Libertarian Party

Poll Predicts Libertarian Spoiler in North Carolina Senate Race


||| Rachel Mills

A new survey of likely voters in North Carolina raises the prospect of yet another libertarian "spoiler" candidate.

The CNN/ORC International poll has Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) pulling 46 percent of votes and Republican challenger Thom Tillis 43 percent, with a 4 percent margin of error. However, the poll also has Libertarian candidate Sean Haugh polling at 7 percent of the vote. If this proves to be an accurate prediction of election results, it will undoubtedly lead to Sean Haugh being labelled a "spoiler" by whichever side ends election night with a concession speech.

Haugh credits his strong poll numbers to an increased awareness of the libertarian brand, a significant change from when he ran for Senate in 2002. "'Libertarian' is a household word now," he told The Washington Post. "Everybody knows what it means."

So who is Sean Haugh? According to the Post's July profile, Haugh is a 53-year-old pizza deliveryman who "comes across as both folksy and erudite, funny and earnest".

Aside from candid explanations of his views, Haugh is also known to engage in extremely open dialogue on Facebook. This recently lead to a confrontation with one of his critics, who he described as an "ignorant moron." From The Daily Caller:

After getting into an argument over whether his presence in the race just helps Hagan, Haugh said to the voter: "Well, obviously our realities are quite detached. I prefer my reality over yours because logic, reason and evidence exist in mine. I pity ignorant morons such as yourself and wish you would stop voting."

Haugh also said: "I have learned that there is no value in explaining to an idiot why they are being an idiot, because, y'know, they're too stupid to understand anything."

Haugh told the Post he was motivated to run against Hagan and Tillis because he "couldn't stand the idea of walking into the voting booth and just seeing the Democrat and the Republican on the ballot." 

This gets at something political partisans like Ann Coulter fail to understand when they complain about voters straying from the Republican/Democrat duopoly: Election victory at all costs holds little appeal to people who oppose the policies of both main parties. It is also the height of arrogance for any side of politics to claim ownership over a particular set of votes, which is clearly implied when third-party candidates are said to have "taken" votes away from Republicans or Democrats. If these politicians want libertarians to vote for them, then they should be less hostile to libertarian values.   

In the mean time, it appears Ann Coulter will be spending a lot of time tracking down libertarian voters in North Carolina—after she drowns Reason's Ron Bailey first, that is.

NEXT: Ferguson Charges Thousands for Access to Public Records

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Tough shit. Want libertarian votes? Fucking earn them.

    1. Hey, Pro L, what is it you want? We kinda, sorta, promised, if we feel like it, to maybe, kinda, sorta, be a little better than those Evil Democrats! Geez, you libertarians expect the world!

      /Republican Establishment
      //Yes, I actually have argued with people who take just this line.

      1. *shrug* In this particular case we’re talking about the guy whose got the NC government to eliminate almost all of the special deductions and tax favoritism in the NC tax code, replacing it with lower rates and a larger standard deduction. In addition to all the other things mentioned below.

        Hagen has an enormous corporate money advantage, though, I suspect she’ll win. They like their special treatment.

        1. Point taken. I was responding generally to Pro L, rather than specifically about Tillis.

        2. To be sure, I was speaking generally and not about these specific candidates.

    2. Tillis has done alright as Speaker. Killed the Tesla ban, passed a law to make and keep Uber legal, massively cut the giveaway to companies filming movies in NC, refused to give subsidies for a stadium to the Carolina Panthers (though Charlotte threw money at them), passed the reimbursement of poor women involuntarily sterilized by the state and Charles Kuralty’s father a few decades back, and so on.

      Of course, for all that, and his Ex-Im Bank stance and so forth, he has the largest disparity in outside funding (against) of any Senate challenger. Corporate money is heavily, heavily Kay Hagen.

      1. That’s fine. If the candidate in question has done libertarianish things, then vote for him. If not, don’t. It’s quite simple.

      2. Thacker is making a strong case that Haugh’s angst is misdirected and that Tillis should be supported.

        1. Actually, he is making a good case that the 7% is coming from anti-corporate leftists.

          1. Only if it’s just polls.

            On election day the anti-corporate leftists will vote for the Democrat.

            Most votes Haugh gets will come from Libertarians, libertarians, and disaffected Republicans because they’ll ignore the good things tillis has done in favor of–

            “Tough shit. Want libertarian votes? Fucking earn them.”

            And they’ll toss away some very libertarianish action in favor of NO ACTION at all because they’re gonna vote for someone who’s never had–and never will have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.

            And, by voting their consciences, they just might get someone who will work adamantly against ANYTHING libertarian.

      3. “passed the reimbursement of poor women involuntarily sterilized by the state”

        don’t forget – “by Democrats”

        1. They’re now Republicans. The parties switched sides.

          /end liberal

    3. That’s not how it’s supposed to work!!

    4. Let’s see how that shoe fits on the other foot:

      “Want libertarian policies? Fucking earn them.”

      Oh. Not so funny now, if no less true.

  2. If Tillis is good enough for Mike Munger (“I’ll admit, I like Thom Tillis, whom I know reasonably well, both as a person and on the merits”), who ran for Gov. of NC as the Libertarian in 2008 against Bev Perdue and Pat McCrory, he’s good enough for me.

    Munger, you may remember, was praised thus by Nick Gillespie in Reason:

    I humbly submit that Duke University political science professor Michael Munger, who ran a strong bid as an Libertarian Party candidate for governor in North Carolina, set his eyes toward an even bigger and remote target in 2012, that stationary Death Star known as the White House.

    1. Tillis has a reformist record as leader of the NC legislature. One sign of this is the hysterical The-World-Is-Ending protests held by his opponents.

      Another sign is the expansion of school choice, for charters and for private schools.

      Maybe Tillis will be promoted beyond his competence, like the Peter Principle, but he has a good record so far.

  3. “‘Libertarian’ is a household word now,” he told The Washington Post. “Everybody knows what it means.”

    Yeah, it means you hate women and children and the sick and elderly, believe that might makes right and survival of the fittest law of the jungle Somalia dead old people and orphans racism is OK and porno and drugs and Mexican ass sex gay pot!

    THAT’S what your “libertarian” moment is all about, MISTER Haugh.

    We know everyone at REASON will vote for you.

    Now everyone DRINK.

    1. Oh, I forgot KOCHTOPUSZZSSS~!1!!1ojoj32e4!

    2. Libertarianism: Less government, more freedom, more wealth and technology.


        1. No, no. You let the rats and dogs eat the dead people and you eat the rats and dogs. Its like you’ve forgotten how to keep prion transmission down.

          1. Braaiinnzz?

      2. A current situation has been coming to mind with me recently, when I think about what the country would be like if libertarians had control. The water situation in CA.

        All they do is sit around and spout dire warnings about how they’re going to run out of water and ponder about how new taxes and fines can alleviate the eventual disaster. I mean, really, there isn’t anything they can do right?, because climate change. We’re all doomed, but in the meantime we’ll whine, raise taxes, and issue fines.

        So I’m thinking, libertarians would be at work right now solving this issue, instead of whining and thinking up more ways to steal peoples’ money.

        1. It’s almost like libertarianism is the “reality-based” political philosophy…:)

        2. There is something to this, but as I see it the current libertarian movement bisects into two camps:

          The people for whom libertarianism is more of a toolkit to resolve the problems people have in living together — a toolkit consistent with their code of ethics and immediately useful for solving problems. This group would resolve the Cali water situation in fairly short order.

          The pseudo-philosophers for whom any “solution” is antithetical to the purpose of libertarianism, which is purely a quasi-Daoist stance not meant to be applied. These would probably do the same thing about the Cali water situation that they do for any issue, which is sit on their asses and bitch about any attempt to resolve the situation while proclaiming that even trying to resolve the situation proves the reformers’ lack of principle and *true* understanding, brah.

          IMO for libertarianism to be politically successful, it will need more of group #1.

          1. Well, I think that most libertarians I know fall under group #1.

            Sure, libertarians will bitch, rant, and get cynical. Then they’ll get to fucking work and solve the damn problem, afterwards being even more set in the cynicism. But that’s ok, I can live with that.

            But our current array of so called ‘leaders’ only see a crisis as a way to extract more revenue and keep people under control. They don’t want the crisis solved, and even if they did, since they are generally the dumbest, laziest, least talented and imaginative people in society, the couldn’t do it anyway. Anything they try would probably just exacerbate the situation.

            Myself, I would look at this and start thinking. Could de-salinization work on a massive basis if we put our best people on it? And by best people I don’t mean the cronies that contributed to the latest campaigns or the people already on the circle jerk merry go round to get a cushy meaningless job. Not bureaucrats, entrepreneurs and engineers.

            You know there is a huge reservoir of fresh water about 60 miles down under the earth that has more water than all of the earths oceans combined? Thoughts of being able to extract that would scare the fuck out of our leaders and the enviro wackos both at the same time.

            1. There’s a shitload of water in space, too. And if we had cheap access to orbit using a new technology I call MARKET FORCES, it might even be cost-effective to obtain.

              1. There’s a shitload of water in space, too. And if we had cheap access to orbit using a new technology I call MARKET FORCES, it might even be cost-effective to obtain

                I frequent a lot of tech sites and it’s very frustrating to see the so called ‘liberals’ talk about things like this and then say ‘BUT KOCH BROTHERS WOULD TAKE IT OVER AND PROFIT AND THEN WE ARE ALL SLAVES!!!!’. So, umm, no, we can’t do that right now. We have to wait for the government to do it, because we can trust them.


            2. There are lots of issues that libertarians could approach in this way. It would be nice to see libertarians market themselves in an attractive way on such issues, rather than waste their time arguing about Abraham Lincoln and such.

              1. I guess it’s hard to focus on progress when stopping the totalitarian express seems so urgent at this time.

              2. Not only that, but it might get us some jobs. You might get hired by somebody to work on the water problem.

                1. Proving we’re right, duh.

          2. Is “your government basef sokution is wrong” group 1 or 2. Because thats the correct answer.

          3. Hell, even for nonpolitical success, we need more of #1. What’s better: making the world a better place, or proving you’re right and others are wrong?

          4. So, group #1–‘liberarians’

            And group #2–‘The Libertarian Party’

            Group #2 is happy to be a spoiler.

  4. “‘Libertarian’ is a household word now,” he told The Washington Post.

    So is fuck. Not to mention, cunt.

  5. Everybody knows what it means

    Umm, no. Most people recognize the term now, but not even a majority knows what it means.

    I’ve noticed a recent trend on NPR, they like to use the term ‘And it’s not only liberals who agree, but the libertarian faction of the republican party as well’. They love to say this on NPR now, every time there’s a liberal position that they think libertarians agree with. Never mind that libertarians probably agree for a completely different reason.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to always be hearing about libertarians now in the mainstream, but not many people actually know anything about what it means to be libertarian.

    1. I would suppose NPR believes libertarian Republicans are the guys who want to recognize gay marriage and legalize dope, and are useful sticks with which to beat other Republicans – until a libertarian Rep poses an electoral threat to a Dem in which case (s)he’s a nihilist child-killer and rapist.

      1. That sounds about right.

    2. Most people recognize the term now, but not even a majority knows what it means.

      Sure they do. It means “closet Republican who is a hypocrite about pot”. Or “closet Democrat who is wealthy enough to favor the Bush tax cuts”.

      1. Like I said.

    3. They know of an alternative to the BS ‘choices’ they have now and that’s huge.

    4. Libertarianism ? cafeteria civil libertarian. It’s fundamental to libertarianism of any stripe that government be limited. The only question among our different elements is by how much–a whole lot or TOTALLY ELIMINATED. You’re not a libertarian because you like gay marriage.

      Where we’re in trouble is that people don’t seem to understand at all why we should limit government across the board on principle. Too many want unlimited or not-very-limited government for some pet issue, being totally incapable of understanding why that’s so dangerous.

      1. Like current and former Reason-writers defending the NEH and NEA (and the NSF, most likely) as “little more than a rounding error” in the federal budget.

        1. I understand that argument insofar as it’s about not making wee little agencies the focal point of your attacks on government spending, but every gutting of government begins with one agency you burn.

          1. I prefer to start the burning with the DOE.

          2. I’d consider abolishing the NEA and NEH as a greater ideological victory th thean merely pragmatic one of reforming Social Security.

      2. Actually, I think you’re a libertarian if you want government to get out of the marriage business altogether, in particular the federal government

        1. Of course. My point is that liking a civil liberty or two or ten doesn’t make you a libertarian. Look at it this way–many on the left, when talking about civil liberties, seem to think that the government should permit their exercise. Permit. That ass-backwards.

    5. Read the comments to any piece discussing libertarianism, and you will quickly come to the conclusion that 90% of people don’t have the slightest inkling of what libertarianism comprises.

  6. After getting into an argument over whether his presence in the race just helps Hagan, Haugh said to the voter: “Well, obviously our realities are quite detached. I prefer my reality over yours because logic, reason and evidence exist in mine. I pity ignorant morons such as yourself and wish you would stop voting.”

    Haugh also said: “I have learned that there is no value in explaining to an idiot why they are being an idiot, because, y’know, they’re too stupid to understand anything.”

    Theory: there is an arrogant asshole factor when it comes to people running for office which goes beyond that of your average person, and this factor is precisely what motivates a person to endure the slings and arrows of campaign season.

    I’d still vote for Haugh, though.

    1. After reading that, I’m wondering which H&R commenter Haugh is, (;

      1. I guess we’d have our answer if it turns out he exclusively caters deep dish pizza…

    2. I believe it’s Paul Cantor who says that everyone who runs for public office is the same sort of person who ran for student government in high school. The further up the political food chain you move, the more skillful and deceitful the actor who wants to run your life, but even at the lowest level they’re unbearable people.

      1. Makes sense to me, in a depressing sort of way. Certainly brings to mind that old WFB quote about picking names at random from the phone book, as well as Hans-Herman Hoppe’s work RE: democracy.

        1. Sean actually didn’t want to run, but when Tim D’Annunzio (however it’s spelled) entered the race to win the L nomination a call went out in the LPNC for someone to challenge him. Timmy D is a kind if weird creepy republican who ran for a house seat a few years ago and stated he would openly support the GOP candidate in the race if he win the L nomination.

      2. Yes, this is spot on. I mean, think back to student government. Who the fuck wanted that job? Why did they want it? Because they thought that it would give them some power. Then they found out it doesn’t, but can be a stepping stone to actual positions with real power. But they wanted that power from the very beginning.

        1. I wanted it on my college appl’n. Same w the Sat. morning tutoring project.

          1. I had a very simple platform for homeroom rep to the Community Council: no opinions. I said I’d move to table every vote until I could poll the home room. I got elected to a term.

            I don’t understand why more politicians don’t take the same tack. “I have no opinions. Why should I? I’m going to represent you.”

        2. I considered running in a gorilla suit. And I’m not kidding. I would’ve made a great gorilla leader.

  7. I wasn’t hear for Coulter’s last spasm. I hate that cunt, and she’s getting worse and worse.

    1. I’m sympathetic to the idea , though not actually supportive, of drowning Ron Bailey

  8. So a 53 old pizza delivery man who insults a voter asking an honest question may help Eric Holder’s team win. Oh, happy days.

    If Chris Christie wins reddish states because 7% of likely voters abandoned Rand Paul in favor of some pizza delivery libertarian man with no record of accomplishment whatsoever, why, that’s a good thing. Stylish loss over playing team games, that’s the way to go.

    No libertarian or libertarianish candidate was able to win elections without the support of the more broad center right coalition (tea party, GOP voters motivated by Obama hate, border hawks, religious right, moderate independents). That’s FACT. Outside of two social issues, most the libertarian cause is already shared by the right, and that’s why the movement gets exposure. So it’s being a bit elitist to mock those who lament libertarians contributing to the loss of Republicans who might be more sympathetic to their cause.

    Most of you know hispanics, immigrants, and jamming millennials don’t read this site. And they detest you. If you think the erosion of the GOP is good thing for libertarians, you must be insane.

    1. Your tears and butthurt are delicious.

    2. Most of you know … immigrants, … don’t read this site.

      But, but….aren’t you a first generation South Korean immigrant?

      What manner of creature are you that you have managed to over come your disability of immigrant-ness?

      1. “What manner of creature are you that you have managed to over come your disability of immigrant-ness?”

        Immigrants can be conservative or libertarian, you know. 30% of Latinos vote Republican. Most of them are progressive or statists. I’m more immigrant than 90% of you here, so please.

        I don’t vote for most of the GOP candidates in any elections. I didn’t vote for Meg Whitman, Arnold (reelection) and Mccain. I voted for Romney to keep Obama out of office.

        But I have no problem voting for lesser evils, and playing “team games” if it counts. And no, I’m going to vote for a childish pizza delivery guy who has no record accomplishment and can’t answer straight questions from a voter. I don’t care if you hate “both parties”, that’s the call of every independent candidate.

        And if a libertarian douche bag is taking votes away from a quality Republican candidate, that cause of concern. Ann Coulter uses hyperbole to make a point, but it’s a good point. You have no friends from the expanding demographics, so if you want worthwhile candidates (or lesser or two evil, better than nothing) to win, you don’t need Christine O’donnell types siphoning off votes.

    3. Eh. Most Hispanic Americans aren’t so much as aware of libertarianism or a tradition of classical liberalism distinct from modern liberalism, coming as they do from fundamentally broken countries mismanaged by authoritarian conservatives and totalitarian socialists alike. (Not to say that there are no countries with classical liberal tendencies in the Iberosphere, but those aren’t the ones sending immigrants our way, for the most part.) They don’t detest so much as misunderstand.

      I will have to revise my support for Haugh given that the R doesn’t seem like your typical POS.

      1. Authoritarian conservatives? Cite?

    4. I’m not a Haugh supporter, but what’s the hate on delivering pizza?

      Would you rather have some guy come to the door delivering pizza which you’ve voluntarily bought, or come to the door ordering you to pay for some social program or war you don’t want and would never voluntarily pay for in a million years?

      1. Maybe it’s just me, but I think calling out a dude because he’s found gainful employment in a shit economy as a pizza delivery man is more “elitist” than mocking “those who lament libertarians contributing to the loss of Republicans who might be more sympathetic to their cause”.

        1. “Ha ha, the economy’s so bad he’s working at delivering pizzas, that’s why you should vote for an establishment party!”

          1. That’s what disappoints me. I knew Sean when he lived in NY, and I know he’s trained to do stuff a lot more advanced than pizza delivery. I’m severely underemployed myself and will probably move away from NY soon from a position of financial weakness. So did another libertarian friend of mine recently, to live with his sister in So. Car., and he’s not getting work there except with her.

    5. It’s not an honest question, it’s utter horseshit. First because neither party “owns” my vote nor is due it. And second because, as we are constantly reminded, we just don’t hold that much of the vote to turn the tide in either direction so bitching about us “spoiling” or “eroding” an election is just utter hogwash.

      1. Personally I also find it a stupid question, but it’s one that Haugh will get asked a lot. Probably not the best idea to tell a voter that he’s an idiot for asking a question which many voters will ask him — were I his campaign manager, I would tell him to come up with a uniform, consistent and diplomatic answer to that question along the same lines as UKIP’s response to that same question. Calling people idiots isn’t exactly the way to win hearts and minds.

        1. Agreed.

          But sometimes it feels good.

    6. Outside of two social issues, most the libertarian cause is already shared by the right

      Umm, what 2 issues would that be?

      And, most of the libertarian cause is already shared by the right?

      What the fuck does that even mean? Libertarianism is pretty much considered on the right, way on the right.

      Are you talking about conservatives? Because there are more than 2 issues that most libertarians do not agree with most conservatives, especially when it comes to Social Conservatives and NeoCons.

      1. Conservatives are also hopelessly, haplessly incompetent and useless even when they are with us. And their conniptions over immigration make it clear they are not with us-they haven’t even waited to get power to drop the pretence.

    7. Vote for who best represents your views and who you respect. How hard is that to understand?

  9. If this proves to be an accurate prediction of election results…

    Does it ever? As, much as I’d like this to happen, I’m sure the actual votes for this candidate will end up 1-2% like it almost always does.

    Lots of people talk about voting Libertarian before the election, but when it comes time, they go back to whatever party it is that they always vote for.

    1. Didn’t the guy in VA, Sarvis, recently get around 7% of the vote in the gubernatorial election?

      Maybe that was a fluke, or maybe the days of libertarian candidates always getting only 1-2% of the vote is over.

      1. Yeah, but Sarvis was running 12% before the election so you still had a huge drop off.

    2. Always the case at every level. Johnson was polling at 4-5% and pulled less than 1% of the vote.

      Presumably there’s a strong psychic cost to “wasting” a vote when you take the time to turn out on election night, as voting for the losing candidate would have the same psychological impact as rooting for a terrible sports team for many people.

      1. Of course, we really need preferential/instant runoff voting.

  10. If these politicians want libertarians to vote for them, then they should be less hostile to libertarian values.

    So can we libertarians now declare ourselves an oppressed minority and get both teams in a tizzy about how to appease us?

    1. Seems to have worked for the black folks.

      1. And gays, and wiminz.

  11. Kay Hagan

    Are we sure that allowing the High Priest of the Zakarum to serve is a good idea?

    1. Wow we have a lot of pathetic and deluded TEAM RED apologists. ‘B-b-but they’re better! Slightly fewer beatings! Ignore everything in the US from 2000-2006 and in Canada from 2006!’

  12. If a Republican candidate moves to a libertarian position (on xyz position) to gain 7% of the voters does he or she lose more or less than 7% of his previous voters?

    1. It probably depends on the position.

      1. This.

        But, I think most of the time, he will not lose those votes because anyone who was going to vote GOP anyways is not going to vote for the democrat because of that. I think this is a huge issue with the GOP, they cannot seem to understand this. Take this for example:

        If Rand Paul just comes right out and says ‘I think we should just legalize pot now, and if I’m Potus and congress passes a bill, I will sign it’.

        Do you really think that a lot of potential GOP voters will switch over and vote for Hillary because of that? I seriously doubt it.

        1. This in my opinion is a valid point and little understood

          For what it’s worth has Rand Paul made a statement on MJ and if so what was it?

          Of course even if the feds did legalize it and he signed it it would still remain illegal in most states although obviously not my own

          However I do think that if the feds did legalize it that would prompt many states to strongly consider doing so themselves

          Of course our experiment in legalization has been a success just as everybody knew it would be

          Ironically I had two different people offer to sell me marijuana just yesterday

          One difference I have noted is that sellers are much more proactive

        2. Do you really think that a lot of potential GOP voters will switch over and vote for Hillary because of that?

          I think they’d probably stay home, which accomplishes the same thing.

          It’s a nonsense question anyway since saying that out loud would 100% guarantee his not getting the Republican nomination in the first place (spoiler: he’s not going to get it anyway).

  13. I hate the term “spoiler”.

    If the candidate can’t figure out a way to get enough votes to win an election, it’s nobody’s fault BUT that candidate’s. It’s definitely not the minor party’s candidate’s fault for just running for office on a platform that people want to support.

    Besides, it’s nearly impossible to accurately predict how voters who went with the minor party’s candidate would have otherwise voted. Would they have split unequally between the two major party candidates, enough to swing the results to the loser? Would they have stayed home? Would they have written in for Bugs Bunny or kept that line blank? Pre-election and even exit polls are inaccurate measures.

  14. The libertarian party has done a pretty crappy job of promoting our ideas and getting people elected

    All I think of when I think of spoiler is Nader and Perot and they suck

    As best I can see with Libertarian ideals have been better promoted and placed into law through cytisine initiative than through politicians from any party?

    1. “promoting our ideas”

      What were those, mary?

      1. dismantling drug war
        dismantling racial preferences
        Lowering taxes
        Doing more to hold government actors accountable
        Promoting sexual freedom

        As a few examples that have all been implemented very successful through initiative

        Obviously as in the case of the first example not as far as it should go but legalization of marijuana is certainly a start

        How effective have Libertarian legislators been at this stuff?


        The artist known as Dunphy and definitely not Mary


        1. How effective have Libertarian legislators been at this stuff?

          I know this was meant rhetorically, but at the state level AK’s Libertarian Party had some people in office at the 90s who were involved in marijuana decrim.

          1. Good example.

            It amazed me that Alaska backtracked on that

            I watched a few episodes of the Alaska trooper COPS type show and it disgusted me to see they take mj seriously, too!

            Maybe it was for show and when the cameras are off they get more laissezfaire.

            Either way, I was amazed it was that way in Alaska based on their past libertarianism

            Otoh, a reformed addict can be the worst moralizer so based on that analogy…

          2. They were involved, yes. They could’ve been involved whether the Libertarian Party existed or not, and they probably would’ve been at least slightly more effective had they not been organized as a political party.

        2. Still claiming to be Dunphy, eh?

          You didn’t answer me in the other thread.

          Or, you can just post your ORIN #. Surely you know that, right?

          1. Brah believe what you want to believe. I won’t even post what agency I work for for Pete’s sake and never have

            If you can’t see based on the brilliance of my commentary that it’s me then so be it go ahead and live your life


            Note that while the content of my insight has not changed the format of my posting has since I no longer type anything but use voice to text

            1. Well, the way that you seem sort of thin skinned when anyone criticizes cops, which is usually well deserved, you might be Dunphy.

              1. TULPA – SECOND CHOICE

                1. I think it’s Dunphy for real, Tulpa doesn’t have the same posting style at all. It sure as hell sounds like Dunphy. As soon as he start talking about lifting and muscle bound chicks with dicks, we”ll know for sure, (;

                  1. I’m glad to see you’ve finally started seeing Tulpa as he is instead of confusing him with me.

            2. Fuck off slaver

    2. Perot was a weird case in 1992. From what I remember, before he bowed out, Clinton was lagging in third place and Perot was even ahead at some points.

      Then Perot bowed out and Clinton surged to first place.

      When Perot came back (with that crazy conspiracy theory as to why he left), Clinton maintained his position.

      This is why I think the term “spoiler” is inaccurate. It was a definite anti-Bush political environment. Bush was going to lose in 1992; it was just a question of to whom. When Perot showed himself to be, uh, hogwild crazy, the only other choice was Clinton.

      1. That’s a fair point I guess people just think of Perot as a spoiler because he allowed Clinton to win with a plurality instead of the majority

        A true spoiler would mean that without Perot Clinton’s opponent would’ve won and I don’t think that’s at all a foregone conclusion

        So I stand kind a corrected on using Perot as an example of the spoiler

        1. Exit polls said not a single state would’ve switched from Bush to Clinton had Perot not been running. However, the poll trends bassjoe pointed out part of have been cited by some to show Perot’s effect was to kill Bush’s momentum.

      2. There were those compromising photos of his daughter looming ominously over her upcoming wedding. I’m not so sure that was merely a “theory”.

    3. When I think of spoiler, I think of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

      There’s no doubt that spoiler helped Woodrow Wilson defeat William Taft by getting around a quarter of the popular vote and actively campaigning against Taft rather than Wilson.

      With Wilson, the US got WW I, the draft, Prohibition, the Federal Reserve, the income tax, the Palmer raids, the national security state, official segregation of the federal government, direct election of senators, the Espionage Act, et. al.

      Taft was no libertarian, but it’s hard to imagine how he could have been worse than Wilson.

      1. Of course, between the hamfisted devisionmaking of the Kaiser creating diplomatic incidents and the massive propaganda system the Brits set up in the U.S., it’s an open question if the U.S. would have ended up fighting in WW I even without Wilson at the tiller.

        Wilson wasn’t a weird outlier. He was a member of a very powerful political movement that was capable of significantly altering national policy, even when they didn’t have the presidency.

      2. Taft was unpopular. IIRC, he got the lowest vote percentage out of any sitting president ever. Also, Roosevelt and Wilson were both progressives (though TR had been a Republican and Wilson was a Democrat) so TR didn’t just take votes from Taft.

  15. Here’s my current stand on this.

    If there is a GOP candidate who leans libertarian and is not so awfully horrible on some important issues that I just can’t pull that lever, I will vote GOP.

    Otherwise, I will stay home or vote L if there is an L candidate.

    Pretty simple. The one thing that I can’t ever see myself doing is voting D ever again. They have become so reprehensible that I just can’t ponder it.

    1. I think Tillis makes the cut. He’s a cereal reformist, in a good way.

      Dems: I can think of a very few that I would pull for. That women D running in Rhode Island. She’s pro-civil liberties and her opponent is a Team Red Establishment hack par excellence. RI libertarians should vote the D. Other than that…Cory…and maybe Polis?

      1. “a cereal reformist”

        He repealed the Corn Laws?

        1. Maybe President Tillis will do just that!

      2. I have had that thought before as well, but then when I think about how once a D gets in, they become absorbed by the borg and stop thinking, vote lockstep on everything, and then I reconsider.

        1. Cory Brooker isn’t totally absorbed!

          1. I know there are some exceptions. I’ve seen some of the dems vote with Rand and Amash over the past couple of years on important issues.

    2. Here’s my current stand on this.

      If there is a GOP candidate who leans libertarian and is not so awfully horrible on some important issues that I just can’t pull that lever, I will vote GOP.

      I will vote L if there is an L candidate who either a)can actually win or b) does not matter

      Pretty simple. The one thing that I can’t ever see myself doing is voting D or aiding a D to enter office in any way. They have become so reprehensible that I just can’t ponder it.

  16. ” “‘Libertarian’ is a household word now,” he told The Washington Post.”


    “Everybody knows what it means.”

    HA! ha ha hahahaa haha hahaha! Lololololololololol

    between ‘Salon’ and ‘The Week’ and ‘Mary’…. i would guess that “Libertarian” bears close resemblance to the Smog Monster in most people’s minds

    1. First they ignored us…

      1. The ignored part is over. The scared shitless part is now in motion.

        1. They really are! So fun!

    2. saw it in the theater

  17. Look, if the Reps weren’t such morons, they would have improved ballot access, so that all sorts of “spoiler” parties, both “left” and “right,” would be able to run – and there would be as much chance of “stealing” votes from Dems as from Reps.

    But Reps co-conspire with the Dems to limit ballot access with signature requirements which only the Libertarians are able to consistently meet. Maybe the Libertarians have a better work ethic, I don’t know, but it’s a ridiculous requirement designed to protect the duopoly.

    And if the Reps are right about Libertarians “stealing our votes,” then this means that *the Reps’ own laws* have led to this result, because if ballot access were easier, you’d have 3rd parties stealing from both Dems and Reps, potentially cancelling out the Libertarians.


    1. Look, if the Reps weren’t such morons

      If a frog had wings, the GOP would already have embraced the libertarians and would be on their way to winning a lot of elections.

      1. The Republican Party and a lot of people within it from my experience have a substantial difficulty distinguishing between libertarianism and libertinism

        A lot of the hostility I have seen from Republicans towards libertarians isn’t even valid criticism of libertarianism it’s criticism of libertinism that they falsely perceive

        I have a lot of Mormon friends and I have similar viewpoints towards Mormonism as Matt and Trey do – silly stuff but on the whole they are good people

        Before our state passed the legalisation of marijuana we were doing a exceptionally rare thing for us which is the discussing of politics

        1. They are all Republicans and have definitely expressed displeasure at many libertarian ideals but to their credit many actually said they had changed their mind and were now going to vote for the legalisation of marijuana

          Sure they could have been blowing smoke up my ass but in my experience they are honest and not all unwilling to disagree with somebody

          Most of their objections were anti-libertinism such that they saw passage of legalisation as endorsement of marijuana as a good thing as encouraging people to smoke it etc etc

          When I explained that I think marijuana sucks that endorsing its legalisation is not the same as saying it’s beneficial etc etc that seemed to be key in the process of persuasion

          1. I’ve seen liberals and progressives make the same error as the they derisively refer to libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke pot

            Heck I see libertarians make the same logical fallacy except On different issues

            My point is that libertarians have done a piss poor job in explaining to people that believing that government should not regulate X or criminalise X etc is not the same thing as endorsing X

            In my experience when you can get people to start to grok that distinction they become much more sympathetic to Libertarian ideals

            Idiots like Bill Maher who is not a libertarian anyways but claims to be work against explaining this distinction

            1. My point is that libertarians have done a piss poor job in explaining to people that believing that government should not regulate X or criminalise X etc is not the same thing as endorsing X

              I’m not sure if it’s necessarily the libertarians’ fault.

              It’s trying to get people to overcome an emotional reaction and instead have a rational response. Drugs are an emotional topic. People are raised to believe drugs, the users, and the dealers, are all evil, to the point where they have an emotional reaction when the subject comes up.

              It’s like having a conversation with liberals about economics. They see a rich person and have an emotional response. It’s very difficult to convince them that people get rich by enriching the lives of countless people by providing them with goods and services. They have to get over their emotional reaction first.

              Getting past that emotional reaction and reaching the rational part of their brain is not easy. In some cases it’s impossible.

            2. I’m sure you’ll say the same thing applies to me with regards to cops, and there’s a grain of truth to that. I don’t hate all cops. I just assume that they’re pieces of shit because, well, pieces of shit are attracted to a job where you get to use force without consequence.

              You say that’s not true, but just last week in the paper a local couple is suing because they were arrested for the non-crime of filming cops who did not want to be filmed. The cops still have their jobs of course, and the charges have been dropped, but the fact that they are still employed sends a message that police work is a job where you can do whatever you want, and nothing else happens.

              1. Do you think pieces of shit are attracted to playing contact sports? Where else but in the boxing ring can you legally batter someone?

                1. Yeah, but in a boxing ring, the other guy can hit you back.

                  1. Yeah, but in a boxing ring, the other guy can hit you back.


                2. Typical reasonoid anticop bigot response: anywhere you want if you are a police officer

                  Derp procedures derp derp

        2. “Republican[s] … have a substantial difficulty distinguishing between libertarianism and libertinism.”

          Bastiat identified the logical flaw of socialists (Democrats): “Socialism … confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. … We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

          Republicans make the same sort of category mistake. We object to state prohibition of marijuana. Then they say that we want to provide pot to their children. We object to prohibitions against online poker. Then they say we want to destroy families with crushing gambling debts. We object to state-enforced morality. Then they say that we are against moral conduct. It is as if Republicans were to accuse us of depravity because we do not believe that the state cannot justly coerce virtue.

          The fact is that most Democrats and Republicans have below average intelligence, and are incapable of discerning a category error without help.

          1. It is as if Republicans were to accuse us of depravity because we do not believe that the state can justly coerce virtue.

          2. Yea except this is exactly what Elizabeth Nolan brown or whatever says about abortion and it’s quite obvious she adores abortion. More to the point people realize libertarians really don’t care about the unintended consequences of permissiveness. You might not want kids to smoke pot (congrats by the way) but at the same time you don’t really care if they do. Most parents logically conclude that for all intents and purposes you are on the side of the people that do sell pots to kids if only because those guys are likely your dealers too.

  18. Harry Reid is grateful for any help he can get.

    1. Relevant meme:…..-delicious

      1. Know your consequences.

        1. Consequences of blindly voting GOP include 2000-2006. Thanks for playing.

          1. Things are so much better on the liberty front than they were in 2000-2008, aren’t they, Cytotoxic. A veritable Libertopia with roads has grown under Obama, Reid, Holder, the IRS, NSA…

    2. I think that in the very near future, the only help that Harry Reid will need is someone to change his diapers and get him a new drool bib.

      And this is not a bad thing.

  19. I sometimes vote my conscience…and vote Republican. The Libertarians acted toward me as if they were Republicans. I asked for fairly minimal assurances from some LPers seeking my vote – assurances that, even if they didn’t agree with me on certain points,* at least they would be semi-sane about the issues where we differed. They wouldn’t even give me that assurance, they just demanded I support them sight unseen and swallow my objections, just take one for the team. If I wanted to do *that,* I wouldn’t even be *considering* the “party of principle” in the first place.

    *Guess the issue!

    1. Oh gawd, for the lub of jeebus, pleeeaaaazzzeee don’t!

      1. Look, we disagreed about toll roads, what are you so upset about? 🙂

        1. But my bottom line point is that if they want to be the party of principle and purism, I better agree with them on pretty much every issue before voting for them.

          1. I think the causality in that statement is a wee bit skewed.

            Unless, we’re getting quantum.

    2. So, a bad experience with some “LPers” “seeking” your vote, which for me would be a waste of time because I vote my principles, while apparently your vote can be gained by a vociferous enough pleading, turned you off to libertarianism?


      1. Oh, spare me. They wanted me to be on their campaign, go to a fundraising dinner, make phone calls, etc.

        1. So, it wasn’t your vote it was actual participation you objected to?

          And I get spare me because I’m supposed to know this from reading your post which didn’t contain it?

          No offense, you could just as easily be saying that now because of what I said.

          1. I *could* be a lizard person trying to steal your kidneys, for all *you* know.

            1. 4% of voters say they believe “lizard people” control our societies by gaining political power, which is 3% more than voters who voted for the Libertarian Party in the last presidential election.

              1. You speak in such either/or terms, most lizard people are lizard-tarians.

                1. And I think *some* of that 4% are trolling.

                2. I’d be a member of the Lizardtarian Party, of which I’m going to GoDaddy to reserve the website domain as we speak.

                  1. A quick Google search shows that other people thought of the term before we did.

                    1. Until they have a website and a logo, they have nothing.

            2. Or you could write better and not be an asshole.

              1. *smooches*

    3. *Guess the issue!

      Trans fat ban!

      What do I win?

      1. Big soda ban?
        Happy meal ban?

        1. It’s something big, I just know it.

      2. It’s the issue word that should be forever stricken from being spoken of here, forever more.

        1. From your lips to ENB’s ears.

        2. I didn’t realize the Libertarian Party platform had a plank concerning circumcision.

        3. Oooooh, I know what it is.

          Banning Gingers.

        4. Is it…deep dish pizza? The shiftiness of pre-Abrams Star Trek?


          1. Artisanal mayo?

    4. *Guess the issue!

      Papal Infallibility?

  20. Funny, last night in the Hong Kong thread, I was assured that the US is similar to the PRC in that you need the Democrats and Republicans to give permission to be on the ballot. Amazing that things like this can happen.

    1. God, Tulpa!

      I pity you, you really, really, can’t help being an arrogant imbecille can you?

      You get a new handle, and two weeks later, everyone has figured out that the new handle belongs to you because you just don’t know how to convincingly ape being an intelligent human being!

      You are literally failing a variant of the Turing test. Is your self esteem so in the toilet that you must keep returning to a community that repeatedly shames you? Do you have some form of autism that prevents you from learning how to function emotionally? Why do you keep humiliating yourself so pathetically?

      I’m serious. I haven’t filtered you on reasonable. I genuinely am curious as to the answer to these questions. They are not rhetorical questions: why in God’s name do you keep doing this to yourself?

      1. You’re assuming that the person in question wants to be identified as one of you. Kind of an egotistical assumption, isn’t it? If 1 human takes the Turing test along with 9 computers, and is correctly identified as the only human by every tester, it would be odd to say the human “failed” the Turing test because they failed to act like a computer.

        Along with the idea that being insulted by anonymous commentators, often hiding behind their own sockpuppets, should cause a normal person to be humiliated. You overestimate your importance in this person’s life and in general, it would seem.

        1. It’s so Tulpa I’m actually LOLing right now.

        2. You are sad little man, Tulpa, a very sad little man.

          1. That’s weak, tarran. Even from you I expected more than a tired cliche of an insult.

            You’re going to have to do better than that to humiliate and chase away your ideological opponents.

  21. OT: Someone’s bound to blame libertarians for this:…..33341.html

    Police in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, charged the parents of a 9-year-old autistic boy with homicide on Monday in their son’s starvation death in July.

    1. Good luck with that.
      1) On welfare
      2) Courts had taken away custody of her children from mom’s first marriage
      3) Room smeared with feces and neglect everywhere.

      My guess is that only a state that sterilizes adults who have lost custody of their children could have prevented them from having children they couldn’t care for. There are plenty of options for people with special needs kids they can’t take care of that are open to loving parents. If they are allowing their child to starve whilst lying in filth, these people wouldn’t likely have lifted a finger to ask for help. The only way that the state could have ‘helped’ this child is through a very intrusive program of monitoring every special needs child they become aware of, complete with a registry of every live birth that ensures the child is getting annual physicals. And, unless the state was siezing custody of children like this one, the child would still be vulnerable to abuse, because people who hate a child enough to neglect it so thoroughly will hurt the child if it becomes too much of a bother.

      1. Yeah, but you’re thinking. That’s not something a lot of people do these days.

        1. You’re right, obviously since libertarians are in total control of things now, via the Kochtopus, it’s their fault. If only every home had it’s own state issued official monitor this never could have happened. And what a jobs program! Government has never been better at creating jobs as when we decided to put a government official in every home full time! The only thing standing in the way of this utopia is the libertarians! Burn them, burn them now!

  22. “The CNN/ORC International poll has Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) pulling 46 percent of votes and Republican challenger Thom Tillis 43 percent, with a 4 percent margin of error. However, the poll also has Libertarian candidate Sean Haugh polling at 7 percent of the vote.”

    So, the interpretation here is possibly the Libertarian candidate is siphoning off enough votes to let the party that voted to repeal the right to free speech/press retain this Senate seat, or that Libertarian candidate is irrelevant to the election results. Why is either option something to be proud of? Unless a Libertarian candidate can muster at a least a plurality or that they are a movable bloc of voters they are not really in the conversation.

    1. If we lose, it can’t be our fault because we suck and our policies are shit, it has to be someone else’s fault… looks around … Libertarians! It’s their fault!

      /the teams

      1. If libertarians voters are not spoilers then they are meaningless. Pick one interpretation.

        1. Be careful, they could decide the next presidential election if Rand gets the GOP nomination.

          1. So, spoilers then.

            So tell me how, say the GOP picks up that vote without turning off a greater number of their regular voters?

            1. Very easily. If Rand gets the nomination, do you really think most GOP voters are going to vote for Hillary? I think Rand will beat Hillary, but I also don’t think there is any other GOP candidate who will.

              So, I really believe, it’s Rand or Hillary. Faced with that, what do you think most GOP voters will do?

              1. Well I’m sure the GOP Establishment would prefer that guy who wants the NRA to get Ebola over Rand Paul.

              2. It is entirely possible that GOP voters will stay home. I think that is what happened with Romney. So what happens if Rand does not get the nomination?

                1. They probably won’t stay home because Rand has something to offer.

                  1. Ambiguous, ever shifting positions and the chance for Sarko to not be the shortest G8 leader if Sarko wins the next French election. What else?

                  2. Ambiguous, ever shifting positions and the chance for Sarko to not be the shortest G8 leader if Sarko wins the next French election. What else?

  23. Another OT: Is saying “this gives gun banners ammo” ironic?…..42863.html

    MIDDLETOWN, Pa. (AP) ? Police in Pennsylvania say a man accused of shooting a bullet through a neighbor’s window told a judge he fired the gun because it was the only way he knew how to unload it.

    1. There’s a nice “PM links” post for “OT” comments.

      1. I’m a loner, Mickey. A rebel.

        1. Ok, I’m gonna violate some H&R rules right now, in support of Susan’s right to break rulez!

          This is in response to the H&R commentariat’s war on curvy wiminz!

          All the right stuff in all the right places

          1. Wait…John?! When did you change your name?

      2. OT comments are for anytime, any thread, all the time.

      3. As libertarians, we’re disorganized rule-breakers. Hell, we can’t even be bothered to join a political party.

        Now you know why the Dems and GOP are so afraid of us.

        1. I hope they’re shitting their britches in fear right now.

          1. Yep, as the Dems bowels turn to water as they smile to themselves redlining the Bill of Rights.

            1. Yeah because they are totally going to succeed in that mission. It totally isn’t a desperate distraction.

    2. LOL.

      I had something like this happen to me; it was one of my son’s Nerf dart guns. Couldn’t figure out how to unload the dart in the chamber, so I shot it off. My son told me I wasn’t allowed to handle his Nerf guns anymore because I was too irresponsible! 🙂

      The refrigerator refused medical treatment and was, as far as I know, completely unharmed.

    3. So, he never thought of like, firing it into the ground?

      1. I’ll take bullshit excuses made up on the spot for $300, Alex! 😉

    4. A friend gave me a black powder rifle. He got it from his friend who had died. I checked the thing and sure enough it was loaded.

      I couldn’t find my screw for pulling slugs so I decided to just shoot it. Then it occurred to me that the guy who died had died of a drug overdose. I am scared to shoot the thing because I have no idea what he loaded in it.

      I will probably tie it to a tree and pull the trigger with a string from about 50 away and on the opposite side of the tree.

      1. …or you could buy another screw. They ain’t that expensive, last time I checked.

  24. I’ve already stated my position on voting. And I do tend to agree with Ron and Rand’s position that libertarians best path forward is to take over the GOP.

    But for now, the threat of a libertarian candidate ‘spoiling’ the election for one of the good ol boys cannot be removed. That’s part of the plan. Ron and Rand completely understand this, as do most libertarians.

    1. Carrot, stick. Stick, carrot.

  25. Libertarians helping to elect people who want to gut the First Amendment and support socialized medicine isn’t what I thought the “libertarian moment” entailed. Of course it’s not like the Republicans are all that libertarian or they will stand up to Obama or stop the Progs from getting a majority on SCOTUS or that Roberts won’t sell out again…

    1. You never understood the libertarian moment or much else.

      1. Shorter Cyto: Clap your hands if you believe!

        1. You’re fucking stupid and all you do is repeat is the same 3-5 posts you always make. You are one repetitive dumb mofo please just leave.

          1. You are a regular Oscar Wilde.

    2. Libertarians helping to elect people who want to gut the First Amendment and support socialized medicine

      Who are there libertarians who want to do that?

      1. The ones playing “spoiler”?

        1. Voting for Haugh =/= voting for the Democrat

        2. No, you don’t get it. Why should Republicans ever respect libertarians if they have no fear of them?

          1. Are you as worried about Democrats fearing and respecting libertarians as you are Republicans? ‘Cause, you know they actually have more power at the moment.

            1. So what if he isn’t worried about Democrats?

  26. HYPERION have you evacuated Brazil yet?!?! Your stupid country is about to elect either an incumbent socialist or another *environmentalist* socialist (who admittedly wants to give the central bank more autonomy). Leave now. America and Canada aren’t so bad and Argentina is probably going to improve imminently. And if it doesn’t you can just stay in CanMerica.

    1. You do know I’m not Brazilian, right?

      Brazil is more free than Murika right now, except for 2nd amendment rights. If you’ve never been there, you can’t know. And I do know the real Brazil, everyday Brazil, not a tourist experience, so I do know what I’m talking about.

      I wouldn’t advise living there unless you have the money to live well. If you do, you will love it.

      Cyto, generally I agree with a lot, but stop commenting on things you don’t know anything about. Just a suggestion.

      And Argentina is 1000x worse than Brazil, again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Are you looking for a fight, lol?

      Dilma sucks and Marina is fucking horrible, about as bad as Obama? You understand what I’m saying? They aren’t going to be dictators, as much as they want to be. And Brazilians are a lot more scofflaw than Americans.

      1. Oh, and by the way, I live in Murika, not Brazil. At least for now.

        1. Well, good. There’s space in Canada too.

          1. Not for me there isn’t. Enjoy your frozen wasteland.

            1. Brah, why all the hostility I feel really lucky to live next to Canada?

              To paraphrase hate the Canadian but love the Canada

              One of my best friends here in Washington is Canadian and Rural Canadian at that and she actually has more in common with the average countryfolk American than she does with some East Coast big city Canadian liberal.

              Also every Canadian cop I’ve had the pleasure to meet or right along with has been a fucking awesome chap

            2. It’s not all frozen! There’s a little bit that’s totally not frozen wasteland. Also, our cops are ways less likely to murder you or your dog.

              1. It’s not all frozen! There’s a little bit that’s totally not frozen wasteland. Also, our cops are ways less likely to murder you or your dog

                Yeah, I Know, that little teeny strip right on our border.

                I believe you about the puppycide thing, but that’s also true about Brazil, no one there ever worries about cops shooting their dog, and a lot of the country is incredibly beautiful and with a wonderful climate, so you don’t really have a point.

                1. Hyperion I hope you do know that Brazilian cops use deadly force in general far far more often than US cops and of course they are a far far more violent society so it’s hardly concludabl to be unjustified

              2. Spare me this crap and for what it’s worth I’ve done ride along’s in Canada and Canada cops in my experience are very similar to US cops and awesome dudes

                Generally speaking whether you are looking at different departments in the US or comparing the US to other countries such as Canada the frequency with which cops use violence towards suspects very closely correlates with the rate that criminals use violence in that society

                In other words cops working in an area in the US that has a low violence rate almost always have a correspondingly low officer involved shooting rate etc. because violent criminals are more likely to necessitate violent responses

                In other words I know this might shock the bigots here but cops can do shoot suspects at a rate that corresponds to the relative rate of violent suspects in their community

                1. Heck when I worked in Martha’s Vineyard I knew some cops that did not even carry a gun.

                  On the other hand I strongly doubt you would find an Oakland cop that would dare walk around without one

                  Assuming a civilized society in other words we are not talking Russia here where the cops are brutal as fuck, you’ll see a pretty strong correlation between the statistical likelihood of cops James force versus the statistical likelihood of violent crime and especially murder to occur

                  1. So reassuring to hear that cops will brutalize us only if we live in an already brutal place.

                    1. Again your idiocy and lack of real comprehension amazes me

                      It’s not about brutalising anybody it’s a simple fact that depending on the service population the type of crimes you routinely respond to etc etc you are going to be more or less likely to have to use force including Deadly force to do your job safely and effectively

                      One of our precincts has a higher use of force rate than the next three precincts combined

                      I worked there for four years and had way more uses of force than I had in triple the time in my current precinct

                      I wasn’t more or less brutal and I’m a glad that I have never had an excessive force complaint of any kind

                      Of course in deadly force is insanely rare no matter why but it obviously going to be more common based on factors that correlate to violence in society

                    2. Fuck off slaver

                    3. Smooches

                      I’ll continue to be your working class hero!

      2. Oops

        Yeah, you know what you’re talking about so well that you can’t even support your point beyond the ‘I lived it’ BS that race activists use i.e. ‘you can’t know what it’s like to be black’.

        In the real world, Brazil has high-ish inflation and an SC that recently found anonymous apps unconstitutional. Oh, sorry, guess you’re the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So cute your line that Brazilians are ‘scofflaws’ as if that made a free society. Brazilians LOVE government paternalism.

        One of us is grounded, knowledgable, and capable of objective analysis. That would be the guy with the MSc. The other is the ‘Dude’ Lebowski and cannot be objective due to emotional interference.

        1. One of us is grounded, knowledgable, and capable of objective analysis.

          Yeah, right, that would be me. The Canuckistanian is the one who knows all about Brazil, right?. Canuckistan is paradise, eh?

          You know absolutely nothing about Brazil, except what you hear in the main stream media. In other words, nothing.

          Your inner bigot is coming out again. Maybe one day you can escape your ingorance. I hope so. Until then, enjoy it.

          1. As a surfer and an MMA enthusiast and sometime practitioner I have had the pleasure of knowing a metric ass load of Brazilians.

            And of course the greatest F1 driver of all time was Brazilian.

            I’ve certainly had many a conversation with my Brazilian friends about their beautiful country,

            1. Even given all that I would never try to talk authoritatively about Brazil.

              Without living in a country it’s really hard to get a true grasp of what it’s all about.

              Thus I will talk smack about Mexico Canada etc.

              Also it may be part of the United States but probably Factive purposes it’s like another country so I’ll include Hawaii

              1. I don’t live in Zimbabwe but I know it sucks. I don’t live in Brazil but I know it’s less free than America.

                1. Oh yeah I mean you can certainly go that far

                  Frankly it’s hard to find any country on earth that’s as free as the US granted it depends on what criteria of freedom you are referring to

                  I mean there’s no nation on earth that respects speech to be extent we do

                  Also remember that Brazil has such a incredibly absurdly violent society

                  I think it helps understand some of their thoughts about government as protector

                2. . I don’t live in Brazil but I know it’s less free than America.

                  No you don’t. Your’re just completely full of shit. And comparing Zimbabwe with Brazil is incredibly ignorant.

                  What about Canada, let’s compare Canada with North Korea. I know that North Korea is less free than Murika, so Canada is too!

                  1. If you’re going to compare Canada and America it simply depends on what criteria freedom you were talking about

                    If you want to carry a gun in Canada or use free-speech you are way less free

                    Heck if you want to buy dietary supplements you are way less free

                    On the other hand there are a metric ass load of ways you are more free in Canada

                    Iow shocking to consider but it depends

              2. Well, even though I don’t live there, I have spent a lot of time there the last 5 years, and I know several people who have lived there there most of their life, including my wife and her family and many friends.

                Cyto don’t like none them thar fureners, except Murikans I guess. I thought maybe he has grown past that, but I guess not.

                1. 1) I never compared Brazil to Zimbabwe. Learn 2 reading comprehension.

                  2) I don’t care who you know or where you were. FACTS MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU HAVE THEM

          2. Your inner Tony is showing. Psst: when someone points out what you don’t want to hear-Brazils stultifying bureaucracy, the ban on anon apps, the socialism-it isn’t ‘bigotry’. Your accusation of ‘bigotry’ basically proves my entire point that you’re incapable of objective analysis. I’ve effortlessly won this fight.

            1. the ban on anon apps

              What? LMAO!

              1. Not SC, but a ban. Reality shits on your fantasy:…..itutional/

                1. Brazilians would summarily ignore such a thing, with no consequences.

                  1. So would Americans and Canadians.

                    1. So would Americans and Canadians.

                      I don’t know so much about Canada, but in America, not so much. There would be an army of lawyers and bureaucrats here lined up to make an example of some unfortunate person.

                      The United States is on a rapid downward spiral into becoming an Orwellian fascist police state.

                      If Canada is really so good, you better stay there and keep imagining that the US is some libertarian wonderland. Outside of 2nd Amendment rights, we’re in a rapid free fall.

                    2. We are not in a rapid free fall

                      Jesus Christ change your name from Hyperion to histrionic

                      One of the dangers of being so myopic and spending your time a reason where only the negatives are emphasised is that you get a unrealistic view of reality

                      It’s like people thinking we are at a high instance for violent crime because they watch cable news and not realising that we are at a multi decade low

                      I’ll give just one example to refute your complete idiocy

                      We are now much freer in relation to drug use then we have been in the past

                      Many states have passed medical marijuana
                      Two states have legalised marijuana
                      Many obscenely disparate crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparities have been dissolved
                      Many additional search and seizure limitations on police have been passed primarily due to court decisions . For example in my state you can no longer search a motor vehicle incident to arrest and pretext stops are now banned and that’s just a couple of a myriad of examples
                      The only way anybody could come to the conclusion you have come to is if they were completely limited in their exposure in other words a limited circle of friends Limited reading materials etc etc

                  2. I just read that. Shit like this is common There. It will also be laughed to scorn and no one, and I mean NO ONE will give a fucking shit.

        2. Hey, the Dude abides

    2. “…Argentina is probably going to improve imminently.”

      Heh. Take a deeeeep breath and hold……hold…..hold……

  27. After getting into an argument over whether his presence in the race just helps Hagan, Haugh said to the voter: “Well, obviously our realities are quite detached. I prefer my reality over yours because logic, reason and evidence exist in mine. I pity ignorant morons such as yourself and wish you would stop voting.”

    Haugh also said: “I have learned that there is no value in explaining to an idiot why they are being an idiot, because, y’know, they’re too stupid to understand anything.”

    Oh yeah, Sean, that’ll make friends & influence people.

    1. Are you sure he wants to do either?

    2. Exactly the kind of person you’d want to have in power, isn’t it?

      But he has an L after his name so the crowd here is going to purr at every bit of verbal feces that spurts out of his piehole. You show those Team Red/Team Blue partisans, libertarians.

      1. Yep, nothing but fauning admiration on this here page.

      2. But he participates in capitalism by delivering pizza to consumers who want them, so he’s better than some statist who vote to take away my wealth. That he has zero chance of implementing any sort of meaningful policy and is playing spoiler for a HUGE ACA supporters is not relevant.

  28. Venezuela’s Bolivar currency crumbles to new lows.…..ecord-low/

  29. Note also that regardless of the country cops tend to disproportionately use force based on the rate at which that demographic has tended to disproportionately use force against cops

    One study showed that in almost 1200 cases of officers shooting at people just under 5% were women

    Yet women make up substantially more than 50% of the service population

    Cops don’t disproportionally ‘brutalize’ men over women because they are sexist!

    You will see disparities based on race based on age based on gender and any other statistic that correlates with that demographics disproportionate rate of violence

    And as another obvious example when you will get the demographics involved with people who have murdered police officers the disparity match almost exactly the rate at which officers use force when dealing with those demographics

    So yeah cops shoot women around 1/20th as often as men and shockingly get shot by women at a similar disproportionate ratio

    1. Eh, not enough words in ALL CAPS or random acronyms. B-

      1. It’s not in my hands dear sir

        However the voice to text translation comes out is what you get

        Sometimes I’ll go back and fix a word or two but not always

        Either way just count your blessings that you are able to read such insightful commentary no cost


      2. Also note that sadly at least prior to my posting this it’s doubtful a single person here would have even considered these concepts let alone understood them as post after post shows

        The same bigots who decry disparate impact analysis when it’s a pet issue of theirs any brings it into play when it comes to cops

        1. Fuck off slaver

          1. Smooches!


    2. Note also that regardless of the country cops tend to disproportionately use force based on the rate at which that demographic has tended to disproportionately use force against cops

      They have an opening for you on the PRC police force in Hong Kong. Handy phrases:

      M?i bi? de sh?: “nothing else happened”
      Su?y?u de ch?ngx? d?u z?nx?: “all procedures were followed”
      T?ngzh? d?k?ng: “stop resisting”

      1. Smooches

        And yet another content less post from a person who has no respect for civil right or due process

        And that makes me a very sad panda 🙁

        1. Your inability to grasp the content of my post does not make it contentless.

          1. Your unwillingness to support civil rights or due process does not mean my shoes need resoling


            1. You can have civil rights when you stop using the union to collectively bargain with the very people you elect. (Not necessarily you in particular.)

              Oh, and cry me a river that the job is dangerous, it goes with the territory. So maybe you could have a pow wow with your brothers in blue about being better than the shitty criminals you might have to deal with.

              1. Fortunately we can have civil rights because we live in a nation that generally respects rule of law and civil rights. I don’t need some ignorant bigot in reason telling me when I deserve them

                Here is a hint – that our entire system is based on the fact that no matter what everybody deserves and should have civil rights respected

                Fortunately out here in the real world people like you I can charge

                As I have said fortunately out here in the real world I can say that when my and my fellow officers rights are violated we aggressively seek civil redress and tend to be successful at that

                I have pretty much a massive boner for our civil court system and arbitration process right now I must say

                You would think at some point copocrats would realise how expensive it is to violate due process

                And the more body Cams etc we can get out there the better off we are

                BOOYA BODY CAMERAS!!!!!!

  30. Roll it up peeps lets roll it up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.