Hillary Clinton

Yes, "The Clintons Have Been Disorganized and Greedy," But the Republicans Are Still "the Stupid Party"

|

There's no question that Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations—perhaps expectations is the better word—are in serious trouble. Even before this week's bombshells about loosey-goosey relations between Clinton, her family's Global Initiative, and various far-flung autocrats, there was precious little "Hillary Fever" in the air. Last summer's book tour for her ironically titled Hard Choices was a flop, the only millennial who seems to care about her is her daughter (who's on the family payroll), and her recent trip to Chipotle was a bust.

No wonder her campaign is stammering over the allegations, as outlined in The New York Times and elsewhere, in Peter Schweizer's forthcoming Clinton Cash book.

Think of it this way: Clinton still won't say whether she'd vote for the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project that's been talked to death since the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. She's on a "listening tour" of America because she's only been on the national stage since the early 1990s and needs to get out to, what, "touch Indians" like Albert Brooks in Lost in America or see the real America like Billy and Wyatt in Easy Rider? If memory serves, neither of those pictures ended well for their protagonists.

Sure, part of what she is doing is what Politico's Jack Shafer calls "unrunning" for president. Given her lack of serious competition within the Democratic Party and a pandemic of chronic fatigue syndrome with her family (really, can't Roger Clinton drop in from his never-ending tour of North Korea to change up the storyline a bit?), Clinton really can't start any sort of serious pressing of the flesh for months or maybe even until early next year.

Yet things are so bad that even reliable Democratic partisans in the press such as New York's Jonathan Chait are writing thing such as this:

The best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

Indeed. About the only thing missing so far is a cameo appearance of Sandy Berger stuffing uranium in his socks (you can almost hear him bluster in his defense: "Sorry, I thought they were classified documents").

Discussing "The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency," Chait says,

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary's ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder….

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn't. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn't comply with that request, either.

That's from somebody who wants a Democrat, any Democrat, to win over any Republican in 2016.

I think it's far from clear what the ultimate damage to Hillary Clinton will be. Yes, it all looks awful and for most people simply having to deal with the fallout and recriminations from real and imagined sins and crimes for the rest of your public life would be enough to toss in your badge and retire to a remote mountaintop somewhere.

But the Clintons aren't most people and if the last time one of them was president is any indication, Hillary is uniquely equipped to live with a neverending, ongoing set of "scandals" that would fell virtually any other candidiate.

As Charles Paul Freund wrote in the April 2000 cover story for Reason, "Secrets of the Clinton Spectacle,"

How did [Bill Clinton] do it? How did he keep rising from the mat to revel in high public opinion numbers?… Clinton ignored traditional Washington wisdom for dealing with exploding scandal and instead used the capital's notorious scandal machine against itself. Scandal is unlikely ever to be the same. Bill Clinton's long-sought Legacy turns out to be a guide on how to rise from the dead.

Lest we forget, Bill Clinton is every bit as much invested in seeing his wife become president as she is. This is a guy who wants it all, baby, and what could be more incredible from a historical perspective than his wife becoming the first presidential spouse to occupy the Oval Office and the first female president? It should surprise no one if Hillary Clinton not only survives all this but flourishes despite an absolutely abysmal record as secretary of state, a so-so record as a senator, and a checkered, unconvincing record as a best-selling "author."

What I'm at least as interested in is how the emerging Clinton scandal—remember, Schweizer's book isn't on sale until early May—Republican presidential hopefuls respond to this opening.

At least since the 2000 campaign, when George W. Bush squeaked into office with an affirmative vision of a "humble foreign policy" and the promise of "compassionate conservatism," it has been years since the Republican Party's nominee has offered up any sort of positive, sweeping vision for the country. Running on the anti-terror status quo and free money for seniors, as Bush did in 2004, or simply as anti-Democrats, as John McCain and Mitt Romney did in 2008 and 2012, isn't enough to get the country's backing (as Matt Welch likes to point out, while railing against out of control spending, Romney refused to name a single significant program he would cut, a reluctance re-enacted by John Boehner just weeks before he assumed the speakership in 2011). Perhaps it's because it fashions itself as the party of the religious, but the GOP seems to always rely on the political equivalent of Hail Mary passes (anyone else remember Bob Dole's sad declaration that he would only serve one term if elected in 1996?). Some terrible revelation, or a tide of disgust with the Democrats, or a late-breaking news story, will fell the Democrats rather than a serious discussion of the country's finances and special interests. What do you know? Sometimes that works out just swell for Republicans.

But disliking the team in office isn't affirmation. As J.D. Tuccille noted here a couple of days ago, just 3 percent of Americans trust the government to do the right thing "just about always." Another 20 percent trust the government "most of the time." Republicans would do well to treat the latest Clinton scandal as a gift to serious political discourse, but not as a sign that they will take the White House no matter what (remember guys, your party was a shoo-in in 2012).

The early stages of the Republican race for the White House have been incredibly disappointing to date, with virtually all of the announced and unannounced candidates sounding like mimeographed copies of one another. With the exception of Sen. Rand Paul, who sounds seriously different notes on foreign policy, privacy, civil liberties, and, for the most part, overall levels of speding, none of the "top tier" candidates has advanced much beyond the "I'm not Obama and I pledge to be even tougher on defense than the president who bombed Libya, threatened to bomb Syria, and brought us back to Iraq." Beyond failing to advance true alternatives to Obamacare—indeed, the GOP Senate leadership is pushing to maintain health-care exchange subsidies through 2017 no matter what the Supreme Court decides this year—the Republican Party has been content to capitalize on the long, slow collapse of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama.

That's enough to win Congressional majorities and historic levels of state legislatures. But it won't be enough to win the White House in 2016 and, far more importantly, it won't be enough to move America forward into the 21st century. What's needed now more than ever is a governing vision that accords with the growing libertarian sensibilities of the country—record levels of people want a government that does less in the economic and moral spheres—not the go-to Republican response of, "Hey, we're not the other guy."

Advertisement

NEXT: A.M. Links: Mitt Romney Says Clinton Uranium Affair Looks Like Bribery, Saudi Airstrikes in Yemen Continue, New York Mets Look for 12th Straight Win

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.

  1. on foreign policy, privacy, civil liberties, and, for the most part, overall levels of speding,

    1.) speding?
    2.) No matter how many times you write this pox on both their houses schtick it helps to remember that the democrats are essentially communists at this point.

    1. The Democratic Party is completely devoid of redemptive qualities. It’s essentially the malignant antithesis of American ideals, and its annihilation should be our aim.

      1. I’ll fault progressivism, rather than the Democratic party. But, otherwise, yeah.

        1. The actual Tea party people (as opposed to the hucksters running the various organizations) should have set out to take over the grass roots of the Democratic party. In many ways they would be a better fit, so many of them being actual old line Democrats.

          But until that sort of thing happens the Democrat party will be indistinguishable from the progressive left.

          1. The Democratic Party (that’s what they call it) is a social-democratic or Welfare-state party. That’s what most of them believe in. They think Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, regulation of banks, the whole bag, are good. The Tea Party may be incoherent, but they are really not so incoherent as to easily fit into a social-democratic party.

            As for the Left, there is no organized Left. No anarchists, no socialists, no communists, with any political power or influence. There aren’t even many liberals in the classical sense.

        2. Bill — I’ll fault GOP candidates who continue to drone and carry on about the Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs. These losing issues will be the epitaph on the GOP headstone.

      2. I see the Republican Party as being damaged, but not beyond repair. There is at least a spark of Libertarianism floating around in the party.

        The Democratic Party, sadly to say, is probably beyond repair. It’s agenda is to increase it’s power and the most convenient means to achieve that end seem to be promoting class warfare, economic illiterately, and to subvert the rule of law with an amorphous, and morally ambiguous code of ethics that values feelings over ethical and logical considerations.

        1. how is this different from the Republicans?

          1. The republicans won’t pay for your solar panel subsidy that you so cherish.

        2. The Republican Party leadership deceived us. “We need to win the House to…” then “We need to win the Senate to…” now it’s “we need to win the White House to ….”. The reality is they don’t plan on doing anything they promised. they won’t repeal Obamacare, reduce the size of government, and they will take advantage of the Statist control to gain more power and shift more money to crony capitalist.

          So how are they different than the Democrats, there not they are both Statists. The small number of libertarians won’t make a difference.

        3. Class is war, and the Democrats are fine with it.

        4. amagi — You say, The Democratic Party, sadly to say, is probably beyond repair. ”

          I guess it all depends on your perspective. I would say a large portion of the Democratic Party would say everything is working perfectly fine?in another 20-30 years America will officially be the USSA. An official Socialist/Communist country where all of her minions have been forced into obedience.

          IT’S ALL OVER FOLKS! And we have the evangelical/religious right and their social wars to thank for this takeover

    2. The democrats aren’t communist, they’re Strasserian Fascists. The Republicans are Hitlerian Fascists. So pick your poison. Both are big government, corpora-fascists, the subtleties are minor arguments (the Big Arguments aren’t changing – guns and abortion) over social mores. But the upshot is continuing massive social programs, perpetual war for perpetual peace, domestic militarization, panopticonic control, and the “institutionalization” of the masses. If anyone is harboring any illusion that the Republicans are a better option, the passage of Medicare Part D and the expulsion of the libertarians from the party circa 2003 should have been evidence enough of their full on absorption into the corpora-fascistic economy we now enjoy, and all the political realities that go with it. We have one mega-party that simply sub-brands itself along pre-existing generational fault lines, and along the antagonistic fault lines within the marketplace.

      1. So, Ron Paul and Rand Paul are Hitlerian fascists. Sounds like someone got Hihnfected.

        1. The reason the Pauls are interesting is because they defy the Republican Party line. Are you serioisly suggesting that either Rand or Ron is some sort of Team Red power broker?

          1. Are you serioisly suggesting that either Rand or Ron is some sort of Team Red power broker?

            But, toolkien didn’t say Republican power brokers are fascists. He’s saying Republicans are. Both Pauls are Republicans. And they both successfully got elected to national office as Republicans. Right now, Rand Paul is one of the leading candidates in the Republican presidential primaries. There’s obviously a base of support for them within the Republican party. And it’s obvious that it’s not the entire Republican party that they’re defying.

            1. And there are probably some democrats who aren’t completely awful fascists. You know what he means.

              Yeah, there is some hopeful signs that there is some good support for libertarian-ish policies in the party, but the current party establishment is pretty well what he describes.

              1. And there are probably some democrats who aren’t completely awful fascists.

                I’m sure there are. Hell, I know some. I also know that they’re a marginal and receding voice in their party. At this point, they can’t get anyone elected. They aren’t even part of the conversation. In contrast the Republicans are at least showing signs of learning libertarianism.

                1. The only reason that the Republicans are “showing signs of learning libertarianism” is because they’ve been the opposition party for the past 6 years. They haven’t had to do shit other than piss all over everything the Democrats actually attempt to do. It’s real easy to be anti-government when you aren’t the one in power.
                  I won’t be fooled. GW, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Lott, Hastert, et al, made the current crop of idiots look like understudies. In fact, the only reason that the Tea Party sprung into being was because of how thoroughly bad these guys fucked up the Republican brand. Half the commentary on this board are ex-Republicans who got sick of hearing Team Red say one thing and do another. So many here remind me of battered women who get suckered into taking the asshole back after he sincerely promises that he’s changed, and won’t ever hurt them again.

                  Face it, like toolkein said: Pick your fascist poison.

                2. I think Libertarians ignored Republicans and were well established with the Democrats because of social issues. Now Libertarians want to transform the Republican party even though the “base” is Christian conservative with a social agenda.

                  I’m not sure I understand why libertarians want to be in either party, they don’t represent the core values of Libertarians. Why not start up a third party?

        2. OK, so I didn’t atomize the party for brevity’s sake. Have you paid attention how the mainstream Republicans have/had treated Ron Paul? Trying to keep him from the presidential debates a few years ago? Perhaps going back a few decades to when Goldwater, once he was beyond being able to run, became an “embarrassment” when his more libertarian viewpoints were addressed. They basically put a muzzle on him. It stands that the mainstream Republicans are Statist, they unleash war at the drop of hat, and they want prisons filled with undesirables.

          People had better understand just what fascism means. Its our functional reality. It is our economic system that we have today. If you haven’t been paying attention, or that noticing that money has been so debased, that the trillions have been “borrowed”, that tens of trillions more have been earmarked without funding, that we are perpetually at war, that everything we say and do is being recorded and archived – the function of how a collectivist economy has fully bled into a political and bureaucratic reality of centralization, then I don’t know what else to say. You simply are left to being a useful idiot/shit eater for one “party” or the other. But ANY review of our economic reality, our financial markets, our national debt, our interest load on the debt, our trade imbalances, or whatever shows a clear collective insanity, one that comes with socialism. That fact that it is form of national socialism doesn’t make it any different.

          1. (cont)

            But be clear. Unless you are in a position to be a part of whatever “apparatus” emerges after the inevitable economic collapse – left or right or whatever – you will be screwed. Perhaps not part of the purged, nor a part of the perpetually imprisoned, but you won’t likely be a part of the insiders. So go ahead and delude yourself that there’s a lesser of two evils if it helps you sleep.

            We have had nearly 100 years of economic misallocation. This will have to be paid for. I had had hopes that we might be able to correct the misallocations, though painfully, reasonably peacefully and on our way to more freedom. All I got from the Republicans was Medicare Part D, which added $11,000,000,000,000 more to the unfunded entitlement load, and a dis-invation from the Republican party (the systematic purging of libertarians from the body circa 2003).

          2. Ron Paul is a first class nut-ball. Republicans are right to shun him. He could never win an election or even come close, his ideas are radical, and his associates are very, very sketchy.

            Rand Paul is another matter, but I fear he is just a lesser nut, rather than a reasonable candidate.

      2. Way to Godwin the thread, son.

        1. I assume you are addressing me. There are reasonable comparisons of our economic system to fascism. An understanding of fascistic economic construction bears this out. Fascism is the corralling of the means of production to the State, without necessarily overthrowing the current structure of those institutions which currently hold the means of production. Communism, on the other hand, mandates an overthrowing of the current holders of the means of production first. The Strassers advocated, somewhat, a middle ground between the two.

          Clearly, here in the US, we do NOT have anything resembling a free market. Any capitalistic forces are merely allowed to exist so long as they bow to the State when it decides to flex its muscles (the “too big to fail” of a few years ago all but destroyed any semblance of free market that was thought to be left). Interest has all but been eliminated (tenet of the likes of Gottfried Feder), and the list does go on.

          1. (Cont)

            Simply, fascism and Nazism, has been boiled down to a simple meme of dolts in red and black uniforms for which to hurl as an epithet against one you might be arguing with. That is the implementation of Godwin’s Law. Seeing that we are in a country ruinously saddled with debt, burdened by unfunded liabilities, maintaining overstuffed prisons, distilling a militarized domestic army, and one that has killed the free market isn’t the casual use of pointing out the fascism that exists in this country. It’s the very blase nature of the thing that makes it the most frightening. A torpid nation of useful idiot/shit eaters who hold on to their precious party affiliation like it means anything at all. The reality is the powerful within either branch of our political system would gladly feed YOU feet first into a wood chipper if it served their purposes.

      3. I would agree.They do not want the government to own all production and business.Just control all of it thru laws.They want people to be grateful for the crumbs they leave them. They also look at people as groups and want to rule in that way,blessing and punishing those they deem worthy.

      4. Hey, you can’t talk about Bush and the GOP that way! The Team Red sycophants don’t like that!

        1. BUUUUUTTTTPPPPLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUGG

        2. Palin’s Buttplug|4.24.15 @ 9:45AM|#
          “Bush”

          Way to go, turd.

      5. that’s probably true.

    3. Roger Clinton’s just hanging around in North Korea because pot’s legal there, unlike “The Land of the Free”.

      1. And no fat chicks.

        1. Fat chicks need love too… according to someone..

    4. the democrats are essentially communists at this point

      Honestly, I don’ think the Democrats, taken generally, are essentially anything at this point. Some are hard core socialists, but that is far from the majority of the party. They just throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks. To the extent that they sound like hard socialists, it is just to position themselves as distinct from their opponents. They know that they are at least as dependent on Wall Street and big business as any Republicans and that actually nationalizing major industries would be a disaster.

      They aren’t communists. They are political hacks without any ideology. Calling them “communists” is an insult to the victims of actual communists. Maybe that is where we are heading. I can’t say. But let’s save some words for when it’s really bad.

      1. The Democrats appear far more fractured than the Republicans to me. A whole bunch of factions pandering to different and often conflicting interests. Leftists and socialists, unions, blue collar workers, minorities, moderates, the city and state executive Dems that actually acknowledge reality, etc. They can rally around the president so long as they have the White House – though even that seems to finally be fraying – but otherwise they have a less unifying platform. While there is infighting in the GOP, they are at all levels on the same basic page regarding economic and foreign policies. I’m not a fan of those policies, though I’d be even more frightened if the Democrats did get organized on a socialistic platform.

        1. I really don’t think Rand Paul and libertarian-leaning Republicans are on the same page as McCain/Mini-Me and neo-con Republicans with regard to foreign policy.

      2. I think that’s right. They’re will-to-power hacks that will exploit whatever they think gives them an advantage in their quest for power. Right now they think that advantage lies in “income inequality” and promising fairness and no discomfort never ever anywhere for anyone. I agree that it is the language of the collective and of socialism that they are using more than the actual policies.

        BUT,

        I also am convinced that a pent-up left is a hilarious and destructive force. After Bush, the progressives saw Obama as the long-awaited bat signal to let their freak flags fly, which meant, at long last, they had carte blanche to proceed with eradicating false consciousness from society, hence the righteous campaigns against all -isms. So even if these idiots don’t really understand what they’re doing and saying, it sure does look and sound a lot like the hardcore communist left is alive and well.

      3. Democrats, particularly the Progressive Caucus, are pragmatic Fabian socialists. They’ll take what they can get when they can get it, knowing that their vision of “progress” works like a ratchet. They know full well that, if they can enact any new social legislation, the Republicans will support it after a decade or so, or at least they’ll never do anything to tear it down. Look at how Bush and fellow Republicans expanded Medicare and the Department of Education during his reign. These two aspects of federal government were anathema to Republicans back in the 80s.

        Of course, Democrats are not ideological Fabian socialists, because they have acquired an insatiable appetite for the buffet offered by crony crapitalism.

    5. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

    6. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

    7. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. Disorganized?
    “Where did these checks for millions of bucks come from? Bill? Chel? Ah, what difference does it make? Just cash them.”

    1. The handwriting on them was awfully messy. She couldn’t have reasonably been expected to know who her donors were.

      1. The handwriting wasn’t messy, the checks were written in Arabic, Chinese, and Cyrillic letters and she couldn’t read them.

        1. Arabic, Chinese, and Cyrillic letters

          Eh, its just some foreign jibber-jabber Hils hon – just send ’em to the bank to sort out.

          1. Eh, its just some foreign jibber-jabber Hils hon – just send ’em to the bank to sort out.

            This is how you picture that relationship?

            I picture more stabbing comments and “tell sycophant A to tell sycophant B to tell the crone cash these at her leisure and lay off the burrito bowls”-type of interactions.

  3. Corrupt.. disorganized. What difference blah blah etc etc.

  4. recent trip to Chipotle was a bust

    Skimped on the guac?

    1. The first time i ever went to Chipotle, i overdid it on the salsa verde and got the worst case of sinner’s ass i have ever had in my life. I completely RUINED the bathroom at that Barnes and Noble, man.

      1. Yeah but I bet it was worth it.

        1. Not really, no.

        2. I guess what i’m trying to say is, i hope Hillary shits for a week.

          1. Then she’ll need some of this.

      2. You’re the one who put Barnes and Noble out of business????

        1. I’m with Xeones, just like the library, B&N is, and always was, just a bathroom with a giant reading room attached to it.

      3. Sounds like what you needed what a… BUTPLUUUUUG!!!!!

    2. Apparently Chipotle is thee favorite dining location for socialists. Apparently they didn’t notice their Queen being one of their own.

      1. It is the home of the “assault weapons ban”.

        1. The story linked is misleading.
          Under Texas law any premises licensed to sell alcohol must post one of two signs prohibiting the carrying of weapons. In Chipotle’s case they post the “No Unlicensed Weapons” sign, which allows for carrying a concealed handgun with a CHL, but (among other things) prohibits open carry of long guns.
          The Open Carry Texas folks were breaking state law. Had the owners not asked them to cut it out, they would have lost their licenses.

      2. Chipotle-Away

      3. Chipotle is so ridiculously overrated. Fake mexican food for people who claim some great allegiance to diversity but water it down like fucking crazy.

        Gimme Danny’s Tacos taco truck on the corner of seventh and olive every time. Tacos al pastor FTW.

        1. Chipotle is disgusting. If you like it, take a good look in the mirror. Take a good look. See that guy? That’s what an asshole looks like.

          1. I knew you would agree with me on this. You eat (and cook) good food. Still waiting for an invite to a braised short ribs meal though.

            1. Is there a recipe for those short ribs? I rarely make them, had a meal of them in the freezer and am looking for recommendations.

              1. Can’t go wrong with a braise.

                Brown them in a dutch oven with salt & pepper, carrots, onion, and celery for about 20 minutes. Deglaze with a sweet red wine and reduce by 3/4ths. Cover with beef stock, put on the lid, and simmer on he stove top or bake at 350 for 3 hours.

                Strain the liquid and reduce for sauce, adding honey and balsamic vinegar if it suites your tastes.

    3. There were some question about whether her aides “strategized” her order to appeal to the right demographics.

      Someone noticed that she skipped the tip jar. Doesn’t she know how much those poor exploited Chipotle workers make?

      etc., etc.

      1. Did she actually skip tipping?

        1. Yes, and I would have (and do also). Chipotle makes fast food – to a corporate-wide standard – who the hell tips fast food? Unless they do something beyond the call of duty (which is handing me the bag of food I ordered).

          1. He did, however, request their complimentary monocle polishing.

          2. “The tip jar is not labeled, the employee said, ‘but everyone knows what it is.'”

            If I was running a big fast-food restaurant chain, I would put an end to this shit. Tipping is for wait staff – that is it. In fact it would not surprise me if Chipotle had some corporate policy against it but the franchises choose to grub for extra dollars anyway.

            1. If the $15 minimum wage ever goes through, waiters will never see another tip from me.

          3. Yeah. I never tip counter people. You tip for table service because they generally get a very low hourly rate.

            1. Counter people generally get a very low hourly rate too. Possibly lower. Add the cook staff into that.

              I fail to see how being a waiter is so much more difficult than manning a cash register or food prep/cooking.

              1. I fail to see how being a waiter is so much more difficult than manning a cash register or food prep/cooking.

                It’s not. It’s the mere fact that their job revolves around providing good service that we are expected to tip them – and in fact they are exempted from minimum wage laws (at least where I am). Counter and kitchen staff are not.

              2. I fail to see how being a waiter is so much more difficult than manning a cash register or food prep/cooking.

                Huh. Seems pretty obvious to me. And I don’t think it is legal to pay counter staff or kitchen staff less per hour than servers who work for tips. Being a good waiter is hard. I’ve never worked in a restaurant because it seems completely awful, but I know a lot of people who do. You only make good money in food service if you are really good at your job. That’s why prep cooks and dishwashers are immigrants and young people for the most part.

                I’m also just not a big fan of obligatory tipping. Just add a gratuity and people can tip for good service.

                1. In California, waiters are required to make the $9.00 minimum.

                  I should really stop tipping altogether.

              3. Are you kidding? Waiting tables is much harder than being a cash register clerk, and there’s less opp’ty to steal. That’s why in many places the cash register isn’t even a full time position, as you see other staff jump in as needed to ring you up.

        2. http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..-1.2188458

          She’s supposed to be a progressive, doncha know.

      2. She’s powered by a nuclear microreactor located in her titanium skull. She doesn’t need food.

      3. A simple Internet query and it appears she didn’t. Ha ho ho. Another 4 years of buffoonery coming right up.

        1. Who actually tips at fast food restaurants?

          1. Affluent presidential candidates appealing to the working-class demographic, you’d think.

            1. She was being frugal. Not everybody’s a gold-shitting libertarian.

              /Hillary 2016!

              1. Wait, libertarians shit gold?!

                *rummages around for sifter and bed pan*

                1. Shh. Keep it secret, or it’ll be declared taxable income by the IRS.

                  1. Or you’ll get an arrow in the gut.

                2. I’ve asked my doctor about it.

          2. I’ll give my pennies if a tip jar is there. Chipotle prices their menu so that pennies aren’t necessary. Ergo, Chipotle employees never get tips from me.

            1. Who the hell even pays for fast food with cash any more?

              1. I try to use cash as much as I can. Someone has to keep it relevant so it doesn’t become too easy to eliminate cash.

      4. Wait, we’re expected to tip for takeout now? Fuck that. I’d sooner feed a homeless person in a park.

        1. You probably should. Your mom could do with a visit.

          1. She would probably appreciate a few rolls of toilet paper, as well as your doggy bag.

            1. And a couple of fresh pairs of panties, so she can keep “working.”

        2. Porque Pig|4.24.15 @ 9:44AM|#
          “we’re”

          Got a turd in your pocket?

        3. If you’re running for president, you are. You think you’re supposed to act like regular people? Everybody likes a generous boss.

        1. No one seemed to recognize Hillary because telling a woman that looks like Hillary that she looks like Hillary will get you smacked in the face.

  5. “There’s no question that Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations?perhaps expectations is the better word?are in serious trouble.”

    Another way to interpret her behavior is that she doesn’t really want to be President. She’s just going through the motions of running because this is what is expected of her.

    She has a comfortable and easy life, and the way she’s acting, it’s like she doesn’t want to ruin a good thing by being President. But the expectations of the Democratic Party are such that she feels like she has to run.

    1. I’m not buying that for a second. Does she really seem like the person who would put the supposed good of the Democratic party above her own interests?

      1. She’s a virulently ambitious, power-hungry, degenerate career politician. She wants the Presidency. And if she can’t have it, she’ll continue conniving and scheming in other spheres of Americn politics. This election isn’t the last we see of her, not by a long, long way.

        1. She’s like someone coming to a job interview in sweats and without having taken a shower.

          If she’s not even willing to sacrifice the time and effort necessary to take a shower for the job interview, how seriously am I supposed to take her when she says she wants the job?

          If she doesn’t want to be President if being President means she can no longer accept donations from foreign governments, then does she really want to be president?

          1. Everything so far makes it look like she’s trying to sneak back into the White House without anybody’s noticing.

            1. Yes, this is her plan. Talking to the media is a big no-no for her because they won’t’ protect her as much as they did Obama.

              She also knows that the base will turn out for her, so what is left is the LIV crowd that votes on “likeability.”

              Thus Chipotle. Thus flying coach.

              Electoral politics in America is now a reality TV show. And the main goal is to NOT get voted off the island.

              So, you shut up, and do average joe stuff to get LIV to think you’re likable.

      2. I think she wanted to be President at one point, but the dream died.

        “Sure, part of what she is doing is what Politico’s Jack Shafer calls “unrunning” for president.”

        Being considered the front runner probably is good for Clinton from both a society and financial standpoint. But being the President is a pain in the ass.

        They didn’t used to have much money. Now they’ve got money, nice digs, easy life–and they don’t have to put up with a hundred million Republicans screaming about them all the time.

        Some people get sucked into doing thing reluctantly because they want to do it for the good of the people they care about. No, Hillary Clinton isn’t one of those people. But she’s someone who may have gotten sucked into something she used to want to do but doesn’t anymore.

        And her behavior is consistent with that. Well okay, I’ll run for President–but not if we have to give up our lucrative foundation gig! Getting that money is more important to her than being President. Somebody who really wanted to be President would have shut that down right away–and anything else that might hurt her chances.

        If she’s not willing to sacrifice anything in order to be President, then doesn’t that suggest that she values everything else she’s doing more than being President?

        1. If she’s not willing to sacrifice anything in order to be President, then doesn’t that suggest that she values everything else she’s doing more than being President?

          When you phrase it like that, maybe. It could also suggest she’s a narcissist that truly believes she can have it all.

          In the end, why she is running doesn’t change the fact that she is corrupt.

          1. Oh, I’d vote for almost anybody running rather than Hillary.

            And for any swing voters out there, I think her not really wanting to be President might be a good reason for them not to vote for her.

            1. Yep. Even that guy with a boot on his head.

              1. Dude i am totally voting for Vermin Supreme. It is not even a contest.

        2. But being the President is a pain in the ass.

          Only if you try to fulfill the duties of the office and take responsibility for what the executive branch does. Obama has proven that isn’t necessary.

          1. There are people watching everything you do for eight whole fucking years.

            Or she could be the guest of foreign governments as part of her foundation, make like she’s a real humanitarian–and only worry about that shit when she doesn’t feel like lounging around one of her pools in one of her mansions.

            They didn’t have that life before. They didn’t come from money. The White House was luxurious compared to where they came from. Now, in terms of quality of life, the White House is probably a step down for her–especially when you add in the headaches.

            1. There are people watching everything you do for eight whole fucking years.

              again, see: Obama, Barack. Besides, this woman’s whole life has been about power far more than about money. It’s not like life in Arky involved a trailer park. There is a still a governor’s mansion, you don’t pay for anything, someone else drives, etc. The White House was an upgrade in degree, not in kind, and now it’s crazy money. What is missing, however, is the power and she has a huge lust for that.

            2. when she doesn’t feel like lounging around one of her pools in one of her mansions.

              Ken, trigger warning brah. Cmon.

            3. Her two book deals already made her 20 million dollars.

              So why do all that Foundation stuff and speechifying if she wants to be rich and lazy?

              No. The Clintons know that if they lose power, they lose those $500,000 speeches. You need to have power, or the potential to have power to get investment bankers to pay out to you.

          2. Could you imagine paying your own servants? Oh, the horrors, the horrors.

        3. Maybe she doesn’t think she’ll need to sacrifice anything. Look at the decisions she’s made in the past several years, decisions which would have gotten any Republican rung out immediately, but not Hillary. She has the media in her pocket, a party along to hold their noses, a contemptibly pliant opposition, and a sense of finality pervading the country.

    2. But the expectations of the Democratic Party are such that she feels like she has to run.

      You had me thinking until that line.

      If Hillary doesn’t actually wanna be POTUS but is still running, it’s not because of some expectation of her, it’s a means of hording campaign donations before dropping out.

      1. Not just campaign donations but also securing as much contributions to the Clinton Global Fiefdom and Tax Shelter as possible.

        1. IIRC she stopped getting paid speeches.

          And the foundation is now actually spending money on a nation-wide campaign for women’s rights. (Coincidence that Hill is running for president, natch. This should get the IRS attention that the Tea Party got.)

          I think she has a shot at winning.

          And I think she met with Warren to hash out a decision date…so Hillary runs for 6 months, and if it flops, then Warren takes over.

  6. It doesn’t matter how many times Obama or Clinton have themselves photographed with a beer in their hand I’m not buying that either one of them are one of us working class stiffs.

  7. I’ve never watched Bill Maher but I caught maybe 1 minute yesterday over a friend’s house. It may have been from last week (recorded), but he was going on about how we shouldn’t be worrying about a Clinton or Bush dynasty (talking about Jeb). We should instead focus on how the Clinton’s *built* their dynasty (instead of inheriting it like the Bushes), and how great Bill Clinton was (unlike the Bushes).

    Seriously, that is the best they can do? The Clintons are the good type of hereditary leader because Bill Clinton presided over the dotcom boom and didn’t come from a political family?

    When Maher’s panel of MSNBC/HuffPost talking heads don’t even know how to respond to that kind of blather, it’s not a good sign for the Clintons.

    1. If it actually comes down to either a Clinton or a Bush dynasty I’m just going to stay home.

      1. I’ll vote just not for any of the major parties.

        1. Are they really major parties? Or just one inbred royal family taking turns?

      2. I’d emigrate… oops! I already did!

    2. He’s a stand up comedian.

    3. Last week Bill Maher remarked that those complaining about the family dynasty issue should be so lucky to get a replay of the fantastic 90s economy of Bill Clinton.

      False equivalence in short.

      1. I think you mean post hoc ergo propter hoc.

      2. BUUUTTTPPPLLUUUUUUG

        1. Because, ya know, government built everything and our exalted leaders were generous to share the wealth with us in the 90s. I love how talking heads think everything trickles down from the president and then bitch about the 1%.

          1. Well he did have the foresight to pick a VP who invented the very thing that fueled that gangbusters economy.

        2. Looks like he’s got his talking points today, and it’s pretty pathetic that the best point in her favor is that Bill would have the chance to run things again.

        3. Turd and tulpa; roll ’em down a hill in a barrel, and there’s always an asshole on top.

      3. Dot com boom…Slick just rode the coat tails of that phenom

      4. Re: Peter Caca,

        Last week Bill Maher remarked that those complaining about the family dynasty issue should be so lucky to get a replay of the fantastic 90s economy of Bill Clinton

        That was supposed to be the era of “The Era Of Big Government Is Over”. Either that is what Maher meant or he is suffering from cognitive dissonance like most little red Marxians.

    4. Maher knows he’ll be dead before he has to explain Chelsea’s run for Empress.

  8. She’s on a “listening tour” of America because she’s only been on the national stage since the early 1990s and needs to get out to, what, “touch Indians” like Albert Brooks in Lost in America or see the real America like Billy and Wyatt in Easy Rider?

    Er, no. She’s essentially just repeating the formula that worked for her in upstate NY during her Senate run. The thing is that was 20 years ago coming off a popular presidency against a weak opponent in a not-particularly-hostile environment.

    1. I still can’t get over Lynn Samuels’s enthusiasm for Hillary to be US senator.

  9. I would expect to another Clinton Administration would look much like her campaign. A horrible combination of rampant corruption and incompetence. Stumbling from one disaster to the next – with toadies explaining it all away and attacking anyone who dares to criticize her.

    1. No different than the last four administrations, then. America’s accustomed to disappointment by now.

      1. The Bush Administration had it’s fair share of incompetence, but nowhere near this level of corruption.

        1. Bush’s gaggle largely compensated for what it lacked in criminal corruption with ideological degeneracy. Obama’s administration is easily the most dismal, functionally and mortamorally retarded, despicable, and hellish fuck-up in living memory, though. But in absolute terms, they’re all slight gradients of the same shit.

      2. If you like Kennedy, that’s nine administrations.

    2. So, basically, four more years of the same shit we’ve had for the last seven?

      1. Maybe eight.

  10. I think it’s far from clear what the ultimate damage to Hillary Clinton will be.

    *** munches popcorn ***

  11. “record levels of people want a government that does less in the economic and moral spheres”

    I’m a 27 year old resident of the New York metropolitan area. Every time Reason (Nick & Matt) try sell me on the pending “Libertarian Moment” and the eventual coming collapse of our horrible political duopoly…I want to believe them so badly but the mind numbing levels of economic, and political ignorance and apathy I encounter from a majority of my generation (and the generations of my younger siblings) make it so difficult.

    1. I say the problem is insufficient apathy. The problem is people who don’t really take an interest in politics or economics, but insist on having an opinion anyway. If those people would just not care and not vote and devote their energies to something more useful, we’d all be better off. Too much of the culture revolves around politics.

  12. Everyone knows the person who becomes president this time around will be voted in because more people voted against his or her opponent. Voters will choose the person they want to see lose.

    1. What about the “moar free shit” part of the voting decision?

      1. I imagine they’ll vote against the guy who seems like he might not increase the flow as much.

    2. Can you really blame the voters?

      Ballot access laws that give two sets of partisan apparatchiks control over our choices are the basic, fundamental problem right now.

      1. I can always blame the voters.

  13. and her recent trip to Chipotle was a bust.

    Well the dumb bitch ordered the tacos. Which is similar to the burrito or a bowl, but you get like 50% less food for the same price. Is that who we want as president, someone who orders the tacos at Chipotle? That’s not the America I know.

    1. You should cut her some slack.

      I’m not sure her species can digest food meant for carbon based life forms.

      1. Thus Chipotle.

          1. Did you read what i posted earlier in the thread? That burrito fell through me, holmes, unslowed by atomic forces or basic friction or ANYTHING.

            1. I don’t read blasphemy.

    2. In my experience, tacos are often a metaphor for vaginas in situations where it would be unseemly to mention the latter.

      1. Tulpa, ain’t no one alive believes you have ever experienced a vagina.

      2. That too. I enjoy them both.

  14. The Clintons are sleazy, always have been, always will be, and this nation is going to elect Hillary because the voters are idiots. I hope we all get what we want, good and hard.

    1. The Bushpigs are worse though.

      Too bad the LP can’t get any traction.

      1. The Bushpigs are worse though.

        Let me guess. They’re CHRISTFAGS!

        You really are becoming a caricature of yourself, shriek.

      2. BBUUUUUTTTTTPPPPLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGG

        1. But the other guy did it to

          Is the way a teenager argues.

          1. So you’re saying he’s maturing? Hmm…

      3. The Bushpigs are worse though.

        Even if in 2020 the contemporary Democrats are rounding up Kulaks for the firing line, when one of them complains about El Presidente, we’ll hear a faint queef in the crowd that sounds like somone saying Boooooooooosh. And it will be Shreek.

        1. Talking points is talking points and orders is orders.

  15. Hillary for Prison 2016

  16. Fake scandal. Look over there — Rand Paul loved sugar bomb cereals when he was a kid instead of more healthful types like Wheaties and oatmeal.

  17. The Clintons know regardless of what they do, there is a vocal, dedicated group of people in the media that will protect them. No act is to base or inappropriate. The reason for the current political culture began in the Clinton administration. The tactic of personal attacks in response to legitimate questions was perfected by James Carville and Paul Begala. The same strategy is in play now with the repeated attacks on the author of the book Clinton Cash. Die hard Hillary supporters have embarked on what was described by Mika on Morning Joe as a “jihad”. However, when Mika turns on you, there are some serious problems. True it may be that she is not a fan of Hillary because she is not far enough left, but it may also be that she like so many others is tired of being treated as if we are so stupid we will believe anything. The big difference this time is the Clinton supporters have put the NYT and WAPO into those who are part of the “vast right wing conspiracy” which for 99.9% of the country is beyond ludicrous. Anyone who calls either publication “right wing” has totally gone off the rails.

    1. This times a million. The Clintons are covered with a layer of Teflon about ten times thicker than anything that Reagan could have ever dreamed of.

      They could murder a bunch of children on camera in broad daylight and they would still be the favorites to win.

      1. Reagan’s spinning in his grave right now. Hillary’s cult is fantastically bizarre and terrible.

      2. Clinton did an intern in the White House.

        That alone would disqualify most people.

    2. Also, the media heat will only be on until the time its too late to get a replacement for Hillary.

      Then it all turns on the GOP.

  18. Hillary Clinton seems to have taken a bride from the Russian Government while she was secretary of state to allow the Russians to buy an interest in a Canadian mining company. That is right, she took a bribe to allow the Russians to get uranium, which they are now selling to the Iranians. And Nick’s response to this news is “sure she is greedy but the Republicans are stupid.” Really? This is the kind of commentary that Reason pays good money to get?

    Who gives a shit how stupid the Republicans are? The Secretary of State took a bribe from the Russians so they could buy Uranium and she is now a serious threat to become President.

    1. John, hate to say it, but it’s the “a pox on both their houses” syndrome.

      The GOP could be running a hybrid of George Washington, Jesus Christ and Lysander Spooner and the Democrats could be running the bastard spawn of Hitler and Stalin and a lot of folks around here (including a lot of the writers) would be talking about how the GOP is just as bad as the Democrats.

      1. Of course it is. Hillary Clinton seems to have taken a bribe from a hostile power while she was Secretary of State. That is by any objective measure an enormous scandal. The fact that the Republicans are stupid and just uncool big meanies has nothing to do with it. Nick is utterly incapable of writing an unqualified critical story of the Democrats. He always has to keep his street creed by claiming the Republicans are just as bad. Really Nick? Have any Republicans taken bribes from the Russians recently?

        1. I do think the GOP field is much better this time. Paul, of course, is head-and-shoulders above the rest, but Walker and Cruz both make plenty of limited government noises, which we haven’t heard from the Republicans in any real way since, I dunno, maybe Reagan.

          I get disappointment in the GOP, which has earned that, but they aren’t mirror images right now. The Democrats have become a massive danger to our liberty in a much more immediate and dangerous sense than the Republicans. That’s not always been the case, but it sure the hell is now. Exhibit #1: A corrupt, incompetent, unlikeable, inexperienced old shrew is the ONLY POSSIBLE CANDIDATE. Unless an even more incompetent, unlikeable, inexperienced, probably corrupt, younger, communist nutjob runs.

          If there’s a future for this country, it’s in taking a different path than we’re on now.

          1. I do think the GOP field is much better this time.

            Yes, it is. It’s because as much as none of the writers here touting “The Libertarian Moment” will ever, in a million years, admit it, the libertarian moment isn’t happening among Millennials, who are about as entitled and statist a cohort as you’re likely to find and whose touted tolerance amounts to being okay with things that don’t bother them. It’s among Republicans.

          2. Moreover, you gotta look at what the ethos of the popular extreme wings of the two larger impulses is:

            On the Left, you have thoughtcrime, trigger warnings, SJW not-so-veiled genocide advocacy, and bullying.

            On the right you have the libertarian impulses of fuck you cut spending, leave me alone, and increasing skepticism of state action in areas the right has traditionally been associated with like interventionism and policing.

        2. Unfortunately, it seems like this is a problem for a lot of libertarians.

          By any rational measure, libertarianism has made huge inroads in one of the two major political camps over the last several year. And it isn’t the Democrats.

          Libertarians should be supporting and encouraging it (and saying fuck you when the Republicans oppose liberty). Just too many of them can’t bring themselves to do it. Because “Eeeewwwww….Republicans!”.

          1. it is the culture war bullshit. The sorry fact is that the old “pox on both houses” routine plays right into the leftists’ hands. This is how leftists take power. They demoralize the other side by convincing them that their leaders are just as bad because they are not perfect. If this were 1918 Russia, Nick would not be a Bolshevik. He would, however, be a Bolshevik cause by constantly claiming there was no real difference between them and the Menschaviks.

            1. Although I agree with your point, your example is deficient. Mensheviks were generally radical Marxists in ideology also. Their more incremental, political approach to the a accrual of power had no bearing on the standpoints and content of the communist ideology they held and shared with Lenin’s reds.

              1. They were not homicidal lunatics. They were the best of a set of bad choices.

                1. Much of the Menshevik leadership explicitly rejected murder and forceful subversion as valid actions on moral grounds, and many walked away from easy power for that reason, which makes them human beings of a much better quality than the Bolshevik hellspawn that broke the Russian Empire, but they were ideological siblings to each other nonetheless.

            2. the old “pox on both houses” routine plays right into the leftists’ hands.

              So? You seem to think having a republican in office would somehow be better for liberty. It’s not. If not Paul, Hillary. Get over it. You want libertarian support? Be more libertarian and quit fucking whining that the mean old libertarians won’t support “our brand” of statism.

              1. In every elected office I can think of over the past few decades, from president to councilman, Republicans have been at worst no worse than the Democrat who would’ve occupied that office otherwise, and on avg. they’ve been considerably better. It could hardly be otherwise if you look at the opinions of those who vote for Democrats vs. those who vote for Republicans.

                1. and on avg. they’ve been considerably better.

                  Better than what? Saying you’re better than Hitler isn’t reason to vote for you.

                  I don’t give a fuck about 3% better or 16% better. I demand 85% better. If the republicans can’t manage that…fuck them, let it burn. I’m 50. Two thirds of my life is over. I don’t have time for slightly better statists.

                  1. Then you can safely ignore politics. Elections tend toward the center. You’ll never get 85% better in a rational world. You’ll get 85% better than some minor candidate who has no chance, of course, but that leaves you a choice between major candidates who differ by less than that.

                  2. If my choice is Hitler or better than Hilter, I would obviously like someone 85% better, but given the choice, the better always is the better pick in my book. You might prefer to be dropped staight into the boiling water, but I prefer the slower approach I guess. Our political class is making sure that the end is coming: all we have is the choice of how fast.

              2. Ignore liberty for a moment.

                Simply from an old-fashioned corruption/clean government stand-point Hillary is unacceptable.

          2. By any rational measure, libertarianism has made huge inroads in one of the two major political camps over the last several year. And it isn’t the Democrats.

            Let’s be clear. It’s been two or three republicans, led by Paul. Republicans can nominate Paul and have my vote, as he actually stands for what I believe in. If you think you can pay lip service to Paul and get me to vote for some establishment shithead just because you were nice to him…you can fuck off and die in a fire. Anyone other than Paul and you don’t get the vote. Change or perish…I don’t give a shit.

            1. If you think you can pay lip service to Paul and get me to vote for some establishment shithead just because you were nice to him…you can fuck off and die in a fire.

              Here’s the thing, Francisco d’A, I don’t blame you at all. Hell, I’ll go so far as to say I respect your stance here. I don’t necessarily agree with it (I’m younger than 50, so an 85% threshold isn’t something I need), but I respect it. The thing is, I won’t be at all surprised if a number of libertarians start chiming the “Paul isn’t a real libertarian” bell and ignoring the fact that Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool statist.

          3. Too many libertarian activists can’t get over Nixon. & in retrospect, Nixon wasn’t even that bad! I’m glad we got past him, but he wasn’t as awful as it felt at the time & for a long time afterward. Nixon did awful stuff over his political career, but he wasn’t awful enough in rational terms to cause that rxn.

      2. folks around here (including a lot of the writers) would be talking about how the GOP is just as bad as the Democrats.

        Yes. The democrats want to force you live one way and the Republicans want to force you to live another.

        Clearly different.

        1. Oh really Frank? I guess I missed where Republicans are suing bakeries out of business or launching twiter lynch mobs against Pizza parlors for being pro gay marriage. I guess I have missed where the Republicans claim that corporations are not people and it is okay for the government to suppress their speech. I guess I missed where college Republicans are claiming the right to never be exposed to any dissenting view point.

          Frank, you hate Republicans guts. I get that. And maybe you should. What I don’t get is how you can hate them so much you would rather have a Democratic boot on your face than experience the horror of admitting that maybe they have a point once in a while.

          1. Whaaaaaaaaaaaa! Nick won’t support republicans. Whaaaaaaaaaa! Reason, a libertarian publication, won’t tell its readers to to vote for the lesser of two pieces of shit.

            THAT’S BECAUSE LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT UNPRINCIPLED SHITBAG REPUBLICANS, LIKE YOURSELF, JOHN!

            What part of “you suck” don’t you understand? I’m supposed to vote for you because you suck slightly less than the other shitbags? You don’t get our vote because you are horrible. Reason doesn’t support you because you are horrible. Nick doesn’t kiss your ass because you are horrible.

            When you stop sucking, you’ll get less criticism. Until then, fuck off, and quit your fucking whining about how libertarians won’t vote for shitheads.

            1. I’m supposed to vote for you because you suck slightly less than the other shitbags?

              Yes. The great majority of choices in life are like that. In medicine you do something to make you slightly less sick than not doing it. In job hunting you take the slightly less sucky job, of those you have a realistic chance of getting. Why would politics be any different?

              1. No. Republicans don’t get my vote by default. I’m not really sure why you feel entitled to it? We are NOT republicans. We have principles stemming from liberty. You have nothing even approaching a respect for liberty. You are democrats with ever so slightly different positions.

                1. Who said anything about Republicans being entitled to anything? It’s just that in recent times the great majority of Republicans (both the candidates & their voters) have been considerably better for individual liberty than the great majority of Democrats. Just look at citizen polls & politician voting ratings.

                  If Don Fucking-SIL Ernsberger could conclude 20 yrs. ago that the Republicans had become a vast sight better than Democrats, what point is still disputable? If the analysis turns around, I’ll report that. Nobody gets a free pass, but no findings get shoved aside to feign ignorance either.

              2. If I may point this out, there is a strategic rationale for not voting – or for voting third party, which is really the same thing: it places incentives on the major parties to alter positions to garner the non-vote.

                So, if a bunch of leaning libertarians refuse to vote Republican and reject the ‘lesser evil’ choice, it may cause the Republicans to lose the election and the Democrats to win it. But, it would also force the Republicans to become more libertarian in the long run in order to win the votes denied it that it may need to win elections in the future.

                So, voting for the lesser evil is preferable in the short run, but one could argue that rejecting the lesser evil is beneficial in the long run by forcing it to change in order to have a significant chance against the other party.

                So, hypothetically, there is a practical justification for it as a strategy. Hypothetically.

            2. Frank,

              I don’t know what to tell you other than what Robert said and to grow the fuck up. The Republicans suck. Sorry but life doesn’t owe you a perfect choice. If you hate the idea of voting for them so much, blame the Democrats for going insane and leaving you no other option.

              You are just a fucking immature child who can’t accept that life is sometimes hard.

              1. Yep, John…life is hard…

                So shut the fuck up about a libertarian magazine calling for”a pox on both their houses”. You don’t stand for what we stand for. The only way it’s changing is for the republican party to become more libertarian. We have something you need. You have NOTHING we need. The only difference is we get to the bottom a few months sooner than with the democrats. Big fucking deal. I can drink a glass of poison or I can drink 2/3 of a glass of the same exact poison.

                Childish? Yeah, I’m the guy stamping his feet crying about libertarians not supporting a party that shares less than half of its beliefs. Cry me a river.

                1. Then what the fuck do I stand for? Bash John all you want, you can’t bash the facts into insignificance.

            3. What part of “you suck” don’t you understand? I’m supposed to vote for you because you suck slightly less than the other shitbags?

              Here’s the thing, though, Republicans have shown signs of changing. Imagine you talked to two candidates and the conversations went something like this:

              FdA: You’re acting like an unprincipled shitbag. There’s no fucking way I can support the bullshit you’re telling me!
              Candidate 1: Fuck you! You’re just an asshole who doesn’t realize the higher values I’m conveying!

              versus

              FdA: You’re acting like an unprincipled shitbag. There’s no fucking way I can support the bullshit you’re telling me!
              Candidate 1: Jeez. You know what, you’re right. I have been acting like kind of a shitbag. Look, what can I say? I’m sorry. I’m going to try to do the right thing going forward.

              Sorry, but if you say you’d go with candidate 1, well, don’t be surprised if all you ever get is complete and unprincipled shitbags. It’s what you’ve decided to reward.

              1. What difference does it make Bill? The second Candidate 1 is lying.

                When we see a libertarian turn in policy which is more than lip service, we’ll come a runnin. If you guys nominate Paul, you got me.

                But:

                Bush?
                Christie?
                Graham?
                Santorum?

                Are you fucking shitting me?

                I don’t only have two choices. You don’t get my vote until you appease me.

                1. But, it isn’t clear to me Candidate 2 (good catch on my screw-up) is lying. I don’t think Paul is lying. It doesn’t seem to me you do either. And yeah, nominating a Rand Paul is, to me at least, the equivalent of saying “Yeah, we fucked up. Sorry. We’re going to try to make it right.”.

                  And yes, I think he really does have a chance. There really are enough Republicans that have figured it out. I don’t think the war is won yet. But, it’s the closest I’ve ever seen.

                  And like I suggested above, if it’s a Bush, a Christie, a Graham, a Santorum, or a Rubio (my addition), I won’t blame you in the least bit for telling the GOP to go fuck itself. They’ll deserve it. I want the GOP to win. But, I want them to win as libertarians. If it just comes down to blindly voting Team Red, well, libertarians voting GOP isn’t doing any favors to GOP libertarianism. I’ll probably stay home myself, in that case.

                2. How about Walker?

                  1. Jury’s out on Walker. From what I understand he’s a “tough on victimless crime” kinda guy.

                  2. I have to agree with Fd’A. So far, Walker has yet to give me any reason to think he’d be particularly better than the rest of the Establishment-picked candidates. He’s anti-government-union. Well, big whoop-de doo! So is Chris Christie. And on the federal level, government unions aren’t much the issue they are at the state level.

                    Cruz (I know a lot of people here don’t like him) has said some things that intrigue me (granted, he’s also said some dumb-ass shit).

        2. Even to the extent both camps want to force you to live some way, the Republicans have fewer hobby horses than the Democrats. The “liberals” seem to want to have you live all aspects of your life in certain ways, while the “conservatives” have relatively few sore points. Not only that, but the impositions “conservatives” want to make would fall on relatively few people, while the impositions “liberals” want to make would fall on the great majority.

          Think of it this way: Today’s “conservatives”, taken back in US hx, might’ve wanted to keep or reintroduce black slavery, while today’s “liberals” would want to expand it to everybody. Neither position is ideal, of course, but the preference is obvious. Meanwhile “conservatives” have many positions that are actually good for individual liberty.

        3. Exponentially Increasing numbers of democrats want to force you live one way and increasingly fewer Republicans want to force you to live another

          There, Fd’A, fixed it for you.

    2. Hillary is going to be the first baby boomer female president because her generation runs the media and they’re pissing their pants in joy over how they are going to help make history.

      If a Republican was selling out to Russia so obviously the press would be on him with visions of Pulitzers dancing in their heads.

      1. I don’t think Hillary can win, but time will tell. One thing that is for sure; if a Republican were taking bribes from the Russians, Nick would be all over it and wouldn’t be qualifying his criticism with “but the Democrats…”.

        1. Quasi-progressive sympathies aren’t uncommon in certain of Reason’s writers. Sheldon Richman recently outdid himself on that front with his apologistic contortions in Iran’s name.

          1. Richman is just nuts.

    3. Hillary Clinton seems to have taken a bride from the Russian Government

      that’s not hard to believe, either.

      1. Perhaps the form of the bribe was a bride?

      2. The rumor is she took one from the Muslim Brotherhood. Her name is Huma.

        1. from the MB through the Russians. Strange bedfellows, indeed. You just can’t make up shit in politics and, as a bonus, you don’t have to.

    4. I’m a Jeffersonian republican, and much unlike a sizeable proportion of the regulars here, I don’t perceive the two major parties as equally malign. But I’m also unsure as to why it’s impermissible for Gillespie to levy criticism against both parties simultaneously, especially considering he hasn’t attempted to paint them as equivalent in their shortcomings. Their separate, individual misadventures and flaws are illustrated and condemned, their perpetrators are justly censured, blame is rightly allotted to the various miscreants in question, and a debate is had. I don’t see a problem.

      I mockingly disagree with Reason’s staff frequently, but one party’s being worse than the other excuses neither from their respective defects and misdeeds.

      1. But I’m also unsure as to why it’s impermissible for Gillespie to levy criticism against both parties simultaneously, especially considering he hasn’t attempted to paint them as equivalent in their shortcomings.

        It is not. The problem is two fold. First, he often criticizes the Republicans without mentioning the Democrats but he never criticizes the Democrats that way. The pox on both houses routine is only used when there is an undeniable criticism of Democrats.

        Second, criticizing them both is only fine if the criticisms are relevant to each other. Let me say this again, HILLARY CLINTON TOOK A BRIBE FROM THE RUSSIANS AS SECRETARY OF STATE. Commenting on that rather amazing fact with “but the Republicans are stupid” is completely idiotic. Do they dress badly too? Have bad table manners? Those things have about as much to do with Hillary Clinton taking a bribe as anything Nick mentions.

        No one is saying that the Republicans are above criticism. But whatever criticisms you have, this is something completely different and much worse. Making it a “pox on both houses” post just makes Nick look like a leftist douche.

        1. I don’t give much of a shit about Gillespie’s cultural bias towards Democrats, and I’m not surprised he harbors one.

        2. Well, he has to keep up appearance enough so that if he’s lucky he can someday still get a job writing at a *real* publication. I hear the New York Times is looking for a new ideological punching bag.

    5. Who gives a shit how stupid the Republicans are?

      John, I take it to mean that they are stupid for not using the latest scandal to their advantage, not that they are stupid and therefore just as bad.

      Republicans would do well to treat the latest Clinton scandal as a gift to serious political discourse,

      1. No, they would do well to take this scandal as showing Hillary Clinton is a depraved horrible person. It is not really a gift to political discourse. It doesn’t signify anything bigger than how awful the Clintons are. If the Republicans think it symbolizes some bigger Libertarian point that can be made, they are as dumb as Nick says they are.

        Nick’s position is the same as it always is, “if the Republicans would just tell most of their supporters to fuck off, that would be great”.

    6. And Nick’s response to this news is “sure she is greedy but the Republicans are stupid.” Really?

      If such a thing were categorically possible, one might call Nick ‘libertarian welfare statist’.

      1. Well, he’s right about that.

        But yes, Gillespie has been slowly but clearly drifting in the SJW direction a little bit at a time over the last few years. If he keeps on going, before much longer he’ll be just another Weigel clone.

        1. He’s been polling too many millennial. The millennial mindset seeps into his cells like a heavy metal and damages his nervous system causing violent episodes of logical inconsistency.

    7. When you wrote “taken a bride”, I thought for a while you were making some cool metaphor about mail order brides from Russia. Hadn’t seen a good typo from John in a while.

  19. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  20. Somehow the GOP Machine and what they did at the convention in 2012 and their early support of Jeb Bush – he’s Hillary without the scandals – isn’t stupidity. It is corruption. Corporatism. Cronyism.

    Do you prefer R-corruption or D-corruption?

    1. I think I’d actually go with stupidity. I can’t for the life of me figure out what they have to gain with him. No way he can win. His surname alone may be an insurmountable handicap. I think he literally just won the coin toss back stage.

  21. I don’t know how you can call the Clinton’s disorganized. They have successfully run the most lucrative bribery and influence racket in the developed world. They’ve made hundreds of millions of dollars, committed god knows how many felonies in plain view, and are not just walking around free as a bird, but actually celebrated and seriously considered for one of the most powerful positions in the world.

    That’s not disorganization.

    1. I don;t credit them. I credit a corrupt society, government, and media. At almost any other time in our history, open corruption on a national level like this would’ve had consequences.

  22. If the Republicans are the stupid party, it’s the rank & file that are stupid, not the leadership. Leadership in any sufficiently large organiz’n wherein a leadership position is at all desirable (rather than a burden reasonable people would seek to avoid) is going to be filled by the smartest. So if those campaigning for presidential nominations say certain dumb things, it’s not because they’re dumb, but because those they’re pandering to are. Either that, or the person who’s judging the party & its leadership is dumb.

    Anyway, those seeking the presidential nomination of the GOP I think are dumb to attack Hillary, because she’s not going to be the Democrats’ nominee. If by some fluke she emerges as the nominee, she’s toast anyway. So either I’m dumb to think so, or the Repub hopefuls attacking her think that at this stage that’s what the rank & file want to hear, & that it’s important to them that they hear it as this time, in which case it is indeed the rank & file who are dumb.

    1. Those are good points. Hillary Clinton is damaged goods. The Republicans should want her to be the nominee. If you go after her too much, you could end up with some less tainted Democratic nominee.

      1. And so was Obama in ’12. How many times did we hear, right here on these boards that no president could be elected with high unemployment, a marginal to bad economy and record high gas prices?

        I’m certainly willing to entertain discussion that Hillary might not be the nominee. But then someone in the Democratic party is going to have to shoot out of nowhere that gets Democrats excited.

        Sure, it kind of happened with Carter– who was a virtual unknown in the early 70s, but the country was a diferent place back then.

        We go through this every four years. Hillary Clinton vs [Cardboard Cutout], Barack Obama vs [Cardboard Cutout]. At some point, that cardboard placeholder gets filled, and once it’s filled, it too can be attacked, say dumb things and have a very partisan media fling all sorts of mud at it, making Hillary [or Obama] look great in the process.

        1. We do it every four years and the Republicans have won two of the last four Presidential elections and have bigger majorities in Congress than they have ever had. Just because the Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections doesn’t mean they will lose every one forever.

          1. Just because the Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections doesn’t mean they will lose every one forever.

            I’m not suggesting it will. What I am suggesting is that like it or not, Hillary is a force to be reckoned with.

            And remember, in 2000, George W Bush had considerably more charisma than the cold turd that was Al Gore, and yet only won by a razor-thin margin, and people to this day even dispute that.

            With the country’s current political climate, it is my opinion that the GOP is going to need another towering heavyweight, like a Ronald Reagan– someone who gets the GOP utterly excited. A candidate that can either eclipse Hillary, or pop up during a time when the Democratic field is as exciting as Al Gore was in 2000.

            1. But even Reagan didn’t exactly slaughter Carter. Nor did Clinton decisively wallop Bush (although he’d’ve still won whether Perot ran or not). Don’t make too much of apparent swings in elections.

              1. Actually he did slaughter him, by almost ten percentage points, which is a mammoth margin in a presidential election. Though it was more due to Carter’s total and unquestionable incompetence than due to Reagan being revered (that wouldn’t happen until later on).

          2. Republicans have won one popular plurality/majority on the presidential level since 1988. 2000’s victory was an electoral college fluke that never happened before in the history of the US.

            That’s actually a disturbing historical trend for the Party. Yeah, they can keep winning the midterms but the big enchilada is problematic.

            1. Its pretty obvious the electorate is very different.

              Presidential years brings out the LIV who vote on “likeability” or “cares about people like me.”

              Thus Hillary eating at Chipotle has to be leaked to the press. She gets mocked but a ton of dopes who don’t know who the VP is, see her name in the news.

        2. I’ve laid out voters’ thinking here on Obama ’12 several times. Most voters who cared about policy thought he was pretty bad. However, they also had a very patronizing sympathy for blacks. The thinking was that failing to re-elect Obama (much more so than failing to elect him) would mean he really was as bad as people thought, and therefore reflected badly on blacks generally. By re-electing him they thought they’d prove that blacks are acceptable as competent in all walks of life, for if they can be president, they can do anything, right?

          Those who voted against his re-election were less concerned about race (although they included a few bigots who just didn’t like blacks in honored positions), and just about issues. They’d’ve voted the same for any Republican running against him; Ron Paul would’ve had as good a chance as Romney, and so would Santorum or Cain. No matter who the Republicans nominated would’ve gotten about the same votes.

          There was a pro-Obama vote thinking, we’ve got to ratify the choice of a black president, and an anti-Obama vote thinking anybody would be better than Obama. The pro-Obama vote was bigger.

    2. Leadership in any sufficiently large organiz’n wherein a leadership position is at all desirable (rather than a burden reasonable people would seek to avoid) is going to be filled by the smartest.

      So therefore George W. Bush was the smartest man in America?

      Umm, yeah, OK. I’d love to know what color the sky is in that fantasy world you’re living in.

      1. OK, once in a while somebody sneaks in on family cx. & the funny thing about that was that if you’d asked a few yrs. earlier, most observers would’ve expected Jeb to run before Geo. Jr.

        But I do think the Bushes are at least above avg. in intelligence. For one thing, intelligence is in large part genetically determined?which may be a heuristic that operates in people’s voting for blood relatives of politicians who satisfy them. Doesn’t acc’t for Hillary, though.

        1. I actually don’t think presidents are particularly smart at all. Smart candidates actually aren’t that successful; Americans don’t really like having someone conspicuously smarter than them winning it seems.

          Candidates themselves can be bona fide morons, so long as they have smart people behind the scenes. Which is why in reality we’re never really electing a candidate, but a candidate and a whole bunch of advisers, some friends, and maybe a relative or two. And sometimes of course the candidate isn’t even the most important of the crowd.

  23. I like Rand’s overall levels of speding…

  24. There’s no question that Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations?perhaps expectations is the better word?are in serious trouble.

    Trust me… when we’re in the 7th inning stretch, you think NPR is going to endorse Ted Cruz?

  25. “Hillary is uniquely equipped to live with a neverending, ongoing set of “scandals” that would fell virtually any other candidiate.”

    That’s one of the benefits of being a sociopath.

  26. The best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

    Why is it whenever I read criticism about major Dem candidates from the lefto-sphere, it seems more like helpful advice than it does actual criticism.

  27. How did [Bill Clinton] do it? How did he keep rising from the mat to revel in high public opinion numbers?… Clinton ignored traditional Washington wisdom for dealing with exploding scandal and instead used the capital’s notorious scandal machine against itself.

    :eyeroll:

    Bill Clinton was a Democrat. When Clinton was mired in Scandal, the owner of the NYT kept handwringing about whether these stories should even be in the news.

    Anyone alive and old enough to be aware of the political landscape of the 80s and then watch the transition into the Clinton era can’t ignore the sea-change that took place in media attitudes towards a presidential administration.

    1. Bill Clinton also had more charisma than all of his followers put together.

      1. And a willingness to do whatever, or whoever, it took…

  28. “Speding”? Reason saving money by cutting back on consonants?

  29. Can we get back to talking about this bride that Hillary took from the Russians? Where does she keep her? Does she have her own Sex Slave Isle?

  30. People look after their own interests, and Hillary is outstanding in that regard. But that is the best that can be said about her. Is she a liar? Yes. Is she the face of the Washington Machine? yes. Can she be trusted with the public interest? NO. Can she be defeated in 2016? Yes. Poll after poll as shown that Rand Paul can beat her her royal a$$.

  31. Having perused the majority of the thread, for those who call libertarians “immature” for not choosing the lesser of two evils, please show me where Republicans are doing much of anything relating to –

    the multi-tens of trillions in hard AND accrual debt.

    stopping the filling of prisons with people who smoke a leaf.

    stopping the endless resorting to war.

    ending the militarization of the police.

    .. just to name a few.

    Yes, I HATE the brick and mortar left, just as much as you (John, Robert et al). BUT I HATE the axiomatic, brick and mortar right just as much. The things YOU take to be important reasons to “mail fists” through the government. To me, ever bit as bad as the left mailing their fists.

    But, in the end, there is a core of Statism that BOTH the Dems and Repubs adore. They use it for the their own purposes, and it certainly has nothing to do with the rank and file citizen.

    1. (cont)

      So, I believe it is the majority of the body politic that is immature. It is the product of the socialism which has held sway for decades. It has outputted people for whom real disinterest does not exist. It has produced people en masse that ALWAYS look to government for solutions. It is a mass of people who are so accustomed to an alphabet soup of bureaucracies that it doesn’t even question their existence as a rule (debate the efficacy of one or two perhaps). All that separates the “left” and the “right” today is argumentation over what is to be “permanent” and what is to be “variable”, and the collective Force necessary to see (largely immature) sets of idealism hold particular patterns in place.

      Once this country had vociferous debates over standing armies – now standing armies deployed all over the world, meting out death or care packages, is an unquestionable reality of “sanity”. Once there was debate over the role of compulsory education, now it’s “fringey” to insane to question state education (as a function in and of itself). Once the country had some notion of “equity” in its root philosophic sense, now interests are so blurred through a century of socialism that equity has not meaning.

      1. (cont)

        In short, a century of socialism has bred a society so ignorant that the have formed two basic camps deeply at odds with each other, simply because the stakes are so high precisely BECAUSE the state has penetrated so deeply into the individual’s life that control is necessary. And their ignorance is that they would deem “fascism” to be a slur word to use by crude internet trolls while failing to realize that they are prone to supporting fascism themselves as they don’t know any other system. It’s the steady daily diet they’ve received that they don’t know they are simply two sub-varieties of the same damn thing. Our society is breathtakingly centralized. Both sides have direct interests in keeping centralized.

        1. (cont)

          I am friends with a powerful State level pol (party and state irrelevant) who I can describe only as un-empathetic, has nothing but disdain for the “citizens”, and has the belief that the US will be a second world nation within 15-20 years. This a man who very well could take a US Rep seat if the current Rep moves on, and very well could be the next governor of my state if he chose to. This isn’t internet exaggeration, he is at that level. He has no desire to fix anything that is wrong, he simply has a drive for more and more power, and – frighteningly – he isn’t even as power hungry as those who are currently running for higher offices. Politics is staffed by career politicians for whom “governance” is an industry within which they work. That’s why we are where we are at. Keep THAT in mind when you have your debates about which party to kneel and bob to. It applies to BOTH sides.

    2. How far will you get in judging people by the standard of the tiny sliver that is radically libertarians (or extremists of any kind)? I look at what makes people different from the avg. voter or avg. politician, and know that what distinguishes them from the mass can be viewed in terms of proximity to me. I may be a mile away from the crowd, but one edge of the crowd in the middle is a foot closer to me. Why not encourage them? Why leave the extremists a mile to the other side of the crowd to be the only ones w any influence on the crowd?

      Don’t you realize that deficit spending, oppressing hippies, killing foreigners overseas, & police decked in riot gear are immensely popular? It’s not like they got that way for nothing. The problem w humanity is people. Slavery was accepted for millennia too. So look at the cutting edge.

    3. Yes, I HATE the brick and mortar left, just as much as you (John, Robert et al). BUT I HATE the axiomatic, brick and mortar right just as much.

      A lot of people are attracted to libertarianism not because they want liberty for all, but because they hate whatever current infringement on their liberties they experience right now.

      That’s the case with the religious right and social conservatives: progressives are increasingly intruding into their lives, they see libertarians opposing progressivism, so they latch on to it. Of course, if you gave power to those people, they’d be just as bad as progressives.

      The sad fact is that progressives and social conservatives really are nearly indistinguishable; they are fighting over who gets to impose totalitarian rule, not whether totalitarian rule is desirable; they already agree on that point.

  32. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

    1. If you can make $87/hr why are you wasting time on this venue?

  33. The only Republican presidential candidate comparable to Clinton is Christie, who suffered scandals of his own and has only added to his state’s economic problems. Jeb Bush is just a a bad candidate.

    Rand Paul is a good candidate. Scott Walker was among the initiator of the “right to work” movement and was friendly (if I recall correctly) to school choice. Ted Cruz was steady on his opposition to Obamacare and is probably the only Republican to support dismantling the min wage a federal level. Marco Rubio has his strong points.

    If you only care about pot, gay marriage, and cutting defense, then the GOP field has nothing for you. Otherwise, a libertarian with medium L would support Rand Paul and may vote for some others.

    1. I think a lot of people would like to cut defense but the world hasn’t obliged.

    2. If you only care about pot, gay marriage, and cutting defense, then the GOP field has nothing for you. Otherwise, a libertarian with medium L would support Rand Paul and may vote for some others.

      And there are lots of those here who would claim that that makes them fiscal conservatives, but it completely misses the real point. Socialism is the ultimate disease. Entitlements are the ultimate sickness. There is no way to fund the ravenous beast without massive confiscation of wealth, and such confiscation can only occur with total control over people’s lives. You have one party that is screaming for more and another that at least is biased against it. There’s really no comparison.

  34. Republicans have learned from the big government failures of Bush. If one wins we’ll see a big reduction in the size of the federal government, and that’s a good thing.

    1. Republicans have learned from the big government failures of Bush. If one wins we’ll see a big reduction in the size of the federal government, and that’s a good thing.

      Such intentions don’t seem to survive the presidency. I don’t think Obama was lying too much on the campaign trail, but once he was in power, all his good intentions went out the window. The same is going to happen with any Republican.

  35. The point is, is that we have to target the Clintons, specifically Hillary, and investigate them because they are the face of corrupt, crony-capitalism, big government. Discrediting Hillary Clinton and eliminating her from the Presidential race because of all of the scandals and her total lack of veracity, would be the best way to start the direction towards smaller government.

  36. You have two problems with your article. The fact that most Clinton scandals are made up which is why they survive them so well. Also, The other wings of the Republican tent want MORE government, subsidies for business, war, an end to women’s choice, voting restrictions, increased prison business, subsidies and special laws for the religious wing, etc. Libertarians are going to wait a long time for the Republican Party to endorse their tenets when they conflict with the other wings.

    1. “subsidies for business”
      Which the Dems do even more than the GOP, Just look at Obama defending Ex-Im bank
      “war”
      Where have you been for the entirety of Obama’s administration and Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state?
      “women’s choice”
      As opposed to forcing everyone in the country to pay for women’s abortions? What choice do I get there? Sorry, but I care more about my right not to have to pay for their abortions.I see no reason why I should give preference to the rights of a political camp that has no concern for mine.
      “voting restrictions”
      For people who aren’t citizens? Yeah, that’s terrible.
      “increased prison business”
      Different from the dems how?
      “special laws for the religious wing”
      Like what, freedom of association? Freedom to not have to buy your employees birth control? Oh, I totally agree; one shouldn’t need a religious exemption for those. I should be able to sell wedding cakes (or not) or buy birth control (or not) for whoever the fuck I want, for any reason, religious or otherwise.

      1. Libertarians are going to wait a long time for the Republican Party to endorse their tenets when they conflict with the other wings.

        Republicans don’t need to “endorse” anything; what they need to do is keep the Democrats in check. The best thing to do is for Libertarians to take advantage of this political constellation in order to get what we want. Voting for people, or waiting for people, because they “endorse” libertarianism is foolish and unproductive. And the more hostile and uncooperative Republicans and Democrats become to each other, the better for libertarians: at least it prevents the two parties from doing even more damage, and it may lead people to recognize that there has to be a better way.

        As you can see from my other postings, I consider religious conservatives thoroughly and absolutely immoral and their politics offensive. Nevertheless, right now, the progressive wing of the Democrats is a bigger threat to liberty. Therefore, I might vote for a Republican candidate even if he courts religious conservatives.

        Religious conservatives are so shrill and vitriolic right now because they see their power eroding and their numbers shrinking. If, against all odds, they should ever regain some political significance, there’s always voting for the Democrats to put them back in their place.

    2. The other wings of the Republican tent want MORE government, subsidies for business, war, an end to women’s choice, voting restrictions, increased prison business, subsidies and special laws for the religious wing, etc.

      Let’s take these one by one:

      subsidies for businesses: Democrats clearly are worse than Republicans in this regard. You don’t recognize this because these subsidies are called “stimulus”, “green energy”, “carbon credits”, “infrastructure spending”, “welfare”, “health insurance”, etc.)
      an end to women’s choice: Republicans would easily settle for what is pretty standard in Europe: abortion on demand during the first trimester.
      voting restrictions: Republicans favor voter id laws; such laws are universally in place in all those “civilized nations” Democrats love to refer to.
      increased prison business: Democrats favor increased prison business; Republicans generally simply take a excessive tough-on-crime attitude. That kind dysfunction in both parties leads to the massive prison populations we have.
      subsidies and special laws for the religious wing: True, for the simple reason that the religious wing is a constituency that needs to be paid off, just like the Democrats pay off their constituencies with subsidies and special laws. No, not “just like”, because Democrats are much more corrupt in this regard.

  37. The b&hClinton; machine may be stupid and greedy just as the Republican party is stupid and self destructive, but the laws broken are blatant and the Clinton Server Purge does not help perception.

  38. How true! The “47%” have already made up their mind about anyone with a “(D)” following their name; however, they have probably never considered the possibility that government is too big and costing them too much.

  39. Clinton’s still got a pretty good shot at the presidency. She could stomp on puppies, pee on the American flag, bake babies in her over at home – the minorities and single women would still vote for her.

  40. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  41. Mr. Gillespie’s premise is entirely correct, when I want to see from the Republicans is a true plan to reduce this federal Leviathan down to some reasonable size by eliminating unnecessary federal functions stopping crony capitalism, and generally executing good sound oversight of existing programs. Here’s my take on this, http://bit.ly/1yx2SmI

    1. That is roughly the promises Obama made during his campaign, and look at what he did. Why do you believe a Republican would be any more honest?

  42. You have got to be kidding.

    Obama was incompetent, and you want to replace him with a crook?

    For a few pieces of gold, and a piece of tail for Bill, the Clinton’s sold control of 15% of the USA’s uranium resources to the Russians.

    You should understand that the democrat party has destroyed itself, even if Hillary spends her $2.5 billion of “Clinton Money Laundering Foundation” cash from “that box I found in my basement”…She might actually win and finish us off. America is stupid that way.

    I think I’m going to puke.

  43. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  44. pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  45. Well, you have to be pretty smart to get away with all the stuff the Clintons have gone away. Republicans usually can’t even talk themselves out of a simple extramartial affair before being having to resign.

  46. my Aunty Sophia just got a nearly new BMW X4 SUV just by some parttime working online with a lap-top
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.