MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'National Sex Trafficking Crackdown' Nets Zero Sex Traffickers: Reason Roundup

Plus: Another one of NYU professor Avital Ronell's teaching assistants talks, and Tucker Carlson goes after Amazon.

Kristy-Anne Glubish / Design Pics/NewscomKristy-Anne Glubish / Design Pics/NewscomLast week concluded the latest "National Johns Suppression Initiative," an appropriately draconian name for a coordinated cross-country targeting of sex workers and their customers. This year's stings netted "hundreds of would-be sex buyers," the Chicago Tribune reports, "as well as a half-dozen alleged pimps."

The Tribune headline describes it a "national sex trafficking crackdown." But let's do the math from the figures it gives us:

  • 473 people arrested for attempting to pay for sexual activity
  • 6 people arrested for pimping (i.e., profiting off of prostitution)
  • 0 people arrested for sex trafficking

This "national sex trafficking operation" has a zero percent success rate if the goal is, you know, actually catching sex traffickers. Even counting the six alleged pimps, these arrests make up less than 1.3 percent of the total arrests reported (and that's without including sex workers arrested in the course of these stings).

The focus for police here is allegedly on "rescuing children." But either there's drastically fewer minors in need of rescuing than they say or they've barely bothered to make a dent in the problem, instead squandering resources, attention, and action on shaming adults who seek consensual commercial exchanges with other adults.

In stings that spanned cities across the country for an entire month (July 25 to August 26), 11 teenagers were found to be working in prostitution.

Of the 473 "john" arrests, just 10 are accused of agreeing to go forward with the encounter once an undercover cop posing as a sex worker "admitted" to being underage.

The stings are organized by "abolitionist" Swanee Hunt and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart; this is the 16th of the semi-annual operations*, launched in 2011. You might remember Dart from his blatantly unconstitutional war on Craigslist and Backpage for their adult ads, or Hunt from the time she paid Seattle prosecutors to frame the bust of an escort web forum as the takedown of a "sex trafficking ring."

Hunt, Dart, and their ilk frame these as productive despite the dearth of actual victims because they say they're "ending demand" for "child sex trafficking." But as sting after sting like this shows, the demand just isn't there. Prostitution among adults is popular; paying minors for sex is not, thank goodness. And to the extent that there are people out there seeking such things out and profiting off of them, stings like this don't work to catch them.

After nearly a decade of doing this annual "anti–sex trafficking" charade, it's time to stop letting zealots like these two not only destroy the lives of innocent people but hijack police and media focus for their weird authoritarian ends.

Some departments are starting to wise up and opt out. For instance, after two years of participation, the McClennan County Sheriff's Office in Texas decided not to participate. Said Chief Deputy David Kilcrease: "The john suppression effort is...primarily all misdemeanors. We've proven we can fill our books with misdemeanor arrests that are time-consuming to do," but it pulls focus from folks actually instigating exploitation.

FREE MINDS

An interesting essay on Avital Ronell, the New York University professor recently accused by a former student of long-term sexual harassment, was written by another one of Ronell's former teaching assistants, who asserts that "it is simply no secret to anyone within a mile of the German or comp-lit departments at NYU that Avital is abusive. This is boring and socially agreed upon, like the weather."

Nontheless, writes Andrea Long Chu,

Academic celebrity soaks up blood like a pair of Thinx. A letter to NYU's president, Andrew Hamilton, a draft of which leaked in June, argued that Avital's "brilliant scholarship" qualified her for special treatment. The 51 signatories included giants of feminist theory like Judith Butler and Gayatri Spivak, as well as my department chair—and the professor who emailed to "encourage" me to play nice with Avital. (Butler has since issued some tepid regrets.)

Meanwhile, on social media and on their blog, the queer-studies scholars Lisa Duggan and Jack Halberstam dismissed the blowback against Avital as neoliberalism meets sex panic meets culture clash, straight people apparently being unable to decipher the coded queer intimacy of emails like "I tried to call you a number of times, unfortunately couldn't get through, would have liked to leave a msg" [sic].

That Avital's defenders are left-wing academic stars is not particularly surprising if you've spent much time in the academy. The institution has two choices when faced with political radicals: Ax them, especially if they are graduate students, or promote them. Make them successful, give them awards, power, enormous salaries. That way, when the next scandal comes along—and it will—they will have a vested interest in playing defense.

This is how institutionality reproduces. Even the call to think critically about power becomes a clever smoke screen. There is a whole dissertation to be written on intellectuals using the word neoliberal to mean "rules I shouldn't have to follow."

Read the whole thing at The Chronicle of Higher Education.

FREE MARKETS

Amazon is the new Walmart, Republicans are the new left:

Big banks purportedly closing immigrant accounts. It's been going on with other groups that anger the prevailing administration (for Obama, it was sex workers and gun sellers) for years:

QUICK HITS

Correction: This post originally said this was the 16th annual National Johns Suppression Inititaive; it is the 16th initiative, but operations take place twice annually.

Photo Credit: Kristy-Anne Glubish / Design Pics/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rich||

    'National Sex Trafficking Crackdown' Nets Zero Sex Traffickers

    "See?! We scared 'em all away!!"

  • Bee Tagger||

    They shouldnt have allowed the segment to be sponsored by NetZero

  • Just Say'n||

    Does that still exist? I thought that went the way of Chumbawumba

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Got more awesome with time?

  • Just Say'n||

    No. You're thinking of Julia Louise Dreyfus

  • DiegoF||

    Seinfeld premiered during my very early pubescence, so would even with the "Grace Jones," but seeing her with that straightened hair brought me to places I didn't even know existed. This is in contrast to Fran Drescher, who I think looks sexier with the frizz than without it. Not too common, I must admit.

  • Indrakant Kumar||

    more awesome goes on

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Would you like to buy my Dragon Repellent (patent pending)?

    There are no dragons in my yard, so it must work.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Hey, it looks like the "National Johns Suppression Initiative" is working.

  • DiegoF||

    Seems to be an Eddie Suppression Initiative in full force too.

  • Bee Tagger||

    The Verge considers how we should regulate facial recognition tools.

    bittersweet infamy

  • Bee Tagger||

    Are the diets of the future in our DNA?

    slow down, give me some time to adjust to eating insects before i move on to dna

  • sharmota4zeb||

    With enough research and development, we can create an AI that sequences your DNA to determine which recipes you are genetically predetermined to enjoy. Alternatively, you can taste things and remember what you like.

  • Rich||

    how we should regulate facial recognition tools

    Well, first ban head coverings, makeup, and tattoos.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Why is only Bernie talking about it?
    — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 31, 2018

    that's one way to take the wind out of the new left's sails

  • Just Say'n||

    Better question for a more pressing issue: Why is Carlson the only talking head on cable that criticizes the president when he bombs Syria or increases troop numbers in Afghanistan?

  • DesigNate||

    Isn't this really just more proof that Republicans today are Democrats from the 90's?

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Maybe it's a growing realization the you can be screwed by the government and corporations both.

  • Bearded Spock||

    It sure looks like that. And I think it's not so much due to hypocrisy as it is due to sheer cynicism.

    Republicans spent the 90s and the 00s laboring under the delusion that the Democrats and the Media were trustworthy and would play by the rules.

    Their presidential nominees were respectable nice guys or esteemed Washington insiders who became Literally Hitler in the eyes of the Left the minute they were nominated or took office.

    Then when in office, they governed in a manner which was essentially indistinguishable from the Democrats.

    Trump won because Republicans got tired of being chumps and voted for a scoundrel who would at least try to push their agenda. So they font give a fuck about his indiscretions as long as he packs the courts with conservatives.

    It's opportunistic and cynical, to be sure, but no different than Libertarians hitching their wagon to a former big-government Republican (Weld) in order to capitalize on his name recognition.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • sharmota4zeb||

    2018 - 35 = 1993

    Yeah, that sounds right. Circa 1990, Republicans wanted to bring the 1950's back.

  • Rich||

    Microsoft has announced that it will only do business with freelance firms that offer their employees 12 weeks of paid family leave.

    What?! Those firms can still use the N-word?!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Yet another major scandal involving Brett Kavanaugh!

    As a student at Yale in the 1980s, Brett Kavanaugh stayed out of debates on a campus that was going through many of them. Friends and acquaintances say he seemed more interested in basketball.

    Clearly this man lacks the intellectual seriousness needed for a lifetime Supreme Court appointment. Contact your Senators and tell them to use all available means to prevent his confirmation.

    #StopKavanaugh
    #Resist

  • creech||

    Is this the same AP Politics that diligently looked into Obama's classmates at Columbia and Harvard to see what he was doing on campus?

  • General_Tso||

    The real classmates, or the composite classmates that his ghostwriter made up for literary purposes?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They're trying to deport American citizens. By the hundreds. If your reaction to this isn't anger and outrage, but whatabboutism and an urge to attack the media, consider the possibility that politics has devoured your soul.

    But you see, being an American is all about having the correct papers from the state, and/or being born on the correct plot of dirt. It has nothing to do with being acculturated to American values. Except when it comes to 'anchor babies'. For those people, being born on American dirt isn't enough. They aren't 'real Americans' because they haven't assimilated to American values. Except when it's DACA kids and refugees. Even though some of them have been here for 20+ years and have productive Americanized lives, they don't have the right papers from the state, and/or they were born on the wrong plot of dirt, so time to kick them out.

    It's simple, really!

  • Just Say'n||

    So if it doesn't matter when this program started aren't you just admitting that you never really cared about this issue to begin with?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If we go back far enough, I am sure we will discover a time when you were not a dedicated non-interventionist. Do you want us to hold that against you?

  • LynchPin1477||

    It might just be admitting that you didn't know about it.

    But can't we separate the question of *why* people are paying attention now from the issue of ending a terrible program?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Deporting nonAmericans is not a terrible program.

  • Kivlor||

    you're ignoring the "blood" part of "blood and soil"

  • Just Say'n||

    Did you also hear that Drumpf is starving Yemenis? Totally just happened under him. Let's get riled up about it with your newfound righteous outrage

  • DesigNate||

    So in this instance we SHOULD rip kids from their mothers arms?

  • Bearded Spock||

    IF the government is trying to deport US citizens then that is indeed deplorable and worthy of condemnation.

    But Balko has a long, long, long history of saying outrageous things that are not completely supported by fact. I'd like to see some actual evidence before I fire up a torch and grab my pitchfork.

  • Just Say'n||

    I guess Balko should explain then why he suddenly discovered this problem if it doesn't matter when the program started. Doesn't that speak to him being more concerned with principals far more than any kind of principle?

    To be fair that criticism is glaringly clear for beltway libertarians in general

  • Juice||

    Interesting that "your reaction to this isn't anger and outrage, but whatabboutism and an urge to attack the media." You might want to "consider the possibility that politics has devoured your soul."

  • Just Say'n||

    Looking forward to you ignoring this topic when Trump is out of office and the policy is still in place

  • Juice||

    I'm not a political activist. If there's a blog post about it, I'll comment on it.

    What's interesting here is that you think it's all about Trump and somehow that hurts your butt really bad.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yup, that's it. I'm the partisan hack, not the guy who was asleep for the last eight years and is totally all concerned about a program that was in no way a secret and immigration activists have been talking about since the early 2000's.

    If immigration is so important to you then why weren't you aware of this?

  • Cathy L||

    a program that was in no way a secret and immigration activists have been talking about since the early 2000's

    Are you this poorly informed, or this much of a liar? Have you read the reporting in the Washington Post? Did you read the followup at Vox by Dara Lind?

  • Just Say'n||

    You did not answer any of my points. Sorry, I didn't get this weeks talking points

  • Fancylad||

    Did you read Vox

    Not in a million years.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    We just got used to ignoring writers who looked the other way at the same or similar policies when Obama was in office. Yes, we should hand out more immigration visas, streamline the process, and make the system fair to prospective immigrants, but people who stayed silent on the issue during Obama's term should stick to "+1" comments while the consistent Libertarians present their views instead of seeing this as an opportunity to promote the #Resistance.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Huh? Why are you trying to start an argument with the Reason commentariat that would only make sense if you were in the comments section of, say, the Huffington Post?

    Is Reason Derangement Syndrome a thing?

  • Cathy L||

    Yes, it is.

  • Shirley Knott||

    You're new here aren't you?
    RDS is a given amongst the commentariat, both current and, perhaps especially, former.

  • DesigNate||

    You can't be a real libertarian unless you disagree with everyone else. Duh!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yes you can!

  • Mike Laursen||

    I'm so not new around here that I remember the greatest troll of all, Joe. Just Say'n is no Joe.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It was started under W.
    In June 2009, the Obama state department signed a settlement to halt the practice. The agreement ran through 2012, but there is no evidence the practice resumed until 2017.

  • sarcasmic||

    'National Sex Trafficking Crackdown' Nets Zero Sex Traffickers

    Better water down the definition a bit more.

  • Rich||

    How about including registered sex offenders who change (or *leave*) their residence?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Have you guys suckered Bezo the Bozo into buying one of those $250,000 "Apollo 7 sponsorships" for your big 50th anniversary shindig?

    More importantly, will the Koch boys' lowest level peons like Lizzie, Suderman, and Soave be allowed into the party, or will they have private armed security to make sure that you guys aren't allowed within 100 feet of the restaurant?

  • SIV||

    Radley Balko

    @radleybalko
    They're trying to deport American citizens. By the hundreds. If your reaction to this isn't anger and outrage at Trump and his deplorable racist supporters, but whatabboutism (there is nothing new here this is a continuation of existing practices and policies under US law) and an urge to attack the hypocritical lying fake news media such as my partisan hack self, consider the possibility that politics has devoured your soul.
  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because it's more important to "destroy the Left" than it is to ponder what should happen to these citizens. I mean, who really gives a fuck about those people. They aren't 'real Americans' anyway.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's a weird way of saying "ignore my newfound outrage over an issue that has existed over the past two administrations. I'll shut-up about it when Trump is gone and the policy is still in place"

  • ||

    I guess you have proof that he knew about it and specifically ignored it. Must be nice to be omniscient.

  • Just Say'n||

    So the counter argument is "I'm ignorant on these topics"?

  • ||

    You're specifically arguing that there was a point in time that Radley knew about, and chose to ignore, a issue he is current knows about and is not ignoring. Yet you provide no evidence of that. Because it's pretty much impossible to do so. So your attack is entirely baseless.

  • Just Say'n||

    So if Balko didn't know about this program then it would follow that he's profoundly shitty at his job, no?

    Are we pretending like complaints about this problem and other recent faux controversies were not being made by immigration activists since the early 2000's?

  • Cathy L||

    if Balko didn't know about this program then it would follow that he's profoundly shitty at his job, no?

    His beat isn't immigration, so not really.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Which is a bad argument to be making if you know Balko's track record. He's pretty much always in the know about what's going on.

    It's also bizarre that Just Say'in is stuck on this, considering that Reason covered the Obama administration's immigration abuses.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No, the counter argument is that he knew but didn't ignore it.

    However, the number of people being targeted for deportation due to allegedly fraudulent birth certificates under Trump is an order of magnitude higher under Trump than it was under Obama when in all cases under both administrations the alleged fraud is 40+ years old. I wonder, why the sudden and drastic increase?

  • Just Say'n||

    "However, the number of people being targeted for deportation due to allegedly fraudulent birth certificates under Trump is an order of magnitude higher under Trump than it was under Obama when in all cases under both administrations the alleged fraud is 40+ years old"

    Are you sure about that? Also the program was started under Bush

  • Just Say'n||

    www.bloomberg.com/view/article.....-obama-did

    This isn't specific to the topic at hand, but it does highlight how these faux controversies are profoundly full of shit

  • Just Say'n||

    This is the money shot that basically sums-up why you guys stumble over yourselves to explain your sudden awakening from that long coma that you all endured:

    "ICE arrests peaked at more than 300,000 annually in 2010 and 2011. Deportations from the American interior -- in other words, not of people apprehended near the border — surpassed 200,000 in both those years, also about twice the number reached in 2017."

    and

    "I asked Leopold why Obama's peak years of enforcement hadn't spread as much fear or more — given the higher rates of arrest and deportation.

    "Even during the worst days of the Obama crackdown," he said, "ICE used its discretion and applied common sense." Today, he said, the agency refuses to use either, while seeming to revel in "tearing apart families."

    No evidence is provided for the assertion, because it's not true. You guys are basically more offended by words than actions. Which is the calling card of an idiot

  • Happy Chandler||

    1) Migration from Mexico is down from that period.
    2) Interior removals dropped every year from 2009-2016.
    http://www.politifact.com/trut.....-year-low/
    3) There were huge protests about deportations.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    So, in the run up to the 2012 election, Obama increased deportations of people in flyover country who liked America enough to move here and see it through the lens of voluntary immigration. hmmmm

  • creech||

    " I wonder, why the sudden and drastic increase?"
    Somebody checked their voter registration and didn't like their party choice?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    +1 creech

  • Juice||

    If someone didn't know about a problem until recently, it's not really a problem.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Or it wasn't a problem until recently, as the practice was stopped within six months of the Obama administration.

  • Just Say'n||

    Not true Chandler Bing, but congrats on being a boiler plate partisan

  • Happy Chandler||

    Settlement in June 2009.
    Any evidence to the contrary?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So what is your argument?

    We should permit injustices to continue if we didn't immediately denounce the injustice when it first started?

  • DesigNate||

    Maybe just acknowledge that this has been a problem for a while? Is that too much to ask? Can I get a third question in here to make a Judge Nap joke?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Opening with, "we have to make our immigration policy fairer and kinder" works better than opening with, "Trump is evil for ... continuing Obama's immigration policies." If we don't remind Democratics that they lack the moral high ground, the issue will fade from the news when the White House changes hands.

  • DesigNate||

    No. But feigning outrage now kinda shows that it does matter who is sitting in the Oval Office.

    It's not "whataboutism" to point out the hypocrisy of getting your outrage boner on when the Cheeto is in there but not when Chocolate Nixon or Chimpy McBushitler were.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's literally just principals and has absolutely nothing to do with principles.

    Just like some people are doing with Tucker's "workers of the world unite" shtick. Since when is this kind of argument legitimate?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The entirety of the evidence for fake birth certificates, consists of two people from one state having confessed to issuing fake birth certificates back in the late 1970s, early 1980s.

    The Obama administration deported a few dozen individuals over allegedly fake birth certificates. The Trump Administration is trying to deport hundreds of people spread across every state on our southern boarder.

    The administration has no specific evidence that the birth certificates of the individuals being targeted are fake, but because of the way the immigration courts work, the government doesn't have to prove that the BC is fake, the targeted individual is forced to try and prove that their BC is legitimate.

    The outrage is real and legitimate.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The Obama administration deported a few dozen individuals over allegedly fake birth certificates. The Trump Administration is trying to deport hundreds of people spread across every state on our southern boarder."

    Do you have any evidence for this beyond righteous feelz?

  • Happy Chandler||

    There was a settlement in June 2009 to end the practice. There is no evidence that it resumed after the settlement expired in 2012, until 2017.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The entirety of the evidence for fake birth certificates, consists of two people from one state having confessed to issuing fake birth certificates back in the late 1970s, early 1980s.

    The Obama administration deported a few dozen individuals over allegedly fake birth certificates. The Trump Administration is trying to deport hundreds of people spread across every state on our southern boarder.

    The administration has no specific evidence that the birth certificates of the individuals being targeted are fake, but because of the way the immigration courts work, the government doesn't have to prove that the BC is fake, the targeted individual is forced to try and prove that their BC is legitimate.

    The outrage is real and legitimate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "They're trying to deport American citizens. By the hundreds.

    I don't know what he's talking about, but they also try to throw American citizens in jail. By the thousands.

    They're not trying to throw them in jail for not being criminals, but some of them are falsely accused. Still, they're trying to convict people who are guilty of crimes. Does Balko imagine only guilty people are arrested and prosecuted?

    It's the same with immigration.

    If American citizens are sometimes falsely accused of being illegal immigrants, isn't that par for the course?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    How does that make it not outrageous?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Help me understand what's outrageous. If it's outrageous, then that should be easy!

    Are these people being denied a trial, defense counsel, or the ability to show evidence of their innocence?

    Innocent people being convicted of a crime is outrageous.

    Guilty people being convicted of something that shouldn't be a crime is outrageous.

    Innocent people being arrested with probable cause but released once their innocence is established is not outrageous. That's the way things are supposed to be.

    I don't see the context here. Maybe there's more to it than that. Show me why I should be outraged.

  • Cathy L||

    Are these people being denied a trial, defense counsel, or the ability to show evidence of their innocence?

    They don't have a right to a trial, and since the evidence of their American citizenship is a state document which the state is now denying the legitimacy of, then yes, I would say they are being denied the ability to show evidence of their citizenship.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So you do have some context for Balko's assertion beyond the text of a tweet!

    That tweets seems pretty stupid and worthless without that context, doesn't it.

  • Cathy L||

    Yes, I have been following the news that was reported right here at Reason in yesterday's Roundup.

  • Happy Chandler||

    An American citizen with a US Birth Certificate and US Passport was denied re-entry at the border and put in detention. He was eventually released, but his passport confiscated.

    I think getting your passport revoked should require a court order, based on a high standard (not sure if beyond a reasonable doubt is too tight). I think non-renewal of a passport needs to be based on evidence, not suspicion. And, there should be a statute of limitations. If your birth certificate has been deemed valid throughout your life until you hit 18, it cannot be challenged.

    Denial of passport without evidence is, IMO (probably not settled in court) an infringement on the right to free movement.

  • Cathy L||

    I don't know what he's talking about

    Great. Then sit down and shut the fuck up until you read the reporting, because you don't know what you're talking about.

    Does Balko imagine only guilty people are arrested and prosecuted?

    Yeah, Balko of all people never talks about people who are unjustly imprisoned.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Was any context for the tweet given? Am I supposed to know about the context of a tweet--when no context is given?

    Who's trying to deport American citizens? I'm pretty sure the government is only trying to deport illegal aliens. Is he talking about American citizens being deported from some foreign country?

    What's the context of his statement?

    "Yeah, Balko of all people never talks about people who are unjustly imprisoned."

    That's what I was alluding to! That's what makes the statement all the more absurd, right?

    Are you new here?

    Should I have assumed you know nothing of Balko?

    Yes, Balko writes about people who are unjustly imprisoned. So sad if he's been claimed by the TDS body-snatchers, too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUXHB5U-Vl4

  • Cathy L||

    The context is a massive story that's been out for a couple days about deportation of American citizens! It's been covered here.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No everyone has read everything you have.

    And asking for context isn't inappropriate.

    In fact, you're supposed to get context on things that don't make sense without it.

    No really.

  • perlchpr||

    Then why didn't you, y'know, ask for context, instead of posting whatever that was you posted up there?

  • DesigNate||

    Cathy coming with the salt.

  • Kivlor||

    Ken Shultz yesterday had asked John for some evidence of Reason claiming that immigration doesn't depress wages.
    I don't remember Reason making the case that immigration doesn't hurt the wages or job prospects of unskilled labor.

    John didn't respond, and I was a little busy so I didn't get to this until today, but here's 3 times they've claimed that recently. It's a typical claim in the pro-immigrant argument.

    The argument is literally "Labor is immune to supply and demand when the sacred brown immigrants are involved"

    Reason has been making this claim dating back to at least 2013, and I am sure much earlier than that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I was looking for that thread yesterday and couldn't find it! Can you link to it?

    As I recall, what I wrote was that "I don't remember" Reason doing that. I went on to argue that unskilled immigration is a good thing, in no small part, because it's cheap. It's good for the economy because it's cheap.

    I think I wrote something to the effect that centrally planning the economy by way of immigration so that meth heads have as little competition as possible reeks of rent seeking.

    I haven't looked at your three links yet. For all I know, there was a study that says immigration doesn't depress wages--for the middle class--or something. The idea that more cheap unskilled labor being introduced into the economy doesn't create more competition for native born unskilled labor--over the long term--is ridiculous. And anybody who makes such an argument in the name of free markets and libertarianism should be ashamed of themselves.

    I should have been more careful in my estimation of what Reason staff has been writing here over the last year. Journalists can write about cars without actually being a car, and there may be journalists writing about libertarianism without actually being . . .

  • Kivlor||

    Yeah, it was yesterday's Roundup.

    Also, I think I quoted you in today's post. You weren't arguing that it doesn't affect wages, but you were saying you don't remember Reason making such claims.

    There are arguments to be made that immigration can be good for the economy. But honestly, people like the authors and editors at Reason damage their credibility when they try to claim that it is good for the wages of the people that the immigrants compete with.

    I have a feeling that if we changed immigration policy to intentionally bring in 200,000 new journalists, the journalist class might not feel as grateful as they seem to think the unskilled Americans should be toward their replacements.

  • DesigNate||

    Can you imagine the head explosions if Trump tried to extend thousands of visas to Russian and Syrian journalists, along with others?

  • Kivlor||

    "He's a Putin-Assad Puppet trying to overwhelm our divine media institutions with evil propagandists!"

    Honestly, I'd love to see them bring in 200,000 negro and Hispanic journalists. Just to watch them suffer literally the exact same sentence they wish upon the poor and uneducated people that they sneer at so openly.

    The Left would eat them alive as privileged white racists who are trying to keep the browns out of media. I would love to watch as every Jew who spasms and sputters at the threat to their livelihood and stranglehold on these institutions gets labeled a Nazi and laugh.

  • perlchpr||

    Honestly, I'd love to see them bring in 200,000 negro and Hispanic journalists. Just to watch them suffer literally the exact same sentence they wish upon the poor and uneducated people that they sneer at so openly.

    It's an amusing thought, brought up short by the problem that while it doesn't matter that much if your gardener can't speak English all that well, Journalism is at least theoretically not so.

    I believe it would be difficult to find 200,000 foreign PoC who are fluent in English enough to be competition for native journalists, who are also journalists and not, y'know, engineers or physicist or something.

  • Kivlor||

    English is a lot more prevalent than you think

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I believe it would be difficult to find 200,000 foreign PoC who are fluent in English enough to be competition for native journalists,

    Remember, you are racist if you believe in the dictionary according to modern progs. There goes the competitive advantage of the native English speakers.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I would love to watch as every Jew who spasms and sputters at the threat to their livelihood and stranglehold on these institutions gets labeled a Nazi and laugh.

    Meh, there aren't that many Jew's in media relative to their population in cities that host large media companies. Most people don't know about Jews in the construction industry, because they don't ask the real estate agent the religion of the guys who built a house. It seems like every Jew is in media if the only Jews you've seen are the ones on TV. It's all good. I kill you.

  • Horny Lizard||

    You mean Russian govt agents dressed up as journalists. Surely you can see Russia and Syria for what they are.

  • Kivlor||

    Called it. Heck all it took was some random on Reason's comments proposing it to bring out the exact reaction I predicted.

  • DesigNate||

    And that would be different then our own CIA planting operatives as "journalist" inside the MSM how?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But honestly, people like the authors and editors at Reason damage their credibility when they try to claim that it is good for the wages of the people that the immigrants compete with."

    Looking at your examples, I'm sorry to see the caliber of the writers who published that crap.

    How embarrassing.

  • Kivlor||

    Looking at your examples, I'm sorry to see the caliber of the writers who published that crap.

    How embarrassing.

    Yeah, and that was just a cursory search. I spotted stuff from all sorts of authors dating back to 2011, and that was with 5 minutes looking. It's always been one of the major contentions I've had with the open-borders arguments I run into regularly.

    Which isn't to slander you as making those arguments. I enjoy you Ken, and you're far better than such nonsense. Honestly, you're the kind of leadership the LP needs.

  • Cathy L||

    Looking at your examples, I'm sorry to see the caliber of the writers who published that crap.

    Lol, did you actually read them? Or just the bylines?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Cathy L, adults are talking.

  • Cathy L||

    f we changed immigration policy to intentionally bring in 200,000 new journalists, the journalist class might not feel as grateful as they seem to think the unskilled Americans should be toward their replacements

    I love this argument, as if journalism hasn't lost tens of thousands of jobs over the past decade and there isn't already an oversupply of journalists.

  • Kivlor||

    Exactly. Now, watch them squeal if we intentionally bring in competition. To provide the service at a price they're unwilling to work at.

  • Cathy L||

    Why would I want to watch them squeal? Because journalists are my enemy and I want to jerk off thinking about them being sad? Not everyone has that fetish.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yours skew younger, that's true.

  • Kivlor||

    I think you should live up to your own rhetoric. Which means if you claim immigration is good for wages, so the natives should welcome their replacements, why don't we test the courage of your convictions. If they're not bad people, who fit in fine, and all that, let's put them in your home since you want them. Let's bring in a large number as competition for your job. If it's good, you won't mind it at all.

    Obviously, I don't think that these people actually believe what they claim. They would freak out if their neighborhood turned brown and their job was threatened by illegal labor undercutting the current price structure.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is the same ridiculous argument as those who say "if you're so pro-life, then you should be willing to adopt 10 million orphans who would otherwise have been aborted".

    A person's personal situation is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

    This is the kind of identity politics crap that drives everyone bonkers. "Only low-skilled domestic workers have the moral authority to discuss the labor economics of immigration". No, that is incorrect.

  • DesigNate||

    No, but you don't have a moral high horse to tell low-skilled domestic workers they have to bend over and take it either.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, but you don't have a moral high horse to tell low-skilled domestic workers they have to bend over and take it either.

    If the arguments are correct and based on a solid moral foundation - why not?

    I'll even go further:

    Low-skilled/unskilled domestic workers, who work at unskilled dead end jobs as long term careers, should have made better life choices so that they wouldn't be put out of work by illiterate Guatemalans with a 3rd-grade education.

    I have very little sympathy for people who never took their education or future career options seriously, just drifted through highschool, drifted through life, never took any responsibility for their future, and then wake up surprised that they have no marketable skills of any worth. They are the ones who are the first to complain about "those damn immigrants stealing our jerbs". Sorry, but the real fault is your own, for never giving a damn about your own future, and feeling entitled to have the government protect a job for you that literally a ten-year-old could do.

    Now does this describe EVERY unskilled domestic worker? No. But it sure does describe a great deal of them, at least as far as my anecdotal observations go.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And incidentally it is the same position I have for any worker in any field, who refuses to see the writing on the wall, refuses to adapt to changing circumstances, and demands that the state rearrange the economy to mitigate the effects of their lack of foresight. IT'S YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT if you don't keep your skills and talents up to date in the face of a changing marketplace.
    You aren't entitled to have the state turn back the clock for you to save you from your own incompetence.

  • Kivlor||

    Low-skilled/unskilled domestic workers, who work at unskilled dead end jobs as long term careers, should have made better life choices so that they wouldn't be put out of work by illiterate Guatemalans with a 3rd-grade education.

    It strikes me so strange, this "anyone can go be a surgeon/attorney/dentist/programmer" so anyone who doesn't deserves no sympathy. It is just patently false. The reality is that IQ is ~80% heritable, and large swaths of people are low IQ. They can't do what you claim. Expecting it of them is ridiculous, and is merely a way for you to morally preen about how much better you are than them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not talking about necessarily becoming a doctor. I'm talking about learning SOME marketable skill that is at the very least difficult to outsource. I'm talking about making good life choices that enables one to develop one's skills and talents.

    You are just offering excuses for people who aren't willing to put in the effort for themselves. It's not about IQ. You don't need high IQ to learn a trade, stay out of trouble, and show up to work on time.

    I suppose I am not surprised to see you making excuses for people who are essentially demanding subsidies and handouts from the government, at least as long as they are the "right kinds" of people. White people who never bothered to develop a skill, and who are out-competed for jobs by illiterate Guatemalans, deserve our sympathy. But brown people who still suffer from prejudice, well, they should just shut up, stop demanding handouts, and knock it off with the identity politics bullshit. Amirite?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It really is amusing to see the "white supremacists" set such incredibly low bars for white people.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It really is amusing to see the "white supremacists" set such incredibly low bars for white people

    White supremacists? You're the one who's wanting to import brown people to keep American black people in the ghetto.

    Did you think no one had noticed that 'unforeseen' side effect of your preference?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    White supremacists?

    Why don't you ask Kivlor some time his views on 'race realism'.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Alternatively, you can forget about investing in retraining for a career change, move to a national park, and live a simple life off the wealth of the land ... cause the borders of our national parks are just lines on a map. My friend dreamed of doing this with his daughters and baby-mama, but his baby-mama didn't want to go native.

  • DesigNate||

    I think we generally agree. I'm just saying you (royal you) don't have a moral high ground to tell people all immigration is good and positive all the time when, if we're being honest with everyone, it's probably not. And mainly for all of the reasons you mentioned.

  • Kivlor||

    "Someone else should live with the consequences of my demands."

    Demanding someone take all the immigrants would be equivalent to your strange analogy. But I'm saying you should take one or two, not one or two million. Not even necessarily into your home, but into your neighborhood at the least.

    There's nothing wrong with asking people who are pro-life if they'd be willing to adopt a kid. That said, immigration =/= adoption. One is being argued as good for your community and wages (when it's demonstrably not) and the other is being argued as murder.

    Also, there's no shortage of people looking to adopt infants. The kids that have a hard time getting adopted are older kids. Which really defeats the whole weird analogy you are trying to make. I live in a small town, and people advertise in the newspaper weekly looking for an infant to adopt. Go talk to every church in town and you'll have a very long list of people looking to take your newborn when the happy day comes.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There's nothing wrong with asking people who are pro-life if they'd be willing to adopt a kid.

    No, there's nothing wrong with it, if your real argument was about someone's supposed hypocrisy, and not about the issue at hand. That is all it is. "You don't give away all your possessions to charity, so therefore you have no right to even discuss ending the welfare state". That is the type of argument that you are making. It is absolutely unconnected to the merits or lack thereof of the welfare state, or immigration, or abortion, or anything else.

  • Kivlor||

    Chemjeff, again, this is a bad analogy. I wouldn't be demanding someone give all their income to charity. The equivalent would be saying "so, are you going to donate to chatity?"

    see the difference?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Demanding someone take all the immigrants would be equivalent to your strange analogy. But I'm saying you should take one or two, not one or two million. Not even necessarily into your home, but into your neighborhood at the least.

    Yes, built-out is just ink on paper, but limits on home construction combine with immigration to make housing unaffordable. We need a strong YIMBY movement that matches support for immigration. Too many Democratics want our national borders opened but complain that someone "came in like Christopher Columbus and took our spot!"

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Publishing is very easy to outsource. Much of the work moved to India over the past several years. When you add the folk content that commentators post for free, there's a glut in the market for people willing to express an opinion. The labor pool might quickly divide into people willing to work on the weekends for a token salary, people providing content full-time to paid subscribers who value their work, and principled content generators who can make a shiv on short notice in case they get hired by an office in Amsterdam to report about a biker gang or a publisher in Paris who needs a new cartoon.

  • Cathy L||

    The argument is literally "Labor is immune to supply and demand when the sacred brown immigrants are involved"

    Your first link says:
    Moreover, while new immigrants may have a slight depressing effect on the wages of prior immigrants, they have small to no effects on wages and employment for the native-born population.

    Sounds like you're full of shit.

  • Cathy L||

    The second one says nothing on the point except for linking to another post that "rebuts these arguments" including ones claiming that immigrants lower wages.

    The third one is that linked post, which says:
    Virtually all economists, regardless of ideology, agree that immigrants, both legal and illegal, have little to no effect on overall wages. The most-vulnerable workers in America are high-school dropouts and economists say that low-skill immigrants from Mexico reduce that group's wages by less than 5 percent—or that they increase drop out wages by almost 1 percent. But it's also true low-skilled immigrants make things cheaper for all Americans by doing jobs such as picking fruit or cleanup on construction sites.

    So, again, no magic here, and no denial of the fact that some people's wages are depressed as a result of immigration.

  • Kivlor||

    Read that again you rube. They claim that it has a -5% to +1% effect on the wages of the people they are competing with. Did you miss where they slipped in "Oh yeah, it's got a positive effect on the wages of unskilled labor."

    In fact, if you read the article that they cite--which links to another Reason article by Veronique de Rugy, they go on to claim that increased labor supply has a positive effect on unskilled wages.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Amazon is the new Walmart, Republicans are the new left"

    There's a reason for this, and it mostly has to do with the social justice warriors that run the Democratic Party.

    The Democratic Party abandoned, rather, chased the white, blue collar, middle class out of the party for being white (racist), blue collar (stupid), Christian (homophobic) and middle class (too selfish to fight global warming), and when a president like Trump came along who saw the potential of moving in on the left's old bread and butter agenda, the progressives only doubled down on the stupid by declaring all his supporters "deplorable"--and meaning it.

    Those swing voters are now the difference between winning and losing elections, so it's no wonder the Republican Party has pulled up the stakes in the tent and stretched the tent out even wider--to include economic arguments they once disdained.

    What's even more pathetic is seeing ostensibly libertarian writers emphasize personal attacks on Trump in lieu of attacks on his immigration and trade policies. The war is won by persuading our fellow Americans to free trade and open immigration. Reading this site over the last six months, you might come away with the impression that if closed borders and tariffs are bad, it's because Trump advocated them--rather than for any other reason. How awful if it needs to be said: the reasons to support or oppose immigration and free trade having nothing to do with Trump.

  • Tony||

    Hillary only described half his supporters as deplorable, and she was both right and probably being generous.

  • Sevo||

    You and she lost, loser. Grow up.

  • Just Say'n||

    "I'll take 'Why the Democratic Party Is a Regional Party Now' for $500, Alex"

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm sure if you guys just insult a little more voters they'll totally come to accept your positions

  • Tony||

    So the thesis here is that insulting American voters loses elections. Because that's not something conservatards and Trump ever do. They open their homes to liberals and minority progressive activists and definitely don't call them names at all ever.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean the minority progressive activists who call every white person who disagrees with them a racist?

  • Tony||

    You could try not being a racist and see how that goes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You could try not being a fascist and see how it goes.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Sure, Tony. Please define "racist" so I know what I shouldn't be. ooops I forgot, it's racist to define words.

  • DesigNate||

    And to the extent they do that (which is stupid btw), they lose elections and you gloat about their doing so.

  • Tony||

    But that's all they do. The only political belief most of you inbred fucknuts have is that libtards are bad mkay. That's what FOX News has done to your brains.

  • DesigNate||

    I don't watch Fox News Tony. As I've repeatedly explained to you.

    And I'm not sure how many times it has to be explained till your thick skull actually gets it, but I personally, and libertarians more generally, are not fucking Republicans.

    Oh, and you'd probably be able to get your point across better if you didn't always eventually resort to insults and ad hominem.

  • Fancylad||

    inbred
    ...And Tony goes and proves everybody's point about the modern left being bourgeoisie classists.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tony, define "inbred". Unless you hookup with monkeys, you're going to date someone with a common ancestor who lived withing the past few million years. I mean, I've heard of fans of Darwin who love to embrace the entire tree of life, but certain lines should not be crossed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hillary's one incident was indicative of a wider trend.

    Over the last year, whenever I've asked lefty acquaintances why the white, blue collar, middle class thinks they're hated by progressives, the conversation quickly morphs into why the white, blue collar, middle class should be hated.

    There isn't much that LGBTQI+ advocates, BLM, antifa, feminists, illegal immigration advocates, or environmentalists don't hate about the white, blue collar, middle class--and that's pretty everybody who's running the Democratic party these days.

  • Tony||

    I just hate morons who act to ruin my society and my planet out of sheer, boring right-wing nationalistic racist stupidity. Why shouldn't I?

  • Ken Shultz||

    So, not only was Hillary's statement about "deplorables" not indicative of ideas that were confined to Hillary Clinton, you share in your total contempt for the white, blue collar, middle class yourself!

    That's what I was saying Tony.

    I'd ask why you bothered, but I already know the answer. You rarely think of the implications of what you're reading or what you write. You're basically only here to emote.

  • Tony||

    I have contempt for stupid people. The white, blue-collar, middle-class people to which you refer (which does not include the entire category) are people who perpetuate their ignorance on me and my fellow citizens in the form of support for banana Republicans and their abusive policies. It's the Republicans who are exploiting these people and using their stupidity against them, not me. But if all you want to talk about is campaign strategy, sure, I agree, insulting large swaths of Americans is no way to win elections. Unless the election is rigged in your favor, of course. Then you can scapegoat and behave like a crass fat fuckface until you have a coronary and you might become president.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The party of Maxine waters shows that you're just fine with stupid ppl.

  • Tony||

    Classy.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You could try it for a change.

  • Tony||

    What is it specifically about Rep. Waters that has all the rightwing fucktards constantly referring to her and her alleged low IQ? What could it be? She doesn't represent me. Does she represent you? One representative getting so much attention. Humm what could it be.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    She's just the most recently in the ne2s example. Your darling socialist from NY would do just as well, or my personal favorite: Hank-guam-might-tip-over-Johnson.

  • Tony||

    There's nothing sadder than someone who blows dog whistles and doesn't even realize what he's doing. I can't decide if I'd be complimenting you by assuming you know you're blowing.

  • DesigNate||

    If you're hearing the dog whistle, you're the racist dog.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Says the guy obsessed with fox.

    Libtards are bad because of the policies they advocate. Full stop.

  • Tony||

    You're mostly afraid our policies will work and you'll have to admit you were wrong about everything.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You're mostly afraid our policies will work and you'll have to admit you were wrong about everything.

    Everywhere your policies are tried they bring misery. Everywhere. If left to run rampant they quickly start piling up bodies. And then they collapse. And a new dictator tries again. THIS time he'll get it right.

    In America they ruin cities, destroy hallowed institutions of education, and work tirelessly to silence anyone who might point that out.

    You're not misguided, Tony, you, and all of your fellow travelers, are monsters who think you have the right to destroy everything because your idiotic ideas don't work.

  • Tony||

    Claiming that American Democrats want totalitarian communism is definitely a sign that you know what the fuck you're talking about and are right on everything. And FTR Trump's the one who wants the last remaining totalitarian communist to be his special buddy.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    And FTR Trump's the one who wants the last remaining totalitarian communist to be his special buddy.

    Because it's so easy to start a new business in North Africa and the Middle East that a street vendor there would never take his own life due to the economic misery that regulations caused him?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist or hitler is the saddest thing of all. But fascists like you just can't help going back to the big lie.

  • Fancylad||

    blows dog whistles

    It's amazing how lefties are the only ones actually able to hear all those "racist" dog whistles.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tony, I see you are using that numbing cream I sent you. If you use less of it, you will know when someone is blowing.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""I have contempt for stupid people."'

    Wow. Looking in a mirror must ruin your day.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I have contempt for stupid people.

    Define "stupid", Tony. Many educators believe that it is racist to advocate for a specific body of knowledge and measure student progress learning it with standardized tests.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    And Krugman instantly proves Ken's point like the fucking clueless asswipe that he is.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I expect the Democrats to take the House in the midterms for reasons that have nothing to do with any issue--really. It's just that, statistically, the president's party tends to take a beating in his first midterm. If Hillary had won the election, the Democrats would probably take a beating. That means it won't be about any issue--unless the Republicans somehow maintain control. That would be one hell of a statement.

    That being said, the Democrats are likely to creamed in 2020. And half of that battle doesn't have anything to do with Trump. It's that the Democrats can't shut up about how much they hate the swing voters in swing states. It's an enormous disadvantage. I don't think a Democrat can with the party nomination without talking about how much they hate the voters the Democrats need to win. It's kind of hilarious.

  • Kivlor||

    We've discussed this here before, but statistically speaking, we should expect to see the D's pick up over 70 seats. I don't think they're going to come close to that. Of course, they only need to pick up ~25 to take the House.

    I'm not expecting the R's to win the fall elections, but I won't be surprised if they do manage to. If so, it won't be because the GOP did anything well or right, but because the D's are literally running around screaming "We hate whites. We hate men. We hate the middle class."

  • Tony||

    Literally. And you have lots of video evidence of this I'm sure.

  • Azathoth!!||

    ^^^^here's some^^^^

  • Azathoth!!||

    At W's first midterm he got the house and senate back.

  • DesigNate||

    Because those people were reliable Democrat voters all the way through Obama's 1st, if not 2nd, term?

    (This isn't a good reason for most people because team rah rah bullshit, but it is a reason that you shouldn't. Because you're a fucking shill.)

  • Tony||

    The adjective is "Democratic," you moron.

    Trump did no better than Romney. He didn't win anybody over. He didn't even win the actual contest held among voters. There is no description of that election that involves Trump's special popularity. The narrative you're referring to are white people voting for Obama in abnormal numbers. And thank god we have that testament to the goodness in our country. At least we didn't actually choose Trump.

  • DesigNate||

    That's right Tony, when you don't have anything else, go after grammar. (Change Democrat to Libertarian or Green, the sentence still works, therefore I'm correct. Grammar Nazi's be damned.)

    Oh, and I didn't choose Trump either. (Spare me the "a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump" bullshit.)

  • Tony||

    It's not grammar, it's the Republican programming in your brain. If you don't want me to mistake you for a common FOX News zombie, use the correct form of the word.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""He didn't even win the actual contest held among voters.""

    What do you mean by that?

    The actual contest to win the presidency is winning the electoral college. That is the actual way presidents get elected in this country.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tony, after watching Obama criticize Romney on free trade, Trump decided to agree with the Democratic and implement his policies once elected.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats are shitting themselves in fear of losing power.

    Election 2018 loses for Democrats is not something they even see coming.

  • Tony||

    Is it because you're so, so generous of spirit to progressives? Never a bad word to say about us? Huh?

  • Cathy L||

    Over the last year, whenever I've asked lefty acquaintances why the white, blue collar, middle class thinks they're hated by progressives, the conversation quickly morphs into why the white, blue collar, middle class should be hated.

    And how often do you talk to white, blue-collar, middle-class people about why progressives think they're hated by that group?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Pity the poor, downtrodden atifa freedom fighters.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't have a scientific survey, but my best guess in the face of uncertainty?

    If the white, blue collar, middle class is generally hated by progressives, my first guess would be that they think the progressives hate them--because the progressives hate them.

    It works that way with a lot of things.

    One reason to think that your boyfriend is cheating on you is because he's cheating on you.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Guys at warehouses and construction sites don't mind me being bisexual. At most, I have to assure them of my policy against dating coworkers. "I want to visit my boyfriend," is a decent workplace sentence. "You have a nice ass," is not.

  • Cathy L||

    What's even more pathetic is seeing ostensibly libertarian writers emphasize personal attacks on Trump

    You misspelled "personal attacks by Trump"

  • Ken Shultz||

    You imagine ad hominem fallacies are somehow justified in response to ad hominem fallacies?

    Maybe you should start with getting your head around tu quoque.

  • Cathy L||

    No ad hominen fallacy involved. Trump is personally attacking Jeff Bezos, and people are reporting on that.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Must be another bitter clinger.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "What's even more pathetic is seeing ostensibly libertarian writers emphasize personal attacks on Trump"

    That's what you responded to. It didn't have anything to do with Jeff Bezos.

    It was about libertarian writers covering immigration and free trade issues in such a way that non-libertarians might think they were good or bad relative to whether Trump supported them.

    That's what TDS is all about. Put Trump into the picture, and suddenly they can't see the issues anymore.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Given that many, if not most, of our major corporations are openly contemptuous of conservatives, it's not clear they have much of a incentive for defending their interests.

    I'm not exactly sure why I should be making a cause celebre over getting tax cuts for social media companies who boot me off their platforms for doing so.

  • Horny Lizard||

    I can't imagine why someone would be contemptuous of a guy sporting "Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill" as his handle or a party who welcome people like you.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    #cancelwhitepeople

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There's a reason for this, and it mostly has to do with the social justice warriors that run the Democratic Party.

    Huh.

    So when Democrats behave badly, it's because they're Democrats.

    But if Republicans behave badly, it's still because of the Democrats.

    Huh.

  • DesigNate||

    But if Republicans behave badly, it's still because of the they're Democrats.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The rest of the argument had to do with the Democrats abandoning their bread and butter union message to their blue collar, white constituents--in favor of hating on the people swing voters they need to win.

    You know that. I wrote about it in the same post you quoted. If you're confused, it's only because you want to be confused.

  • Happy Chandler||

    You mistake hating on ideas versus hating on people.

    Democrats lost the South because they hated segregation and restricting voting rights. The march to progress is slow and uneven, but it keeps going.

  • DesigNate||

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • Azathoth!!||

    Democrats lost the South because they loved segregation and restricting voting rights.

    FTFY.

    Why, even as the GOP was fighting for civil rights, the Democrat appointed "Conscience of the Senate", Kleagle Byrd, KKK, W.Va was shrieking with his toady, Al Gore Sr., trying to stop them.

    The march to progress, real progress, the kind that lifts people up, has always had to be over the Democrats dead bodies.

    Because they will fight for repression to their last breaths.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Goldwater was nominated on a Civil Rights platform, right?
    Nixon too?

    Right....The South went Republican because they supported civil rights. Suuuurrreee. Between the 50's and 1994, the issue was sorted on region, not on party.
    http://twitter.com/KevinMKruse.....7992559616
    The vote in the house for the Civil Rights Act of 1946: Southern: 10-97. All 10 southern Republicans voted against.
    Northern Democrats: 145-9. Northern Republicans: 138-24.

    2 southern Senators voted yes. (1 D, 1 R, both Texans, thanks LBJ). 1 northern D against (Byrd), 5 northern R against.

    Thurmond switched parties because he got to keep his seniority.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The GOP freed slaves.

    Why would racists want to be associated with that? They didnt of course.

    The Democrats started the KKK, Jim Crowe laws, and segregation.

  • Fancylad||

    The Klan were the DNC's Brownshirts.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Ummm ... Dixicrat was a thing. The Democrats lost the South, because southerners remember which side fought for slavery, because Democrats filled their parks with statues honoring Confederate soldiers during the Progressive Era. You can thank Wilson for bringing an echo of the Confederacy back when he changed the national dialogue on race.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    0 people arrested for sex trafficking

    Time to further define down sex trafficking. (While still being able to arrest the victims, of course.)

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist catastrophe taking place before our eyes in South America is getting worse by the day, as Argenitna raised their interest rate to 60% yesterday. No, that's not a typo: six-zero percent!

    They're also asking the IMF if they can borrow $50 billion. They might as well take the P billion and wipe their asses with it.

    It's easy to say that we should feel sorry for all the people down there who are suffering, but when you're freaking stupid and you worship Karl Marx like he was the brother of Jesus Christ himself, this is what happens. If suffering of this magnitude is what it takes for these fools to learn something, then maybe it's just necessary.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Argentina's ruling party is center-right. From Wikipedia:

    Economic position

    PRO is a centre-right party by Argentinian standards. It supports lower taxes, deregulation, free trade,[6] and Macri has expressed opposition to the nationalization of the country's airline and oil companies.

    During Macri's presidency, he liberalized foreign exchange and imports controls, cut personal income taxes and slashed utilities subsidies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Argentina: Socialists.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This is boring and socially agreed upon, like the weather.

    I'm pretty sure the standard isn't consensus (ha!) but how the survivor feels.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The Tribune headline describes it a "national sex trafficking crackdown." But let's do the math from the figures it gives us:

    473 people arrested for attempting to pay for sexual activity
    6 people arrested for pimping (i.e., profiting off of prostitution)
    0 people arrested for sex trafficking

    Yes, but did they waste enough taxpayer money to justify a budget increase? That's the only thing that matters.

  • creech||

    Stats prove that the real traffickers are well-concealed and it will take a ton more money and resources to dig them out.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Epstein, Weinstein, Clinton, countless others.
    They're not that hard to dig out.
    What's missing is the will to follow the real traffickers regardless of where the trail leads.
    Principles, not principals.

  • Sevo||

    "Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. Many of his employees are so poor, you're paying their welfare benefits."

    Yeah, why are we paying welfare to employed people?
    Fuck you - cut spending!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah, why are we paying welfare to employed people?

    For a large number of welfare programs, there has been a work requirement embedded within them for literally decades now.

  • Sevo||

    "California Assembly passes state net neutrality law"
    [...]
    "The bill prohibits Internet providers [...] from selling faster access to consumers."
    (followed by a lot of 'Trump is a big poopyhead' bullshit.)

    https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/
    2018/08/31/California-Assembly-passes
    -state-net-neutrality-law/6941535721438/

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's funny, the same people who complain that some corporations are not treating all people equally are defending other corporations' right to not treat all people equally.

    What happens if the cable companies decide that they should follow Facebook/Google/Apple's lead and all block traffic to Infowars?

  • DesigNate||

    It's funny that the same people complaining about the government looking to regulate a company for not treating all people equally want the government to regulate other companies for not treating all people equally.

    But I'm sure you don't see your own hypocrisy.

    (For the record, neither group should be regulated and everyone should be free to complain about the companies' behavior.)

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's the difference between the phone company and the newspaper company. ISPs are utilities. They should be common carriers just as the phone company can't pick who can call you. Online platforms have the freedom to regulate what gets put on their platform.

    Online platforms are unlimited. You can start one up. ISPs are protected from competition by the physical barriers.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's the difference between the phone company and the newspaper company. ISPs are utilities. They should be common carriers just as the phone company can't pick who can call you. Online platforms have the freedom to regulate what gets put on their platform.

    Online platforms are unlimited. You can start one up. ISPs are protected from competition by the physical barriers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Utilities are not limited by physical barriers to the extent they once were.

    3 fiber cables in the ground can service 3 different company's ISP service to an area and take up far less space than 3 giant copper cables.

    People can choose solar to power their home instead of a power company. 3 power companies can agree to each put an amount of electricity into a grid and collect from customers for agreed upon amounts.

    End all Common Carrier regulation of ISPs, Telecoms, power companies, and tv companies.

  • Tony||

    I'm just going to have to kill myself now because Tucker Carlson drunk stumbled his way into an actual point.

    Of course the pure GOP/libertarian position is not to argue for mandates for higher wages, but to take away welfare on top of everything and let the wage slaves be happy they have a job at all.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah and that's why I disagree with you once again. Although, I'm sure some here will stumble their way into agreeing with Tucker's neo-Marxist rhetoric

  • Sevo||

    "Of course the pure GOP/libertarian position is not to argue for mandates for higher wages,"
    While commie lefties would tell everyone what they can do and when.
    Fuck off.

  • Tony||

    It appears that the only reason you've joined up with the cousinfucking retards is that you don't have any understanding of what normal, sane people actually advocate. What a pity.

  • Sevo||

    "It appears that the only reason you've joined up with the cousinfucking retards is that you don't have any understanding of what normal, sane people actually advocate. What a pity."

    I'm not on YOUR team, shitbag.

  • Tony||

    Lefties want more control over wealthy, powerful people. Righties want more control over pregnant women and poor people. Pick your poison.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Lefties demand control over everyone. This straw outrage will NOT be tolerated! They are the party of fuedalism. The fact that you are pining for a return of the aristocracy while claiming to want to only "control the wealthy" is hilarious.

  • Tony||

    You're clearly drunk.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Another compelling argument from tony.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Capitalist wealth can be sold and bought freely. Aristocratic tittles to land cannot be sold or bought freely. They are like inherited rent controlled apartments.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties want control over everyone.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Remember whne FDR cousin fucked? He was a democrat, right?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Define "sane", Tony. Neurodiversty is important to a society.

  • DesigNate||

    How are shift workers wage slaves again? Because last time I checked, it was salaried employees who can be expected to work longer hours, weekends, holidays, etc. without getting paid extra or overtime.

  • Tony||

    I don't know about these things what with my trust fund and life of leisure.

  • DesigNate||

    I knew you were a filthy 1%er!

    /s in case it wasn't obvious

  • perlchpr||

    I'm just going to have to kill myself now[.]

    Sadly, I know you're just teasing.

  • Number 2||

    "I'm just going to have to kill myself now.."

    CAN WE HELP?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I'm just going to have to kill myself now ...

    If you see Big Nick, tell him to text me.

  • Antilles||

    473 people arrested for attempting to pay for sexual activity


    REAL men don't pay for sex--they lie to, trick, and manipulate women into giving it up. Only a loser and creep who hates women would negotiate a mutually-beneficial arrangement before the act occurs. Lock them up!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    They are not paying for sex. They are paying them to leave afterwards.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Israeli law calls it rape if you lie to get someone in bed.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I heard about a cartel in Europe that swapped their daughters to fill coffers and build political clout. They are called royalty.

  • KDN||

    Big banks purportedly closing immigrant accounts.

    I suspect there's a much more banal explanation than the OMG RACISM! angle the posted shallow article gets at. The games that illegals are forced to play in order to interact with the white market naturally lead to a high level of duplication among the various identifiers banks use to track their customers and comply with regulations. These then get flagged as audit items which the banks then take a heavy hand to clean up.

    I'm willing to believe that they're a little more sensitive to this under the current administration, but I got caught in that web a few times while Obama was president as an American-born white dude with an English name.

  • Cathy L||

    What makes you think this is about closing the bank accounts of illegal immigrants? Other than not reading the article.

  • KDN||

    I never said they were, especially because the illegals playing the games are committing fraud and don't have any reason to complain about being challenged. It's not about immigration status per se, it's about keeping your records straight. But the sharing of legal identifiers and the overstaying of visas has been part of the immigration issue for ages, as such immigrants are logically a target of suspicion.

    I guess I should note here that my preference is for the banks to not be a proxy for ICE, but that's not the world in which we live.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    JournoList laments the ongoing slow death of the establishmentarian center.

    It was inevitable that this was going to happen eventually. The reason why more and more voters in both parties are continuing to slowly drift to the extremes is because the establishmentarian center and "compromise" gave us a bunch of wars that accomplished nothing, a devastating market crash, trillion in debt, and a largely hollowed-out America. People are desperately seeking a different way.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Sadly, most of my fellow citizens prefer almost anything besides liberty and/or justice. The national security state will be happy to oblige.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    A big part of me gets it though. If you fail badly enough for long enough, eventually people are going to look for alternatives. And our political class has been failing the country badly for a while now.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>If you fail badly enough for long enough

    been like a 40-year screening of Disney's The Black Hole.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Funny, I thought the Centrists (Libertarians) are making gains in numbers and getting the message out.

  • Dillinger||

    is it a crackdown if nobody is cracked down?

  • David Nolan||

    Thank you, ENB, for solid reporting on the sex trafficking gestapo, which seems to be flying under the radar everywhere else.

    Tucker attacks Amazon as Trump's flunky. Also promotes regulating Google.
    One cannot drain the swamp by repeatedly diving into it.

  • DiegoF||

    I wanna see Tucker bring Rand or Massie on his show and make that "puzzled Tucker face" of his at their defense of capitalism.

  • chipper me timbers||

    "Donald Trump has canceled pay increases for federal workers."

    I like cut of this man's jib. I'm coming dangerously close to thinking he might actually be pretty good.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Unlikely to last through the appropriations process.

    Even if it does, the appropriations will remain the same. The money is still sloshing. Budget caps have already been raised.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    #Metoo

    trump is fucking with the Bureaucrats that mostly vote Democrat and give mostly to Democrats.

    Hopefully, tens of thousands of them quit.

  • Eddy||

    I'm not saying New York University doesn't take Avital Ronell's behavior seriously...but they just hired Pope Francis as dean.

  • DiegoF||

  • Number 2||

    Well, I just wasted minutes of my life that I will never have back reading the Avital Ronell article.

    If the author of that article is typical of Ronell's students, then the "abuse" they receive is richly deserved.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Microsoft has announced that it will only do business with freelance firms that offer their employees 12 weeks of paid family leave.
    Who's Microsoft?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Oye, that Israeli ban on strip clubs makes me so furious, I want to move to Jerusalem and organize daily shacharis, mincha, and mariv services at Robinson's arch according to the Manhattan tradition, but who can I rely on to gather the minyans?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online