another person who never served trying to lecture and excuse what is blatant premeditated insubordination. If these weren't Pentagon generals, the MP would already have the steel bracelets on them.

            4. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

              By the spirit of the UCMJ and by the actual letter, you cannot ever plan on how to disobey a law. You are taught from day one what is and isn’t a lawful order and how to respond. No planning is necessary because every buck private up already is trained in this dumbfuck. The very act of planning is illegal under the UCMJ, it’s called conspiracy to circumvent the chain of command. And it’s illegal as hell. Any private to Colonel who did this shit would be arrested already and most generals too. But for some reason not the popinjays at the Pentagon. Which is one of the biggest fucking problems with today’s military, the fucking Pentagon brass has forgotten their chain of command and don't follow the same standards the make every one else in uniform follow.

            5. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

              how is “planning to respond” the same as “planning to refuse”

              Others have mentioned it, but I will be pedantic. As far as my knowledge and experience is reliable, there is only one allowable response to a clear and direct order: an acknowledgement, and it is not optional, but required. Any other response, whether planned or unplanned amounts to a refusal. Refusing an lawful order is a crime. There is plenty of precedent to support this argument.

              Bringing up "contingency plans" is a red herring, Contingency plans are corollary to orders being followed.

      2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

        The orders discussed in this case were being used at the border to stop illegal entry idiot. Not to go attack American citizens.

        1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

          They have a duty to carry out those orders unless such orders violate the law.

    3. ducksalad   1 year ago

      Just to educate some ignorant foreigners: In the US, there are laws about when and how the army can be deployed domestically. The military oath in the US requires obeying orders, but only according to the UCMJ, which specifically prohibits obeying orders contrary to the laws of the United States.

      I understand that for you, "I was just following orders" is a perfectly good excuse, and there is no law higher than obeying authority. It's a common attitude among Canadians, and after all, that's essentially the historical reason why Canada is a separate country. The king's men were breaking the law of the time, and Loyalists were OK with that.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        Chat GPT response incoming.

        1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

          Your response here is little more than a cheap shot, twisting a purely American discussion to insult my nationality rather than address the actual topic. It’s an underhanded tactic to distract from the substance of the conversation, and it’s one that reveals far more about your intentions than anything about Canada or its people.

          For context, lawful versus unlawful orders in the U.S. military isn’t some murky area in need of clandestine planning. American military officers, like Canadian ones, are thoroughly trained to recognize and reject unlawful orders as part of their sworn duty. So when you suggest that “discussions” about disobeying orders are somehow necessary, it’s clear you’re not genuinely addressing protocol—you’re attempting to normalize what is essentially scheming outside of the chain of command. This isn’t about upholding the law; it’s about pushing the boundaries of legality to entertain ideas of insurrection under the guise of patriotism.

          The issue isn’t about a “foreign” or “Canadian” mentality—it’s about upholding lawful conduct in democratic systems, something that doesn’t require national boundaries to understand. So let’s keep the focus where it belongs: on the dangerous implications of excusing coup plotting by falsely framing it as a necessary defense against hypothetical “unlawful orders.”

          1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

            So let’s keep the focus where it belongs: on the dangerous implications of excusing coup plotting by falsely framing it as a necessary defense against hypothetical “unlawful orders.”

            Why would whitemikesalad do that when he can equivocate that Trump is Hitler and anyone that believes Trump would issue lawful orders is a Nazi.

            1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

              Whitemikesalad sure sounds insurrectiony.

          2. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

            In fact, this is the very reason the writers of the Constitution placed the military under an elected civilian, so the generals don't start plotting shit like this. It's a very short step from planning on disobeying orders, to troops in DC placing you in charge. In fact, this is also why no one was promoted past the rank of Major General after Washington resigned until Grant was given that rank and why there were no four star (or five star ranks) until much later, to insure that no general had enough power to pull shit like this without getting punished.

            1. Uilleam   1 year ago

              ^

      2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

        And Mike didn't actually educate anybody. Standard for Mike.

        He is defending, again, the unelected officials forming The Resistance. As he did from 2016 to 2020. His concern is hampering an elected official even if orders are legal in nature.

      3. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

        Just to educate those not familiar with this steaming pile of shit, ducksalad is:
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

      4. DesigNate   1 year ago

        Regardless of its treason or mutiny, the fact remains that there is no need to “plan” for the possibility of an unlawful order more than saying “No sir, I will not carry out that order.” Which, I would note, wasn’t being publicly talked about when pudding pants got elected, even after directly violating the constitution multiple times.

      5. soldiermedic76   1 year ago

        When did you serve again? Oh you never, than you have no fucking clue what the fuck you're talking about moron. No, you don't get to conspire before the orders are even given. And yes, enforcing the border/protecting the border is a totally lawful use of the military. Nothing illegal about it moron.

      6. Uilleam   1 year ago

        You do realize that there are a bunch of vets posting here and that they all had actual classes on this in basic? Which means they are all eminently more qualified to comment on this then you ever will be. Piss off dirtbag.

    4. mad.casual   1 year ago

      What’s the endgame other than to make yourself look like a bunch of retards?

      Actual insurrection, people showing up with their own weapons… OK. This is America, mostly peaceful burning down of police stations and historic churches happens.

      But, on the other side, “We’re going to continue to file the paperwork necessary to cash everyone’s paychecks even though we were fired and then not quell unrest if ordered.”

      If you hate upper management that much, grow a spine and develop a plan to find a new job.

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

        If you hate upper management that much, grow a spine and develop a plan to find a new job.

        For governmental employees, their employer is "the People". But the upper management consists only of other governmental employees. Until and unless there is real accountability to management, they will continue to do whatever the fuck they want and nothing they don't want.

    5. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      All of a sudden, the DoD directive that allowed troops to go after American citizens is a problem. Rachel Madcow even mentioned it in her little meltdown rant that's gone viral.

      Hey lefty fucks in the brass, how about you just revise the fucking directive?

  13. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

    "...Homan, throughout his time at ICE in 2017 and 2018, was a chief architect of the family separation policy, which involved separating children and parents who had crossed the border together so that parents could be criminally prosecuted. In 2018, Homan said the Department of Justice ought "to file charges against the sanctuary cities" and "hold back their funding."..."

    Seems to be the right guy for the job, unless you are a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.

    1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      “to file charges against the sanctuary cities” and “hold back their funding.”…”

      I really do hate that tactic. If the state doesn't want to enforce your federal rules, they don't have to. The potential negative effects of reversing that dichotomy and increasing central power could be devastating.

      1. Jerry B.   1 year ago

        But if the State wants to enforce Federal laws the Feds don’t enforce, that’s illegal.

      2. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

        I would reverse the legislative hierarchy. Every lesser jurisdiction can pass laws nullifying or modifying parent legislation, within that lesser jurisdiction. I realize it falls apart for cities and counties in some states, where cities are created by states, but the general principle holds.

  14. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    "About a week after the September debate, Mr. Trump started spending heavily on a television ad that hammered Ms. Harris for her position on a seemingly obscure topic: the use of taxpayer funds to fund surgeries for transgender inmates. 'Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access,' Ms. Harris said in a 2019 clip used in the ad," per The New York Times. "But the ad, with its vivid tagline — 'Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you'—broke through in Mr. Trump's testing to an extent that stunned some of his aides."

    That's because the ad touched on some of the most fundamental differences between D and R on both the cultural and fiscal fronts.

    D's demand that taxpayers pay for the most extreme and controversial treatments for those most people would deem least worthy. The only thing missing is "We need to provide rapists with transgender surgeries they desperately need so that they can be placed into women's prisons."

    Meanwhile many R's really don't care that much about adult transgenders who transition on their own dime, but damned if they want to be forced to pay for someone to transition, much less someone in prison. This ad didn't touch on the notion of transitioning children, but that's a cultural and fiscal sticking point, too.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Weird that Liz finds the topic obscure.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        She was told to.

    2. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

      I was chasing some rabbit through the web the other day and stumbled across an article from 2009, just fifteen years ago, wailing about the horrors of African tribal female genital mutilation. How times have changed!

      It used to be dogma that female genital mutilation was the horror of horrors, the worse crime short of nuclear war. It used to be dogma that homosexuality was fixed at birth, genetic, immutable, and gay conversion therapy was banned even when voluntary.

      Now it's dogma that gender can change on a whim, it's proper for teachers to help children discover their true gender today, and it is actually criminal child abuse in some states for parents to want to know when teachers do this, and to not approve irreversible transgender genital mutilation for their own children, who are too young and immature to vote, to drink, to smoke, to partake in all sorts of other adult matters.

      And the wokies wonder why the garbage deplorables didn't vote for them.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        Not voting for them is just the start.

      2. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        Well one is done for the benefit of society and the other is done for crazy religious reasons. And unfortunately since Harris lost, we won't be able to send you to re-education camps to learn the difference.

        /sarc

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      It's also a reflection of how much the tranny menace has pissed off a lot of people. The Floyd riots led them to believe they could start promoting not just this, but push trannies into women's sports and teachers could encourage self-mortification in kids behind their parents' backs as a tool to advance the marxist revolution.

      Turns out most people don't want men in women's sports, don't want to pay for tranny mutilation fetishes, and don't want educators trooning their kids out.

    4. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      Morning Joe went on and on about this ad a few days ago, it was clearly one that scored a lot of points against Harris. I wish I had paid a bit more attention to exactly what he said about it, but I was only there to watch heads exploding not actually listen to what they are saying.

      Looking it up...he started harping on it even before the election ("It's a Trump policy to provide trans surgery for inmates!").

      https://youtu.be/jCjLfoLZRu4

      https://www.advocate.com/election/msnbc-joe-scarborough-trump-transgender

  15. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

    The fruits of the DNC media complex's rhetoric. There's nothing different here from what White Mike, Hank and Buttplug post. And because the corporate media is doubling down, I expect Democrat supporters to start murdering people wholesale from now on. I mean they've been doing it for years, but the violence right now is off the charts

    Deranged Trump-Hating Democrat Murders Entire Family

    "He also appeared increasingly concerned about the prospect of a Trump-led government.

    'My mental health and the world can no longer peacefully coexist, and a lot of the reason is religion,' he said in July.
    'I am terrified of religious zealots inflicting their misguided beliefs on me and my family. I have intrusive thoughts of being burned at the stake as a witch, or crucified on a burning cross.
    'Having people actually believe that I or my child are Satan or, the anti-Christ or whatever their favorite color of boogie man they are afraid are this week.'

    He had also accused Republicans of 'making it harder for women to leave' domestic violence relationships, writing 'Gilead here we come.'
    Gilead is an apparent reference to the Handmaid's Tale, a dystopian republic which overthew the United States and stripped away women's rights.

    1. Jerry B.   1 year ago

      Trump, of course, will be blamed.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      At the risk of sounding as delusional and totalitarian as the woke mobsters, some of them might have to be rounded up and put in camps. At the least, it would satisfy their fantasies.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        Fixing your delusional, totalitarian fantasy: charge for voluntary membership/attendance and call it a day.

        Charge $50/head for CRT struggle sessions for them and the kids, guarantee they won't be burned to death by any Right-wing Christians while in attendance.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          OK, that’s better.

          Can we designate a woke sanctuary, say California, and encourage and even assist relocation? Provided that contractual terms make leaving very, very difficult?

    3. Chumby   1 year ago

      If he ever donated to Act Blue, then he is a conservative.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

        Just ask Sarc.

        1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

          Nelson*

      2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

        Yes, I've been told that donating to Act Blue is the hallmark of conservatives, it's practically the defining characteristic.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Especially before assassination attempts.

    4. DesigNate   1 year ago

      He said while invoking his own boogie man.

      Fucking tragic that he didn’t just off himself instead of taking his whole family with him.

      1. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

        PSA for the today:

        If you are thinking of murder suicide, it is important to practice. Start with the suicide.

    5. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      This is a delusion you see here often, this guy rails against boogeymen while making religious people (I am guessing Christians and not Muslims as this guy probably likes to whinge about islamophobia) and republicans boogeymen who are going to burn him at the stake. Completely ruined by left wing conspiracy theories and propaganda.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        I hear it all the time from Hank and Shrike who are far more cultish and delusional than even Salafists.

    6. Richard Rider   1 year ago

      It's become clear that while all Democrats are not insane, ALL insane people ARE Democrats.

      Moreover, quite a few are dangerous. The ones championing violence should not be wandering the streets of America.

    7. mamabug   1 year ago

      He was concerned it would become harder for women to leave a domestic violence situation so he.... killed his wife and (possible) polyamorous second wife to... what, exactly? This is just not adding up.

  16. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    I can all but guarantee no one on the left will be called an “election denier” in the media…

    Left-wing election conspiracy theories…remember how any question about the validity of last election was always a “right-ring conspiracy theory?” Stupid shit like election machine hacks, sure, but even if you asked legitimate questions about COVID-era illegal shenanigans played out by governors and sec-states) you would get branded with that moniker.

    “Rumor has it, Elon got a bunch of polling places to use Starlink to transmit election data to the county and state servers so he could manipulate the data in transit…”

    “No[w] trumpies saying we are “election deniers” like baby first off the count isn’t done. Second, the numbers aint adding up. Third, if yall ok with the results then a recount wouldn’t do harm but yall mad we asking for one?? #TrumpCheated

    “not to mention ALL OF THE BALLOT BOXES BEING FOUND”

    “And the ones that burned?? Like did fhey even count or… ”

    Seeing Democrats start demanding paper ballots, recounts, and audits of the voting machines recapitulates some of the claims about 2020, election security in general, and human nature (find someone to blame).

    https://x.com/limegreenroger/status/1855087425317462396

    https://x.com/Shaughn_A2/status/1855694816912531651

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      You don’t help your case by writing “yall”.

    2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

      Hahahaha, they dismissed legitimate concerns for four years only to claim that Musk’s satellites somehow rigged the results. Maybe Shrike and White Mike are actually the bright ones.

      But it this brings back paper ballots, recounts, and audits of the voting machines, every Republican should be 100% for it.

      1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

        https://x.com/NuclearSigurd/status/1854246574651559940

        2016: THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED! DONALD TRUMP CHEATED!

        2020: YOU CAN'T CHEAT AN ELECTION! THEY ARE 100% SECURE!

        2024: THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED! DONALD TRUMP CHEATED!

        I remember JOKING with my friends that y'all would say he cheated, but this is just SAD.

        1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

          Just think "What would the worst people in the world do in this situation?" and you'll never be disappointed.

      2. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

        Here' a way to make voting almost foolproof:

        In person voting only, and one day only. Computer terminals are better since they eliminate transcription errors.

        Everyone makes their choices and prints out a ballot receipt which shows all their votes, the district and election date, and some humongous random ID. No time, no name, no address. If the voter finds a discrepancy between printed receipt and what's on the screen, that's perjury and the voter gets enough money as a reward to be worth disclosing their votes publicly.

        Poll watchers log ever voter by time, nothing about identity, party, etc. Just log them real time, and each does it independently to discourage collusion.

        When polls close, all those ballot receipts are published on a web site. Voters can check their receipt against the published receipt; any discrepancy is again perjury and rewarded well enough to be worth disclosing their votes publicly.

        Everyone can add up all those votes too. No need to wait around while paper ballots are counted and transcribed. The totals should be published within minutes of the polls closing, since everyone voted on the computer and there was no need for the error-prone and disputable transcribing from paper ballots to computers.

        No one in his right mind would want to risk deleting or changing any votes. Even if only one in a hundred voters checks, one discrepancy would trigger a whole lot more checking, and the entire election at that polling station would have to be held again. Adding extra fake voters risks not matching the poll watcher counts and logs. Poll watchers could conceivably have small discrepancies, since they are independent and humans can make mistakes. But any large discrepancy would again throw out that polling stations results and require new voting.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Or just bring back open, non-secret voting. Voters can gather in two or more specified locations and be counted.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

            The issue with that is intimidation. All you’d need are several Democratic election judges who double as Outfit security working the joint.

          2. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

            Anonymous voting is better. Public voting brings group think.

            1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

              Purple fingers, paper ballots are the only real solution.

              In less than a decade the American elite took the US from a high trust to a low-trust society, and the electoral methods need to reflect that.

              1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

                NO. Paper ballots are far too open to corruption and mangling and dubious objections. Like I said, do it on a computer with printed anonymous receipts which voters can check against the published receipts. No transcription errors, voters can add the totals and catch corruption. The fewer corruptable people in the loop, the less corruption.

                1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                  That's largely how my state operates.

                  At the check-in, a blank ballot is inserted into a printer that encodes my district information on the blank. I take the ballot to a computer than scans the thing like a QR-code to load my district information (this helps early in-person voting where different districts may all vote in the same place) into the computer. I click all selections, and complete my ballot, which is printed on again by the voting machine's printer.

                  The resulting ballot is human-readable, and I'm encouraged by the machine as it disgorges my ballot and signage all around the room to verify all my selections are properly printed.

                  Finally, I insert my ballot into a tabulator, which scans it AND retains it for manual recounts.

                  I would like to have a "tracking number" receipt and to be able to verify it was counted and my selections were registered properly after the fact. A few million "personal audits" are a good cross check on certain kinds of shenanigans.

                  1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

                    That does sound fairly close, more than I would have expected. I haven't been to a polling station in years; I'm a permanent absentee voter in California, and I'd be real happy if the canned that status. But until they do, I'm going to keep using it, and frankly, in California, my votes will never matter.

                  2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                    I also have to show picture ID when I arrive at the polling place. I like to try to remember to use my CCW permit for this, just because.

        2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

          “If the voter finds a discrepancy between printed receipt and what’s on the screen, that’s perjury and the voter gets enough money as a reward to be worth disclosing their votes publicly.”

          What happens when the screen and receipt say “R”, but a hacked computer records it as a “D” in the tally?

          1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

            Did you even read it? Discrepancies like that SHOW the fraud and void the election at that polling station. That's the entire point of the printed receipts and publishing all receipts for all voters to check.

            1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

              Did you even read it?”

              I did, but I still don’t get what the measures are to prevent that.

              ” Discrepancies like that SHOW the fraud and void the election at that polling station.”

              So why wouldn’t Democrats force discrepancies at every polling station in traditionally red area then? From first reading that seems like an excellent way for them to disenfranchise entire Red areas.

              1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

                Because that's fraud and perjury and punishable. Because reholding the election pisses off voters and they'll be more inclined to vote against the mofos that made them revote. Because when an election has to be reheld and holds up vote totals, everyone else is going to be pissed and want to find the mofos who did it and not just shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well."

                1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                  Because that’s fraud and perjury and punishable.

                  That didn’t exactly ever stop them before. See every election since Tammany Hall as a matter of fact.
                  And it’s looking like at least 14 million in 2020, and instead of worrying about it the FBI, DHS and CIA actively participated in the fraud as well as numerous judges.

                  And as far as pissed off voters go they called them conspiracy theorists and insurrectionists and kicked them off the internet, and the ones who actively protested got imprisoned for ludicrous terms on ridiculous charges.

                  1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

                    No, it didn't stop government workers allowing fraud by other government workers. That isn't my proposal. You didn't read it.

    3. Super Scary   1 year ago

      ” Second, the numbers aint adding up. Third, if yall ok with the results then a recount wouldn’t do harm but yall mad we asking for one??”

      That is literally what people have been saying about 2020. He’s not making the point he thinks he is.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        They don't like their own medicine being forced down their throat. And the hilarious part is that if they keep pressing on this, they're deliberately undermining their own Dem election officials who have been repeating over and over for years how secure their election machinery is.

    4. DesigNate   1 year ago

      I’m not mad, just disappointed.

  17. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

    He's exactly right.

    Homan last year defended the old family separation policy by declaring that actually families "chose to separate themselves" when they violated the law.

    All this hand-wringing over separating families ignores that all other criminals make the same choice with the same family separation problems. What's the solution -- put the whole family in jail? How about the whole extended family? If the wife is pregnant, is the baby born as a criminal too, like all good slaves born in slavery?

    Maybe they'd like to revert to Roman days when the paterfamilias owned his family and was expected to murder daughters who had the temerity to let themselves be raped.

    Or maybe people own themselves and have agency, and should be held accountable for their actions. I despise border controls, but I despise government more, and when they entice so many immigrants with welfare and free lodging then ban them from working, damn straight they should be held accountable for knowingly putting their families at risk.

    Sorry, Mrs Burglar and all the little Burglarettes, that your husband was a burglar. Would you like to join him in jail? Oh, I see. Well, goodbye, hope your divorce works out and you choose more wisely next time.

    1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

      Same thing here:

      workplace raids for low-wage workers whose only crime is simply crossing into the country in the first place, who have in many cases tried to pursue legal pathways to firm up their status but have few options available.

      Let me rephrase that.

      workplace raids for low-wage workers whose only crime is simply stealing goods in the first place, who have in many cases tried to pursue legal pathways to buy products but have too little money available.

      I don't like the immigration laws. But they exist, these people knew it and crossed the border anyway, Apparently most immigrants aren't even from Mexico; apparently most Mexicans don't see the need to cross the border illegally. Was Mexico not good enough for the non-Mexicans? Did the non-Mexicans enter Mexico with a "just passing through" visa? Does Mexico not want all those immigrants either?

      Agency! Self-ownership! Responsibility and accountability? Why are these never mentioned? Has this rag lost sight of individualism?

      Go ahead and get on that soapbox and preach land of opportunity, it's a great place for it. But responsibility and accountability are part of self-ownership too. That's partly why I called my version self-control: the unalienable right, and duty, to control self.. Stop pretending rights are only opportunities. Start recognizing rights come with responsibilities.

      1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

        And now we have illegal immigrants marching in the streets, against the election, while demanding continued welfare and violations of US law.

        https://x.com/sav_says_/status/1855314999893262472

      2. mad.casual   1 year ago

        I don’t like the immigration laws. But they exist,

        Moreover, the unicorns and rainbows can be crammed up asses sideways. "I don't like them." is not a reason for them not to exist. When I can carry my guns into Mexico because they observe reciprocity and nobody on either side gets benefits from either government just by walking to-and-fro, *that* is when immigration laws start to seem obsolete.

        Otherwise, it's the same implied faux-libertarian* wishcasting of "The state should execute fewer people via death row (then nobody would die
        wrongly')." while ignoring the far larger problems of people being killed by criminals in the public at large and extrajudicially in prison.

    2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      "Maybe they’d like to revert to Roman days when the paterfamilias owned his family and was expected to murder daughters who had the temerity to let themselves be raped."

      That sounds a lot like 2024 Islam.

      1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

        I don't think it's just a coincidence that Islam arose 140 years after the collapse of the western Roman Empire. All that authoritarianism gone; something had to replace it.

        1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

          That’s kinda silly in a couple of ways. The Eastern Roman Empire had power still, and was quite strong during the lifetime of Mohammed. But the region where Islam rose, in the Arabian peninsula, was never really part of the Roman Empire anyway.

          Plus, Roman administration wasn’t exactly more authoritarian than any other place in the world at the time, and in many ways was more permissive.

          1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

            You think the disappearance of a huge chunk of authoritarian empire didn't have effects beyond its own borders?

            I guess that's true. The collapse of Soviet and Eastern European dictatorships stayed within their own borders.

  18. Randy Sax   1 year ago

    When immigrants are seen as welfare mooches, not productive members of society and the workforce, there's surely more political will behind deportation squads.

    This is exactly the problem. Mexicans illegally picking fruit and washing dishes does not bother me. Just stop giving them free shit. No more hotel stays, no more EBT cards.

    1. Ron   1 year ago

      If we eliminate the free room and board , medical and debit cards they will freely Leave just like they started doing during the last recession and during Covid. It may not be as hard as they think

      1. Social Justice is neither   1 year ago

        Do you understand how long they had to work to bring all those illegals in for the census?

  19. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    Leaving the country due to the election results

    https://x.com/i/status/1855139733871133154

    (p.s., he's moving to Hawaii)

    https://x.com/classicparky/status/1855929781956550674

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      What’s that kid going to do when they kick him out after his visa expires ?

      1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

        Swim?

    2. shadydave   1 year ago

      Also, if he's moving to Hawaii in part to escape racism, I got some _really_ bad news for him.

  20. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    More election deniers...all this AFTER Democrats spend millions and millions of Zuckerberg's money to fortify elections to prevent Trump from cheating? Also, they're mad because 20M votes "disappeared", but never batted an eye when 20M vote "appeared" last time.

    "Voters have discovered their votes weren’t counted. So an election audit must be mounted. 20 million votes vanish… an audit is due. A rigged election is another coup. #DisappearingVotes #TrumpCheated “Stolen” #Recount2024 #votersuppression

    "I like how no one is talking about how Elon Musk just rigged the election.

    "Who thinks the 2024 election was rigged?

    "The numbers don’t make any sense at all What happened to the largest turn out in history everyone predicted Was This Election Rigged? Drop a if you believe this Election was rigged

    "If Trump & Elon’s “little secret” was to use Starlink in swing states to tally the votes & rig the election - an investigation & hand recount is crucial. Now.

    "STOP FUCKING SAYING THAT TRUMP WON THIS ELECTION! HE DIDN'T! PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S HAPPENING! WE ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME INFORMATION! THIS ELECTION WAS RIGGED BY TRUMP, LEON, AND RUSSIA! STARLINK WAS USED! MILLIONS OF VOTES WEREN'T COUNTED! WAKE THE FUCK UP, AMERICA!

    1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      P.S., The whole 20M votes idea is largely a function of California being unable to fucking count votes in a timely fashion.

      Looking at the numbers being reported this morning, Trump has 74.834M votes, Harris has 71.239M votes. That's 146.073M votes total. In 2024 Biden had 81.284M votes (ahem), and Trump had 74.224M votes (total of 155.508M).

      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-president.html

      The difference at this point is about 9.435M votes, not 20M (which is a number that came about at the end of Election Day when California had barely started counting...they've added literally millions of votes to both candidates totals in the meantime as they continue counting).

      Per the NYT page linked, about 94.6% of votes have been counted. If 146.073M is 94.6% of the total votes, then the total votes must be about 154.411M, or about 1M votes short of the 2020 total.

      If the current nationwide margins hold, Trump will add ~3.975M more votes, and Harris will add about ~3.786M more votes.

      OTOH, looking strictly at California, whic has about 4M uncounted votes and which is reporting Harris 7.267M and Trump 4.792M votes and a total of 72% counted. If the California margins hold, Harris will see about 2.614M additional California votes and Trump ought to see an additional 1.739M California votes.

      1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

        Everyone forgot that Covid killed 20 million voters?

        1. Dillinger   1 year ago

          some several times over.

    2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

      It's amazing to watch.

  21. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

    Mass deportations? Think of the Koch factories!

  22. Randy Sax   1 year ago

    I've heard from several "pundits" that are theorizing Biden intentionally was sabotaging Harris and the Dems near the end for kicking him out. Any truth to that?

    1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

      Yes

    2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      No doubt.

    3. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      Did you see his shit-eating grin in his presser about the election? And apparently his endorsement of Harris 30 minutes after he got couped out of his re-election campaign was a big FU to the DNC, too. Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer were planning on anyone but Harris, supposedly.

      1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

        With the Michael Bay meme? Ya, I saw it. I'm generally skeptical of anything that looks too cute to be true. I'm on the fence about this one. That's why I asked.

        1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          https://x.com/MarkHalperin/status/1854983834489455097

          Yes, despite what the ignorant haters want to say, Biden was not supposed to endorse Harris that first day. In fact, many around the VP didn't want him to endorse out of concern that it was going to hurt her "she's earning the nomination" narrative. After I broke the story, Biden came under enormous pressure to endorse the day he dropped out, and he succumbed to that, deeply setting back the efforts of those who wanted Biden out and someone besides Harris to be the nominee. So when I reported that Biden was getting out and NOT endorsing, it was accurate. Journalists never like their reporting to impact events but, in this case, mine did. And haters gonna hate hate hate.

          https://x.com/selinawangtv/status/1854968427854635409

          Nancy Pelosi to the NYT: “had the president [Biden] gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race.”

          “The anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary. “

          “And as I say, Kamala may have, I think she would have done well in that and been stronger going forward. But we don’t know that. That didn’t happen. We live with what happened. And because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. If it had been much earlier, it would have been different”

          1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

            A primary 2-1/2 months before the election? Sorry, the Ds needed to face reality long before then to have any hope at all, and even then, what?
            Walz for POTUS?!

          2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            In fact, many around the VP didn’t want him to endorse out of concern that it was going to hurt her “she’s earning the nomination” narrative.

            That sounds to me like she was the actual choice, but they were going to play their little kayfabe charade that it was an open primary again while getting the votes for her collected behind the scenes. These candidates are selected, not elected, or they wouldn't even have "super delegates" to cancel out their tard-raging radical wing.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

              I figure they wanted a “brokered” convention whereby Obama and the Clintons would be in control, but she’d look like she was chosen by a majority of the delegates. Biden threw a monkey wrench in that with the announcement.

              1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                That's my take as well. Not a "primary" per se, even though that was the word used, but an open nomination process where the delegates (and super delegates) could at least pretend that there were votes cast and some sort of challenging processes involved. And not just a coronation where all the delegates pledged to Joe were reassigned to Harris by fiat (along with his campaign coffers).

      2. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

        Pelosi is saying that the reason for the loss is that there wasn't a primary after Biden stepped down. That sounds like she did not want Harris.

        Harris is unpopular when in a crowd of other dems. Her last primary proved that.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

          They didn’t want Harris. Biden endorsing Harris seems to be a revenge act for posting the letter stating that Joe wasn’t going to seek reelection.

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          These people are all in ass-covering mode right now because they just got a massive fuck-you from Americans. I wouldn't believe a fucking word coming out of their mouths right now.

          Ironically, Biden might be the most honest Dem in the party right now.

          1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

            The fact that they are pointing to so many things as the cause says much about the quality of the campaign.

            1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

              But the campaign was "flawless". The View ladies and MSNBC's Joy Reid said so..."Let's just be clear. Nothing that was true yesterday about how flawlessly this campaign was run, is not true now. I mean, this really was a historic flawlessly run campaign.

              Of course, others said the same BEFORE the faceplant...but they can be forgiven for not knowing the future. Reid and the View know how badly she got beat, but still stand there and say "flawless". Meanwhile Trump just says "Scoreboard!"

              https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4961554-harris-delivers-powerful-closing-argument/

              "Last night, Kamala Harris showed herself the worthy head of a nearly flawless campaign — and the worthy leader of a nation in need of the kind of president she will be. "

              1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

                Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, I mean- Queen Latifah endorsed her, and she rarely endorses anybody….

                1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                  If only the media had published more stories about Queen Latifah endorsing Kamala, I would surely have voted for Kamala. Queen Latifah endorsed her, and she never endorses anyone. That's good enough for me!

                  Is this how Joy Reid think this would have gone down?

              2. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

                Democrats have been making some really strong Kool-Aid and drinking it themselves.

                1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

                  Their lack of honesty to themselves in the name of supporting party is insane.

          2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

            Ironically, Biden might be the most honest Dem in the party right now.

            The nicest guard at Auschwitz.

            1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

              The nicest retired/fired guard at Auschwitz.

    4. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

      Was that from someone not paying attention to Harris's campaign?

      Harris ran a shitty campaign that was largely based in arrogance in that people would vote for her just because she's there.

      1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

        Just remember, about 47% of the country voted for her = Harris ran a shitty campaign that was largely based in arrogance in that people would vote for her just because she’s there.

        I am glad she went down in flames.

        1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          So now we know pretty well how many people will vote for her just because she's there.

          1. Marshal   1 year ago

            They voted for her for the same reason we voted against her: the machine keeps the money flowing, not the person.

            1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

              Yep.

              Biden wasn’t taken off the campaign because he was losing to Trump. Nor because he was in an obvious decline. It was because the big money donors started to withhold their money.

    5. SIV   1 year ago

      Absolutely

    6. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

      It was rumored/joked right when Biden withdrew that his simultaneous endorsement of Harris was his revenge on the Obamas and Clintons forcing him out with all those "spontaneous" op-eds and twitter storms.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

        I posted a plausible scenario for this on Saturday. I’ll repost it here:

        I’m going to guess how everything went down in 2019/2020, and I may or may not be right.

        Biden had always wanted to be President, so much so, that he’s made several runs in the past until he got knocked out for plagiarism or lying. Obama, his old boss, comes up to him to make a deal: “I get you into office, and I get to run most things.” Biden, as this appeals to his vanity, agrees. Biden gets anointed as the Democratic candidate. Obama, using every trick in the book, stuffs the ballot boxes in specific swing states to push Biden over the top. Biden then becomes President, fulfilling his dream. 2024 comes around, and it’s time to run for reelection. Obama helps Biden avoid any serious primary challenges as who really wants to challenge the Presidential incumbent (it rarely happens). But, what happens next throws a major monkey wrench into the plans.

        Biden has the disastrous debate with Trump. So bad that it looks like Biden just blew the election on that debate alone. So they try a two-pronged plan. One, they try to take out Trump physically by assassination. That almost succeeded as they managed to nick his ear due to him turning his head. If not for that turn, Trump would not be here right now. Two, they panic and decide to replace Biden. The original idea was to have a brokered convention controlled by Obama and the Clintons. Biden threw yet another monkey wrench into the plans by supporting Harris almost immediately after the coup. He had been promised the Presidency by Obama, and now Obama was going to drop him like a used condom.

        So now we get Harris as the Presidential candidate. She was foisted on Biden originally to provide a “black” woman on his ticket, but she’s never gotten anywhere by her own merits, and isn’t anywhere near intelligent enough to make it as President. Obama makes do with it as Harris is controllable. They plan to run the same playbook as 2020: keep her out of the light and run an anti-Trump campaign. This fails as it’s not 2020, Trump is not the incumbent, and there’s no pandemic. Thus, the media is screaming for Harris to get out there and to be interviewed. In the meantime, she chooses Walz as her VP candidate. Walz was the last one standing who might not offend the “river to the sea” crowd. Pritzker and Shapiro might.

        So Harris goes on TV and has several terrible interviews, most notably with Brett Baier. Her internal polling sinks further, in spite of the public polls (read: propaganda) saying she’s either up or tied with Trump. Meanwhile, Biden makes comments here and there that further damage her campaign. In the end, Biden provides no help and further sinks her campaign as an insult and “fuck you” to Obama and the Clintons after they reneged on the 2020 deal. Obama and the Clintons fucked with a Biden and they found out.

        1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

          Yes, I remember that. I think it was while my comments got ghosted. It sounds plausible, it matches with the Clinton/Obama cartel.

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          Was Pritzker ever really considered for VP? Jumbo Butt strikes me as someone whose Mt. Everest sized ego wouldn’t allow him to be second banana for 4-8 years. I don’t think Shapiro would have taken it anyway because he just got in the Governor’s seat.

          I don’t necessarily think Walz was at the top of the list initially, but he was chosen specifically because he’s also a rad-left marxist, and would happily be Kammy’s footstool, playing his “dumb white guy” part demanded of Democratic politicians when they work with POCs.

          I think Polis was actually considered, too, because he’s better at faking his politics than his colleagues, but he even admitted that being a gay Jew wasn’t going to help them in that year.

          Your post sounds extremely plausible, overall though. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what actually went down.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

            From what I recall, three were interviewed: Shapiro, Pritzker, and Walz. No one else seemed to want the job, including Newsom. They were having a lot of trouble with the “river to the sea” contingent within the party and having a Jewish/pro-Israel VP might not be a good look for them at that moment, even though Pritzker could bring money, and Shapiro might deliver a swing state. That left one man standing: Walz, who was non-offensive to that contingent. In the end, it failed anyway as the Dems lost Dearborn.

        3. (Good Riddance Robert L. Peters) Weigel's Cock Ring   1 year ago

          All of this is very believable and probably very close to exactly how it all went down.

          There's no question that Block Insane Yomomna is a smart guy, BUT, he's not as smart as he likes to believe he is in his own mind (extreme narcissists almost never are). If he was, he would have knifed Biden in the back at least six months earlier than he did, then there would certainly have been a competitive primary.

          Did the mofo actually believe that Biden would do the right thing and voluntarily step down all on his own? Even worse, did he allow himself get suckered into believing his own team's propaganda that Biden's mental condition wasn't actually as bad as it occasionally seemed, that it was just the evil republicans putting out doctored videos to make appear to be out of it?

          Whichever one of the two it was, big, BIG mistake!

        4. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

          Amazing how little we hear about Thomas Crooks.

          Deliberate?

          I think so.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            Amazing how little we hear about Thomas Crooks.

            Who?

    7. Chumby   1 year ago

      Starting QBs don’t like getting benched in favor of the younger backup and often do little to help their former apprentice. Seeing the backup fail feeds their ego, convincing them they should have never been pulled.

      1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

        There’s some people who are delusional enough to think Biden would have performed better. He was DOA, though. The result would have been no better, maybe even worse.

        He should have dropped out last year so the Dems could have a full primary, but I still don’t know how they get around the increasing disdain for identity politics.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

          He probably should’ve dropped out before the primaries, but that’s not in either Joe’s or Jill’s natures. Joe Biden is a very vain man who tried several times for the Presidency as it’s been his lifelong ambition. Jill Biden sure as hell didn’t want to willingly give it up either.

        2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

          Biden’s internal polling had Trump winning 400 electoral votes, former-Obama official says

  23. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

    'The governments of Texas and Florida are, of course, not fiscally innocent, having spent a fair chunk of change busing migrants to New York, Sacramento, Chicago, and Martha's Vineyard as stunts to get blue-state liberals to start shouldering some of the welfare cost.'

    "Innocent"? Does that mean dumb? Cuz transport costs out of Texas and Florida are likely much less than maintenance costs.

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Chartering a bus isn’t expensive.

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Pretty obvious that Texas and Florida are big winners financially and politically. A whole lot of Democrat votes got flipped in Chicago and NYC for the cost of some bus tickets. Weird that Liz doesn't get that.

    3. mad.casual   1 year ago

      A fair chunk of change of all the unrealized gains from all the food trucks.

    4. Spiritus Mundi   1 year ago

      Reason has been consistently insane on this issue. A single penny spent resisting illegal immigration is a waste, however, there is no limit to how much we should spend to support immigrants both legal and illegal.

  24. mtrueman   1 year ago

    "The former director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "will be in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin," the president-elect wrote on Truth Social."

    Former head of ICE? Sounds like a current member of the Deep State. How quickly we forget. This is merely shuffling the pieces, not 'dismantling the deep state' as one commenter put it recently.

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Then you have nothing to worry about.

      1. mtrueman   1 year ago

        What? Me worry?

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

          So said Alfred E. Misconstrueman.

          1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

            So said the asshole who needs to FOAD.

    2. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

      misconstrueman, the resident antisemite, worried about the Deep State which he denies even exists.

      Where were you last Thursday night, hanging out with Martinned2 in Amsterdam hunting down Jews?

      1. mtrueman   1 year ago

        You big lummox, how about a big bowl of joo poo?

        1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

          How 'bout you FOAD, asshole?

  25. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

    Land acknowledgments? Sure, I will be happy to listen to these as long as every single legacy tribe admits to how they got the land, including the first humans to arrive who obviously raped Mother Nature.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      What's annoying about them is how disingenuous they are. If they actually believed such nonsense, the people declaring it would tear down the colleges brick by brick and leave the country entirely.

      They're mostly a scam cooked up by Native activists to get gibs--I've literally seen one of them point out the absurdity of them because of the logical conclusion that people would have to give up their homes. "But they can be restored in other ways with money and programs!" It's just the BLM grift with red skin instead of black. Meanwhile, self-loathing white leftists get to indulge in a bunch of virtue-signaling self-mortification.

    2. BYODB   1 year ago

      You'll never get those tribes to admit that their tribes ever did anything wrong.

      One example being that those tribes still maintain there has never been any cannibalism despite physical evidence to the contrary.

      Sure, it was probably under influence from South American tribes that pushed into southern North America but so what? Are cannibal South American tribes better than European settlers? Seems doubtful.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        That's why progressives have been pushing the "other ways of knowing" into scholarship, especially for indigenous people stuff. That has even been attempted with science (especially archeology and anthropology). Many US universities have folded, and around here the only "honest" study I have seen lately is from a Polish university.

    3. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      Look, Leftist Academics have an enormous humiliation fetish but they are not that stupid.

  26. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

    wrt Illegal aliens....two things I would like to see.

    1. Require all employers, without exception, to use eVerify and maintain those records

    2. Imprison the CEO and Board of Directors without bail for all companies found to employ illegal aliens. Start with the Fortune 500. I guarantee you behavior will change - quickly. Stick the CEO and Board of Toll Brothers or Archer Daniels Midland into the clink, and see what happens in the construction and agriculture industry. The execs should NOT get a free pass.

    1. The Margrave of Azilia   1 year ago

      Denial of bail? They would be presumed innocent, so what's the rationale for denying bail based on the seriousness of the charge which they may not have done? Wait for conviction before sending people to prison without bail.

      Obviously, Congresscritters voted to allow denial of bail, but the fact Congress does it hints it may be a bad idea.

      1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

        It is a serious charge, exploiting illegal aliens as cheap labor. One might call it modern day slavery. They can get bail when they go to trial.

    2. CE   1 year ago

      Libertarians for More Efficient Checking of Papers?

  27. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

    Must read. Trump on his Day One plans to fight censorship [video in the link]

    ENDING THE CENSORSHIP CARTEL: If we don’t have Free Speech, then we just don’t have a Free Country. It’s as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They’ll go down.

    That’s why today, I am announcing my plan to shatter the left-wing censorship regime, and to reclaim the right to Free Speech for all Americans. And reclaim is a very important word in this case because they’ve taken it away.

    In recent weeks, bombshell reports have confirmed that a sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the American People. They have collaborated to suppress vital information on everything from elections to public health.

    The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed and it must happen immediately. And here is my plan:

    FIRST, within hours of my inauguration, I will sign an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organization, business, or person, to censor, limit, categorize, or impede the lawful speech of American citizens. I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as “mis-” or “dis-information”. And I will begin the process of identifying and firing every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship, directly or indirectly, whether they are the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, the DOJ, no matter who they are.

    SECOND, I will order the Department of Justice to investigate all parties involved in the new online censorship regime, which is absolutely destructive and terrible, and to aggressively prosecute any and all crimes identified. These include possible violations of federal civil rights law, campaign finance laws, federal election law, securities law, and anti-trust laws, the Hatch Act and a host of other potential criminal, civil, regulatory, and constitutional offenses. To assist in these efforts, I am urging House Republicans to immediately send preservation letters ,and we have to do this right now, to the Biden administration, the Biden campaign, and every Silicon Valley tech giant, ordering them not to destroy evidence of censorship.

    THIRD, upon my inauguration as president, I will ask Congress to send a bill to my desk revising Section 230 to get big online platforms out of censorship business. From now on, digital platforms should only qualify for immunity protection under Section 230 if they meet high standards of neutrality, transparency, fairness, and non-discrimination. We should require these platforms to INCREASE their efforts to take down UNLAWFUL content, such as child exploitation and promoting terrorism, while dramatically curtailing their power to arbitrarily restrict lawful speech.

    FOURTH, we need to break up the entire toxic censorship industry that has arisen under the false guise of tackling so-called “mis-” and “dis-information.” The federal government should immediately stop funding all non-profits and academic programs that support this authoritarian project. If any U.S. university is discovered to have engaged in censorship activities or election interferences in the past, such as flagging social media content for removal and blacklisting, those universities should lose federal research dollars and federal student loan support for a period of five years, and maybe more. We should also enact new laws laying out clear criminal penalties for federal bureaucrats who partner with private entities to do an end-run around the Constitution and deprive Americans of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. In other words, deprive them of their vote. And once you lose those elections and once you lose your borders like we have, you no longer have a country. Furthermore, to confront the problems of major platforms being infiltrated by legions of former Deep Staters and intelligence officials, there should be a 7-year cooling-off period before any employee of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, DHS, or DOD is allowed to take a job at a company possessing vast quantities of U.S. user data.

    FIFTH, the time has finally come for Congress to pass a digital Bill of Rights. This should include a right to digital due process, in other words, government officials should need a COURT ORDER to take down online content, not send information requests such as the FBI was sending to Twitter.

    Furthermore, when users of big online platforms have their content or accounts removed, throttled, shadow-banned, or otherwise restricted no matter what name they use, they should have the right to be informed that it’s happening, the right to a specific explanation of the reason why, and the right to a timely appeal. In addition, all users over the age of 18 should have the right to opt-out of content moderation and curation entirely, and receive an unmanipulated stream of information if they so choose.

    The fight for Free Speech is a matter of victory or death for America and for the survival of Western Civilization itself. When I am President, this whole rotten system of censorship and information control will be ripped out of the system at large. There won’t be anything left.

    By restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.

    Thank you, and God Bless America.

    1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

      THREE is a joke. It just shifts government from one side of the censorship regime to the other.

      What needs to be done is allow individual victims of censorship and cancel culture to take Big Tech to court immediately. Not a year later, not a month later, not a week later. Tomorrow is fine. If they censored or canceled somebody, they must have had a reason at the time and should be able to defend it immediately. Any attempt to stall or drag in expensive lawyers is proof they made their decision without thinking.

      Put control back in the people's hands, not the government's, not Big Tech's, and not the lawyers.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        I don't see a problem with allowing a social media service to be regarded as a common carrier, and if they censor they can be sued. And if someone shares kiddie porn or calls to violence, law enforcement deals with it and it's treated in the same manner as if someone had mailed it.

        1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

          We already have laws against kiddie porn and calls for violence.

          1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

            Right. That's why I said it's treated in the same manner as other ways of information transmission.

            Social media companies shouldn't be dealing with kiddie porn. The police should.

        2. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

          Common carrier would be fine with me. But that's not what THREE says.

          digital platforms should only qualify for immunity protection under Section 230 if they meet high standards of neutrality, transparency, fairness, and non-discrimination. We should require these platforms to INCREASE their efforts to take down UNLAWFUL content, such as child exploitation and promoting terrorism, while dramatically curtailing their power to arbitrarily restrict lawful speech.

          Those are all more government power and meddling. Even "child exploitation" is subject to the whims of government when states can make it child abuse to NOT mutilate their genitals because a teacher said the child wants it.
          Adding more laws to make illegal things even more illegaller is not the answer.

          1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

            I never said that's what #3 says. I said how I think it should be handled.

            1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

              I realize we are both reading at cross purposes and are mostly in agreement. I wanted to clarify why I think THREE is bad.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        Why it is almost as if you don't even recognize the property rights of the tech companies who own those social media platforms.

        The modern Right is starting to sound more and more revolutionary, in a Marxist sort of way.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

          Are these companies any different than AT&T?

        2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

          What about the property rights of the posters? What about keeping to the ToS the subscribers originally agreed to?

          1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

            Yes! Exactly! I should have reloaded before posting.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            What property rights? The company owns any intellectual property rights. The company owns the physical hardware and software that hosts users' comments. What are the property rights of the users that are being violated here?

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

              They don’t own the comments or posts any more than AT&T did in the old Ma Bell era.

        3. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

          Lemme lay it out to you as I have done many many times before. The US judicial system is intentionally useless for small time abuses like Big Tech violating their own terms of service and contradicting their marketing.

          They brag about connecting families, friends, ad especially businesses and customers. §230 was intended to allow moderation of spam, porn, doxxing, criminal, and other comments. It was NOT intended to allow cancelling of politically incorrect comments or anything which hurt the moderators' feelings. The difference is between a newspaper accepting ads and letters to the editors; one is common carrier, one is politicization, so to speak.

          The proper solution is to let people sue Big Tech for deleted comments and canceled accounts. There is something really disgusting about a business establishing a social media presence over years, all at Big Tech's urging and promises, and then Big Tech canceling all that years of work with no proper appeals process.

          Yet the judicial system makes such lawsuits practically impossible: too slow and expensive and rigged in Big Tech's favor.

          So we got §230 as a scrap of leftover bone. It's a joke.

          If you think the current system works, you're right -- for Big Tech and the government. It does not work for customers.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            §230 was intended to allow moderation of spam, porn, doxxing, criminal, and other comments. It was NOT intended to allow cancelling of politically incorrect comments or anything which hurt the moderators’ feelings.

            Not true. It was deliberately written to be vague, I believe the term is “otherwise objectionable content”, because what is objectionable is in the eyes of the beholder. So a religious group might very well find pro-atheism comments to be ‘objectionable’ (and vice-versa) and would want those comments banned from their group, even if there was nothing pornographic or doxxing or violent about the comments. That’s totally fine.

            Do you REALLY want the government to be deciding what is 'objectionable' and what is not? Should religious forums be required to host pro-atheism comments?

            The proper solution is to let people sue Big Tech for deleted comments and canceled accounts.

            On what basis? You don’t actually own anything on social media. The company owns your intellectual property rights. If they break a contract, then sure. But if their contract says “we get to kick you off if we don’t like your comments”, and they do that, then what is the basis for a lawsuit?

            1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

              Jackass.

              1. ALL laws are written to be vague. It is a feature of lawyering to have vague laws so they can be interpreted by men. If you think any legal system has rule of law, you are ignorant and naive.

              2. Do I own the warranty that came with my toaster? Yes I do. When a company advertises something as if it were a benefit of their product or service, that is an implicit promise. When they don’t follow through, they have broken their promise exactly as if the toaster company did not honor their warranty.

              You may like living with a shitty judicial system which favors expensive and slow lawyers. Most people do not.

    2. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

      Besides the restrictions of government agencies/agents, the rest is bullshit. Companies are free to set their TOS and an individual user can sue over them violating those TOS. See Alex Berenson's lawsuit and why he won vs Prager U. who lost because they sued over 1st A violation.

      1. Stupid Government Tricks   1 year ago

        And how is anything which takes years and millions of dollars justice?

        They delete comments and cancel accounts without thinking. They should be ready to defend those actions immediately. There is no need for lawyers, discovery, law books, precedent, any of that bullshit. Did they violate the Terms of Service, or did they not? Did they violate their marketing promises, or did they not?

        The US judicial system is intentionally geared for slow expensive trials to discourage trivial complaints. I have seen comments by lawyers bragging this is a feature to keep the trivial cases out of courts and force people to work it out themselves. Unfortunately, trivial cases with Big Tech don't work that way.

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Let the firing begin.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

        Destroy the bureaucracy!

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Fire everybody. Start over with the Navy and the post office, and the Constitution.

    4. Quicktown Brix   1 year ago

      This is from Dec. 2022?

      https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/trump-s-five-point-strategy-after-becoming-president/ar-AA1tMnkV

      Considering how much emphasis he put on this lately, I'd guess this is not gonna happen, even with Elon's reminder.

      Also, not a fan of #3.

  28. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

    The Hill: We must end the filibuster to protect our democracy
    https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/news-coverage/the-hill-we-must-end-the-filibuster-to-protect-our-democracy/

    1. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

      For Democracy to Stay, the Filibuster Must Go
      New York Times, New York Times March 11, 2021
      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2021/03/11/for_democracy_to_stay_the_filibuster_must_go_537984.html

      1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

        What would they do if The Donald says, "Great idea! We're doing it"

        1. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

          Someone has suggested making 9 Supreme Court justices fixed and the filibuster a thing forever with a single constitutional amendment. The GOP pledges to support that amendment, then removes the filibuster and increases the court to 13. Dems can either pass the amendment back to 9 or accept Trump appointing 4 more justices.

          1. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

            Here is another alternative that would make for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

            There is currently a bipartisan recommendation (congressional task force report from the early 2000's) to increase the size of the federal judiciary by roughly 100 judges (80 district, 20 circuit). The reco was made to address the backlog of cases. POTUS Trump could say, 'Great idea' - and nominate 100 of his best Federalist Society friends to the bench.

            No need to touch SCOTUS.

            What would piss off Team D is that they're the party who pushed this. Their committee wrote the report. Team D screwed Team R back when Carter was POTUS doing exactly that; expanding the judiciary, and then filling it with a bunch of libs.

          2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            That would be fine, but they aren't going to get enough blue states on board to make it happen.

        2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          Add it to the ever-increasing list of stupid things D's have championed over the last 10 years or so that they will fully regret should Trump say "Yeah, that was actually a good idea, I think we'll do it..."

          Like ending the filibuster, like adding 4 Justices to the SCOTUS, like squashing any and all investigations into election shenanigans, like using DOJ to "lawfare" political opponents. Maybe later, like asking Justice Thomas to step down in time for Trump to fill his seat instead of a potential Democrat later.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            I'm pretty sure either Thomas or Alito, maybe even both, will be stepping down after Trump takes office. They aren't stupid and understand this is how the game is played now.

            The Dems are trying to get the Wise Latina to resign right now for the same reason, although there's no indication she has any intention of leaving. She likes getting her job perks the same as Thomas.

            1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

              Despite urgent speculation in liberal legal circles and some talk among Democratic senators of potentially outright urging Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resign, sources close to the senior liberal justice have told ABC News that she is not expected to step down in the middle of the term because of the 2024 election results.

              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sotomayor-has-no-plans-to-resign-from-supreme-court-sources-say/ar-AA1tQ4ih

  29. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

    Critical Consciousness Helps Marginalized Youth Turn Mental Distress Toward Social Action
    Psychological distress motivates racialized youth to engage in social action, developing critical consciousness and self-esteem.
    https://www.madinamerica.com/2023/03/critical-consciousness-helps-marginalized-youth-turn-mental-distress-toward-social-action/

  30. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

    Arizona election official said he wanted to ‘make life hell’ for GOP candidate Kari Lake
    https://nypost.com/2024/11/09/us-news/arizona-election-official-wanted-to-make-life-hell-for-kari-lake/

    An outgoing Arizona election honcho overseeing voting in the state’s most populous county told a friend last year he wanted to run for Senate “to make life hell” for Republican candidate Kari Lake, explosive court documents show.

    Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer’s blistering remarks came from the transcript of a June 21 deposition in a defamation case he brought against the Donald Trump-backed Lake and were first reported by The Daily Mail.

    Richer, who’ll leave the office at year-end, is in charge of ballots that could decide whether the former TV anchor triumphs in her tight race against Democrat Ruben Gallego — raising questions about his ability to run a fair election.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Almost like the Republicans in AZ are as bad as the Democrats. Weird.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

        John McCain. The place, like Illinois, has a lot of GOPe that need to be removed from power.

      2. BYODB   1 year ago

        They did support McCain, so probably.

  31. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

    @LizWolfe....I have never subscribed to a YT channel before. You're the first.

    Don't disappoint me.

    1. Randy Sax   1 year ago

      I generally watch youtube not signed in. I think I do have an account subbed to Remy's MTG channel though.

    2. Dillinger   1 year ago

      dude no! that's how they get you.

    3. Chumby   1 year ago

      Now you have all the “Scenes from New York” your heart desires.

  32. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

    Are we all following how the precious, precious refugees are acting toward Jews in Amsterdam?

    1. SIV   1 year ago

      Jews or Israeli soccer hooligans?

      1. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

        Jews. Stop covering for rapeugees.

    2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      Not really, but I did notice how Columbia students are celebrating Veteran's Day.

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/columbia-university-students-plan-anti-veterans-day-protest-to-honor-martyrs-of-us-war-machine/ar-AA1tQB5O

      Columbia University activists are planning a protest of Veterans Day — which organizers want to “reclaim” from the “Israel-US war machine” in the name of Palestinians killed in Gaza.

      The unsanctioned student group Columbia University Apartheid Divest is circulating flyers for the event — set for Monday on the Ivy League school’s main Morningside Heights campus.

      “Veterans Day is an American holiday to honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice of veterans. We reject this holiday and refuse to celebrate it,” a flyer for the agitator group’s event said.

      “The American war machine should not be honored for the horrors unleashed on others,” the flyer added. “Instead, we will celebrate Martyrs Day in honor of those martyred by the Israel-US war machine. A day to honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice of those martyrs.”

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        Like I've said before, these people have no claim to American patriotism because they don't even like this country.

        1. BYODB   1 year ago

          The irony of those students (I guess?) saying that we shouldn't celebrate memorial day because of 'horrors unleashed on others' seems a little tone deaf given who they are actually celebrating instead.

          Calling terrorists 'martyrs' is pretty fucking revealing. They don't give a fuck about patriotism, what they give a fuck about is religious war. We're talking about honest to god theocrats.

      2. CE   1 year ago

        The martyrs who apparently love their country so much they won't even attempt to save it by releasing the innocent victims they kidnapped?

      3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        I guess it does make sense for progressives to hate the victims of the US Army in Germany in the 1940s, since those victims also were after Jews.

  33. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

    Your daily reminder that Oprah and all the other celebs were so afraid of Trump Fascism that they wouldn't endorse Harris without a large cash payment first.

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      lol Orpha ganked a million from some other billionaire & didn't even help KH

  34. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

    Let's not forget: the original family separation policy was not due to legal necessity. It was specifically a *deterrent* to stop migrants from coming.

    https://archive.is/Xb6nc

    But the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, made it clear what Mr. Trump wanted on a conference call later that afternoon, according to a two-year inquiry by the Justice Department’s inspector general into Mr. Trump’s “zero tolerance” family separation policy.
    “We need to take away children,” Mr. Sessions told the prosecutors, according to participants’ notes. One added in shorthand: “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.”

    Moreover, the Trump administration lost track of the children, and deported the parents, thereby creating orphans.

    It is cruel, inhumane, and barbaric for the government to use children as weapons against parents. So naturally, many of you are in favor of it.

    1. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

      You're just arguing for letting cartels bring in more children for the Epstein clients and Diddy partygoers that make up our ruling class to buttfuck.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

        Well, it’s just business as usual for Jeffy.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        Oh ha ha. It's so fun to call everyone else pedophiles, isn't it?

        Team Red: We're sick of being called racists and we won't stand for it anymore!
        Also Team Red: You're sick disgusting groomers and pedophiles!

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

          You wouldn’t be called one if you didn’t act like one and support those who are ones.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            You wouldn't be called a racist if you didn't act like one and support those who are ones.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

              Cite?

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                Cite?

                1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

                  What? You're asking for citations of you surreptitiously supporting child pornographers?
                  Oh where to begin.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    Huh, you didn't begin. Guess it is because the content doesn't exist.

                    Much like your comment that "Trump didn't lie during the first debate", you lie and gaslight a lot.

                    1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

                      Got the cite and link for that, motherfucker?

                  2. Chumby   1 year ago

                    A few years ago, had a long exchange with the fatty. He was pushing some sort of citizen test whereby the candidate would pass a civics quiz as well as a physical exam. At which time, they would be considered an adult. It was during this exchange it was revealed that a capable 14-year old boy could pass such an examination. I believe the whole thing kicked off when he was asked about what he believes age of consent should be.
                    If you were a below average nobody without wins on the record, while wanting some, stealing the youth from some rising star might help fill some of that void.
                    I don’t bookmark things but it is in the comments somewhere.

                2. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

                  No, you, as you made that accusation, dipshit. Show where I have been racist, asshole.

    2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      If "creating orphans" is cruel and barbaric, one wonders what it is to send your children across the border into a foreign country unaccompanied.

    3. Commenter_XY   1 year ago

      The 'original sin' here was the parents breaking the law. Sadly, their actions will affect their children.

      Here is a novel idea: Don't come to America illegally.

      I know, I know....silly me, expecting people to respect our laws.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        You would never tolerate the government using children as a weapon against parents for purposes of deterrence if it was against citizens. So why is it okay if the tactic is used against foreigners?

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        The law that these migrants were breaking is on par with trespassing. Do you think it is an appropriate punishment to take children away from parents in order to punish the crime of trespassing? Do you think it would be appropriate for the government to take YOUR children away from you to punish the crime of trespassing, so as to deter everyone else in your neighborhood not to trespass? That is a government using fear as a weapon.

        1. Dillinger   1 year ago

          >>on par with trespassing.

          omg just stop.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Well, it is. Migrants crossing a border without permission is akin to trespassing. What, you thought it was a literal invasion or something?

            Team Red has taken the crime of 'illegal entry' and blown it up in magnitude to a crime on par with terrorism or something. It's a little bit nuts.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              Letting in violent criminal gangs is on par with terrorism, and an invasion.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                Violent criminal gangs slip in because you insist that border patrol agents hassle peaceful penniless Guatemalans instead. Stop distracting the border patrol from stopping the 'bad hombres' and then there won't be as many violent criminal gangs coming here.

                1. TrickyVic (old school)   1 year ago

                  How do they know who's who?
                  I have to go through a full body scan at the airport just to prove I'm not a terrorist. Flying domestically. That after proving my identity by the TSA photographing me and comparing that to the biometrics on my Real ID card.

                  1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

                    I've painted the picture before...imagine a flight arrives at JFK from, say, Saudi Arabia. A group of 4 or 5 men from the flight linger back as they approach Customs gates. All at once, they sprint through different gates, knocking people aside as they make a break for the open terminal and "freedom" beyond the airport.

                    What happens to them? Should the treatment of these folks be different than someone crossing the Rio Grande and climbing over the fence?

                2. Dillinger   1 year ago

                  please tell us today's opinions are of your own volition and are not sponsored in a financial sense.

            2. Dillinger   1 year ago

              >>Migrants crossing a border without permission is akin to trespassing.

              yes. provided they stand in place for eternity ala NPCs you are correct.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                That is what they are being prosecuted for at the border. For illegal entry. Not for anything else. That is the crime that Trump and Sessions, and apparently many people here as well, think is so severe that it is justified to create orphans over it. Do you?

                1. Dillinger   1 year ago

                  Sessions?

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    Yes, the AG who was in charge at the time.

            3. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

              Did they shoot a woman in the face for trespassing on public property and you supported it?

          2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

            It’s plain to see that Jeff and sarc are coming apart at the seams.

          3. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

            SHOOT THEM IN THE FACE

        2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          I'm told that if you damage a barrier or climb through/over a barrier in order to do that trespassing, you can be shot in the face by law enforcement who might have cause to fear for their lives or that you might do harm to others.

          1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

            And here is the link of Jeff saying shooting trespassers is libertarian.

            chemjeff radical individualist 4 years ago
            Flag Comment
            Mute User
            What is there to talk about?

            From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

            They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

              Jeffy will be along shortly to apply a double standard.

        3. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

          I know one government agent who shot a woman in the neck for trespassing. You and your team mock us when we bring her up.

    4. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

      FOAD, steaming pile of lying lefty shit.

    5. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

      I guess sneaking into the country was a bad idea.

    6. Ron   1 year ago

      and how many children did the Biden administration lose track of, some 300,000 far exceeding the few thousand lost under Trump

    7. Nobartium   1 year ago

      Yeah, how dare we expect the government to prioritize it's citizenry over foreigners.

      That's only been the standard of governance since forever, I guess you have some new age BS to sell us.

  35. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

    Who can Musk sue about the claims that Starlink manipulated the elections?

    If MSNBC, et al., run any stories including that "opinion" the precedent set in Dominion v Fox News would seem to apply.

    In related news, I for one hope Rudy Giuliani piles all of his stuff into one large pile and lights it all on fire and tells those two "election workers" to suck it.

    Dominion, Guiliani, Trump's civil suits...all lawfare in kangaroo courts.

    1. Ra's al Gore   1 year ago

      If MSNBC, et al., run any stories including that “opinion” the precedent set in Dominion v Fox News would seem to apply.

      That's (D)ifferent.

      1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

        Of course. What was I thinking.

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      In related news, I for one hope Rudy Giuliani piles all of his stuff into one large pile and lights it all on fire and tells those two “election workers” to suck it.

      Those two election workers had their lives materially harmed due to Giuliani's lies. One of them IIRC had to move out of her house and had to close her side business because of violent threats from Trump voters who thought that she literally was stealing the election.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        Good. She shouldn't have been committing election fraud.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          She wasn't committing election fraud.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

            Evidence?

  36. Chumby   1 year ago

    The eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month.

    Armistice Day is for remembrance

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      if the guns are silent but nobody hears them is there ever peace?

      1. Chumby   1 year ago

        There wasn’t, which was why Versailles was also an armistice.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

          “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.”

          – Ferdinand Foch

          That motherfucker even got the year right.

          1. Chumby   1 year ago

            Yes he did. Foch Around, Find Out.

            This is mostly forgotten in the States but still known by those that lost many ancestors and will help guide the outcome of the current European conflict. It was more fresh during 1945 where the Allies demanded that the German government and military concede defeat. Iirc, the Soviets were not present at one of these and had the national socialists formally surrender again with the Moscow delegation present.

    2. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

      In Flanders fields the poppies blow
      Between the crosses, row on row,
      That mark our place; and in the sky
      The larks, still bravely singing, fly
      Scarce heard amid the guns below.

      We are the Dead. Short days ago
      We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
      Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
      In Flanders fields.

      Take up our quarrel with the foe:
      To you from failing hands we throw
      The torch; be yours to hold it high.
      If ye break faith with us who die
      We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
      In Flanders fields.

      1. Chumby   1 year ago

        Do folks in Canada still wear poppies on their lapels? I recall this being a big thing in year’s past. The criticism of newcomers abstaining is what compelled hockey analyst Don Cherry’s outburst that got him taken off CBC.

        1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

          Yup. Everyone does including kids. You look like an ungrateful douche if you don’t. A lot of people start wearing the poppy weeks before. I’m wearing one today.

          Remembrance Day is still a big deal in Canada despite Trudeau’s attempts to squash it.
          It’s a national holiday and is Memorial Day, Armed Forces Day and Veterans Day all rolled in to one.

          1. mtrueman   1 year ago

            "Remembrance Day is still a big deal in Canada despite Trudeau’s attempts to squash it."

            You mean Justin Trudeau? It was under his premiership in 2018 that Remembrance Day became a legal holiday. Is that you mean by his attempting to squash (sic) it? Or did you have something else in mind?

            1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

              FOAD, asshole.

          2. Chumby   1 year ago

            The ones that oppose continuing the day of reflection are the ones that brought a nazi into parliament.

      2. InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)   1 year ago

        Collectively, we as Western Civilization, need to learn the lessons of WWI and WWII, and figure out how to move past out collective civilizational trauma from them. We did it for the Thirty Years War; we can do so here.

        1. Chumby   1 year ago

          It is a fail by Reason to avoid including an article today under the context of Veteran’s Day and the government failures that caused the need for it.

  37. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

    Call me cynical, but the land acknowledgements were never actually for Natives in the first place; they were a way of signaling to other upper-middle-class progressives.

    who would have thought land acknowledgements were nonsensical outside of American history classes?

    "Propellers help the Nimitz move. Why not put propellers on the International Space Station?"

    1. CE   1 year ago

      Exactly. Woke universities publish the land acknowledgements so their students feel good, but I haven’t seen any actually turning their land over to the supposedly rightful owners.

  38. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>I am very excited for the relaunch of Just Asking Questions.

    I just listened to your friend Dave Smith on Rogan and am interested in proof the IDF is shooting babies in the head.

    edit: no sarc tag.

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

      But I get this vid of a very concerned western woman asking for contributions to her hospital since entire families of Gazans are showing up for care, never once mentioning why that might be the case.
      Murdering and raping have consequences.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        yes they do. don't be a terrorist.

    2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   1 year ago

      This was Dave's worst take on Rogan.

      He discussed the NYT article with xrays of kids with bullets in their head. Anyone who know anything about guns knows these xrays are fake.

      It had bullets stopping mid soft tissue. No fragmentation of bones from the entry point. No exit wounds for high speed rounds from rifles.

      The xrays were widely mocked.

      Here is the article.

      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-doctor-interviews.html

      Pictures if pay walled.

      https://www.imt.ie/opinion/demonstrably-true-that-the-israeli-army-is-targeting-children-in-gaza-11-10-2024/

      Anyone with knowledge of ballistics can tell it is faked.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        gracias. I'll listen to "Bibi is Cheney" but Dave seemed to cross a line with the shooting babies thing.

  39. BYODB   1 year ago


    ...screwing up their economies and leaving tons of vacant job openings at the workplaces ransacked by immigration enforcers.

    LOL, might want to think on that a little more to figure out if that's a negative or a positive for unemployed voters.

  40. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Call me cynical, but the land acknowledgements were never actually for Natives in the first place

    neither was killing the Washington Redskins.

    1. CE   1 year ago

      Or the Cleveland InGuardians.

    2. Chumby   1 year ago

      Some opposed the old name without woke intervention. Once went to a Pow Wow in that area naively wearing a Redskins tshirt (this was a few years before the public campaign started). Noticed that the Lumbee were giving me dirty looks. It was three people within a minute or two of arriving. I stopped, turned to my lady friend and said folks were getting mad at me and I had asshole mode turned off. It wasn’t whites, blacks, or asians that had been giving me the gaze of disdain. I couldn’t explain it. Literally looked down at the ground trying to figure out an explanation. My eyes then caught the shirt I was wearing and it became clear. She walked right in front me as we left, got stamped on the way out, I changed shirts, and we returned without any additional looks.

      Thought the new name could have been the Pigskins. Could have kept most of the fight song and dovetailed in the Hogs.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        of the natives on my tree one particularly funny great-uncle was a Skins fan on purpose.

      2. Super Scary   1 year ago

        "Noticed that the Lumbee were giving me dirty looks. "

        As someone that went to college in Pembroke, that response could be anything. They hate most of everyone in my experience.

      3. MK Ultra   1 year ago

        Useless fact:

        I know the son of the guy who wrote "Hail to the Redskins," Barnee Breeskin. Barnee sold the rights to the song to the owner of the Dallas Cowboys who ransomed it back to the Redskins for the vote to let the Cowboys into the NFL.

      4. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

        Your crime was wearing a shirt for the Washington NFL team, regardless of whether it was the Redskins at the time.

        Glad my Steelers could eek out the win yesterday.

  41. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    "Our mayor, Eric Adams, has started a "reticketing" program, in which migrants may request one-way plane tickets, either domestic and international, and have them paid for by taxpayers . . . "

    But Trump doing exactly this will bankrupt America?
    Liz, please stop drinking the kool-aid at Reason.

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

      Soros paid for them to get here; bill him for the return ticket.

  42. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>’Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you’

    KH is only for KH. is there a line on the Emhoff/KH divorce yet? my money says they don’t even have brisket together at the next Pesach seder

  43. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat, just won re-election to her seat in a rural red district in Washington.

    how red can it be?

    1. CE   1 year ago

      It's gerrymandered to include Vancouver, Washington (the Portland spillover vote). The rest of the district is very red indeed.

    2. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

      Not that red, since Gluesenkamp Perez is the incumbent. The district has flopped back and for in both representation and presidential support. The anomaly here is that it elected Trump at the same time it elected Gluesenkamp Perez.

      "Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a first-term Democrat representing a rural, working class district that former President Donald J. Trump won twice, is considered the most vulnerable Democrat in the House. She has frequently broken with her party on major votes and is in a rematch against Joe Kent, a far-right election denier whom she beat in 2022 by less than 1 percentage point."

  44. Richard Rider   1 year ago

    REASON’s inability to see the dangers of open borders and unlimited immigration is why we’ve cut our family’s funding for the REASON Foundation by 90+%.
    Such myopic thinking is why European countries will become Islamic caliphates within 60 years.
    I've been a REASON supporter for well over 40 years. That's largely ending.
    I FAVOR more immigration, but not anything approaching open borders — which is what we had under Biden/Harris.
    I run my family’s charity fund and our IRA charity donations. We have more deserving, limited government outfits to support.

    1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

      "REASON’s inability to see the dangers of open borders and unlimited immigration"

      This is what happens when a foundation and magazine peddle their ass to a globalist donor.

    2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

      "...We have more deserving, limited government outfits to support..."

      Agreed; IJ lost a chunk of change when they didn't see the lock-downs and mask mandates as a 'long-term problem', Reason pretty much when they opened the doors in DC.
      Check out https://pacificlegal.org/

  45. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>The governments of Texas and Florida are, of course, not fiscally innocent

    ya but I don't pay state income tax and the bus them north plan was a hoot, so ...

  46. Marshal   1 year ago

    "But the ad, with its vivid tagline — 'Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you'—broke through in Mr. Trump's testing to an extent that stunned some of his aides."

    Of course it worked. It showed vividly there is no limit to the left's desire to spend money. We have massive fiscal problems looming which could require popular base programs like SS and Medicare to be cut back. But all Harris and the other leftists care about is spending every dollar they can on nonsense believing that when SS and Medicare run dry they will be able to raise taxes to whatever is necessary to keep them funded. Since their goal is to raise taxes as high as possible the best tactic is to make the deficit as large as possible.

  47. Incunabulum   1 year ago

    How much money did we pay to Ukraine to protect their border - but now we're talking at less than a hundred billion?

  48. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

    'The courageous women shaving their heads in protest!'
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr354bd5_o8

    1. mad.casual   1 year ago

      The weekend of the 1st, my three boys and I were out working in the yard. 4 full pairs of work gloves. By Thursday, we had 3 and a half pairs. This past Sunday, we were down to two full pairs and two unmatched gloves. Just another sign of all the rights we lost after the election of Donald Trump. Sad.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        they're eating the cats and stealing the work gloves!

  49. Incunabulum   1 year ago

    How much money did we pay to Ukraine to protect their border - but now we're balking at less than a hundred billion?

  50. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

    Hank will be proud. Libertarians spoiled the NV senate seat. As did the Constitution Party. Sam Brown lost by a total smaller than either of those candidates.

    1. mtrueman   1 year ago

      "Sam Brown lost by a total smaller than either of those candidates."

      Thanks to first past the post voting. Sam may have won otherwise.

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

        FOAD, steaming pile of shit.

  51. mtrueman   1 year ago

    An article about the prediction of Friedrich Engels on the wars and caatastrophies that would soon envelope Europe:

    In a January 7, 1888 letter to his colleague Friedrich Sorge, Engels made ​​the following conclusion about the nature of the future war, which he presciently referred to as a global war: “Finally, no war is any longer possible for Prussia-Germany except a world war and a world war indeed of an extent and violence hitherto undreamt of.”

    Engels wrote that the size of the armed forces of the warring parties would be huge, much larger than they were during the previous wars in Europe. “Eight to ten million soldiers will massacre one another and in doing so devour the whole of Europe until they have stripped it barer than any swarm of locusts has ever done.” Engels also wrote vividly about the devastating effects of this would-be global war:

    “The devastations of the Thirty Years’ War compressed into three or four years, and spread over the whole Continent; famine, pestilence, general demoralization both of the armies and of the mass of the people produced by acute distress; hopeless confusion of our artificial machinery in trade, industry and credit.”

    This forecast by Engels materialized fully in the Russian Empire. After its very costly participation in the First World War, Russia sank into a fratricidal and exceptionally destructive civil war from 1918 to 1922.

    In the same letter, Engels elaborated on his assessment of the prospects of the ongoing class struggle in Europe: “A war would throw us back for years.” He noted that “chauvinism would swamp everything, for it would be a fight for existence.” Engels further noted that

    “Germany would put about five million armed men into the field, or ten per cent of the population, the others about four to five per cent, Russia relatively less. But there would be from ten to fifteen million combatants. I should like to see how they are to be fed; it would be devastation like the Thirty Years’ War. And no quick decision could be arrived at, despite the colossal fighting forces.”

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-friedrich-engels%E2%80%99-predictions-world-war-i-came-true-11208

  52. Dillinger   1 year ago

    >>Such crackdowns ... can throw entire communities into disarray, screwing up their economies and leaving tons of vacant job openings at the workplaces ransacked by immigration enforcers.

    no mirrors in Rockaway? such injections of immigrants can throw entire communities into disarray, screwing up their economies and taking jobs ... not to mention eating the dogs and eating the cats.

  53. CE   1 year ago

    88 billion dollars to deport one million people? That's 88K each. I knew Bidenflation was bad, but bus tickets shouldn't cost THAT much.

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

      Somebody paid for them to get here, and 'the media' can't seem to be bothered to find out who; the meals and porta-potties on the trip from Guatemala didn't get there for free.
      Find out who that was, and bill them for the tickets.

  54. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

    BTW, turd has gone missing at least since the Trump won; perhaps the slimy pile of dishonest lefty shit committed suicide?
    (I can hope).

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      He’s not missed.

      1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

        Seppuku would be a more appropriate term.

        1. Medulla Oblongata   1 year ago

          Seppuku would be honorable. I'm pretty sure there's nothing honorable about buttplug.

  55. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

    I am not sure how many people are going to give much sympathy to a company that hired so many illegal aliens into their workforce that it causes a major disruption.to operations when those illegal alien workers are deported.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      And you thought $3 butter was bad.

      1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

        Jeff hasn't bought butter in a while if he thinks you can find butter for $3 even on sale.
        The absolute cheapest I saw last time I was there was the Giant Eagle store brand for $4.69.

      2. Marshal   1 year ago

        The other day Jeffey claimed E-Verify prevents illegals from working in America. Today they are so embedded in our economy their loss triggers massive price increases.

        More evidence he propagandizes whatever suits the current argument, reality simply isn't a relevant factor.

        1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

          He’s gone totally off the rails since last Tuesday.

          1. Chumby   1 year ago

            Vice President elect JD Vance is wrong about Jeff’s coping mechanisms.

          2. Marshal   1 year ago

            I don't see any change.

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Oh look, someone is still upset that I showed that you were just another 'pwn the libs' conservative troll. You concoct whatever strawmen and caricatures are necessary to argue against anything. You don't listen or comprehend arguments, you just repeat the stories in your head.

          The other day Jeffey claimed E-Verify prevents illegals from working in America.

          That is false. What I said was, in response to a comment that demanded that government contractors be mandated to use E-Verify, that it is already a requirement for them to do so, and has been since 2009. I said nothing about the efficacy one way or another about E-Verify.

          Today they are so embedded in our economy their loss triggers massive price increases.

          Well, I think that is true, although it depends on what is your definition of "massive".

          This comment right here is more evidence that you make up whatever argument is convenient to 'pwn the libs'.

          1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

            This is where Jeff accidentally said he wasn’t a libertarian.

          2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

            That is false. What I said was, in response to a comment that demanded that government contractors be mandated to use E-Verify, that it is already a requirement for them to do so, and has been since 2009. I said nothing about the efficacy one way or another about E-Verify.

            Except it isn't enforced, even in DC. The company I work for bids exclusively on government contracts in DC and has not been audited for compliance a single time since 2015. I can e-verify that for you.

          3. Super Scary   1 year ago

            "pwn"

            2005 called, they want their lingo back.

          4. Marshal   1 year ago

            What I said was, in response to a comment that demanded that government contractors be mandated to use E-Verify,

            This is a lie. The comment was not about government contractors, it was about illegal workers which he converted to government employees because his mission is to convert every thread into the least damaging to the left. Now that Jeffey he has revealed he understands this distinction we can see how prior propaganda effort worked. He changed the population of the comment specifically so he could deny the issue which was true of the general population. This is who he is.

    2. Chumby   1 year ago

      Koch Industries will need to hire locals and pay them the prevailing wage for polishing those monocles.

  56. Chumby   1 year ago

    Closing time
    You don’t have to go home,
    but you can’t stay here.

  57. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

    The governments of Texas and Florida are, of course, not fiscally innocent, having spent a fair chunk of change busing migrants to New York, Sacramento, Chicago, and Martha's Vineyard as stunts to get blue-state liberals to start shouldering some of the welfare cost.

    Haha this was the best "stunt" every and you can tell because the libs are STILL crying about it.

    1. Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)   1 year ago

      “Help! We have millions of illegals flooding in and overwhelming our infrastructure. We’re at the point of collapse! Someone get rid of them for us”

      “Ha ha. U R vary rAciSt and mean. We declare ourselves a sAnCtuARy ciTY and will protect them from U because we are noble and good”

      “Really? Alright, here you go. You take them”

      “busing migrants to New York, Sacramento, Chicago, and Martha’s Vineyard is a stunt”

      1. mtrueman   1 year ago

        “busing migrants to New York, Sacramento, Chicago, and Martha’s Vineyard is a stunt”

        Does busing migrants to New York bring us back from the brink of imminent collapse? No? Then it's merely a stunt.

        1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   1 year ago

          FOAD, scumbag.

        2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

          But it did bring the finances of New York City to the brink of imminent collapse.

        3. Super Scary   1 year ago

          So if a solution isn't going to 100% fix a problem by itself, it's not worth doing?

          Noted.

          1. mtrueman   1 year ago

            "So if a solution isn’t going to 100% fix a problem by itself, it’s not worth doing?"

            No, if a stunt isn't going to do anything to fix a problem, it's better to focus our attention on something that does. (If you do indeed want to 'fix the problem.' Otherwise stunts it is.)

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              Right, provocative political action is only valid when it helps commies.

              1. mtrueman   1 year ago

                So, when is a stunt not a stunt? When it helps the fascists. Then it's a 'provocative political action.'

            2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

              “…… it’s better to focus our attention on something that does.” (Fix a problem)

              Oh, we have. Were you asleep last Tuesday? Haha.

    2. Chumby   1 year ago

      Progressives like to decide what happens to the money and backyards of others. When the consequences of their actions is put in their lap, instead of welcoming what they wanted they opposed it.

  58. minnix   1 year ago

    It will be interesting to see how this administration approaches churches like my own with congregations that declare themselves as places for sanctuary.

    1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

      It is pretty stupid for a congregation to declare themselves a place of sanctuary. It defeats the purpose of actually acting as a sanctuary. It is literal virtue signaling and even Jesus had harsh words to say about people who do that.

      1. mtrueman   1 year ago

        "even Jesus had harsh words to say about people who do that."

        Hate thy neighbor?

      2. minnix   1 year ago

        The Baptist Joint Committee has put together a good set of guidelines regarding sanctuary congregations: https://bjconline.org/sanctuarymovement/

        There are reasons for publicly declaring your church as a sanctuary, it has nothing to do with "virtue signalling".

    2. BYODB   1 year ago

      Notably, the era of running into a church and screaming 'sanctuary' to get away from the local noble that has it out for you is long gone.

      E.g. if you run into a church asking for sanctuary since you haven't paid your taxes since the early 90's they will still go into the church and arrest you even if the church says it's ok.

      1. mtrueman   1 year ago

        "the era of running into a church and screaming ‘sanctuary’ to get away from the local noble that has it out for you is long gone. "

        Not that long ago. South Korean dissidents found sanctuary in Catholic Churches when the dictator's thugs came to kill and torture. After the dictators lost power, ex-president Chun Doo-Hwan, wanted on charges of treason and mass murder, also sought sanctuary in a Buddhist Monastery. Granted, South Koreans take their religious obligations a lot more seriously than today's Americans.

      2. minnix   1 year ago

        Our sanctuary declaration has nothing to do with local nobles or taxes, nor is the sanctuary movement "long gone". I am not sure if you attend church or not, so you may be ignorant of this custom. There are currently thousands of churches that are part of the sanctuary movement. The Baptist Joint Committee has put together a set of guidelines that you may find interesting if you would like to learn something new today: https://bjconline.org/sanctuarymovement/

  59. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/3158796/house-bill-passes-requiring-deportation-illegal-immigrants-history-sex-offenses/

    They don’t even want to send the rapists back home. Literally. They voted against it. 158 all democrats. Unbelievable. I cannot imagine the mindset of a person who thinks this way.

  60. Carter Mitchell   1 year ago

    They're going to start with the Venezuelan gangs. It's possible that those gangsters might resist, necessitating the use of deadly force. Venezuela may not agree to take back the ones who survive. That's what parachutes are for.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's Responses to Kimmel and Comey Highlight His Contempt for Freedom of Speech

Jacob Sullum | 5.6.2026 12:01 AM

Elizabeth Warren Wrongly Implies Jeff Bezos Isn't Paying Enough Taxes

Robby Soave | 5.5.2026 5:40 PM

The People vs. CEQA

Christian Britschgi | 5.5.2026 3:25 PM

How the Slaveholding Founders Really Felt About Slavery

Timothy Sandefur | 5.5.2026 1:20 PM

Can We Ever Trust the Government To Be Honest About War?

Alexander Langlois | 5.5.2026 12:27 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks