Election 2016

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Win in New Hampshire. That's a Rebuke to the Political Status Quo

|

Foter / Gage Skidmore

One way to interpret the results of tonight's New Hampshire primary votes, in which both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won by clear margins, is as a rebuke to America's two-party political system.

Both Sanders and Trump, the Democrat and the Republican respectively, are figures who stand outside the traditional infrastructure of their respective parties. Both are essentially running as independents, just with R and D attached to their names.

Indeed, tonight's results represent a rebuke not only to the parties, but to America's entire class of political and economic elites. Both men, in their own very different ways, are running campaigns that are explicitly anti-establishment, anti-Washington, and anti-politics as usual, along with varying levels of hostility to Wall Street.

Hostility and anger seem to be the defining emotions of this campaign on both sides of the aisle. Both campaigns have channeled simmering voter anger with cronyism, with the sort of consistently cozy relationships between the Washington and Wall Street elite that lead to bailouts and tax-code favoritism. No one seems particularly enamored with Obamacare in its current form (even Hillary Clinton now casts it as merely a necessary stepping stone on the path to true universal coverage). Sanders and Trump both tout their opposition to the war in Iraq, in contrast to their establishment opponents. On the Republican side, many voters rank government spending as a top issue (echoing a similarly strong sentiment in Iowa), and nine out of 10 say they're dissatisfied with government.

In this way, tonight's results can be understood as a victory for those skeptical of government and frustrated with the Washington establishment, a win for those who find little to love in the political status quo and who make it their business to note all the ways that government has failed and continues to fail.

And yet there is another way to interpret tonight's results as well, not so much as a wholesale rebuke to the system but as a demand that it work better, or at least that it produce the results that voters (certain types of voters, anyway) desire.

Despite the overlap between his fans and Ron Paul's backers, and his frequent criticisms of government as it is now, Bernie Sanders is in no way a government skeptic. He's a self-described socialist who favors overturning Obamacare and replacing it with a fantastically expensive, fully government-run single payer health care system, taxing the wealthy at a top rate of 77 percent, and new government spending on the order of more than $19 trillion. Sanders promises a political revolution, and in that sense is opposed to the system as it stands, but the gist of that revolution is that the benefits of government and the economy will accrue to ordinary Americans, to the working middle-class, broadly defined, and not to political and economic elites.

Foter / Gage Skidmore

Trump, meanwhile, makes his pitch from a different angle, but ultimately relies on much the same appeal. He promises to deport illegal immigrants, build a wall along the southern border, stop Muslims from immigrating into the country, and oppose trade deals. He favors eminent domain, and wants to replace Obamacare with a undefined system of universal coverage funded by the government (in the past, he's voiced support for single payer systems). Aside from immigration and trade, Trump's biggest promise is that he would use his skills as a businessman to make good deals that make government actually work. His pitch is that government should be wielded by political leaders as a powerful and effective tool to serve the interests of the American people—or least his supporters. Like Bernie Sanders, he is effectively proposing a revolution designed to bring about a stronger, more effective government. That's how he wants to make America great again.

Neither of these ways of understanding tonight's election results is wrong, nor are they wildly contradictory. Indeed, they are best understood as complements to each other, flip sides of the same impulse. The frustration with government and the political status quo is real and runs deep in the American electorate on both sides of the aisle.

Many of tonight's voters in New Hampshire, and probably many voters elsewhere, now agree that governance has failed, that the political establishment cannot be trusted—that government simply does not work for them. But despite those frustrations, what the twin successes of both Trump and Sanders both also suggest is that many voters continue to wish that it would. 

NEXT: The Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders Connection

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. NewFuckingHampshire. What is there, like twelve people voting lolol

  2. N fucking Hampshire is the new Libertarian Utopia, dammit!!!! Show a little RESPECT, will ya?!?!?!

  3. We libertarians are good at nothing if not finding glimmers of hope in defeat after defeat.

    But if America chooses its next emperor from between Sanders and Trump, we are so screwed.

    1. Who do I vote for if there is no lesser evil?

      1. Go crazy and vocally refuse to vote for anyone–since whomever wins will only use your participation in the process as an excuse to legitimize all sorts of terrible shit they want to do to you. The only people who have a right to complain are the people who don’t vote.

        And be glad that’s still an option–not to vote. It may not be forever. You’re not allowed not to vote in Australia. And there are lots of reasons why progressives might want to make voting compulsory.

        Maybe we should use our right not to vote while we still have it.

        1. “Go crazy and vocally refuse to vote for anyone–since whomever wins will only use your participation in the process as an excuse to legitimize all sorts of terrible shit they want to do to you.”

          They’ll also use your non-participation in the same way.

          ‘Freedom by non-voting’ is a unicorn lie.

          1. “They’ll also use your non-participation in the same way.”

            That doesn’t even make sense.

            Elections are meant to legitimize authority and the use of power.

            If people don’t participate in elections, then how can that legitimize anything?

            1. “They didn’t vote, so clearly they don’t matter and don’t care one way or the other”- like it or not that’s what a lot of people believe.

              1. The problem with our government is not that we have the wrong people running things. It’s that the government is too big and pervasive in our lives.

                Libertopia becomes real when enough people decide to starve the politicians of our votes.

                1. ‘Libertopia becomes real when enough people decide to starve the politicians of our votes.”

                  AHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes that’s going to stop the guys with the gun. A lack of votes.

                  1. Go buy your Phaneuf jersey, Sens fag.

                2. No. Otherwise Bill DeBlasio would be honing a moderate course.

        2. Eh my polling place only takes me a few minutes to get to and vote, I’ll give Gary Johnson another vote.

        3. Isn’t there going to be some libertarian on the ballot? Yes, I realize Rand is out :/

        4. But you are allowed to cast a blank ballot in Australia & the many other countries where voting’s compulsory.

          1. Then what’s the purpose?

      2. Vote Libertarian, for once.

        If you’re going to waste your vote, at least don’t waste it voting from someone you hate.

        1. But…what if I hate the Libertarian Party?

        2. Vote Libertarian, for once. If you’re going to waste your vote, at least don’t waste it voting from someone you hate.

          This made libertarian vote impossible with Bob Barr on the ticket in 2008.

        3. I’ve voted LP before.

          I’m not convinced that legitimizing the system with my participation is superior than standing with the millions who do their patriotic duty and don’t vote.

          It’s like the gay marriage dilemma. When confronted with a ballot initiative that would give gays the legal ability to marry, how does a libertarian express his belief that whether gay people’s rights should be respected shouldn’t depend on his own personal opinion or a popularity contest?

          Refusing to participate in the process says exactly what I want it to say: I do not recognize the legitimacy of politicians to make choices on my behalf–certainly not because they won a popularity contest. I don’t believe other people’s rights should be determined by way of a popularity contest either.

          How do I express my contempt for violating or protecting people’s rights through this process–while participating in the process myself by casting a vote?

          1. If Rand Paul were still running would I vote for him?

            Yes I would.

            Does that make me a hypocrite?

            Maybe. Another possibility is that I want to be wrong about the process–and I think Rand Paul was the only one who might get into office through this process and actually do something with that false legitimacy of vote winning to protect our rights–which I believe is the real source of legitimacy.

            Governments aren’t legitimate because their leaders are chosen through elections. Democracies may do a better job of protecting people’s rights, but it’s the protecting people’s rights that’s the true source of legitimacy.

            1. … but it’s the protecting people’s rights that’s the true source of legitimacy.

              Yes.

          2. “Refusing to participate in the process says exactly what I want it to say”

            “Saying” stuff is worthless.

            This kind of ‘clever by way too many halves’ sophist bullshit is one reason why libertarians don’t get anywhere.

            1. Right, by 1/16 of the several reasons. A solid 11/16 of the reason libertarians don’t get anywhere is the simple fact that our belief that people shouldn’t have their fates decided by a bare majority of the rest of society is not widely shared by, is in fact inimical to, the rest of society.

              1. Fair enough.

              2. “A solid 11/16 of the reason libertarians don’t get anywhere is the simple fact that our belief that people shouldn’t have their fates decided by a bare majority of the rest of society is not widely shared by, is in fact inimical to, the rest of society.”

                I’m not sure most Americans think our rights should be determined by a popularity contest–it’s just that the voters are confronted with such popularity contests all the time.

                Why should gay people need to ask John for permission to get married?

                Why should a gun buyer need to ask the widow of James Brady for permission to own a gun?

                Manufacturing wedge issues is one effective way that politicians win elections. It isn’t that people necessarily want these issues decided in elections–it’s that they’re being confronted by these issues on their ballots and through the candidates’ statements.

                1. On principle, no. Americans tend to be very liberty-minded. It’s tough to appeal to the justice of communal groupthink when people are accustomed to a very atomistic lifestyle. But in practice, we absolutely as a nation behave as though a simple majority is reason enough to explore all manner of avenues for personal iniquity. How many voters vote on the basis of principle, and how many simply pull the lever for the practical application of coercion? Arguably, voters aren’t really given a choice on principles: they’re presented practical issues with the expectation that they’ll choose pragmatically. The principled decisions, like the sort of supreme court justices a presidential candidate will nominate for the judiciary, are occluded behind a ton of practical baggage, like her devotion to women’s rights. Which is why Democrats get to pretend they’re the party of choice and liberation while being socially and economically repressive and serving their client classes’ various interests.

          3. I think the answer is that you’re supposed to go away and live in the mountains so you don’t bother anyone else.

            Just telling you what I’ve heard.

            1. Certainly, the first rule of getting out of a clusterfuck is: Let go of whatever you’re holding onto.

              After you do that, then maybe someone will let go of you–or let go of someone else that’s holding onto you.

              I’m not sure that necessitates moving to the mountains and living on roots and berries. Maybe we should just stop trying to force other people to do what we want through our votes.

              Is spending even an election issue anymore?

              1. You mean we should all go Galt?

                1. You might call it going Galt.

                  They would say love it or leave it.

                  They’re roughly the same thing.

              2. Is spending even an election issue anymore?

                Not really. We’re fighting over whether we should have free college and healthcare or a giant wall to keep out Mexicans and Muslims, both of whom are rapists.

                1. I’ll take ‘Rapists who start with M’ for $400, Alex!

                  1. Who is Mr. Hitler?

          4. Well said, Ken.

            1. /Stupid nested comments….
              /Get in the 21st century, Reason. Is there a money shortage since the new building went up?

      3. Even Hillary Clinton is too ignorant to be evil. They’re all accidents, freaks of nature, that happened into comfortable gigs because someone smarter than them found them useful. They are human folly with nary a sniff of intellect. They wouldn’t make the cut for a tragic hero: they have so many flaws it would be impossible to sort them all out. Don’t water down the word evil.

        1. Hillary is the one who comes closest to evil, because she knows better. She’s knowingly corrupt. Trump can’t help himself because he’s a megalomanic. Sanders actually believes the shit he preaches. And Cruz is a true believer who is going for the batshit crazy vote.

          But Clinton is neither stupid nor insane. She’s perfectly capable of choosing good, and she consciously chooses evil.

          1. Warning: sexist comment. Hillary is at best like a deranged girlfriend that knows how to manipulate a man into losing all of his friends, family and treasure. It’s neither intelligent nor calculated, it’s just stupid fucking unfettered id. [i can’t climb into her head to find these things out, nor would I wan’t to]
            I reserve evil for people like Stalin, a man who could call up Kruschev and say, “I need you to accuse as traitors 10% of the Party in your area and have them executed and I don’t care if they are or not.”
            If she is evil, she’s a rank amateur. I prefer to think she’s an abuela.

          2. One could argue (not saying I am, I’m not convinced either way) that this makes her, ironically, the lesser evil. If Hillary is fundamentally self-interested above all else, then there’s a limit to what she’d do compared with a true believer.

            A well-intentioned fanatic is usually worse than a self-interested robber-baron. The trick I guess is figuring out who’s one and who’s the other.

            1. “If Hillary is fundamentally self-interested above all else, then there’s a limit to what she’d do compared with a true believer.”

              i believe this argument, even as it makes me feel like a sell out. sanders may be an idiot, but he’s honest.

      4. Vermin Supreme of course!

      5. Who do I vote for if there is no lesser evil?

        Buy guns and learn how to use them.

        And wait.

    2. There’s a pony in there somewhere.

  4. Fuck it. Burn it all down. Mussolini vs. Lenin it is.

    1. “Bern it down.” That can be the slogan of Nihilists For Sanders.

      1. Bern, Switzerland: Capitalisms Heartland!

  5. What’s everyone upset about? Relax and enjoy the decline.

    1. Isn’t total collapse worth rooting for?

      1. A collapse we can believe in.

          1. Use that in a sentence related to HiLIARy.

            On second thought … don’t.

          2. Don’t google pink sock. Unless you’re, like, curious. I bet you are.

          3. Relapse.

      2. There’s no use worrying. Wyrd bid ful ?raed.

          1. I guarantee that if I made I music video that started out with 5 Asian women, it would be waaaaay better than that.

          2. Did clicking that put me on some sort of list that I may not already be on?

          3. That was extremely hard to masturbate to.

            1. I still have no fucking clue as to the narrative of that video.

      3. And actively encouraging. Seriously we* need to soften you mammals up before the invasion

        *Your Future Reptilian Overlords….bitch

        1. I thought we were already “soft” … at least that is what the Chitinous Overlords told us …

    2. I’m gonna hide the decline!

      That’s funny because it references that one thing, right?

      1. We’re talking about penises now, right?

        1. If so, everyone throw up some pics.

  6. It’s a huge fucking vote in favor of statism from the Live Free or Die state.

    1. “Live Free or Die state

      What else would you expect?

      1. Free shit, or die. That’s pretty much all 50 of ’em right now.

        1. well see how weed works out later this year i guess, but im not holding my breath (from NH). the fucking peoples republic of vermont has freer marijuana laws than we do. at least bernie sanders hasnt really been a part of my life before this election.

          1. VT is also open carry and I still need a permit when I drive into NH from ypur other open carry neighbor.

      2. Live free off your neighbors or die trying!

  7. “[Trump] promises to deport illegal immigrants, build a wall along the southern border, stop Muslims from immigrating into the country, and oppose trade deals. He favors eminent domain, and wants to replace Obamacare with a undefined system of universal coverage funded by the government (in the past, he’s voiced support for single payer systems).”

    Add in that he’s supported confiscating “assault weapons” in the past, and he almost sounds worse than Obama.

    In fact, is he worse than . . .

    Nah, I can’t go that far. I don’t know why, but I just can’t go that far yet.

    1. Trump openly supported drug legalization for over 20 years and opposed the invasion of Iraq.
      His past position on gun control, which he has totally repudiated (unlike drug legalization) was no different than that of GW Bush.

      1. I’m glad to hear that. If he’s elected, I hope he turns out to be the President ever on gun control and legalization. I don’t have much confidence in his general respect for people’s rights.

        If the strongman’s hot air blows our way, I suppose that’s not as bad as it could be.

      2. “His past position on gun control, which he has totally repudiated (unlike drug legalization)”

        That’s a lie. He’s already repudiated his position on drugs. STOP LYING

        1. Wait, which position did he repudiate? How the fuck can you lie about a guy who pulls different shit out of his ass ever time he sees a microphone?

          1. You can claim he supports legalized drugs when he has clearly stated recently that he wants to amp up enforcement. SIV loves lying.

            1. You can amp up enforcement even of legal drugs, viz. FDA.

    2. Great minds discuss platforms. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

  8. In this way, tonight’s results can be understood as a victory for those skeptical of government and frustrated with the Washington establishment, a win for those who find little to love in the political status quo and who make it their business to note all the ways that government has failed and continues to fail.

    No matter what, we’ll always have The Libertarian Moment, won’t we?

    1. Here’s looking at you, Kid.

    2. we’re perpetually in a moment where it would make sense to “go libertarian”, but most people’s response to government fucking something up is calling for more government to fix it.

    3. The Socialist moment was in 1913.
      “How many parties, Winston?”

  9. Is it really?

    Sanders is a career politician.

    Trump might not have been a politician, but he’s certainly a member of the “elite”, hobnobbing with politicians and powers that be.

    1. He is the epitome of a crony capitalist. That aspect of The Donald is his worst feature forgetting all the xenophobia and other stupid shit he says.

      1. I don’t much mind the “xenophobia”. The crying capitalist stuff bothers me. But between a crony capitalist (which is really only a continuation of the dominant paradigm) who says mean things and may crack the absurd SJW thought police state via his cultural influences and a SJW thought police pawn who’s intent on establishing the glorious socialist utopia and completely demolishing any semblance of market dynamics or self-reliance, the choice is easy (and by choice I mean preference)

    2. They’re both aging white men, also.

      1. So, maybe they’ll get elected and die quickly.

        1. Age against the machine, man!

        2. OMG, maybe we can get Trump to nominate Rand Paul as his running mate, and then someone can assassinate him!

          THERE IS A WAY OUT!!!

          1. No one would have ever suspected that guy in the book depository with an open-sighted woodchopper.

            1. But how did this “assassin” get from the sixth floor to the second floor and buy a Coke in less than two minutes? He’s clearly a pasty.

              1. A traditional Cornish foodstuff popular in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula killed JFK?

              2. “He’s clearly a pasty.”

                White Privilege?

                1. free the nipple!

            2. Woodchoppers are seriously coveted by motorcycle gangs.

              1. And apparently my iPhone’s spellchecker too. I thought I had turned “Preet mode” off.

                Although perhaps the mechanical contraption that (1) disposes of tyranical types and (2) is used as the getaway vehicle may be desireable.

            3. Good luck finding a book depository these days.

          2. I thought rust never slept. Assassinate? Euthanize. Get your verbs straight.

          3. trump will be assassinated. it will likely be like the movie ‘absolute power’, where the president supposedly stabs himself and no one thinks it strange or cares that much.

    3. Exactly. I don’t understand how people refer to these guys as outsiders. Sanders has been in federal government for 25 years. Trump has been buying politicians for about as long.

  10. Have you guys read the comments in the Brooks article linked in the PM links?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02…..IFTTT&_r=3

    Jesus Lord me.

    Quite the remarkable bunch.

    1. Look Rufus, I know you’re Canadian and all, but you don’t have to put yourself through that kind of self-flagellation.

    2. You don’t have to go to the comments. Behold:

      The first and most important of these is basic integrity. The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free. Think of the way Iran-contra or the Lewinsky scandals swallowed years from Reagan and Clinton.

    1. If I was an ISIS dude, I would be keeping one round just in case.

      1. Maybe the Sun Ladies will attack the Granite States too.

    2. Am I the only one who clicked to see who was hot?

      1. Well you were, and would…to all of them.

        1. I count three. Maybe four.

          1. The sex slave business is not all it is cracked up to be.

    3. I’m not optimistic about The Liberation of Mosul. The Iraqis have barely been able to liberate Ramadi. At least that’s something.

        1. Sex-change operations.

  11. Another valid takeaway is the democracy is a retarded institution simply because most people go full retard when they enter the booth.

    1. Yeah, when we have the rule of law and it protects our rights effectively, who wins elections doesn’t matter as much.

      We’re basically Syria without the shots being fired right now. Whose rights are protected or violated depends on who wins the war in Syria, and whose rights are protected or violated in the U.S. largely depends on the outcome of elections.

      It isn’t supposed to be that way.

      1. Trump = ISIS

        1. Cytotoxic=Trotsky minus the ability to pick up women

          1. Ah Tulpa tries the ‘throw words and names at the screen’ technique.

            That doesn’t even make sense dumbass.

            1. Use your Tulpa card judiciously. Fuck! Too late.

            2. Yeah, and wasn’t Trotsky the cool one, in retrospect?

        2. USA=Syria+caveats is the way I’d write his equation, but I’m not a mathematician nor do I necessarily endorse his view.

          1. Both of those countries need to break up.

    2. I’m going with that. Though many go full retard much sooner than that.

    3. “Another valid takeaway is the democracy is a retarded institution simply because most people go full retard when they enter the booth.”

      Never forget that half those voters are of below average intelligence.

    1. Speaking of looking for the pony, if there’s one to be found in this pile of shit, it’s that if anyone wins out of Trump, Hillary, or Sanders, I think it’s likely that a majority of Americans will hate the President by the end of his or her first year in office.

      1. The kind of POTUS most of us around here would like would be so unpopular, he’d get his ass impeached and removed from office in the first two months.

        1. Still, there’s some kind of solace in the realization that these three are likely to be unpopular.

          In rank order:

          1) Great President and popular.

          2) Great President and unpopular.

          3) Shitty President and unpopular.

          4) Shitty President and popular.

          At least this bunch isn’t likely to be shitty and popular. That would be the worst possible outcome.

          1. I could give a rat’s ass if W or Obama were still popular (they were both once). Popularity contests are junior high school shit.

            1. The more popular they are, the more awful shit they can do.

              An unpopular shitty emperor is vastly superior to a popular shitty emperor.

              1. I disagree. Popularity might be useful to a crafty president, but none in memory have been, so it’s not necessarily important. I think intelligence is overplayed as well. Skill is the word that should be thrown around. For example, Henry Kissinger was/is the smartest man in the world, indisputable fact; however, his foreign policy skills largely suck ass.

      2. Funny you mention that. In Alberta we had a FREE PONIES AND RAINBOWS election where the pinko party won. It’s been less than a year and almost everyone outside the capital, Edmonton (aka Redmonton aka Alberta’s Isengard) hates the premier and her party.

        1. You can’t find anyone in Edmonton who admits to voting for her, either.
          Besides, she’s refused to jack up royalty rates on the oil industry, so she’s learned what it takes to remain in power in AB. It could be a lot worse, as in BC, where a nominal centrist party has yet to see a new tax it couldn’t embrace.

      3. Maybe whoever wins will be a one-termer.

    1. He’s definitely more Il Duce.

      1. Take that back. Il Duce had style and well tailored clothes.

        1. The Imperator Barack Mendacious is very close to Il Duce Redux.

          Obsession with Trainz, control of Automotive Industry, Crony Fascism, etc.

        2. Not to mention a rockin’ jawline.

    1. subtle

    2. NH GOES RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC…except for the BernieBros?

    3. NEW POLL SHOWS REPUBLICANS WANT TO BOMB EVERYONE

  12. FEEL THE TRUMPBERN, STATUS QUO!!!

  13. Reason published a video on Triumph the Insult Comic Dog today. I went to youtube and saw this comment I found hilarious:

    “Pimp Master Broda (Voice Trolling) 11 hours ago
    How did colleges go from being known for tons of debauchery, drunken parties, and immature behavior to these “children of the corn” motherfuckers??”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j556MWGVVqI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gccY6r71fwU

    1. Excellent comment for an outstanding video. To be a bit fair, lots of people have the same reaction to being “confronted” by Triumph, but those morons signed up for it.

      1. They probably avidly watched the Daily Show and figured, with their pious politics, they would never be the butt of jokes.

  14. Everyone’s gone collectively insane.

    A crony capitalist versus a senile socialist.

    I’m voting Libertarian for sure. If there was ever a year to vote Libertarian this would have to be it. Literally every major candidate is repulsive beyond belief.

    1. Thing is that you still have 5 other republicans who at this point don’t appear to be doing so poorly as to drop out. The longer you have all those guys sticking around splitting up the non-Trump 67%, the more states Trump is going to take.

      1. Which they deserve to have happen. The Republicans showed in their pants-shitting maneuvering in the past to marginalize Ron Paul (who had no chance of winning) that they couldn’t handle any kind of dissent and now it’s coming back to fuck ’em up the ass.

        1. And Rand Paul came across as the voice of sanity this year, and got nowhere.

        2. Without even the common fucking decency of a reach-around

        3. Beautiful, ain’t it?

      2. Does it really even matter any more? The best we can hope for is Jeb Bush or whoever the least repulsive Republican is.

        1. Cruz is easily the least repulsive candidate. Libertarians should line up with him.

          1. He is too overtly religious for Libertarians.

            1. Well that and he is a douchebag. But seriously folks, get over it and support him. He is the easy and obvious choice.

              1. Canuck encourages to vote for one of his countrymen for our president.

              2. Unless something major happens before the Texas Primary, I’ll be voting for Cruz. I, myself, am too overtly religious for Libertarians.

                My brother, (who is too overtly religious for Libertarians) despised Cruz, considering him a sellout for supporting the TPP. Also, he thinks Cruz is a tool of Goldman Sachs.

                I, on the other hand, have kept in mind that Cruz argued before the Supreme Court and won at least one case there for 2nd Amendment rights.

                1. ” considering him a sellout for supporting the TPP”

                  This is such a load. Pretty sure he didn’t support it just the TPA.

                  “he thinks Cruz is a tool of Goldman Sachs.”

                  Ah so your brother is in the Ron Paul school of nuttery.

                  1. Actually, no. I am the Ron Paul fan.

                    Actually, if I remember correctly, my brother was being critical of Cruz paying off a loan he owed to Goldman Sachs using campaign contributions, or something like that.

                    1. I was referring to Ron seriously stating that Cruz is owned by GS or some such. He is slipping further and further into nutbagism, or just hiding it less.

                  2. Cruz is a tool of the CFR. His wife is a member.

                    1. Most of Washington has a one degree of Separation to the CFR one way or another.

                    2. Cruz is a tool of the CFR. His wife is a member.

                      Can someone translate this? I don’t speak nutjob.

              3. I don’t trust any of Cruz’s weak mewlings in the direction of limited government. He’s certainly not libertarian on gay marriage or the war on drugs.

                I’m not a purist by any means but I do require that any quasi-libertarian candidate at least cross the aisle on one or two issues that go against their party. They have to show a willingness to challenge their own side’s point of view.

                1. Weak mewlings? Standing against EtOH subsidies and supporting the 2A in court is not weak. He also did the Ocare budget standoff thing, which was showboaty but so what. He also supported Rand in his surveillance standoff. I think the EtOH and surveillance fights count for your ‘two issues criteria’. So would criminal justice reform if he hadn’t gone all traitor on that.

                  “He’s certainly not libertarian on gay marriage or the war on drugs.”

                  This is dumb because neither of those things is going anywhere. Gay marriage is here forever and so is MJ legalization. The rest of the WoD is also staying for a while sorry. Dumb hill to die on. Should be noted that Cruz supports MJ federalism.

                2. I don’t trust Cruz either. Not playing Charlie Brown. Maybe in the Primary as least worst. I’ll vote Johnson in the general

                  1. That’s dumb. His choices on energy and SCOTUS picks alone make him an obvious choice. Try to tamp down your purity boners.

                    1. Yup. Objectivists are best equipped for that since we know that abstract ideas like liberty need to be implemented to actually matter worth a damn. Ayn Rand was founder of the ‘anti-Nixonites for Nixon’.

                    2. You have no idea of the history behind your chosen philosophy, do you?

                      Try this. Openly disagree with Leonard Peikoff about something, say whether Heinz or Hunt’s makes the best ketchup, and then report back to us what happened.

                    3. Only fundamental principles, rationally validated, clearly understood and voluntarily accepted, can create a desirable kind of unity among men.

                      Ayn Rand, “Credibility and Polarization,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 1, 4

                    4. I am quite aware of the history, which is why I don’t care what Pope Peikoff has to say about much anything.

                    5. Then, by definition, you are a Nathaniel Brandenist, not an Objectivist.

                    6. Stop that. Seriously, shut up. Peikoff’s ramblings =/= Objectivism

                      I really don’t think you know what the definition of an Objectivist is.

                    7. Boy, I was involved with the ARI when you were still a drop on your mother’s panties. And unlike you, I’ve read everything Rand has ever written with the notable exception of “Night of January 16th”. When presented with Rand’s own words on pragmatism and compromise in ideology, the best you can muster are some half-hearted non sequiturs. Check your premises. From an O-ist framework, you’re are not only not right, you’re not even wrong. Again, read what she had to say. Actually read it, using the fullness of your rational faculty, and when you understand, you may return to this conversation.

                    8. I read it and it appears I actually understood it, unlike you.

                      She supported Nixon FFS. And Ford. Again: the word of Peikoff is not Objectivism.

                    9. Your blocks of text aren’t demonstrating your point. They’re just demonstrating subpar reading comprehension on your part.

                      Voting for a candidate that isn’t perfectly in accordance with your principles =/= unprincipled.

                    10. There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

                      Ayn Rand, “‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,”Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 182

                    11. Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim.

                      Ayn Rand, “The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,'” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 255

                    12. There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

                      When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels?and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.

                      Ayn Rand, “Galt’s Speech,” For the New Intellectual, p. 216

                    13. I think you may be misinterpreting here. I am pretty sure Rand is condemning having compromised *principles* ie the ‘half and half’ ‘goldilicks’ BS that kids cartoons uphold as morally right.

                      Choosing the least-awful candidate in a presidential election does not imply having compromised principles. Ayn Rand was all in for Nixon in 1968.

                    14. A = A

                      If someone is undeserving of one’s complete respect, then that person is undeserving of one’s vote. And certainly, that person is undeserving of an office in which he or she can wield power over you.

                    15. ‘Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.

                    16. HM: “If someone is undeserving of one’s complete respect, then that person is undeserving of one’s vote”

                      = Let he who is without sin get my vote.

                      Thus you may never vote.

                      A better principle is : When confronted with fixed choices, do the least damaging action.

                    17. The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

                      1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

                      2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

                      3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

                      Ayn Rand, “The Anatomy of Compromise,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 145

                    18. [The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards?that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth?that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences?that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb?that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better.

                      Ayn Rand, “For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, p. 34

                    19. “that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,”

                      To be fair, that’s exactly what Quantum Mechanics implies.

                    20. In politics, also, pragmatism presents itself as opposed to “rigidity,” to “dogma,” to “extremes” of any kind (whether capitalist or socialist); it avows that it is relativist, “moderate,” “experimental.” As in ethics, however, so here: the pragmatist is compelled to employ some kind of standard to evaluate the results of his social experiments, a standard which, given his own self-imposed default, he necessarily absorbs from other, non-pragmatist trend-setters . . . When Dewey wrote, the political principle imported from Germany and proliferating in all directions, was collectivism.

                      Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, p. 128

                    21. The present state of our culture may be gauged by the extent to which principles have vanished from public discussion, reducing our cultural atmosphere to the sordid, petty senselessness of a bickering family that haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values, selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment.

                      To make it more grotesque, that haggling is accompanied by an aura of hysterical self-righteousness, in the form of belligerent assertions that one must compromise with anybody on anything (except on the tenet that one must compromise) and by panicky appeals to “practicality.”

                      Ayn Rand, “The Anatomy of Compromise,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 144

                    22. Again you are firing the right ammo at the wrong target.

                      “There can be no compromise on basic principles. ”

                      PRINCIPLES. Voting for a not so great candidate is not necessarily compromising principles. It may be the best way to defend them depending on the circumstances.

                    23. And if Cruz doesn’t get the R nomination just vote for whoever does…

                3. Ethanol subsidies.

                  He is for marihuana federalism.

                  He went against his own party so much the Senate hates him.

                  He especially got in trouble for calling them out on their political theater.

                  I suspect most people who don’t like Cruz because he has something weird about him.

                  I believe he has some form of Asperger’s. He’d be smart to bring that up if its true, because then people might be more sympathetic rather than calling him a lizard.

                  1. Neither ethanol or MJ federalism really challanges the mainstream beliefs of Republicans. Ethanol is risky in Iowa, but it’s generally the more doctrinare Republican position to oppose farm subsidies. Democrats invented them and they are part of the hated New Deal.

                    MJ Federalism is a rear-guard action against full-scale legalization that many R’s see coming down the pike. I don’t see MJ federalism as a particularly risky stance.

                    Essentially Cruz is only willing to espouse modestly libertarian positions when there is little to no risk of alienating Republican voters by doing so. That doesn’t bode well for the likelihood that he would actually advance any libertarian causes significantly.

                    1. “it’s generally the more doctrinare Republican position to oppose farm subsidies.”

                      Pffft wat? When the hell did this happen?

                      Name a candidate that took a stance against EtOH subsidies half as strong as Cruz’s. He’s the one that got targeted by the state’s governor and did not back down.

                    2. Uhhhh, since the Freedom to Farm Act of the 90s congress.

                    3. So where are these other anti-subsidy candidates? Sure as hell isn’t ‘Luv sugar subsidies’ Rubio.

                    4. Who cares about the candidates. Being against farm subsidies is a perfectly acceptable position for a mainstream Republican to hold. Many Republican voters want to end them. It’s not a new or original or unusual position to hold.

                    5. It is in Iowa!

                4. Why the worry about Trump vs. gay marriage? It’s a done deal, law of the land, chiseled in stone and baked in the cake of Stare Decisis. Relax, get over it and move on.

              4. If he changed his first name to Pablo, then I could jump on his ship.

                1. Whatcha gonna do if he says goodbye.

          2. I’m not going to line up with him merely because he’s the least repulsive. His support of mass surveillance and saying that Snowden is a traitor are enough reasons to not vote for him. There are many others, such as not wanting to end the drug war.

            By voting for evil, there is no incentive for them to not be evil. They can just play a little game where one candidate is always slightly less evil than the others.

        2. Presidential elections have been a Mr Douchebag America contest as long as I’ve been living. It’s hard for me to worry to much. I mean holy shit 16 yrs of W and Obama and the place is still afloat. If those two bitches couldn’t sink it…

          1. Then Trump or Bernie could. This is the scariest election I’ve known.

            1. Neither is an FDR or Wilson. They are dictator flunkies.

              1. I think Trump could be a Chavez.

                1. No way. Unpossible. [this is not an endorsement] The USA is fucked up but Venezuela-levels are not in the picture. Speaking of Venezuela, Lobster Girl…

                  1. I don’t see why not. Trump as prez would certainly bring America much closer.

            2. If either one of them wins, you should move to Canada.

        3. Some would say Trump is the least repulsive Republican. His detractors tirelessly remind us he isn’t a Republican* at all.

          *which shows how stupid they are because the Republican electorate overwhelmingly supports the least Republican candidates this cycle.

          1. “Some would say Trump is the least repulsive Republican.”

            Yes. Fascists.

            “*which shows how stupid they are because the Republican electorate overwhelmingly supports the least Republican candidates this cycle.”

            LOLWUT

          2. Trump is against free trade, which ought to be an immediate deal breaker for any libertarian.

            Nevermind his stances on eminent domain, immigration, civil liberties, his complete incoherence on fiscal policy, and his willingness to pander to the worst dregs of the Republican base on terrorism, abortion and any number of other issues.

            Fuck Trump and anyone who even considers voting for him. Fuck them a thousand times with a rusty chainsaw.

            1. Monster Fuck Trump! I wish that was going down near my nearest tractor pull.

            2. Apparently fuck him wth a rusty coathanger too.

            3. Hazel: “Trump is against free trade, which ought to be an immediate deal breaker for any libertarian.”

              The problem is that every candidate has several positions that are deal breakers for libertarian purists. But one of them WILL become Prez.

              I try to look at which bad positions are likely to cause the least harm. Eg abortion is irrelevant because that can’t be changed by any Prez action. So who cares if the guy is for or agin it.

              This is definitely the worst year ever. I’m leaning towards Cruz, but vomit in my mouth a little when I say it.

              1. Virtually all of Trumps positions are deal breakers for libertarians.

                For fuck sake, he’s actually said he wants a national registry of all Muslims. That’s fascist shit, right there. Libertarians should be actively opposing this guy on every front.

                But sadly, there is a large faction of libertarians who honestly think flagrantly violating the rights of other humans because they had the accident of being born on the wrong side of an imaginary line (or even just being born with the wrong skin color, or religion or sexual orientation) is what libertarianism is all about. These people are scum who do not deserve to tarnish the word liberty with their filth.

    2. Tell that to Robby.

    3. Great minds discuss platforms. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

  15. There are still good things in the world. Someone earlier today posted a link to a Michelle Jenneke hip hop video. That video, which was awesome, led me to this video of Jeremy Clarkson, in a car, racing Michelle Jenneke.

  16. Wow. Lots of retards in NH. Bad idea to situate the Free State Project there.

    1. Should we all move in with you instead?

      1. Perhaps, in time.

        1. Dibs on top bunk!

          1. Cytotoxic is in the basement, of course. Dibs on the master bedroom!

            1. I don’t think the landlord will be too enthused about that.

    2. It’s got an uphill climb there:

      http://stopfreekeene.com/

      We aren’t interested in “conversing” with you morons anymore more than we’re interested in conversing with a naked vagrant furiously waving his member at a fire hydrant. Both of you are about as effective and comprehensible with their intended goals. Both of you are an embarrassment at best and a danger to others at worst.

      We’re not arguing the validity of libertarianism versus whatever bogeyman wants to steal your weed and prevent access to dark web child pornography. We just want FK to stop being assholes. Don’t be an asshole.

      1. Assholes are everywhere. It is genetic.

    3. The Free State Project, as I understood it, was to establish a more libertarian someplace, not to take over the American electorate.

      1. The presence of anti-freedom retards like bernie and trump supporters kind of makes that goal hard to achieve.

  17. I think you guys can help settle an argument I’m having with my…wife.

    I want to put this over the bed but she’s against it. In fact, she’s advocating I see a doctor:

    http://bit.ly/1WcJbgt

    What do you think? Am I out of line?

          1. Is that before or after he penetrates her?

    1. An original print? Classy. A poster reprint? Prententious.

    2. What…kind of message are you trying to get across?

        1. Goddammit.

      1. To my wife?

        Isn’t it obvious?

        1. I see. I think you’ve already got your point across.

        2. vote for Trump or the Muslims will come stone you?

        3. I’m going to crush you so hard?

    3. What’s up with the dude on the far right? I mean who brings a loaf of bread to a stoning?

      1. Someone who likes to be prepared. Like a Boy Scout. You’ll thank him when you run our of rocks and are hungry.

        1. Al-babib el tarukafuck: “Whew! I think a pulled a muscle on the last throw that grazed her temple.”

          Riyadapoop: “You throw like a girl!”

          Roaring laughter as they bite into bread.

      2. That’s not a loaf of bread, that’s his servant carrying a tray of stones so he can throw extra rocks. He obviously represents the 1%.

    4. Thank you Rufus. I feel so much better about my weird fetishes now. I’m the “normal” one.

      1. That’s nothing.

        1. Oh, I get it. That’s just how they did bukkake back then.

          1. You know, come to think of it, you’d think one of their elders would have said, ‘guys, there’s a better way than to throw rocks!’

          2. It was called “bukrockey” in those days.

  18. Holy fuck, is Kasich really gonna come in 2nd?

    Puke…

    1. The real sick comes from the fact that he looks great compared to the guy who actually came first.

      1. I may have to take another look at Jon Kasich.

        1. Hazel, you can have him. I’m sure you’ll find him not at all libertarian.

    2. You playing soggy biscuit?

      1. I’m sorry I googled that…

  19. Reminder: Trump will never be president-and for that matter Bernie is not going to be the Dem nominee. Hillary will beat him, and then beat Trump. Like a drum. The poll numbers are clear on this.

    1. Nine months is an eternity in a presidential campaign. And no, Trump beats Hillary.

      1. HA HA H A HA H AHA

        Yeah, the guy with a double-digit negative rating somehow beats Hillary who has a neg rating of -4.

        Romney had the same amount of time to get over negatives that weren’t worse than Hillary’s. He never did. He never stood a chance neither does Trump. Sorry, real America exists outside of your trailer park.

        1. The last I read, Trump’s negatives were about 60, and Hillary’s about 52. That’s not a big difference.

          1. Trump was like -20 or something ridiculous while Hillary was -4. Not even close.

            The numbers you are citing aren’t ‘negatives’.

        2. Trump is good at smearing people.

          And Hillary may be indicted.

          1. “Trump is good at smearing people.”

            No, he’s good at getting rock-throwing trogs to support him. This isn’t going to work in the general.

            “And Hillary may be indicted.”

            I’ll believe it when I see it.

      2. I’ll try to remember to link back to this topic in November when we know for sure, so whoever made the correct prediction can gloat and whoever was wrong can make excuses.

        For the record, I expect Hillary to win.

        1. Oh I’ll gloat-if it comes down to that (doubt Trump will win the nomination). Believe it or not I can be a huge asshole about these kinds of things.

          1. My prediction is that if Hillary is the Dem nominee, the Repubs will lose no matter who they nominate.

            Basically I think Bernie Sanders is the only legitimate obstacle to President Clinton v 2.0. *shudders*

            1. “My prediction is that if Hillary is the Dem nominee, the Repubs will lose no matter who they nominate.”

              I disagree. The GOP can win against her-but it won’t be a cinch, even if they don’t commit electoral suicide by nominating Trump. There’s also the Bloomber spectre.

              “Basically I think Bernie Sanders is the only legitimate obstacle to President Clinton v 2.0. *shudders*”

              Not going to happen. She will get that nomination.

            2. All the R’s have to do is nominate someone who is sane, competent, and whose name isn’t Bush, and they will beat Hillary in a cake walk.

        2. Put me in for Hillary will lose. I won’t gloat because I am too nice and also Hillary losing will be all the reward I need.

      3. Trump is literally the ONLY Republican still in the race who WOULDN’T beat Hillary.

        1. Jeb could and would fuck it up. Otherwise you’re probably right.

          1. Seriously, you’d expect Chris Christie to beat Hillary?

            (Trigger warning: fat-shaming!)

            He looks unhealthy-fat. There are appearance-based factors that probably shouldn’t matter in a presidential contest, like Cruz’s face or Hillary’s cankles. But when somebody is that heavy, I can’t really fault a voter who would think “Is this person healthy enough to withstand 4 or 8 years in a high stress job?)

            1. Closed parentheses should be closed quote.

              I want an edit button!

            2. May have a point there.

            3. Christie would probably still win because he hasn’t been indicted by the FBI, which Hillary probably will be by election day.

        2. Dunno. He did have a TV show that was not unpopular. If he can win Iron Chef and The Voice he’s a shoo in.

    2. nope. trump destroys hillary in a campaign. Bernie would be tougher competition for Trump who would still win as Bloomberg would enter the race if Bernie wins

    1. Am I going to jail for watching that?

    2. Annnd time to sign off of the internet today and go eat some cummie bears.

          1. Or this, for some of our stranger commenters.

  20. Trump vs Sanders. Worst matchup possible.

    You clowns won’t admit it to me but any of you would take Obama over those two imbeciles.

    1. Didn’t you get fucked hard on the stock market recently?

    2. Somebody has a Jackson needing relocation.

    3. I would take any of the three over fucking Bloomberg

    4. I would take Bloomber over any of those three.

    5. Dollars – 20; percent – 8
      Who is H&R’s biggest cheapskate…

    6. Id take obama then trump then grandpa gulag

    7. And you would take W over those two imbeciles.

    8. Michael Palin’s Buttplug
      We all admit we would take those three before you.

    9. Does this mean you’re officially admitting that you were wrong and Jeb Bush isn’t going to be nominee?

    10. How many parties am I holding up, Winston?
      Three.
      And if the party says that it is not three but two–then how many?
      Three.
      The word ended in a gasp of pain.

    1. And they were never seen again…

    2. And they were never seen again…

  21. VOTE GIANT ASTEROID 2016

    BECAUSE THESE OTHER HOLES ARENT BIG ENOUGH TO GET THE JOB DONE

    1. HARD RAIN 2016! Five more Millenia of death from above!

  22. Do you folks think bernie wins the nominee? He seems to be getting really power hungry recently

    1. No. Pretty sure the polls show she’s way ahead in other states. This is probably Bernie’s moment of glory, and it shall pass.

      1. Lets hope.

    2. Only recently??? Power seems to be his poison.

  23. OT: fracked gas wells are not any leakier than conventional ones.

    “There over 88,000 conventional natural gas wells active in Pennsylvania and West Virginia; with their high fraction of leakage but low production, they add up to an estimated 660 billion grams of leaked methane per year. The roughly 3,400 fracked wells?which produced almost twenty times as much natural gas?leak an estimated 490 billion grams per year. Add it all together, and that’s about 1.4 percent of the area’s natural gas production. That’s low enough that natural gas still beats a coal-fired power plant handily, in terms of climate impact.”

    http://arstechnica.com/science…..nal-wells/

    1. Conventional *oil* wells also leak more methane than most fracked wells. *water* wells leaks some methane. Mines leak methane. Holes in the ground leak methane. Earthquakes leak methane. Termites leak shitloads of methane. Agriculture & dairy farming produces lots of methane. Changing characteristics of arctic permafrost leaks methane

      The claim that fracking is some super-scary source of methane has been one of the bullet-points of the anti-frackers for years.

      “Fracking leaks methane!” and people think holy shit that sounds bad.

      When you point out that it contributes far less than dairy farming or landfills they start shouting THAT DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT.

      1. global warming is a myth so I don’t worry about any of this.

        1. Amsoc – Your lifestyle is carbon positive so you probably do not worry about AGW.

        2. No, you’re retarded so you have no perspective on how to judge actual “problems”

        3. the obvious point there is “fracking is a more efficient way to extract hydrocarbons” and that anyone with environmental concerns that was honest would agree.

          However, no one in the environmental camp is actually honest, they have no interest in practical improvements in energy technology – they just want sugar daddy govt to fund their boondoggles.

        4. The blind pig found an acorn.

          [pats pig on head]

    2. Water vapor is the important greenhouse gas. The econazis’ll want to nationalize the oceans.

  24. Can someone tell me who the hell Samantha Bee is? How did someone that grating get a TV Show? God does she suck.

    1. She’s from Toronto.

    2. She used to be on Stewart

        1. I would

    3. She’s a proggy from Jon Stewart’s Daily Show…. Meh.

  25. The title of this article says it all. People talk about how voting for Sanders and Trump is an act of anger. Why is that so verboten? Shouldn’t people in this country who have gotten fucked over repeatedly be fucking angry?

    I watched the Clinton speech. How many times did she say the word “I”? What exactly has she done for progressives, leftists, or libertarian socialists? She touts her experience… Is that like when she voted to go to war in Iraq?

    1. How have you gotten fucked over?

      1. Some Jew fucks want him to pay his debts.

      2. I NOT HAVE FREE SHIT /AS

      3. Paying taxes for a war I detested and for the maintenance of a stockpile of nuclear weapons that I fear and loathe doesn’t count?

        1. How much in taxes did you pay?

        2. So sanders is going to get rid of all the stockpiles and not start any wars?

          1. Frank, did you listen to what he said about Isis? Are you even capable of hearing what people who disagree with you even say?

            1. He said the united states would partake but have other countries lead. Where are the nukes going?

              1. Hopefully in the New Mexico desert somewhere, frank.

                http://www.globalzero.org/blog…..-demdebate

                1. What?

        3. ” nuclear weapons that I fear and loathe”

          Ah so your irrational feelings should be basis for policy and spending.

          1. There’s nothing that says libertarian more than having governments with weapons that can– more or less– make the human race extinct. I concentrate on the big stuff though… Obama’s attempts to limit the number of bullets a gun contains from 15 to 12 means he is a totalitarian.

            1. “There’s nothing that says libertarian more than having governments with weapons that can– more or less– make the human race extinct.”

              Um yeah. Libertarianism requires a government with defense capability. That means nukes.

            2. 15 to 12 to registration to confiscation

              Funny how the guns his jack booted thugs are being limited in magazine capacity.

              Still ignore him using drones to murder innocent moms and kids in Pakistan?

              1. “Still ignore him using drones to murder innocent moms and kids in Pakistan?”

                It’s not murder if it’s war.

              2. are not being limited

            3. Who the fuck cares about nuclear weapons?
              We aren’t making them any more, nobody is going to have a nuclear war any time soon, and it would cost more money to disassemble them than to keep them stockpiled.

              Surely this isn’t the single most important issue facing humanity or the country right now.
              What the fuck kind of twisted alternate reality are you living in?

              1. “What the fuck kind of twisted alternate reality are you living in?”

                Yes.

              2. Like abortion. Cuz you can’t just go to the Container Store and choose between plastic, wood or wire.

        4. But, the Government knows best! How can you be bothered by how they spend money??

          Oh, and watch that animism. It’s a real bitch…

        5. So, what you want most is lower taxes? That’s you’re big issue? Taxes are too high? Socialist complains to capitalists that he’s angry about his taxes being too high to justify angrily voting for politician who openly supports raisins taxes. New level of stupid reached.

      4. He considers himself fucked over to the extent that people wealthier than he is are not fucked over to the extent he believes they should be.

        1. I kinda doubt he pays taxes like he claims

      5. “How have you gotten fucked over?”

        Shitbag ran into reality; fucks over commies every time.

    2. ” Why is that so verboten?”

      Because thinking is better.

      1. See, that’s what the capitalists want you to think.

    3. Small minds talk about people.

    4. Small minds talk about people.

    5. Small minds talk about people.

    6. Small minds talk about people.

  26. Holy shit, Clinton is really trailing. Losing by 20%? I’m surprised she hasn’t had a stroke yet.

    1. you mean again?

      1. Only just prior to being required to testify.

  27. Watching Bernie’s speech in NH – Libertarian moment, I now understand Robbie’s perspective…

    1. He really seems the most dangerous because he doesnt understand anything

      1. Bernie is sharpening the Guillotine at this very moment.

    2. “Our country was based on one simple principle: fairness.”

      ~Bernie Sanders

      1. Did he really say that?

        1. It’s right in the name: The United States of Fairness.

          1. Fairyness. Get it right.

          2. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness fairness.”

      2. He’s got Will Wilkinson’s vote on that line alone.

      3. He did not say that.

        PLEASE TELL HE HOBO-GULAG DIDN’T SAY THAT.

      4. That’s not how you spell LIBERTY!

  28. Trump is going to win every state with an open primary. I bet he’ll lose most states closed to all but registered Republicans.

    1. He does well with moderates. Most closed primary states are blue states. Fla. is closed but Trump is polling yuuuge there. Probably bc Yankee moderate Republicans.

      1. He does well with the blue-collar types who were Democrats until the party found better victims to champion.

        1. Trump won college educated voters in N.H.

          1. Schooled. No one truly educated would support Trump.

          2. “educated voters in N.H.”

            good one!

  29. Trump is making,me laugh so hard right now.

  30. maybe Donald if we want to get rid of corrupt lobbyists, we should publicly finance our campaigns.

    Yay!! Big militaries! East German-style walls. He’s awesome.

    1. How would public campaign financing get rid of lobbyists?

      1. Did I say get rid of lobbyists Frank? Pay close attention.

        1. What would be a corrupt lobbyist vs a regular lobbyist?

          1. That is for the politburo to decide.

          2. frank, let’s change the subject because I’m bored. why do you think so many libertarians have a hardon for nuclear weapons? Maybe there’s something else going on?

            You voting for Rubio or Cruz?

            1. So you got called out, cant answe and now want to change subject.

              Thanks for being honest

            2. The only person with a hard on for nuclear weapons is you.
              The rest of us could give two shits. We have higher priorities.

        2. american socialist|2.9.16 @ 10:15PM|#
          “Did I say get rid of lobbyists Frank? Pay close attention.”

          Shitbag, the way you write, it’s extremely hard to tell what, if anything, you have in mind.
          Why not write in your native language and allow us to translate? I’m sure it’s better than your pathetic efforts.

          1. I just assumed he thinks all lobbyists were corrupt since that is what grandpa gulag thinks.

            Would like to know what a legit lobbyist is

            1. “Would like to know what a legit lobbyist is”

              Don’t bother asking ‘English is my 3rd language’ shitbag,

        3. Socialists complains in one post about being forced to pay taxes for things he doesn’t like. In next post, socialist argues for forcing people to pay taxes support entire parties, platforms, and candidates they don’t like.

          I see you’ve chosen being consistently stupid over being stupidly consistent.

      2. The commie is referring to the Nixon Anti-libertarian law, bribing the media to ignore us. It was signed within 24 hours of the LP forming in 1971. Google it.

    2. we should publicly finance our campaigns

      You mean permanently enshrine the current two major parties as official government institutions. Yes, a socialist WOULD like that.
      Maybe someday we can whittle it down and get to your ideal dream of a one party state.

      1. How many political parties are there in Germany and Great Britain where they publicly finance their elections?

        1. They have a partliamentary system, which is inherently more conducive to multiple political parties.

        2. Amsoc

          I believe North Korea also publicly finances all one of their political parties.

        3. “How many political parties are there in Germany and Great Britain where they publicly finance their elections?

          No, shitbag, they do nothing of the sort and you’re as ignorant of that subject as you are of most:

          England:
          “Political funding in the United Kingdom has been a source of controversy for many years.[1] There are three main ways a political party is funded. The first is through membership fees; the second is through donations; and the third is through state funding (though only for administrative costs)”
          Wiki; look it up.

          Germany:
          “Currently, the overall annual amount that can be allotted to the parties is ?133 million.[1] Parties receive funds in proportion to the latest election results plus a partial matching of ?0.38 per donated Euro for private donations up to ?3,300.”
          http://www.loc.gov/law/help/ca…..ermany.php

          So, England covers admin costs, while Germany rewards the incumbents, exactly as predicted.
          Any more imbecilic statements this evening, shitbag?

    3. We do have publicly funded campaigns.

      But only McCain took that option.

      You see, Obama and now Bernie found out they could get more money going private.

      Ironic!

    4. Lobbyists spend with pols not to win elctions but to win government favors.

      Maybe smaller limited government is the answer.

  31. From the People’s Cube

    Statisticians: one out of three Bernie Sanders supporters is just as dumb as the other two

    Heh

    1. I just found the People’s Cube the other day. Its outstanding.

    2. Countries that communize elections have NO libertarian parties. Brazil has 32 communist, fascist and prohibitionist parties with looter teevee commercials droning incessantly on the telescreens. Venezuela has no LP.

  32. More like the political status low, am I right?

  33. Vastly over-analyzed. It is simple actually: NH is full of lefties, they prefer the left-most candidates on both sides.

    1. Really? I thought that was Vermont.

  34. Guys, I’m really bummed about how our libertarian fallback candidates of Cruz/Rubio performed tonight and thinking about engaging a federal agent in a game of Draw!. What do we do for liberty if these two Republican douchebag assholes don’t perform? Draw straws to select amongst the remaining Republican douchebag assholes Christie/fiorina/kasich? Maybe we should just wait until August, see which Republican douchebag asshole is nominated and just tell ourselves how much liberty we’ve got now. Make lemons out of lemonade, I say.

    1. Amsoc

      I think we all follow your lead and frot our anatomically correct Barack dolls and pray he issues the executive order that makes him emperor so single payer, carbon taxes, free higher education, eracism, and unicorns.

    2. Cool story bro

    3. Shouldn’t you be preparing your mind for the cognitive dissonance of falling in line behind Hillary after she steamrolls Sanders in every contest moving forward?

      1. No. I’m not planning on doing that.

    4. It’s a gradual descent into socialist hell, with the brakes applied by ejecting various progressives from their seats. It slows the descent, but never stops it.

      Christ, you should be thrilled. You get your wish despite never having done anything to earn, much less deserve it. Actually, I take that back: you’ll deserve it when you’re put up against the wall for whatever transgression against party orthodoxy you’ve inevitably committed, whatever it ends up being. But you’ll have done nothing to earn it, having wasted your time proselytizing to the people best inoculated against the bullshit infecting you.

      I can’t imagine why you’re hesitant, or why you bother coming around here.

      1. I agree with the commenter above. The only option left is to go Galt.

        1. american socialist|2.9.16 @ 11:22PM|#
          “I agree with the commenter above. The only option left is to go Galt.”

          I agree that you’re an ignoramus. The only option left is to fuck off, slaver.

      2. I agree with the commenter above. The only option left is to go Galt.

        1. BTW, shitbag, did you see the cites above proving you’re a lying POS? If not, please check upthread a bit; your fantasies remain your fantasies.

    5. american socialist|2.9.16 @ 10:59PM|#
      “Guys, I’m really bummed about how our libertarian fallback candidates of Cruz/Rubio performed tonight and thinking about engaging a federal agent in a game of Draw!”

      Shitbag,
      I’m really bummed by your continuing display of stupidity.
      Fuck off, slaver.

    6. These looters never won an important election, but manipulated the GOP and Dem looters with spoiler votes. By 1913 they had plank 2 of the communist manifesto in he Constitution and IRS agents with guns authorized to kill every man, woman and child in the nation to collect that tax.
      Libertarians with brains can at least see how that worked. The ones with cojones are willing to spit on the DemoGOP just like the commies did, and get what we’re after.
      “How many parties, Winston?”

    7. So… were Hitler and Stalin Liberal fallback candidates in 1933?

  35. Why can’t we all just…admit that we’re fucked, as usual.

    1. Yeah, when people give up entirely on the status quo and gravitate to lunatics, it doesn’t usually mean they’re about to embrace liberty and non-aggression.

      1. hello Terror. But I’m not convinced of historical groundhog days. Seriously, if Mirabeau…
        In modern news, we are fucked mostly because their is no radicalness in Trump or Sanders. They are the tripe in the tripe soup that but few love.

  36. I don’t hear any American voters in these primaries rebuking government. I see appeals to naked populism. I see retarded votes who want free shit. I see ”anybody but Shrillary.”

    1. Welcome to populism.

      1. Ohh noooo, not populism! Our so-called “Top Men” in Washington are doing such a bang-up job! Why won’t the ignorant peons just shut up and let their designated superiors keep on doing what they’re doing?

        1. Well this populism is giving the state more power and money

  37. So it looks like we get to vote for a Fascist or a Communist. WOW!

    1. In Venezuela and Brazil there is no Libertarian party. Izzat where you’re writing from?
      “How many parties, Winston?”

  38. Bullshit. Sanders and Trump is doubling down on the status quo. Two 70+ year old baby boomers.

    Sanders has been in Washington all his life. Trump is a New York billionaire who owes his wealth to inheritance and the real estate bubbles of the last decades. He is a friend of Bill and Hillary and the midtown Manhattan media who have given him 24/7 coverage.

    Sanders and Trump represent socialism and Chinese-style “state capitalism”; doubling down on the debt and money printing-fueled bankrupt welfare state, to protect the boomers unearned and unfunded entitlements and inflated assets and appease the pathetic millennials with “free college” forever and ever.

  39. up to I looked at the draft which was of $7319 , I be certain …that…my neighbour was like they say realie receiving money part time at there labtop. . there moms best frend started doing this less than and just paid the mortgage on their apartment and bought a gorgeous Lexus LS400 . site here……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Wage90.com

  40. up to I looked at the draft which was of $7319 , I be certain …that…my neighbour was like they say realie receiving money part time at there labtop. . there moms best frend started doing this less than and just paid the mortgage on their apartment and bought a gorgeous Lexus LS400 . site here……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Wage90.com

  41. “How many parties am I holding up, Winston?”
    “Three.”
    “And if the party says that it is not three but two–then how many?”
    “Three.”
    The word ended in a gasp of pain.

  42. No shit sherlock. In a year or two, we’ll get to find out how much we miss the status quo.

  43. v

    Up to I looked at the draft which was of $7319 , I be certain …that…my neighbour was like they say realie receiving money part time at there labtop. . there moms best frend started doing this less than and just paid the mortgage on their apartment and bought a gorgeous Lexus LS400 . site here……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ???? ? ? ? http://www.Wage90.com

  44. The important thing is that looter machine politics as embodied in Nixon-subsidized beltway-bribery and extortion machines LOST.

  45. Trump’s support has never exceeded 40%. If his was a true rebuke he would have numbers like Sanders. In every poll, state and national, he never breaks the 40% line. This is because there are only 40% of the GOP voters gullible enouogh to swallow his BS. He is a big government progressive masquerading as a conservative. He supports universal healthcare, gun control and his “religious faith” is a mockery. No where on earth is 2nd Corinthians referred to as Two Corintians. The fact people accepted his lame excuse for the mistake is laughable because it was a clear indication his claims of being a religious person was just another lie. He attacks Cruz as dishonest but no one in the race is more dishonest than Trump.

  46. This article from Reason Magazine sounds remarkably lucid and, dare I say it, rational. A departure from their usual crap. How come none of you libertarian leaning types ever acknowledge that reducing the Pentagon budget by half would give us enough money to pay off the debt, and still have free college and universal health insurance? If you want no government move to Dubi, if you want good government hire Bernie Sanders.

  47. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.