Gary Johnson

Donald Trump Is Appealing to "Racist" Voters, Says Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson

"I don't want to have anything to do with it," says Johnson. "It embarrasses me."

|

Donald Trump "is appealing to a segment I'll just label racist," says Gary Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico and the 2012 Libertarian Party presidential candidate. "It exists and it's out there."

"I don't want to have anything to do with it," says Johnson.  "It embarrasses me. The electorate will paint the entire Republican Party with a broad brush as a result of Trump and it won't be positive." 

Watch the clip here:

A longer interview with Johnson will run tomorrow, covering his views of the rest of the GOP field and Hillary Clinton, his take on domestic and foreign policy, the future of the drug war, and more.

NEXT: Hillary's Dirty Dance with Trump on Sanctuary Cities

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. So racism trumps abortion this cycle.

    1. ….I see what you did there…

    2. Eventually, innovation in medtech will allow for viable 1-day old embryo’s (blastocyst?) removal from carrier and transfer to a fucking nutrient tank and we’ll no longer have to hear abortion bullshit. And there will be much rejoicing and gnashing of teeth.

      1. Who do you think will be angrier about it, the pro-life people (for seeing the issue resolved technologically rather than precluded legally) or the War on Women people (because it’s such a useful, if vapid, political tool)? I’m betting the latter.

        1. I predict all their pants exploding simultaneously.

        2. Actually, the people I expect to be angriest about it are the stealth-eugenics fans, who have been applauding abortion because of the number of brown babies it kills. I suppose they may be a figment of my imagination, but I find it hard to understand the way Kermit Gosnell was allowed to continue to operate after multiple complaints without them.

        3. “Who do you think will be angrier about it”

          Probably planned Parenthood because then they will lose all the revenue they have been getting for the sale of dead baby body parts.

      2. I keep hoping that someone will identify a gay gene. Because if that happens then you’ll see all the gays become pro-life in order to prevent a gay genocide as conservative Christians begin to abort their unborn gay fetuses. It would be so fun and entertaining to watch the fallout from that…

        1. The discussion is already here, about “gender-selective abortion.” Now, since generally such behavior is assumed to be cultural, there’s another lovely wrinkle, so overall agreement seems to be that there is no such thing and to mention it is racist.
          “Orientation-selective abortion” would pull in the Christians as well, which would really make it interesting to see. However, I’d assume that there’s not going to be a single gene or gene group that is easily identifiable as at least 50% correlated with gayness (gaydom? gayitude?) so it will remain a thought experiment.

        2. “I keep hoping that someone will identify a gay gene. ‘

          Whaaat ? Dude there are a lot of gay genes out there that are already identified.

          Gene Kramer just lives three houses down from me and he’s queer as a three dollar bill.

        3. That would actually be hilarious.

      3. That ain’t gonna be free, Mx. Woodchipper.

        Who is going to pay for it? And, if its not paid for, what happens to the embryo?

        It will present us with a different set of problems, which is good, I think, but not an absence of problems.

        1. I imagine the cost would fall to either the prospective adopters of the embryo via some for-profit medtech corp or perhaps a mercenary army looking to train em young.

          1. I’ll have vats right in my basement, from which I’ll raise up my army of SMP (Super Monocle Polisher’s) to take over the world… Pinky.

            /Narf

      4. And hot on its heels the progressives will invent pre-birth social security.

        1. …and conservatives will be paralyzed to stop it, by there religious sensibilities.

      5. Doubtful. Pro-lifers, backed by tank manufacturers, will demand that anyone wanting to terminate a pregnancy must do so early enough to preserve the protohuman and put it in a tank.

        The baby organ sellers and the eugenicists will fight it tooth and nail and claim that it’s too much of an imposition on women and that it’s important that the wrong sort of women not face the risk of financial burden from having a baby around.

      6. Can I sell the nutrient tank and contents to the highest bidder?

    3. well, only one of those is a problem…

  2. Geez Gary, you’re making it sound like everyone who wants to keep brown people from pursuing prosperity and happiness is some kind of racist. Maybe they just love America?

    1. You can oppose open borders and not be a racist, and that’s true of most people.

      It is a bit more difficult to contend that most immigrants from a specific country are probably rapists without being a racist though.

      1. That’s why they’ve thrown in the whole ‘they’re repeating Castro’s prisoner release’ conspiracy theory. Makes you look more crazy but less racist.

        1. And the one Mexican who murdered a girl in San Francisco proves it!

          Who needs crime data when I have one example!

          1. The singular of data is anecdote.

            1. i thought it was datum…

              1. /pink panther

                Dat-um.
                Dat-um.
                Dat-um.Dat-um.Dat-um.Dat-um. Dataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
                Dat-a-Dat-a-Dat- aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

            2. The basis of most news stories is outliers.

          2. I saw, somewhere, and I may even try to track it down, that on average, that about every twelve days, on average, we release an illegal who goes on to kill someone.

            1. Gosh, Google is my friend. You guys should try it. Google can be your friend, too.

              Think about that: 121 times over the past four years, the administration has released an illegal immigrant with prior criminal convictions who went on to be charged with murder. That is one every 12 days.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

              1. That would be the creepy kind of friend who you find drilling a hole in the outside wall of your bathroom, and who tip the IRS off that you’re a “tax cheat” – that kind of friend?

                I have some like that already, ok thx.

              2. In 2014 there were 432 murders in Chicago alone – or 1.2 a *day*.

                142,000 people in the US died from medical error in 2013 – or 389 a day.

                3,644 ‘reported arrest related deaths’ between 2003-2009, 2011 – or 1.5 a day. Assume only 5% of those deaths are not justified and you have cops murdering as often as often as those guys.

                I am, seriously, not worried about the level of violent crime from illegal immigrants in general, let alone those who wee picked up and released for whatever reason.

                1. Yeah. It hasn’t hit close to home for you yet so it’s no big deal.

                2. Agammamon — That’s nice.

                  I’ll attempt to get the next illegal immigrant murderer to stop by your house to kill your family.

                  We’ll see if that changes your lack of empathy any.

              3. My google is broke.

                Beide, ain’t no body gonna believe that chit.

            2. Which would mean that about 30 people a year are killed by such people.

              So in a country of 320 million, your odds of being killed by an illegal immigrant that has previously been released is .000009375%.

              Terrifying stats.

              1. I’m just saying that this isn’t a one-off. In the big scheme of things, one person murdered every other week by (1) an illegal (2) with a criminal record who (3) was caught and released is decimal dust, sure.

                One thing I don’t know is where they were released. Over the border/deported, and came back to do their killing, or right here in the US. We are invited to believe it is in the US, but I don’t know. And it makes a difference, to a point.

                If they are being deported and coming back, that speaks to border security, no? If they are being released here in the US, that speaks to immigration policy re deportation (or the lack thereof).

              2. Besides who gives a shit about 30 dead honkies a year anyway.

                It’s not like they were killed by cops or anything.

                1. Yeah, cause that’s what everyone is saying in refutation to the “1 every 12 days” statistic. Derp.

                  1. So in a country of 320 million, your odds of being killed by an illegal immigrant that has previously been released is .000009375%.

                    Terrifying stats.

                    Sounds like a big fuck you to me.

                    I wonder how much love someone would get for posting something similar on a police abuse thread.

                    1. Of course, that post never mentioned the race of the victims.

                      Unless you meant “honkies” to include all native born Americans.

                      And there’s a difference between some asshole illegal getting released into the wild killing someone and an agent of the state killing someone, at least subjectively (objectively both victims are dead so not necessarily worse than the other).

                    2. Exactly. #citizenLivesMatter

          3. If you did the most modest of research you would find numerous cases of illegal aliens assaulting, raping and murdering in just the past few months.

      2. Maybe he’s appealing to people who are tired of being called racist because they oppose open borders.

        1. Well, supporting a guy who said ‘they’re sending us their rapists, though I’m sure some of them are good people’ is an awfully bizarre way to try and prove that your opposition to open borders isn’t based on racism, isn’t it?

          1. And posting repeated articles about the martyrdom of John Grisham’s buddy who likes kiddie porn is an odd way for Reason to demonstrate that libertarians don’t support kiddie porn. Holding the comments of a candidate against his supporters is just bush league rhetorically.

            1. Trump’s supporters like him precisely because of what he is saying about Mexicans. It’s the centerpiece of his “campaign”.

            2. Why don’t libertarians support kiddie porn?

              KID LIB 4EVA

              1. are you gunning for some subway sammiches?

                1. Some of us aren’t ageist about our belief in freedom.

              2. Why don’t libertarians support kiddie porn?

                I support it with my hard-earned money.

            3. I’m sorry, did Reason support John Grisham’s buddy for political office?

              Please give me an example of any position supported by Donald Trump that isn’t a) retarded nonsense or b) fuck Mexicans.

              When all your policies are idiotic, incoherent babble intermixed with disdain for Mexican immigrants, you’ll have to excuse me if I actively judge his supporters to be morons.

              And nothing Reason posted was about the ‘martyrdom’ of John Grisham’s buddy who likes kiddie porn. It was an argument regarding mandatory minimums. I know you’re always dishonest, but this is some weak stuff.

              1. It’s Tulpa. Did you not notice Hugh’s joke above?

                1. I have something for you Epi, because I know you love Terry Brooks.

                  1. I’m so ready to be disappointed. Give me those motherfuckin’ elfstones so my kids can get the motherfuckin’ wishsong!

                    (also, I can’t wait until Stee Jans (Garret Jax?) is the baddest ass on TV!)

                  2. I was okay with his first book (and that’s it), even though it was a pretty big ripoff of Tolkien, but, then again, I was a kid. However, if they’re going to make something like this, I’d rather see Saberhagen’s Empire of the East (the predecessor book(s) to the Swords series).

                    1. I read Elfstones when I was 9. I am too wise now to reread it- it holds a special place in a 9 year old me.

                    2. Favreau @ 1:05: New Zealand establishes the world of the Shannara Chronicles in a way that separates from other genre tales…

                      Yeah Jon, sure, whatever….

                    3. He’s been busy for the last 15-20 years- so he’s missed out on a lot of the NZ thing.

                    4. I’d like to see the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant on a big screen or a series but I’m afraid it would get fucked up.

                    5. Thomas Covenant would be really hard to do.

                      I go through those books with a love/hate for the man that would be really hard to carry to different media.

                    6. Look, if you’re ripping off Tolkien, go all the way.

                    7. Hard books to find (well easier thanks to Amazon these days). Why not just go straight to Swords? Better yet, The Black Company original trilogy.

                    8. I really like the Empire of the East. Start there, then go to Swords. There are only like twenty books.

                  3. Which series is this mirrored after?

                    1. P.S. if you’re gonna do a Terry Brooks series, I would have preferred Magic Kingdom For Sale Sold!

                    2. To Kill a Mockingbird.

                      Okay, maybe The Sword of Shannara.

                  4. Here’s hoping they don’t fuck it up as much as ABC fucked up Wizard’s First Rule (aka the shitfest known as “The Seeker”).

                    (Yes I know Terry Brooks is not Terry Goodkind.)

                    1. I am the only person I know in real life that has ever watched The Seeker.

          2. Irish, I think a lot of them don’t see another choice. Most of the GOP has sided with the dems on this issue. Who else is making any play for the anti open borders crowd?

            1. Cruz, Rubio, and Walker don’t count?

              1. Rubio has always been an amnesty guy who is pretending otherwise now for votes. Walker and Cruz are more likely to actually believe it.

              2. I think the people who believe border security is a top priority are in the same situation as people who want to shrink the size and scope of government. They’ve voted for candidates that gave vague lip service to the idea then did jack shit once in office. They want someone who at least sounds like they mean it even if that person comes off like an ass sometimes.

                1. I think people who believe border security is a top priority are the same people who get upset when they’re stopped by an immigration checkpoint.

                  And are the people who would be *flabbergasted* when the government finally ‘takes it seriously’ and there’s a wall, manned, armed, with shoot to kill orders for anyone approaching from either side, ED’d in place by stealing land from anyone who owns property on the border. And the backed up with internal passports, national ID, and mandatory present laws for that ID.

                  Because the only way to stop illegal border crossing is to either go the above route or remove the incentives for crossing the border illegally.

                  *None* of those guys, however, ever seem willing to countenance simply increasing the numbers of unskilled work visas and temporary residency permits to something approaching the actual number of people wanting to come work.

                  They’d rather have the wall and all that comes with it to ‘preserve ar jerbs’.

                  1. “They’d rather have the wall and all that comes with it to ‘preserve ar jerbs’.”

                    I always detest the cheap emotionally laden debate tactic of pretending the other side of a debate is an ignorant parochial not worthy of respect.

                    But maybe you didn’t mean it that way.

                  2. Because, of course, the only reason ppl oppose illegal immigration is out of economic illiteracy. Respect for the rule of law or concerns about importing millions of Catholics or concerns about assimilation are just some type of smokescreen…

            2. Most of the GOP has sided with the dems on this issue.

              Except they haven’t. Which Republicans are proposing actual amnesty, which is what Hillary wants?

              1. Shall I get you the list of who the CoC has donated too?

                But it was inaccurate of me to say most. Just most of the leadership.

                1. Does a list of who they donated to tell me whether those candidates favor a “path to citizenship”?

          3. I think he meant, ‘papists’, though that’s probably just as bad….

      3. Well, them racist Messkins opposed open borders back in the 1800’s (didn’t like free men bringing their lawfully-owned Negroes into the area) so we had to smack them around some. Now them brown bastards have the nerve to try moving back into lands what we lawfully stoled from them? Close the border!

        1. Is it really theft if you fight a war and lose?

          I mean, as long as you didn’t lose asymmetrically.

          1. And we fucking paid them after they lost the fucking war! $15 million, plus the US assumed the $3.25 million in debt owed by the Mexican govt to US citizens. In addition, the US paid a further $10 million for the Gadsden purchase which got us the southern parts of AZ and NM. Over $770 million in today’s dollars.

        2. @Jerryskids – You’re full of shit, dude. The Texas war for independence from Mexico had nothing to do with slavery. The reason for it was more like the Mexican government’s – and its dictator, Santa Anna – reneging on the Mexican constitution of 1824. And for your information, Texas was not the only Mexican province in open rebellion over that – it just happened to be the only one lucky enough to win its independence.

    2. How do you reconcile brown people who don’t want illegal immigration? Or even legal immigrants who don’t want illegal immigration? Are they racists too? Or maybe self-loathing?

      1. The Marxists have it covered.

        “False Consciousness”

        1. The Libertarians have it covered.

          “False Consciousness”

          FTFY

          sadly.

  3. Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump…

    Sheesh – you’d think he was wearing a Confederate Flag toupe’ or something…

    1. That’s a lot of Trumps.

    2. should i sing that to the tune of Monty Python’s spammity spam song?

      1. I was thinking more like “Shots” by Lil Jon and LMFAO

      2. I DID THAT JOKE YESTERDAY YOU MOTHERFUCKER

        1. CALLED OUT!

    3. I fold.

      1. Which game has trumps and folding?

        1. Trumpfold! For kids from 8 to 80!

    4. (Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump…) * 2 !!! I Trump yer Trump, twice over!

      1. Actually, fuck that anyways… I prefer strumpets over Trump-ettes, all day, every day!!!

    5. I like how reason had to squeeze another Trump post out of a Johnson interview which is probably mostly about other things.

  4. Okay, so this is unrelated but I’ve sent Reason about fifty “tips” regarding a thrash metal band from Denver called HAVOK. These guys are the real-deal libertarian metal heads.

    Reason, you need to interview these guys! I’ve seen them live a bunch and always chat up the drummer, Pete Webber. All of’em are class acts and when you’re a big fan of these smaller bands it means a lot to them when you buy a hoodie and get’em some drinks. FFS, the last time I saw Warbringer the lead singer was eating Jimmy John’s at the end of the bar before the show started.

    Anywho, everyone watch this video of a l’il number called “GIVE ME LIBERTY… OR GIVE ME DEATH!” and tell Reason to get off their asses and start pimpin’ a little HAVOK. We’re always talking about how we get pummeled in culture wars. Well, we’ve got Vince Vaughn and now we’ve got Havok. Give’em some goddam press already!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OGTvIeiYjg

    1. FWIW, they only came out as libertarians on their latest album. Most of their lyrics are still about nuclear holocaust and digging up corpses and stuff but the above song and “I Am the State” are their serious libertarian songs.

    2. Are hipsters into thrash?

      1. No, hipsters don’t listen to trve kvlt metal. They listen to weird shit like Animals As Leaders and Deafheaven. It’s kinda like that episode of South Park where Cartman uses Slayer’s “Raining Blood” to chase all of the hippies out of town. Metal has the same effect on hipsters.

        1. Wait until those little Eichmanns get a taste of this crunchy groove!

        2. I’ve been using the entire Reign In Blood album for a similar effect for two decades. I should sue Parker and Stone.

    3. I liked that song the first time I heard it, when Metallica recorded it over 25 years ago as “Eye of the Beholder.”

      Just teasing. It was decent.

      1. Yeah, their latest album with the libertarian theme was, unfortunately, probably their weakest to date. Their second album is easily their illest, called “Time Is Up.”

        My personal favorite Havok tune: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiD34wTfLJA

        I don’t listen to a ton of thrash anymore, mostly stick to death, but I make an exception for Havok.

        1. The problem with ‘libertarian music’ is that we don’t have pent up anger over our parents being successful and giving us a solid middle class upbringing.

          1. So libertarians all come from the same socio-economic background?

            I might see a problem here.

    4. *You* interview them and then ship the interview over to Reason to see if they bite. And if not, ship it out to some other places.

      Reason’s got limited resources and can’t chase down every tip a commenter sends in.

      Do a good article and they might even be willing to toss some cash on the nightstand as they leave.

  5. Trump is Hillary’s stalking horse for derailing the GOP’s momentum.

    1. Was there any GOP momentum prior to Trump?

      1. Relative to Hillary, mired in her many scandals? Considerable.

        1. Really? Her many scandals seemed to be brushed off rather handily. I thought it was because, well, she’s Hillary.

          Maybe there are some polls out there demonstrating GOP candidates steadily gaining points when matched with Hillary though.

          1. She had to reboot her campaign for a third time before it took. Despite her considerable warchest and aura of inevitability, she inspired two serious contenders to oppose her in the primary. And despite a sympathetic media, her baggage is getting play. Meanwhile, the GOP is fielding a huge selection of interesting and diverse candidates, many of whom we hate but most of whom, excepting Graham, we’d prefer to eight years of Hillary. And then along comes Trump, who proceeds to take all the air out of the room.

            1. “Meanwhile, the GOP is fielding a huge selection of interesting and diverse candidates, many of whom we hate but most of whom, excepting Graham, we’d prefer to eight years of Hillary. And then along comes Trump, who proceeds to take all the air out of the room.”

              I think the large GOP field alone is reason to doubt any GOP momentum. If there were only, say, four candidates voters could at least form an opinion on them.

              However, just looking at the last 6 months on RCP, a couple GOP candidates were indeed rising closer to Hillary.

              (If I were in charge of this conspiracy, I wouldn’t haved pulled the Trump Card until much later.)

            2. “excepting Graham”

              Also Christie, Santorum, Huckabee, and Rubio

              1. I find most of the Republican bench execrable, repugnant little shitheels, but nobody (besides Graham and maybe Huckabee) I wouldn’t prefer over the final dissolution of American liberal democracy under Clinton. Her stewardship would be toxic and perhaps irremediable, the final triumph of identity politics over reality. Obama was horrendous for race relations, but mostly served as a prop for long-entrenched race hucksters. Clinton will be disastrous for everyone.

          2. Actually, I don’t think she’s doing anything effective at all. People like to credit her for laying low and waiting it out, etc., but she’s been making mistake after mistake for well over a year, on top of her incompetence in office, obvious personal corruption, and the cargo container full of baggage from before. Are you getting out of bed to vote for this awful, awful person?

            1. “Actually, I don’t think she’s doing anything effective at all. People like to credit her for laying low and waiting it out, etc., but she’s been making mistake after mistake for well over a year, on top of her incompetence in office, obvious personal corruption, and the cargo container full of baggage from before. Are you getting out of bed to vote for this awful, awful person?”

              If she was of the opposite party we wouldn’t even remember her at this point, let alone have her leading the polls.

              1. It’s still early. I’m not even sure she’ll win the nomination, despite the small and weird field.

                1. “It’s still early. I’m not even sure she’ll win the nomination, despite the small and weird field.”

                  Of course, and here’s hoping some sort of meteorite strikes the debates.

                  Just the fact that she’s a contender who isn’t laughed out of the room makes me think lovingly about having a monarch.

                  1. What we should fear is someone like that who is competent. Even her husband wasn’t really great at it, because we knew too much. A competent scumbag won’t rub it in your face while clawing for power.

                    Most of us reject Obama, though many won’t admit it because of identity politics, because he’s too flagrantly tyrannical, at least as far as U.S. politics go. Someone more subtle, paying lip-service to limited government and moderate policies, could get away with a great deal. Like a modern Augustus.

                    1. “What we should fear is someone like that who is competent. Even her husband wasn’t really great at it, because we knew too much. A competent scumbag won’t rub it in your face while clawing for power.”

                      You got me there. One thing I never worry about is someone competent being elected.

                  2. “Having a monarch” means the current monarch gets another term.

                    I’d rather bring on Hillary and let it all burn.

                    1. He’s not a monarch prospect. We’d revolt if any attempted anything like that. Someone more savvy, more charismatic? I don’t know. A lot of the foundation for an open tyranny has been laid.

                    2. “Having a monarch” means the current monarch gets another term.”

                      Having a monarch leaves it up to genetic lottery, I’d prefer that over a system that attracts the power hungry.

                      “I’d rather bring on Hillary and let it all burn.”

                      That’s an attractive position, but I don’t expect to live long enough to see anything rise from the ashes.

                    3. I wouldn’t expect to outlive the ashes either…

                      But I’m mounting a multi-spear-gun in my Ranchero, hoarding gas and bullets and following my libertarian overlords out into the wasteland.

      2. Hillary’s approval rating *was* falling precipitously all Spring.

        So, there’s that.

        I think the Trump-As-Democrat-Mole-Conspiracy-Theory…

        (*where the IRS has the goods on him, and he’s been told to go Full-Metal-BorderHawk and WomenWar as hard as he can until the Republican brand is so stanky that GOP women just can’t take it anymore)

        …. is actually more plausible than it might appear on the surface.

        1. You’d think she wouldn’t have capitulated so quickly on Sanctuary Cities if it’s a big conspiracy.

          Unless it’s an incredibly elaborate one.

          1. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

            1. Right, simple stupidity is the safer bet.

              An elaborate conspiracy is just something I can dream of.

        2. That said = ‘Party of Stupid’ also needs to maintain its rep.

        3. I think you are right. Since when did Trump ever give a shit about immigration? I don’t recall him making an issue of it when he ran in 2012? Trump is a con man. He doesn’t do anything that doesn’t benefit Donald Trump. He is not the kind of person who tilts at windmills pursuing his principles. He has no principles. So you have to ask yourself, what is in this for the Donald? And I can’t see much of anything unless he is a Hillary mole.

          1. Please tell me you guys are goofing around here. Please. Elaborate conspiracy theories that would require exquisite planning, orchestration, and acting? From people so fucking incompetent they have to have the media cover for them so they don’t go to jail or who have lost billions of dollars? These are the people that you believe are doing some massive false flag operation just to fool you?

            I’ve got some Seroquel over here for you guys!

            1. “Elaborate conspiracy theories that would require exquisite planning, orchestration, and acting?”

              This is how you’d characterize “Donald Trump saying lots of dumb inflammatory shit”, which will help him sell his next book?

              Sophistimicated indeed. Why, if only Lois Lerner and her cohorts were that slick.

            2. I am mostly kidding. Trump is an attention whore and this is the best way to get attention. That being said, putting a third party to attract the votes of stupid people is the Clintons’ move. It is how Bill got elected twice. I don’t think it is unthinkable Hillary wouldn’t do the same thing.

              1. “putting a third party to attract the votes of stupid people is the Clintons’ move. It is how Bill got elected twice”

                I stand by my belief that Ross Perot was America’s greatest hope

                1. All Trump needs is a giant sucking sound.

            3. Is this really that elaborate. Some people believe in ghosts. I choose to live in the world where nutcases like John are right about everything. It’s more fun this way.

              1. Waffles, which part of “I was kidding” did you not understand? Sadly, I am forced to live in a world where stupid people like you exist.

                1. Refresh is a thing. I can be kidding too you know. More to my point is that it’s better for me psychologically to entertain thoughts of an organized system than the chaos that is probably closer to reality.

                  1. My apologies for not picking that up. Sorry about that. Seriously.,

                    And yeah, the world is more interesting that way. And sometimes the conspiracy theories are true. Five years ago when people started claiming the IRS was going after Tea Party groups, they were dismissed as nuts and conspiracy theorists.

        4. For the record, I don’t actually believe Trump is Clinton’s puppet. But whether he thinks so or not, he’s stumping for the Dems.

        5. Trump has contributed $ to Hillary and has said nice things about her. Hillary was at Trump’s wedding. Trump was for amnesty 15 years ago.
          I think there may be something to this.

      3. It’s over a year until the primary. The momentum won’t start for another six months. I don’t know why candidates insist on campaigning this early, except to raise money.

        1. Money. For themselves. It clearly pays somehow, because there have been candidates who had no business running, otherwise. There are now.

  6. I can’t wait for the last trump…

    the last Trump article, I mean.

    1. After 37 years in office, the last 13 done by his hair piece, Donald Trump steps down as President

      1. Flies away in Marine One as the country files bankruptcy

  7. “I’m going to take the rhetorical high road, unlike those Racists and Masturbators”

  8. I don’t know if it’s racist as much as believing things that just aren’t true. If you really believe that illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime, and have the economically ignorant belief that they “take our jobs,” then is it really racist to want to kick them out of the country? Neither of those things are true, but you hear them blasted on right-wing radio all the time. The talk shows do it for ratings, but many of their listeners really believe them. Is that racist?

    1. There is also a basic law-and-order crowd issue at-play here – why do laws/rules apply some places, for certain people, and not others. Acknowledging or challenging capricious application of the law doesn’t make someone ignorant or racist.

      1. Howie Carr: “I don’t want special treatment, just treat me like an illegal alien!”

    2. If you hold the easily disproven view that people of a certain ethnicity are pretty much all doing terrible things, that your default assumption should be that they are terrible people who do terrible things, despite you not knowing them personally — you are literally prejudging them — you are literally prejudiced — which pretty much equates to racist when prejudging someone based on ethnicity.

      Next question?

      1. It’s not simply people of a certain ethnicity. It’s people of a certain ethnicity who are in the country illegally. I don’t hear Howie Carr bash everyone of Mexican descent. Just illegals.

        1. If you assume, without evidence, that people in the country of a certain ethnicity who have not obtained a government permission slip are doing terrible things; while also assuming without evidence that people in the country of different ethnicities than the ones above, who also have not obtained a government permission slip, are not doing terrible things —

          still racist.

          1. The evidence is that they broke the law to get into the country, and from there it isn’t unreasonable to assume that they don’t respect other laws.

            I think the reason why Hispanics get dumped on is that they represent the largest proportion of illegals. I know Howie Carr will dump on any illegal, regardless of their ethnicity. Like the Tsarnaev family for example.

          2. It’s the same logic used to assume drug users are all criminals. They break the law when they use drugs, so that means they don’t respect laws against murder and rape. I don’t subscribe to that logic, but I can see it.

          3. Funny, that, as the demographic most vocally pissed-off at illegals in my southern Texas county of record is Hispanics. Someone must do something about the racisms.

            1. Part of it is probably that people who got fucked by rules have a hearty dislike for people who fucked the rules and reaped the rewards. But I think large part is that they are about the only demographic who can loudly complain without being called racist.

              For now.

              Also “Hispanics” is not really a thing – ask Mexican about Guatemalans, or Peruvian about Mexicans (this one is personal experience) and you may get an earful.

              1. His?pan?ic
                hi?spanik/
                adjective
                adjective: Hispanic

                1.
                of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, especially those of Latin America.
                of or relating to Spanish-speaking people or their culture, especially in the US.

                noun
                noun: Hispanic; plural noun: Hispanics

                1.
                a Spanish-speaking person living in the US, especially one of Latin American descent.

                1. Right, but it’s as useful as treating all “whites” or, worse yet, “Asians” as a blob. Because there’s less similarity between someone born in China and someone born in Iran than between an Iranian and a Greek. It’s meaningless to people thus described.

                  1. Yes, I understand that individuals are individuals. Though sometimes those individuals share a common language and/or culture, and it’s helpful to have a word to describe that when you are talking about groups of people. I think it would become tiresome to, when talking about many people, to have to talk about each one individually. Words have uses you know.

                    1. But that’s my point – “Hispanics” is exactly wrong way to talk about culture, just like “Asian”. Difference between Arab societies Southeast Asian societies are far greater than similarities, so it’s dumb to use catchword “Asian” to describe them. Likewise treating Argentinians and Mexicans as more similar (Hispanic) than Argentinians and Brazilians. You can lump them all together if they are, say, 5% of your population, or 95% of that population comes from a single-ish culture (e.g. Mexicans). Once you have large numbers of people from disparate countries, it becomes a hindrance to understanding. Particularly when the cultures you are trying to shove into the same box actually dislike each other immensely. The way “Asian” is used in UK really pisses off Indians, for example.

                    2. The term Asian generally describes a geographical place of origin, while Hispanic generally describes a common language.

                      I agree that the terms aren’t very useful beyond that, but they do mean something.

    3. I agree it isn’t inherently racist. I also agree that the terms “racist” and “homophobic” have been overused by some for political purposes. People arguing against these things could convince more people if they, as you have done, simply pointed out facts. But then we can’t have a proper political campaign without demagoguery can we?

  9. I see the Lightbringer is about to unleash an avalanche of bullshit in defense of his historic fuck-up.
    Watching a delusional idiot defend the indefensible can be entertaining, I suppose.

    I wish it were being released in print. I can’t stand the sound of that fucker’s voice.

    1. “Watching a delusional idiot defend the indefensible can be entertaining, I suppose.

      I wish it were being released in print. I can’t stand the sound of that fucker’s voice.”

      I’m sure Sheldon Richman will take care of that shortly.

    2. I heard part of his speech on the radio at work. He actually said that he just prevented Iran from getting nukes.

  10. Until Gary Johnson sucks a Mexican’s dick on live television, i am going to assume he’s also a racist homophobe and he’s just trying to pass the buck.

    1. Yeah. I see no evidence that Johnson has proven himself sufficiently gay affirming to have any moral standing on this or any other issue.

      1. WOW….you guys are so strict!

        1. It’s purity tests all the way down.

        2. When we say “Mexicans, pot, and ass sex” we’re not fucking around.

          1. Does it have to be all three at the same time or can you spread it out to different days?

            1. If you want to call yourself a TrueLibertarian? you’re gonna have to have a little of each every single day.

          2. That’s cause you’re all talk and no action.

            1. Funny, your mom disagrees.

  11. OT: Reading this made me sigh, wistfully…[Emphasis added]

    The Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation is a non-profit think-tank, established in 1993
    to look at future developments in the international financial field ? particularly from the point of
    view of practitioners. Its goals include identifying new areas of business, flagging areas of danger
    and provoking a debate about key financial issues. The Centre has no ideological brief, beyond a belief in open markets.

  12. To the extent there is racism against Hispanics, maybe the media and the entire political establishment making it clear the law doesn’t apply to them and they are a special class of people entitled to special treatment has something to do with that? Perhaps also the major media’s complete unwillingness to even talk about any downsides to completely open borders has created some resentment. I mean the fact that the same media that makes cases like Trayvon Martin into national stories but won’t even touch the various murders committed by illegal immigrants might cause some people to feel some resentment towards Latin Americans.

    The proponents of open borders refuse to have an honest conversation about the subject and are bent on shoving the policy down the country’s throat by any means necessary. Telling people they don’t matter and to go fuck themselves because this other special group is the future and the only ones who matter amazingly enough will often have the effect of creating a lot of resentment.

    1. I largely agree with you, though it doesn’t justify the paranoid behavior I’ve seen from conservatives regarding the Inrushing Brown Scourge.

      It’s similar to how the National Front’s rise in France has been driven almost in its entirety by the fact that the media and political parties in France refuse to acknowledge that there might be some issues with massive immigration from the Middle East and North Africa.

      1. It all feeds on itself. The progs have been running around for years bragging about how Hispanics are going to take over the country and ensure the nasty white people won’t have any political power. That is of course exactly the same thing the hard core xenophobes are saying. Yet, it is evil and racist when they say it but somehow smart and politically astute when the Progs say it.

      2. Irish, I think the reason they are paranoid is that the “rank-and-file” type repubs are more likely to be affected by the Brown Scourge.

        Me, not so much – my threat is more likely to come from H1B holders.

        But in areas where there’s a ton of hispanic immigration (e.g. southern california) a lot of republicans with good paying low skill jobs (construction, etc.) found themselves with a lot of new competition that would work at wages below what they were accustomed to.

        That’s where the rift is with immigration. non-college educated republicans, democrats vs. educated ones.

        The Brown Scourge aren’t taking MY job, but they are squeezing white, brown and black workers at the lower end of the income scale.

        1. Their kids also strain the public school system – are treated special with segregated esl classes, which leads to type of resentment that John notes above. And they are agitated to maintain a separate ‘Mexican’ identity by community organizer types.

  13. Oh please, let’s not have libertarians join the “everything is racist” bandwagon. Pointing out that many illegals are violent criminals is not racist, it’s just the truth. This is as much a simple-minded guilt by association charge as saying that Obama “appealed to Communist voters.”

    1. Pointing out that many illegals are violent criminals is not racist, it’s just the truth.

      But are they violent criminals in a greater proportion to the rest of the population?

      I don’t know the answer. I don’t know how anyone could, being that they’re here illegally and we don’t know how many there are.

      In my personal experience living in Colorado, I knew quite a few Mexicans who I suspected were here illegally. The ones I worked with were some of the hardest workers I’ve ever seen. The rest were drug dealers.

      1. I don’t think it matters. The point is that if the federal government would do its job and secure the border, a lot of dangerous people wouldn’t be in the country. What percentage of illegal immigrants are dangerous really says nothing about that point one way or another.

        1. Actually, if the illegal immigrants were harder working and less dangerous on average than the rest of the populace, then creating even more of a police state on the borders would have the effect of increasing the percentage of dangerous people in this country. Which, if you are taking the utilitarian approach you advocate, rather than the moral approach I take that denying peaceable people the freedom to move to wherever they please, seems relevant.

          1. Yes but that doesn’t mean it would make the country more dangerous. How dangerous the country is is a function of how many dangerous people are in it not the percentage of dangerous people. Reducing the number of dangerous people would necessarily reduce the number of crimes and make the country safer.

            If the price of sending a murder back to Mexico is deporting ten people who are not, the country is still safer for doing so because it has one less murder.

            1. Modified John:

              If the price of sending a negro to Liberia is deporting ten other people who are not negroes, the country is still whiter for doing so because it has one less negro.

              And to hell with the injustice to the other 10

              1. Yes Igor, if you assume the border is entirely illegitimate and the Mexican has just as much right to cross it as the native born black person in 1865 had to remain ni America, your analogy is spot on.

                You give an example of why the immigration threads are almost always pointless. The two sides just talk past each other. The open borders side refuses to recognize any legitimacy in borders at all and endlessly make the analogy you just made like it means anything to someone who believes borders are legitimate.

                You don’t think borders are legitimate. I do. We are making different assumptions. So do yourself a favor and stop wasting your time screaming racist and making stupid analogies that just beg the deeper question.

                1. No, I think that the concept of a border is a very legitimate (and essential) thing, but the practicalities of maintaining a physical barrier are such that at best, you’ll have uneven application of the law. And really, a border is a physical manifestation of the concept of Rule of Law.

                  Justice has no meaning if you are prepared to abrogate the rights of 10 in order to remove 1 undesirable from society. The reason I re-quoted you, edited, was to demonstrate that in spirit, there’s no difference between what you put, and what I put.

                  What I seek is a way to make a physical border unnecessary, by proposing that we eliminate the incentives that bring such high levels of immigration. There’s no justice in permitting an immigrant to enter the country illegally, tolerating his presence long enough that he builds a new life in America, and then deporting him,

                  There’s a personal angle to this. I’m a legal immigrant, in order to create a better life, I had to work damned hard and jump thru’ a lot of hoops to get to this point. If I’d been smart, I would have come across the border in California.

                  1. ustice has no meaning if you are prepared to abrogate the rights of 10 in order to remove 1 undesirable from society.

                    Sure, ASSUMING THAT THE 10 HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO BEGIN WITH. You assume those ten have a right to be here and thus deporting them is a violation of those rights. I don’t assume that. I don’t think they have any right to be here and therefore don’t consider deporting them to be a violation of their rights.

                    Both of us are making logical claims. We just start from assumptions that are diametrically opposed.

                    1. Only Americans have inalienable rights?

                      Keep digging, John.

                    2. Only Americans have inalienable rights?

                      They are the only ones who have the right to live here yes. Do foreigners have rights too? Sure. They just don’t have the right to stay and thus can’t claim their rights are violated when they are deported.

                      Again, you think everyone has a right to live here if they want. I don’t. You can’t reconcile our two positions.

                    3. Of course it’s reconcilable. One way is to make it easier to immigrate legally. Another is to dissuade immigration by eliminating many of the incentives.

                      What is not moral is to apply the law unevenly, deporting some illegals, and allowing other to say, based on arbitrary rules applied by local government. If laws aren’t applied consistently, respect for those laws will diminish. Indeed, I’d say that in the case of our current immigrant amnesties/leniency, the law means nothing.

                      Why is this so? Because much as some people might wish it was not so, the laws as they stand are unenforceable. King Knut demonstrated how foolish it is, even as an absolute monarch, to command the uncommandable. And that’s what our southern border immigration situation is.

                    4. It’s a set of unenforceable laws that are applied on a capricious and patchy manner. Admittedly, it’s no different from most of the other laws we labor under, but ultimately, that’s the reason YOU have to resort to rounding up a bunch of suspects – including some people who are (aside from their illegal status within the US) .. innocent.

                      Ah, well, they’re all criminals really, because they’re illegals! Yes, true. Now go deport some people who have been here 10 years, and have a family (and any children born here will, necessarily, be US Citizens) and property in the US and have committed no *other* crimes than crossing a line in the sand.You really want to go there?

                      I don’t like the situation. It’s the result of politicians being politicians. But I’m not so deluded to believe that a draconian knee-jerk simplistic approach is workable.

                    5. What is not moral is to apply the law unevenly, deporting some illegals, and allowing other to say, based on arbitrary rules applied by local government

                      Perhaps but that just means get the cities to enforce the law. It doesn’t mean not enforce it at all. And to the extent you don’t deport every illegal because you can’t catch them all that doesn’t make your enforcement immoral anymore than the failure to successfully prosecute any other crime does.

                    6. OK John, let’s go slow here. On your principles, it’s got to be a good idea to go after ‘easy’ deportations first. If this is so, then you’re talking sanctuary cities, because they’re chock-full of candidates for deportation. How do you encourage a sanctuary city to observe the law?

                      Try and avoid a prescription that imvolves physical coercion or actions which penalize the legal population of those cities.

                    7. How do you encourage a sanctuary city to observe the law?

                      Withdrawal of federal funds would probably do that.

                  2. Well, of course if Mexico was a better place, there’d be less incentive to immigrate, legally or illegally.
                    I had high hopes for Vincente Fox and Calderon.
                    But Mexico remains corrupt, largely due to the gangs. And why do the gangs have money, guns, and power? Because of the war on drugs.
                    So, like usual, the US government caused a problem, and now needs to be even larger and more powerful to fix that problem.

            2. I’d say that a country that implemented the sort of total police state needed to prevent any immigrants from entering would become far more dangerous than the partial police state we have now.

              But then, I feel the various levels of government are far more likely to rob me and do nasty things to me than illegal immigrants. In fact, there is a 100% probability that said governments are gonna either steal half of what I earn or throw me in a cage if I refuse that theft.

              1. I’d say that a country that implemented the sort of total police state needed to prevent any immigrants from entering would become far more dangerous than the partial police state we have now.

                We obviously need more border patrol checkpoints. I know I would feel better.

              2. I’d say that a country that implemented the sort of total police state needed to prevent any immigrants from entering would become far more dangerous than the partial police state we have now.

                You don’t need a police state. That is bullshit. Just because you can’t get all of them doesn’t mean it is not worth it to get some of them. This is not the drug war here. They have no right to be here and the US has no obligation to let them in. You don’t agree and that is of course your right. But that is because you don’t recognize borders. I and most of the rest of the world, including your beloved Hispanics do. They don’t recognize our border but they sure as hell recognize the ones back home. They are happy to come here but would never want you coming down there.

                1. Your prescription sounds awfully like “Round up the usual suspects”

              3. I’d say that a country that implemented the sort of total police state needed to prevent any immigrants from entering would become far more dangerous than the partial police state we have now.

                Oddly, we managed to enforce our borders just fine when we were less of a police state than we are now. See “The Eisenhower Administration”.

            3. If the price of sending a murder back to Mexico is deporting ten people who are not, the country is still safer for doing so because it has one less murder.

              Good job holding the group accountable for the individual there John.

              1. Good job holding the group accountable for the individual there John.

                See my comment to Igor above. They have no right to be here. You just assume they do and argue from that assumption and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being racists. No race has nothing to do with it. The legitimacy of borders is the question.

                1. See my comment to Igor above. They have no right to be here.

                  Actually, under the moral principle of self-ownership, they have the right to be anywhere they want to, so long as they aren’t harming others.

                  1. Actually, under the moral principle of self-ownership, they have the right to be anywhere they want to, so long as they aren’t harming others.

                    You don’t recognize borders. I do. Their self ownership has nothing to do with it. What matters is the country’s ownership of its own land. They don’t have a right to come on your property do they? And if a group of people got together and formed a private club and said only members could come into the area of land they owned, they would be okay too right? They wouldn’t have a right to trespass would they? Well, that is all a nation state is. A collection of land owners who formed an organization that gets to make the rules on their land.

                    1. What matters is the country’s ownership of its own land. They don’t have a right to come on your property do they?

                      The country, by your logic, de facto owns ALL the land, since they are claiming the right to decide for me who enters my property.

                      If the U.S. were to sell off virtually all of its landholdings, would you be OK with them disbanding the INS and letting the actual landowners decide who they will permit to enter? No? Then they are claiming one of the ownership rights of my private property.

                    2. The country, by your logic, de facto owns ALL the land, since they are claiming the right to decide for me who enters my property.

                      To the extent they control the border, yes. Let me ask you again, you and ten other people buy a block of land and form a private club. You vote on the club rules and agree that only members and their guests can come on the land. One of your fellow members invites me to come and hang out in his house in violation of the rules. Can you throw me out? It is his land isn’t it? But he also agreed with you and everyone else not to invite people in. You can throw me out can’t you?

                      If a club can do that so can a government. You may not like the rules but neither does the guy in my example. It is the nature of human interaction.

                      You can deny the government’s abiliy to make you live by the agreed upon rules but then you are just an anarchist. That is fine and all but again, I am not an anarchist.

                    3. The country, by your logic, de facto owns ALL the land, since they are claiming the right to decide for me who enters my property

                      Try not paying your rent (ie property taxes) and see who the real owner of ‘your’ land is.

                    4. Two bad assumptions there. The first, that you own the land exclusively, without qualification, in the same way you own your car. I suggest you read the deed to your property. Many of them reserve mineral rights, water rights, air rights, etc. More specifically, you own specific rights to your land.

                      Secondly, you also assume that because you own certain rights to the land, that precludes ownership of other rights to other parties, Again, not true. Other parties may own other rights to it, as example the previously mentioned mineral rights and water rights.

                      Your ownership of specific rights to a piece of property do not include legal and political sovereignty. Try telling a judge that you have the right to declare the age of consent to be eight years old on your property and see what that gets you. The government does indeed own political and legal sovereignty rights to your property, and all that that entails.

                    5. The country, by your logic, de facto owns ALL the land

                      Indeed… I will accept any illegal who pays my property tax bill this year.

                  2. I would say that consuming welfare, making the California drought worse, and making the U.S. more like Mexico in numerous ways counts as “harming others.”

                2. That wasn’t your statement though. You explicitly said the hazard of allowing a bad actor to remain justifies expelling the others. They may deserve to be deported because of their actions, which could include being here illegally, but that is not what you said originally.

                  1. That wasn’t your statement though. You explicitly said the hazard of allowing a bad actor to remain justifies expelling the others

                    Yes that is what I said. And the reason why that is okay in this case is because none of them have any right to be here. If instead of deporting illegals, you had to deport LPRs or natives, then the fact that you were punishing people who were otherwise law abiding would matter. But since illegals are breaking the law by being here and thus are subject to deportation regardless, saying “to get rid of the bad ones means deporting a bunch of not bad ones” doesn’t mean anything. So what? They all are here illegally and have no claim on staying.

                    1. But since illegals are breaking the law by being here and thus are subject to deportation regardless, saying “to get rid of the bad ones means deporting a bunch of not bad ones” doesn’t mean anything. So what? They all are here illegally and have no claim on staying.

                      Then you should have said deport them all because they are all here illegally. The actions of lone individuals do not justify how you should treat the rest. Your statement is at best a red herring.

              2. If the price of sending a murder back to Mexico is deporting ten people who are not, the country is still safer for doing so because it has one less murder.

                By this logic, if the price of sending one murderer back to Mexico was deporting everyone but John who was NOT a murderer, he would be safer, despite being surrounded entirely by murderers.

                I’m guessing statistics aren’t his strong point.

                1. Not is not Prolefeed. I am talking about deporting illegals. They have no right to be here and should be deported anyway. The fact that not all of them are murderers doesn’t give them any more right to brake the law and come here.

                  We know the party trick; assume borders are illegitimate and then make a bunch of conclusions based on that assumption and pretend that people who do think borders are legitimate must be racists and not believe in due process as a result. It doesn’t get any less tiresome or invalid just because you keep doing it.

          2. And of course by your logic, the solution to the crime problem is to just import a less criminal population. Why not just invite the entire country of Mexico in and let that high percentage of hard working law abiding Mexicans dilute all of our criminal natives?

            1. Why not just invite the entire country of Mexico in and let that high percentage of hard working law abiding Mexicans dilute all of our criminal natives?

              Unlike you, I don’t have a problem with letting anyone, anywhere, fleeing an oppressive government to cross an imaginary line in the sand to escape that oppressiveness.

              But then, if you saw my GF, you might finally grok why I don’t fear people with a skin melanin level that makes them darker than, say Interior Eggshell White paint.

              1. Yes, you don’t recognize nation states. I don’t know what to tell you other than I do. We are never going to resolve that conflict.

                1. Oh, I recognize that nation states exist. I also recognize that they are functionally equivalent to an exceptionally powerful mafia gang with great PR. That recognition makes me leery about letting them set themselves up as the equivalent of prison wardens guarding a really large prison, narrow but thousands of miles long.

                  1. That recognition makes me leery about letting them set themselves up as the equivalent of prison wardens guarding a really large prison, narrow but thousands of miles long.

                    Prisons keep people from leaving. The government has no right to stop you from leaving. That, however, does not mean everyone else has a right to come in.

          3. Actually, if the illegal immigrants were harder working and less dangerous on average than the rest of the populace,

            Comments like this are common and somehow not called out as being inherently racist, which they are.

        2. Short of a Berlin Wall, how exactly can the border be secured?

          1. Just because something can’t be done perfectly doesn’t mean it can’t be done or shouldn’t be done at all. This is not an all or nothing proposition. Getting some of them is better than getting none of them.

            1. An better solution, in my mind, would be to make it easier to legally immigrate into the country. Or perhaps that in conjunction with better border enforcement.

              1. Large Gate, High Walls?

          2. Let’s not forget that the purpose of the Berlin Wall was to keep people *in*.

            Which it was apparently quite successful in doing, if at considerable cost.

            To secure the border with Mexico – not at all easy. The key is removing the financial incentives which encourage such high levels of illegal immigration.

            1. And abolish the laws abridging free association that inhabit society’s natural mechanisms for preserving local identity, law, and customs, if desired.

            2. Ending the WOD would go a long way towards changing the incentive to cross the border illegally.

              1. Ending the WOD would go a long way towards changing the incentive to cross the border illegally.

                And the cost of “defending” that border.

          3. Somehow they get close to 90% compliance on income taxes….

            But that’s because the government is HIGHLY INTERESTED in that.

        3. “…if the federal government would do its job and secure the border…”

          I am not sure that that is possible. I keep remembering footage of East Germans fleeing over the Berlin wall into West Germany running the gauntlet of machine guns and barbed wire.

          Our southern border is 2000 miles long and it apparently is riddled with tunnels.

          1. Is Mexico really so bad? I seem to recall the flood of immigration slowing down around 2009. Or is it a constant thing?

            1. Most of the immigrants now are not coming from Mexico. They are coming from Central America.

              1. Or to be precise, they are coming from Mexico (hence need to secure blah blah) but originate further south.

                The solution that someone like Trump should propose is, deport all illegal immigrants, but not to country of origin. Send them to Canada, much more pleasant, far less racist, socially conscious, multicultural country with huge land mass and 1/10th of US population. All problems solved!

                1. Cytotoxic (“No amount of immigration is ever bad”) approves.

                  1. It would be delicious to see. Canadian government was so sick of fake Mexican refugee claims they reintroduced visas for Mexicans seven years ago. Oddly enough, number of claims plummeted. Other than some whining in newspapers (and obviously Mexicans are profoundly displeased), no one gave a fuck.

        4. What percentage of illegal immigrants are dangerous really says nothing about that point one way or another.

          Sure it does! Hypothetically, what if there were only 40 violent criminal illegals in the entire country, and the rest were otherwise law-abiding people? Would that be worth spending $10B to put up a giant fence?

          I think it’s sitting in the middle. I bet there’s a statistical increase in violent crime in the illegal population, but that most crime by illegals is in the drug trade. I also think there’s a large group of illegals who are simply the poor who scraped up enough money to afford a guide to get them across the border. IIRC, the biggest group of illegals are people who overstay an expired visa. The border fence does nothing to fix that problem.

          I’m not saying that patching the biggest holes in a porous border isn’t a good idea, but the idea that we can somehow end illegal immigration by building a tall enough fence is naive.

      2. But were the drug dealers also working hard at their profession? If so, why are you saying that profession does not deserve your respect?

        1. I’m playing devil’s advocate here, not stating my personal opinion. Take a sedative.

        2. I didn’t follow the drug dealers around to see how hard they worked.

          derp

        3. Doing the jobs American drug dealers will not do.

          1. Dave’s not here, man…his dealer job got outsourced, man!

      3. The “it’s OK if the proportion of criminals is the same” is a poor argument. It’s like a police department that has (say) 5% corrupt and abusive cops saying that it’s OK that 5% of new hires are corrupt and abusive because the proportions are the same. The new hires should improve things.

        And as I believe Irish pointed out, Hispanics tend to commit more crimes than whites, but the even greater average criminality of blacks obscures that fact.

        1. I didn’t say “It’s OK if…” The outcry assumes that they commit a disproportional amount of crime. I question that assumption.

          1. They do commit a disproportionate amount of crime compared to whites.

      4. “The ones I worked with were some of the hardest workers I’ve ever seen. The rest were drug dealers.”

        Which is about what I’d expect – we’re disproportionately getting the tails of hard working but poor, and the criminal population as well.

        The criminals come because of the drug trade, because of the other illegal markets naturally arising from an illegal immigrant community that doesn’t have the same access to police and courts, and maybe because if you’re a crook there’s better pickings on this side of the border.

        The hard working but poor come to better their lives. The people with the will and the gumption to face the hardships and uncertainty of illegal immigration are likely the cream of their sub population as well.

      5. Here is a factoid that may help some understand the resentment many citizens feel towards illegals.

        My cop fishing buddy tells me that it is not unusual that when an illegal is involved in a car wreck the suffer no consequences other than the damage to their car.

        When you have a wreck with an illegal they have no drivers license. No license means no insurance. it is so common here in the Houston area that the PoPo don’t even bother to take the illegals to jail. They are allowed to walk.

        When a citizen get in a car wreck and has no license and no insurance they go to jail.

        Now that is a legitimate reason to feel resentment wouldn’t you say ?

        Another example is in state tuition. If my child wants to go to chool out of state they are normally forced to pay out of state tuition rates. But illegals, who are out of fucking country get in state tuition rates in many states today.

        That’s a legitimate reason to feel resentment as well.

        The pols, especially Democrats have made it preferable to be a non citizen in many ways by providing them special favors over citizens and that is definitely a reason to feel resentment towards the predominate identity group of that special class which here in Houston is Meskins, and Latin Americans, but most lump them under one heading of illegals. ( they were wetbacks when I was a kid.)

        1. “When you have a wreck with an illegal they have no drivers license. No license means no insurance. it is so common here in the Houston area that the PoPo don’t even bother to take the illegals to jail. They are allowed to walk.”

          This happened to me in Los Angeles. I had no recourse, and had to claim the accident (which was not my fault) on my insurance, which caused my rates to increase, and led them to eventually drop me from coverage.

          When it first happened, they offered me $50. I should’ve taken it. I was stupid for not realizing how it would all play out.

    2. Lets apply this logic to Reason’s treatment of cops. Reason just harps on the wrong doing of a few cops because it is just bigoted against all cops. That is basically what the cop defenders do and reason doesn’t like it one bit and nor should they. And nor should they resort to the same tactics here.

      1. cops = illegal immigrants. got it

        1. I have little doubt that many illegals are far better shots.

    3. “PapayaSF|2015/07/15 13:20:09|#5442319~new~

      Oh please, let’s not have libertarians join the “everything is racist” bandwagon.

      (Hands Papaya his red letter-R, gestures to him where on his sleeve it should be worn)

      1. It’s amazing what counts as “racism” these days. A few years ago some white tourist was murdered by two black teens. The Facebook comments included how “senseless” and “inexplicable” it was. I said it might not be “inexplicable,” because the teens were wannabe gangsters and rappers, and it wasn’t unknown for such people to commit a random violent crime for “street creed.” That got me defriended for “racism.”

        1. It’s OK for blacks to hate whites. Four hundred years of oppression and all that. Questioning that hatred is racist.

        2. creed cred

        3. Racism requires power, duh. And clearly an unarmed white tourist has more than two armed black teens!

          1. What’s really scary are the three-armed ones.

  14. Good fuckin’ grief.

    Fox News anchor is ruminating over whether or not Iran can be trusted.

    1. The Iranians are incapable of telling the truth.

    2. Not only do they consider it acceptable to break deals with infidels, they are expected to do so.

    1. And the Iranians have nothing whatsoever to lose. If they get a bomb, they immediately become the dominant regional power by a wide margin because no one will fuck with them.

    2. Point number two is not that far off from the truth. There are some places, Iran and Russia to name two, where lying to and stealing from foreigners is considered perfectly moral.

      1. wow.

        I’m sure there’s so much personal experience in diplomacy in this conversation that I don’t even have to ask what this is based off of…

        1. Spain is also pretty fucked in that regard. Based on my experiences in Barcelona, I can conclude that Spain has more pick pockets per capita than any other country on Earth.

          1. So have we moved into anyone with a darker than milk natural skin tone?

            Anything about the I-talians? Greeks? Asians?

            1. I don’t know why you’re being so hostile. Here’s an article specifically dealing with the problem of Barcelona pickpockets.

              They’re known for their pickpockets and anyone who has been there can attest to that.

              1. It just seemed as if the spain comment was unrelated to anything about iran…

                1. It just seemed as if the spain comment was unrelated to anything about iran…

                  Well, except for the fact that it plays off of John’s comment that ” There are some places, Iran and Russia to name two, where lying to and stealing from foreigners is considered perfectly moral.”

                2. The Spanish are pretty white, dude.

            2. Well, the Greeks have OBVIOUSLY been picking Germany’s pockets over and over again…

            3. Don’t get me started on the Koreans.

        2. I have not personally been to Russia but know a whole lot of people who have been including several people who are married to Russians. And all of them say that if you go to Russia as a foreigner you can expect to be ripped off if you are not with a native. Russians have a long history of happily stealing from foreigners.

          While I haven’t been to Iran, I have been to Iraq and the Gulf and have found the same thing and am told Iranians are no different. It is not something that is uncommon. At a smaller level, it is called ripping off tourists.

          1. You know who else rips off tourists? EVERYONE in a tourist area.

            Also, please, can we agree to stop using anecdotes and wives of friends as data sources?

            1. Since when is anecdotal evidence not evidence? If you have evidence that says otherwise, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, the experience and opinion of multiple people who have traveled in and lived in a place counts as fairly good evidence to me.

              If ten different people who didn’t know each other told you some city was a lousy place to visit, you would just dismiss that as anecdote? I wouldn’t.

              1. Yes. I would. And I would have a lovely time in said city because people, in general, are wrong an awful lot.

                Anecdotes are not evidence- they are stories.

                1. Anecdotes are data.

                  The singular of datum.

                2. And I would have a lovely time in said city because people, in general, are wrong an awful lot.

                  So if they were talking about Newark or East St. Louis? people are right an awful lot too. And if people are always wrong, then what counts a data?

                3. So you know this is a comment board, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal right? This whole thing is essentially one big mess of stories, anecdotes, opinions and some bad puns.

                  1. with a couple of lies thrown in to boot.

                  2. You know who else told bad puns?

                  3. My puns are good, though.

        3. There’s no end of ethnographic work on how clannish societies have an ethos that you only owe duties to your clan, and there is nothing much wrong with lying, stealing, etc. from people who aren’t in your clan.

          My understanding is that this is reflected in many Muslim teachings. If you aren’t a Muslim, you are a second-class person at best, and a legitimate target of violence, fraud, and abuse at worst. The whole House of War thing is a statement that, at least in that line of Muslim doctrine, that war is an appropriate way to deal with any non-Muslim.

          But that’s just instance of a very widespread cultural phenomenon. Don’t act surprise; its probably more the rule than the exception.

          1. ah yes… and now we see the data and cited sources! Well done.

            1. Are you an old troll under a new handle? You’re not really adding anything to the conversation, SPENCER.

              1. I’m pointing out how no one using racist anecdotes adds anything to the conversation.

                1. How is what he said “racist”? He was talking about Islam. Is insulting Christians, Mormans, etc. racist too now?

                  1. No. Only insulting classes protected by progressives is racist.

                  2. Asking for the countries borders to not be out of control is racist, no doubt.

              2. I get the distinct whiff of Bo. It’s more like January Bo than July Bo, but similarly contrarian, similarly pedantic, and similarly sensitive to Prog hobbyhorses.

                1. Oh man. It’s almost impossible to get that smell out of the carpet.

                2. I’ve been commenting on H&R for close to 10 years now… occasionally I get accused of being a “prog” (but not 10 years ago because it wasn’t really a thing then), mostly when I’m pointing out hypocrisies from people who claim to love liberty.

                  However, I haven’t been accused of being someone else. Well done. A first for everything.

                  1. “occasionally I get accused of being a “prog””

                    ocassionally ? Throwing out the racist label at the drop of a hat should get you called a prog on an hour by hour basis.

                3. Nobody else will endorse my theory, but I really believe that Bo is a shared account, and, that, at any given time, some different little protarg statist law school student is using it.

            2. Sounds like someone completely unfamiliar with any sort of history at all.

          2. “There’s no end of ethnographic work on how clannish societies have an ethos that you only owe duties to your clan, and there is nothing much wrong with lying, stealing, etc. from people who aren’t in your clan.”

            Reza Aslan (hilariously dishonest Islam apologist extraordinaire) argued in his book No God but God that Mohammad stealing lots of shit from merchant caravans and attacking them with his soldiers was totally okay because it was normal for the time. Literally he just glossed over the fact that his religion was founded by an outright amoral thief and warlord on the grounds that there were lots of thieves and warlords back then, so fuck it.

            And Arabia was largely based on what you’re describing at the time, to such an extent that Mohammad told Muslims it’s wrong to enslave other Muslims, but that you can enslave non-Muslims at your leisure. It’s only wrong to enslave members of the clan, everyone else is fair game.

            1. Iran is not “Arabia”.

              They are not ethnically or culturally arab.

              1. Which is probably why I didn’t mention Iran in my post and was specifically responding to RC’s point about tribal communities. If I had at any point mentioned Iran your attempt to correct me might make sense, but since I never called Iranians ‘Arabs,’ and never would, since I know they’re Persians, I have no idea what you think you’re teaching me.

                1. you are correct. I apologize.

                2. you are correct. I apologize.

                  1. You should say this to everyone who you termed racist based only on their desire to have our immigration laws followed.

                    If the Gov. ignored H1-Bs and allowed them in unfettered would that affect your job ?

              2. They ARE culturally and ethnically bugshit, though.

          3. Every tribal name I have heard translated means “the real humans”.

            1. Yes, something along the line of “the people.”

        4. Culture is a real thing, and it’s not identical throughout the world. Get over it.

    3. It’s not just with infidels.

      In Persian culture, being a good liar is considered “clever”.

      1. “In Persian Political culture, being a good liar is considered “clever”.

        FTFY

        1. If you crossed out Persian, you didn’t fix it.

          1. Meh. They don’t get to own that idea.

            1. Or do they?

              Don’t ask me, I just work here.

              1. Hey! Don’t get all persian on us!

      2. That too. Where do these people think the Arab trader stereotype came from?

        1. I think it would be interesting to see if there’s a stereotype quota … like how many of something has to exist before it can be labeled as a stereotype?

          For example, how many slow-moving elderly drivers in champagne-colored Cadillacs did the world endure before it became an accepted stereotype? I wonder what the math on that is.

      3. That’s not native to Persian culture – in Zoroastrianism, lying to anyone is one of the worst things you can do.

  15. protecting the boarder and defending the rule of law is not racist.

    1. Boarder? Isn’t that what the illegals are? Boarders?

      1. if they pay rent…

      2. A boarder is a vile creature who engages in snowboarding. They’ve rebranded the verb “boarding” as “riding,” in much the same way progressives started calling themselves liberals after WW I.

          1. And here I thought Nicole was the worst…

  16. The people advising the R candidates need to be .. i missed it .. but i guess something about a wood chipper. There is one answer when asked about Trump: “I’m not going to comment on the rambling of a reality TV star. Did you have a serious question?

    1. How you nail Trump is ask him if pledges to support the GOP nominee no matter who it is. When he hedges or doesn’t answer, you kick him out of the debate and stop considering him a Republican. When his brain dead supporters ask why, tell them because he admitted he wasn’t a loyal member of the party.

      1. Isn’t this a response all libertarians should celebrate, though?

      2. Unwavering loyalty to a party, regardless of how despicable their nominee might be, might not be the gotcha moment you imagine.

        Suppose a Democrat said they wouldn’t support Bernie Sanders if nominated because he is openly a socialist, would you say that Democrat should be kicked out of the debates because they also failed to blindly support the party no matter what?

        Reducio ad absurdum: What if a member of the KKK and a child molester were running for the R nomination — same logic applies? Everyone should say they blindly support said person if they win?

        1. How the voters handle and the internal working of the party area different matter. This is like stripping someone of a committee chair because he’s voting against the leadership on a rule or something like that. a matter of party discipline.

    2. There is one answer when asked about Trump: “I’m not going to comment on the rambling of a reality TV star. Did you have a serious question?

      Nice.

  17. It astonishes me, really, what Reason’s priorities are. I get that they have to churn the culture war, some, to keep the page views coming.

    But think about the massive scandals that Reason is perfectly willing to ignore. Just to pick two ongoing scandals that could stand quite a bit of reporting, because no-one else is:

    (1) Hillary’s corruption. How many articles has reason posted on this bottomless topic, compared to, say, articles about a couple of interviews by a joke candidate?

    (2) The IRS scandal. Still ongoing, especially now that it is linked to the DemOp assault (literally) on Scott Walker supporters in Wisconsin. Again, how man articles, etc.

    The priorities seem . . . odd, to me, for an organization that should seize every opportunity to document and publicize the abuses of the State against a once-free people, is all.

    1. I’ve got an idea…

      You can start your own magazine and online blog full of articles about these things!

      THE MARKET!

      1. I’ve got an idea…

        You can pull the stick out of your ass. Then maybe you won’t be so butthurt.

        1. My butt feels fine and is stick free.

          Perhaps a good dose of humor needs to be re-injected in to the comment section on H&R.

          1. Well many of your comments are somewhat laughable, so….

      2. Well, Spencer the Destroyer, I did attempt to start an on-line magazine within the Salty Tears thread. But Reason destroyed that, along with the Viking Moose, who was lost when they shut that down. So much for competing in the marketplace, huh? So much for the non-aggression principle.

        1. High Number deserved to be shot.

          1. As a replicant? It’s true, highnumber did fail the V-K Empathy Test.

            I really need to fix the formatting. Since the change in the blog style a couple of years ago, some of the archived stuff is all screwed up. Well, it’s all archived stuff now, I guess.

        2. +1 for exposing the evil lies of the Koch Bros! ( I figured if I’m being accused of being a “prog” I should go whole… hog… anybody want a peanut?)

          1. No more rhymes now, I mean it.

    2. How about the federal takeover of localities under the guise of “non-discrimination in housing”?

      1. Let’s not talk about that. Someone might call us racist.

      2. non discrimination in housing is sooo 2015.

        Those on the cutting edge are into Affirmative Fair Housing Plan.

        That’s probably the most concise label fevised by a Gov agency I have ever seen. It is beautiful in it deviousness.

        Affirmative = protected classes only need apply

        Fair= more worker’s money to pays for non workers stuff

        Housing= Government market intervention deemed necessary to fix the problems caused by Government market intervention.

        Plan= da Gov’mint is gonna take care of us

    3. I would say, over the course of 2016 presidential campaign posts, there have been far more Hillary is a lying scumbag posts than Trump is a blowhard douchenozzle posts. It’s just that Trump is enjoying a bump in popularity right now and Hillary is as haggard and evil as ever.

      We’re not done talking about Hillary the Malevolent (PBUH). I guess what’s surprising is that she is evil and no one cares. Whatever I’m voting for Bernie because I only really like 3 flavors of ice cream anyway.

      1. Better get it in writing which three flavors you are voting for.

        There may have been more posts about Hillary’s thievery but there are more articles about Trump.

    4. I agree that there just so many topics reason could be covering from a libertarian perspective that they either neglect or just don’t have a deep enough bench to cover adequately. I’m not sure Hillary’s corruption or the IRS scandal would be my top priority, but it’s definitely not another DONALD TRUMP IS AWFUL post. Yeah, we know he’s fucking ridiculous and 99% of the people reading reason wouldn’t consider voting from him. So why the endless coverage? Because it’s easy and you’re lazy?

      1. Because, at the time I am posting this, there are well over 300 comments on this thread…

        1. It’s almost as if Trump has tapped into something …

    5. They have almost totally ignored the Wisconsin thing and haven’t even mentioned the revelation that Lois Lerner and the guy behind it were best buddies. It came out that DOJ and IRS were planning to go after Obama’s enemies criminally and Reason hasn’t said a word. But they are all Trump all the time.

      1. Well, the Trump thing is recent. That’ll pass. I suspect they will trash Clinton mercilessly if she in fact gets nominated.

        Wisconsin is fairly recent news (the confirmation of some of the worst stuff, I mean), so I suspect they’ll hit on that more in the coming weeks. The official jump into the fray by Walker should speed that along.

      2. What is the Wiconsin thing and what is the revelation about Lerner and some guy behind it. Expand the line about Obama going after his “enemies ( US voters ?) criminally ?

        I’m busy and don’t get to read the www as much as I would like.

        1. Wisconsin:

          http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..ected.html

          Lerner/Wisconsin:

          http://watchdog.org/228423/irs…..n-kennedy/

    6. They did do a deluge of HRC corruption articles. While I do agree that they should be banging that drum more regularly without regard to whether the rest of the media is going along, they haven’t ignored it.

      The IRS business, while hardly not covered, does seem to be getting less attention than it should. It all honesty, throwing aside as much of my own political and libertarian biases as I can, these multiple instances (and not just with the IRS) of absolutely illegal and/or unethical behavior should result, in a sane society, in many resignations, impeachments, and even some convictions.

      1. They did do a deluge of HRC corruption articles.

        Yeah, they did, and I’m sure my recollection is clouded of those because I expected them.

        But there have been subsequent developments in both the Hillary corruption file and the IRS scandal file that Reason has completely ignored. I’d like to see a different balance, I guess.

        Less repetitive culture war posting, and more dogged reporting on ongoing abuses by the State and Our Masters.

        1. I am in the camp of thinking that the ghafla really needs to end. I don’t give a shit about anything right now except stopping this terrible government (not just the current occupants of it, either) before it’s too late. . .recognizing that it may well be too late.

        2. What Dean said.

          I agree.

    7. RC, imma say this…

      Reason has put articles up on these subjects. They get 35 posts.

      We’re nearing 400 on this shit-show.

      Reason still has to sell ad-space.

    1. “Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he’s keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.”—- Donald Trump

  18. So, what exactly is the problem? The Democrat Party has been racist forever. Their domestic policies divide people into categories by skin color, and (to judge by effect) are intended to harm the darker-skinned. They expected to elect a legally qualified but otherwise Unqualified black man just because of his race (Fools that we are, we obliged them. Twice). They explicitly support abortion policies that amount to genocide of poor blacks.

    So, it’s only Democrats that are allowed to be racists?

    1. You know who else implemented racially based policies for what they considered to be a good cause?

      1. Malaysian government?

      2. Robert Mugabe?

      3. Augusta National?

    2. Democrats have good intentions. That’s all that matters.

      1. Democrats SAY they have good intentions. I will not stretch your credulity by asserting that I believe them.

        1. They do have good intentions. Why would you doubt it? I have no doubt that even Hitler and Stalin had good intentions. That doesn’t mean their intentions could actually be considered “good” in any rational way.

          1. “Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, ‘Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.’ I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good.'”

            Will Smith caught a lot of heat from that little bit of truth.

            1. Else why would he do it? Evil for evil’s sake is the rarest breed of evil. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it in the real world.

              1. The greatest evils in this world have been done for “The Greater Good.”

              2. Look at what drug cartels do, outside of the drug selling argument, their actions against innocent people around them tells me that the drug cartels are evil in intent nothing more.

            2. Hitler and Stalin woke up thinking “How can I maintain and advance my power, and punish those who oppose me”. That may not be the most evil thing they could do in any given day, but it’s evil enough to go on with. The Democrats are the same. Oh, there are doubtless low level nonentities who have the VERY BEST intentions about Those Poor Negroes. But the policy makers? The ones who manipulate power from year to year and see the effects? Those bastards are set on holding on to power, and maintaining an oppressed brown underclass of manageable size is a major goal.

              Mind you, I’m not saying that the Establishment Right is better, though at the moment they are mostly concerned with not rocking the boat and grabbing crumbs from the Democrats’ table.

              1. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives have managed to wrap themselves in a cloak of supposed “Good Intentions” for more than a century. It wasn’t especially believable even when there was a notable difference between the LIRP agenda and the Democrat agenda, and it is far less so now. They want to run things. They are ready to sacrifice our liberties, our rights, and our prosperity in order to end up running things. And the crowning jest is that in the end, when they have paved the way for an American Stalin, they will be among the first people liquidated, because he clearly will not be able to trust them, the conniving bastards.

      2. The intention to use force to make your neighbor submit to your will is NOT a “good intention”.

        The fundamental problem with the enemies of the Progressive Theocracy is that they routinely grant moral sanction to the those who intend to rule by force.

        1. I believe most dictators and tyrants had good intentions. That’s how you pave the road to hell.

          1. You know, I’ve heard this all my life. And I’m not ready to accept it anymore. The older I get the clearer it appears to me that some people deliberately do evil. They aren’t motivated by fear, or confused, or mistaken. They know that getting what they want will harm others and they do it anyway. And I think that there are a significant number of Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives that this description fits. Maybe not the rank and file, but the leaders. They know that their policies will hold the poor brown folks in poverty in huge members, while placing them under a (false) obligation to their LIRP handlers. They know that disarming the public will put good people at the mercy of thugs. They know that regulation is wrecking the economy for tiny (and often illusory) gains in environmental cleanliness, and that ultimately this will result in far worse damage as people scramble to feed themselves. And they either don’t care, or intend the damage as the cost of staying in power.

            I’m not saying that there aren’t evil swine on the Right, BTW. But the ones on the Left get far too much slack because they supposedly “mean well”. A) That’s no excuse and B) I don’t think they do.

            1. Which is the very definition of evil.
              Woodchippers. Gibbets. Tar and feathers.
              Crucifixication along Pennsylvania Avenue.

  19. Jackand Ace finally got his Garry Johnson coverage that he says is the reason he came here. Perhaps he will leave now.

    1. Nah. He’ll conveniently miss it and then deny it ever happened.

    2. Jackland Ace is a mentally defective midget from Lowell, Mass named Joe. He was on here for years before finally running off to avoid having to answer for what a fraud Obama turned out to be.

      He is not going to go away. He is going to keep crawling back.

  20. That’s wonderful news. As a useful idiot Trump can bleed bigot votes off of the GOP and DEMs like George Wallace before him. The net result will be a better showing for the party of principle. With enough spoiler votes we can amend the Constitution.

    1. Yay! The Libertarian Party candidate finally wins, just like the last time the vote was split by Ross Perot.
      Remember how many congressional seats the LP picked up? And all those LP candidates who got elected Governor ? Man, did all that vote splitting help us capture the presidency!
      Woohoo, go two party system!

      1. We are really bad at getting elected … but that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

  21. “I’ll just label racist,”

    If you can’t beat the Proggies, join em, right?

    Illegal immigrants are not a race, and even illegal immigrants from Mexico are not a race.

    1. I wonder if Trump will ask Ted Cruz to show his Canadian birth certificate during the campaign?

      1. He should.

        All candidates should be required to produce a birth certificate which shows that they meet one of the requirements for being President.

  22. This year the race card is the trump card.

  23. Get Yer Donald Trump Pi?atas Here! First Come, First Served!! Biodegradable!! Earth Friendly! Filled with Mucho Bueno Yum Yums!

  24. Having problems with illegal immigration doesn’t make you a racist and Trump isn’t appealing to people because they’re racist. He’s appealing because he seemingly is willing to fight, particularly on an issue where most Americans agree the elites that run this country have failed in their primary duties – securing our nation’s border. Sure, Trump will fade out once people get serious, but that doesn’t mean he’s racist or even wrong.

    Regardless, though, Democrats and their lapdogs in the media will paint the GOP as racists regardless of who is nominated, even if its a Hispanic like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush. It’s too bad that losers like Gary Johnson go along with the race baiting.

  25. OT: Police clash with rioters in downtown Athens.

    1. Good to know Mrs. Struthers.

      Should we google it ?

  26. Libertarians missing the point again. People entering without permission are illegal.

    1. So you blindly support all legislation, even if it is immoral?

    2. Wait wait wait. You’re telling me that people who don’t believe in seeking permission from arbitrary authority to do things that don’t hurt anybody else… don’t believe in seeking permission to cross an invisible line on the ground? STOP THE MOTHERFUCKING PRESSES.

      1. Well, some invisible lines they seek permission for. Others, not so much.

        Principles, you see.

  27. I’m starting to understand why someone felt the need to call the authorities on Reason commenters. It wasn’t to address a real threat, it was to pause the inanity for a moment.

  28. Whoa, where did all these Trump partisans come from?

  29. Ah, so Trump is appealing to the same racist crowd that followed Ron Paul? You know, the guy who edited a racist newsletter, and didn’t return campaign contributions from known white supremacist?

    What Trump said is arguably racist, but come on, most of his supporters aren’t racist. The guy’s not actually running cities like Chicago or NY where de facto segregation is real.

    Vicente Fox once said “Mexicans do work even blacks won’t do”. Is that racist? Did we end all ties with Mexico after that remark? It’s disappointing that Gary Johnson would play this kind of game, since the left is convinced that opposition to the federal government is rooted in the white supremacy movement. Your time is done, old man.

    1. A better example is Jeb Bush. He said all of this.

      They’re more entrepreneurial, they set up more business, they buy more homes, they’re more family-oriented, they work in jobs that in many cases are jobs that have gone unfilled” (at 39:40)
      “I think Detroit would do real well if we started repopulating it with young, aspirational people.” (45:20)
      “We have people that mope around thinking ‘my life is bad, my children will not have the same opportunities that I had.’ What a horrible notion in America, the most optimistic of places, and I think an economically driven immigration plan . . . would lift our spirits up dramatically.” (19:25)
      “The one way that we can rebuild the demographic pyramid is to fix a broken immigration system. . . . If we do this, we will rebuild our country in a way that will allow us to grow. If we don’t do it, we will be in decline, because the productivity of this country is dependent on young people that are equipped to be able to work hard?.Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans over the last 20 years. Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families and they have more intact families.”

    2. Is this racist? Rarely do you see a no shit example of a dog whistle. I think all of these are. All of that stuff about how immigrants have intact families and start business and are hard working and most of all how Detroit, a city that is predominantly black, needs to rebuild with immigrants, sure sounds like a dog whistle to me. What Bush leaves unsaid is the fact that blacks are the ones most associated with the problems he says immigrants don’t have but natives do. How is all of that shit nothing but a dog whistle to whites and Hispanics that immigration is the way to solve the problem of lazy unproductive black people?

      1. That’s funny, because really, honestly, when someone cites ‘Detroit’ as an example, the immediate reaction is “City run by the left for years. Now a burned out shell”. I can only speak for myself in that respect, but I’m convinced I’m not unique.

        I can’t say that from there on, I immediately leap to “Black peoplez!!!!”. I might get there after I’d pondered a while on how fucking cynical LBJ was when the whole idea of the Great Society and expansion of the welfare state, via that lovely quote about buying loyalty for 200 years.

        The African-American population of Detroit etc may share some of the blame for what has happened to their homes and lives, but the blame can equally be laid upon big government “solutions” that are imposed without any due diligence or inner reflection. Urban crime, on a pile of murder rap sheets is a failure of individuals to behave in a civilized manner – but the biggest crime is the systemic cultural and social violence perpetrated upon the entire black community of Detroit over the last 5 decades.

        Seriously John, that old saw really is true. If you can hear a dog whistle, you’re the dog,

        If I hear anything, it’s the thundering subsonic booming of Leviathan approaching.

        1. The cause of Detroit’s decline is capitalism, period. Sometimes an auto industry goes under in a city. Creative destruction. Or just destruction, whatever.

          1. Tony you are an idiot. Every city in America has lost its original reason for existing. There are no more stockyards in Kansas City and few people work in the tool and die industry in Cincinnati and there are no more steel mills in Pittsburgh. Yet, none of those cities are like Detroit.

            And the US has a great auto industry. They build millions of cars in this country. They just dont’ build them in Detroit. That is because people like you looted and destroyed the place.

            Tony you are not a sock puppet or a troll. I wish you were. No, you really are the most profoundly ignorant person in America. You don’t know anything and have no desire to learn.

            1. You mean I have no desire to funnel FOX News horseshit into my ears. The thing is, I do keep up with all the racist nonsense you idiots believe. That’s what I do.

              Liberals run every major city in this country. Not all of them are failed. Detroit was stupid to depend mostly on one industry, sure, but that doesn’t really build up an entire narrative of the failure of one major brand of politics or another. I could much more plausibly ask why conservatives can’t manage to run a state without sucking federal dollars from liberal states and having the worst metrics in everything.

          2. That is the single most retarded comment I have ever seen you make.

            1. I guess I did get a good night’s sleep last night.

          3. You don’t find it odd that a “capitalist’ city is so utterly dependent on one industry, which got sweetheart deals from the local and federal government and was ultimately bailed out in the end.

            Detroit’s carmakers churned out hummers and other clunkers that no one bought while those slanty eyed, yellow bellied Japs got a head start on hybrids. The Japs won, and the Americans in Detroit suffered! Aw man, why couldn’t BOTH of them win? Capitalism is just no fair.

            1. Capitalism is no fair to the kid who was unlucky enough to be born in a city destroyed by it. That’s why capitalism isn’t sufficient to have a decent society. I want markets to be competitive and creatively destructive and all that. They are more free to be so if people’s livelihoods don’t depend on it, only their fortunes. It’s not the fault of everyone living in Detroit that they can’t find a job. As you imply, it’s mostly the fault of bad decisions made by corporate executives they’ve never met. The sweetheart deals, and they exist for every major industry, are not something I support. They are something libertarians support with their relentless refusal to support any policies that would prevent them.

              1. You mendacious fuck. Libertarians consistently oppose cronyism, while dems and republicans embrace it. And those bad decisions by corporate executives were incentivised and enabled by government, which has been almost exclusively democrat in Detroit for 50+ years. You’re stupid and ignorant, but at least you make up for it by being smug and arrogant.

        2. The facts are what they are. And it isn’t white people who don’t start businesses or have a problem keeping their families in tact or voted all of those prog programs in Detroit. And Jeb knows that.

          I really think Jeb is a racist. A lot of Hispanics are and Jeb married an Hispanic and seems consider himself one by osmosis or something. I think 90% of the time when people are accused of being racist it is a bullshit claim. Jeb, however, probably falls in the 10%.

  30. This whole racism thing is really old and really annoying. Not talking about Trump, the guy’s a fuckwad that needs to talk a long walk off a short pier, just the whole racism thing in general. It’s enough to make ya wanna join the KKK just so you can say, “There motherfucker, now you can actually call me racist.”

    I oppose open borders but I do so on the basis that I fucking hate crowds of people and 30 million more people is just more cars I have to dodge on the highway, more people in the drive-thru, more people I have stand in line behind, longer hold times when calling an office.

    If immigrants really are God’s chosen people as everyone believes then we should trade 1 for 1 or something.*

    *This post is half in jest and is meant to show the plebs that one can be opposed to unlimited immigration and not base it on irrational fear of non-existent crime or the color of someone’s skin.

    1. one can be opposed to unlimited immigration and not base it on irrational fear of non-existent crime or the color of someone’s skin.

      It helps if the reasons you do base your immigration policy on are actually real (nobody is supporting the strawman of unlimited immigration). Since Mexican immigrants don’t drain the welfare system and don’t take er jerbs, one wonders what the actual motivation is.

      1. I believe it was you who posted something along the lines of coming up with something for everyone.

        If I remember correctly it was based around helping out the various C. American countries and helping build their economies.

        I agree with this. I believe that a Honduran would really rather be in Honduras around their own people and own way of life.

        I believe more markets and more trade would be beneficial to everyone. Ending the drug war would also go a long way in helping. We would make more money, they would make more money. Everybody wins.

      2. And what do YOU know about immigrants, Tony. You, a (probably) white guy who was probably spoon fed prototypical image of immigrants by blogs and left wing white friends who rarely invites people of color into their homes.

        You do realize that the state has to spend money to take of these illegal immigrants? If you limit the”The welfare system” to specific programs (food stamps, etc) then illegals don’t necessarily drain those. But in my 20 years of living as an immigrant, I’ve rarely seen immigrant not succeed in getting free stuff they weren’t entitled to. My parents got driver’s license decades before illegals could get one legally in California.

        Tony, you don’t really care about immigrants. You use the immigration issue to snipe at Republicans. Were you shocked by that “nail salon” expose? I actually worked in warehouse (as a clerk) where illegals work. Why don’t you work 5 years in Koreatown, and revisit your notion of immigrants.

        1. I am indeed not shocked that migrant workers are faced with shit working conditions. Those are the jobs that their and our economies are situating them into. I’m sure you know more than I, but I’m not sure I understand how being an immigrant makes one more able to cheat the system. I do know that being born white in America comes with a whole bunch of perks I didn’t earn.

          1. “but I’m not sure I understand how being an immigrant makes one more able to cheat the system.”

            Tony in Houston when an illegal gets in a car wreck he/she has no insurance or drivers license. It happens so frequently that the cops just let them walk away, sometimes literally. After all they have no ID and therefore no insurance in Texas and can justt give whatever name they choose at the time they suffer no consequenses other than the damage to their car. It happens often enough that the PDs just let them walk away so the officer isn’t burdened with the paperwork all to no avail. When a citizen gets into a wreck and they have no license or insurance they go to jail and face severe penalties even if sometimes it is only at the civil level.

            There is one and a very signicant one at that. There are more but I chose not to waste more time talking to you since I know enough about you that you won’t care, listen, or learn.

            Tony how old were you when your father abandoned you ?

            That is one

  31. “Illegal alien lawbreaker” isn’t a race.

  32. That is the most naive statement I’ve ever heard Gary Johnson say. Seriously man, getting control of “illegal” immigration isn’t freaking racist. Trump or anyone else isn’t saying “no immigration”. They are saying we need to clean it up, which we do. Whoever can’t see that simply doesnt want to see it and are ignoring/denying not only facts, but even displaying lack of basic common sense.

  33. At least Trump is found appealing by some segment of the voters, which is more than we could say for Johnson when he ran.

    1. Dayum, AD. That’s gonna leave a mark.

  34. Dubious. Trump is polling at 10% in New Hampshire, a place without a serious illegal-immigrant problem or a numerically important set of voters for whom illegal immigration is so important that it will swing their votes. Whatever he’s polling elsewhere, that suggests that there are a significant percentage of Republicans who support him for other reasons.

    (Mind you, it also suggests that there’s that same significant percentage of Republicans who actually think he’s a good leader, a good businessman or anything but a preposterous, self-caricaturing hairdo. But that’s a different problem for that party.)

  35. The fact that Trump is polling higher than Johnson ever polled (correct me if I’m wrong) is a damn travesty.

  36. You must be getting pretty desperate if the best you can do is toss labels around like “racist.” It seems as if Trump has Reason running scared. You might think why libertarianism has failed to gain the momentum that a Trump has been able to mobilize.

  37. Gee, there sure are a lot of racists out there.

  38. The real reason Trump is doing so well is that Americans are tired of the PC garbage that liberals shove in their faces day in and day out. At the end of the day hard working Americans, are tired of demands by ILLEGALs that Americans pay for their college and pay for their health care. These individuals sure as H don’t want to hear some pansy white collar jackass tell them they are “RACIST”. Whether political correct or not, Trump has allowed their built up frustrations to be vented.
    Johnson’s “all Trump supporters are RACIST” shines a bright light on his stupidity.

  39. There’s nothing racist about wanting to control your borders you dishonest anti-intellectual buffoon.

  40. Fyi, I fell completely in love with Gary Johnson 4 years ago.

    Thanks.

  41. Gary who? So, while the moonbats on the Left and the RINO idiots vilify Donald Trump for daring to speak the truth about the out of control illegal alien crisis, the border still leaks like a fucking sieve, illegals continue their carnage, and nothing is being done to stop it.

  42. Hispanic isn’t a race. It’s a culture.

  43. Gary Johnson got 0.99% of the vote because his policies are not popular. Obama and Romneycare were on the ticket and Johnson couldnt get 1%.

    Turns out he was worse than Obama.

    History will show Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul were the true patriots.

  44. I think it’s pretty obvious that Gary hasn’t actually listened to any of Trump’s speeches. He’s just taken what the media reported about them at face value when they cut out half-sentences. Trump spent significant time talking about his love and respect for Mexico and Mexican people and how he employs thousands of them.

    And in that sense Gary’s not wrong that the media will paint the whole Republican party as racist–but it was going to do that anyway. Liberals know they can win elections with this type of bullying, and they know they can’t win without it because their platform is an incoherent mashup of Marxism and capitalism.

  45. Trump has been escalating his crazy talk.

    The Mexican government is not warehousing people from all over the world to “send” over here.

  46. Enough of the articles about Trump. I do not want to hear what Gary has to say about him, or anyone else for that matter. I would like to see something about Sanctuary laws and their effects that examines the failure of the government to perform one its most stayed and basic functions.

  47. — TRUMP 2016 —
    Because f*** you!

  48. Is this guy, Johnson, running for office? Is he some kind of immigration expert? Which news outlet does he represent? Why is his “opinion” sought?

  49. Former Republican New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is a racist, himself. People who label others as racists and always think in terms of race, are the racists projecting their racism onto their victims. It is much easier to rob a victim, if you can convince him, he deserves it..
    .
    Racists used to overtly use their racism to justify taking property and dominate others in open confrontation. Since you need total supremacy to do that, this false snake and others like him, have developed another strategy of pretending to be the opposite while using it to divide and conquer to place themselves in positions of power, serving the robber barons who want to turn everyone into slaves with no rights, They want open borders with illegal immigration to flood the country so citizens will have no rights. This is class warfare by the NAZI shadow government in charge.

    1. The real reason they are going after Donald Trump, is because he is against the trade deals that transfer all the power to transnational cartels that make all the laws and fine us if we don’t bow to them. Trump is against TPP, TTIP and is even going to violate NAFTA if he does what he says he is going to do. They hate Trump for wanting to use tariffs to bring back jobs to Americans. Trump is more pro Latino than Hillary and Bush, because he wants to bring us good paying jobs. They want to outsource everything and leave the middle class poor.

      Who will you vote for? Sweet talking shysters, who impoverish us, or Donald Trump that will give us back the wealth and greatness that the robber barons stole from us?

  50. I pretty much quit giving a fuck what Gary Johnson has to say about much of anything when he came out publicly against freedom of association. Good to see he’s sticking with the grievance hustling.

  51. Is any country these immigrants are from anywhere close to being ‘libertarian’? Do they have strong traditions of laissez-faire, like English countries? No and no, immigration will just bring in more democrat voters with the ‘gimme dat’ attitude. Most illegal immigrants already exploit US welfare.

    1. Right. And again, do we see the massive surge of illegal immigrants into the USA leading to more people enrolling in the Libertarian Party? Or opposition to Big Government policies like high taxes, gun control and the war on drugs? Of course not. So it’s really a losing proposition for libertarians.

      But Reason is too blinded by ideology to see this.

  52. In 2009 Latina com did an expose’ on ‘Rape Trees’ near the border where it was said Mexican coyotes and cartel members hung up the undergarments of illegals they raped. In 2015 they wrote an article calling Donald Trump a racist for agreeing with the very points they themselves made.

    Apparently if you make a point and you’re brown you’re a journalist and if you’re white and happen to agree with it you’re a racist because of the color of your skin. Who is the real racist here?

  53. can we get another Libertarian candidate for president? this guy is fucking sucks

  54. Best part of interview “i have a lot less anxiety” says the Pot company CEO lol!

  55. Part I
    I’m offended by the debates between candidates, especially those running for the office of President of the U.S.A. and to a lesser degree those running for a seat in our Congress. The debate questions seem to always pit one candidate against the others, asking what they would do relative to particular issues when our government is supposed to be one in which the people and the States elect those who they feel will represent their views in the House and the Senate in creating Laws under which we all must live. We do not elect a King or absolute ruler giving them power to rule over not only the people and the States but also their elected representatives in Congress. That said, candidates running for office should be asked questions about which issues they feel are most important giving answer as to how they think they should be solved allowing voters to pick from them the one who they agree with most, and not go into how they feel about each others answers to the same questions. That should be left to the voters. Back in the 60’s the Republican Party Chairman issued what was called the 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican”, or something to that effect, and I am turned off by primary candidates who break that commandment, as well as debate moderators who try to force them to break it. Tell us what you feel are good solutions to the issues facing us and let each other candidate tell their solutions.

  56. Well it’s official. Garry Johnson is an idiot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.