Is There a Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders? Not That I've Seen

The Vermont socialist and ice-cream flavor is too far left on economic freedoms & not libertarian enough elsewhwere.


Over at The Daily Beast (disclosure: I'm a columnist there), Andrew Kirell struggles valiantly to make "the libertarian case for Bernie Sanders," going so far as to enlist some of the greatest minds of this and every other era and still coming up with bupkis.

The logic goes: With a Republican-controlled Congress—or one remotely close to its current makeup—President Sanders would have a tough time getting his most radical economic policies passed, leaving him to fight for the civil liberties causes that matter to liberals and libertarians alike: e.g., reforms to the criminal justice system, the ongoing drug war, and the government's surveillance efforts.

In other words, backing a Sanders presidency would mean wagering that Sanders' most left-wing economic policies wouldn't come to fruition. And that he'd pull a conservative Congress to the left on civil liberties issues, with the help of cross-partisan allies like Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

The Cato Institute's David Boaz notes that we've already got a Democratic president and a Republican Congress and this stuff isn't happening. True, true, but come on, Barack Obama is a barely contained drug warrior who insists against evidence that he can't reschedule marijuana, dragged his feet on criminal justice until recently, is quite hawkish (tripled troop strength in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, etc.), and ginned up a secret kill list while expanding Bush-era surveillance programs. Sanders is at least arguably not as equally bad on all those same issues.

Kirell then quotes me (accurately!) thus:

"You could do worse than having Bernie Sanders in the White House," [Gillespie] admitted. "The things that he would be able to direct in the White House would accord with libertarian values. Being a commander-in-chief, he would minister our foreign policy much differently than Obama or Bush; he would be much more likely change the scheduling for marijuana, which the president can do; and he'd be in a much better position to push criminal justice reform."

I stand by every jot and tittle! And for those of you who disagree (including the foul-mouthed bravehearts who have already contacted me via email, carrier pigeon, and pneumatic tubes), let me simply ask: Hillary Clinton would be worse, wouldn't she? Suffice it to say that noting you could do worse than Sanders is not an endorsement or an affirmation of the eminent flavored-deodorant critic from Vermont. By the end of his piece, in fact, Kirell even gives up on the idea that libertarians—that is, believers in limited government, economic freedom, and civil liberties—are going to feel the bern anytime soon unless they have the clap.

Which is all too true. As is this quote from Terry Michael, a former press secretary of the Democratic National Committee turned "libertarian Democrat" (and occasional Reason contributor):

"All we've got left are neoconservatives, social conservatives, and crony capitalists… I'd love to hear anyone tell me that any of the current crop of Republicans are actually libertarian on foreign policy or social issues or even many economic issues."

Read the full article here.

So does this mean that libertarians are stuck twiddling their thumbs or voting Libertarian when it comes to the 2016 election? No (though there's certainly nothing wrong with going LP, as I've done for virtually my entire voting life).

In a recent Reason piece about Ted Cruz trying to gather up Rand Paul's supporters, Boaz notes

David Kirby and I found that 13 to 15 percent of American voters hold libertarian values on a range of questions. In three separate analyses Kirby found that libertarian strength among Republican voters had risen to between 34 and 41 percent by 2012. Paul's father, Rep. Ron Paul, garnered 21 percent in the Iowa caucuses and 23 percent in New Hampshire, not far off that mark. 


How do we mass these votes, which are truly up for grabs in this and virtually every national election, and force major-party presidential candidates to pay attention to the top concerns of the libertarian electorate? The country is moving libertarian in terms of commercial life, cultural life, and personal life, where not only massive choice already exists but is growing stronger every day. As important, Americans are more comfortable with the idea of people having different choices and leading different lifestyles. Matt Welch and I document all these trends in The Declaration of Independents, which flowed from the observation that people are evacuating partisan politics as an identity and place of meaning in their lives.

In the near term—certainly in terms of major-party candidates still running for president this time around—the libertarian pickings are between slim and none. Which isn't to say that libertarian concerns aren't. At the state level, pot legalization, school choice, and public-pension reform proceed apace. At the national level, the wheels are coming off major entitlement programs and even with high levels of defense spending, the nation is in no mood to keep soldiering on in wars we've already lost. Once the Democratic and Republican nominees are selected and have locked in their party's faithful, that 15 percent (or more) of Americans who believe in social tolerance and fiscal responsibility will be the ones who decide November's election. And there's little doubt that the libertarian vote will force the Republicans to moderate their culture-war whoops and the Democrats to ease up on their redistrubitionist fantasies. 

NEXT: Intern at Reason This Summer!

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. Hilarious alt-text today Nick!

      For those who may not be familiar, Summer's Eve makes disposable douches and other 'cleaning products for the vaginal area'.

      Feel the Bern indeed.

      1. Hillary has that not fresh feeling! Vote Sanders!

      2. Yes, that was definitely a win.

      3. So, Bernie's the giant douche, and Hillary's the turd sandwich?

        1. Yep. They're both just awful. Awful garbage.

    2. Why not build a giant wall to hold our freedom in? Like East Germany did.

      1. It's coming if comrade Sanders becomes the new Premier.

  1. Vote for Bernie! You can do anything you want - as long as it doesn't involve money, trade, barter, or anything that could theoretically generate revenue.

    1. Or smoking, drinking unhealthy beverages, eating unhealthy food, generating more than your share of climate-destroying CO2, or criticizing the government. After all, when the government is paying for everything, everything is in the government's interest. Don't make Big Brother waste the peoples' resources on your poor choices, or Uncle Bernie will be very upset with you.

      1. Is he a Bloomberg-type nanny? I haven't been paying attention.

        1. He wants a government paid health care system. Even if he is not, his successors will be, because the government will argue that it owns our health as it is paying for it.

          1. And apparently a single state provided type of deodorant. As twenty three kinds of deodorant is too much.

        2. His comments about deodorant suggest he's very partial to a planned economy down to consumer goods.

          1. I suppose you could even argue the healthiest deodorant is no deodorant at all.

            BAN IT.

            1. No need to ban it. He'll just direct the deodorant factory to start producing kale instead.

              1. We don't need 23 types of kale while there are children starving in this country. We need but one type of subsidized corn.

                1. We need 1 product that serves as kale, deodorant, & sneakers. Sneakers that after you've softened them between your feet & hard ground can be rubbed on as deodorant & then eaten.

            2. I see what you did there.

              1. roll on, CPA

        3. Anyone who wants the kind of command economy he's aiming for must, by default, want to transfer control of the minutiae of our lives to bureaucrats and regulators. There's no other way it can work.

          So even if he's not out there personally railing against transfats and light bulbs, the net result will be the same; less freedom and more government control.

      2. But at least we wouldn't have to decide which deodorant to use. I am so tired of those wasted hours in the grocery store, trying to figure out which one!

  2. There's a great libertarian case to be made for Bernie: total fucking gridlock. Best of all practical outcomes.

    1. That and he'll either croak or be too geriatric to do anything.

        1. +1 Popehat

        2. As the empire collapsed, they would all vote Ron Paul, and then blame libertarians forever for what happened to America.

          1. We are simultaneously powerless and responsible for everything bad.

          2. As long as it collapses...

    2. The same argument can be made for Trump. I'm not sure which outcome would have me shooting my TV sooner.

      1. Disagree. Trump is all about making deals and has no values. I can't see him expending political capitol to reform drug policies or something similar.

        1. With the right quid pro quo, Trump will likely do anything. This is part of the horror.

      2. Trump, a narcissistic leader? I think the list of "good" narcissistic leaders is quite small compared to the list of "bad" ones.

    3. Not letting crises go to waste is about breaking gridlock. And if there aren't any convenient crises available, you can always manufacture the one you want.

      Meanwhile, if and when ObamaCare collapses, what we replace it with will probably come down to who's in the White House at the time. I don't want that choice to be expanding Medicare for everybody. I don't want Bernie Sanders making any choices like that for for me.

    4. And if not gridlock, then an acceleration of the collapse. People insist on only learning the hard way, and I regret that I have but one retirement account to sacrifice to our government's suicide mission.

      1. I'm torn between investing heavily so I don't end up eating cat food in retirement and spending ever dime I have before the system collapses.

        1. Sanders: I WANT YOU to give me your purchasing power.

          1. He'll have to fight my wife for it!

        2. I'm heavily invested in cat food.

      2. I hate to burst your bubble, but a lot of people look to a strong man on a white horse after a collapse rather than embracing liberty.

        1. This.

          That tendency will likely by amplified as a result of most of us living lives of relative comfort. We'll be victims of our own success in a lot of ways. We're not a society built to handle a collapse. When people who are used to living the good life suddenly find themselves having to fight and scrape just to feed themselves, the results will not be pretty.

          1. Now is the time to stock up o woodchippers. Not after the collapse.

        2. Then it hasn't collapsed enough.

          Liberty is taken, not granted.

    5. That government is best which governs least. Bernie Sanders would be great just like other do nothing presidents, Carter and Obama come to mind.

    6. No problem. Just imagine all those great Supreme Court appoint,ents and executive branch shenanigans during that gridlock. No problem there!

  3. This is the most distasteful group of asshats in my 26 years of voting eligibility, on both sides. There was no way I was going to waste even 10 minutes of my day today at the NH polls.

    1. Write someone in. It's a better way to protest.

    2. On a positive note, fat boy is out of the race. So there's that.

  4. Oh, come on. Given how far left he is on economics, what possible other collection of libertarianish positions could offset that?

    1. Free interns for Reason?

    2. Toning down the drug war? Less foreign military intervention? Because doing those would also be big money savers.

      1. ...big money savers re-directors.

        1. True.

      2. The entire gist of socialist economic philosophy is to NOT save money. The drug war will be accelerated, as will military spending. At best they'll get moved from "the budget" to "emergency appropriations".

      3. More money for gubmint health care!

      4. Less foreign military intervention?

        He hasn't indicated that at all. Basically, he hasn't apparently thought about it beyond, well, we have to get the Arabs doing the bombing too, and by the way, BILLIONAIRES.

        He already said he wasn't pulling out of Afghanistan. No, he's totally a Forever War guy.

      5. The hope here is that he doesn't share Obama's beliefs on executive power and that he won't try and go around the Republican Congress to get some of his economically illiterate policies passed. I still prefer him to Rubio, Christie, Hillary, Carson, or Bloomberg (Maybe Trump too) but smelling less shitty than the other piles of shit still isn't good enough for me. Cruz, Johnson, or nobody.

      6. Yeah, but once hey have power, the line is usually, "Hey, why can't we just have everything?"

        Bernie talks a lot more about taxing the 1% for extra goodies, than he does for reducing spending elsewhere.

        1. When I think about it, I do have a certain empathy for the progressive left, especially when I assume that they've bought the whole "government is the things we choose to do together" line, and the idea that the government should just take care of everyone.

          We have a government that ostensibly spends almost $4 trillion a year "taking care of people", and this is what it looks like.

          I wouldn't blame a simple person for thinking, "Uh, how does that not include taking care of poor unfortunate people's basic needs?"

          However, when the politician that comes closest to your sentiments comes along (i.e., Bernie Sanders), and all he can talk about is how we need to make the system bigger, and hand it even more capital, in order to start achieving anything like that, rather than how to allocate $4 trillion in capital more effectively, then the proposed solution is already presenting you with a big clue to the problem.

          1. *slow claps into the mic drop*

          2. Brian

            That does not fit onto a bumper sticker affixed to the back of a Prius.

          3. When I think of the progressive left, I imagine a popular uprising against them after "enough is enough". I then picture the aftermath of a series of vicious battles against them where the survivors are herded into resettlement camps. Awaiting deportation to Marxist countries, or maybe Antarctica. The ones who refused to surrender being deposited by dump trucks, face down, in landfills. The country is then largely put right.

            It's a beautiful image. And a better fate than the progs deserve.

      7. Toning down the drug war? Less foreign military intervention?

        And in your mind, that would offset his horrible economic plans, and all the jackbootery that would necessarily follow in their wake?

      8. "Less foreign military intervention? "

        Absolutely. He'll need those troops internally to enforce his economic policies.

      9. Yes, that would clearly offset the $6 trillion or so he wants to spend annually.

  5. Hillary Clinton would be worse, wouldn't she?

    Difference without distinction.

    All of the candidates are beyond horrific. Arguing whether it's better to be killed by being burned alive or buried alive isn't really much of an argument.

    Whatever wins, we're fucked.

    1. Buried alive, gives me time to jerk it one last time.

      1. Sounds like voting.

        1. We don't have those little booths, we have these folding computer things...oh you're not talking about jerkin' in the votin' booth are you?

      2. I want to die the way Florida Man died... calmly jerkin' it one last time. Not yelling and screaming, like the passengers in his car.

    2. More or less the way I look at it.

      I try to do the Utilitarian math to figure out who would spend the least if they win (government power more or less equals government spending). 99% of the time, one party rule in Washington leads to more spending. That being said, power sharing doesn't actually lead to spending decreases either (as evidenced by right now).

      Paul, I had some confidence he would actually shrink government. Cruz is odd in that the party bosses hate him and he fights with them all the time and that means there is a chance, a fairly small chance, that government spending would actually decrease under him.

      Therefore, out of the people who could win, Cruz is the only one who actually registers a chance to shrink government. That being said, I'll likely not vote for him either as I don't think that chance is very great.

  6. " The logic goes: With a Republican-controlled Congress?or one remotely close to its current makeup?President Sanders would have a tough time getting his most radical economic policies passed, leaving him to fight for the civil liberties causes that matter to liberals and libertarians alike: e.g., reforms to the criminal justice system, the ongoing drug war, and the government's surveillance efforts."

    The problem here is that with the combination of a tough electoral map and Trump pooping in the GOP pool, there may very well not be a Republican-controlled Congress to oppose those radical economic policies, resulting in a severe economic left turn, giving Bernie a freer hand.

    1. That logic was true in the 1990s. Obama has ended it. The left is fully aware they have fucked up so badly they are unlikely to ever take back the Congress. They don't care about that, however, because they think they have a lock on the White House. The plan is to make the President into effectively an elected dictator and Congress into a debating society. As long as the media refuses to go after the President, which they never will as long as the President is a Democrat, and the Democrats in Congress do the same, which they can be counted on doing since the only Dems left in Congress are from deep blue states and districts, there is likely nothing the President can't do. It is just a matter of time, probably in the next administration, before the President starts ignoring the courts and the anti deficiency act. Once that happens, the progs win. The only remedy will be impeachment and impeachment will never happen as long as the Democrats maintain a 1/3rd majority in the Senate.

      We have reached a very dangerous time for the Republic.

      1. The left is fully aware they have fucked up so badly they are unlikely to ever take back the Congress.

        Yeah, not seeing it. Voters, you must keep in mind, are like a meek woman with two abusive boyfriends, bouncing back and forth between the two, never making the decision to abandon them both, always returning to the one who's not currently abusing her.

        Which is for the most part why we're in this "very dangerous time for the Republic."

        1. What is dangerous is that we have a media and Democratic party who will never turn on a Democratic President. The only thing that stops a President is when either his own party or the media turns on him. If that doesn't happen, the President can do anything he likes. Look at all of the lawlessness of the Obama administration. He has been able to repeatedly tell the courts and the Congress to go fuck themselves. He is able to do this because the only real power Congress has over him is the purse and impeachment. Impeachment will never happen as long as his own party stays loyal. And the power of the purse is meaningless as long as the media can bully Congress out of shutting down the government. And soon, even that won't matter as the next Democratic President just ignores the law and spends as he sees fit without worrying about Congress.

          A Republican President could never do that since the media would never allow it and his own party would turn on him.

          1. He has been able to repeatedly tell the courts and the Congress to go fuck themselves

            It goes further than that. There was a Dem rep. after 2014 who said that Congress' job was now to write Executive Orders for Obama to sign.

            1. This is why we can't afford another Democratic President.

              1. Thanks; that was my memory but I wasn't sure and couldn't be bothered looking it up. Granted, she's not the sharpest knife in the draw but it was still an outrageous comment. And it speaks also to John's point above about the media letting things like this pass.

                1. she's not the sharpest knife in the draw

                  Comparing SJL to a dull knife is an insult to dull knives. That woman may be the dumbest mother fucker to ever be elected to Congress. Part of me hopes that her constituents originally elected her in an act of trolling, but now the joke's been allowed to continue for way too long. It's not funny anymore.

              2. That woman, to coin medical terminology, is crazier than a rat in a tin shithouse.

                1. There are, quite honestly, not enough insults to heap upon her head. That she draws breath in the same state (and sometimes even the same county) as me makes me sad.

          2. Even if Obama's party turned against him, impeachment is impossible, politically. He's the First Black President. There's no way the outrage-obsessed media would be evenhanded about it.

        2. On a totally unrelated note, I'm a huge fan of the Farrah Fawcett TV movie "The Burning Bed".

      2. And what's sad is that the guys running what is supposed to be the flagship journal of libertarianism are pretty much on board with this plan.

        1. Go back and read the Reason's staff's response to Cruz's filibuster and shutting down the government trying to defund Obamacare sometime. It will make you weep with anger.

          1. Oh I know man. Nothing gets Welch and the boys more worked up than when the republicans start showing signs of even token opposition.

            And the bullshit I see here more and more around here, between Bailey's global warming hysteria and Gillespie claiming yesterday that we're not at war anymore, it gets tougher and tougher every day to tell Reason apart from the Washington Post.

          2. Especially now that we know Obama was lying about shutdowns meaning the complete collapse of US government payments.

  7. Being a commander-in-chief, he would minister our foreign policy much differently than Obama or Bush; he would be much more likely change the scheduling for marijuana, which the president can do; and he'd be in a much better position to push criminal justice reform.

    Change those woulds to coulds. How many times do you need that football pulled away before you stop trying for the kick with such commitment?

    1. Exactly. Especially because getting into power changes a person. You can find all kinds of interviews with young Obama about ending the drug war, yet he's expanded it. And nIck is right, he can reschedule Cannabis using the federal regulatory process and not have to go through Congress. He's in lame duck don't give a fuck mode, yet it's not happening.

    2. Being a commander-in-chief, he would minister our foreign policy much differently than Obama or Bush

      I've lived through enough presidents to wonder who's actually running foreign policy, because it sure doesn't seem like there's any connection between what a president says he's going to do and what he actually does.

      1. No political plan survives contact with the National Security Council.

      2. Usu. the British Foreign Office.

  8. 'there's little doubt that the libertarian vote will force the Republicans to moderate their culture-war whoops and the Democrats to ease up on their redistrubitionist fantasies.'

    The 'libertarian vote' won't ever force those two parties to do anything until it stands up in public and indicates that it believes in libertarian ideas more than it believes in R's and D's. As long as it hides behind R's and D's dress, then it will be treated like the petulant child that it is.

    1. Which means we need to stop being overly cynical and saying things like we don;t vote, and start casting our votes for the LP candidates or write someone in. But even getting 5% of the vote would get a lot of attention.

      1. But even getting 5% of the vote would get a lot of attention.

        You must be under 30 years of age.

        The only attention 5% would get is wrath.

        1. So you're the sort of libertarian who's not willing to incur wrath? You think wrath (from the powerful) is a sign of irrelevance?

          I get it. You don't actually have courage, you just pretend to bluster and hide behind woodchippers on the interwebs.

          1. Don't tell me, tell Darth Fabulous. D.F. is the one thinking the attention will be along the lines of "Now they'll HAVE to listen to us." Instead the attention will be "Those fuckers made us lose and we will get our revenge."

            Personally, I'm fine with the wrath. Beats indifference.

            1. Even if that wrath comed from Kahn?


      2. LP getting 5% of the vote would create an earthquake - esp if that vote is the margin of difference in a lot of states. Much much different than a third party vote based on personality (like Perot - or Bloomberg/Trump if they run as independents)

        Getting LP TO 5% of the vote requires that those who intend to vote that way stand up before the election and announce their intention - via stuff like yard signs and such. Cuz otherwise, the R's and D's and mass media that depends on paid ads from R's and D's and all the other top-downers will define the range of 'the acceptable vote' - and what they do will work.

        1. Pretty sure the 5% threshold has an impact on the electoral landscape in regards to ballot access and public funding. But even if it doesn't, it's no longer a nebulous "why didn't we get those voters mobilized" question in the election post-mortems, it's a "holy shit, 5% of the electorate just voted for an identifiable party platform."

        2. I'm fine with voting LP in a general election. But we're talking about primaries, which are for idiots..

        3. If you check out an LP blog, you'll find the vocal members arguing over how many Hayeks can dance on the head of a pin....microscopically examining the positions of all the unknowns who have tossed their hat into the LP ring, and dissing the one guy - Gary Johnson - who has actual political experience.

          1. Yeah. But that's kind of like here - where 2016 election topics are full of anarchos discussing elections. Basically politics online is totally useless. But go to some local real-life event and you'll probably find that actual registered LP people are a)reasonably intelligent and b)socially awkward and c)eager to become practical (esp locally) if someone actually has practical experience to offer.

            Absent someone with that last skill, it makes sense that those events become just a philosophical circle-jerk.

      3. ^ THIS goddamn it!

    2. Yeah, Trump and Cruz are really easing up on their anti-immigration and pro-carpet-bombing rhetoric.
      And Sanders is only joking when he puts in writing on his website that he wants to jack up spending by 50 percent per year.

  9. Trump/Sanders or Sanders/Trump. Or maybe they could take turns.

    1. Pulling a train on America?

      1. It's not a train if it's just two of them, Dean.

        They're just going to play poker on our backs.

      2. They'll start a new party. The DP Party: America's gonna get it, good and hard from both ends.

        1. The last first of the Bohicans.

  10. Hillary's Yearning was better. It came with 2 girls and 1 cup.

    1. Nonsense. Hillary is a fraud and everything about her is a lie -- those girls, for example, are actually Thai ladyboys that Bill hooked up with on Pedo Island.

      Americans deserve better. We yearn for the Bernster's huge, powerful government deep inside us, commanding us what to put in our bodies, communicating with its every expensive thrust that it wants to take care of us. That's what America needs right now: a good fucking, deep inside our wallets.

  11. I say this as a pretty fervent Sanders hater - there's a case. The case is, if you prefer to check multiple libertarian boxes rather than just the one big one on size and spending of government, Bernie is arguably the guy that checks the most individual boxes who isn't named Rand Paul. Example boxes: corporate welfare elimination, military spending reduction, at least halfhearted noninterventionism, abortion (YMMV), gay marriage, Patriot Act/NSA. You won't get that from Clinton, or from any Republican left.

    This is, of course, only reasonable if you consider economic issues (taxes / spending / federalism) one or two bullets on your checklist. For me, they are the prime driver and I won't vote for anyone who doesn't believe in free markets.

    1. corporate welfare elimination, military spending reduction, at least halfhearted noninterventionism,

      Bernie is a giant liar on all of those.

    2. You get the corporate welfare and Patriot Act NSA from Cruz. Gay marriage is a dead issue at the fed level. So who gives a fuck about it anymore? And if you believe the people at the Weekly Standard, Cruz is a lot more than a half hearted non interventionist.

      So I am not seeing what Bernie brings that Cruz doesn't. And remember, Bernie is all about overturning Citizens' United and effectively repealing the first Amendment. As President, he would likely get enough appointments on the court to do that. Doing that sounds like a hell of a lot bigger deal than anything Cruz would do on abortion.

      1. He's also quite keen on expanding non-discrimination laws and leveling protections for religious freedom (that is to say, freedom of conscience).

        On foreign policy, he has committed to expanding gay rights and womens' rights abroad (check out the "issues" page on his campaign site) -- hard to figure how he'll do that without some form of intervention, and even harder to see how that's an interest of the US that we should be committing ourselves to.

        Outside of botique issues where libertarians are already in the process of winning, I fail to see what libertarian goals Bernie Sanders accomplishes even at the social or foreign policy levels.

        1. I'll add that Bernie is only "good" on the social issues from a leftitarian point of view. I find his views on abortion, gay marriage, and drugs to be a mixed bag, at absolute best. More like a charade to increase centralized power in all realms.

      2. I generally agree (there's a decently good chance I vote for Cruz next month in primaries), but I think it's academically unfair to have a discussion where you write off all the good qualities of A and bad qualities of B as settled issues that they can't effect change on.

        Additionally, I don't in any way believe Cruz is noninterventionist but you're right, the Constitution and the economy are more important and Sanders would be a libertarian's nightmare. I just wanted to point out, on the article's topic, that a lot depends on where you set the goal posts.

        1. I don't see any objective evidence that shows Cruz to be any more of an interventionist than any of the other candidates. I may not always agree with the interventionists in the Republican party but I don't see why they are lying about Cruz not being one of them.

          People one here assume Cruz is an interventionist because they hate his guts culturally and assume anyone with such loathsome cultural views must also be a big war monger interventionist.

      3. As President, he would likely get enough appointments on the court to do that.

        The professed socialism is enough to trigger my, 'Not even once.' knee jerk. Even if I were on the fence, the SCOTUS that results from Bernie's reign would be a truly evil sight to behold.

        More/all of the socialism. None of the electorate.

        1. America can't take another progressive democrat and go on to resemble the constitutional republic it once was. They must be stopped at the ballot box. And if that fails they just be stopped, period.

    3. Example boxes: corporate welfare elimination,

      Because quasi-socialist fascists never do the crony thing

      military spending reduction,

      He's already said he'll increase military spending if he gets to increase welfare state spending.

      at least halfhearted noninterventionism,

      Maybe. Who knows?

      abortion (YMMV),

      Urgh. About the only thing he could do here was make it taxpayer funded. Yay, liberty.

      gay marriage,

      Nothing left to do on gay marriage. Now, gay privilege? Still many nails to hammer down.

      Patriot Act/NSA.

      He's got a decent record there, I'll admit. Of course, he wants to prosecute Snowden, too, which makes you wonder.

      1. "Of course, he wants to prosecute Snowden, too, which makes you wonder."

        Didn't Snowden break the law? Any candidates who don't want to prosecute Snowden?

        1. We're talking about Bernie, here. And he wants Snowden to spend the rest of his life in jail. Do you agree or disagree with him on that?

          1. "Do you agree or disagree with him on that?"

            I disagree. I think Snowden's best chance to live freely is to avoid setting foot in America or her vassal states. That's probably true regardless who is running the show. Even Bernie.

    4. According to Murray Bookchin, when he was mayor of Burlington, Bernie "out-Republicaned the Republicans" when it came to corporate welfare.

  12. So speaking of Terry Michaels, his libertarian argument for Sanders was good enough for Reason, so I guess that's one argument Nick presumably saw?

    There are three issue frames in politics. Foreign. Social. Economic. Sanders is as non-interventionist as Ron Paul on foreign policy. He is as pro-choice and pro-gay rights as Yahweh on social issues (Yahweh has come a long way in the past several decades). And like most of us libertarians who despise crony capitalism, Bernie eschews the big three rent-seeking lobbies: Big Investment Banks, Big Pharma Drug Dealers, and Big War Profiteers.

    Granted, he wants free health care, free day care, free college tuition, and free scoops of Ben and Jerry's. But hey, nobody's perfect.

    1. How can someone live with the kind of cognitive dissonance that Michaels clearly has. On the one hand, I guarantee you that Michaels, as a self professed Libertarian, is fully aware and believes in the concept of regulatory capture. Then on the other hand he with a straight face claims that Sanders, a guy who promises to explode government and have it engage in massive wealth redistribution and regulation, is not a supporter of "crony capitalism" because he doesn't take big corporate donations.

      Seriously, do these ass clowns ever read what they write?

      1. Let's not forget Terry's emails to me from years back. Here's one:

        You are just a garden variety idiot. It is stunning how disgusting you are, whoever you are, hiding behind your cloak of anonymity.

        Oh man, you just don't get hate mail like this any more. It was a special time.

        1. I don't keep emails as a general rule, but if I were you I would print and frame that one. That is truly a treasure. I am frankly pretty envious.

        2. Don't make me pull out my Godwin hate post.

    2. So are tariffs and protectionism economic or foreign affairs? Because intervention can mean things other than direct combat. And he is old school protectionist.

      As pro-choice and pro-gay rights as Yahweh????? Look, I am sure he is trying to be funny, but this is just stupid. Besides, I care alot more about what Odin, Thor, Freyr, Freya and Frigga think than Yahweh.

      And sure, if all Bernie wanted to do was to not give subsidies and handouts to corporations, I would be all in. But, that isn't at all what he means. He means give subsidies and handouts to DIFFERENT corporations (Solyndras and other "green" energy stupidity, Big "Peace" Profiteers, and of course, the ultimate "Investment" bank, the US Government!)
      (BTW: Big pharma are the people who have produced medicine that has saved million of lives and improved the quality of life for millions more. Should they get handouts? Absolutely not. But fuck you for putting them in the same league as Big Tobacco or some Colombian drug cartel)

      1. And since when is protection not intimately tied to cronyism? Protectionism is just that "protecting your cronies from foreign competition". My God is Michaels an idiot.

      2. BTW: Big pharma are the people who have produced medicine that has saved million of lives and improved the quality of life for millions more. Should they get handouts? Absolutely not. But fuck you for putting them in the same league as Big Tobacco or some Colombian drug cartel

        Not to mention that a big reason that it is 'Big Pharma' is because the government holds up a somewhat arbitrary, "You must be --this-- tall to enter the market." placard.

        1. Anyone can get into the pharma market mad.casual. You just need a few hundred million dollars to fund the necessary FDA trials.

          1. It's closer to a billion now, isn't it? Not to mention that you've somehow got to keep your company afloat with no product for the decade or so that it'll take the FDA to get around to running those trials.

            1. And the FDA of course would never take their time doing that so as to run you out of business or force you to sell to a more politically connected company or anything. I am sure that would never happen.

    3. Anyone who voted for Bernie Sanders is a communist traitor and should be treated as such.

  13. It's not about voting the "best" or "most libertarian" candidate now (he left last week). The remaining candidates are almost equally bad in different ways (Trump being the worst IMO). My strategy: who can I vote for that would get the least done. Getting Things Done is almost always bad and thus should be avoided. I think on the Dem side, Bernie Sanders would get the least done, because he doesn't jive with any GOP folks, and rubs even some Dems the wrong way. Hillary would get some stuff done and thus should be avoided. Rubio/Christie/Bush would all get something done. Ted Cruz though? That guy's not getting anything done in Congress by all accounts and so makes the perfect candidate. Trump would end up getting a lot of stuff done by executive action - not ideal.

    1. Wow, almost my exact logic. I'm not sure Cruz is going to get nothing done, but we can all hope.

      (Probably still not going to vote for him)

      1. Hope is all that's left at this point. I won't vote at all in the end. Waste of energy, thought, and time.

      2. Cruz would as President accomplish one thing, he would happily use all of the Presidential powers that the Democrats and media have cheered on Obama using to undo everything Obama has done and stick it to the Democrats at every turn.

        A President Cruz would be a wonderful teaching moment for Progs about the dangers of executive power.

        1. I'm not actually sure that's true. Outside of Rand Paul, Cruz has articulated and supported the most consistent and well-developed view on executive power (and for that matter, the power of the legislative and judicial branches) of all the Presidential candidates. He strikes me as someone who wants to test his ideas on Constitutional governance, perhaps even more than he wants his agenda passed.

          Rubio or Trump, OTOH, I could easily see using and building on the GWB-Obama edifice of executive overreach.

          1. He has done that. But Cruz has also made it clear that he would undo everything Obama has done via executive action on day one of his Presidency. That would send the Progs and the media into a catatonic state.

            1. That would be my exact plan if I were elected.

              After I was sworn in, I would put an executive order on the podium that undoes as much as you possibly can with an executive order, and sign it.

              1. I would skip the inaugural balls and spend my first evening in the White House signing shit to undo everything that bastard has done.

              2. After I was sworn in, I would put an executive order on the podium that undoes as much as you possibly can with an executive order, and sign it.

                Actually, I wonder if this, with the order jumbled, might not make a good campaign stunt.

                Draft it up before the election;

                Executive Order 1 (Fuck the previous guys' numbering scheme).

                Repeal every executive order issued by the previous officeholder permanently.

                Rafael Edward Cruz, President

                And stand there at the podium during the inauguration, hopping up and down waiting to sign it.

            2. But Cruz has also made it clear that he would undo everything Obama has done via executive action on day one of his Presidency.

              And you believe him?


              1. I do, Woodchipper and here is why. If Cruz wasn't serious and couldn't be counted on to do just these kinds of things, the GOP members of Congress wouldn't hate him like they do.

                Why do you think they all hate Cruz so much? Because he is abrasive and kind of an asshole? Are you kidding me? Everyone is an asshole in Congress. They hate him because he actually means what he says and would put a stop to a whole bunch of the stealing.

                If Cruz was what Libertarians like to pretend he is, he would be a lot more popular in Washington.

                1. If he even did half of what he said, he would be the best president since at least Reagan.

        2. You're assuming they have the capacity to learn.

          You're also assuming that they simply wouldn't use this as further proof of the TOP MEN theory, that the new one is bad, and that they need their TOP MAN back in charge.

        3. To be fair, Bush's executive power was the subject of bitching for years among Democrats and I dare say that lesson didn't stick too well.

      3. The one thing he could get done is put as many as three justices on the bench. And while he may cause some hearts to flutter around here at that prospect regarding abortion (I think that's a bit overblown), he largely would put forward candidates that are much better than anything you will get out of Sanders, Clinton, Bush, Rubio, Christie, et al.

    2. There's only one "strategic" vote this time around -- vote Libertarian, no matter how crazy the nominee is. Let them know that you, at least, are not on board with what the Demopulicans are offering.

      1. "A woodchipper in every yard."

  14. Seeing as your vote is meaningless, why even waste your time wondering about this shit? Whoever gets elected is going to be elected and your vote doesn't mean Jack shit, and Jack left town. So all this mental masturbation about "oh noes who do I vote for" is pointless. It's self-indulgence.

    1. Your vote is not meaningless. Your vote allows you to lord your moral and intellectual superiority over the dumb fucks who voted for the other side. How you vote is one of the most important forms of virtue signaling in America today.

      1. No. How you LIE ABOUT vote is one of the most important forms of virtue signaling in America today.

        1. No one I know voted for Nixon.

      2. Voting makes you part of government through the magic of Representation. Your vote means the government is doing The Will of the People. If you don't vote then you have no right to criticize anything government does, because you're not part of government. Duh.

      3. Yeah, but by not voting, I get to lord it over everyone who did vote. The winners are assbites who gave us our horrible president, and the losers are losers!

        1. That just means both sides hate you and get to lord their superiority over you.

      4. John, not voting is still making a choice. You're choosing "none of the above" or "fuck all of you democracy fetishizing assclowns."

        I choose to not endorse any of these goat fuckers and their desire to rule me and mine with my explicit blessing.

        1. *Imagines a world where every election results in "none of the above."*

          Sighs sadly.

        2. I totally understand why someone would refuse to vote. Here is what I don't understand, however. If you refuse to vote, why do you then continue to follow politics? If you don't vote and consider yourself powerless in such matters, why even worry about it or waste your time trying to understand any of it? Are you some kind of a masochist?

          1. If nothing else it's important to know one's enemy, John. I'm perfectly fine leaving everyone else alone, but they keep having these popularity contests for high-functioning sociopaths who lay out all kinds of elaborate plans for how they're gonna fuck with me.

            1. I'm perfectly fine leaving everyone else alone. On the other hand, I'm perfectly fine seeing my enemies burned alive, screaming in agony, if they won;t leave ME alone. I am waiting for the rest of you to reach this proper logical conclusion. As progressivekind will NEVER stop as long as they are allowed to exist.

          2. I don't really follow politics, John. It's just everywhere, so it's hard to avoid.

            Plus, it never hurts to know enough to insult followers of politicians.

          3. "Are you some kind of masochist?"

            It's almost like you don't know us at all, John. 😉

        3. No one counts the non-votes. And if they do, they say you're a bad person.

          1. I've been told many a time that if i don't vote (or vote third party) then i don't get to complain - by people who went on to pull the lever for some lesser evil.

            1. Unlike Rick Grimes, I only have one question.

              Did you vote? THEN THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT.

              1. Have you woodchippered a hack and what were the circumstances?

    2. I vote for the entertainment value of it. I figure I can guess the outcome of an election by taking the inverse of my ballot, and I'm usually right!

      1. You should get a Netflix subscription, it's much more entertaining. Except for Episiarch coming over to "Netflix & chill" the whole run of Glee.

        1. Once I'm on your couch, I'm never leaving!

          (takes out sleeping bag and piss bucket)

          1. Yo! Guy on the couch! Did you kill my dog?

            1. I only made it about one third through that movie before I had to turn it off. I may smoke weed, but for some reason I can't stand most stoner movies (Cheech and Chong are the exception). They usually try WAY too hard.

              1. I would not have guessed that. Then again it's been awhile since I've seen it, so it may not be as good as I remember.

        2. I swear I spend more time looking for something to watch than actually watching anything when I turn on Netflix.

          1. First world problems, homes. The wife and i maxed out our queue but never seem to actually watch anything on it.

            1. Last week my girlfriend turned me on to the show Spartacus, the entire run of which is on Netflix. Highly recommend if you've never seen it. For a show that's entire raison d'etre is sex and violence, even far above and beyond something like Game of Thrones, it has some brilliant writing and acting. And naked Lucy Lawless.

              1. I'll have to check it out, though the Lucy Lawless bit would've been more interesting to me about fifteen years ago.

                1. Check it out. LL aged much better than most.

    3. Six of Iowa's couscous were determined by coin flip.

      1. New crops in Iowa?

      2. What the fuck does that have to do with the "value" of your vote for the general election? Let's also not forget that the electoral college can reverse even that.

        Your vote for the president doesn't. Mean. Anything. If you insist that it does, you need to go back to math class.

        1. "general election" was not explicit in OP.

    4. Some of us enjoy mentally masturbating in polling booths, you monster.

        1. I swear, the fleshlight was already there when I showed up.

      1. Or actually masterbating at the poles.

        1. "Florida Man arrested for indecent exposure at a tour group from Krakow"

  15. I'm voting for Bernie in the VA primary because:

    1. Rand dropped out
    2. Hillary

    1. Can't you just pound nails into your head, like a normal person?

      1. That's how i'm going to spend the next nine or so months.

        1. Jesus. It just occurred to me that i could impregnate a woman tonight and the baby could quite possibly be born by the time this goddamned election would still not have ended.

  16. Can we get a list of all his tax increases? Also does he actually meet and talk with folks? All i have seem him do is go on diatribes and no one can ask follow up

    1. All i have seem him do is go on diatribes and no one can ask follow up

      To me this is one of his most infuriating qualities (of which there are definitely more than a few). Every time I hear him talk, he comes off like he's delivering some sort of profound wisdom to righteously school you with. I don't think the pissy old crank has ever actually listened to anybody in his entire life.

      1. See papaySF clued me on to this. So i started looking around, and it appears he really has anger issues. He gets mad if anyone is able to challenge him...which is why i think he does the diatribe way.

      2. See papaySF clued me on to this. So i started looking around, and it appears he really has anger issues. He gets mad if anyone is able to challenge him...which is why i think he does the diatribe way.

      3. I dont think he is a nice person at all. He just repeats the same thing over and over and over.

        1. He's a bitter old ideologue who never succeeded at anything in life (or was even really employed) until he slipped and fell into the mayoralty of Burlington at the age of 40. His rise through both houses of Congress to his current candidacy for President speaks less to his personal qualities and more to the absolute shittiness of politics.

          1. I adore this headline: Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money. No idea how accurate it is, but it does indeed paint a picture of a loser who fell into power.

            1. He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife's. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

              This boggles my scrotum.

              1. The guy's been rolling that credit card debt over since the '70s, despite making enough money as a Congressman and then Senator that he could have paid it all off decades ago - and yet he wants to decide how everyone else should manage their money? Sorry, no. Fuck off, Bernie.

              2. Yeah, that right there should disqualify him - "you have zero grasp of your own finances, you are not allowed near tax revenue".

  17. I refuse to vote for any candidate in a party that needs a primary election. Fuck any party that can't figure out who to run without wasting government resources on election processes.

  18. Believe it or not... Bleeding Hearts Libertarians has been much more critical of Bernie Sanders than Reason. Seriously, here's a sample of their headlines:

    Rich Plutocrat Bernie Sanders Hates the Poor but Loves Power

    Evil Uncle Bernie Fiddles about on Huff Post

    The first article starts like this:

    Bernie Sanders, a rich 1-percenter plutocrat from Vermont, craves political power. His main goal in life is to hold as much power as he can over other people, and to do so, he prostitutes himself, trading political favors for campaign donations.

    I mean, shit. I might have to send them a donation for that.

    1. Well that's only Brennan, who dropped any pretense a while back and now just mostly needles leftist. And bless him for that.

  19. Is new hampshire winner take all?

    1. No, for either major party.

  20. I agree with everything except "Being a commander-in-chief, he would minister our foreign policy much differently than Obama or Bush." Yeah, he would "minister" differently, but the president conducts foreign policy as president, not as "commander in chief." The president is commander in chief of the armed forces, not of the country. The more our military shrinks (in size only, not in cost, alas), the more militaristic we become. Let's skip the "commander in chief" jive, shall we?


  21. "Over at The Daily Beast (disclosure: I'm a columnist there), Andrew Kirell struggles valiantly to make "the libertarian case for Bernie Sanders,"


    Even a fucking socialist is more popular than any libertarian candidate.

    Libertarians are like the girl at the party willing to give blow jobs if it meant hanging out with the cool people.

    1. Libertarians could have tried taking over media, education and bureaucracy, too, but it would have been counter to their principles. Socialists had no such qualms, and hey, it worked. It'll be hilarious if 25 years after the end of Soviet empire US gets their first socialist* president.

      *fine, Corporatist, whoever pointed that out, it is much closer.

      1. Libertarians spend their entire lives waiting for the "libertarian moment" to arrive. For being people who pride themselves on having a firm grasp on reality and human nature, they have utterly fantastical views of government and politics. There never has been nor there ever will be a "libertarian moment" anymore than there has ever been a conservative or progressive moment. That is not how politics works. Politics is an endless series of small battles and retrenchments. No cause is ever truly won or truly lost. Progressives get this and are masters of playing the long game. Progressives are utterly relentless in their pursuit of power and are forever willing to accept the short term gain knowing they eventually will come back and ask for and get more.

        Libertarians do none of that. They pride themselves on their "principles" and unwillingness to settle for short term gains and are forever waiting for their big moment to arrive. This is why they lose.

        1. I think John is on point.

          I marvel at how dedicated progs are.

          The other day on the news they were out in force in the streets 'fighting for public education'.

          Hard to think we can round up the gang here let alone a movement to fight for our principles.

          1. Hard to think we can round up the gang here

            Well, unless it has something to do with consuming alcohol.

            1. *perks up at mention of alcohol*

        2. The first presidential election I could vote in was 1988. I really had no idea what a "libertarian" was. I was a non-religious conservative who loved Reagan and thought Bush I was just going to continue Reagan, and of course Dukakis was a fucking clown.
          Then from about 1992 on I became a "libertarian" and even played around with being a "Libertarian". But John is spot on. Look at Nick's whole schtick. I mean in his view, in a few short years, we might be as free as Somalia!

          1. To be fair, Dukakis was a fucking clown.

        3. Libertarians spend their entire lives waiting for the "libertarian moment" to arrive.

          It's coming John, and there will be a poll of millennials to loosely prove it.

        4. The "libertarian moment" was September 17, 1787. It's largely been all downhill since then.

      2. First corporatist president? That ship arguably sailed a while ago.

      3. I prefer the National(ist) Socialist label for Bernie.

      4. Corporatism is fascism...

  22. Winston is going to be so upset

    1. But how ever would we be able to tell?????

      1. I honestly don't understand the near universal vitriol towards Winston. Granted, the man displays a complete lack of humor on these boards but he's not exactly alone in exclusively indulging in grievance mongering. Just saying...

  23. Two words. Supreme Court! While GOP appointed judges have bucked their party for good or bad (calling justice Roberts) the DEMOCRATIC appointments will always vote in lockstep wih the administration if it is DEM. I am far more afraid of a Sanders court then a Cruz or Trump court. Especially since the Grand Coward Party even if they hold the Senate will be to afraid to strike down or Bork any of Sanders nominees cause they will appear mean.

    1. And remember, at least a quarter of the Republican court nominees turn out to be Progs once they are on the court. No Democratic nominee ever turns out to be anything but a Prog hack. Outside of Sotoymayor being surprisingly good on criminal justice issues, every Democratic court nominee has turned out to be exactly what they were supposed to be, mindless Prog voting drones.

      We really can't be sure about what a Republican President will put on the court. We can however be certain what a Democratic President will do to the court.

      1. Not appoint ku-klux antiabortionists?

    2. What always strikes me as ridiculous is that, while there is an ongoing intellectual debate among "conservative" justices on the Court, they are demonized for supposedly voting in lockstep (they don't), while the philosophically incoherent "liberal" justices are guaranteed to support whatever government agenda is put forward without question or criticism from the punditry.

      1. Sotomayor is not a lockstep vote with the other "liberal" justices, but sadly only on one issue.

    3. I would not trust Trump to make any picks for the SC, especially justices who will be supportive of civil liberties issues or property rights.

      1. Remember though Kelo was the progressive side of the court. Again it is for me what I would be less afraid of. Under a Sanders court there would be a whole new parade of "rights" that the government will suddenly get. Notice I say government not people. The only "rights: the people would gain is the right to take from others. A Sanders court would find that the government has the right to prevent speech it considers harmful to individuals. It would find the government has the right to control a variety of aspects of your life via unelected bureaucrats. A trump court might not be great but I would take it over a Sanders court.

  24. From Wikipedia:

    Sanders appeared in a cameo role in the 1988 comedy-drama film Sweet Hearts Dance, playing a man who distributes candy to young trick-or-treaters.[217]

    Apparently, my identity has been outed.

    1. And younger the girl, more they like Bernie. Hmmm. Cue Hillary emerge at rally as...Old Lady With Candy?

  25. But I've been assured in various comment threads, multiple times, that surely this den of COZMOZ!1!11!!! would be publishing "The Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders" at some point this election cycle. Huh...

  26. Is there a libertarian case for the guy who votes with Hilary Clinton 93% of the time?

  27. But after 2-4 years of "gridlock," Bernie's successor will likely be among the worst slavers because America will want to elect someone who will GET THINGS DUN!!!

    1. Events have a way of coming to a head and forcing decisions. So, I would not count on gridlock to save us from the Bern.

      1. That too, yeah.

  28. Just visit Bernie's website. He spells out how he would spend 2 TRILLION more per year, because apparently, federal spending is 50 percent too low for the good life.

    1. I've been assured on facebook that Bernies plan will make America great per a "top" economist. I don't know what to even say to that

      1. You've got to spend money to make money, JB! Also, equality! And fair wages!

        1. Wow. I've been working hard all this time and what I should have done is maxed out a bunch of credit cards and lived in luxury . It's so simple an idiot could understand it!

      2. That top economist is saying if bern enacts his proposals:

        3.8 pct unemployment or essentially full
        5.3 pct growth per year
        23 pct increase in median wage
        Budget surplus

        Very legit!

        Gerald friedman is an absolute joke

        1. Checked his rate my prof page. All the reviews say it is fun, he doesnt teach econ, gives easy As and shares opinions that really have nothing to do.

          Sounds like a joke of a class. But we need free college as education is important!

        2. Wow. All that by being another Hugo Chavez.

        3. Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies.

      3. Yeah funny the Top Economist they quote is the guy who came up with the plan. Kinda like asking Montgomery if Market Garden was a good idea.

  29. Bernie would unleash the great and mighty power of the Magic Multiplier Effect. When government takes your money and rolls it through its sage machinery and then spends it there is a magical thing that happens where more value is gained than if you had spent it yourself. Result: total economic bounty and wonderfulness.

    1. Observe the conjugation in the future tense. Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies.

  30. Typically, you can't run for a party's nomination unless you are actually a member of that party.

    Has this been waived, explicitly, for Bernie? Could the Dem establishment be holding this in reserve as a way to block him if it looks like Hillary might actually lose?

    1. I don't think there's such a thing as membership in the major parties' national organiz'ns, except a token membership I've heard of in the Republican Nat'l Committee that just gets you a card in return for a donation, no actual say in its fx.

      1. You heard right. At least that's the way it was in 1979, before someone on campus revealed that there was a THIRD party out there, not communist and not christianofascist.

  31. Why would Republicans help Sanders on social issues? On pot legalization, Rand Paul took more of the decriminalization and "let states decide" position. He fell just short of full blown federal recognition. And he took a similar position on SSM. Amash and the more libertarian republicans are probably on the same camp.

    Neither Sanders or Trump will get support from GOP controlled congress on their zanier ideas. But unlike Trump's proposal for massive deportations, Sander's siren call on free stuff wont be dead on arrival. Since the public is skeptical about full on socialist ideas, he'll probably propose something more watered down and populist. Not even Obama could pass single payer, so he cobbled together something that resembled it.

    The public loves free stuff, and as long as Sanders is pushing for it, some of it will bear fruits.

  32. If the choice is Sanders vs. Trump - I will vote for Sanders.
    If it is Sanders vs. Bush/Christie/Rubio - I will vote for Sanders, or possibly libertarian.
    Sanders vs. Cruz - I might consider voting for Cruz

    Hillary vs. Cruz- Cruz
    Hillary vs. Rubio- reluctantly Rubio
    Hillary vs. Bush or Christie - Libertarian or stay home!

    Keep in mind that congress could flip to the democrats, esp. if Trump is the nominee and alienates enough voters with the feces he spews. If that scenario looks imminent, I am not so sure I will vote at all.

    1. Short version: a vote for Sanders

    2. Socialists are the stated enemy of the freedom movement. Any one who would vote for a socialist over someone less radical is an idiot.

    3. The choice is the same as ever: man up and vote libertarian, or cave to the fascists and socialists and waste your vote like the rest of the collectivists. Donkeys and elephants are herd animals, like soviet and national socialists.

  33. Bern wouldn't be so bad in that there wouldn't be a lot he'd "get done" either domestically or internationally. However, he wouldn't veto any spending, and who knows who he might nominate to judgeships who might get thru? (Always a crap shoot on court nominations.) And no chance to repeal Obamacare. But fortunately he'd have no coat tails.

    Cruz would present a good chance to repeal Obamacare. But Trump would probably sign a simple repeal bill too, & would be less likely to involve us in foreign wars. But who knows if Trump would even threaten to veto any major appropriation?

    Still, I'm now hoping for a Trump win out of curiosity & sheer cussedness. Who knows how he'd turn out? I'll take a chance on its being gulags if there's also a chance he'd make all drugs & medical devices non-prescription. I'll take a chance on a wall keeping people both out & in, if there's also a chance he'd effectively shut the BATFE & TSA. Sanders would be something of a curiosity satisfier too, but not really because of a hostile Congress.

    It's Hillary's election that'd be too horrible to imagine, not just because she'd be POTUS, but also for the precedent it'd set. She'd pave the way for Presidents Manson, Madoff, Maddox & Mason (C.Vernon).

    1. This is stupid thinking. A socialist will not respect any constitutional limits. They call their movement a revolution for a reason. They mean to take away your Liberty you tools. Stop this nonsense. Yes Cruz is better. Yes Rubio is better. Yes even Trump is better. Please don't be this stupid three elections in a row. The lesser of two evils is just that: lesser evil. I will pick lesser evil each time.

      1. I will do what is right every time, Hitler and Stalin to the contrary notwithstanding.

  34. You can stump for Bernie, or whoever, all you want, but I am still going to do the the most unpopular thing for a Libertarian to do...vote Libertarian.

    1. That is at least reasonable.

      1. Especially if you live in a blue state, like me.

  35. Oh, c'mon. Be a hopey-changey liberaltarian so that I can tell you to F*** O**.

    1. The Landover Baptist Church website is at a different URL...

  36. When I checked at istandwith.com, my values overlapped with Sanders' at 90%. That's not too surprising, given his stance on personal liberty issues, which is better than ANY of the candidates, Paul included.

    However, the idea of voting for him is a non-starter, mostly because of his anti-business paranoia. The crowning moment was his campaign's refusal to use Microsoft software to tally votes in the Iowa primary because, after all, they are a (ooooooo scary) BIG BUSINESS, and they might, you know, change the votes somehow, because reasons.

    1. Question 7: Do you feel guilty when you masturbate?

    2. istandwith.com doesn't ask the right questions. For example, sure, climate change is man-made, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it.

  37. Wouldn't the real campaign finance reform that seems to be a priority of his be the biggest benefit to future Libertarian candidates?...or is that just another pipe dream?

    1. No. Campaign finance reform basically means putting big media corporations and incumbent politicians in charge of political messaging. It's hard to imagine anything more harmful to new political ideas.

      1. It's my understanding that's what he wants to eliminate. Recognizing he's got a lot of other issues, but in the context of finding some strategic reason to vote for him, if he is able to do what he says it sounds like a third party candidate wouldn't be up against those obstacles you name. Of course he'd be telling people what to do with their $$ so not in line w principle but could accelerate the movement....

  38. Any republican over sanders or Clinton.

    1. No. Faced with a choice between National Socialism and Soviet Socialism I will continue to vote Libertarian. That way I get ten times the law-changing bang for my vote. Spoiler votes change the laws. Votes to reaffirm socialism reaffirm socialism.

  39. Comrades, under the rule of Bernie, you will be free to choose what central committee decides what's best for you.
    Isn't this what freedom is all about?

  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. "The things that he would be able to direct in the White House would accord with libertarian values. Being a commander-in-chief, he would minister our foreign policy much differently than Obama or Bush; he would be much more likely change the scheduling for marijuana, which the president can do; and he'd be in a much better position to push criminal justice reform.

    No, he wouldn't, because in addition to being confused on economic and social issues, Sanders is also incompetent. The military, Wall Street, Congress, the DEA, the FBI, and the CIA would have a field day with him, and he would have no idea what's going on.

  42. A Bernie win would demonstrate to the tiny thinking minority within the Republican party that letting fanatical infiltrators from the Prohibition Party take over complete control of the GOP in 1928 was stupid. But letting the lesson taught then by the Liberal Party and now by the growing LP and three consecutive defeats go to waste would he idiotic. It is time to hand the ku-kluxers and televangelists back to the Prohibition Party or cut them adrift on the Tea Party raft.
    If what God's Own Prohibitionists really want is to kill kids, destroy the economy in orgies of asset-forfeiture and shoot up abortion clinics--rather than win elections--that suits me just fine. I'll watch them and their crosses go up in flames.

  43. 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. I am sure that would never happen.

  45. My roomate's sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here.....
    Clik this link in Your Browser........

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

  46. 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

  47. I am sure that would never happen.

  48. I'm actually a good bit surprised how much misinformation commentors have in this thread. Fear of everything being owned by the government under Sanders proposals and a lot of you apparently believe the satire articles about kale, deodorant, etc...

    Perhaps, if you will think through what I'm about to say with logic and reason maybe it will help you realise what is really going on. Single payer healthcare is something all other industrialized nations have, and because of it they have far lower healthcare costs. Most also have free higher education, as we once did in the USA as well. Because of former politicians who were all for bigger government found ways to capitalise on both by making them more expensive and therefore taxable, we have our current system. At them moment if you have health insurance essentially a corporation controls your care options and basically owns your health. Corporations also own your higher education. Those corporations are attempting to own our government, many would argue they already do. Those corporations want bigger government.

  49. The only way to curtail that is to take two things away from the private sector, healthcare and education. A single payer system would open up more options for all of us. A doctor couldn't just say "I don't accept your insurance" because there would only be one insurance and they would quickly lose all their patients to other doctors. Education and healthcare would not financially destroy most citizens, meaning they would have more financial resources and therefore more control over their lives.

    Take into consideration also how he is funding his campaign. He only relies on private citizens donations, meaning the people own his campaign. That is an incredibly libertarian stance. The only businesses that he would regulate would be the large corporations that are currently harming the average American, and small businesses would have many more resources should they want to take advantage of them. That too, is more of a libertarian stance than not.

  50. So is Sanders a libertarian? No. Does he have some very non-libertarian stances? Yes, naturally since he is not one. Is he a "lesser-of-all-evils" for libertarians as opposed to the other candidates? In fact he actually is. Libertarians will get more of what they want from him than they will from any of the other candidates. Will they get everything they want? No, but when have they ever gotten everything they want? I'm not a libertarian, I'm not a republican or democrat or even registered independent. I don't like up with any particular group, but see the good and bad in all of them, except maybe the hard right wing big money republicans, not sure I see much good in them...

    Sadly the best case for Sanders with the libertarian vote is as a lesser of evils, but isn't that how most of our elections, regretfully, go?

    Bare in mind, I'm not saying you have to vote for Sanders, or that I'll wave my finger at you if you won't. I'm just saying to weigh what we will get from each candidate (and please don't buy into all the nonsense online about ANY of the candidates, they all have a lot of false things said of them) and perhaps you will realise that the case for him is stronger than the case for anyone else. Or, if you really just want to stick by Rand Paul, I can absolutely understand that. Write in his name. That's one less vote for someone dreadful like Hillary, or Trump, or Cruz. I can promise you, we will all lose more freedom with them than we will with anyone else.

  51. 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.