Scott Brown Wants Libertarians To Vote For Him, Too!

HAVERHILL, Mass. – Inside Mark’s Deli, Senator Scott Brown works the handful of patrons present during his unpublicized visit.

“Hi, how are you? Good to see you.”

While watching Brown shake hands and chat with the staff it’s easy to see how Brown climbed from the board of assessors in Wrentham to the U.S. Senate. He’s a natural at retail politics.

Outside the diner, though, Brown is in the electoral fight of his life with Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren. In order to win, he needs a quarter of the state's Democrats, and the majority of Massachusetts' independents. Among those registered independents (“unenrolled,” in Massachusetts-ese) are a smattering of libertarians.

So, how is Brown going to win over them?

"I am going after every vote," Brown told me. "Going after people from the Republican Party, Democratic Party, Independent Party, Libertarian Party, and, quite frankly, people that just like to party,” said Brown before getting called over by his wife Gail Huff to pay the tab for lunch, which included his daughter Adrianna and Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

“[Elizabeth Warren] is going to raise taxes $3.4 trillion, she’s going to increase regulations, and I have been trying to work very hard—never voted for tax increase in 15 years of elected office, and I respect the individuality and value of all Americans,” he said.

“I’ve been down there trying to solve problems. I’ve been working in a bipartisan manner to try to move our country forward. There’s a vanishing breed of moderate independents like me. Democrats and Republicans, you got Kent Conrad, Olympia Snowe, Joe Lieberman, and Richard Lugar, they’re leaving. That vanishing breed in the middle, they’re trying to get us to go away and not be players within the extremism down there. There’s extremes on the left and the right and why would you send another person who has an extreme agenda?" Brown asks before elaborating the differences between him and Warren.

“You want a big government person, you send down her. You want somebody that recognizes there is a role for government and that government sometimes needs to get out of the way and be a junior partner, then you vote for me. Pretty simple,” he said.

Brown has had a busy morning in the Merrimack Valley. He led a rally with supporters in Lowell with Ayotte and congressional candidate Jon Golnik before stopping here for lunch. After closing paying tab he’s heading south to Foxborough for the Patriots game.

He adds one more thing before departing.

“What you see is what you get with me. We may not agree on everything, the libertarians, they may look at me and say, 'I didn’t like this vote and I didn’t like that vote,' but they’re gonna have a very really choice and I can’t win it without you guys. You want me to be your 75-80 percent friend, versus your 100 percent enemy, which is what she’s gonna do. There’s no libertarian that has anything in common with any of her policies. Name one? Name one. There’s none.”

I asked Warren a similar question on Saturday.

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.

  • tarran||

    Let me be straight.

    Scott Brown is not an 80% friend of liberty.

    His partnership with Lieberman on expanding federal power makes him an enemy of freedom. He can go fuck himself.

  • John||

    So let Warren serve there for the next 40 years? Fuck I don't care if plans to start putting people in camps, anything is better than Warren. If you would let that bitch get in the Senate because you don't like the other guy, you deserve the government you get.

  • tarran||

    John,

    I can't prevent enemies of freedom from going to the United States Senate.

    I can only refuse to assist them.

  • John||

    It is Massachusetts. You are going to get a lousy Senator no matter what. That is just how Massholes roll. All you can hope for is not getting an epically bad Senator. Warren is the worst person to run for Senate in my life time. I would crawl over glass and vote for the devil himself to keep her away from power.

    Sometimes you have to work with what you got. Anyone who isn't willing to do something to stop that bitch is either a coward or secretly wants bad things to happen.

  • tarran||

    John,

    If she is *that* bad, why don't you assassinate her?

  • Mr Whipple||

    Oh fuck.

  • tarran||

    No, it's a legitimate question. I want John to articulate exactly why he's not going to assassinate her. I assume he's not planning on assassinating her, and I want to hear his rationale.

  • Randian||

    tarran has a point here. John said:

    Anyone who isn't willing to do something to stop that bitch is either a coward or secretly wants bad things to happen.

    and

    If you would let that bitch get in the Senate because you don't like the other guy, you deserve the government you get.

    So why is assassination off the table?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: tarran,

    John,

    If she is *that* bad, why don't you assassinate her?

    Let's not bring assassination to the discussion. All it takes is for European farmers to drive her out of her ancestral lands towards the Oklahoma territory.

  • $park¥||

    Hey John, fuck you. You want to assure that Warren doesn't get into the Senate then move up here and vote against her yourself. Not everybody feels the need to vote for the lesser evil just because it's lesser.

  • John||

    Fuck you you stupid child. IF that bitch wins, it will be because in small part people like you refused to vote against her because you didn't get exactly what you wanted.

    Brown isn't that bad. He is certainly better than Warren. I hate to break this to you but Massachusetts is not a Libertarian state. They are probably the least libertarian state in the country. You are not ever going to get what you want from them.

    If you think Warren winning would be a good thing, then you are just stupid or you are just trolling and like Warren.

  • $park¥||

    people like you refused to vote against her because you didn't get exactly what you wanted

    What is it that I want John? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on it.

    I hate to break this to you but Massachusetts is not a Libertarian state.

    Gee, I never noticed.

    You are not ever going to get what you want from them.

    Again, tell me what it is that you think I want.

    If you think Warren winning would be a good thing, then you are just stupid or you are just trolling and like Warren.

    I think Warren winning might actually get me what I want even faster than Brown winning would.

  • John||

    I think Warren winning might actually get me what I want even faster than Brown winning would.

    Then you are either stupid or you are a troll in here causing trouble. Since you don't seem to be completely brain dead, I am going with the latter.

  • $park¥||

    Yep, those are the only two choices. Stupid or troll, that's all there is. It's because I don't think just like you isn't it? It's because I see a better country that doesn't involve the current government isn't it?

    You're either retarded or an asshat. Or both. Probably both.

  • sarcasmic||

    He's not an asshat. He's an assclown.

    Big difference.

  • John||

    Yeah Sparky, there will be a Libertarian Senator from Massachusetts real soon. Why don't you do yourself and everyone around you a favor and just jerk-off rather than voting. At least you will have a little something to show for your efforts.

    But whatever you do stop jerking off all over the thread and telling us the result is Massachusetts ever electing a Libertarian.

  • Randian||

    There are only two choices on John's magical ballot youseguise.

  • sarcasmic||

    There are only two choices on John's magical ballot youseguise.

    Not only that, but not voting for one person equates to voting for the other.

    It's like some crazy slight of hand where not putting something into one box is the same as putting something into the other box.

    Tony math.

  • $park¥||

    Why do you insist on believing that I'm a Libertarian? Actually, it's entirely possible that I might jerk-off instead of voting. Depends on if my wife will be home.

  • John||

    I don't think you are a libertarian Sparky. I think you are liberal troll.

  • $park¥||

    If you'll admit you don't think I'm a Libertarian, why would you think what I want is a Libertarian anything from Mass? If you think I'm a liberal troll it's only because your red contacts have been fused to your eyes.

  • Ted S.||

    Actually, it's entirely possible that I might jerk-off instead of voting.

    In that case, your name would be Spanky, not Sparky.

  • tarran||

    OK, John,

    If she's so bad, why don't you assassinate her?

  • Cytotoxic||

    John: She's really bad so support Brown.

    Others: Well why don't you assassinate her then?

    Christ you people are a living parody of glibertarian assholes. John is right you're a bunch of fucking children.

  • Randian||

    Re-read my post, Cytotoxic. John said he would "crawl over glass and vote for the devil himself to keep her away from power." That sounds pretty desperate to me.

    If you don't have an answer to the question just stay out of the conversation, little man.

  • ||

    Objectivist throw-down!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Randian, pretensions aside, is a shitty Objectivist.

  • Calidissident||

    Why Cyto? Cause he wants to kill fewer brown people than you?

  • SugarFree||

    There's nothing Rand wanted more than dead brown people. Nothing.

  • Randian||

    Randian, pretensions aside, is a shitty Objectivist.

    Why?

  • John||

    Re-read my post, Cytotoxic. John said he would "crawl over glass and vote for the devil himself to keep her away from power." That sounds pretty desperate to me.

    Or a rhetorical device called hyperbole. Did you fail 9th grade English Randian or are you just being a smug asshole and trying to change the subject because you don't like my point but don't really have an answer?

  • Cytotoxic||

    That is increasingly the favorite tactic of The Children.

  • SugarFree||

    Only True Adults don't change the subject.

  • $park¥||

    Hey look, it's John's sidekick here to back him up. It's the Red and Redder tag-team.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Randjob: I think John was speaking in terms of you know LEGAL means to keep Warren out of power. Which you probably know but are too dishonest to acknowledge.

    What SParky, can't say anything relevant or interesting? Is that why you snivel and bitch about getting tag-teamed? Is this always your response to challenge?

    I think it's best to refer to you guys as The Children.

  • SugarFree||

    The only way to be a True Adult is to vote Republican.

  • $park¥||

    What SParky, can't say anything relevant or interesting? Is that why you snivel and bitch about getting tag-teamed? Is this always your response to challenge?

    I suppose if you're not going to read my posts then why would I bother to say anything you find interesting. Bitching about getting tag-teamed? No, but I know you fail reading comprehension. I figured it was only a matter of time before you got off John's dick and started posting.

  • JW||

    I want Brown to win, just on the sole basis of not having to look at and listen to the dour collectivist's gaping pie hole for the next 6 years.

  • tarran||

    You don't have to look at her hole even if she wins. Just turn off the TV and live your life.

  • Cytotoxic||

    SHE WON'T LET US LIVE OUR LIVES.

  • $park¥||

    SHE WON'T LET US LIVE OUR LIVES

    Ironic, coming from a person trying to tell others what to do.

  • robc||

    Because I have no clue, is there a 3rd choice on the ballot?

  • Randian||

    Yes, there is an independent candidate.

  • tarran||

    Nope. Here is the statewide portion of my ballot:


    ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
    JOHNSON AND GRAY LIBERTARIAN
    OBAMA AND BIDEN DEMOCRAT
    ROMNEY AND RYAN REPUBLICAN
    STEIN AND HONKALA GREEN-RAINBOW

    SENATOR IN CONGRESS
    SCOTT P. BROWN 70 Hayden Woods, Wrentham
    Candidate for re-election REPUBLICAN

    ELIZABETH A. WARREN 24 Linnaean St., Cambridge
    DEMOCRAT

    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FIFTH DISTRICT

    EDWARD J. MARKEY 7 Townsend St., Malden
    Candidate for re-election DEMOCRAT

    TOM TIERNEY 7 Lomas Dr., Framingham
    REPUBLICAN

    The LP in MA is in pretty sad shape. IIRC the collapse of the Harry Browne faction gutted them.

  • robc||

    I would probably vote for Brown if I was in MA then.

    No wait, I would vote with my feet and move to a real state.

  • rac3rx||

    Only mildly on topic: can somebody explain to me what is a HONKALA GREEN-RAINBOW?

    It sounds like some type of medical condition associated with flatulence.

  • tarran||

    Honkala is the VP candidate's last name.

  • JW||

    You don't have to look at her hole even if she wins. Just turn off the TV and live your life.

    I do that now and they still manage to find me.

    THEY FIND ME.

  • Zeb||

    John, you need to relax. Maybe avoid all media until after the election. Seriously.

    I'd also like to point out that there are several ways of voting against Warren, and Brown is only one of them. Strategic voting is delusional. Just vote for the candidate you like the best.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If that's the ballot, Zeb, what, besides not voting, is another way? Write-in?

  • Zeb||

    I don't care. I don't even live in MA. Vote for whoever you want to. Or leave that one blank. I'm not trying to tell anyone who to vote for. I do think it is delusional to think that your vote matters enough that you have a moral responsibility to vote a certain way.

  • Robert||

    If I had to choose between crawling over broken glass y assassinating someone, I'd pick the assassination, probably even of someone I loved, or at least liked a lot.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Careful, John-boy. You're sounding awfully TEAM today.

  • Cyto||

    I don't know.... I thought Brown's answer was fairly thoughtful and honest. He didn't claim to be a closet libertarian or anything. He didn't try to redefine libertarian (I heart contract law!). Even if his 75% number is off, he's probably got a pretty good argument that his opponent is much less libertarian than he is, particularly on the fiscal issues he cites.

    Now if you want to go with the true Scottsman test... well, neither passes that test, so ya got him there...

  • $park¥||

    Brown is a fairly decent, likable guy. He's just a bad politician. As a Republican from Mass he pretty much defines middle of the road.

  • John||

    Why is he a bad politician? He got elected to the Senate and stands at least a 50 50 shot of winning again in a state that is totally dominated by the other party. How is that "bad" by any definition? Is a good politician someone who loses?

  • $park¥||

    A bad politician is someone who believes this:

    "There's a vanishing breed of moderate independents like me. Democrats and Republicans, you got Ken Conrad, Olympia Snowe, Joe Lieberman, and Richard Lugar, they're leaving. That vanishing breed in the middle"

  • John||

    Because claiming to be fire breathing Rothbardite is going to win him so many votes in a Massachusetts state election.

    So in your view a good politician is a loser. Nice to know.

  • $park¥||

    So in your view a good politician is a loser. Nice to know.

    You're actually on the right track, although not for the reason you think.

  • ||

    When "bipartisanship"-worshipping people like Olympia Snowe are your role models, you're most likely a bad politician, yes. Almost all of the worst federal excesses this millennium have been bipartisan, and Snowe voted for a lot of them. The PATRIOT Act and TARP, for example.

  • John||

    Libertarians love the true Scottsman test. And the people they hate the most is anyone who tries to reach out to them without going all in. The fact that Brown had the nerve to even try to appeal to them makes him infinitely worse than Warren.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're using the the same "logic" Tony uses when he says that not taking from the rich and giving to the poor (not voting for Brown) is the same as taking from the poor and giving it to the rich (voting for Warren).

    You are equating not doing one thing with doing something else.

    inaction = action

    Then you wonder where "Red Tony" came from.

  • Randian||

    Exactly. I already wouldn't vote for Warren, yet somehow that makes me a Warren supporter.

  • sarcasmic||

    I already wouldn't vote for Warren, yet somehow that makes me a Warren supporter.

    Not voting against her is the same as voting for her.

    By not casting a vote for Brown you have cast a vote for Warren.

  • John||

    Yes not supporting Brown means you don't support Brown.

  • Randian||

    Right. But it doesn't make me a Warren supporter. See how that works?

  • John||

    You can live in a fantasy world Randian and pretend the Libertarian candidate is going to pull the upset. As I said, I am sure Massachusetts is going to be voting Libertarian real soon.

    If you are really good, maybe you can totally split the vote and get hard core leftists who would never get a majority vote under any other circumstances elected in every state in the union. I think that would really help the Libertarian cause. I think Warren in the Senate would do wonders for Libertarians.

  • Randian||

    I still don't understand. I'm already would not support or vote for Elizabeth Warren, so what's the problem?

  • $park¥||

    See how that works?

    I'm betting the answer is "No."

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm betting the answer is "No."

    Tony math:

    If you do not take from the rich and give to the poor, then the inequality between the poor and the rich is greater. You may as well have taken from the poor and given to the rich.

    Red Tony math:

    If you don't cast a vote for Brown, then the inequality between Warren's count and Brown's count is larger. You may as well have voted for Warren.

    Exactly the same logic.

  • rac3rx||

    I agree with the idea that not casting a ballot for Brown doesn't make one a Warren supporter; however in this case, there appears to be only two people on the ballot, Brown and Warren. Thus, the choice is to vote Brown, vote Warren, write in a name, or not vote. I don't see any other choices available.

  • Cavpitalist||

    You've identified 200% as many options as John has.

  • ||

    Why do you always accuse everyone around of you of being secret crypto-liberals for not supporting republicans?

    Welch, Sparky, on and on.

    "I don't like either of these candidates, therefore, I will not vote for or provide my sanction for either of them."

    "LIBERAL!!!"

  • John||

    No. I just think Sparky is one. You never see Sparky on the Obama sucks threads just the Republican sucks thread. He is basically here to stir shit up and troll.

  • $park¥||

    You never see Sparky on the Obama sucks threads just the Republican sucks thread. He is basically here to stir shit up and troll.

    Nice try John. The real problem is that on the Obama sucks threads you agree with me so you don't bitch about it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Well John, when Scott Brown puts his name in such "august" and "moderate" company as Olympia Snowe (who got Obamacare out of committee and then danced off rather than face reelection), Joe Lieberman (member of the moral and mental minority, crusader against the evils of videogames, but not unauthorized war), Kent Conrad (who took a payoff from Countrywide Financial), and Dick Lugar (a piece of shit who tried to get the "assault weapons" ban passed again).

    John, supporting crap candidates just because they have (R) after their names doesn't differentiate you much from Tony w/spaces.

  • John||

    I only support the crap candidate because the other candidate is worse. By refusing to admit there is such a thing as a lesser of two evils, you are in effect saying there is Libertarians and everyone else and the everyone else are all exactly the same. And that is just fanatical and stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    By refusing to admit that the lesser of two evils is still evil, you in effect support evil.

  • John||

    No I am supporting people who are flawed and aren't exactly what I want. It is called living in reality sarcasimc.

  • sarcasmic||

    By supporting the two party system you are actively aiding in the destruction of this once great nation.

    People like you are the problem.

    People who know that both parties suck, but still refuse to tell them both to get fucked are the problem.

    That's reality John.

  • ||

    I'm not sure anybody doesn't believe at all in the "lesser of two evils". Obviously there are shades of grey (50 of them, at last count). For example, I loathe Obama, but I can't say with a straight face that he's just as bad as Stalin.

    The argument is that even the person you perceive as being the lesser evil is still more evil than I'm willing to sanction.

    Do I agree with Rand Paul on every thing he does and says? No. Nor do I GayJay, or RP. But they are below my personal "evil threshold", where as Scott Brown is not.

    I'm not saying he's EXACTLY AS BAD as Lizzie Warren. I'm saying he's STILL SO BAD that I wouldn't vote for either of them (were I unfortunate enough to reside in that state).

  • John||

    But effectively that means there is no difference between Warren and Brown since neither of them will ever get your vote. In the end you are just saying every politician either has to be Ron Paul or the sainted Gary Johnson or they might as well be Lizzie Warren. That looks pretty fanatical to me.

  • ||

    Fanaticism is precisely what is needed at this point in history to break us out of the endless cycle of entropy we have found ourselves in. Being "pragmatic" is what got us into this mess.

  • PapayaSF||

    Fanaticism is precisely what is needed at this point in history to break us out of the endless cycle of entropy we have found ourselves in. Being "pragmatic" is what got us into this mess.

    I disagree. We have a leviathan, semi-socialist state not because the Socialist Party won any elections worth mentioning, but because socialists worked within the Democratic Party to make it happen. Fabian socialism triumphed. It makes perfect sense to support Scott Brown, in Massachusetts, and against Elizabeth Warren, on Fabian libertarian grounds.

  • Randian||

    But effectively that means there is no difference between Warren and Brown since neither of them will ever get your vote.

    "There is effectively no difference between Gary Johnson and Barack Obama, because neither of them are getting John's vote"

  • robc||

    But effectively that means there is no difference between Warren and Brown since neither of them will ever get your vote. In the end you are just saying every politician either has to be Ron Paul or the sainted Gary Johnson or they might as well be Lizzie Warren. That looks pretty fanatical to me.

    That is stupid John.

    If I have 3 or 4 or 6 or whatever candidates on my ballot, Im gonna vote for the one that most matches my views.

    If there were only 2 candidates on the MA ballot and I lived there, I would vote for Brown. If there were 3, there is a good chance I would vote for the 3rd.

    And that isnt a vote for Warren. It is very specifically a vote for that 3rd guy.

  • JW||

    I only support the crap candidate because the other candidate is worse

    And thus, in an unintentional nutshell, John captures why nothing ever changes politically in this country.

  • John||

    And thus, in an unintentional nutshell, John captures why nothing ever changes politically in this country.

    That sounds nice but that is bullshit. Complete bullshit. You assume that by demanding every politician conform to your no true Scottsman test, things will get better. No they won't because because few people support your views. Most people are not and will never be Libertarians. So you are never going to get a Libertarian candidate. So what you have to do try to get people to vote for something as close to what you like as possible. In a place like Massachusetts, they are never going to vote for anything approaching a libertarian candidate. That is because they don't agree with you. So you can either hope they elect the least bad or sit out and watch them elect the most bad. Those are the only options and will be the only options until the people decide to become Libertarians.

  • sarcasmic||

    You assume that by demanding every politician conform to your no true Scottsman test, things will get better.

    Not quite. We assume that as long as the Republicans and Democrats keep their monopoly on power, nothing will get better.

    They keep this monopoly because people like you vote for them. Or, rather, people like you vote against what they perceive to be the lesser evil, ensuring that evil wins every time.

  • Calidissident||

    Just keep voting for the TEAMS. That will solve everything!

  • tarran||

    BTW, John, besides pussying out on my question above, you are utterly misusing the No True Scotsmen fallacy.

    The fallacy is, of course, that in the story the depraved murderer couldn't be a Scot because no true scotsman would do such a terrible thing - leading the detective to limit his pool of suspects for no good reason.

    Most people are pointing to Scott Brown's history of totalitarian impulses as a reason to reject him. I think you are going to have to find some other fallacy to shout as you pound the table to prevent people from catching unto the false dichotomy you are trying to construct.

  • JW||

    That sounds nice but that is bullshit. Complete bullshit. You assume that by demanding every politician conform to your no true Scottsman test, things will get better.

    Nope. As long as everyone keeps not rejecting evil outright. Nothing will change.

    There is no reason that Obama should be re-elected. None. But he will because his drooling followers not only don't reject his brand of evil, they refuse to even acknowledge it.

    So you are never going to get a Libertarian candidate.

    While I would never turn down a libertarian candidate, that's not what I'm going for in this instance, nor do I expect this.

    You are demonstrating the exact same mindset that has given us shitty politician after shitty politician for decades now, including Obama: he/she isn't as bad as the other guy.

    And the pols are wise to this game.

    With that criteria, you can't be surprised at the outcomes that we've achieved in a gummint. Shit in, shit out.

  • robc||

    You assume that by demanding every politician conform to your no true Scottsman test

    Bullshit. Neigher Johnson nor the Pauls, to pick 3 people I have supported, meet the true Scotsman standard.

    And yet, I still voted for them. Hell, I voted for McConnell once. Once. There was no libertarian on the ballot that year and I wanted to reward McConnell for reversing his position on flag burning.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    By refusing to admit there is such a thing as a lesser of two evils

    I never said there wasn't a lesser of two evils. Only that I'm not convinced Brown isn't it, and that it is not a basis I choose to vote on.

    you are in effect saying there is Libertarians and everyone else and the everyone else are all exactly the same

    No, I am saying that I am not obliged to vote for anyone simply based on how loathsome the person their running against it.

    And that is just fanatical and stupid.

    Really? Really? Mr. "I would crawl over glass and vote for the devil himself to keep her away from power"? You're calling someone else fanatical? Elizabeth Warren is worse than the metaphysical manifestation of evil?

    You and Tony were made for each other.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You don't buy the "true Scotsman" test (which I'm not arguing), that's fine. I don't buy the "lesser of two evils" argument, which I'm not convinced Brown is.

  • John||

    Scott Brown has one big appeal to Libertarians; he is not Lizzie Fauxcahontus Warren. If things don't break right, Warren and Tammy Baldwin could be in the Senate. Chuck Schumer would no longer be the dumbest Senator. Hell, he wouldn't even be in the top two. That is terrifying.

  • NoVAHockey||

    I vote Boxer for dumbest. but that's just me. there's no wrong answer here.

  • tarran||

    John, If you think Lizzie Warren is terrifying, you should be quaking with terror constantly.

    Because there is a supply hundreds of equally stupid, venal and savage barbarians that are inevitably working their way up the political ladder.

  • tarran||

    Speaking of pants-wetting terror, lately AdSense has been serving me ads for Depends adult diapers!?! What do I have to do to bring back the Snorg Tees girls (other than spend money, of course)?

  • NoVAHockey||

    check out the morning links. the trend is no diapers at all. shit where you like.

  • SugarFree||

    AdSense has been serving me ads for Depends adult diapers

    It's all the bed-wetting going on in the comments section.

  • ||

    I'm getting the Road Kill T-shirts girl. Yowza.

  • Killazontherun||

    Hmmm . . I'm getting an ad for monitoring software intended for office managers.

  • ||

    Do they have a girl in a t-shirt modeling for them?

  • Killazontherun||

    Nope just type and an eyeball.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And this is the one that's about to get there. Point dodge unsuccessful.

  • Zeb||

    The pants wetting about Warren is right up there with the Palin related derangement of the last election. She's a bad politician in a sea of bad politicians. This is not the most important election of our lifetime. There are others just like her who will get elected to the senate and soon.

  • Lord Humungus||

    what, you forgot Al Franken?

  • Tim||

    he is not Lizzie Fauxcahontus Warren.

    How?

  • Tim||

    "How" get it? Comedy gold here...

  • KDN||

    Will you be here all week?

  • Ted S.||

    Sorry to hijack the thread, but since this is the only one without a zillion comments, Russell Means, RIP.

  • R C Dean||

    I give him credit for the answer. His 80% is on the high side, but for the rest, its as good a case as he could make.

    And, yes, if I lived in Mass, I'd vote for him.

  • $park¥||

    Wait a second, posting an article about a dead Indian in a thread about the Mass senate race? Hmm...

  • MJGreen||

    That sucks. He seemed to be a great libertarian. And he was hilarious on Curb.

  • John||

    He wasn't Libertarian at all. Means was a corrupt nanny state piece of shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._Whiteclay

  • Whiterun Guard||

    MMmm...at least he understood the question.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Is there an LP candidate for the seat? If not, I could see voting for the Warren block. She's not only bad politically, all of the lies and misrepresentation are bad, too.

    Not that Brown doesn't suck.

  • Tim||

    Warren is a reprehensible human being running as a liberal while dodging licensing requirements in Mass and gaming affirmative action laws.
    Too bad they can't find the black woman who didn't get to teach at Harvard cause Liz stole her job.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Brown is the typical pol. He's GOP in Mass, so that has the staying power of bailout for Greece. He can be turfed at any election. If Warren gets in, she's in forever. Apparently that's less important than preserving the sense of 'too cool for TEAM' that the children in this thread hold.

  • Zeb||

    Right, so best case, Brown gets elected, then defeated by Warren or someone a lot like her next time. Who then serves forever. And this makes a huge difference how?

    Brown might have been useful had he actually stopped Obamacare from passing, but we missed that train already.

  • Mr. Soul||

    I know we're stuck with Obamacare, but the only longshot chance to get rid of this turd is to elect Mitt and R senate. Since its all the same every other way, Go Scott.

  • Zeb||

    My position briefly: I hope for the best, but I won't play the game. Fuck it.

  • Robert||

    If you don't take this rx, you'll die now. If you do, you'll die 6 yrs. later. I think I'll take the rx, thanks.

  • $park¥||

    You want somebody that recognizes there is a role for government and that government sometimes needs to get out of the way and be a junior partner, then you vote for me.

    Well which is it Mr Brown? Get out of the way or be a junior partner? Those aren't the same thing.

  • Drake||

    Scott Brown can barely convince moderate Republicans to hold their noses and vote for him.

  • eyeroller||

    LP commented on this in 2010:
    http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/.....ibertarian

    ("Why Massachusetts should have voted Libertarian")

  • John||

    And sometime around the date when the earth is engulfed by the sun, I am sure they will. In the meantime...

  • $park¥||

    In the meantime we should all obviously put the Republicans in charge because only they can save us.

  • Paul.||

    The Republican flamethrower isn't as hot!

  • Randian||

    VOTE TEAM RED BECAUSE....REDNESS!

  • John||

    Because Warren is a horrible candidate and a horrible person who has no business in the Senate.

    There is a difference between people would you not agree? Or do you think that there are only two types of people in the world; Libertarians and evil statists (a category that includes everyone for Scott Brown to Pol Pot)?

    At some point the whole "we are never voting for the lesser evil" is really just saying there is us and everyone else isn't it? That is fine as far as it goes. But it pretty much makes the speaker look like a fanatical assclown.

  • Randian||

    That is fine as far as it goes. But it pretty much makes the speaker look like a fanatical assclown.

    So is it fine or not fine?

  • John||

    Depends on whether you want to be a fanatical ass clown or not.

  • Randian||

    One would think that would not be a "fine" result. Which contradicts what you just said.

  • John||

    One would think that, if one lacked reading comprehension or any appreciation of irony or sarcasm.

  • Randian||

    I don't think you even know what irony or sarcasm are, given the rate at which you misuse both words.

  • John||

    That is nice Randian. I think you just don't have an answer to my larger point that

    There is a difference between people would you not agree? Or do you think that there are only two types of people in the world; Libertarians and evil statists (a category that includes everyone for Scott Brown to Pol Pot)?

    At some point the whole "we are never voting for the lesser evil" is really just saying there is us and everyone else isn't it?

    You can't really can't answer that point so you instead go full douche bag and as "is it fine or is it not?". I don't know, you tell me. That wasn't the point I was making and you know it.

  • Cavpitalist||

    There is a difference between people would you not agree? Or do you think that there are only two types of people in the world; Libertarians and evil statists (a category that includes everyone for Scott Brown to Pol Pot)?

    At some point the whole "we are never voting for the lesser evil" is really just saying there is us and everyone else isn't it?

    No, it's saying "I'm not voting for someone who doesn't deserve my vote or represent my views". I wouldn't vote for Warren, but I sure as shit wouldn't vote for Brown, either. Doesn't matter the office, or what other candidates are available. They don't represent my voice, so I'm not going to align my voice with their base.

    How you can have so much trouble with such an obvious concept is beyond me.

  • $park¥||

    And John knows all about looking like a fanatical assclown.

  • John||

    So the fanatic is the guy who votes for the lesser of two evils and the person who insists on ideological purity or nothing isn't. That is interesting logic there.

  • Cytotoxic||

    John, you being horrible here. These kids don't want the responsibility of making real decisions, why would you force that on them?

    You see, they're not so much interested in liberty as they are in maintaining their good standing for the Libertarian Brand. We can't sully that holier-than-thou brand with real thinking.

  • SugarFree||

    Nothing means you are a True Libertarian more than voting for a Republican.

  • ||

    I don't believe liberty is advanced by voting GOP (or dem, before anyone accuses me of anything).

    I don't think one can use gov't, the very antithesis of liberty, to advance liberty. There may be some small victories here and there, but the broad arc is always and ever towards increasing statism and ultimate collapse.

    So I advance liberty in other ways, through personal networks, in what seems like the best way to me. You can disagree with my assessment, and that's fine. But it's utterly false to accuse anyone who doesn't follow your exact logic and prescriptions of not caring about liberty. You are not the sole gatekeep of what constitutes the "correct" way of advancing liberty.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Medieval doctors cared about their patients (I think) but that did not make bloodletting beneficial.

  • ||

    Unfortunately a nebulous concept like "advancing liberty" does not lend itself to analogies with things which can be scientifically and objectively determined to be correct or incorrect, like many medical procedures.

  • John||

    I think Warren out of the Senate advances liberty. Would it advance it more if keeping her out elected someone better than Scott Brown? Sure. But for all of Brown's faults, electing him rather than her is still a good thing. I don't understand why people have such a hard time admitting that.

    Since when is voting for a candidate some kind of endorsement of everything about him? I hate the other guy more is a perfectly rational reason for voting.

    I have no doubt every single Republican candidate in Maryland is a complete crap weasel. But I will happily vote for them because their Democratic counterparts are much worse and even if they are not, they deserve to be kicked out no matter who replaces them.

    I swear sometimes you people don't want politicians you want a teen idol. No wonder the Paulites are such a cult of personality.

  • ||

    I swear sometimes you people don't want politicians...

    Bingo. As I said, I don't think the answer lies in government, period. There may be a few guys here and there I'd toss a vote to, but I don't pin any real hopes on them, or count on or rely on them.

    Liberty will not come from the government and will not be delivered by politicians.

  • John||

    Liberty will not come from the government and will not be delivered by politicians.

    It will always be delivered by politicians. It is politics after all. And they are always going to be flawed crap weasels. Mostly voting means voting against someone. That is just life.

  • Calidissident||

    John you are becoming more like Tony every day. Your logic is eerily similar

  • Zeb||

    "Mostly voting means voting against someone." Says you.

    To me voting means voting for the candidate that best represents my views or goals.

  • Calidissident||

    Yes John, wanting a candidate who you actually agree with on a majority of issues means we want a teen idol. Ron Paul is so dreamy, right, unlike Mitt Romney?

  • John||

    Caldissident,

    Did I miss how Ron Paul is running for Senate in Massachusetts? Why don't cut back on the Tony and start thinking about what you are saying.

  • Calidissident||

    You mentioned him in the next line. Most people here don't even live in Massachusetts. Let's not pretend you're not making a broader point, or that you haven't made that point in the past

  • $park¥||

    I swear sometimes you people don't want politicians...

    Holy shit! Did John just have an epiphany?

    ...you want a teen idol

    Nope, never mind.

  • Cavpitalist||

    The person who votes exclusively based on what he believes is MUCH less fanatical than the person who votes exclusively based on hating what the other person believes, yes. Without question.

    Gee, which is more fanatical, the person who insists that their vote mean something, or the one who insists that everyone's vote MUST GO TO STOPPING THIS TERRIBLE THREAT!

  • ||

    I hate to break this to you but Massachusetts is not a Libertarian state. They are probably the least libertarian state in the country.

    As the Chair of the LP in Hawaii, I can assure you that this state holds that dishonor.

  • ||

    as a former hawaii resident, and hawaii LEO, i agree. hawaii has no libertarian in it whatsoever. it is the anti-libertarian.

  • Zeb||

    Well, they have one at least, apparently.

  • tarran||

    Happily though, they apparently have the lowest voter turnout, which implies a greater tolerance for freedom.

  • John||

    It has to be a close race though.

  • MJGreen||

    Uninteresting anecdote: I grew up in Hawaii, and my first introduction to the word libertarian was from a friend describing our calculus teacher's politics.

    I met one other libertarian there. After that, progressives as far as the eye could see.

  • DJK||

    This is unfair; what about California?!?!

  • ||

    "take your hand out of your pocket" is a demand, not a request to be considered.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

    this cop has a lot of explosiveness and moves like an athlete. i wonder how much he clean and jerks

  • Paul.||

    said Brown before getting called over by his wife Gail Huff to pay the tab for lunch, which included his daughter Adrianna and Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

    "I don't expect them to pay, I just wanna see a reach for the cheque, just a reach is all I ask."

  • ||

    Happily though, they apparently have the lowest voter turnout, which implies a greater tolerance for freedom.

    It implies Hawaii has the highest levels of former military residents who have left the state but are still being carried on the books, plus a lot of voters who have just given up on trying to beat the union Democratic turnout machine.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Three words Enemy Expatriation Act

    He is the only cosponsor of Lieberman's Bill. I really don't care who is worse, him or Warren. My question is, who will help crash the economy sooner? I could use a little help.

  • tarran||

    I think Warren would crash the economy faster.

    Brown is more interested in giving the feds the power the jail.

    Warren wants them to jail people in ways that destabilize the economy.

    OF course, the powers of a Senator are wielded indirectly, so it's hard to predict with certitude how they will impact things over their careers.

  • ||

    Wow. Just wow. That is one shitty piece of legislation.

  • ||

    Shit.

    Thank you, Mr. Whipple, sincerely.

    I have been on the fence about whether to vote for Brown or not (the chances I vote for Warren are those of a whelk in a supernova). This makes it trivial to decide not to vote for a sponsor of something that awful.

    HampersandR... the more you know....

  • Cytotoxic||

    Terrible, but that is damage done. Sunken cost.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If you are a libertarian in the state of Mass, you have a moral duty to vote for Scott Brown. Warren is not the typical politician she is much worse, whatever the above TRUE SCOTSMAN WARRIORS say.

  • Randian||

    No I don't.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THE CHILDREN ARE TOO COOL FOR TEAM.

  • SugarFree||

    The only way to be a True Adult is buying into a corrupt duopoly.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Sorry to inform you, but the duopoly is here to stay.

  • SugarFree||

    What's it to you, Canadian?

  • Cytotoxic||

    No offence, but when your country does something stupid it tends to end up here. You implemented central banking and socialized medicine before we did, for instance. Also your crap economy is kind of a drag.

  • SugarFree||

    Offense. O-F-F-E-N-S-E

    For fuck's sake, you can't even write American.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Chrome's spellcheck scripts own me! I can't take those red squiggles!

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    ...you have a moral duty to vote...

    I find it odd we are forced at gunpoint and jail-rape to pay taxes, but not to vote. Maybe it has something to do with voting not meaning shit in their books? If it really mattered to them, wouldn't it be in the same category as "PAY YOUR TAXES OR GET RAPED WHILE DRINKING ANTI-FREEZE INFUSED TOILER WINE"-type of shit?

  • sarcasmic||

    We have two Red Tonys.

    If you don't do A, that is the equivalent of doing B.

    If you take less from the rich to give to the poor, that is the equivalent of taking from the poor and giving to the rich since the outcome will be a bigger gap than if you had done otherwise.

    If you do not vote for Brown (or Warren), then that is the equivalent of voting for Warren because she'll have more votes than if you had voted for Brown.

    EXACT same logic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If you do not vote for Brown (or Warren), then that is the equivalent of voting for Warren because she'll have more votes than if you had voted for Brown.

    Thanks for putting words in my mouth, child, but I've got it covered.

    You should vote for Brown, Not voting for Brown isn't voting for Warren, it's just wrong.

  • sarcasmic||

    Has he autographed your copy of Cosmo yet?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Well I've been saving several backissues in case-HEY that's none of your business!

  • Zeb||

    Calling anyone who dares disagree with your sweeping judgements on the correct way to vote a child is a pretty shitty way to argue. Just saying.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    If you are a libertarian in the state of Mass, you have a moral duty to vote for Scott Brown.

    wat?

  • tarran||

    He's a jihadi. His imams have issued a fatwa calling upon all devout randians to support Brown - following the example of Rand herself (PBUH) when she supported Nixon.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No child, I came to this conclusion on my own. I still see you can't address my point and are too much the child to admit as much.

  • Randian||

    You don't have a point that hasn't been said by John or Tulpa or any other Redtardian a million times before.

    "Candidate D is uniquely bad you guys. I know we say this every time, but this time, no really Charlie Brown, kick that football"

  • Cavpitalist||

    John: I don't understand why no one will buy my shitty reasoning.

    Cyto: Did you back up your argument by calling anyone who disagrees with you a child, and eschewing any kind of legitimate philosophical or practical argument?

    John: I'm not a fucking idiot. Of course I did.

    Cyto: Did you question their bonafides as Libertarians if they disagree?

    John: C'mon man, this ain't my first rodeo.

    Cyto: And I can assume you pointed out that Libertarians will never be elected, and that the Republican party is the defacto home for Libertarians because FY,TW?

    John: Of course.

    Cyto: Better call them children some more.

  • SugarFree||

    The only way to be a Moral Libertarian is to vote Republican.

  • Cytotoxic||

    In Mass 2012 yes this is the case.

  • SugarFree||

    I can't imagine why so many people think Objectivists are dicks.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Geez, this coming from a libertarian...

  • SugarFree||

    I'm fine being a dick. But at least I'm not a Republican dick.

  • ||

    I think we all pretty much look like dicks to any outsiders.

    It's dicks all the way down (hehe).

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Atlas holds up the world, and he stands on a giant dick in space? That would actually explain a lot of things.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    It's dicks all the way down (hehe).

    We have some cunts here, too. Let's see... we've got Invisible Furry Hands, Kaptious Kristen, nicole, and Ken Schultz.

  • ||

    Good one : D

  • ||

    Nah, nicole's alright.

  • John||

    Here is the thing Sugar Free. Why does voting have to be such a positive thing? Who cares about Brown? Warren is horrible. Hating her is enough of a reason to vote for her competitor. Seeing her lose is enough of a reason for voting for anyone.

    Why do you people think you have to like the person you are voting for? I don't like most of the people I vote for. But who cares? They are politicians. All of them are loathsome. I vote mostly out of hate. And that is as it should be. If I liked the people I voted for, I might start believing in them or liking them. And that is not a road I want to go down.

  • SugarFree||

    John, I honestly do give a fuck beyond how goddamn annoying you are being on the issue. Between your constant drumbeat, and Cytotoxic's moralizing horseshit (so rich coming from a defender of drone's killing the innocent) it's very tiring.

  • SugarFree||

    Wow. I really mis-typed the shit out of that comment. Fuck, yeah! Woo!

  • John||

    I tell you what is tiring, a bunch of Libertarians whining that the candidates in Massachusetts don't fit the Libertarian purity test. You are never going to get a good candidate there. So all you can do is hope the least bad one wins. If I lived in Mass I would vote for Brown in a minute. Why? Because he is better than Warren. That is all there is to it. But I should vote for the Libertarian candidate who will be lucky to get 500 votes and make sure I don't do anything to stop Warren why?

    Why should someone in Mass vote for a Libertarian candidate? So they can be part of the club? I think voting to keep Warren out of the Senate sounds better than voting for a candidate who will get no support and make no difference in the race.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think voting to keep Warren out of the Senate sounds better than voting for a candidate who will get no support and make no difference in the race.

    You don't get it. The machine works because it feeds itself.

    Don't vote for the guy who you think best represents you, vote against the person you hate more. Others will vote against the person they hate more. The winner will be one of the two that everyone hates.

    If people instead voted for instead of against, things might change.

    But they won't as long as everyone thinks like John.

  • John||

    Don't vote for the guy who you think best represents you, vote against the person you hate more. Others will vote against the person they hate more. The winner will be one of the two that everyone hates.

    It is Massachusetts. People are not and probably never will be libertarian there. So you are just pissing in the wind pretending that voting L in a state like that makes any difference.

  • sarcasmic||

    If I liked the people I voted for, I might start believing in them or liking them.

    Maybe if you voted for people you believe in or like, people who are worthy of believing in or liking might win.

    Obama won because of two things. Some believed in him and liked him, but mostly he won because a vote for McCain was a vote for Bush.

    He won because people voted against the other guy.

    Just like you vote against the other guy.

    You're the problem, John.

  • John||

    Maybe if you voted for people you believe in or like, people who are worthy of believing in or liking might win.

    Those people don't exist. Not even (gasp) St. Gary. And moreover even if they did, once in office they would have to compromise and do things they promised they wouldn't do anyway.

  • Randian||

    And moreover even if they did, once in office they would have to compromise and do things they promised they wouldn't do anyway.

    how horrible! They might make it in and accomplish things I want done with compromises! Whereas Republicans don't do a fucking thing about spending or entitlements or wars or prohibition or civil liberties...ever!

    What a compelling argument.

  • John||

    But Randian, I thought bipartisan compromise was horrible? I thought everyone around here wanted gridlock? Didn't you get the memo?

  • PapayaSF||

    [Obama] won because people voted against the other guy.

    Just like you vote against the other guy.

    You're the problem, John.

    No, you've just proved John's point: Obama won in part because of people voting against the other guy. We may not like that particular outcome, but it shows that "voting against the other guy" often works. Voting against Warren is perfectly rational. By nearly any libertarian measure, Brown (for all his imperfections) is preferable.

  • Randian||

    Warren is horrible. Hating her is enough of a reason to vote for her competitor.

    Right, and one of her competitors is named Scott Brown. Her other competitors are not so named.

    So what's the problem?

  • John||

    Because the other candidate is not going to get any support and voting for him, whoever that is will do nothing to stop Warren. The only person who is beating Warren is Brown. The only vote that stops Warren is a vote for Brown. If the Libertarian candidate actually had a shot, it would be different. But the L candidate won't get 1% in that state. Voting for him is voting for no one.

  • tarran||

    The LP isn't fielding a candidate for MA senate.

    I probably wouldn't vote for one if they had one anyway. My experience with the activists in the LP here are that they are utter fruitloops who are one dead neuron away from actually wearing tin-foil hats.

  • Randian||

    You just said that I have to vote for Warren's 'competitor', and now you're changing your tune to 'you have to vote for THIS competitor'.

    Well...no.

  • sarcasmic||

    "The most important Senate race in our lifetime! Don't vote for the person you think will best represent you, vote against the other TEAM!"

  • John||

    The LP isn't fielding a candidate for MA senate.

    That settles it. There are no other choices. Please explain to me Randian how anyone would not vote for Brown.

  • Killazontherun||

    He hasn't even offered me a dime for my vote, so it can't be worth that much.

  • $park¥||

    Yeah guys, seriously, you get to PICK your tyrant. Why won't you just pick the better tyrant?

    /John

  • John||

    YEah Sparkey, Brown is a tyrant. I hear he plans to set up death camps upon election.

  • $park¥||

    And if he did, well that would be OK because at least he's not Warren.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    YEah Sparkey, Brown is a tyrant. I hear he plans to set up death camps upon election.

    Come on, John. At least have the honesty to defend Scott Brown's support of Obama's Afghanistan surge (which has accomplished nothing but raising the US death toll).

  • John||

    That hardly makes him a tyrant. And would Warren have objected? Again, there is no Libertarian candidate on the ballot.

    And the point is not that Brown is a good candidate. It is that he is better than Warren.

  • $park¥||

    There are no candidates on the ballot worth voting for. Is that why I'm supposed to vote for a candidate that I don't like anyway?

  • tarran||

    There are no other choices. Please explain to me Randian how anyone would not vote for Brown

    Oh Johnny, there are zillions of choices. One can always check the box by a line with no writing and write in the person they want.

  • John||

    That is right Tarran, write in Saint Gary.

  • tarran||

    Nope. Don't like Gary Johnson either.

  • Killazontherun||

    Personally, if I lived there for the sake of my sanity politics would be entirely tuned out to the extent of not knowing my reps and who is running. I suspect a silent majority does just that.

  • $park¥||

    That's what my wife does. She seems to be generally happier than I am.

  • Calidissident||

    No one has a moral duty to vote. Period.

  • OldMexican||

    Scott Brown Wants Libertarians To Vote For Him, Too!

    Because his daughters are way hotter than Warren!

    As good a reason as any!

  • ||

    Holy shit, all the moralizing and sermonizing, and THIS is the one great post on this thread.

    I will now be voting for Scott Brown's daughters.

  • SugarFree||

    Hotter? What a low bar. A trashbag full of warm vegetable oil is sexier than Injun Liz.

  • Killazontherun||

    Replace his daughters with Filipino girls and he gives off a certain vibe.

  • ||

    You make a cogent argument, OM.

    Although, if I ever am photographed with my daughter dressed like that and I am actually smiling, someone should find and shoot me.

  • Zeb||

    I'll find you an d congratulate you for finally seeing your daughters as independent and capable people rather than some possession of yours that you need to protect from everything. What is it about having daughters that makes men lose their minds? Guess what? Some nasty boy that you don't like is going to fuck the shit out of your daughter.

  • SugarFree||

    What hamilton should focus on is the fact that--based on actuarial tables--it probably won't be me.

  • ||

    No, but Warty might have a shot. He doesn't follow normal causality.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Schwinnng!!!

  • John||

    There is no libertarian candidate for MA Senate. Clearly the thing to do is write in Gary Johnson. He can do anything.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Not voting would also be acceptable.

  • tarran||

    The danger is that the local machine would then have a ringer use your name and address to cast a vote for their politician...

    I just write in "None of the Above" if there isn't anyone worth voting for who wants the job.

  • $park¥||

    The danger is that the local machine would then have a ringer use your name and address to cast a vote for their politician

    Even this has become something I ceased to give a fuck about.

  • tarran||

    True.

    The one thing that keeps me voting here is bloody mindedness.

    Occasionally there is an interesting bill on the ballot that's worth voting for. It's also fun to see the unopposed guys getting less than 100% of the vote.

    Otherwise I wouldn't bother showing up.

  • John||

    No it is not. Suppose people just refuse to vote. I guarantee you someone will vote even if it is only the candidates' families and people who will get a job if their guy wins. And don't think for a minute the winner will give a flying fuck that he won with six votes out of a million. He will claim to be the winner and do exactly as he would have had he won a million votes.

    So not voting really doesn't do any good. The best you can do is vote for the least bad option available.

  • $park¥||

    Wrong. Again. You don't get it and you never will. You are actively refusing to understand. Your support of a corrupt system keeps the corrupt system rolling right along. You refuse to see that we're already fucked and there's no getting out of it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    And don't think for a minute the winner will give a flying fuck that he won with six votes out of a million. He will claim to be the winner and do exactly as he would have had he won a million votes.

    So victory in an election doesn't imbue the victor with any greater sense of responsibility, ethics, or morality? That a corrupt asshole who runs for office will continue to be a corrupt asshole if elected?

    Well gee, let me go get an early ballot and put my stamp of legitimacy on a corrupt asshole right now!

  • Zeb||

    That would be great. A libertarian might have a chance then.

  • Azathoth!!||

    TEAM RED, TEAM BLUE, and TEAM STUPID'?

    In a previous article, libertarianish candidates are listed. Every single one is Republican. Every one. Not a single Democrat in the mix.

    The LP may not be able to get into the debates, but it's clearly having an effect on one party. The Republicans.

    The Democrats march forward to pure statism

    And TEAM STUPID derides anyone who suggests that working on the very real change in the GOP is a hityrunpublican.

    Take over the GOP, the door is open--it's just a crack, but it's a start.

  • Killazontherun||

    I have to say this for republicans they'll try to browbeat us into to supporting their guy, but the democrats who come to this board don't seem to be interested in persuading us into doing anything other than killing ourselves. It would be beneath them to ask for our support.

  • ||

    And TEAM STUPID derides anyone who suggests that working on the very real change in the GOP is a hityrunpublican.

    Nope, we deride VOTING for someone just because they're a Republican. I'll vote for someone if they make my cut. I'd have voted for Ron Paul if he made the candidacy, but he didn't. Romney doesn't make the cut.

  • PapayaSF||

    Fabian libertarianism is a valid strategy. It worked for socialism.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement