When the Entire Democratic Party Was Like Donald Trump

Read (and weep at) the 1996 party platform on immigration, crime, drugs and "zero tolerance"


That border wasn't gonna secure itself! ||| AFP

Here's your who-said-it of the day:

[W]e must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years […], Washington talked tough but failed to act….[O]ur borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.

OK, so the headline gives it away, but that's the Democratic Party's official platform for 1996. Mirroring that year's Republican platform, which was arguably the most stringent anti-illegal-immigration tract in the GOP's modern history, the Dem document is filled with tough talk and premature victory laps:

President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.

So glad that problem got solved!

The whole platform is a masterpiece of Clintonian triangulation, bluster, and illiberalism, much of which has reverse-resonance today. Mere sentences after famously (and inaccurately, alas!) declaring that "Today's Democratic Party knows that the era of big government is over," the document goes on a rights- and federalism-shredding tough-on-crime bender, one that had the full contemporaneous support of 2016 candidates Hillary Clinton and (if he runs!) Joe Biden. A sampling (I will bold some bits throughout):

The ecstasy of victory. ||| Getty Images
Getty Images

Bill Clinton promised to turn things around, and that is exactly what he did. After a long hard fight, President Clinton beat back fierce Republican opposition, led by Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich, to answer the call of America's police officers and pass the toughest Crime Bill in history. The Democratic Party under President Clinton is putting more police on the streets and tougher penalties on the books; we are taking guns off the streets and working to steer young people away from crime and gangs and drugs in the first place. And it is making a difference. In city after city and town after town, crime rates are finally coming down. […]

The Crime Bill is putting 100,000 new police officers on the street. We deplore cynical Republican attempts to undermine our promise to America to put 100,000 new police officers on the street. We pledge to stand up for our communities and stand with our police officers by opposing any attempt to repeal or weaken this effort. […]

We believe that people who break the law should be punished, and people who commit violent crimes should be punished severely. President Clinton made three-strikes-you're-out the law of the land, to ensure that the most dangerous criminals go to jail for life, with no chance of parole. We established the death penalty for nearly 60 violent crimes, including murder of a law enforcement officer, and we signed a law to limit appeals. […]

We provided almost $8 billion in new funding to help states build new prison cells so violent offenders serve their full sentences. We call on the states to meet the President's challenge and guarantee that serious violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentence.

How about some choice Zero Tolerance?

Uniformity always works. ||| Pink Floyd
Pink Floyd

The Democratic Party understands what the police have been saying for years: The best way to fight crime is to prevent it. That is why we fought for drug-education and gang-prevention programs in our schools. We support well thought out, well organized, highly supervised youth programs to provide young people with a safe and healthy alternative to hanging out on the streets. We made it a federal crime for any person under the age of 18 to possess a handgun except when supervised by an adult. Democrats fought to pass, and President Clinton ordered states to impose, zero tolerance for guns in school, requiring schools to expel for one year any student who brings a gun to school.

At the same time, when young people cross the line, they must be punished. When young people commit serious violent crimes, they should be prosecuted like adults. We established boot camps for young non-violent offenders. If Senator Dole and the Republicans are serious about fighting juvenile crime, they should listen to America's police officers and support the steps Democrats have taken, because they are making a difference, and then they should join us as we work to do more.

We want parents to bring order to their children's lives and teach them right from wrong, and we want to make it easier for them to take that responsibility. We support schools that adopt school uniform policies, to promote discipline and respect. We support community-based curfews to keep kids off the street after a certain time, so they're safe from harm and away from trouble. We urge schools and communities to enforce truancy laws: Young people belong in school, not on the street.

And you just know where this is going on drugs….

The war's over, soldier. You can go home. And fuck off. ||| AFP

We must keep drugs off our streets and out of our schools. President Clinton and the Democratic Party have waged an aggressive war on drugs. The Crime Bill established the death penalty for drug kingpins. The President signed a directive requiring drug testing of anyone arrested for a federal crime, and he challenged states to do the same for state offenders. We established innovative drug courts which force drug users to get treatment or go to jail. We stood firm against Republican efforts to gut the Safe and Drug Free Schools effort that supports successful drug-education programs like D.A.R.E. The Clinton Administration went to the Supreme Court to support the right of schools to test athletes for drugs. The President launched Operation Safe Home to protect the law-abiding residents of public housing from violent criminals and drug dealers who use their homes as a base for illegal activities. We support the President's decision to tell those who commit crimes and peddle drugs in public housing: You will get no second chance to threaten your neighbors; it is one strike and you're out. We are making progress. Overall drug use in America is dropping; the number of Americans who use cocaine has dropped 30 percent since 1992. Unfortunately casual drug use by young people continues to climb. We must redouble our efforts against drug abuse everywhere, especially among our children.

Earlier this year, the President appointed General Barry McCaffrey to lead the nation's war on drugs. General McCaffrey is implementing an aggressive four part strategy to reach young children and prevent drug use in the first place; to catch and punish drug users and dealers; to provide treatment to those who need help; and to cut drugs off at the source before they cross the border and pollute our neighborhoods. But every adult in America must take responsibility to set a good example, and to teach children that drugs are wrong, they are illegal, and they are deadly.

It's a gruesome document; well worth a read.

NEXT: Yes, Burning Man Is Pretty Libertarian in Many Respects

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So when Bill called the Donald and encouraged him to run, he was actually trying to resurrect himself from the good ol days?

    1. Let’s face it, he’ll get more jollies from Trump that he ever will from Hillary.

      1. I for sure will say with zero hesitation, I’d MUCH rather hang out with the Donald or Slick Willy than the Hildebeast. In fact, I’m having a hard time thinking of someone that I wouldn’t rather hang out with.

  2. Damned naggers.

    OH! I was Clinton!


    1. Using the ‘N’ word is not okay.

      1. Ni Ni Ni

        1. Now he’s said the word!

      2. Get me my damn shrubbery!

        1. First, you must cut down the biggest tree in the forrest, with a herring! And your mother smells of hamster berries! Your father is a possum! Now be gone or I must taunt thee a second time! Or something like that…

          1. Come see the violence inherent in the system.

            1. I am your King

              1. What’s a Briton?

                1. Well, I could stay a bit longer.

        2. Get me my damn shrubbery!

          These Democrat threads always end up back to BOOSH!

          1. I used to know this women who always called W the shrub

      3. I was just talking about “people who are annoying” – jeez.

        Now I know how Randy Marsh felt…

  3. Don’t attempt to wipe any of this off on Her Royal Highness Hillary I!


    1. It’s her turn to go to federal prison. We wish.

  4. Amazing how populist bullshit is always the same.

    1. According to the Seattle Times, “we” need a populist voice on the city council. Something tells me the Seattle Times editorial staff have a very narrow definition of populist.

      1. More in the Bernie Sandars Elizabeth Warren vain I’m sure.

        1. So completely retarded and non-functional. Got it.

      2. We need 30 bins for trash sorting, bigger fines for… whatever, and green stuff! Save the planet from the Kochtopus!

        I think that covers Seattle populist.

        1. Actually, we’ve only got three. But put shit in the wrong one, and you’re opening yourself up to a SWAT raid.

  5. The Frank Zappa/Tipper Gore congressional hearings were in 1880’s or 1980’s? Time flies.

    1. Tipper Gore’s questions and her inquisitorial attitude with Frank Zappa told me everything that i needed to know about her and her empty suit-sock puppet husband.

      1. Dee Snyder during those hearings telling Al Gore that Tipper was probably into sadomasochism was friggin awesome. We’re not gonna take it anymore!

    2. You lost half the audience, that time was B.T.

      1. By Tilden?

        Banned Tyranny?

        Broadly Theocratic?


      2. WAIT! I got it!


        *beams proudly*

      3. Before Taylor?

      4. Borrowed Transorphan?

      5. No sillies… Before Twitter.

        1. I was close

  6. All these Democrats that were against illegal immigration were before Democrats realized that illegal immigrants could vote.

    1. Non-citizens are not allowed to vote and the citizen volunteers who run polling places are not allowed to verify that non-citizens don’t vote because doing so would disenfranchise black people who don’t seem to be able to remember to bring an ID with them.

      1. It’s racist to even talk about that. /derp

  7. This is pretty rich coming from a neocon.…..ry-nation/

  8. Right, Matt. And that was 20 years ago. 20 years. It’s called evolution. The GOP in some respects has gotten worse, if that’s possible. That’s called de-evolution. Tells us what party harbors such free thinkers as Huckabee, Trump, and Santorum. You might want to do a follow-up on what actually gets put into the new GOP platform. That will be hilarious.

    1. You know, joe, if you’re going to talk about Devo, there’s a song that’s just perfect for you.

      1. No Whip it? Disappointing.

        1. I was thinking “Girl You Want”. Oops.

      2. Not “Freedom of Choice”?

    2. 20? You only have to go back to the 2007 election to see how far the Democrats have ‘evolved.’ What you cunts have done is fully embrace identity politics, and openly cast aside any pretense to believing in capitalism.

      1. To go further, none of it is based on principles or real beliefs for most of you, Jack. You just parrot whatever the fuck comes out of the Obama administration’s talking points. If Joe Biiden is the only electable candidate, you assholes will just start mimicking him and your media strategy will become whatever you need to defend his stupidity.

      2. embrace identity politics, and openly cast aside any pretense to believing in capitalism.

        Well, any pretense to believing in individual rights.

    3. Bernie Sanders

    4. I grew up in Devon, Pennsylvania. I was teenager when that Devo album came out. I never took a can of white spray paint to the ‘n’ on the 202 exit ramp sign. That was someone else.

      1. Knock knock

        1. Hello?

          /ruins it

      2. That is perfect teen behavior. Per. Fect.

    5. Is that you, Joe from Lowell?

      Gosh, if so, why would you want to come back here and engage your intellectual superiors in sesquipedalian logomachy?

      1. Those last two words are ‘UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE.

        /Trump Voice

      2. There you go. Talkin’ like a fag again.

        1. This week I have noticed this Jackand Ace and a couple of commenters referring to him as Joe. Well, is it so? Or just another speculative this, that or the other guy is Tulpa?

          1. I don’t know. I sometimes see people called random first names here. I always assume they’re made up.

    6. I’m sure all the blacks who’ve spent a decade or more in prison due to Clinton era drug laws will be so ameliorated to hear that Progressives have “Evolved” since then.

      1. Ya know…evolution has more dead ends that not.

    7. Oh please.



    8. “Tells us what party harbors such free thinkers as Huckabee, Trump, and Santorum”

      Gee, Jack, tells (sic) us when those guys got support here, asshole.

    9. Right, Jack. Keep telling yourself that.

      Bill Buckley and Milton Friedman advanced the proposition that the war on drugs was stupid.

      Now, pay attention because this is the tricky part: they did it BEFORE Biden drafted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that Clinton signed and bragged about.

      Libertarians and the conservative Wall Street Journal have opposed civil asset forfeiture since the late 1980s.

      I’m happy that liberals are finally catching up to government abuses after all these decades, but it is bullshit to say that libertarians and at least some conservatives are behind the curve.

      BTW, in which political party were the most famous prosecutors of so-called satanic ritual abuse? Here’s a hint: Marsha Coakley and the Branch Davidian Barbequer. Who called them out? The conservative Wall Street Journal.

    10. so democrats have gotten more socialist and republicans have gotten more fascist? Sounds about right.

  9. For the last 8 years, there has been an incessant and bullshit rant from the left about how radical the right has become with this damn Tea Party. Bill Clinton of the 1990’s, if he had actually had scruples and didn’t just go which ever way the polls went, would not be able to run in the modern Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton has to basically run against his record.

    Meanwhile, they want to punish people for having ideas that as of 7 years ago would have been mainstream in the Democratic party.

  10. So Trump is running for Clinton’s third term?

    The GOP in some respects has gotten worse, if that’s possible.

    Wait, a guy who is running for the Republican nom on immigration policies that are rejected by every other candidate proves that the Republicans have gotten worse?

    Not following, here, Jack.

    Maybe, if you want to prove whether Republicans are heading in the right direction or not, you might look at somebody who isn’t being attacked by Republicans?

    1. Who the hell knows what they believe unless their handlers tell them. Which other candidate doesn’t believe there shouldn’t be an open door policy concerning immigration? Who believes those who come here illegally aren’t illegal? That is other than bush who believes asians are the problem.

  11. You know who else had a gruesome party platform?

    1. The Deepwater Horizon?

      1. Sir Charles Napier?

      2. Sir Charles Napier?

      3. Sir Charles Napier?

      4. Er, Sir Charles…Napier?

      5. Say ‘Sir Charles Napier’ again. Say ‘Sir Charles Napier’ AGAIN!

    2. That frat house whose 2nd story balcony fell off the house with a shit ton of revelers on it and killed a bunch of them??

    3. Elvira?

  12. Ghetto blacks are like Trump cock-sounders.

    1. *just fucking stops abruptly and doesn’t know how the fuck to react*

      Evenin’, Agile….

      1. Good evening, dear. Evidently you appreciate the sounding of cock.

      2. Keepin’ it brief.

  13. Bill Clinton was the best Republican President in my lifetime.

    1. And the first Black President.

  14. Free Slick Willy!

    1. That’s what Monica said

        1. I’m positive Hillary wasn’t nearly as pissed about the blow job (if at all), as she was about him turning them into a punchline.


    i can’t imagine any modern progressive, who routinely cites clinton as “the best president in modern history” ever actually digesting these details and being able to rationalize them.

    instead, I expect they will simply close their eyes and go NEVER HAPPENED NYAH NYAH NYAH. Reinvented history is so much more *appealing*

    1. I actually think Clinton might’ve been the best President of my lifetime.

      That’s a really, really low bar.

      1. It wasn’t totally intentional. When the GOP took congress, he swung to the right. He’s not a rigid leftist ideologue like Obama, who can’t do that. No, ol Willy, he just wants to be the dude, so he can get some chubby young intern tushy squeezin in.

        1. Letterman joke from the 90s:

          Q. What’s Bill Clinton’s favorite color?

          A. Plaid

          1. Ugh. I remember a few years ago, there was this documentary about the history of famous comedians. I was watching it and they were showing some old footage of Bob Hope. I just sat there thinking … WTF? None of it was funny, at all, not even the least bit. It was … alien.

            1. The stuff that cracks you up today will be just as alien to the folks 50 or so years hence.

        2. “he just wants to be the dude, so he can get some chubby young intern tushy squeezin in”

          At least he had his priorities straight.

      2. Probably Ford for me.

    2. From time to time, I still meet members of the “Bill Clinton; Best President of my lifetime” club. They’re highly skilled experts at the reconstruction of reality into whatever it is they want to remember.

      1. The whole police militarization went into full gear under him. Reno’s fucking henchmen in the ATF and DEA and even the FBI were out of fucking control. Not that they aren’t now but they went totally rouge during those years. Then there was the joke that was the assault weapons ban and the Brady bill. Of course then there is the stealing and the raping. He should be in prison. They both should.

        1. Wait until Hillary is Queen. She’ll make those days seem like liberty heaven.

        2. The cocksucker’s Attorney General took full responsibility for barbequing the Branch Davidians. It wasn’t his fault.

      2. All they remember is the zeitgeist of the 1990s, compared to the zeitgeist of the early 2000s

        The former was all about shedding the past of the cold-war, embracing a new technology-based economy, and aside from abortion…. a relatively mild-degree of culture-war conflict between the FAUX NEWS vs MSNBC sets. Oh, it existed, it was just *avoidable* in a way that it wasn’t once Internet News became the way people digested reality.

        Basically, people in their early 30s or younger see both periods in sort of a holistic-blur, and consider the former greatly superior to the latter, and bugger the actual details, because they were just kids then anyway.

        1. Better music.

        2. I remember the 70s, 80s, and 90s all as being really good times compared to now.

          Certainly in the 70s, we were a much freer society than we are now. In the 90s, we had a real economic boom.

          Then in 2001, it all started to fall down and has gotten worse ever since. Despite all of these ‘libertarian’ moments I keep hearing about.

          The only thing that is better today is technology. But the government will soon find a way to fuck that up too.

          1. Certainly in the 70s, we were a much freer society than we are now

            Remember Nixon’s price and wage controls? Obama *wishes* he could get away with that level of overt socialism, I bet.

            1. Yeah, Nixon would be too far left to get elected today.

            2. And they kept the controls on petroleum & gas, & you could see where that got us. Took until the 1980s to stop that.

              1. …and the regulation of the trucking industry, airlines, etc.

      3. The median age of the country is 37. That means most Americans have no real memory of Reagan’s good years.

        Of the post-Reagan Presidents, Clinton’s pretty clearly the least awful — if only because gridlock kept him from getting much done.

  16. Joe Biden on Drugs

    This guy is a real nut job.

    VP Joe Biden tells ABC, “There’s a difference between sending (someone) to jail for a few ounces and legalizing it. The punishment should fit the crime. But I think legalization is a mistake. I still believe it’s a gateway drug. I’ve spent a lot of my life as chairman of the Judiciary Committee dealing with this. I think it would be a mistake to legalize.”….._Drugs.htm

    1. I believe Biden is a gateway. Gateway to……?

      1. Hilarity?

      2. Idiocracy is the correct answer.

        1. It’s funny that it only took 9 years instead of 500.

      3. A Biden campaign or presidency means whistle-stop tours! That man loves trains like Bill loves interns, Hillary loves lies, and Barack loves himself…

    2. “This guy is a real nut job.”

      No he isn’t. He’s 72yo and his sensibilities weren’t hatched yesterday. That’s like ‘My grandfather’s a nut because he won’t use email.’ He might be just incorrect.

      1. Biden’s a liar wrapped in a salesman wrapped in a derp taco.

        1. Biden is also a box of empty dusty beer bottles rattling in the back of a rusty pickup driven by a toothless wonderwoman on the way to the recycling station. She needs bologna and a loaf of white bread and I love this imagination.

  17. Man, what the fuck is the Hilldawg wearing in that picture? Was that her fat pantsuit? Maybe she bought ahead or something in case they ever ran out of pantsuits.

  18. Why do I read the comments at Hot Air? Why do I do it to myself?

    This country needs to have a serious talk about re-instating some form of segregation. It has become painfully obvious that the racial tension between blacks and whites is not going to go away, and it is not going to get better. Better to have a semi-civil separation now than host our own version of a Rhodesia/South Africa disintegration.

    AzDesertRat on August 26, 2015 at 3:30 PM

    Black or muzzie, possibly both. Remind me please why we keep ’em unleashed?

    Rix on August 26, 2015 at 9:39 AM

    Listen low-lifes obviously this freak was unemployed sitting gaining weight playing video games. He had no direction in life was 41 and his last gig was at some small tv station. The video games conditioned him to kill. And being Virginia you can go to the drug store and buy a Saturday night special. So easy access to guns and video games equals mass shooter.

    OliverB on August 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM

    1. It’s like a train wreck, you want to look away, but you can’t. I read posts on HuffPo and WaPo all of the time and every time I wish I hadn’t of and I swear off doing it again. But I always go back.

      You know though, as far as racial tensions are concerned, it was going away until Captain race baiter got elected and started running his yap.

      1. It’s amazing, eh?

        Twitchy and Hotair have their assholes just like Huff and the NYT do.

        1. OMG, the NYT!, Those people are not like any commenters anywhere else. They’re worse! It’s beyond my tolerance level. Never, anywhere have I seen a bunch of people who truly believe they are some type of intellectuals ramble on, and on, and on and never say anything. To say that they are insufferable bores is being really nice. They truly are living in an alternate universe.

          1. It’s just mutual psychotherapy.

            1. What I recall being called a circle jerk.

          2. VOX is worse.
            Reading the comments there is like watching a car crash — you don’t want to, but you just can’t help it.

            Hotair opened its registration a long while back for a bit and was infiltrated by leftoid agitators. It has truly ruined the comments.

      2. Huffpo is pointless, as it is Facebook-only and hence all the normals. I can’t stand their misspelled pearls of folksiness. Do you still see it as some liberal cesspool?

        To see the grittier sentiments, like blaming the black president for making white people into racists, I come here I guess.

        1. “To see the grittier sentiments, like blaming the black president for making white people into racists, I come here I guess.”

          So that’s what you call your constant lying? ‘Seeing grittier sentiments’?
          Fuck it’s just LYING, slimebag.

          1. Wait, Sevo, he has a point. I hate fucking Facebook posters. They drip clover juices and melted shoehorns.

        2. “the normals”

          What the fuck is a “normals”?

          1. You know them when you see them.

        3. And you are stupid…what’s your point?

    2. Well, there are nutjobs there, just like there are nutjobs here.

      One thing I’ve noticed is that the percentage of people willing to say such blantantly racist things has risen over the past 6 years.

      Gee, I wonder why that might be…

      While we’re at it: You know who else stoked racial divisions!?

  19. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.

    So, Matt, we deport non-citizens who commit crimes and prosecute if they return. What would you have is do instead, bake them a gay-wedding cagke?

    1. Droid or iPhone? My Droid would fix cagke into ‘cage’.

  20. Brilliant! Finally a Reason article I can use as looter repellent. This is excellent stuff!

  21. That’s not really a surprise.

    Trump draws a lot of his support from North-east/Mid-west labor. The sort of shitheads that make up Teamsters and UAW members. They hate immigrants more than anything because they (probably correctly) realize that immigrants undercut union (which is pretty synonymous with white working class in the NE) wages. And they support big government because big government throws the industries they work for (such as Boeing and GM) a lot of money via government contracting, the Export-Import Bank and other such crony-capitalist mechanisms.

    I’ve been saying for a while that the Democrats were losing mid-western whites because of their turn towards racial identity politics. They’re also losing northeastern working-class whites. But guess what? Those people haven’t suddenly decided they want small government. They want the same crony-capitalist “machine” they always enjoyed with the Democrats. And Trump seems like just the kind of corrupt asshole to give it to them. They want a glad-handling, back-slapping “player” just like Clinton. Someone who will give them their cut of the loot. That’s why Trump eminent-domaining little-old ladies houses in order to build parking lots isn’t going to bother them in the slightest.

    1. Union types can be some real assholes. There’s this old guy who lives down the street from me, he has a Vote Union bumper sticker on his car right next to his Obama/Biden 2008 bumper sticker. He’s like the penultimate east coast union democrat, a real fucking prick.I guess the guys been here forever and no one likes him. If the guy walks by us when we’re taking walks, he won’t speak. Couple of my other neighbors have mentioned that he’s creepy and rude. One time someone was putting signs around the neighborhood with stuff written on them in red like ‘GOP SCUM, GO AWAY!’. Well, everyone knew who it was. People in this neighborhood here are not used to that sort of union mindset thuggery. They’re mostly just Prius driving hipsters. I told my wife the next time I see one of those fucking signs, I’m going to pull it up and put it on his car. Fucking prick.

      1. Yes, and the union men have to have a special level of retardation to keep being union men in 2015. The same kind of retardation displayed by Trump supporters. Coincidence? I don’t think so…

    2. I’ve been saying for a while that the Democrats were losing mid-western whites because of their turn towards racial identity politics.

      Something like that. You guys are not versed in these matters, because you are all white dudes who don’t have to be, but it leaves your informedness skewed. It is no less “racial identity politics” to whine about “racial identity politics” and its effects on white people (even if the effect is it annoys you). White people are not the default form of person. Getting away from that sentiment is the very reason for what you call “racial identity politics,” and nobody but asshole bigots should be against it. If white racial resentment (mixed in with all the other resentments the majority has when a minority group gains on its dominance) is causing people to flock to the GOP, then, well this is fucking Reason so it’s obviously the Democrats’ flaw.

      This realignment has already happened. Trump supporters don’t sound any different from tea partiers or their previous incarnations for decades back–the Republican base. He polls pretty evenly among all Republican demographics.

      1. I am not whining about the effect of racial identity politics on white people.
        Racial identity politics is pernicious not because of the effect on whites in particular, but because of it’s effect on bedrock principles of Western liberal governance like “equal justice under law”. When people start seeing themselves as members of identity groups fighting to see who can get the most loot out of the hands of daddy government, then we’ve undermined those bedrock principles, and it won’t end well for anyone, regardless of race.

        But that’s ok, I know progressives try to argue that libertarianism is some sort of secret plot to benefit white people, because apparently “small government” is inherently a code word for “less free shit for black people”, because black people inherently need more free shit or something. I mean how can one argue for low taxes or against welfare without being a racist, right? It’s just IMPOSSIBLE. Everyone knows that welfare and black people are synonymous.

        1. “equal justice under law”

          What do you think is the goal here? Was the gay marriage fight also identity politics? It focused on a minority group and their lack of rights. That’s all any of what you call identity politics is.

          When people start seeing themselves as members of identity groups

          The unstated assumption remains that being white, male, and heterosexual is not also an identity that white male heterosexuals don’t also use to their advantage all the time, in politics and in life. It just so happens that they have all the advantages already, so don’t need to do much agitating (not that this stops them, or you).

          Idiot Republicans think black people and welfare are synonymous. The safety net is another subject though. Republicans can’t seem to keep white identity politics out of it though, or almost anything else. Which of course is the Democrats’ fault.

          1. I think Democrats ripped our boys up in the NY hood, tho, bro. I actually like you more than most of these maestros because you offer an opposing edge which is always healthy. However, Tony, you really need to nip the Democrat obsession in the bud. Not to favor the fucking shit-eating Republicans but simply to recognize that Democrats are invested in their own form of totalitarian rule built on the same lawyered concrete that buoys the oppressive conservative autocrats. Without Democrats screeching from the copper edgings on the tall streets in NYC you wouldn’t have a really great collection of gay sex resources being raped up the ass by the American morons called U.S. attorneys and their gangster buddies in the acronimbles.

            1. I actually like you more than most of these maestros

              That won’t last long.

              1. I’ve been here long as you, babe. Maybe longer. Maybe before time. Just like a shadow. A very deep shadow.

                1. Will you be my shadow?

            2. My alleged obsession results from a simply and true premise: in any given major election in this country, a Democrat or a Republican is almost 100% sure to win. I think politics as the art of self-pleasure is narcissistic and counter-productive. Pick the lesser of two evils; there is no such thing as not making a choice.

              Plus Democrats, at least the ones I can get behind, are really not that evil, really. At worst, canny politicians whose fingers are well licked for the wind. Not that I believe in evil. Republicans can’t all be psychopaths. Most are just really dumb and base their policies on the lizard-brain approach to the world (ack! another type of person!).

              1. I think politics as the art of self-pleasure is narcissistic and counter-productive. Pick the lesser of two evils; there is no such thing as not making a choice.

                That would really make sense, if your vote actually mattered. But, it doesn’t.

                So, tell me: in which election was yours a deciding vote? Oh, none?

                Well, then, I guess your support for the democratic party was about as productive and helpful as enjoying your morning dump.

          2. What do you think is the goal here? Was the gay marriage fight also identity politics?

            It would be identity politics if gays were demanding that (say) HIV medication coverage be added as a free “essential benefit” to the ACA. Kinda like the way that “women” (or women’s groups) are demanding that contraception be covered as a free benefit.

            Identity politics is about saying “This is my group. My group has been oppressed. Therefore my group should get these special benefits, specifically allocated to people in my group.” For instance, the quotas in government contracting that mandate a certain percentage of contracts go to “minority-owned” businesses. Instead of arguing for a system that is actually uniform. Gay marriage is an example of actually arguing for a system that is uniform. The gays weren’t saying “we should get this special shit because gay people are oppressed”, they were actually saying “treat us equally”.

            1. I’m opposed to ‘free’ contraception, but given only women get pregnant I’m not sure it’s exactly identity politics for them to want that covered (or maybe better said that example really shows the limits of criticizing them for ‘identity politics’).

              Another thing, when a group really thinks they’ve been specifically unfairly treated and they ask for something they think is remedial to that treatment, is that the kind of identity politics you’re against? To take an extreme example, to the extent that the Freedman’s Bureau was championed by and virtually only aimed to help the former freed slaves (who were, after all, victimized in part because of their race), would that constitute deplorable ‘identity politics?’

              1. The Freedman Bureau was a very long time ago.

                To me identity politics is more about organizing people to think of themselves primarily as members of identity groups, and thus to organize their political activity around lobbying for benefits to their perceived group.
                For example, if you convinced Irish-Americans to think of themselves as fundamentally “Irish”, then you might start coming up with statistics about what sort of problems afflicted “Irish-Americans”, and therefore get them to lobby for policies based on what they thought would benefit Irish-Americans.

                It’s primarily about how people think of themselves and their position in society. Do you think of society as a vast number of equal individuals, or do you think of society as a collection of competing groups, of which you may be a member of one or a few (intersectionality)? If you think of society as a collection of competing groups, you are more likely to identify your personal interests with the interests of the group to which you belong.

                To the extent that Democrats promote identity politics, it’s as a way of corralling voters into predictable blocks. Once you get people to identify themselves with a particular group, you can count on them to vote according to the interests of the group. Which makes it easy to devise policies that are essentially designed to benefit a specific group in order to attract votes.

                1. As Bo referenced above, this nothing but Colbert’s colorblindness. It’s an appealing way of looking at the world, and often comes from a genuine and kind-hearted place, but is ultimately inadequate.

                  There is a reason the groups that bitch about “identity politics” are composed primarily of white heterosexual men. You don’t see how the accused might scoff? It’s easy for the guy whose every demographic “intersection” is the apex of privilege to say that minorities are going about it all wrong. They better just shut up and pretend there’s nothing to worry about, correct? Or what is the alternative?

                  Then you go on essentially to paint every single demographic except those enlightened white dudes who reject identity politics as for some unexplained reason easily duped by cheap bribes from political parties.

                  Maybe the fraction of the one demographic that is exclusionary of everyone else is actually the most duped by their political party.

                  1. What the fuck are you talking about Tony? Never have I anywhere argued anything about the interests of white voters. What the hell makes you think my criticism of identity politics has fuck-all to do with whiteness?

                    The society that emerged from (yes) Western Europe, got that way because they actually had to *overcome* ethnic and religious divisions, through centuries of conflict. It too a long fucking time and a lot of dead bodies to come up with the radical idea that people should be treated as equal individuals and not rewarded or punished based on which social groups they belonged to. Excuse me for not wanting to toss that idea in the dustbin because it happens to be championed by white men. Excuse me for not evaluating ideas by the skin colors of the people espousing them.

                    1. I would like to sign up for your newsletter. Bravo!!

                    2. Hazel just fucking owned Tony with his last post.

                      Sad thing is Tony is too fucking stupid to even comprehend what was written.

                    3. The idea that minorities are offered special privileges is the very pernicious lie that underpins the grievance you apparently don’t know you’re expressing. It is my politics that has championed actual equality over the centuries, not merely its ideal, the paternalistic and dishonest nonsense that no matter how unlucky you are in the circumstances of your birth, you too can be as successful as the white heterosexual male, who did it all on his own after all, bestowed only with superior Western European virtues. (Oh, hi entire generations of brown people who produced all our wealth for little or no compensation, can I help you with something?)

                      Your politics, in my estimation, are conveniently situation to fervently protect the current distribution of wealth and power, so your self-righteous appeals to an ideal of equality are a little precious. Anyone bitching about the special treatment minorities are getting, even the dreaded affirmative action that is “talking about race,” is in actuality actively supporting the default special treatment of the majority.

                  2. There is a reason the groups that bitch about “identity politics” are composed primarily of white heterosexual men.

                    LOL! You can’t even defend identity politics without appealing to identity politics.

                    Translation: “You know who doesn’t like identity politics? White, hetero men. And that’s all you need to know that identity politics is awesome!”

                    You might as well say that question begging is great because we all know that begging questions is awesome, since it always has been, and always will be.

                    1. “Identity politics” = minorities expressing grievances. Guess they’re not allowed to do that? Why then do you guys get to do nothing but express your own?

                    2. Such an obvious stawman. Then again, that’s all progressives can really ever knock down.

      2. And Tony, there are women here you know? Apologize to them. And HM is not white, apologize to him too, you jackass.

        1. I’m not a guy, or are you talking about Heroic Mullato.

          1. No, I wasn’t referring to either of you. But there are women posters here and HM is not white, which I’m sure you know by his posting name. Well, he’s half white, but maybe he doesn’t want to be called white. Tony is a fucking racist asshole.

            1. Ugh, I mean I wasn’t referring to either of you as a woman.

              1. Oh fuck it, I give up, the derp has screwed my brain.

                1. Don’t even give it another thought.

                  1. Sorry, HM, these dipshits are really pissing me off. I know that’s what they’re trying to do. I typically remain pretty calm, but for some reason, I feel mad.

                    1. I typically remain pretty calm, but for some reason, I feel mad.

                      That’s its game, see how he pulled the Uncle Tom card below in a vain attempt to rile me? Just don’t give it the satisfaction.

                    2. That’s its game, see how he pulled the Uncle Tom card below in a vain attempt to rile me? Just don’t give it the satisfaction

                      Yes, I saw just what they were doing. It’s funny how these leftists are the biggest racist around and yet they can’t stop bringing up the topic.

                  2. Well, I think your sweet little mouth went all oval for hyp cock there my thread meastro. I think this is massively adorbs.

            2. Come on, there’s relatively few women, and nodding to HM is like ‘hey, we have a black friend!’

              1. “…relatively few women…”

                No, not really. There is more here than you think, they just don’t always say so.

                1. You don’t think that there are few women here ‘relative’ to how many men there are? I guess it’s possible, I just see no evidence to think that.

                2. Well at least look at how none of the Democrat candidates are white. I mean Hillary, oh wait… I mean O’Malley, err never mind, ok, I was thinking of Bernie…. oh shit, well if he jumps in there’s Biden! … oh yeah…, I was talking about Warren!…. oh shit….

                  It looks like all of the Democrat candidates are old white people. I guess the only diversity is with the GOP.

                  1. “It looks like all of the Democrat candidates are old white people. I guess the only diversity is with the GOP.”

                    He did say white males, and the current Democrat Party frontrunner is a woman.

            3. If you find yourself in a room with almost all white males (tokens are, like, token), then I would find a door and go somewhere with more diversity. Unless you are eager to confirm the thesis that a room full of the smartest people will be full of almost only white guys.

              1. A room full of the stupidest will be full of Tonys.

              2. “If you find yourself in a room with almost all white males (tokens are, like, token), then I would find a door”

                This was a Doctor Who episode, right?

              3. I pretty much don’t care what color or sex everyone is here. I only note such when someone volunteers that information. You, however, are the one keeping score – because you are racist and sexist.

                1. You don’t find it a remotely interesting question why libertarians are almost all white and male? And by white I mean like 98%. What’s wrong with everyone else?

                  1. “And by white I mean like 98%.”

                    Sooo we are like the racial demographics of Occupy Wall Street and the writers at Gawker.

                    I will admit that is horrible company especially that last one.

              4. Isn’t it funny how every time anyone of a non-white racial group goes against Tony’s politics, he handwaves them off or pretends they don’t exist (“Asians don’t count” remember guys?).

                Why treat them like actual people, right Tony? Better to just demean them and call them tokens. Nothing racist about that.

      3. The truly interesting thing is how well he’s polling with evangelicals. Trump as the family values demographic favorite son says a lot about their religious understandings.

      4. “Tony|2015/08/26 19:46:55|#5544559”

        …You guys are not versed in these matters, because you are all white dudes who don’t have to be….”

        Whereas you’re a white dude, but a *special* one.

        1. He’s the guy in the bar who starts putting his arm around the one black guy and talking about races issues. Cuz he gets it man.

      5. “You guys are not versed in these matters, because you are all white dudes who don’t have to be…”

        We don’t have to be white? What? We supposed to wear black face? Maybe we can change color if we believe real hard like that stupid bitch Rachel Dolezal.

      6. “because you are all white dudes”

        psst hey Tony. You are also a white dude. And your politics are an invention of white dudes.

    3. “Trump draws a lot of his support from North-east/Mid-west labor.”

      ? Do you mean by ‘a lot’ something like ‘disproportionate’ or ‘among the many thousands that support him, there are some in the Northeast?’

      1. Disproportionate. Look at the positions he is taking and observe the overlap. Trump is a north-eastern white guy, to start with. He’s rabidly anti-immigrant, and (even more importantly) that seems to be the thing his supporters are the most excited about. He’s also a crony-capitalist extraordinaire. Hmmm, what group of people do your think stands to gain the most from lots of crony-capitalism plus immigration restrictions? Let’s see … something about domestic labor, combined with heavy industry and infrastructure projects ….

        1. I thought perhaps you had some evidence via polls or something that Trump was doing disproportionately well in the Northeast.

          1. He does have a spike in support in the Northeast.

            But obviously unions and working class whites aren’t exclusively located in the Northeast either.

            1. “He does have a spike in support in the Northeast.”

              Do you have any evidence for this statement? Are his poll percents higher there than in other reported places? I’m honestly curious as to the basis for that.


                It’s mentioned in passing in occasional articles.
                Although personally, I don’t think his support is a mystery. He’s pulling support from fence-jumpers from the Democratic party, working class anti-immigrant whites who used to lean left, but are now leaning right. That’s why his support is stronger among the “tea Party” (which itself pulls fence-jumping Democrats, probably the same demographic), and stronger among secular conservatives than among religious conservatives.

                1. A ‘spike in the Northeast’ could have been a rise from a relatively low number, no?

                2. Also, I think if you read some of the comments from Trump supporters in that article there are other clues.

                  “I usually vote for the Democrats.”
                  “The Latinos will love Trump. He’ll get them jobs.” (Seriously, what kind of Republican talks about the government getting people jobs?)
                  And the comment that the people coming and going at Trumps campaign offices weren’t familiar to Republican party regulars.

                  I should add that the North-east/Mid-west union demographic has been fence-jumping for a while now. It’s not like it’s totally a new thing that a certain faction in the Republican party was catering to the interests of northeastern and mid-western white union types. Northeastern R’s have been crony-capitalist for a long time.

                  1. The problem is, I can see some theoretical reasons to think he does well there (he’s out of the Northeast himself for example), but I can see reasons to think he doesn’t (I don’t think he’s pulled anything like the crowd he got in Mobile in the NE, and anti-immigrant sentiment is really strong in the South, that’s why the leading anti-immigrant voice in the Senate for a while has been Sessions). So I’d have to see some evidence of his polling numbers by region to make a conclusion.

                    1. So I’m looking at the polls over at Real Clear Politics. It’s hard to see a regional pattern to Trump’s support. He’s getting 33% in Arizona, 24% in NC, 24% in PA, 21% in FL, 35% in NH, 30% in SC…

    4. Spot on, though that crowd is dying off. Slowly but surely.

      The trumpster is not stupid, he’s written off any Hispanic voters and certainly needs the blue collar white union voter’s (Reagan democrats) or he’s toast.

  22. Let’s give Biden his full due: He didn’t just support the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; Biden wrote it.

    1. Oh come on, he’s probably evolved! I’m sure he’ll be against that now.

  23. Dems were bad on these issues in 1996. Therefore, let’s vote for the ones who are bad on these issues now. Or is this just the typical Reason maverickness of grasping for false equivalency, like CNN?

    1. Shut up, you dumb fuckstick! No one here is voting for Trump. Drink the rest of your cheap liquor and pass out now. The adults are talking, be gone!

      1. Trump’s is not exactly the only GOP campaign taking these kinds of positions.

        1. Oh, good!
          Who left the lid off the garbage can?

        2. True. Some of the other GOP candidates are competing to see who can be even more of a xenophobic facist than Trump.

          This is definitely the first election in which anyone seriously proposed not only ending birthright citizenship, but revoking birthright citizenship ex-post-facto.

        3. Tony and the Botard…a double dose ‘o derp.

      2. Cheap liquor and passing out has a place in a backyard under a moonlight sky with the maple and oak trees waving all sorts of messages across the shadowscapes of a swiftly escaping life. I think this is a good thing, hyp. Tony has to be dealt with directly without insulting some of us thread nomads, kind sir.

    2. Constant lies.

    3. I believe the point is that Trumps “platform”, such as it is, bears an eerie resemblance to some old Democratic-party mainstays.
      This might tell you something about who is supporting Trump and why.

      1. In other Republicans acting like Democrats news:

        Jeb Bush threw his support behind a Tennessee plan to give two years of community college to students tuition-free on Monday, the same plan that helped inspire President Obama’s similar proposal earlier this year.

        1. Wow, he’s supporting that insanity? Holy cow. What a fool, both morally and politically (does he think this stance will help him win the GOP nomination?).

        2. The Bush clan are progressive neocons. Jeb is just the lastest progression in that.

          1. Seems like W was having buyers remorse 2nd term when it comes to those guys. But yeah I think they would be equally happy with Jeb, Hillary, or Marco. I get the feeling that Marco’s their guy though.

            1. Marco has made reference to a New American Century several times which has to be a nod to the neocon Project for a New American Century who also had Bill’s ear when he was President which is why he wanted to bomb Iraq.

            2. Marco is definitely an establishment boy. You can really see in him how he wants to be in with the next generation establishment.

              I really liked Dubyah at first. I voted for that jackass twice. And did I ever regret it a couple years into his 2nd term. But I’d like to thank him for my permanent conversion from Republican to libertarian in 2007.

              1. “I really liked Dubyah at first. I voted for that jackass twice.”

                My shocked face.

                1. So you were jerking off into a pillow back then…nobody gives a shit what you “think”, dipshit.

              2. Oh and I think I forgot to mention, although I have mentioned it here before, I voted for that shithead Obama in 2008. I bet some racist fucking asshole has a shocked face about that too.

                1. Where are you getting this ‘racist’ thing? You’re really, really invested in the charge, how am I a ‘racist’ from my comments here? Show your work.

                  1. No answer, as I thought.

                    I’d like to think I’m squarely between Tony’s embrace of identity politics and your quasi-Colbertish ‘I don’t see race, people tell me they’re black or white and I just have to take their word for it’ nonsense.

                    You can take race into account too much, and you can take it into account too little. For example of the latter, it seems according to your view one could not note that the WOD falls heavily disproportionately on blacks without somehow being racist (since someone using the same logic to say, ‘hey, the GOP or conservatism seems to attract disproportionately few blacks, maybe there’s something going on there’ is teh racism!! to you).

                    1. I’d like to think I’m squarely between Tony’s embrace of identity politics and your quasi-Colbertish ‘I don’t see race

                      The halfway point between Tony’s position and reality on any given issue is still lightyears into the ether of retardation. You’re actually indistinguishable from Tony on this particular issue (and most other social issues as well), but it’s funny that even your own self assessment leaves you with at least one foot firmly in the race hustler camp, and you’re so profoundly fucked up you’re actually proud of it.

                    2. This much is clear.

              3. I voted against Gore and against Kerry as well:) Well W ran in 2000 as a non-interventionist and was applauded when speaking out against nation building and being the world police.

                1. After 8 years of Clinton I sure as hell had no desire to risk internet inventor Gore.

                2. Well W ran in 2000 as a non-interventionist and was applauded when speaking out against nation building and being the world police.

                  People tend to forget that Bush in 2000 came off as one of the most non-interventionist candidates ever. Talk is cheap.

              4. Remember the alternatives to Dubya? First Al Gore, then John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry.

                1. There’s no sugar coating it, the choices for president have been sub-optimal for some time now.

                  1. That goes without saying, but when have they ever been optimal. Looking back Ford and Carter seemed pretty inocuous…granted a pretty low bar.

                    I hope for a divided government, no matter who the principals are. Bad shit happens when one tribe has the controls.

        3. But Bush has come out against Obama’s federal plan, panning it at a New Hampshire speech as “political [and] poll driven,” according to USA Today.

          “Governor Bush supports a state’s right to innovate and find solutions to our education challenges, whether it be in K-12 or in the higher education community,” Allie Brandenburger, a Bush spokeswoman told The Hill in a statement.

          As lousy and technocratic of a candidate as Jeb is, at least he’s differentiated himself on the federalist end of this (now if he can just decide what the meaning of “Common Core” is in his head). Not that one could tell that from the headline or easily parse it from the first-draft-style of writing that Kamisar uses here (it took me a second read-through to grok precisely which were Bush’s positions/quotes versus what were Obama’s).

          (Hot Air didn’t even try that hard and instead wrote it up with a bunch of Obama quotes attributed directed to Jeb on their blog ? Oops!)

          1. Bush has always seemed to be a Common Core guy. He may be trying to walk back on it, but he’s a statist asshole.

    4. Dude, they’re the same fucking people.

  24. Stossel Ranks the candidates. Has Paul at number 1.…..andidates/

    1. Not surprised, Stossel is a smart guy. But I’m going to disagree with him a little. I’m not sure I’d put Carly 2nd just yet, although I do sort of like her. And Hillary is dead last, so much so, that they need to put her at least 50 spots below the next worst candidate.

      1. I would not vote for Carly but I think she will do well. Her CEO experience will translate I think well into running for President although not necessarily being President. It’s all about sales, presentation, preparation, obfuscation, etc. Doesn’t even matter that she wasn’t that successful at it. She developed all those skills getting to that position. And he has her at three. Johnson’s at two. You remember Johnson. You can call me Gary.

        1. Didn’t she run HP disastrously?

          1. Doesn’t even matter that she wasn’t that successful at it.

            1. Fair enough, I missed that.

              But I’d like to think an effective run is less about just professional presentation and something about what the candidate can offer in past accomplishments. In that area Carly’s claim to fame was also a failure. If she were a man I doubt she’d be talked about at all.

              1. about what the candidate can offer in past accomplishments

                The current front runners are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

                1. Good one.

          2. Yes. But even though she was not a good HP CEO and caused me to lose money, I’d put her at either #2 or #3 as the most competent of 2016 prospects.

        2. It’s probably that she’s articulate and tough, non-apologetic and she sort of demolished everyone in the lower tier debate.

          1. She was definitely on her game, I’ll give her that.

    2. “But it’s absurd to think that Mexico will fund construction of a giant wall between the U.S. and Mexico. ”

      Just wait until Mexico wants to keep those lazy gringos from north of the border out.

      1. Trump is such a blowhard. Mexico can’t afford to build his stupid fucking wall.

        1. He wants to steal the money from Mexicans in the US sending it home. It’s so obvious a dummy should have thought of that.

          1. Bingo. Tax the Western Union transfers at 20%.

            Bitches be building the wall alright.

    3. Jeb! at #4. I think he’s in agreement with reason on Mr. “We need to double the NSA”.

    4. Number one to??? Drop out? Screw up his campaign? Say he’s a different republican when he really isn’t? I didn’t read the article.

  25. Something like that. You guys are not versed in these matters, because you are all white dudes who don’t have to be

    Tony’s a racist.

      1. He just called you a white guy AND a Trump supporter all in the same post. Go smack the shit out of him, I won’t interfere.

    1. White people are not the default form of person

      People are their race first, then people. Sounds racist.

    2. Fuck that guy. Most of the progressives who were active in politics on campus when I was in college were middle to upper class whites and blacks. Two groups who only experience with the hood was driving by it on the expressway.

      1. What do we know, Ed? We’re just “tokens”.

        1. “in a vain attempt to rile me?”

      2. Yep. I love that our lefty trolls are always accusing us of being all white, middle to upper middle class guys between 25 and 50. I happen to know this crowd has a good number of females, blacks and hispanics. All in all the white guys are less than half.

        It is just that no one here identifies themselves based on gender or race so we don’t talk about it all the time. People who care about real liberty don’t give a shit about race or gender. This is something they absolutely cannot understand.

        1. I remember at the political debates in college, all the debaters for the Democratic side were all white. Motherfuckin’ lily white.

        2. “I happen to know this crowd has a good number of females, blacks and hispanics. All in all the white guys are less than half.”

          How in the world could you happen to *know* that?

        3. Yeah, pretty much the only time that we give anyone shit is the Canadians, and we all know they deserve it.

          1. the Canadians, and we all know they deserve it.

            Come over the goddamn border and say that to our faces. Rufus will bring his Dago squad, I’ll get some local boys from the tribes and Pan will make you watch a Serbian film.

            1. Oh, fuck no, not a Siberian film! Next thing, you’re going to make me watch some hockey… oh fuck, I can’t even believe I said that… *turns tail and heads back south*…

              1. Next thing, you’re going to make me watch some hockey

                You’re on thin ice, Hyperion. If you shit on our beer we’ll end you.

                1. Well, if you’d get off our lawn… I mean border! I wouldn’t be on ice at all! Moslon sucks! Although I do like me some Moosehead… But I’m not admitting it! Get off our border!

        4. You know, Southernboy, it’s pretty damn funny how anyone could ask you how you know that. Since most of us here talk about a lot of things besides politics and frequently about family, it would be pretty easy for you to know that. I’ve never even really thought about ‘how many here are female, how many are black’, etc. Sure we joke that there are no female libertarians. But unlike leftist, we don’t consider these things in divisive and political ways. Everyone is welcome with libertarians. And unlike the leftists, it’s not fake and about political gain. Next thing you know, the troll twins are going to be saying there are no gays here.

          1. “it’s pretty damn funny how anyone could ask you how you know that.”

            It’s pretty funny that someone could ask someone on a nationwide internet discussion board how he knows what the race, ethnicity and gender of most of the commenters are?

            I mean, is his answer going to be ‘because they say they are?’ On the internet? Even apart from the fact that he might selectively pay attention to certain examples and inflate them in his count, that’s conclusive for you?

        5. Only white guys I know are Johnny and Edgar Winter.

      3. Ed, FTW….

  26. Who summoned the Botard?

  27. the democratic party is defanged and pretty centrist anyway at this point. not surprising in the least.

    1. Yeah, they’re about as centrist as Chariman Mao right now.

      1. She’s from Portland, be gentle….

  28. I think the funniest thing about this is when you confront a Democrat about this, they use the, “We have evolved,” line. But yet when it came to the healthcare law being passed in 2010, the GOP were accused of abandoning a plan they endorsed during the 1990’s and thus were dishonest.

  29. Well, the two biggest trolls at Reason have teamed up to prove their racist credentials.

    1. You seem to think that any recognition that people are of different races in any context means the recognizer is racist. That’s an interesting idea.

    2. Correct me if I’m wrong. Bo and Tony essentially called Heroic a token? That’s awful. Heroic is one of the best posters here, and he’s called a fucking token? That’s fucked up.

      1. I didn’t say he was a token. I said when you answer the charge that your club of many members is all X with the response ‘hey, we got one Y right here’ it’s pretty sad.

        1. I am looking at handles and for the life of me, except for a few with identifiers in them, I can’t tell who belongs to what demographic. I am guessing neither can you.

          I have watched exchanges on here where some lefty trashbag has gone on about the white racism here with a poster who I already knew was black and the troll was clueless.

          How many blacks here Bo? How many females?

          1. Neither I nor you knows how many blacks or females there are here Suthenboy. The only way to make an educated guess is to go by 1. what anonymous people here you have and never will meet for the most part might say and 2. judging by the known demographics of self identifying libertarians. Given there are probably a hundred, maybe two, somewhat regulars posting here, are you really saying you’ve seen a significant chunk of that even say (criteria 1) they were black or women? And if so, the fact that that would fly in the face of 2. wouldn’t make you a bit suspicious?

            1. “Given there are probably a hundred, maybe two, somewhat regulars posting here, are you really saying you’ve seen a significant chunk of that even say (criteria 1) they were black or women?”

              Yes. I got curious because this subject came up a couple of years ago. I made a list, it was almost 300, and over the course of a few months added identifiers. 32% women, 15% black, 18% hispanic, if I remember the numbers correctly. Also a significant number over 60.
              Sadly there was no one under 20. Not even one.

              It was a pretty informal study so the margin of error is high, but it still gave me hope.

              1. One of the points of a site like this is to “change minds”. With that in mind, the racial and sexual makeup of current posters matters *not one whit*.

                1. One of the points of a site like this is to “change minds”. With that in mind, the racial and sexual makeup of current posters matters *not one whit

                  Of course it doesn’t matter to any of us regulars here, it’s just that the trolls can’t shut the fuck up about it for 2 seconds. An intentional tactic to create division.

                  1. An intentional tactic to create division.

                    Yes, which is why I sometimes find it important to rebut their idiocy. When normally I ignore them.

              2. There are now a few under 30s though. Unfortunately one of them is Cyto, and he’s ok, for a Canadian. We just need to slap him upside the head a little more and he’ll be ok.

                1. It is well-known that young people lean Left. Hell, I was an indifferent leftoid – by default – before my 30s.

                  1. Yeah, that rules seems to remain true. I really wanted to vote for Carter, but I was too young to vote. Then I did vote for Reagan, twice. I bounced back and forth from Democrat to Republican and I always had this feeling of not fitting into either team. I couldn’t figure out why I was for legalizing pot and for capitalism at the same time. Then in 2007, I searched the wonder that is the internet, found the libertarian website and was like, wow, so that is what I am?

              3. I’m 25 and a graduate student and I just officially registered as a Libertarian in VA so take heart that not all millenials are lost causes! Been lurking on these boards for awhile now as an intellectual refuge from the dark abyss of shrill, vapid, ill-informed progressivism feelz that is the social media universe.

        2. Damn autocorrect. I wrote “toker”.

      2. Tony’s a skilled turd-wanker. Not much else.

      3. Thanks.

        I’m not paying them any mind. Shitting in the punchbowl is the last refuge for trolls.

        1. One of things that drives me the most crazy is whenever I hear members of my family say stuff like, “Yeah the Democrats don’t care about us, but at least we know they will help us a little.” I get really angry because why would you just want the breadcrumbs from the table when you can have the whole loaf of bread?

          Chicago is solidly Democratic but yet we have police brutality, high crime, and shitty schools. I’m not saying they should vote for Republicans but at least keep an open mind and not be drones.

          1. Damn Ed, you need to check your black privilege…..”BO”

      4. The lying piece of shit that just replied to you, Slammer, indeed just effectively did call HM a token, as a matter of fact, both of the racist pieces of shit trolls here did so. Only Tony, in Tony fashion, came right out and said it, the other just insinuated it. It’s right above, just scroll up.

        1. It’s sort of like Tony came right out and said he hates poor people. He can’t erase that little bit of ugly, so now he doesn’t want to talk about it.

          1. I don’t hate poor people, I just don’t like being around them. Chalk my support for a strong safety net up to total selfishness.

            1. Tony|8.26.15 @ 11:29PM|#
              “I don’t hate poor people, I just don’t like being around them.”

              And you’re more than willing to use violence to make sure they aren’t around, right, you slimy pile of crap?

              1. Get back to me when you’ve learned to speak like a grownup.

            2. Rich people aren’t the default type of person, Tony.

          2. You have to keep in mind generally don’t like being around poor people but instead are content to enjoy the feelz they get from talking about helping them. That and they use them to stay in power. Tony simply considers himself part of the intellectual vanguard of the new order, which is par for the course for his kind.

            1. Progz don’t mind, that is. Damned iphone!

        2. “effectively”, “insinuated”

          Weasel words.

    3. Don’t make me summon Hihn. I will kill this entire thread.

        1. Not a single child in this thread is more animal than your naked taut self, Heroic Bulleto.

          1. I really miss General Butt Naked. I wonder what happened to him?

  30. I’m going to die of old age before long and, in all my years, never got to see even one honest politician. Just the nature of the beast, I imagine.

    1. I think Rand Paul is pretty honest, along with Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie. That’s a start.

      1. Here’s an area I agree.

        Paul recently stopped his campaign to go provide free treatment to poor Haitians. Obviously what a monocle wearing Ayn Rand hero would do.

      2. I haven’t seen Cruz be mendacious yet. Correct me if I am wrong. He has a Trump-like quality in that whatever pops in his head just falls out of his mouth unfiltered.

        1. Cruz is ok. I don’t like how he drags religion into politics. Don’t get me wrong, I have Christian friends, but I will even right out tell them that our founders wanted religion and state separated for a very good reason. Cruz is probably more libertarian that about 95% of Congress.

          He was just accused here also, of being into crony capitalism. I don’t know if it’s true, but I really cannot even imagine Rand doing anything like that.

          1. Agreed. The religion thing bugs me. My first choice by a mile is Paul, but I could live comfortably with Cruz. The trouble is that Cruz seems to have a much better shot than Paul at this point. It is early, things can change.

            1. Give Rand some time. Guy is pretty smart politically, a lot more than his dad was. I think he’s going to tear into Trump soon enough, but not too soon. Timing is critical in these races.

              1. Why Reason threads make my multiple chemical embolisms react like an orgy of hot bodies rolling on super soft Serta under laser lights and death metal….

                the Rand Jizz should come soon. I refuse to vote for all the rest of the nasty granite faces… Rand Paul is my man not because he loves religion- I reject religion Christ Jesus can suck my fat cock. Rand Paul is may man not because he can debate- everyone else was like 5th graders at a Buddhist lunch . Rand Paul is my man because I believe Rand Paul holds the most intelligent assessment of what is required of a constitutional republic in the midst of a world that has NEVER been healed by Tony’s schmucks or violent conservatives…..

                1. Eloquently said, Agile. Well said.

              2. Trump is a side issue. Paul associates more with the GOP than he does with libertarians. He needs to rip the party, call out his colleagues. He has spurts but not the balls to go all the way. He should call christie as he is, a danger to freedom, the leadership of the rep party as big gov’t, anti capitalist, pro war jokers they are. People know these people are idiots, they only care for themselves. That is what they want to hear. If paul would be more abrasive toward these dangers to our freedoms as trump is to everyone I think people would gravitate toward him. But, as I said, he more of the party than not, he may rock the boat but will not tip it over.

          2. If people want religion out of politics, then why do they insist on forcing politics into religion? I’ll keep my religion out of politics when gov’t takes itself out of religion. A true libertarian ideal of right of association does exactly that.

            1. Bingo again.

              “All Libertarian, all the t….err most of the time, keep that religion shit to yourself’

              1. That’s part of it, making exemptions to gambling laws so churches can have bingo.

          3. That’s his fatal flaw, most people outside socons are not worked about this shit. If team Red would focus on economics and lay off the socon BS there are many folks that would skewer Hildog in a debate.

            She would have no chance against Cruz, Paul, Fiorina , Walker or Rubio in a debate.She’d be exposed as the empty (pants suit ) that she is.

            Then again, team Red is known as the party of stupid.

    2. I think politician is latin for dishonest.

  31. Hey, what about sexist? He called me a “token” too! 🙁

    1. Sorry, Hazel, I got myself all confused, because I got really angry at the stupidity of these assholes and I temporarily lost the ability to think. I’m typically very calm. You could ask my wife, she wants to fight with me sometimes and I think she is actually annoyed at how calm and mellow I am.

      I was trying to say that I wasn’t referring to both you and HM as a woman and then the anger made me forget what I was trying to say.

      Really, there’s no excuse for those jerks. Classless as classless can be done.

      1. And of course, It’s Heroic Mulatto that I was referring to as HM, been doing so since time immemorial.

        So, I guess Heroic owns the HM, we’ll just have to call you Hazel, if that’s ok.

    2. I am Spartacus!

    3. I am sexist and I think you are awesome, Hazel.

      1. Agile Cyborg also gives us a token transhumanist. Are we winning this stupid game yet?

        1. We’re just awaiting the day that Agile truly fusions AI with the human element and assumes control. I for one welcome our new Agile Cyborg Fusion AI as Supreme Overlord.

          Hey Agile, remember my Czarship, don’t forget.

      2. My feminine side is a lesbian. What are we talking about?

  32. Sort of OT: It’s nuts how the left gets riled up about the Koch Brothers but yet will refuse to acknowledge that the Koch’s do a lot of great things like fund cancer research, donate money towards the arts, and fund programs such as NOVA. And on top of that they give money to the Institute of Justice to help those who suffers from asset forfeiture and eminent domain. You can hate their politics but it’s unbelievable how these guys are portrayed as evil despite them doing so many great things that benefits society,

    1. I want one of the Kochs to run for president so much. It would be the shit-storm to end all shit-storms.

      1. Harry Reid’s head would fucking explode.

        1. We can only hope, perhaps in that retarded movie 10 years ago about global warming.

      2. One ran as VP on the LP ticket once.

    2. I don’t get it either. Well, I do, the Dem leadership need to create a 1 percenter boogeyman that their sycophant minions can blame for everything. But for any thinking person, they have to be thinking, what have these guys ever done to me? Did they break down my door in the middle of the night and terrorize my family, like the cops often do? Did they make me buy things that I don’t want at the point of a gun, and steal my hard earned money to spend on things I don’t want, like the government does?

      1. Yeah, we sometimes make the mistake of believing that the left argue in good faith.

    3. And then we have Tom Steyer, lavishing money of watermellons, while collecting millions in gov’t subsidies for his solar investments.
      But those are ‘good’, so the conflict isn’t rape -rape!

      1. I often hear the Koch brothers referred to as libertarians. I really wonder how accurate that is? I think it’s probably more of a ploy by the leftist media to deflect a little one percenter hatred onto the libertarians, the mortal enemies of the left.

        1. No one can know a billionaire because being a billionaire comes with a super special perk of being rich enough to pay for an entire country to view your billionaire shit within a certain prism whenever it is rotated upon the week or month.

          Alas, I have no fucking idea why my Libertarian brothers and 4.2 sisters defend billionaires who are generally wisps burnt from the cogs of darkly grinding gears underneath the societal fabric….

        2. I mean one of them was on the Libertarian Party ticket. They did shift the republican party afterwards but they continue to support libertarian organizations (like, this one for example) and have supported stuff like gay marriage for a long time.

        3. Hyperion|8.26.15 @ 9:23PM|#
          “I often hear the Koch brothers referred to as libertarians.”

          Two of the brothers seem pretty convinced by libertarian concepts. The other two, not so much.

    4. You’d think the Koch’s would be the least targeted conservative bank rollers since they are at least willing to break with conservatives on a bunch of issues.

    5. Good point Ed.

      Contrast that with the way the Clinton Foundation spends its money.

      1. And even progressive hero Bernie Sanders can’t beat these sorts of accolades because he believes that helping people out means using the coercive violence of the state.

        1. Well, he also believes that saying things like people don’t need too many choices in shoes is a winning sort of thing, when in fact it’s going to automatically lose you half of the vote.

  33. “Jackand Ace|2015/08/26 18:11:01|#5544309

    Right, Matt. And that was 20 years ago. 20 years. It’s called evolution.”

    A million black lives destroyed by Tough-on-Crime Clintons…. Spilled Milk, Eggs/Omlettes! we’ve all learned from our mistakes and now we’re the best friends of Minorities, who cares if our policies continue to crush their job opportunities and make basic necessities more expensive, hurting the poorest worst = Clintons have *evolved*. Stop living in the past, marge!

    1. Thank you, Prince Gilmore. Marge is silly cunt isn’t she?

    2. People like Jackass Ace reminds me of Ivy Starnes from Atlas Shrugged. She and her siblings inititiated awful policies at the factory that resulted in them going out of business but yet refused to admit any wrong doing. And she even had the guts to blame those on the outside who didn’t implement similar policies at their factories along those who worked in the factory (you know, the very people her policies were supposed to help) for the factory failing.

      They don’t give a shit about the less fortunate nor do they give a shit that their policies harms the very people that the pretend to care about. All they care about is fucking over those they perceive as their enemies and keeping those less fortunate under their thumb.

      1. “They don’t give a shit about the less fortunate nor do they give a shit that their policies harms the very people that the pretend to care about. “

        Even worse = they seem to ascribe some objective value to the nominal “intentions” of their politics…. iow, basically confusing their “marketing” for the product.

        so that when liberal democrats turn cities into cesspools of crime and misery, and turn school systems into patronage machines for politicians, and drive local businesses out and crush employment…. they nevertheless get OUTRAGED when anyone accuse them of being unconcerned with minorities. “why, we TOLD you we cared!” they say, “why would you turn on us!?”

        See: the reaction by middle-aged/and older liberals in Seattle to the BlackLivesMatter protests. it wasn’t simply that they’d disrupted their event and people were pissed…. there was a lot of “harrupmphing” about “BUT WE’RE THE GOOD ONES?!?”…. disbelief that anyone would dare accuse them of being less than Racially Cool

        …it really has never dawned on them (see Tony above for a case-study) that Dem’s feelgood racial rhetoric is solely for the purpose to convince the middle-class white liberals that they are *better people*. Moral Superiority is the payoff.

  34. Donald…eres un Pendejo

    I thinks Donald is the best thing to happen to the democratic party since Sara Palin

    1. piss off troll

  35. Question to my libertarian friends:

    Will you guys vote for Donald Trump?

    1. No, and i don’t think there’s anyone here who’s ever suggested that they *might*. (trolls aside)

      The fact you’re asking means you haven’t really paid attention to anything during Trumpocalype 2015

      1. Alice is an old school troll sooooooo, she (he probably) isn’t actually asking she’s implying.

        1. I’m aware. I was trying to kill it before it went off the rails.

      2. I’d vote for Trump as a 3rd Party/ Independent candidate. Destroying the two party system is a worthy goal.

    2. I come here to chew bubblegum and not vote.

    3. Alice Bowie|8.26.15 @ 10:07PM|#
      “Question to my libertarian friends:”
      Answer to lefty assholes:
      Fuck off.

  36. Question to my libertarian friends:

    Will you guys vote for Donald Trump?

    1. If Trump is the R nominee – not a chance.

    2. Really, you need to ask such a stupid question twice?

    3. I’m Canadian and don’t vote, so no.

    4. If he gave me a million dollars I would. Otherwise no. I have always hated Donald Trump.

      1. I would vote for him for $100. Not as if he would win in my state anyway.

    5. You don’t ever bother reading the comment threads around here before commenting do you?

      You might have noticed that just about everyone around here loathes Trump with a passion.
      Except maybe John, who is too ashamed to admit it and claims he really just wants us to stop being mean to the retards.

      1. I think it’s just that John hasn’t found his guy yet, that we should vote for instead of handing the election to the dems. I mean, I think John would be perfectly willing to vote for Rand if he’s the nominee, but I think he’d also vote for Trump. We have to be patient. John is a lot like I was back in 2007. He’s a libertarian, just a small L, sort of like Cyto, just in a different way. Patience libertarians, grasshoppers take some time and guidance to become masters. Due diligence brothers and sisters. Carry on.

        1. John was here back in 2007. He was the same then. He hasn’t changed his positions in 8 years. He’s not going to.

          1. You don’t change hearts.

            1. Tony|8.26.15 @ 11:31PM|#
              “You don’t change hearts.”

              Uh, you mean the opinions of lefty ignoramuses along with John?

          2. I’ve been around these circles a lot longer, & John’s the poster here I find I agree w most often.

        2. Yeah, John has always been like this. Also I’m pretty sure he’s in his 40s, at least. He’s not figuring shit out, he’s just an asshole.

    6. Definitely if he runs 3rd Party/Independent in the general. No chance in hell in the primary. I won’t waste my time to vote for the GOP nominee in the general as I live in a red state.

    7. Alice Bowie|8.26.15 @ 10:07PM|#
      “Question to my libertarian friends:”

      Answer to lefty assholes:
      Were you hoping for another result?
      Fuck off.

    8. I love trump and am going to vote for him for every all positions on my next ballot even dog catcher.

    9. you have proven you are an idiot, alice, so fuck off and die bitch

  37. But did Democrats want to Make America Great Again? Huh? Did they have hats calling for a return to greatness?

    1. Well, they want to raise taxes, a lot. Does that count?

      1. There’s a “bipartisan consensus” on the tax raising. Bush refuses to “take the pledge”. I suspect he’ll introduce a VAT only he can’t win against the Dem nominee even if it’s Bernie Sanders. Kasich has made a career out of “cutting taxes” so he can turn around and replace the revenue + more with new ones. Government spending is obviously unsustainable and establishment candidates want to shift the burden away from the “stakeholders” to the citizens who aren’t paying their “fair share” through consumption taxes.

  38. There seems to be no way around voting for the shiniest turd in the pile.

    1. There is always one:
      I’ve voted for that cat more times than I can count

      1. Similarly, I count my sitting around watching Netflix as doing humanitarian work for Haiti, as I’m not spending that time punching Haitians.

        1. Hey: action and inaction are equivalent.

        2. How does it feel Tony when a person you ideologically despise has done more humanitarian work than your selfish, lazy ass ever could ?

  39. The Democratic Party is full of lying, inconsistent, intellectually bankrupt, pandering xenophobes. News at 11.

  40. My favorite is from the 1932 Democratic Party Platform:
    We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than twenty-five per cent in the cost of the Federal Government.
    And we saw what happened after they won.

  41. 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,,,,,,,

  42. 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…

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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.