Election 2016

The GOP's Trump-Carson 1-2 Punch in the Nuts

The 'stupid party' goes nukular

|

Never not funny. ||| Still from Idiocracy
Still from Idiocracy

Fox News has a new national poll of registered voters that I intend to bookmark, print out, frame; perhaps even get tattoed in a nether region. With the usual caveat that early national presidential polls have little predictive utility on the nomination, here are your current post-first-GOP-debate faves among likely Republican voters:

25% Donald Trump

12% Ben Carson

10% Ted Cruz

9% Jeb Bush

6% Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker

5% Carly Fiorina

4% John Kasich, Marco Rubio

3% Chris Christie, Rand Paul

1% Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum

This just in! ||| Fox News
Fox News

There are so many fun ways to rearrange these numbers. For instance, "42 percent of the support from Republican voters went to people who have never held elected office: Trump, Fiorina and Carson." To which I might add: 37 percent of the support from Republican voters went to a leader and runner-up who, respectively, were members of the Democratic Party during the George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations; who have both supported single-payer, government-run health programs in the not-so-distant past, and who both use more Nazi analogies to describe their political opponents than speakers at a 1980s CISPES rally.

So after seven years of bitching about a mediocre president's crippling inexperience, more than two-fifths of Republican voters are going nuts over candidates who make Sarah Palin look like a wisened political veteran. Add Ted "elections for Supreme Court justices" Cruz, and there's now majority GOP backing for a Novices & Populists bloc. Kick in the Huckabee/Santorum religious big-government wing, and we're talking three-fifths.

For those keeping score at home, of those six candidates currently garnering a combined 59 percent polling support you've got two people (Santorum and Fiorina) whose last Senate campaigns ended in double-digit losses to unimpressive Democrats, three whose most recent jobs were as television personalities (Carson was a Fox News contributor until November), and at least five who share as an essential media strategy trying to top one another in crazy. To call this a "clown car" is to disparage the work of pantomime professionals.

"I'm Afraid of America" is an underrated song. ||| Pinterest
Pinterest

These numbers should be an embarrassment to anyone with a brain in his skull or an "R" on his sweater. Instead, a sizeable number of conservatives are, as predicted here, declaring Greater Trumpism to be the vanguard of a righteous new anti-establishment, man. In the succinctly sneering words of The American Spectator's Esther Goldberg, "Many Ruling Class Republicans seem to suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome." That's why such real working-class heroes, like, er, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, are so enthusiastic about the billionaire-led revolt.

But not all anti-establishmentarianisms are built the same. By elevating this particular strain of buffoonery, some Republicans are threatening to jeopardize more than just their chances against the Democrats' relentlessly unlovable grandmother.

In March, as happens rarely enough, I made a political prediction that has managed so far to come true:

The Republican Party in 2015 has a huge and unsated anti-Establishment passion, one that's only stoked by the primacy of elite characters like Jeb Bush (and Mitt Romney before him). Establishment vs. anti-Establishment has been the internal GOP divide since at least spring of 2010 (when Tea Party types began primarying Republican darlings in earnest); led to just a brutal parliamentary smackdown of grassroots activists at the 2012 Republican National Convention, and is as inevitable in the 2016 presidential campaign as water flowing downhill. This fight will be had, no matter how hard RNC Chairman Reince Priebus tries to schedule it out of existence. Candidates who figure out how to channel anti-establishmentarianism will punch above their weight during primary season (something Ben Carson and Ted Cruz in particular seem to understand); candidates who fight against it (Bush most openly) are in for a rude surprise.

Alas, the prescience breaks down from there (for instance, I rated Donald Trump's prospects "long behind" Ben Carson's), but not before sketching out three still-plausible camps of GOP anti-establishmentarians. Which are: The Petulants (political outsiders whose inexperience and outrageous comments are selling points; Carson and Trump were leading examples, with Fiorina and Cruz sharing some aspects), The Insurgents (outsiders inside the political system, like Rand Paul and Scott Walker, and to an extent Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal), and The Crusaders (populist social cons like Huckabee and Santorum). Ted Cruz, notably, has elements of all three categories.

What's remarkable four months latter is the extent to which The Petulants have routed all comers in the early going. Given the choice between a Tea Party-style focus on fiscal conservatism, a SoCon emphasis on capital-V Values, or a generalized HULK-SMASH reflex, Republican voters thus far have picked up the rock. Could the 2008-2009 backlash against big government end not with the righteous dismantling of various federal departments, but rather with a politically doomed plan to spend hundreds of billions of new dollars on deporting Mexicans and erecting a 2,000-mile wall? While I think the answer is no, for reasons I'll tack on below*, there is recent precedent for a limited-government corrective dissolving into barky media populism: the Gingrich Revolution.

Yeah right. ||| Cato Institute
Cato Institute

Ten years ago this month, I wrote about a grim little Cato Institute book titled The Republican Revolution 10 Years Later: Smaller Government or Business as Usual? Don't let the subtitle's false choice fool you—the revolutionaries by the end of the first Bush administration turned out to be big-government hypocrites, as the contributors to the collection overwhelmingly concluded. That is, with one very notable exception: Newt Gingrich.

"People who dismiss our victory as a fluke do not study our base very often," Gingrich wrote. "We had nine million additional votes in 1994, the largest one-party increase in American history. There is a huge pool of uncommitted voters who have no interest in politics. Thus, when campaigns are able to mobilize such groups, they win in a big way."

As I put it then:

This passage is crucial, and points to arguably the real legacy of Gingrich's Revolution […]. The Republicans located and attracted a new base of voters with bomb-throwing rhetoric that only happened to include some limited-government ideas (hardly surprising, considering the party had been out of government for so long).

The key to maintaining that base, besides the usual vote-buying that every governing party engages in, has been to keep the bombs coming, not to follow up on any of the limited-government promises (with the notable exception of welfare reform).

If you don't believe me, spend a day consuming the most popular cultural artifacts from the Republican-affiliated alt-media—say, the Rush Limbaugh show, FreeRepublic.com, and Fox News—and compare the number of libertarian arguments or ideas you encounter with the number of diatribes against Hollywood, Hillary Clinton, or liberals. If the ratio is even 1:50, I'm buying the drinks.

The good news is that there are far more libertarian arguments now in the conservative mediasphere, and I daresay there still will be even if the Republicans ever regain purchase at 1600 Pennsylvania. The bad news is that the most inaccurate media caricatures of the Tea Party movement come to fruition every time Donald Trump opens his fool mouth, or issues (God help us) a "white paper."

* Big caveat: The 2014 election, which featured near-historic GOP gains in Congress and in statehouses all over the country, had next to nothing to do with Trumpism, or Carsonism, or even a particular focus on illegal immigration. Presidential elections are a lot like the Olympic Games, or World Cups—the one representative contest that many of us consume every four years in an otherwise perfectly busy sport. The likelihood of over-interpreting not just early national polls in primary season, but also the representativeness of early-campaign presidential politics, are near absolute.

All that said, I suspect our grandkids will not believe us when we tell them that for a few fun weeks in 2015, one of the two major parties in the United States featured as front-runners a narcisstic clown-billionaire and a neurosurgeon/motivational speaker whose favorite treasury secretary was "Andrea Mitchell's husband."

Advertisement

NEXT: Donald Trump's Immigration Plan Would Cost $200 Billion. Still Like It, Maniacs?

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. The butthurt is delicious. I don’t care about any of this, unless it drives people to vote for

    Almanian for President – 2016
    I Probably Won’t Make It Any Worse

    And I definitely won’t get above 0% in any national poll.

    1. I ain’t votin fur some dang space furner

      1. Wait a second. I guess you look oksorry feller.

        1. Someone forgot his bagpipes.

    2. Look, I’ll be honest, I want to vote for you, I really do, but I haven’t seen a facebook meme.

    3. “This time, why not the worst?”

      Which means you’ll need Nicole as your running mate.

      1. Everyone wants to be VP. EVERYONE.

        But Nikki would be the worst, so it’s hers for the stealing if she wants it.

    4. You will wear a kilt right?

      RIGHT?

      1. +1 commando

    5. WARTY 2016
      THE GREATER OF THE EVILS

      1. After reading that comment, I just donated a poop to my pants.

      2. And now I want a Shepard Fairey Obama-style “Hope” poster of you, but instead of “HOPE” it says “RAPE”.

        1. rape and mange

        2. It sounds better if it’s rape and pillage:

          https://youtu.be/uJqEKYbh-LU

          1. I was trying to rhyme with change but yeah yours is better

  2. Quite frankly that list in any order isn’t very encouraging.

    1. How about reverse order?

      /scrolls back up to check list

      Nope, we’re doomed.

    2. The top two pretty much reflect the preferences of my in laws and my friends’s in laws. Not exactly people I would consider to be “informed.”

      1. Now THAT’s a surprise. Even the GOP candidates aren’t informed, never mind their supporters. This is a party whose 2008 nominee, a foreign policy “whiz,” couldn’t tell the difference between Sunni and Shia, and whose 2012 nominee, a business and numbers “whiz,” couldn’t read the polls telling him he was losing the election, and whose election day software crashed so badly it never even came online.

        No candidate at all likely to win the GOP nod will do better than W. Bush and may actually do worse. The most we can possibly hope for is that a somewhat respectable managerial type like Kasich is nominated and, if he wins, doesn’t run the U.S. completely into the ground. If you lot elect someone like Trump or Carson, their respective certainties ensure disaster. These are guys who have no idea what it is they don’t know, but are certain they do.

  3. We’ve been saying for a while now that if anyone can prevent the Republican nominee from winning the next election, it’s the Republicans.

    1. The GOP is well known for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

      1. And we all know how much Reason loves successful Republican presidential candidates.

        1. Your tears are delicious, Winston. Be sure to make enough for everyone.

          1. His resemblance to Tulpa is striking, no?

            1. His resemblance to Tulpa is striking, no?

              I don’t think even Tulpa would stoop so low as to pretend to be Canadian.

          2. What tears? A choice between Jeb or Trump or Hillary or Bernie is not something I think is a good sign.

          3. I am sure there will be enough tears to go around during this election cycle that you can concentrate them down into tear diamonds and stuff your hamster cheeks full.

    2. Apparently, it’s the Republican *base*.

    3. Look at the EC map and math. The Dems could nominate a middle manager like O’Malley and as long as he isn’t a child molester, he wins. In fact it goes like this: only the Democrats can let the Republican nominee win in 2016.

  4. I still think Rand should just drop out and sub for Grover Norquist. If Norquist loses the nom to Bush or Trump he should just run independently.

    It’s clear now that the GOP Establishment is wise to keep the little people on the bottom. It’s too bad the GOP Establishment’s own blinding incompetence has them actually thinking they can just nominate whoever they want to.

    1. I’m sure Rand could use the advice of a brilliant Canadian political strategist, to help with variour Parliamentary procedures and dealing with the Prince and Princess of Canada (as is tradition).

      1. I know right? AND I’M GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE.

        “Variour” isn’t a word but it should be.

        1. The “R” key isn’t even that close to the “S” key – what the hell?

          Anyhoo – aboot face! MARCH!

      2. So much for my donation to the Rand Paul campaign.

        I do have a great tradition of donating to also-rans. I don’t think I’ve donated to more than a couple of candidates that were actually elected.

        I had a lot of hope for Rand, but of all the things I like about him, none showed at the debate. Instead he came across as an eye-rolling, petulant guy, and not very presidential. (sigh)

        1. You want someone “presidential”?

  5. I find Reason’s attacks on Trump rather disingenuous. After prattling on about how wonderful the decline of party identities and the rise of the independents and how much people hate the establishment, as if this was the Libertarian Moment and those “independent anti-establishment” people will not be terrible, so when we finally do get these “independent anti-establishment” types and they are as terrible as the cynics predicted Welch and co. totally start sneering at the “anti-establishment” types as if they are the establishment, which is laughable to say the least and continue to predict The Libertarian Moment.

    1. Trump is part of the establishment and has repeatedly said as much.

      1. Winston’s on a roll, jacking off to his own edginess.

      2. Hence why I put “independent anti-establishment” in quotes.

    2. Does the high hit immediately, like Salvia, or is it more of a slow burn?

      1. Look at Matt with the burn. Nice!

      2. It seems to be more like a fine whine, if you catch my drift.

      3. And whose face is he currently eating?

      4. Tell us more about how Obama won’t implement Obamacare since he vowed to deal with the deficit.

        1. Someone is salty

          1. So are Trump and Sanders evidence of the Libertarian Moment?

            1. Keep it going dude. This is entertaining as fuck.

              1. Why can’t you appreciate how edgy Winston is? Watch out he’ll cut you!

                1. He’ll cut you like a pack of Winstons.

    3. when we finally do get these “independent anti-establishment” types and they are as terrible as the cynics predicted Welch and co. totally start sneering at the “anti-establishment” types

      This is another version of the meme:

      WANTS MORE GOVERNMENT—————————MORE GOVERNMENT

    4. “Some X are Y” neither implies “all Y are X” nor “all X are Y”.

      1. There’s something about idiots and vulgar syllogisms. You ever notice that?

        1. You tell me, you seem to be the expert.

          1. You have misunderstood me.

            1. I wasn’t sure what you meant, which is why I kept my response rather vague and ambiguous 😉

          2. It was directed at me, Win Bear.

    5. Isn’t the defining characteristic of a moment the fact that a moment is over rather quickly?

      1. It’s more like a polar moment of inertia. Lasts a long time and doesn’t move.

    6. I see Winston is following the Bo path of becoming progressively more trollish until he snaps entirely.

  6. That is so awesome.

    In completely unrelated news, I’ve decided that there is a real future in buying an almond orchard in Chile. They’ve invented the internet there, right?

    1. I want in on that!

    2. Love the diverse geography and the proximity to good Peruvian coke. They seem to have the Gods pissed off a lot though. Always hearing about natural disasters occurring there.

      1. Plus, Chile has Valparaiso, the coolest and most artistic city in Latin America….

        1. Plus, I would totally rock the chamanto/chupallas look I’m sure.

        2. And their basketball team makes the tournament from time to time, so there’s that.

    3. I’ll wait until Bachelet is gone and replaced with someone who can undo her ‘reforms’. Peru might be a better bet actually.

      1. And with just as much pan flute!

    4. I thought the Internet was invented in Venezuela, wasn’t it?

      I hear they are now working on developing various novel cleaning methods for the gluteus maximus of H. sapiens.

      1. That’s what happens when you use up your last few pages of the Koran.

  7. Don’t let the subtitle’s false choice fool you?the revolutionaries by the end of the first Bush administration turned out to be big-government hypocrites

    Wait a minute, isn’t this the same Welch who blamed the “revolutionaries”‘s shittiness on the Shutdown? As if caving to Clinton to avoid it would not have meant defeat or big-government hypocrisy?

  8. The old parties are falling apart. Now is the time for Nick Gillespie to seize the Libertarian Moment and lead a children’s crusade of millennials to their rightful status as our new leaders.

    1. I don’t think that’s how the children’s crusade ends up.

  9. These numbers should be an embarrassment to anyone with a brain in his skull or an “R” on his sweater.

    Archie likes to have his cake and eat it too

    1. +1 Riverdale

    2. Hugh’s just pissed that Jughead’s paint-eyes-on-ping-pong-balls-to-sleep-in-class scheme worked.

      1. Hey, let’s not bring Jughead into this.

    3. I believe there’s a porno version of Archie floating around out there. I remember seeing it in the 1980s.

      1. There is a porn version of everything.

        1. Perhaps you are thinking of Cherry Poptart.

          A fond related memory: back when I was a magazine publisher, we were printed at the same shop as Cherry Poptart, and since we had similar size runs, sometimes our publications were ‘print buddies’ (printed off the same spool because of some print machine balancing need). For that reason our pallet -full of magazine always came with a few fresh copies of the latest Cherry Poptart, one of which always ended up in our office men’s room for some reason.

          1. Heh. That’s cool.

            But the one I’m talking about was a movie.

            1. Which/what mag did you publish?

              1. It was called Harpoon and was sort of like The Onion, with the sad part being we were at the tail end of the print era, but before there was really an internet. Perhaps we could have been an Onion competitor had we lasted a bit longer; we ran monthly from 1990 to 1993 as a Bay-Area based humor rag that had about 80,000 readers at our peak. That seemed like a lot back then, but isn’t even a remarkable YouTube home video unique visitor count these days.

                There was a bad recession in California in 1993 that essentially dried up our advertising base and made it just too expensive to continue.

                It was a hell of a lot of fun while it lasted, though. We did give some pretty well-known writers and cartoonists their start, including Keith Knight and Tom Tomorrow. Heroic Mulatto says he’ll never forgive me for Tom Tomorrow.

                1. Cool story.

                  Thanks.

                  Heroic will get over it.

                  I think.

                  1. On second thought, I just Googled Tomorrow.

                    Not sure I can forgive you either.

                  2. *narrows eyes*
                    Nevveerrrrrr……..

                    1. http://images.politico.com/glo…..tchers.jpg

                      It’s funny because the New York Times is the most popular and if you don’t like it you’re like sooo not popular

                    2. That is the most horrible thing ever on the internet.

    4. I was always a Veronica man, myself.

  10. Oh, joy. Christie and Paul squaring off for the dubious tenth seat. First last place, plus the first to be bumped downstairs.

    Libertarian moment strikes again.

  11. I keep hearing Trump is going to fade, yet he just keeps climbing in the polls and racking up the headlines. No matter how stupid he gets, the Republican base is lapping it up and they aren’t getting behind any other candidate.

    No, I fear we’ve hit the real rock bottom here where the Dems have someone with a federal criminal investigation into them along with an open socialist as their top two, and the Republicans have a demagogic media personality who wants to deport all Mexicans in the lead by a massive margin. The idiocracy is here.

    1. The idiocracy is here.

      Says you, right before Joe Biden becomes our overlord.

      1. I don’t know. I think voting for Joe Biden would be the most sane option at this point. Hillary should be in prison and Bernie is a god damn socialist. Trump? He’s a crackpot third world dictator on the level of Chavez.

        I look forward to Trump hosting his own TV show from the oval office each week on PBS.

        1. Hillary or Biden with a GOP House-Senate majority scares me a lot and still a lot less than most of the GOP candidates with a GOP House-Senate majority. I’m really hoping Webb gains traction.

          1. I’m really hoping Webb gains traction.

            That would require the Dems to become sane and I see little evidence of that.

        2. Trump would be an American Berlusconi.

    2. I wonder how they define likely Republican voters.

      I guess the hope is that they are just getting a tiny sliver of the base that is currently paying attention, and once everyone else checks in something slightly less insane will prevail. That’s what I keep hearing, anyway.

      1. The weird thing is that polls consistently find most Republicans want a pathway to citizenship. Maybe just a raucous idiot fringe is at work here. The Texas state GOP has become a lot more immigrant-friendly with no apparent punishment from the bordertards.

        1. It’s just that, to most Republicans, “pathway to citizenship” means “sensible laws consistently enforced without undue delay or complexity”, not “strolling unnoticed across the border”.

          1. It’s one thing to think the border is sufficiently secure. But if you seriously think people who come here illegally just stroll across the border like they’re talking a walk to the park you need a major reality check. Hundreds of people die every year trying to cross the desert. It’s not exactly going to a picnic.

            1. Hundreds of people die every year trying to cross the desert. It’s not exactly going to a picnic.

              Hundreds of thousands arrive safely and relatively easily though, it’s an infinitesimally tiny fraction that winds up dead in the desert.

          2. For most of history, states functioned well enough restricting citizenship and its benefits to a special class of people without necessarily restricting the movement of uncitizens or the freedom of citizens to associate with them. But somehow now the only options are full citizenship or else unsupportable restriction on the movement of uncitizens and the ability of citizens to associate with them. And even when letting the others come and go as they please is proposed, without giving them full citizenship, there is some belief that they must still be granted most if not all the benefits of citizens of the country.

            1. “For most of history, states functioned well enough restricting citizenship and its benefits to a special class of people without necessarily restricting the movement of uncitizens or the freedom of citizens to associate with them.”

              I think that’s wishful thinking at this point, but it would be nice if you were right.

        2. The weird thing is that polls consistently find most Republicans want a pathway to citizenship.

          It’s almost as if people who are anti-illegal immigration aren’t anti-Mexican and aren’t anti-immigration.

          1. Uhm. Those polls show support for a pathway to citizenship/legal status for the illegal immigrants here.

            1. Uhm. That’s exactly my point. If they were anti-Mexican and/or anti-immigration (which is often assumed), their support would not be for a pathway to citizenship but for arrest and deportation.

              1. But that’s my point! I’m contrasting it with the seeming enthusiasm for Trump’s DEPORT EVERYONE plan.

                1. Sorry. I wasn’t even thinking of Trump; I was thinking about how Republicans in general are perceived on immigration.

            2. One could do away with problem of illegal aliens by permitting them to come and go as they please. They may still be aliens, but not so “illegally”. There’s no need for a pathway to citizenship, particularly with all the difficult consequences that may fall to with the naturalisation of large numbers of these people.

              1. In the early 80s, when the Greenspan Commission “saved” Social Security, it was common to claim that Social Security would eventually have only two workers per retiree.

                Bruce Bartlett, asst Secretary of Treasury and a shit-kicker conservative, said that was nonsense. The economy could not function even above that level. Before it happened we would ………. wait for it …. increase immigration!

                That was over 30 years ago, and still the most intelligent statement I’ve heard on both Social Security and immigration.

    3. I keep hearing Trump is going to fade, yet he just keeps climbing in the polls and racking up the headlines. No matter how stupid he gets, the Republican base is lapping it up and they aren’t getting behind any other candidate.

      What has to be remembered, in this 24-hour media environment, is that Donald Trump suddenly entered the race only two months ago yesterday. There are still 5-? months before any caucuses or primaries are held (Iowa on 2/1, New Hampshire 2/9). As usual, the field has gone through a number of different “front-runners” (I use those quotes because I like that Sean Trende made in a recent statistical piece on RCP; we’ve taken a term meant for delegate-count leaders and applied to poll-leaders early in campaign process and distorted the importance of this phase of the campaign). But Trump makes for good media ?and he knows that he does ?so his moment becomes all the more oversized, all the more YUGE!

      1. I’ve made the case elsewhere that Trump’s current success is tied to his skills in marketing; he opted for the ideal time to enter the campaign, during the ‘summer doldrums,’ when other candidates were focused on fundraising & writing policy pieces. Trump is self-funded and his ‘campaign brand’ plays to economic-nationalism & anger against that sort of wonk policy (waved off as “being PC”). He timed it right to enter during a sort of intermission and starting speaking in fall-campaign rhetoric so everyone in the GOP race had to drop what they were doing and play catchup; despite being the late entrant, he effectively controlled the discourse as if the early entrant to jump-start the next Act of the campaign.

        It’s an emotional an brand-based appeal versus a more conventional primary campaign, but it will be interesting to see how long it can work (the fall is usually the Policy Round, where money raised in the summer is spent on spreading the message). But the numbers are going to shift; any tattoo you get now will be regretted. The only question is whether, in an age of disruption, does a marketer-playing-politician succeed by using the marketing textbook vs than the political textbook, as Donald Trump has so far done in launching his campaign (and how long can that marketing campaign last ?the DNC has relied heavily and successfully on marketing campaigns during both Obama races, but those came as extensions of earlier classic-political primary races)…

    4. Republican base is lapping it up and they aren’t getting behind any other candidate.

      He speaks truth to power. Ironically, he speaks more truth to power than Jon Stewart did. Stewart did more speaking truth WITH power.

    5. cant talk, ‘batin.

    6. the Dems have someone with a federal criminal investigation into them along with an open socialist as their top two

      Yeah, but at least they’re both veteran politicians. You won’t catch the Democrats nominating some goddamned neophyte interloper. You can’t trust anybody with the reins of the presidency unless they’ve had a long, incestuous career in D.C.

      /Welch

  12. So Speaking of the Libertarian Moment, how come libertarians haven’t taken over city councils in the big cities? The Democrats in those cities suck and in cities like Chicago and Detroit the Republicans are pretty much non-existent. Surely there must be libertarian urbanite hipster millenials in those cities who don’t have to appeal to racists, socons or rednecks in order to get votes?

    1. People like stupid. It is a familiar blanket which keeps them warm. They do not know any other blanket. So … stupid it is. Stupid for breakfast lunch and dinner.

    2. Because the libertarians and people who might vote for them left those cities.

      1. “Because the libertarians and people who might vote for them left those cities.”

        Best answer.

    3. Because of this maddening belief that every problem is the due to a lack of government action, and that proper coercion can solve anything. When people look at inner cities rotting away, they assume that the problem is “racist Republican policies” and a lack of funding… So they double down and pull the blue lever year after year.

      1. You forget “education”. It’s always fucking “education”, even though nobody who attributes every problem to inadequate education has any bloody idea what the dickens they mean by the phrase. Very often, at least nine times out of ten, if somebody does something wrong, it’s something he’d know was wrong if he’d never got any amount of education. If anything, more of the folderol passed off as “education” makes a person more likely to confuse a wrong action with a right one. Most eight year olds have a pretty clear grasp of right and wrong. But somehow during adolescency it all goes to hell and they come out thinking it’s all debatable and unclear and at the extreme end up like Tony, where right and wrong are reversed almost perfectly. Sunday school and religious youth corpses and crasy fucking religions or homes totally bereft of any kind of deeper philosophy certainly pick up the slack where the schools fall off. You end up with people who’ve totally lost any grasp of right and wrong, people who’ve got it all turned cockeyed and crasy, and people who perhaps still have some grip on it but are obsessed with the stupid idea that they need to worry about developing their cosmic consciousness or some such crap, treating it as somehow of more importance than acting honorably in each situation throughout the course of the day.

      2. As for the last, I have no idea how they do it. My spiritual power is pretty much exhausted just trying to act as honorably as possible at every turn each day, and I still fail to come too close to fulfilling my standards barely adequately. I don’t have anything left to worry about my place in the great cosmic plan or if God wanted something to piss on why didn’t he just make a pine tree.

    4. You have a habit of repeating yourself.

      Particularly comments which aren’t super clever to begin with.

      1. He’s like sarcasmic, but much dumber.

  13. I’m waiting for Jesse Ventura so I can officially say Idiocracy is upon us.

    1. It is hear … Ventura would be just announcing the obvious.

      1. What makes you terrible?

    2. The Ventura Moment? came and went.

    3. Ventura wants to be Trumps VP

      http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ning-mate/

      1. Perfect Combination.

        Sanders must get that Seattle Socialist that Paul. complains about to be his running mate.

        1. Which one? There are so many. He has to pick only one, remember!

  14. I’m starting to get the distinct feeling (only a Canadian can have) that Matt (God bless his eye glasses) doesn’t like Donald Trump.

    1. How would you compare that feeling’s similarity to the feeling only you Canadians have when a nearby moose is in heat?

      1. Ah man. Dude, it can’t possibly be put down in words.

        Not after two glasses of bourbon.

        /flicks propeller on beanie and flicks Crusty’s earlobe.

    2. Yep – there’s no sugarcoating it – Matt likes some other people more than he likes Donald Trump.

      1. I don’t know. Judging from the number of comments on the Trump articles, I think Reason and the rest of the media want him hanging around as long as possible. People like him they click, people hate him they click. That’s a win if your a website. If people really wanted him out they would stop clicking the web articles and turn the TV channel every time he is mentioned.

  15. These numbers should be an embarrassment to anyone with a brain in his skull or an “R” on his sweater.

    Ah Welch trying to pretend that saying this will make people take libertarians seriously since libertarians are so mainstream.

    1. Are you gonna leave Matt alone?

      I got your back Matt.

      /dozes off.

    2. Is what you have congenital or was it from brain trauma?

    3. Libertarians must be a pretty weaksauce gaggle of marginal freaks if you have to comment five times in one thread about what a weaksauce gaggle of marginal freaks they are. Only people with so little influence and relevance merit that kind of devoted derision.

      1. Whining incessantly takes work, Hugh. He has to get in enough whining to fill his quota.

      2. Since Welch and co. keep talking about the Libertarian Moment despite their inability to actually gain traction in an era of discontent with the existing party system and their leaders then they do deserve derision.

        1. Just ignore the MJ legalization and state-level reforms.

          1. And the utter lack of movement on legalizing any other drug… showing the issue has very little to do with libertarianism for most people.

          2. Yes, various states deigning to grant you permission to buy some heavily taxed pot is certainly a sign of the impending libertopia.

            Or, maybe not.

        2. It seems quite probable that sentiments favouring freedom and those favouring authoritarianism would often spike at the same time. In contrast, I would think that periods when authoritarian sentiment was less powerful would be those in which libertarian sentiment was also depressed; which would, of course, incline a society to steady plodding onward deeper into authoritarian structures. Wheras, when sentiment both directions is high, one ought to see the culture in conflict, part of it throwing itself head over heels into the stinking bowls of fascism, the other vociferously declaring freedom as it’s dragged down alongside the first.

      3. It’s Winston. If he didn’t have anything to bitch about, he’d bitch about that. I think he’s my grandfather really.

      4. Only people with so little influence and relevance merit that kind of devoted derision.

        You do realize this could just as easily apply to Reason and the Trump hysteria, right?

  16. Hillary Clinton smiles every time Trump appears as the GOP frontrunner.

    1. I’m pretty sure *every member* of TEAM BLUE smiles whenever Trump so much as opens his mouth, but they positively beam when they see these poll results.

      1. The Donald improves national morale!

        1. This is for you, MS.

          1. I’d vote for Trump, but I’m shooting for total chaos and peak derp !

  17. So sad the fight against liberalism fell into the hands of the GOP which co-opted the religious right for campaign funds in the 80’s (can you say losing?), then gets overtaken by a Gorman Seedling/Gen Buck Turgidson ticket! Sigh…

  18. “So after seven years of bitching about a mediocre president’s crippling inexperience, more than two-fifths of Republican voters are going nuts over candidates who make Sarah Palin look like a wisened political veteran.”

    I don’t think that is how this works Matt.

    1. He is not mediocre. He is worse than terrible by any measure.

    2. His inexperience amounted to never having done anything, anything at all. That is not the same thing as never having held elected office.

    Good grief.

  19. Matt, in your alt text did you mean the Bowie/Reznor song “I’m Afraid of Americans?”

    1. Coming from a Brit, citizen of a formerly ruthless and oppressive economic and cultural imperialist empire, for Bowie to complain about American cultural “homogenization” (largely rooted in voluntary adoption of American media and culture) is pretty ironic.

      1. I have never forgiven Phil Collins for the shitshow that is “Land of Confusion.”

  20. What the polls are really saying is, ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE.’ The GOP is in its death throws … despite having more members in office than at anytime since Hoover. The collapse is going to mimic the death if the whigs in the 19th century. The electorate is dissatisfied, angry and knows something is wrong. They are also economic illiterates who think moar free shit, and a bigger war on drugs may save them. The end result will be moar of the same.

    1. ^death throes. Don’t ask me why.

      1. Death rows?

          1. Deftones?

            1. Definitions?

    2. Whither their state and local successes?

  21. Does anyone recall Trump (the greedy bastard) v/s Vera Coke? The little old lady? Trump and his casino wanted to rip off the little ol’ lady of her house, for a stinkin’ PARKING LOT FOR LIMOS, fer Chrissakes, for Trumps God-Damned casino! The high and mighty ripping off the “little pepples”… That was about 10 years ago. Am I showing my age? WHERE is our memory, and WHERE is our outrage? Does “The Donald” justify that by claiming, maybe, that Vera Coke was an “illegal humans”?

  22. I just saw Hilary’s ad about her mother.

    What’s the word for beyond, bull shit shameless?

    1. Clintonesque?

      1. Is that the new term for sleazy? Cause that works in so many ways;

      2. Clintoniavellian

    2. What’s the word for beyond, bull shit shameless?

      Hillary.

  23. WHATEVER WALSH, WAY TO PHONE IT IN FROM THE RIVIERA

    I got my Trump T-shirt already and have even seriously considered wearing it out-of-doors sometime a few years from now

    1. Why wouldn’t you? That’s terrific!

      1. I think in the current climate it will be confused as either genuine support, which could attract both unwanted comrades as well as unwanted getting spat-on…. or genuine mockery, which could… well, the same thing, only the other way around. I’m waiting until people have calmed down and all it will inspire is a nod and a, “nice one, bro”

    2. Oh, and I caught your response re: schizophrenia. My brother takes it in stride, putting his time in when the guy is lucid and taking the occasional phone call, but it’s been a constant source of anguish for his father. Now that the meds have taken hold everyone’s waiting for the other shoe to drop.

      I was pretty young during the onset, but in my early teens my mom and his dad started corresponding quite a bit. Turns out she’d gotten it in her head that I was manifesting symptoms. No idea why, and I didn’t find out until my twenties. Kept her anxious for a number of years, though.

      1. ” Now that the meds have taken hold everyone’s waiting for the other shoe to drop.”

        You mean do something super-nuts and become scary again? I don’t really understand.

        My own brother’s friends have been pretty good throughout his condition (which is almost 20 years old now). They kept in touch and routinely check in on him

        If the guy is on Clozoril/Clozapine, and its working, he’s probably in the clear, psychopathic-symptoms-wise. The biggest source of problems is that it kills white blood cells, and it means they’re susceptible to random infections that can put them in the ER in minutes. My bro has had like 5 types of pneumonia that normal people just don’t get anymore.

        Mothers who see anyone get mentally ill instantly become expert psychiatrists and start diagnosing everyone around them. I think its sort of a cliche. My own mom thinks weed causes it.

        1. To regress. It’s all brand-new, and from the sound of it they didn’t expect such a positive response. He relapses now and again, but so far it’s been minor and nonviolent. But a few months of lucidity after decades slipping in and out of paranoid delusions, it’s easy to see why they’re trying not to get their hopes up too much.

          1. Yeah, the medication-stabilizing process can take many years.

            Especially because the docs tend to gradually move from the least-risky meds, up the chain to the more-dangerous ones, rather than immediately start with what they think is ‘the best’. Its a very complex cost/benefit/risk/side-effect balancing act.

            Again…if he’s on Clozaril/Clozapine, and its working… the odds of “stabilizing” in a permanent way are very good. Its specifically used on people for whom nothing else is working. The effect on my brother was like night/day, particularly as the delusional/erratic emotional-explosions thing went. Usually used in combination with Lithium. Problems occur from time to time because as patients start to feel “healthier”, they tend to start reducing their meds (because of the shitty side effects)… and then they don’t notice their own slipping back into problematic behavior.

            1. It’s very heartening to hear a clozaril success story. You are right, it’s the most risky antipsychotic to prescribe, and usually only reserved for ‘treatment-resistant’ patients. The requirement to get a blood draw every 1-3 weeks (depending on condition and length of use), and a new prescription each time based upon the lab results, is a real tough condition to meet — so you don’t see clozaril used more often. But it can be a godsend when it is used successfully in people whose options had seemed pretty bleak up till then.

              All the best to your brother. And kudos to you, you clearly understand your brother’s condition, and from the way you describe things I’m sure you are very supportive and a good resource for him. That’s often not the case with family members (as I’m sure you’ve heard).

              1. Thanks, the thought is appreciated.

            2. The side effects of the newer atypicals can be pretty awful as well, augmented by the fact that they creep up more insidiously and that prescribing physicians frequently don’t forewarn the patients about them or make as much effort to monitor the case and ensure it isn’t getting out of hand. There’s also a tendency in physicians to minimise side-effects so long as they aren’t likely to kill somebody off, even though they can turn his experience of life to shit. I was given a very low, subtherapeutic dose of quetiapine for a little over a year. My prevously life-long perfect teeth started falling out, I kept gaining weight despite a restricted diet, and, as they amped up the dosage, I started having to struggle through this horrible sensation like I was dying that dragged on for an hour or so every day when the levels peaked, and I acquired a number of rather severe spastic tics. I actually tracked the incidence of psychotic events throughout and while auditory events were pretty much eliminated, there was actually an increase in the rate of visual events, though, whether it’s due to the drug I can’t say, they were never distrubing or particularly bothersome or inspiring of any strong feeling at all. Later I discover how much worser it can get for a person on the much higher therapeutic doses for a long duration.

    3. You need some Billy Beer.

  24. So, what is the # the twitterers will come up with for Welch?

    #cucktarian?

    1. libertarian isn’t enough of an epithet?

  25. If you strike it that Carson and Trump are getting super Matt, maybe you should look in the mirror. If those guys are getting traction, it is partly because Libertarians have utterly failed to appeal to them. The entire rank and file of the GOP is disenchanted with the party and looking for an alternative and Libertarians still can’t get any traction. At what point does the “everyone is just stupid and doesn’t understand ” excuse start to wear thin?

    Carson and Trump are successful because they make people feel like their concerns are being addressed. Gee Matt maybe insulting people and calling anyone who deviates from the orthodoxy stupid is a less effective way to convince people to support your side?

    1. The GOP establishment isn’t libertarian, and it’s not like Matt Welch or anyone at Reason is running for the nomination. Paul is the only somewhat libertarian candidate in the field, and despite not being a Reason-esque “cosmotarian” by any means and running a campaign that has aimed to appeal to the conservative base of the party, is struggling in the polls and fundraising. I’m not sure how this is on Matt and libertarians.

      1. The point of politics is to persuade people. Matt and the rest of reason seem to forget that. If you don’t like Carson and Trump, fine. It does no good however to react to their success by being butt hurt and insulting their supporters.

        The proper reaction is to try and understand why they are appealing to these people and Libertarians are not. Just what do Libertarians offer these people other than calling them racists for thinking immigration might create problems? Seriously what? Gay fucking marriage? Uber? A bunch of other shit that only urban hipsters who are nearly all socialist any way care about?

        Reason writes about 20 articles a week about how the future is telling anyone white, over 30 and not a white collar worker to go fuck themselves. And now Matt is shocked and butt hurt those people are not supporting Libertarians. Well what the he’ll did he expect?

        1. “The point of politics is to persuade people. Matt and the rest of reason seem to forget that. If you don’t like Carson and Trump, fine. It does no good however to react to their success by being butt hurt and insulting their supporters.

          The proper reaction is to try and understand why they are appealing to these people and Libertarians are not.”

          I never see you make these sort of arguments when they criticize Sanders and his supporters. Suddenly when it’s Republicans they’re attacking it’s a problem.

          “The proper reaction is to try and understand why they are appealing to these people and Libertarians are not. Just what do Libertarians offer these people other than calling them racists for thinking immigration might create problems? Seriously what? …And now Matt is shocked and butt hurt those people are not supporting Libertarians. Well what the he’ll did he expect?”

          Again, there’s one semi-libertarian in the race, and he’s not even remotely the type of libertarian he’s attacking. He’s been trying to do exactly what you think Reason and libertarians in general should be doing (appealing to conservatives and their concerns) and is still failing miserably. Maybe these people aren’t supporting libertarians because they’re not libertarians? Why is that a hard concept to grasp? It’s not like Matt has been proclaiming the GOP to be a bastion of libertarianism.

        2. “Reason writes about 20 articles a week about how the future is telling anyone white, over 30 and not a white collar worker to go fuck themselves.”

          Coming from someone who regularly bashes various left-wing constituencies for having a victim complex, you might want to take a look in the mirror.

          Also, I don’t think Reason gets read nearly as much as you think it does if you think they’re impacting the decisions of a significant portion of the Republican electorate.

          1. That is just a fact. It is not being a victim. Victim of what? Libertarians have no power in this country. The point is libertarians need those people a lot more than they need libertarians. But hey continue to tell them to fuck off and keep dreaming that the Profgs some day will listen. Good luck with that.

            1. “The point is libertarians need those people a lot more than they need libertarians.”

              WTF would we even use them for?

              ” But hey continue to tell them to fuck off and keep dreaming that the Profgs some day will listen.”

              The ‘Liberaltarian’ fantasy died a long time ago.

            2. “That is just a fact. It is not being a victim.”

              Really? It is a fact that Reason has written 20 articles a week telling white people, over 30 people, and non-white collar workers to go fuck themselves?

              1. John has no conceptual understanding of what a ‘fact’ is or much else.

              2. Yes it is. And now Matt just can’t understand why they are not libertarians.

                1. Please provide me of this proof that you’re telling the truth and not just displaying your massive persecution complex.

            3. The point is libertarians need those people a lot more than they need libertarians.

              John, even now after all these years you don’t get the point of libertarianism.

              It’s not to change public policy and advance liberty.

              Instead the point is to give true believer smug satisfaction for their moral superiority.

              Embracing or even attempting to persuade those people doesn’t do that. But scolding and tantrums about ‘their’ stupidity does.

              1. Fuck off we do nothing but try to persuade people. The smug moral satisfaction is a well-earned bonus.

                1. Fuck off we do nothing but try to persuade people.

                  This would be funny if the irony were intentional.

                  1. It’s hysterical either way.

        3. “Reason writes about 20 articles a week about how the future is telling anyone white, over 30 and not a white collar worker to go fuck themselves. ”

          Oh John, you really tell the truth in ways you can’t understand. Right here we have why the GOP doesn’t embrace libertarianism: because they think hearing things they don’t like is tantamount to being told to fuck themselves. You have a massive persecution complex and that’s not our fault.

          1. Yes cytoxic the dumb racists don’t understand. Libertarians need to continue to be insufferable assholes like you are. If you just tell people they are too stupid to have an opinion that in anyway differs with yours long enough, they will love you.

            The libertarian movement is totally people like you. It is a fucking miracle it gets the 2% support it does

            1. Most people like being put in their place. It’s time libertarians started putting people in their place.

              1. Don’t tell Cyto where the guns are.

              2. Most people like being put in their place. It’s time libertarians started putting people in their place.

                Cyto’s been reading his PUA blogs!

              3. You know who else put people in their place?

            2. Even the craziest cults attract followers for a reason.

      2. I’m not sure how this is on Matt and libertarians.

        Did you not read all the articles on the Libertarian Moment and how millenials will cause it? Unless libertarians are taking over the Republicans and Democrats then this moment is not happening and perhaps people don’t like what libertarians say?

        1. Arguing over whether or not the Libertarian Moment is happening is completely different from blaming Matt Welch and libertarians for why the Republican Party likes people like Donald Trump and the others mentioned in the article. I don’t even disagree with you on the Libertarian Moment thing, read the thread from earlier, but Jesus Christ you never shut the fuck up about it, shoehorning it into every thread multiple times just gets annoying.

      3. Of course Paul is struggling at fundraising. He’s not offering favors. Trump probably isn’t doing so well either, but he can self-fund.

      4. Wait, are we talking about the party establishment?

        I thought we were talking about the base?

        Even though the party is as top down as the Democrats, so even talking about the ‘base’ – much less ‘the establishment’ is about as productive as arguing over an inkblot pattern.

        Divining the hidden meaning of Trump’s polling status is Matt’s version of a Rorschach test.

    2. “If those guys are getting traction, it is partly because Libertarians have utterly failed to appeal to them.”

      We also fail to appeal to socialists. What’s your point? People like Trump because they feel weak, and he sells them the idea that, through him, they can be strong.

      He might not be a fascist, insofar as he doesn’t seem to have any ideology at all, but he’s tapping into the same nasty vein of the human spirit for his appeal.

      1. John’s just pissed because he realizes that countering conservative talking points with well reasoned libertarian arguments is a redneck-hating cosmotarian dog whistle.

        1. “John’s just pissed because he realizes that countering conservative talking points with well reasoned libertarian arguments is a redneck-hating cosmotarian dog whistle.”

          And don’t you dare talk shit about Sarah Palin!

      2. He might not be a fascist, insofar as he doesn’t seem to have any ideology at all, but he’s tapping into the same nasty vein of the human spirit for his appeal.

        Hmmm…the fascists did gain power by pointing out how corrupt and incompetent the Establishment was. Makes me so optimistic for America’s future…

      3. Yes everyone is stupid and just doesn’t understand. Libertarians could never bear any responsibility for their failure to persuade anyone.

        1. Yup. That’s pretty much it: they’re stupid, your gargantuan persecution complex notwithstanding.

        2. If being a nativist, xenophobic asshole is the only way to appeal to Team Stupid then Team Stupid can fuck off.

          That goes for Trump and everyone of his brain dead supporters that would goosestep with Brownshirts if you played up the right boogeyman for them.

          1. Then lose. Who ever told you that life was easy or fair? Who can get some of what you want and live with things you don’t or you can get nothing. And libertarians get nothing because at heart they are losers more interested in being assholes than a accomplishing anything You people manage to be right and still lose. That is not the fault of the voters. That is the fault of libertarians for being as a group are just losers who like to lose

            1. “Then lose.”

              Oh so winning means just abandoning our principles? Fuck off. Even if every libertarian threw in with the GOP, you’d still fuck it up. The GOP and the conservative movement had ‘it’ in the ’00s and you still fucked it all up and gave us Obama. Great going losers. Thanks, I think I’ll skip on repeating that bullshit. We accomplish more in the past 20 years than the conservative movement has in its miserable existence.

              1. Yes. The profs hate your guts and now you can ensure everyone else does. 95% of the world doesn’t even k ow you people exist or car about any of the stupid shit delusional idiots like you claim is important. Worse, you take pride in being an obscure idiot. It is your entire identity. If you ever compromised an got anything done, you would lose that.

                Cytoxic you are exactly the kind of loser I am talking about. Losing and posing and playing Casandra while having revenge fantasies is who you are and you are people like you is why libertarianism goes nowhere. If it ever did you would hate it because hating success is what losers like you do.

            2. I’ve never harbored any illusions that the bigoted, anti-intellectual mogoloids that populate Team Stupid can be convinced to become libertarian.

              Libertarians have had much greater success simply agitating on single issues and pushing them into the mainstream via both parties.

              Notice that pot is legal in two states with support and tolerance for it growing nationwide, criminal justice reform is a bipartisan effort, and people are paying attention to police abuse and asset forfeiture.

              These are important developments from a liberty perspective even if you choose to dismiss them because you’re too petty and whiny about KULTURKAMPF issues like gay marriage.

              1. The sad fare of libertarians is laying the groundwork for others to run roughshod over. Marijuana is quickly becoming a fiefdom run by petty bureaucrats and criminal justice reforms look tepid and racially motivated. But at least that’s something.

                1. Bingo spittoon. At best, libertarians have been useful toadies for left us to take marginal gains in liberty and use them as weapons against the long-term prospects for freedom. Whoopee isn’t it great?

                  1. AHAHAHAHHA

                    I love it when John and other cons ascribe their own sins as ours. No John, it’s conservatives that pushed the WoD and immigration restrictions originally championed by the progressives ie that faction you love enabling.

                2. Well I guess some skimming totally cancels out the benefits of erasing a violent black market and putting fewer people in jail. DERP

              2. Yeah they can get gay marriage and give progs a weapon to destroy repigious freedom. Libertarians have never won on any issue. They didn’t even win on gay marriage. The progs did.

                If you hate the GOP, good. Just understand the feeling will be mutual. Ensuring you are hated by both sides of the political spectrum is what libertarians do and want. Face it, you want to lose. Itakes you feel good and righteous.

                1. Face it, you want to lose. Itakes you feel good and righteous.

                  I see your telepathic powers have activated again.

                  1. No. You were just a complete half wet and really easy to understand. You’re one of the dumbest people on here.

                    1. You know what makes you so frustrating? It’s not that you are consistently wrong. In fact, you often have very good points. It’s that you automatically assume you know the intentions of anyone that disagrees with you, and that those intentions are always “yeah, stick it to those stupid conservatives.” If someone says they are for an easier immigration process and a path to citizenship they must be an open border extremist who hates working class conservatives. Ditto on gay marriage. You come to a libertarian website but seem to completely disregard that people might be motivated by fidelity to liberty when it comes to culture war issues. And then you make these declarative statements about what other people must believe that are just factually wrong. If I’m one of the dumbest people on here, it isn’t because I called you out on your shtick.

                    2. “I’ve never harbored any illusions that the bigoted, anti-intellectual mogoloids that populate Team Stupid can be convinced to become libertarian.

                      Statements like that having no effect on assumed intentions after all.

                      And nothing – nothing – tops libertarian commenters who think they have a lock on the meaning of liberty.

                      That arguments like this one arise in places like this thread very much is indicative of why libertarians make little headway, even while voters’ concerns over liberty appear to be growing.

                    3. “complete half wet”

                      Racist.

                2. repigious

                  Johno of the week. Calling it early.

                3. John, does Ann Coulter know you’re stealing her shtick?

                4. Yeah they can get gay marriage and give progs a weapon to destroy repigious freedom. Libertarians have never won on any issue.

                  The fallacy here, and it’s one you make a LOT, is assuming libertarians care about libertarians “winning” something, like they’re nothing more than a football team I’m rooting for.

                  What matters is whether *liberty* wins. And, as with all things, progress here happens only in fits and starts, and yes, with occasional backsliding. People can no longer be thrown in jail for certain consensual sex acts with the people they care about–that is a win for liberty. You can debate what specific role “libertarians” had in that outcome, but that’s largely irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. Same with marijuana legalization, slowly as that is developing: sure, places like WA now have the entanglements of bureaucrats trying to get their hooks into the new market (the way they have their hooks in all existing markets), but people cannot be thrown in cages en masse for consuming a harmless substance, and that’s a net win.

                  It may be that liberty is overall losing. It does seem that way sometimes. But you have never, in all your endless bleating on this subject, articulated a reason why liberty has a better shot at winning if I start devoting my time and energy to giving absolute power to the Donald Trumps and Ben Carsons of the world, as seems to be your central conceit.

                  1. I don’t think you should support from. I think you should try to convince come supporters to support someone else. You don’t do that by insulting them and telling them they’re stupid. That’s what libertarians have a terrible habit of doing. Please call everybody who disagrees with them stupid racist and then a shock when does people won’t support libertarian policies. It’s very telling that somebody libertarians love Menkin. Menkin was nothing but a mediocrity who never accomplish anything but insulting people. That is fun and all but it doesn’t help. Libertarians should be angry at themselves for allowing Trump to get the support of people who should be supporting them. Instead they feel sorry for themselves and insult the very people whose support they need

                    1. Mencken was a huge fan of that libertarian utopia that was Imperial Germany. A Militarist welfare state would seem to be something he hated in the US but I guess Germany had TOP MEN in charge. Scarcely different from Tom Friedman and other “why can’t we be like China?” people.

                    2. Libertarians should be angry at themselves for allowing Trump to get the support of people who should be supporting them.

                      I’m not sure why you think people supporting Trump ought to be supporting libertarians instead. They support Trump because they apparently like the idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars to deport peaceful people (and some American citizens) and wall off the border a la East Germany. If that is what they want, libertarians have nothing to offer them. Trump supporters aren’t progressives, but that doesn’t make them natural libertarian allies.

                      Several outfits have *tried* to explain how libertarian immigration reform would actually address lots of conservative concerns over illegal immigration, and how immigrants contribute a lot to American society. And when we make those arguments we are accused of telling conservatives to go fuck themselves. Why? Because some guy is pissed that he may have to compete for his job with a hard working Mexican? Sorry, but when progressives try to use the power of government to protect themselves from economic reality, we tend to call them on it. I’m not unsympathetic to the guy whose job is threatened by immigrants, but I’m not going to pander to his worst tendencies just to get his vote.

                    3. “Trump supporters aren’t progressives, but that doesn’t make them natural libertarian allies.”

                      They actually have quite a bit in common with the original progressives from the early 20th century.

                    4. Menkin was nothing but a mediocrity who never accomplish anything but insulting people.

                      Yeah, but he lived with his mommy into his 50s.

                    5. “Menkin was nothing but a mediocrity who never accomplish anything but insulting people.”

                      Yeah, Mencken never accomplished anything.

                      It’s not like he brought national attention to the Scopes Monkey Trial or anything.

                      He also won one of the most important free speech court cases during the 1920’s when they tried to censor a short story he ran in his magazine.

                      I can list many other accomplishments of Mencken – he was an early critic of prohibition and was a major influence among the people who eventually turned the tide on the issue of alcohol legalization and he was an incredibly important literary critic who had a lot of influence among young writers of the 20’s and 30’s, particularly Fitzgerald. He was the first American to write a critical analysis of Nietsche, he was an early supporter of Ayn Rand, he provided Henry Hazlitt with a forum in his magazines, he was a major influence on Richard Wright…

                      So in other words, he won important political victories when it came to fighting for a free press, he was a major influence in favor of repealing prohibition and against religious bigotry and intolerance, and he was very important to writers of his era and had an incredibly large impact on the evolution of American literature.

                      You’re right. He accomplished nothing. Solid argument, John.

                    6. “Menkin was nothing but a mediocrity who never accomplish anything but insulting people.”

                      Yeah, Mencken never accomplished anything.

                      I think John confused Mencken with a Merkin.

            3. Winning means nothing if you have to completely abandon what you believe in. Libertarians are not conservatives. You simply fail to grasp this, and then chastise us for not realizing your brilliant plan for libertarian success which consists of more or less becoming conservatives.

              1. Yes. Winnings and nothing to you. That is why you are a loser. I know that.

                1. I don’t define myself by whether or not my political ideology or party gets success at the ballot box (and even at the cost of my principles no less). If you do, I feel sorry for you. What’s your excuse for conservatism? Why is it always libertarians to blame when the progs do something bad? What the fuck have conservatives accomplished recently? You guys had control of the legislature and executive for years in the 2000s and fucked up royally, and since then haven’t done much besides losing to Obama twice and winning a couple midterm elections. How can you get up on your soapbox and lecture libertarians with that sort of track record backing you up?

                  1. No call. I am tired of bad policies always getting worse. It does no good to be right if the people who agree with you never get into power. LibertRians are right about a lot of things. But they are such assholes about it that they turn off a lot of people. They are so in love with the culture war they happily stick it to the very people most likely to help them everywhere else. Welch himself has talked about how horrible it is that the people most likely to agree with him about economic issues are on the other side of the culture war. But he hates those people and happily alienates them.

                    1. “But they are such assholes about it that they turn off a lot of people.”

                      And yet this could never be the explanation for the GOP’s troubles with certain groups, no, it’s always the liberal media in that case.

                      I don’t disagree that libertarians could do a better job marketing themselves. But you’re drastically overestimating their importance in the Republican Party if you’re making the current state of the primary race out to be a result of their actions.

                      “They are so in love with the culture war they happily stick it to the very people most likely to help them everywhere else. Welch himself has talked about how horrible it is that the people most likely to agree with him about economic issues are on the other side of the culture war. But he hates those people and happily alienates them.”

                      Conservatives have consistently shown they care more about the culture war than limiting government and promoting economic freedom. Reason had demonstrated much more flexibility on cultural issues than the conservative base of the Republican party has. They’ve had mostly positive coverage of Rand Paul, as well as his father, who are both anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage (though both stating ideally the government would reduce/eliminate its role in that sphere). How well would a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate do in the Republican primary? To you, not alienating someone via the culture war = caving to conservative positions on immigration, gay marriage, etc.

              2. Winning means nothing if you have to completely abandon what you believe in.

                Well it has worked for the Democrats. However since they destroyed classical liberalism while doing so…

                1. Seriously though, libertarians easily tear themselves apart over pragmatism/idealism which will cause serious trouble if they ever gain elected power. Look at Congress for example. For example, should they vote to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a shutdown? Should they modify Obamacare or repeal it completely?

                  1. Those are hard choices Wednesday. Libertarian still too hard choices. Libertarian to live in a fantasy land where everyone eventually is going to see the light and do exactly what they want them to if we just keep trying hard enough.

              3. Winning means nothing if you have to completely abandon what you believe in.

                It’s not really about winning or losing, it’s about being able to implement your policies or not.

                If what you believe in will never be implemented in practice because most people disagree with you, then maybe you should find something that comes as close as possible to what you believe in and has a possibility of being implemented.

                1. That’s why a lot of libertarians, including Reason, have supported Rand Paul, even though he’s far from a perfect libertarian. But John’s basically asking everyone to just go along and suck up to conservatives, ignoring the fact that libertarians are not conservatives and aren’t just gonna concede their differences.

                  1. On a conceptual level, I agree with John that libertarians would do better if they could form a coalition with grassroots conservatives.

                    Conservatives are generally much more intellectually honest than progressives, and many are more receptive to good arguments (e.g., many have modified their positions on sentencing reform, weed decriminalization/legalization, and mass surveillance) while the hidebound conservatives are eventually going to die off. The odds of libertarians prevailing on their own are nil, and there’s absolutely no chance that a coalition with progressives could influence the progressive agenda. I also agree with John that, outside of the Cato variety, most libertarians are, to put it bluntly, assholes and cannot bite their tongue when conservatives blather about American exceptionalism, Israel’s prophetic destiny, stealing Arab oil, and imposing import tariffs.

                  2. Reason supported Rand Paul? They haven’t had quite the surplus of negative coverage against him that other outlets have had, but they have had a lot.

                    1. Do you read the same website? The vast majority of Reason’s articles on Paul have been positive. Just because they haven’t offered 100% unqualified praise even when he takes positions they disagree with doesn’t mean they haven’t been supportive of him.

                  3. But John’s basically asking everyone to just go along and suck up to conservatives

                    No, he’s not. Refraining from calling someone a racist homophobic bigot is not “sucking up”.

                    ignoring the fact that libertarians are not conservatives and aren’t just gonna concede their differences.

                    They shouldn’t. They should demand some compromise. Given that there are on the order of 30 times more conservatives than libertarians, the concessions the conservatives make are going to be smaller than the ones the libertarians make in such an alliance.

                    1. “the concessions the conservatives make are going to be smaller than the ones the libertarians make in such an alliance.”

                      Then I’m not interested. We’re not equal. Conservatives are wrong and extremely failure-prone. Libertarians are far more effective and punch above their weight. I am only interested in alliances on an issue-by-issue basis. Otherwise, frankly, after their going insane during the ’00s, I expect total quiet obeisance from conservatives. They should be glad to have libertarians to tell them what to do and think. They are like child soldiers -at best.

                    2. ” Libertarians are far more effective and punch above their weight”.

                      If you are referring to Welch’s success at concern trolling over the people currently at the top of certain polls, then yes, you are correct.

                    3. “No, he’s not. Refraining from calling someone a racist homophobic bigot is not ‘sucking up’.”

                      If you think that accurately sums up Reason’s criticism of conservatives you’re reading what you want to read. Acknowledging that a significant percentage of conservatives are racist and homophobic doesn’t mean you’re accusing them all of that. And it is simply a fact that many of them are that way. As much as conservatives love to bitch about political correctness they love to enforce their own version of it. I don’t think a majority of Republicans or conservatives are racist, but Donald Trump did shoot to the top of the polls at 25% based on little more than calling Mexican immigrants a bunch of drug-dealing rapist criminals and promising to deport illegals and their US citizen children. It’s not a majority but it’s not some fringe 1% minority. As for homophobia, as recently as just a few years ago, a majority of Republicans and conservatives thought homosexual sex should be illegal. Pointing out these inconvenient facts doesn’t mean you’re an asshole or that it’s your fault the GOP supports clowns.

                    4. “They shouldn’t. They should demand some compromise. Given that there are on the order of 30 times more conservatives than libertarians, the concessions the conservatives make are going to be smaller than the ones the libertarians make in such an alliance.”

                      But libertarians don’t have to make such an alliance any more than we do with progressives. And conservatives have not shown themselves to be significantly more trustworthy or fond of liberty to the point where it would make sense even from a purely practical POV to compromise with them.

        3. Seems to me libertarians are doing pretty well in terms of persuading people on policies. Perhaps there’s a bit of sour grapes on your part because the US is becoming less socially conservative?

          1. What policy? Gay marriage? I am pretty sure the progs claim credit for that. Name one issue libertarians can claim any success on besides culture war issue that the progs actually won and libertarians just played toady? There isn’t one

            1. Progressives are maybe 20% of the US electorate; they can’t pass shit by themselves. When they succeed at passing something, it’s because they convince independents like me to support them and their causes. So, yeah, I gladly “play toady” to progressives on common issues. I also gladly “play toady” to conservatives on free market issues.

              What bugs you as a social conservative is that you are part of an increasingly marginalized and isolated group of political extremists. Even in the Republican party, you’re just an isolated voting bloc that needs to be propitiated but otherwise kept at arms length. Ideologically, you favor big, intrusive government anyway, and you’d be far happier in the Democratic party, if the Democrats weren’t already home to your arch enemies.

              1. Yeah I am all for big government. That is why I am for ending the drug war and legalizing all forms of porn and ending the entire regulatory state.

                Your problem is your an idiot who thinks everyone fits into the cartoon voices in your head. And yeah, I am marginalized. Most people with an IQ are it is you and cytoxic’s world. It is the age of stupid. Of delusional half wits who know just enough about anything to be dangerous.

                1. “Yeah I am all for big government. That is why I am for ending the drug war and legalizing all forms of porn and ending the entire regulatory state.”

                  You’re also for a war on illegal immigrants and jailing doctors that euthanize consenting patients. Yeah, real freedom lover.

                2. Yeah I am all for big government. That is why I am for ending the drug war and legalizing all forms of porn and ending the entire regulatory state.

                  Everybody is for small government in some areas. That doesn’t make you a libertarian.

                  Your problem is your an idiot who thinks everyone fits into the cartoon voices in your head. And yeah, I am marginalized. Most people with an IQ are it is you and cytoxic’s world. It is the age of stupid. Of delusional half wits who know just enough about anything to be dangerous.

                  Well, I am certainly glad that you are around to show Reason how to influence people and win them over to libertarian viewpoints properly! Where would libertarianism be without high class and erudite debaters like you?

              2. Progressives are maybe 20% of the US electorate; they can’t pass shit by themselves.

                1. Gay marriage didn’t happen via democratic processes so that’s irrelevant.

                2. Progs are extremely good at screeching and namecalling until ordinary people just give up and agree to give them what they want so they can have some peace. Which is immediately followed by the progs screeching and namecalling for more. Sort of like two year olds; not sure if there is a reason for that similarity.

            2. “What policy?”

              If you can’t think of at lest a half-dozen off the top of your head, you need to spend less time commenting and more time actually reading the articles.

              1. You can name them but you don’t bother to. Try again

            3. Libertarians have indeed influenced policy.

              1) Concealed carry liberalization and resistance to gun control initiatives. It was not just the NRA and the GOP, but solid research by libertarian scholars.
              2) National ID.
              3) Marijuana liberalization. Marijuana laws were a progressive innovation.
              4) Sentencing reform. Draconian crack sentencing requirements were a bipartisan project of progressives and conservatives.
              5) Welfare reform in the 1990s.
              6) Stopped Obama’s unilateral war in Syria.
              7) Rolled back McCain/Feingold assault on free speech.
              8) Educated the public and lawmakers on the militarization of the police.
              9) Educated the public and lawmakers on the abuse of civil asset forfeiture.
              10) Educated the public and lawmakers on the abuse of imminent domain.

              Gay marriage isn’t my issue; as far as I’m concerned the progs can have it. The state should not be involved in sanctioning private relationships.

              1. John = pwnd

              2. Citations needed in general, but I’ll make a few points:

                5) Solidly rolled back. Work requirements have been at least partially waived in 41 states.
                6) Citation needed.
                7) Are you claiming credit for Citizens United? Shouldn’t that be, well, Citizens United?
                8-10) I’ll grant have been predominantly libertarian focus items.

              3. 1) Concealed carry liberalization

                That was the NRA all the way. “Libertarian scholars” have performed research on a shitload of other liberty issues and had no effect, so I’m calling bullshit.

                2) National ID.

                What about it? We already essentially have it in the driver license standardization requirements.

                3) Marijuana liberalization. Marijuana laws were a progressive innovation.

                Progressive in the early 1900s referred to a completely different movement. And there’s been zero progress on other drugs, so it’s unlikely to be a libertarian accomplishment.

                4) Sentencing reform.

                To the extent this has actually happened, it’s been a racially-charged issue championed by the left. Ridiculous mandatory minimums still stand and are unchallenged on anything but racial grounds.

                5) Welfare reform in the 1990s.

                You kidding me? Conservatives had been pushing for this for decades.

                6) Stopped Obama’s unilateral war in Syria.

                John Kerry’s big mouth, and to some extent Putin’s maneuvering, stopped it. They made clear they were going to go ahead with it with or without congressional approval.

                7) Rolled back McCain/Feingold assault on free speech.

                John Roberts is a libertarian?

                8-10 educating the public isn’t a policy effect, and it hasn’t really happened anyway, aside from racially charged instances.

    3. Carson and Trump are successful because they make people feel like their concerns are being addressed.

      Well, yes, they are like progressives, all about “feeling” and “helping”, except even dumber.

      Gee Matt maybe insulting people and calling anyone who deviates from the orthodoxy stupid is a less effective way to convince people to support your side?

      We already know that we don’t have a good idea how politicians can successfully run on “No, I won’t address your concerns. You need to address your concerns yourself.” Reason articles are merely commiseration among libertarians.

      1. If only they did that. Mostly reason is go fuck yourself you stupid racist fundies. They really have no clue how they come across.

        1. If we cared about how we came across we wouldn’t be libertarians. It is not our fault you hate freedom and love being a crybaby.

        2. You seem a bit confused about what Reason is. Reason is not running a political campaign, nor is it a Republican publication, it’s a magazine by libertarians for libertarians. And as such, neither Reason nor its readers have to kowtow to, or take any bullshit from, social conservatives or Christian fundamentalists.

          And as a political strategy, I think Republicans would do best to push social conservatives over to the Democrats; the number of social liberals that are willing to at least live with more free market reforms is likely already larger than the dwindling and increasingly senile group of socially conservative voters.

          1. I’m afraid the confusion is yours.

            Reason Foundation advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law.

            Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically-acclaimed Reason magazine. Together, our top-tier think tank and political and cultural magazine reach a diverse, influential audience, advancing the values of choice, individual freedom and limited government.

            Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge, transparency, accountability and results. Through practical and innovative approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individuals and voluntary institutions to flourish.

            1. You’re describing the organization that owns Reason Magazine, not Reason Magazine itself.

              1. The Reason collective is independent of the foundation.

              2. Is there some kind of emphasis beyond bold type that I can use here? Do we have a blink tag?

                Together, our top-tier think tank and political and cultural magazine reach a diverse, influential audience, advancing the values of choice, individual freedom and limited government.

                1. Mostly spreading bullshit. But, hey, it’s your tribe.

            2. Where does it say anywhere in there that Reason is a magazine aimed at converting Republicans or progressives to libertarianism? Getting news, information, and support out to people who are already libertarian-leaning is an important part of promoting libertarianism, and that’s what Reason is doing. Convincing mainstream America or Republicans requires different arguments.

              1. Nothing in that statement is talking about preaching to the choir, which is what you’re advocating.

                1. I’m not “advocating” anything. I’m simply noting that it is idiotic to draw conclusions about how libertarianism is presented to mainstream America (as people like “John” or Michael Hihn are doing) from the articles or the comment section of Reason.

                  1. I’m simply noting that it is idiotic to draw conclusions about how libertarianism is presented to mainstream America (as people like “John” or Michael Hihn are doing)

                    You’re full of shit, as always.

              2. Where does it say anywhere in there that Reason is a magazine aimed at converting Republicans or progressives to libertarianism?

                That’s what the website is for, Sport.

                Getting news, information, and support out to people who are already libertarian-leaning is an important part of promoting libertarianism, and that’s what Reason is doing.

                You don’t understand websites … how and why Reason tracks the traffic here …. and (why bother explaining?)

                Convincing mainstream America or Republicans requires different arguments.

                Which nobody is making.
                And Cato and Reason totally fail at showing/teaching readers (the choir) how to best convey and persuade on libertarian ideas and concepts. That WAS Reason’s function, for decades.

                And when people come here, based on a google search for a certain topic, what do they see? A comments section dominated by bullying, aggression and woodchippers. That’s the part you’re so ignorant of … as a bully yourself,

                THINK. When the libertarian brand is TOXIC … rejected by 91% of libertarians in the only comprehensive Cato survey … what does it say about our ability to persuade Americans … when even libertarians see the “tribal legends” as useless? But that’s just reality.

                1. You don’t understand websites … how and why Reason tracks the traffic here …. and (why bother explaining?)

                  Looking at your web site, I think it’s pretty obvious that you don’t understand web sites.

                  THINK. When the libertarian brand is TOXIC …

                  Well, Michael, as an ancient libertarian relic and party activist, you bear a great deal more responsibility for making the libertarian brand toxic than I.

            3. Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individuals and voluntary institutions to flourish

              Name some examples. Boldface optional.

      2. No, I won’t address your concerns. You need to address your concerns yourself.

        I can only think of a few ways for ordinary people to address, outside the political arena, their concern that the elites are voting themselves a new people. None of them is particularly warm and fuzzy.

    4. “If those guys are getting traction, it is partly because Libertarians have utterly failed to appeal to them. ”

      And that’s because the GOP base is stupid and hostile to freedom.

      1. And that’s because the GOP base is stupid and hostile to freedom

        (laughing) Should we give up now?

        They are shown NO alternative that isn’t just as stupid and hostile to individual liberty. Bit facts are no match for tribal lotyalty.

      2. “And that’s because the GOP base is stupid and hostile to freedom.”

        There’s another one of those hard to interpret signs that make it difficult for right leaning people to assume the intentions of libertarians.

    5. “The entire rank and file of the GOP is disenchanted with the party and looking for an alternative and Libertarians still can’t get any traction.”

      I have had people agree with me in principle a thousand times.

      “People own themselves. Their mind, their body, their conscience are their own”.

      They agree in principle until we start talking specifics. Taxes, drugs, free shit, cronyism, etc. The shouting match starts after they say “That is a fine libertarian argument BUT….”.
      People like the way the principle sounds when they say it, but they don’t really believe it, nor do they like it. The vast majority simply despise liberty. That is all there is to it and there isn’t much we can do about it. It is human nature. There is never going to be a libertarian moment.

      ” At what point does the “everyone is just stupid and doesn’t understand ” excuse start to wear thin?”

      To be fair John, it isn’t really an excuse as much as it is an observation.

      1. Then figure out how to convince stupid people. But whatever you do stop whining and start trying to win something. I think most of the people on this board want to lose they don’t ever want people to agree with him because then it wouldn’t be exclusive and they wouldn’t feel superior.

        1. Welch does that, by spending his time editing a magazine offering a libertarian POV and appearing on TV to give a libertarian perspective on the issues. Amazing, huh?

        2. There is no convincing stupid people. They won’t ever be saved. All you can do is to get the message out far and wide so the few that have the wisdom to get it will keep the fire burning for another generation, until the circumstances are right to kindle it up into something bigger.

      2. You jump from the person not agreeing to your interpretation of libertarian principles to saying they despise liberty. That’s the problem. Rather than working with what pro-liberty nerve endings there are in conservatives (or liberals) you just write them off as unsalvageable. It’s easier, I suppose.

        Say you went back in time to 1776 and had a conversation with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Would you write them off as despisers of liberty because of their slave ownership? That’s 100x more anti-libertarian than anything you’re going to find the average conservative supporting.

        1. The key question, DP, is: on balance, does the person favor increasing or decreasing liberty?

          For Washington and Jefferson that’s an easy one: they favored a sharp increase. That they were slave-owners is beside the point — the options were “free nation with slaves” vs. “English colonial possession with slaves”.

          Only a small minority of people on the left OR right favor, on balance, an increase in liberty. Those people are allies. You’re not.

          1. The key question, DP, is: on balance, does the person favor increasing or decreasing liberty?

            In that case, supporting existing drug wars and free shit programs shouldn’t count against them, as the person I was responding to claimed.

            Only a small minority of people on the left OR right favor, on balance, an increase in liberty. Those people are allies.

            And together with them you’re a drop in the electoral bucket. Sounds like you need some of your non-allies to become allies. Calling them homophobic racist xenophobe statist bigots isn’t going to help with that.

            1. Just because we ‘need’ them to be our allies doesn’t mean they can be.

              BTW we’ve been doing pretty well without conservatives on MJ and gay marriage legalization.

              1. I suppose, but with the progressive support of those 2 initiatives, you’re getting reamed in the ass with increased bureaucracy, crony capitalism, regulatory capture, and a host of other freedom and liberty-curtaililng policies.

        2. That’s the problem. Rather than working with what pro-liberty nerve endings there are in conservatives (or liberals) you just write them off as unsalvageable.

          We don’t write off the people as unsalvageable, we write off the ideologies as unsalvageable. You can’t simultaneously be a political social conservative and a libertarian. If you want to be a libertarian, you have to give up political social conservatism.

      3. “To be fair John, it isn’t really an excuse as much as it is an observation.”

        Also, isn’t “everyone is just stupid and doesn’t understand” basically the theme of the Trump campaign? All politicians are crooked, all left-wingers are evil, and everyone else Just Doesn’t Get it — that’s the message of the Trump Campaign.

      4. The shouting match starts after they say “That is a fine libertarian argument BUT….”.

        And you have no answer, which is THEIR fault?

        The vast majority simply despise liberty.

        They more likely despise your arrogance … as you proclaim total superiority over them. If I can see it, so do they.

        There is never going to be a libertarian moment.

        Not with the present establishment. We’ve reached the inevitable dead end of anti-gumnmint libertarianism.

        Pro-liberty has always worked. But anti-gummnnt libertarianism gains followers more easily … combined with shameless pandering to extreme socons. So we’re overloaded with goobers … 91% of libertarians reject libertarianism (as it’s now presented). But blame everyone else for not appreciating ? you.

        In 1957, Orval Faubus used an armed militia to deny 9 black kids’ “registration” at Little Rock’s Central High School. Eisenhower sent federal troops, ordered to use force if necessary to defend the rights of 9 black kids. A major victory in the battle for equal rights.

        Faubus later claimed that unelected judges had imposed their will on Arkansas, exactly what both Pauls say today.

        Here’s a test for ibertarians. A modern equivalent would see Obama sending federal troops to force the “registration” of gay marriages. Do you stand with state force or individual rights? Faubus or Eisenhower?

    6. Probably because in the few instances the libertarians actually offered an alternative, it was mostly around the periphery, on issues that nobody much gave a shit about. On the issues where there’s actually a demand for an alternative, the libertarians remained lockstep with the establishment.

      If you’re looking for The Libertarian Moment, look behind you. Ron Paul was it’s high point. Looks like he wound up playing Bill Haley to Trump’s Elvis.

      That’s why libertarians hate Trump so much – he pulled the rug out from under them as the alternative position. Instead of people having to settle for the alternative the libertarians wanted to give them, Trump gave them the alternative they actually want. And they’ll never forgive him for it.

      1. Trump’s “alternative position” is just a hodgepodge of caricatures of existing conservative positions, with no thought as to how they could actually implement them. He’s Stephen Colbert minus the hair, glasses, and coherence.

        1. ^THIS

        2. And the sad thing is, most of his supporters know that perfectly well. And they *still* prefer him to the libertarians. Somebody’s brand is in the toilet, and it obviously isn’t Trump’s.

      2. Yes, we’ll never forgive people for pushing evil, destructive policies. How gauche.

        1. If libertarians were actually as enthusiastic about opposing the state as they are about wrecking the nation, they might actually get some sympathy. Unfortunately they’ve tried to peddle the later under the guise of the former one too many times, and the peasants ain’t takin’ the bait. The peasants may be stupid – but they ain’t that stupid!

          1. Indeed, we just want to watch America burn. Especially that radical Matt Welch!

      3. “On the issues where there’s actually a demand for an alternative, the libertarians remained lockstep with the establishment.”

        Like what? I assume immigration is one of those, but the notion that the establishment supports libertarian immigration policy is laughable.

        I’m really curious what other issues you’re referring to.

        1. Like what? I assume immigration is one of those, but the notion that the establishment supports libertarian immigration policy is laughable.

          You get 11 million+ illegal immigrants in your country (the most conservative estimate) through strenuous enforcement of your immigration laws? Really?

      4. If you’re looking for The Libertarian Moment, look behind you. Ron Paul was it’s high point.

        He is a major factor in destroying the entire movement, with bigotry and bullshit federalism, ignoring the 9th and 14th Amendments.

        Whenever you hear, “All powers not expressly enumerated to the federal government are reserved for the states” … you’re listening to the Ku Klux Klan. States have powers which have never been delegated. The courts have NO power to defend constitutional rights from state abuses. We’re at the mercy of state governments. A fucking libertarian?

        Ron even sponsored legislation to deny homosexuals any right to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA — the MOST bigoted fascism since Japanese internment and Black slavery. Ron DEFENDED a federal veto over states being allowed to define marriage … and his cult swallowed it without question. Give …….. me ……….a …….. break.

        1. States have powers which have never been delegated.

          Right, that’s what the 10th amendment was for.

          The courts have NO power to defend constitutional rights from state abuses.

          Wrong, that’s what the 9th amendment was for. It’s really too bad that you’re too stupid to differentiate between government powers and individual rights, because the 9th and 10th are complementary, not adversarial.

          1. PM again! (OMG)

            (citing Ron Paul) States have powers which have never been delegated.

            Right, that’s what the 10th amendment was for.

            (lol) No, Ron Paul is as crazy as you. States CANNOT have undelegated power, per the 9th Amendment. And what kind of libertarian says otherwise???

            (citing Ron Paul) The courts have NO power to defend constitutional rights from state abuses.

            Wrong, that’s what the 9th amendment was for.

            That’s MY point, chump … And you just contradicted yourself,

            It’s really too bad that you’re too stupid to differentiate between government powers and individual rights, because the 9th and 10th are complementary, not adversarial.

            You say Ron Paul is too stupid ….I agree! Rights are superior to powers, in a government of delegated powers

            The 9th amendment forbids ALL levels (DUH) of government to deny or disparage fundamental rights — the Declaration’s unalienable powers of Life and Liberty (Among others) Thus Ron Paul (like you) is full of shit to claim states have ALL powers not enumerated, and claiming only “rogue judges” would overrule state law.

            Specifically, states have NEVER been delegated any power to. define marriage … And, ummm, Ron Paul tried to deny them that power, while also saying they had the power … thereby bamboozling his cult.

            (My tone in defense of aggression)
            (walks away laughing)

      5. Trump has captured the imagination of the anti-politician mindset. Carson as well. He’s a loose cannon who will always attract initial heat because he can tap into the emotional zeitgeist of a portion of the party.

        He’s a cypher at this point, even with his immigration policy no one has read.

        It’s also early, which means he’ll probably flame out as the electorate starts to pay more attention to exactly whom they want to put in the White House.

        I think Matt’s getting a little too bothered by Trump at this point in the game.

  26. What’s going on with the typos in these articles lately? Did Reason lay off their proofreader?
    The candidates make Sarah Palin look “wizened,” not “wisend.”

    I find when the news is too terrible to ponder, it’s best to focus on minor details.

    1. No, you fucking idiot, they meant “wizard”.

  27. Is that the alt-text for the wall they want to build on the border? I was skeptical before, but they never mentioned the attack terriers. I may have to rethink my position.

  28. It’s ironic that libertarians would think that the best candidate is the one who pays the most lip service to libertarian policies. The best candidate is the one who governs least, passes the smallest numbers of laws, and manages mess with people’s lives the least. That is, an utterly incompetent candidate that both parties hate may well be a better libertarian candidate than a self-proclaimed libertarian. Trump seems to have excellent qualifications for the former kind of candidacy.

    1. “Trump seems to have excellent qualifications for the former kind of candidacy.”

      Um, in what universe does this accurately describe Trump?

      “The best candidate is the one who governs least, passes the smallest numbers of laws, and manages mess with people’s lives the least.”

      1. I suppose he’s suggesting that Trump will be so incompetent he won’t be able to do anything since the bureaucrats and congressmen will oppose him?

        1. Yes, that’s what I’m getting at. It’s somewhat tongue in cheeck; I’m not seriously advocating voting for Trump. Nevertheless, my point is that the best candidate from a libertarian point of view isn’t necessarily the candidate that proclaims the libertarian party line the loudest.

          1. the best candidate from a libertarian point of view isn’t necessarily the candidate that proclaims the libertarian party line the loudest.

            The best one would never treat it as a party line at all. He or she would know how to connect it all to average Americans, in simple English, without the soundbites and slogans that excite most of those who identify with the libertarian brand.

            1. And Hihn having lost in 4th place in a 4 way race for insurance commissioner once knows better than anyone how to connect with the people.

              1. And Hihn having lost in 4th place in a 4 way race for insurance commissioner once knows better than anyone how to connect with the people.

                PM fucks up again!
                1) You should say that I ran under the Libertarian Party.
                2) Only as part of a larger effort to gain major party status,
                3) Which we achieved.

                You’re also full of shit that I finished 4th in a 4-way race (Nov 2000) (smirk)

                http://1.usa.gov/1hK8mJq

                Further humiliating PM, my interview in the Seattle paper shows what I said about connecting with voters in simple English.

                http://bitly.com/1Jo3mX2

                What would you do to make health insurance more affordable and available for individual consumers?
                Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.”

                (We were down to 3 insurers in the entire state, as insurers left from over-regulation.)

                (My tone here in defense of yet another aggression by a hapless thug)
                (walks away laughing)

            2. “without the soundbites and slogans”

              Good luck with that.

              1. “without the soundbites and slogans”

                Good luck with that.

                Reagan did it and won two landslides. Today’s MOVEMENT libertarians are more interested in anti-gummint slogans and soundbites, so they get suckered by Ron and Rand, plus Cato’s wacky policy proposals that are all rhetoric but totally stupid on workability.

                But 91% of libertarians are Nolan libertarians who reject the libertarian brand, possibly because we’ve IGNORED them for 40 years (above the purely local level)

      2. Former meant “an utterly incompetent candidate that both parties hate” in context. Though I don’t think you can count on that to help you out.

    2. The best candidate is the one who governs least, passes the smallest numbers of laws, and manages mess with people’s lives the least. That is, an utterly incompetent candidate that both parties hate may well be a better libertarian candidate than a self-proclaimed libertarian.

      Obama is one of the most incompetent people ever to hold the presidency, and look at all the shit he’s done. Much of his own party despises him at this point, though they won’t say it out loud for fear of upsetting the progs and being called racist.

      1. Obama is one of the most incompetent people ever to hold the presidency

        There are different kinds of incompetence. The incompetence I was referring to here was political incompetence; you know, what politicians and presidents need in order to pass laws. Obama and Hillary both have quite a bit of that. What they lack is competence in developing policies that actually work.

        1. Obama hasn’t passed shit since 2010. And the “accomplishments” of 2009-10 were largely those of Congressional Democrats (including Obamacare).

          1. Whatever makes you happy. My point is that if you think that the right way of making the US more libertarian is to elect a president who is going to pass more laws intended to make the US more libertarian, you’re missing the point and don’t understand regulatory capture.

            Libertarians should vote and think strategically, not in terms of which president talks the best libertarian talk.

  29. “So after seven years of bitching about a mediocre president’s crippling inexperience, more than two-fifths of Republican voters are going nuts over candidates who make Sarah Palin look like a wisened political veteran.”

    Sarah Palin had more *relevant* experience than pre-Presidential Obama. She was a mayor and a governor – and in those positions she had to confront members of her own party.

    Before Obama got his snout in the public trough as an Illinois legislator, he was…what? A “community organizer” and an autobiography-writer. In the state legislature, he distinguished himself by opposing a law to protect born-alive human beings.

    As a U.S. Senator, Obama amused himself by denouncing all the things he would himself do as President, because it was George W. Bush doing those things.

    1. That was a pretty lame gotcha. I’m more concerned about Trump’s (and Obama’s for that matter) idiocy then anything else.

      1. I wish I knew what you were saying so I could respond to it.

        1. The Welch quote you used at the beginning of your post.

      2. I submit you don’t earn several billion dollars by being an idiot. I’d like to see what all of the people calling him an idiot have to show for themselves. I notice there are few if any billionaires in that number.

        1. I’m open to the possibility that he doesn’t actually believe the nonsense he’s proposing. It is entirely possible that he’s a shrewd businessman who knows how to market to low information voters.

        2. I submit that you don’t earn several billion dollars by being a genius.

    2. Fiorna had experience in business, where she seems to have made some errors, unlike those with experience in elected office, whose records were inpeccable.

      Trump has experience, though it’s mainly experience in promoting his own brand. From that perspective, he’s well suited to the modern American Presidency.

      And Carson’s experience…well, his only relevant experience involves stuff like doing very delicate brain surgery to separate conjoined twins who were joined at their heads.

      Yeah, let’s vote for people with *real* experience…experience in reading off the Teleprompter, making up cover stories for their fuck-ups, and playing golf. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama played more golf than most brain surgeons.

      1. Carson is a no kidding brain surgeon. The entire staff of reason combined couldn’t pass the MCAT. But Matt is just so much smarter and more wisened than Carson.

        1. Cool story bro. Nothing so relevant to libertarian principles of governance than the MCAT.

        2. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a no kidding astrophysicist. The entire staff at Breitbart and The National Review couldn’t get a doctorate on the subject.

          But John is so much smarter and more wisened than Tyson.

          1. His lack of critical awareness is almost awe-inspiring.

          2. NdGT is also a no kidding confirmed fabulist.

            All the degrees in the world meaning nothing once you’ve shot your credibility in the head.

        3. I work with no-shit Nobel prize-level geniuses. They are great people, but I wouldn’t, in general, go to them for wisdom in politics or economics. Maybe Carson is the exception, but his MCAT scores wouldn’t be the reason.

          1. Hell, there are Nobel prize winning economists that I wouldn’t go to for general economic wisdom.

            /motions head in direction of NYT

            1. I certainly know, and know of, people who are total geniuses in their own fields but utterly naive – dangerously so – in politics.

              But I was responding specifically to the “experience” canard – as if the only relevant experience for being President was hanging out in the Senate, reading speeches written for you by your aides, getting jobs and favors for constituents and contributors, etc.

              Whatever you think of Lincoln, he made a distinct contribution as President, yet his only experience in elective office was a term in the House, a decade before he was President.

              Eisenhower had no elective office before he became President. Heck, he had less experience in elective office than *Obama.*

              1. Wait, I forgot Lincoln’s experience in the Illinois legislature.

                OK, then – he had experience promoting bonds in the Illinois legislature…bonds which crashed and burned.

                Which is why you aren’t often reminded of his legislative career.

              2. Eisenhower may not have ever held elective office but he did hold numerous positions in which politics played a heavy role.

                1st Supreme Allied Commander Europe
                In office
                April 2, 1951 ? May 30, 1952

                16th Chief of Staff of the Army
                In office
                November 19, 1945 ? February 6, 1948

                1st Governor of the American Zone of Occupied Germany
                In office
                May 8, 1945 ? November 10, 1945

                13th President of Columbia University
                In office
                1948?1953

                Plus all of his years in the Army.

                “”God help the nation when it has a president who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.”
                – Eisenhower

                http://www.foxnews.com/opinion…..itary.html

        4. So what? Because Carson is a brain surgeon doesn’t mean he understands politics or is necessarily a ‘smarter’ choice. I know doctors who have pretty dense political views. Matt be infinitely smarter on political issues/history because, you know, it’s his job.

        5. That just means he took WIS and CHA as dump stats.

        6. Carson is a no kidding brain surgeon.

          Yes, and given what jerks and risk takers surgeons generally are, that is not a point in his favor.

          1. You are correct, Win Bear.

            The guys who went into surgery from my med school class tended to be the arrogant jock guys.

            And despite the well-worn epithet, ‘brain surgery’ is not somehow only for the super-intelligent, it’s just another kind of surgery (perhaps because the brain is involved, people think it’s somehow only for geniuses? But no, it’s not rocket science).

            1. Brain surgery is a big deal because it’s far easier to fuck up than other kinds of surgery.

              1. Perhaps, but a steady hand does not equal genius. You fuck up brain surgery by slipping and cutting too deep or severing a nerve. It’s still basically “cut here, stitch there”.

              2. It also matters less and is nearly impossible to detect if you fuck up because people who undergo brain surgery are desperate anyway. Any negative outcome can simply be explained away.

                In that sense, Carson has the ideal prerequisites, Obama style: Carson has the necessary hubris to make decisions that can cripple or kill without really knowing what exactly he is doing, and if he screws up, nobody can prove it, and he can even fool himself into thinking that it wasn’t his fault.

          2. You have to be at least a little bit sociopathic to cut people up without instinctively feeling like shit about it. I mean, it’s probably one of the best arguments in favor of sociopathy, but still.

            1. Just like anything else, after you do it enough times it becomes routine. You probably don’t want to be a neurosurgeon’s “first” though. It’s not like the barber school giving out free haircuts.

  30. Just for some perspective, I went back through Fox’s archives and dug up a transcript from poll coverage around this week back in 2011 that had Perry leading Romney by a respectable margin and Romney contending with (Ron) Paul by only a few points. Bachmann was still in the race. And adding even a little more perspective, they discussed polling in the previous season:

    Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani was 28 percent. Fred Thompson was 17 percent. Romney was 13 percent. McCain was 11 percent. And Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucus and took off was only at three percent.

    Granted, we got shit sandwiches out of both elections, but it bears repeating that Trump, even if he were a stellar candidate with the backing of the GOP, is by no means foregone.

  31. Awesome, I’ll finally be able to use my cell phone to find cheese, elude cats and get out of mazes.

    http://www.wired.com/2015/08/i…..per-smart/

    1. The vermingularity is upon us.

    2. No shit.

      I have been giving this a lot of thought lately. My wife thinks I am nuts. The diagram I drew for her looks almost identical to that photo. I guess I am not crazy after all. Or not too crazy anyway.

      I think the technology exists now to build a real, no-shit artificial intelligence.

      *after looking at the diagram she asked how I would fit this artificial brain into a robot. The brain doesn’t have to be in the body. The brain can be as big as we can make it and communicate with the body and receive sensory information via electromagnetic waves.

      1. Will be nice to finally have some intelligence on this planet.

        1. That is part of the problem.

          In building an artificial brain on par or greater than our own you can only really control what it becomes up to the point of its ‘birth’. After that it is going to evolve on its own. It isn’t going to be a finished product right out of the box. It will take a while to ‘mature’, and there is no telling what it is going to mature into.

          1. Hopefully a sex toy

            1. Or it makes you its sex toy…

              1. I usually have to pay extra for that.

            2. Yeah, maybe, but even a robot sex toy, if it has a genuine AI is going to fake a headache now and then.

              The problem with creating a real thinking AI is that as it gets more and more like a real human mind it is going to be more and more like a real human mind.

              1. Why would an AI act like a human, if it isn’t a human? The human mind is adapted to human life, but there’s a whole lot of that experience that robots don’t have to deal with (like everything related to sex and the sexual aspects of social status, for one thing — we might force them to fake it, to make them serve our needs or to be more relatable, but isn’t optimal for an entity that doesn’t reproduce sexually).

  32. Folks, we’re talking about electing someone who is authorized to press a button and launch nuclear Armageddon. Just because they’ve been professional bloviators sucking at the public teat doesn’t mean they have more relevant “experience” than people who had real jobs.

    You want someone who will make the right decision when it comes to pushing that button. I don’t think our electoral process focuses sufficiently on this.

  33. The important question has not been asked: Coulter circa 1999 – yes/no?

    (Horatio votes yes.)

    1. Would ’99. Would now.

      1. If anyone looks “wizened” with age…

    2. No, men don’t do it for me. But I’m not judging you.

      1. That burn was so harsh it damaged my monitor.

      2. vagina? check. not gross? check. showered? looks like it. yeah, I’m good.

        1. vagina? check

          Citation needed.

        2. There is so much more to a woman than her outer appearance. You are all pigs.

          1. I love women.

      3. Does not looka lika man to me

        http://www.strangepolitics.com…..t/4145.jpg

        1. You aren’t looking close enough.

          1. I think she looks just fine. My bigger concern would be getting the hell out of there afterwards.

            1. I am sorry. The large adams apple is a powerful boner-killer for me.

              1. That’s an exaggeration.

                1. It isn’t powerful?

        2. Not sure that proves anything:

          http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1504…..cebook.jpg

    3. Judge for yourself:

      http://www.strangecosmos.com/c…..06992.html

      1. Voted “Most likely to argue you out of wanting after-date sex” by her high school.

    4. Horatio likes ladyboys?

      1. Not believable.
        Coulter’s act is just that, an act.

        1. This story is fiction, but she inspired someone.

  34. So let’s talk about the Long-Term effects of Trump. Will it cause people to realize that the USG is too damn big so we need to cut it? Will it lead to the GOP collapsing and the rise of an electable more libertarianish party? Or the GOP’s collapse leading the rise of another very unlibertarian party? Or to One-Party Democratic rule like Chicago and Detroit or Jim Crow South? Or that the Two-Party democracy is too decadent, incompetent, corrupt so we need some strongman to Get Things Done?

    1. The long-term effect of Trump will be Trump falling out of favor with the rubes Fox is polling and another, more conventional candidate taking his place. And then it’s business as usual.

      1. Nice optimism (?)

        1. How would you even know? You’re so far out on the pessimism frontier you’re hewing logs from pessimism tree to build a little pessimism hut to sulk.

  35. I doubt Rand will recover, nor even get the nomination. Folks are too far removed from the consequences, to even realize the destruction of liberty, money, and property they leave in their wake.

    They want instant gratification, no matter how much they fuck the future generations. They ignore history, and economics, while wishing to force things that have failed over and over again on others by violence if necessary. Only they don’t have to physically rob anyone, as they hide behind the politicians and standing armies.

  36. Block Insane Yomomma is the biggest eight trillion dollar double nut punch this poor country has ever seen, and nobody else comes close.

    1. Block Insane Yomomma

      You’re really trying hard now.

      1. Every time he says it, it reminds me of a middle-schooler coming up with some dumb juvenile insult that they think is super clever and repeat it non-stop as if it’s the funniest thing ever.

        1. All of the silly names people give Obumbles are middle-schooler level insults.

          I pointed out the other day that he has more of them than all of the other prez’s together and linked to a list of a couple hundred. I said it was hilarious.

          Someone complained that the names were not hilarious and very juvenile. I didn’t really mean the names were funny, I meant it was hilarious that there are so many.

          I still use Obumbles because I refuse to show the SOB even the basic respect of using his proper name.

          C’mon Mike. If you are going to use one, don’t use that one.

          1. I’ve always been a fan of “Il Douchey”

        2. I’m not sure who the intended audience for this insult is… maybe they eat that shit up at Breitbart?

          1. It makes the Kos Kidz really mad!

            1. But let’s break down why it sucks so much:

              “Block”. Sounds vaguely like Barack. And… nothing. Is it suggesting he is a blockhead? That he is stubborn? An obstacle of some sort? That he plays basketball, in which blocking is a thing that happens? No clear meaning.

              “Insane”. Sounds vaguely like Hussein. And, it’s insulting. But it isn’t really applicable. He isn’t crazy, he’s just a narcissistic, power-hungry asshole. You could call him “Hussofat” and that would be insulting too, but nonsensical.

              “Yomamma”. Sounds vaguely like Obama. And… he’s a black kid from the mean streets of Hawaii? How is being black an insult, unless you spend your weekends in white robes and aren’t a member of a church choir?

              1. Perhaps it’s greater than the sum of its parts?

                1. Its gotten to the point where the desperation to stuff as many insults as possible into the name of your perceived adversary crosses the line from sensible pun to meaningless emotive gibberish, like something out of Gertrude Stein or Finnegan’s Wake.

                  Someone here once coined a version….of…. Teathuglicanhadist or something like that … it was soooo good. A google of it found no other example of its use except H&R. I wish i could remember what that was

                    1. huh. Interesting.

                      I’m pretty sure that’s *not* actually it. Because the ‘improved’ version i’m thinking of was in an Indepdendents thread…. and it was responded to with a series of accolades/Bavissimas

                      Like tears …in rain….

                    2. “Teahadist”

                  1. Chimpy McHiltlerburton

              2. Any one of them would be eyeroll-worthy on their own, but strung together it aspires to the quintessence of douchery.

                1. ” the quintessence of douchery.”

                  in action, how like a shithead….in apprehension, how like a clod…

    2. Block Insane Yomomma

      I have done a 180 on this nickname, and I think that it is pretty damn good. I intend to use it frequently, and not only on the internets, but also in my real life.

  37. “Trump’s splashy entrance was vintage Trump. He is indeed a showman, an attention-grabber, and a braggart. The fact that he doesn’t attempt to be anything else is exactly what has put him atop the polls.”

    I find it hard to believe people don’t get his shtick by now.

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/

  38. I need to stop reading reason articles and start watching Days of Our Lives because Days would offer more relevant and interesting insight.

    Fuck you, reason for descending to to 24/7 Trump horserace bullshit.

    Be better.

    1. Seriously, and they’re buying into his whole campaign strategy, which is to get attention from the press. They’re not making him look very stupid by giving him exactly what he wants.

  39. the poll was flawed in that it heavily under weighted independents at 17% IIRC

  40. Fuck this shit.

    For the past couple of days, my wife and I have been conducting a longitudinal study as to the gustatory characteristics of Not Your Father’s Root Beer versus Coney Island Brewing’s Hard Root Beer. NYFRB has more of a sarsaparilla-y taste to it; whereas, CIBHRB is sweeter and has a stronger vanilla note. My wife, on the other hand, argues that both taste like toothpaste.

    1. I am on your wife’s side.

    2. “both taste like toothpaste.”

      i……. …… can’t really……… maybe something to do with…….. I can see Dr. Pepper, yes……

      As far as “best of” sodas go, in my opinion…. I’m solidly in the Dr. Brown’s camp. I don’t recall how good their root beer is (i am a black-cherry/ Cel-Ray / Cream person), but I would make a bet that it holds its own pretty well.

      1. I love me a good Cel-Ray, but I should mention that the two root beers in this study are alcoholic.

        1. Oooohhh. Even better. 10?V Highly caloric, i can only assume.

          The highest calorie beer in the world, last I checked, was Jamaica’s Dragon Stout. I guess that would be “export beer”. Because who knows what with all the microbrews now.

    3. The Coney Island is sweeter really? That’s crazy. I had the Not Your Fathers a while back and thought that was too sweet. Could only drink one it was so sweet. I do agree that it had somewhat of a sarsaparilla taste which I did enjoy. I had already had a couple beers so that might have influenced that.

      1. Also, I don’t get why your upset. That’s just more for you:)

      2. The Coney Island is sweeter really?

        Yep. It’s the major reason I’m leaning toward NYF. The Coney Island actually tastes a bit like a melted creamsicle.

        1. Creamsicle huh. Maybe try adding vodka? lol

    4. I’m drinking a NYFRB right now. It’s alright, but it has sort of a weird non-rootbeery aftertaste to me (toothpaste is not a bad description). I had a Crabbie’s Ginger Beer recently, which I liked a lot better in the category of Beer That Tastes Like Not-Beer.

      1. I’m going to try and forget this because I have a six pack in the fridge and I do not want it to taste like toothpaste. Really pissed off the wife when I told her that her green tea taste like grass. Now it does to her too.

        1. Well, I’ll still recommend the Crabbie’s. If you’ve ever had the Ginger Ale at Northstar Cafe, it tastes a lot like that, except alcoholic.

          1. cool. thanks. I’ll see if I can find it.

      2. Ginger beer can make for a refreshing Kentucky (or Irish) mule.

        1. Dark & Stormy

          my fave daytime summer drink, next to greyhound (which i enjoy for breakfast)

        2. I think I’ll have to look for that. That Kentucky Mule sounds good. I have plenty of bourbon:)

      3. Crabbie’s Ginger Beer

        Now I’m in the mood for a good goat roti!

    5. I tried NYFRB a couple of weeks ago. I liked it but it’s a better drink for winter than summer

  41. Matt suffers severe denial.

    These numbers should be an embarrassment to anyone with a brain in his skull or an “R” on his sweater.

    The numbers document shameful and total failure of our “libertarian moment” — 40 years with a majority of Americans accepting the :Libertarian Ethos (fiscally conservative and socially liberal) … but 91% of those libertarians reject the libertarian brand (Cato Survey)

    So, when libertarians are almost unanimous in rejecting the libertarian label — is that a Libertarian Moment? Or the Eve of Destruction? The polling proves the latter (gasp)

    Time for Matt and Nick to get Reason out of the way, and ditch the Paulista Cult that rejects the Libertarian Ethos and perverts the movement with phony constitutionalism …. so the Libertarian Goobers here will now unleash SUCH tribal hatred ….. at reality … denying personal accountability for the consequences of their own actions. But True Believers til the end (almost there) Hallelujah!

    Oh wait! Let’s pursue the independents (30% of which are collectivists)

        1. So what you are saying is that if we don’t contain the Hihn virus the world may end?

          *voice of Morgan Freeman*

          The fate of the nation, maybe that of the world, is in our hands?

        2. That movie sucked. Hoffman is terrible.

    1. The more i hear your crazy-old-man gibbering, the less I actually understand what your point is supposed to be, besides a fanatical dislike of the Paul clan.

      1. The more i hear your crazy-old-man gibbering, the less I actually understand what your point is supposed to be,

        Your mental retardation is escalating.
        This article confirms what I’ve been saying all along — what you STILL cannot seem to grasp — as I continue my many months of ridiculing you (as your tribe of goobers stands by you)

        Since you suffer such severe denial, are you also a Birther?
        What about the Illuminati?

        Oh yeah, don’t forget Cato’s survey which showed the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians. But you may continue being a bellowing blowhard.

    2. Hooray! Michael Hihn here to post the same goddam points he’s left here dozens of times before.

      Hihn, do you really think that someone’s going to read this yet again but THIS time say, “hey! that guy’s got a great take on everything! I should just leave this site and follow whatever Michael Hihn tells me to do.”

      1. +91%

        1. +91%

          Yeah, but the Cato Institute is now controlled by Geroge Soros, so ignore Cato’s proof

      2. Hooray! Michael Hihn here to post the same goddam points he’s left here dozens of times before.

        I’m gloating.

        1. You’re demented.

          1. You’re demented.

            Says the toxic one. (lol)
            You’ve been throwing those hissy fits for months, as every new wave of facts confirms what I’ve been saying all along … and has you goobers looking ever daffier.
            Keep coming, loser!!!

      1. AlmightyJB strenuously denies the polling … and reality. (snicker)

    3. “The numbers document shameful and total failure of our “libertarian moment” — 40 years with a majority of Americans accepting the :Libertarian Ethos (fiscally conservative and socially liberal) … but 91% of those libertarians reject the libertarian brand (Cato Survey)”

      You are the dumbest man in the history of the human race if you actually believe this, Hihn.

      The dumbest. Without exception. I know you’re senile, but even in the depths of your Alzheimer’s you must realize how ridiculous this sounds.

      1. It’s prion disease.

      2. You are the dumbest man in the history of the human race if you actually believe this, Hihn.

        Dumbfuck (Irish RSB) equates the Cato Institute with “the dumbest man in human history” … in severe denial like a Birther. Does the Illuminati put monsters under its bed? (gasp)

        (My tone is in defense of aggression by a cyber-bully)

    4. “Time for Matt and Nick to get Reason out of the way, and ditch the Paulista Cult that rejects the Libertarian Ethos and perverts the movement with phony constitutionalism …. so the Libertarian Goobers here will now unleash SUCH tribal hatred ….. at reality … denying personal accountability for the consequences of their own actions. But True Believers til the end (almost there) Hallelujah!”

      Did you write this one the wall of your padded cell in your own feces?

      1. the Libertarian Goobers here will now unleash SUCH tribal hatred ….. at reality .

        Did you write this one the wall of your padded cell in your own feces?

        The worst goobers don’t even know that I’m intentionally baiting them, so they prove me correct buy talking like 12-year-old kids. SWEET!

        (my tone is in defense of aggression by a cyber-bully)

    5. So Hihn, I’ve seen you post these points before, and I get you don’t like Reason or Rand Paul. So who exactly in the movement *do* you like? Who do you think does a good job of carrying the torch? Got anyone in mind for a presidential candidate?

      1. So Hihn, I’ve seen you post these points before, and I get you don’t like Reason or Rand Paul.

        You’ve missed it all. I don’t like Rand Paul’s POLICIES, and SUPPORT why they’re stupid (gasp). Nobody defends those policies, just attack me for blasphemy.

        I’ve been reading Reason since the beginning. But they now focus on fundraising and tribalism instead of governing. See the laughable libertarian moment, which just exploded, again.

        Who do you think does a good job of carrying the torch? Got anyone in mind for a presidential candidate?

        Gary Johnson, BUT … The movement FAILS to develop a a single libertarian policy for a candidate to run on.

        At the local level, there are thousands of NOLAN libertarians advancing liberty in tiny steps,

        Goldwater/Reagan/Buckley/Kemp were FAR more libertarian than anyone now on the stage (except Gary, who has no platform) ) … and achieved 100 times as much as the Pauls. .But lib tribalism brainwashes it all away.

        The same conflict has crippled the movement for over 40 years (see my name in the history of the party) …. anti-gummint vs pro-liberty. 20-year-old sales trainees know enough to sell the positives instead of attacking the competition duh

        Do you know how stupid Medicare vouchers are? Or either Paul’s tax “plan?”
        Name a credible libertarian solution for biggest issues in 2016: economy. healthcare and entitlements, and WHY

        1. I don’t know what it means to have a solution for the economy. But on healthcare, libertarians have long argued for ending, or at least rolling back, licensing laws, ending the employee tax credit for health insurance to put the individual market on even footing, ending anti-competitive practices like certificates of need, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, ending the medicare reimbursement schedule, which is horribly convoluted and byzantine and only drives up costs, ending or rolling back FDA power to allow new treatments to be delivered to market more quickly and cheaply…that’s just off the top of my head.

          On entitlements, I actually think a voucher program is OK. I prefer replacing all entitlements with a lump sum payment, no strings attached, similar to Friedman’s negative income tax, but vouchers are at least better than the current regime in areas like healthcare. Actually, I’d really prefer to see an end to entitlements and for voluntary charity to pick up the slack, but I realize that’s politically untenable.

          1. If by solution to the economy you mean spurring general economic growth, then broad policies like rolling back the corporate tax (coupled with a general simplification of the tax code), streamlining environmental reviews, rolling back anti-competitive and anti-innovation regulations, would all have positive impacts. If you want more than that you’ll have to specify sectors.

            I actually like Paul’s tax plan, though I’ll admit that it’s not very feasible politically. But you start with what you want knowing you’ll have to compromise.

            1. If you want more than that you’ll have to specify sectors.

              You haven’t specified any policies to campaign on. That’s not your job but the point is no candidate has. Reagan ran on a fairly specific description of his tax cuts. That was easy because he just copied Kennedy’s.

              I actually like Paul’s tax plan, though I’ll admit that it’s not very feasible politically.

              It’s not feasible mathematically, about as wacky as his dad’s “repeal the income tax and run the entire government on FICA taxes..”

              The Tax Foundation estimates creating a mere 16,000 jobs per month for a decade. Which is pitiful. And once we learn that the rich subsidize 40% of the entire middle-class share of the federal income tax, then ANY flat tax (on income or consumption) is mathematically impossible — MASSIVE deficits or a massive middle-class tax hike. Full stop.

              Rand has never said how he’d pay for the tax cuts — but he now talks about his budget to balance the budget in 5 years, which he did WAY before his current tax plan. Progressives offer free benefits to everyone. Rand offers free tax cuts for everyone. Neither pays for their freebies.

              1. You haven’t specified any policies to campaign on.

                I specified about a dozen. HnR really isn’t the place for a detailed policy white paper.

                1. It requires no white paper, merely a focus. Why assume a candidate would present a white paper to voters? At a debate? A TV ad?

          2. But on healthcare, libertarians have long argued for ending, or at least rolling back, licensing laws, …. (redacted) … that’s just off the top of my head.

            But it’s never expressed as a coherent policy, mostly as a lengthy string of anti-gummint rhetoric.

            On entitlements, I actually think a voucher program is OK.

            For Medicare? Consider they would control Medicare costs by increasing competition among INSURANCE COMPANIES. Can we control automobile prices with more competition between Allstate and Geico?

            We always had competition in the Medicare marketplace. Seniors shop and choose their own providers … but have no skin in the game. Vouchers add a costly middle-man and ignore underlying healthcare costs.

            similar to Friedman’s negative income tax,

            BINGO! Add Medicaid to the mix — which is income adjusted — and dump the income-adjusted exchanges. Friedman knew it’s the STRUCTURE which traps people, not the assistance itself,

            Actually, I’d really prefer to see an end to entitlements and for voluntary charity to pick up the slack, but I realize that’s politically untenable.

            We must start with restructuring. Reagan’s New Federalism knew that consolidating programs/spending at EITHER level of government is the first step. Accountability. They had it all, but couldn’t agree on how to transfer revenues with programs.

  42. We’re hell and gone from the point where any of this would mean anything. But if the illegals were smart they’d cool it with all the rape and murder and general foreigner-being for a few months to let all this anti-immigrant fever subside so we can finally have Bush lose to Hillary.

  43. Oh God, you called them, Matt. They’re here now. The Trumpers. Dare I look at the Facebook comments?

    1. Why are you so afraid of making America great again, MJ?

      1. I’m just a simple cuckold myself, OK? I-I-I don’t want to offend no liberals, and all this talk about immigants makes me fear being ostracized.

    2. We gotta get inside. It’s gonna be dark soon, and they mostly hunt at night. Mostly.

      But, then they’ll have to contend with AC, so eh.

  44. I don’t support Ben Carson but he absolutely does not deserve to be lumped in with Trump.

    1. Reason doesn’t care so long as Jeb! or Kasich win.

      1. Reason doesn’t care so long as Jeb! or Kasich win.

        Be careful, drooling on your keyboard like that can be dangerous.

        Reason never supported the misfucks Jeb and Kasich … only the statist bigots, Ron and Rand.
        The polls measure the total failure of Reason’s libertarian moment fundraiser for suckers.

        1. They support Jeb because he’s open borders

          1. I thought I might have missed that, but a site search found nothing.
            Do you mean they support him ON open borders?

    2. I don’t support Ben Carson but he absolutely does not deserve to be lumped in with Trump.

      Carson has more totally fucking stupid statements, but Trump repeats how own more often.

    3. Carson isn’t as much of a clown as Trump, but there is no reason the guy should be getting anyone’s vote for president.

      1. Carson isn’t as much of a clown as Trump,

        1) Homosexuality is a choice. People go to prison straight and come out gay.
        2) The founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist and their purpose is still to eliminate the black race. (Black intellectuals were also eugenicists, and black UNIVERSITIES at the time)
        3) Obamacare is the worst thing to happen in America since slavery (but has no alternative).
        4) Redefining marriage led to the fall of the Roman Empire,
        5) No one can change the definition of marriage, “be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality.”
        6) America is now like Nazi Germany, having entered a gestapo age.

        He later apologized or modified every single one of them. On number of screwups, he’s way ahead of Trump.

        1. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist

          That much is an indisputable fact. I have no idea about her racial views — the primary target of her eugenicist writings were “mental defectives” — but in practice her organization has certainly had the effect Dr. Carson spoke of.

          1. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist

            That much is an indisputable fact.

            Plus what all I added.

            but in practice her organization has certainly had the effect Dr. Carson spoke of.

            Only to those who don’t understand what all is involved. Seems to me that defunding Planned Parenthood would INCREASE abortions, and deny the only provider for millions of inner-city women, who are merely black though.

            Carson would be as deadly to black babies as Obama has been to the unemployment rate among young black males.

        2. And after all that, Trump’s still a bigger clown. When I call Trump a clown, it’s not just about him having dumb positions, it’s his whole demeanor and persona.

          1. Ahh, on demeanor NOBODY can top (bottom?) Trump!

  45. ‘Batman’ who visited children in hospitals killed when car hits Batmobile

    His custom Lamborghini broke down while he was driving east on I-70 in the fast lane. He got out to check the engine while still in the lane, and a Toyota Camry struck his car, which in turn hit him, the statement said…

    Robinson became a household name in 2012, after police dashcam footage captured him getting out of his Batmobile in full costume during a traffic stop on route 29 in Silver Spring, Maryland. The video went viral after the Montgomery County Police Department shared it on social media, earning Robinson the moniker “route 29 Batman.”

    1. What the fuck!? Oh man, that’s awful. I remember hearing about this guy off and on over the years. Really good dude.

  46. You’re chortling with disdain over the two Republican poll-leaders because they have no political experience. Sorry, but isn’t the whole point to stop electing technocrats and bureaucrats that expand government and trample liberty? Then again, you recently referred to the man who literally puts the “Obama” in “Obamacare” as a [link:] stealth libertarian.

    I’m not voting–I’m never going to vote again, because I’m not going to even tacitly endorse a system that violates the NAP by its very existence–but I get why people are attracted to the Trumps and the (totally dissimilar, btw) Carsons of politics. Those are the people on the tipping point about the whole inside DC thing. Maybe instead of laughing at them you should try convincing them why liberty is a good thing. Because the Proggy millenial hipsters you’ve been courting aren’t interested.

    Oh, and we’re not in a “libertarian” moment, we’re in a “libertine” moment.

    1. You’re correct on Carson, who’s an even crazier socon than the Pauls.

  47. Good night mammals

    /lights Agile Cyborg flare

  48. Actually I think Iowans are showing some judgement. Some others may belong higher, but come across badly. But it has little to do with platform. I won’t vote for a neocon or a money-printer, but how many of these candidates have been directly confronted with those issues?

  49. Menkin liad about the Scopes trial. The whole thing was a set up. God you people will believe anything

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      What? Please, provide me with a citation about all these terrible lies Mencken told at the Scopes Trial.

      We know what happened at the Scopes Trial, John, it’s basically public record.

      I looked up ‘Mencken lied at Scopes trial’ and all I found were various idiotic Christian websites engaging in ridiculous sophistry to try and defend William Jennings Bryan. For example, I found multiple sites proclaiming that Mencken lied about what the trial was about because the Butler act (which was the act in question) didn’t outlaw the teaching of evolution among plants and animals, it just made it illegal to claim that human beings had evolved.

      Somehow this is important, for reasons none of the creationist websites ever made clear.

      1. “Please, provide me with a citation”

        BAHAHAHAHAHA good one Irish! Expecting John to actually know what he’s talking about!

        Pssst John: this is why I call you out as a clod. BECAUSE YOU FUCKING ARE ONE.

        1. Is there anything funnier on earth than a pissing contest between John and Cytotoxic?
          Okay, include PM. 🙂

  50. 400+ comments on a Trump post… “movin’ right along…”

  51. This is the question I increasingly find myself asking. If a bunch of people calling themselves libertarians were actually just paid corporate shills trying to justify the decimation of the labor market in favor of cheap labor, how would their behavior be any different?

    1. A question I keep asking myself: If Trump supporters were just lobotomized morons drooling all over themselves in a psychiatric ward, how would their behavior be any different?

      1. They’d be less destructive to the republic and their existence would not give me depression. As for actual behavior: I got nothing.

        HOLY SHIT I HAVE THE GREATEST IDEA EVER: okay..okay 87hyperventilating…33

        Convince Trump that the best way for him to win the GOP nom and presidency is to fight ISIS with brigades of Trump supporters financed by Trump. Aside from possibly causing the ME and even the Kurds to hate us even more for the people we sent over, this is like…my magnum opus of ideas. I think I just came.

        1. I heard this entire comment in Joe Pesci’s voice.

          You are him, aren’t you?

    2. Any corporation that was banking on libertarians to carry the banner of cheap immigrant labor to the masses would objectively be betraying their fiduciary duty. We are probably the least influential group in American politics. See the poll above in which Rand Paul is tied for second-to-last.

      1. “We are probably the least influential group in American politics.”

        We helped legalize MJ, guns, and marriage equality, and got asset forfeiture on the agenda with positive vote results in NM.

        1. We’ve been on the leading edge of several issues, but I think most of those things would have happened with or without libertarians. We can hardly get anyone elected.

          I’m normally optimistic but I’m not feeling it tonight.

          1. This is especially evident when the primary immediate consequence of the supposed “victory” is something hideously unlibertarian (expanded enforcement of anti-discrim laws).

            I don’t recall anything special about marijuana from the libertarian perspective, either. Libertarians are against any drugs being illegal, and there has been zero progress to legalizing anything else.

            1. You gotta start somewhere when it comes to drug legalization. Baby steps.

              And even if it ends with marijuana, that’s still better than a world in which people get thrown in jail for marijuana along with all the other illegal drugs.

              1. Agreed on it being better than nothing, but baby steps have to lead somewhere. I don’t think legalizing MJ has made it easier to legalize the rest of the stuff. Indeed it may make it harder in practice, as legal MJ makes the drug laws look less insane.

            2. “This is especially evident when the primary immediate consequence of the supposed “victory” is something hideously unlibertarian (expanded enforcement of anti-discrim laws).”:

              Calling bullshit.

              1. It’s not the primary immediate consequence of gay marriage itself, but the progressive proponents of gay marriage have pretty much immediately launched into attacks on freedom of association. It’s a direct outgrowth of progressive’s particular reasons for supporting gay marriage.

        2. Give us a cock-a-doodle-doo to make the sun come up.

        3. Cytotoxic
          We helped legalize MJ, guns, and marriage equality, and got asset forfeiture on the agenda with positive vote results in NM.

          That was all achieved by “Nolan” libertarians. “Movement” libertarians have never done shit, anywhere above the city/town level.

          Reason now mostly reports to Movement libertarians what Nolan libertarians are achieving … then claims credit for the spread of libertarian ideas they had nothing to do with (and falsely proclaim that things like school choice are “libertarian ideas”)

      2. But… gay marriage and state non-interference with marijuana! (if the lack of state laws against something make it legal, then treason and counterfeiting are legal too)

        There are more than a few people on this thread who resemble the rooster who thinks his noise makes the sun rise.

        1. I don’t think libertarians have zero influence. And it’s nice to see things that libertarians have long advocated for start to come to fruition, even if just in part. But I don’t see tons of people supporting those things for libertarian reasons. Which is usually OK, but I’m not kidding myself about their motivation.

          I will say that I see a sort of nascent libertarian streak in some of my peers, which sometimes gives me hope. But we need someone(s) who can galvanize and champion libertarian ideas from a libertarian angle.

          1. But we need someone(s) who can galvanize and champion libertarian ideas from a libertarian angle.

            That’s why we fail. We’ve wasted decades promoting libertarianism for ourselves, instead of liberty for everyone.

            As one tragic consequence, libertopia is not the same as a free society.

            In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

            In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist right next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. All are voluntary communities (for those who choose). The statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

            And we’ll continue losing until we reverse that,

            1. “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

              According to Reason’s Charlie Hebdo coverage, this is an anti-speech statement. You have to support all speech.

              1. You have to support all speech.

                Umm, I did.

        2. Tulpa alert.

      3. We are probably the least influential group in American politics. See the poll above in which Rand Paul is tied for second-to-last.

        1) Rand Paul is not libertarian.
        2) 59% of Americans are libertarian, fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Cato Survey)

        1. Paul leans libertarian to a far greater degree than any other major party candidate and had (maybe still does) a shot at drawing significant support from the libertarian base (such as it is). But he is now polling at 3% among likely Republican voters.

          The Cato survey not withstanding, I almost never hear fiscally conservative and socially liberal policies advocated on libertarian grounds, except by self-identified libertarians and a few others (like Rand Paul!, at least on the fiscal side). That is especially true on social issues.

          1. Paul leans libertarian to a far greater degree than any other major party candidate

            He’s not a libertarian, thus has no influence to the majority of people who are. By definition

            The Cato survey not withstanding, I almost never hear fiscally conservative and socially liberal policies advocated on libertarian grounds,

            Fiscally conservative and socially liberal IS libertarian grounds! This is why we lose.

            except by self-identified libertarians and a few others (like Rand Paul!, at least on the fiscal side). That is especially true on social issues.

            That’s precisely why Cato found “self-identified libertarians” being rejected by 91% of all libertarians. We place tribal libertarianism for us above liberty.for everyone.

            You don’t hear it, but what most Americans hear us saying is, “Shut the fuck up and let us govern you. Because we’re better than you.” That is precisely the message we send. Isn’t that what you conveyed here?

            At the local level, there is such a thing as electoral libertarians. Thousands of them have been creating majority alliances and coalitions for decades, by (almost instinctively) framing their issues to both left and right. But if they try to move up, to state or federal levels, they get assaulted and crushed by the Libertarian Purity Posse. I’ve seen it hundreds of times.

            Our best candidates get stoned to death. By us. On libertarian grounds.

    3. The question I ask: who would waste their money funding thousands of politically impotent activists?

  52. Only about 7% of people are naturally curious. These same people are independent minded. They are just born that way. You can’t make ’em.

    I don’t have a percentage but I can tell you from experience that the majority of people fall apart or have a brain freeze in a crisis.

    The fact is that most of our race are basically sheep. Freedom scares the shit out of them. They desperately need someone to tell them what to do and take care of them.

    There is never going to be any goddamn libertarian moment. The best we can hope for is rule of law.

    Now that I have tried to cheer everyone up I am going to finish this vodka and go to bed.

    Goodnight.

    1. Suthenboy|8.17.15 @ 11:12PM|#
      “Only about 7% of people are naturally curious. These same people are independent minded. They are just born that way. You can’t make ’em.”
      Really?! Where in hell did you find that?
      Not arguing, just, well, curious.

      1. Holy cow! Do a search and you’re going to gain whole new insights as to how many people are curious regarding various sexual proclivities.
        Not a damn thing about how many people are curious – curious.

      2. A study published in Skeptic magazine about ten years ago. I can’t find it now, but if you are determined you probably can. I think they changed their name after that publication. Maybe they were Skeptical Inquirer or something back then.

        1. They probably didn’t like being associated with the National Enquirer (if that even still exists)

        2. Suthenboy|8.17.15 @ 11:44PM|#
          “A study published in Skeptic magazine about ten years ago.”
          If it was Shermer’s pub, I can get it. Kurtz wasn’t so forthcoming.
          Thx…

    2. I think developing a critical mind is most important.

      “There is never going to be any goddamn libertarian moment. ”

      I’m sure MLK had to put up with people like you, and I’m glad he ignored them.

      1. There are a lot fewer libertarians than there were black people — and of course 50 years after the CRA black people are still mired disproportionately in poverty, terrible schools, and jail.

        1. “There are a lot fewer libertarians than there were black people — and of course 50 years after the CRA black people are still mired disproportionately in poverty, terrible schools, and jail.”
          Do you specialize in non-sequiturs?

        2. There are a lot fewer libertarians than there were black people

          Perhaps in Kenya. But in the United States, 59% are libertarian. (Cato survey conducted by a top political pollster, Zogby)

      2. Yeah, he had to put up with assholes like me. He ignored them. How many understand his message today? How many did then?

        I am going to guess around 7%.

        What I said is that only about 7% are born with critical minds. You can’t stop them from being that and you can’t make the ones who aren’t into critical minds.

        I wish it weren’t so.

  53. I’m digging Trump. He seems relatively moderate on social issues and I’m guessing he is going to be good on the tax issue. The immigration deal I don’t think he would ever be able to get a majority of what he wants. I think that’s why his position page on his website was so long. The guy prides himself on “the negotiation” I would expect that he would go over the top with the issue then sit at the table and whittle the law/proposal down into what he thinks is acceptable. Everyone keeps saying he’s all about his brand and he successful at promoting that. How is being President not promoting a brand? Wouldn’t a guy like him (narcissist) see it as a failure of his brand if he fucked as POTUS. Especially at the negotiating table, which we are severely lacking qualified individuals in.

    1. He doesn’t strike me as a good negotiator. More in the style of the Greek FM that got kicked out of the bailout negotiations.

    2. Nothing says ‘good on taxes’ like advocating for massive import tariffs ie Smoot-Hawley 2.

    3. hurts_donut|8.17.15 @ 11:23PM|#
      “I’m digging Trump”
      Yeah, well, he’s a raging egomaniacal ignoramus who deserves to be recognized as such.
      So, help yourself; a random garden pest has more intellectual ability than does T. D.

  54. Matt
    I have great respect for you and your opinions. But, You know there had to be a but after that opening.
    I think you are underestimating 2 things.
    The middle of this country is mad as hell at the politicians of all stripes/colors/tribes. They want something different and were very disappointed in Obama. You know, change etc. What they got was another big government elite who looks down his nose at us clingers to guns and bibles, etc. We are pissed off at politicians, all of them.
    Second, we are pissed off at the media telling us how to act, think and speak. I personally am more pissed at the media, all of them/you. Even Reason gets on its soapbox and tells us how to think. You just do it more cleverly under the guise of REAL Libertarian-ism.
    I think Trump is dangerous, but he is entertaining, and no more dangerous than Hillary. But I am loving watching him take it to the Repubs and even more enjoy watching him bait the media.
    I don’t think I am alone and you may have underestimated how pissed off white middle class America really is. We are tired of following the rules, paying our taxes etc while the elite/blacks/illegals etc get a pass.
    OK, off the soapbox, I am starting to sound like you media types. 😉
    Grumpy

    1. Grumpy, imagine somebody with the rage of Trump, but ALSO with a comprehensive platform of libertarian solutions in plain English. Then again, we don’t have a single policy solution on anything of importance to voters.

    2. Uh, Obama campaigned on thumbing his nose down at gun/bible clingers. (And for that matter, destroying the coal and energy industries).

      1. Yes, he did, but he also campaigned on ‘change’ and ‘bi-partisanship’ and a lot of other ‘we’re in this together so let’s work together’ nonsense that far to many people bought into.

  55. OT:
    Did you know a C5A could be launched from a carrier? Well, the moderators here seemed to think so:
    http://www.marinetraffic.com/e…..id:3441695

  56. And as a candidate for capital investment at the wrong time, we have:
    http://www.marinetraffic.com/e…..pid:372115
    One report had the owner, PGS, taking out a huge loan to fund this and a sister ship. Not clear from the various sites, but they may well be looking for deposits other than petroleum.
    Sure hope so; I have relatives who work for them and the last location was Bay of Biscay; not noted for oil.

  57. Another way of looking at this poll, and just as accurate a description, is tho say that…

    75% do not support Donald Trump

    88% do not support Ben Carson

    90% do not support Ted Cruz

    91% do not support Jeb Bush

    94% do not support Mike Huckabee, or Scott Walker

    95% do not support Carly Fiorina

    96% do not support John Kasich or Marco Rubio

    97% do not support Chris Christie or Rand Paul

    99% do not support Bobby Jindal, or George Pataki, or Rick Perry or Rick Santorum

    Therefore, the reality is most Republican are pretty smart.

  58. While I agree with most of this, I take issue with this statement “So after seven years of bitching about a mediocre president’s crippling inexperience, more than two-fifths of Republican voters are going nuts over candidates who make Sarah Palin look like a wisened political veteran.”

    Obama’s inexperience was much more than a lack of governing experience. He actually had some of that! It was that he lacked any real world experience. At least Trump has run a business. And when I say that, don’t get the idea that I like Trump…please!

  59. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.homejobs90.com

  60. I wouldn’t put Stupid and Ben Carson anywhere near each other in a headline or column.

    This is the deepest, most-talented, most-accomplished, easiest to be proud, group of Republican party hopefuls in history.

    I believe that curious non-political types who tune in just to see Trump will have a new-found respect for the party if they watch the debates at a bar someplace looking to make fun of the Republicans.

    They may end up thinking, hmmm….that John Kasich guy or Carly Forina gal said a lot of things I agree with.

    This is big-tent politics at its best.

  61. I’m still recovering from the author’s comment that Obama has been “mediocre.” I skimmed after that.

  62. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  63. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.homejobs90.com

  64. If one feels something strongly it is easy to overestimate the number of people who feel the same way. It is easy to underestimate the difficulty of converting others to one’s persuasion.

    Libertarianism only makes sense for those who have reason to be confident in their ability to earn a good income with no help from the government. In an economy of steadily declining opportunities this is a declining minority of the population.

    The Republican Party needs the social issues to maintain the support of those who do not benefit from lower taxes on the rich, and the cuts in middle class entitlements that are necessary to pay for those tax cuts.

    The white working class did not become a Republican constituency because white blue collar workers became so affluent they no longer needed and wanted the reforms of the New Deal. The white working class became a Republican constituency because it no longer trusted the Democratic Party on social issues, especially the issues of race and crime.

  65. ‘So after seven years of bitching about a mediocre president’s crippling inexperience’ LOL — best prezdnit since Bill Clinton, and the third best prezdnit since Jimmy Carter. Fourth best since Ike.

  66. Am I the only one that thinks political experience is highly overrated? Matt talks about Obama’s inexperience, Trumps, Carson’s, and Fiorina’s inexperience. He refers to Palin’s inexperience. I say hogwash! I’m much more interested in the candidate’s values, understanding of the Constitution, knowledge of history, and understanding of real economics, not the Keynesian crap. Those are the only four qualifications a candidate for President really needs to get my vote.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.