Justin Amash

Rep. Justin Amash Attempts to Rally Libertarian Conservatives to Sen. Ted Cruz

An endorsement that emphasizes points of agreement.

|

Justin Amash
Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has consistently been in Sen. Rand Paul's corner both in Congress and during the senator's run for president. Now that Paul's out of the running, who does Amash think libertarian conservatives should look to in the race?

Amash answered that question today in an opinion piece at the Independent Journal. He is throwing his support to Sen. Ted Cruz, noting that while he doesn't agree with Cruz (especially in civil liberties and foreign policy), the senator treats limits in government authority more seriously than some other candidates. Here's some of his reasoning:

Take, for instance, Ted's opposition to cronyism and corporate welfare. Unlike his competitors, Ted understands that when we allow the government to pick winners and losers, the American people lose. He isn't afraid to challenge the rampant corruption in Washington, and he isn't afraid to champion economic freedom. Ted won the Iowa caucuses with a principled stand against subsidies, even though pundits warned that no one could win the state without pandering to the ethanol lobby.

On civil liberties and foreign policy, Ted and I don't always agree. But he was one of only ten Republican senators to stand up for our rights by supporting Rand Paul's amendment to kill the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015—also known as CISA—a cyberspying bill that violates the privacy of all Americans. And Ted has been a stalwart defender of our Fifth Amendment right to due process, strongly opposing the government's asserted power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial.

Like me, Ted believes that the United States must be well defended and respected around the globe. He stands with our troops and will not put them in harm's way unless necessary to protect our country. Unlike some other Republican candidates, Ted opposed intervening in Libya and voted against arming Syrian rebels, and he will not use our Armed Forces to engage in nation building.

But will other libertarians come along? The problem may be that Cruz appears to be compromising some of the more libertarian-leaning elements of his platform in order to try to dig into Donald Trump's populist authoritarian appeal. Just in the past 30 days Cruz appears to have backtracked and turned against much-needed federal sentencing reform to reduce mandatory minimums, said Apple needed to comply with the FBI's demand that they provide access to San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook's iPhone, despite the potential privacy repercussions for the rest of us, and just last night declared that he, like Trump, would attempt to deport 12 million illegal aliens, an utterly impossible (and unpopular) goal. And let's not forget he recently called Edward Snowden a "traitor."

Cruz has been clearly making a play for libertarian conservatives like Amash, and Amash does make some good points about where Cruz has historically been good on issues of liberty. But even though Cruz has occasionally been an ally of Paul's in the Senate, Paul himself has declined to endorse him (or anybody else) after dropping out of the race.

Read Amash's full endorsement here. And check out Reason magazine's April issue, hitting the stands now, for Matt Welch's lengthy interview with the congressman. If you're a digital subscriber, you can read it right now, in fact. If you're not, it's only $15 a year ($10 if you're a magazine subscriber) and you can get such insights as this from Amash:

reason: You've been standing athwart attempts to extend the surveillance state and yelling stop. Tell us a little bit what the hell happened at the end of December.

Amash: What happened was they put together a gigantic bill and decided at the last moment to sneak in a surveillance bill. It's a surveillance bill that they've always presented under the guise of being a cybersecurity bill, but if you talk to experts in this field, they say this isn't going to help cybersecurity. It's primarily going to advance government surveillance of Americans. Under the new cyber bill, basically anything you share with a private company can be shared with the government without any liability to the company. So the company could put out a user agreement saying they're not going to share your information and then go share it with the government, and they're totally immune from liability.

There are people who will tell you false things about how it's not anything other than zeros and ones and that kind of data. That's not true. Under the bill, you can share whole email messages with the government. You can share metadata. You can share text messages. The good-faith standard is so low that they can share it as long as they don't know that it contains personally identifiable information—and the only way you'd know is if you actually looked at everything. So as long as they dump things they don't know, they're good to go.

Sneaking it in at the last minute represents everything that's wrong with Washington. It was over 100 pages long in a 2,000-page bill, and most of my colleagues didn't even know it was in there. I worked hard to spread the message. Maybe some significant portion figured it out before they voted, but certainly at the beginning most of them had no clue.

To give you an example of how people are left out of the loop, I asked the chairman of Homeland Security whether the cyber bill was going to be included in the omnibus. And he didn't know.

NEXT: Joe Biden in 1992: No SCOTUS Nominations 'Until After the November Election Is Completed'

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. Its like he’s trying to convince vegans to come to the Chili Festival.

    1. FWIW, I make an excellent vegan chili. I think I got most of the recipe from a Cooks Illustrated a few years ago. Generously increasing the chile content from ‘Yankee’ to ‘recent immigrant to Texas’, of course. (CI probably thinks ketchup is spicy, for cryin’ out loud.) I also make a decent beef chili without beans, as God intended. But I see your point.

      I was just pulling up a chair to get ready for the gnashing of teeth and excommunication of Amash from Libertaria.

      1. ” I make an excellent vegan chili.”

        I hate to break it to you…. but that’s not actually “chili”. That’s something ‘chili flavored’

        1. It’s not mayonnaise without EGGS!!!!

          1. WHERE MAH EGGWHITES GAWN

            I am also old fashioned about vocabulary. I feel like if you need to change the essence of something, find a new word. Don’t destroy the old ones in the process. they still have utility which shouldn’t be lost.

            That said, I’ve never quite understood the desire by vegans to “meat flavor”/meat-simulacra their foods. If you’re so keen on stripping your diet of animal products, maybe you should stop molding your bean-sprout/tofu into the shape of hamburgers and hot-dogs

            1. Agreed on the meat-esqe stuff. Just eat your veggies.

            2. I never thought about that. It’s kinda funny.

            3. I don’t have a problem with tofu burgers or dogs, since those aren’t shaped like an animal. My issue is with tofurkey.

              1. Mine was made with seitan and tvp. It turned out to be a reasonable imitation of meat. Maybe not as eerie a resemblance to meat as Buddhist vegetarian restaurants can pull off, but a decent facsimile. And delicious. De gustibus.

                It’s just another form of cooking.

              2. “since those aren’t shaped like an animal

                Oh, yes it is Lisa. A MAGIC animal.

                I think you misunderstand what i mean =

                the notion of replacing “hot dogs and hamburgers” with ‘visually similar’ vegan options is trying to appeal to consumers by *providing the same experience* that they got from consuming the meat-product.

                You might argue that these are just convenient shapes for certain consumption opportunities, and you wouldn’t be wrong – but the problem is that they do it over and over again in every way. They’re always ‘dressing up’ what they’re eating in Meat-clothes and meat-concepts (“vegan chili”) Why not call it what it is = some sort of “tex-mex veggie stew”?. Its almost as if they *mentally prefer the original*, or are selling it to themselves as “just as good”.

                have-cake/eat-cake. Note the person striving for “meat texture” above. why? If you really prefer eating non-meats, why is it they’re endlessly flavoring them and texturing them like flesh?

                1. Because “chili” as the term is commonly used is just shorthand for ten mex stew. Trying to compare veg chili to meat analogies like veggie dogs is stupid. If you don’t understand the difference then you’re just being dense.

                  1. “Trying to compare veg chili to meat analogies like veggie dogs is stupid”

                    You were looking for the term “analogs”

                    No one was “comparing” them. I was pointing out that vegetarians, despite their ostensible rejection of Animal-Foods, retain an obvious meat-fetish and try and routinely dress up their veggie products like meat-dishes

                    What’s stupid is playing along with other people’s equivocations to pretend there’s nothing obviously funny about that.

                  2. Chili, as should obviously be apparent, refers to a soup-like concoction, with meat or without, that is flavored with chilis, which are plant foods.

      2. I find that TVP makes an excellent substitute for ground beef. The trick is to sautee it in olive oil (and garlic and whaever spices you like) before adding it to the stew. The TVP retains a more meaty texture when it’s oil-soaked before hitting the stew liquid.

        1. You’re dead to me.

        2. I’ll throw a couple handfuls of TVP into my veg chili if I know that picky meat eaters are going to be expecting that texture, but in general my go to meat sub is black lentils.

    2. What could be more libertarian-moment-ish than a carpet bombing Canadian as president?

      How about voting for the actual libertarian, a reputable governor named Gary Johnson? (assuming they nominate him, you never know….)

  2. Amash’s feelings about Cruz are pretty much the same as mine.

    I think with the Apple thing, I will go back and look at the circumstances, but I have a feeling he isn’t familiar with the broader issues. I think all he probably heard was that there was a valid warrant issued by a judge, therefore Apple should unlock the phone. Obviously I can’t read his mind.

    I am disappointed with his recent stance on sentencing reform. And calling Snowden a traitor. Though he did vote the right way when push came to shove. He may be more “interventionist” than many here would like. But he seems not to be so quick to just bomb and drone people like Obama has been. Maybe he will change like W did after 9/11. I don’t know. But I have no confidence in anyone else in this area. Rubio is more neo-con, and Trump is a wild-card (and in love with protectionism). Hillary is Obama 2.0 and Bernie is, well the national(ist) socialist candidate.

    1. “I will go back and look at the circumstances, but I have a feeling he isn’t familiar with the broader issues.”

      Or he’s just a typical national security Republican who will sacrifice virtually anything if you say the magic T-word.

      1. Or he’s just a typical national security Republican who will sacrifice virtually anything if you say the magic T-word.

        That guy doesn’t filibuster CISA, as Cruz did. Nor would he ever open his mouth against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Again, like Cruz did.

        I think he got bad info on the Apple situation, like many commentators on information security who aren’t themselves experts in infosec. I could be wrong on that, and Cruz is anti-encryption, but I haven’t heard that yet.

        My opinions are pretty close to Bear’s take on the situation, FWIW, with the caveat that I agree with Cruz that Snowden’s a traitor. Snowden’s leaks—and God knows whatever he told the Russians privately—put sources and collection methods in jeopardy, and did this country’s national security a grave harm. That said, the sin the American Gov’t was committing against its own people was so great, so overwhelming, and Snowden had no other reasonable means to combat it, that I think his treason was justified. But damn, I’d have liked for there to have been some other way he could have broken the news to the American people.

        1. The traitors are the people that prosecute whistleblowers, thus giving Snowden the choice of keeping his mouth shut or doing what he did. The traitors are guys like Clapper that lied to Congress about the programs that were in place. Somehow nobody except a handful of libertarians are calling for their heads.

        2. The problem I have with Snowden is the release of everything not related to domestic spying. The two were completely separable and he chose not to. It’s possible to be a hero and a traitor simultaneously. Libertarians with their purported understanding of nuance should be capable of that.

          1. I don’t think he had much of a choice, NAS, once he was sitting in Moscow. Hard to tell Vlad, “Nope, I’m just going to tell you the stuff I want to. Oh, and how long can I stay rent free here?”

            And I agree with TLAH that the guys who would have disposed of him, had Snowden gone through channels to blow the whistle, should bear greater culpability. Ideally, Snowden could have brought these revelations to someone on the Intelligence Committee, with the patriotic duty to divulge some of them during open debate. But he didn’t, and consequently, Snowden did some pretty bad things too.

    2. He is still head and shoulders above any of the other GOP candidates, and head, shoulders, torso and dick above Trump, Hillary and Bernie.

  3. “But will other libertarians come along?”

    No. Cruz is a bible beating huxter that shouldn’t be trusTED.

    1. “Better than Trump” is not a particularly high bar to clear.

  4. Amash for VP? That would be pretty awesome but unlikely.

    1. Since President Cruz would undoubtedly get a lot of death threats from the supertolerant left, I would be ok with this.

  5. Does the Congressman have a take on Cruz 2.0?

  6. OT: Homeless guy wanders in off the street, addresses Seattle’s Downtown Association, while muttering says:

    “We are on the cusp of one of the biggest disruptions within the last hundred years,” he said. “Within the next five to 15 years, all cars will be electric. [They will go] from human-driven to self-driving, and [we will go] from owning to car-sharing. When you have that combination, the number of cars is going to shrink by 80 percent, the number of parking spots will shrink by 90 percent.”

    What was once only speculated in Hollywood films such as “Demolition Man,” or “Minority Report” is now being witnessed in reality. Seba notes that Mercedes is testing a self-driving semi-truck on Nevada freeways. Google recently announced that Kirkland will be the third city to test its own self-driving car technology.

    “Google has a built a car and has driven it a million-and-a-half miles without a single accident,” he said. “Actually, without causing a single accident. Human drivers have hit it 19 times.”

    http://mynorthwest.com/11/2918…..or-parking

    1. By the way, just an aside on the last part… that absolutely confirms my issue with self-driving cars being mixed in with human drivers. It’s accident avoidance. The stupidity of human drivers is endless, and this self-driving car has been in 19 accidents over 1.5 million miles. That’s one accident every 78,000 miles.

      I’m doing a rough calculation over the number of miles I’ve driven in my lifetime, and while I may not have personally driven 1.5 million miles, I may be up towards a million miles and the car I’ve been driving has been hit zero times. Zero. None.

      1. Your record is better than most. I’ve gotten rear ended 3 times in the last 200k while stopped at red lights. Not while stopping at a red light, where the guy behind you may have thought you would go through the yellow. While fucking parked at a red light, helpless to do anything by brace for impact.

        1. I would argue that’s high. Again, given your description, not within the realm of your fault, but that’s something that would give me PTSD if that shit happened to me 3 times in 200,000 miles. Since most cars these days can do about 200,000, that would mean that one car has been smashed 3 times?

          1. There’s a reason some people (me) pay $300 a year for insurance while others pay ten times that.

    2. “We have 100,000 public parking spaces in the downtown Seattle area ? gone. That’s 18 million square feet of land that we are going to get back,” he said. “What are we going to do with that? Greenspace? Affordable housing? Businesses?”

      More homeless camps? More used bike lanes?

      1. The inside of a parking garage makes terrible green space.

    3. “”Google has a built a car and has driven it a million-and-a-half miles without a single accident,” he said. “Actually, without causing a single accident. Human drivers have hit it 19 times.””

      Um…how can you determine this is the human drivers’ fault and not the fault of the car doing ridiculous shit that humans can’t avoid?

      1. I argue it doesn’t even matter. An accident every 78,000 miles– regardless of whose fault it is is a serious problem. Imagine if you were involved in an accident every 78,000 miles. Imagine what your insurance rates would look like.

        1. There has been no increase in my insurance rates as the a-holes rear-ended me while parked at a red light.

          1. Well, I guess there’s that saving grace.

        2. I argue it doesn’t even matter. An accident every 78,000 miles– regardless of whose fault it is is a serious problem.

          ^This^

          I dislike something so knowingly/admittedly complicated as driving being summarily described by one simplistic metric.

          I probably avoid an accident every year that is a result of conditions that the Google car doesn’t even operate in. I haven’t combed the data but I’ve probably avoided a couple in conditions it does operate in and got hit.

      2. BTW, I’ve known people who were involved in lots of accidents that weren’t their fault…

        I don’t like driving with them.

      3. Right, there’s no way Google would have paid anybody to accept fault regardless of circumstances. Being able to say “Google has a built a car and has driven it a million-and-a-half miles without a single accident” is extremely valuable, and Google abandoned that whole “don’t be evil” schtick several years ago.

      4. I’m guessing the Google car is following the traffic rules and obeying posted speed limits and stopping at red lights. People don’t expect that.

    4. What was once only speculated in Hollywood films such as “Demolition Man,” or “Minority Report” is now being witnessed in reality.

      Funny how both those movies were portrayals of futuristic dystopias that were hostile to individual liberties.

      1. Look, do you want to end up in some human-driver dominated, government-less dystopia like Fury Road, hmmm?!?!

        I didn’t think so.

        1. Better than getting fined for saying “fuck” or “shit”, or having to clean the latter with silver seashells. And how about that “virtual sex” and all-jingle radio?

          DM was indeed funny and downright scary at the same time.

    5. “We are on the cusp of one of the biggest disruptions within the last hundred years,” he said. “Within the next five to 15 years, all cars will be electric. [They will go] from human-driven to self-driving, and [we will go] from owning to car-sharing. When you have that combination, the number of cars is going to shrink by 80 percent, the number of parking spots will shrink by 90 percent.”

      I’ve gotta say, I’m very skeptical of that homeless guy’s predictions.

      Is there any reason to believe that in 15 year’s time all cars will be self-driven?

      1. No, because the average age of cars in the U.S. is 12. And that’s from Chrysler’s head of safety and automation research at an SAE event last year.

    6. Goodness, nothing bad could possibly come from this! It’s not like the cars could be hacked into for malicious purposes, right?

      Also, go fuck yourself if you think I’m ceding control over my movements to anyone else.

      1. It’s adorable that you think you’ll have a choice.

      2. I was reading some info on the Khmer Rouge last night… in their attempt to achieve social justice, they outlawed and appropriated all means of “private transportation” with the goal of reducing everyone to a kind of feudal “peasant equality”.

  7. I think there have been and are a lot worse choices than Cruz

    1. We have other candidates lowering the bar, and by “lowering” I mean “throwing into Lake Baikal.”

    2. This is pretty much what I am saying.

      Cruz is to libertarians as John Adams was to the Anti-Federalists.

      Contrast this with:
      Trump: Mussolini
      Hillary: Al Capone
      Bernie: Leon Trotsky
      Rubio: W all over again

      1. John Adams was a hermaphrodite who tried to marry the US to the British Crown.

        1. Wait, what?

  8. Choosing between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio would be like choosing where you want to be in the human centipede.

    1. Is there really any choice other than front?

    2. And choosing between Hillary and Bernie is like choosing …

  9. “Libertarian Conservative” is an oxymoron. Libertarians eschew the right-left divide. Has Amash never heard of the world’s smallest political quiz?

    And no, Cruz is not worth supporting. Not even close.

    1. In a normal year, perhaps not. But someone has to stop Trump or Hillary.
      At least Cruz would probably pick a good Supreme Court appointment.
      And note that it would not change anything with respect to gay marriage or abortion, since he’s replacing Scalia.
      But he might appoint someone who is less friendly to eminent domain and civil asset forfeiture than Scalia.

    2. I hold just a few views that are more “conservative” than libertarian, but none that are more “liberal” (in today’s sense of the word) than libertarian. He doesn’t have an (L) next to his name, so he can believe whatever he wants. Agree about Cruz, but he might just be the least terrible on either side. Won’t be voting for any of them, but doesn’t mean I can’t hope that if one of them has to win it is he.

  10. My protest vote is going to be taking a shit in the booth.

    1. So you are going to vote for Cruz.

  11. Cruz is a tough one to read, is he a libertarian who panders to socons or a socon who panders to libertarians?

    1. He’s a living mass of Silly Putty with no stable center. That’s why his face looks like that.

      1. If only we had a pair of GWB’s magic soul-revealing goggles.

          1. These may be more appropriate for the 2016 All Identity Politics All The Time elections:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKJO06CYxdA

        1. Given the current slate I’d seriously consider comic book/anime/video-game characters along with superheros, trolls, hobbits, wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, or any other fictional or supernatural being as being a viable alternative.

      2. He’s a living mass of Silly Putty with no stable center. That’s why his face looks like that.

        Somebody kept pressing his face into the comics page and now it’s all fucked up.

      3. Like the bastard son of Ronald Reagan and Robin Williams?

  12. Cruz is probably the best we’re gonna get at this point. And there is nothing particularly good from a libertarian view point on the candidacies of Rubio and Trump.

    Rubio is bad or worse on nearly all the issues listed here. On surveillance Rubio’s a cheerleader for the NSA and has backed nearly every government power grab in regard to cyber security. On Criminal Justice Reform he’s an unreconstructed Drug Warrior, he throws rhetorical support towards moderation on mass incarceration but then calls for federal crack downs on states that have legalized pot.

    Rubio’s calls for opposing the Russians, Assad, and ISIS at the same time in Syria are dangerously idealistic. Unless he can show that there is a moderate coalition government ready and willing to take over from Assad, fight off ISIS, and avoid Iranian influence without America coming in and staying for a decade or more then I’m not optimistic about another American intervention in that conflict.

    As for Trump, I don’t think anyone really knows what he’s going to do. But his stated principles on these issues including calls to boycott Apple and his defense of Eminent Domain suggest that his governance would be anything but libertarian.

    Cruz is an imperfect panderer whose feints to libertarianism are damaged by his attempts at being the “catch all” candidate for conservatives. But compare him to his opponents and its easy to see he’s the best we got.

    1. I’m… confused… Trump represents the collapse of party identity. But everything you write here suggests that party identity may have been (sadly) the best thing we had going.

      1. On the plus side, it looks like the Democratic party’s identity is going down the shitter too.
        Slightly more slowly, but the Bernie Sanders thing is causing some cracks in the foundation.
        The crazies have taken over both parties. Or maybe the internet is making everyone crazy. Or something.
        Everyone’s a true believer these days. Nobody’s pragmatically voting for the moderate who can win.

        1. Until we get to August and its Rubio vs. Clinton, battle of the establishment candidates.

          1. There are signs that the Democrats are already shaking off the Bernie hangover, but Trump’s lead looks solid from where I’m standing.

      2. Not really. If the identity of the Republican Party had been defined by politicians like a Mitch Daniels, a Jim DeMint, or some other fiscal conservative then perhaps that GOP’s party identity may have benefited us. The same goes for the populists, If the Party’s identity had been defined by a Pat Buchanan, or a Mike Huckabee, then the Trump supporters wouldn’t be revolting right now. But the GOP hasn’t been a fiscally conservative party for awhile now, and the party has pandered to the populists without giving them anything they want for years. The result is of course Donald Trump. Leaving Fiscal Conservatives now forced to choose between the “unappealing” Ted Cruz or the now clear heir to the Bush Legacy, Marco Rubio. So yeah, we’re screwed!

    2. Unfortunately he’s just so, so very unlikeable, and thus I’m not sure he could beat Hil-dog or Teh Bern.

      To most people elections are just grown-up popularity contests, and that sure ain’t Ted’s strong suit. He manages to combine a more punchable face than Trump with the devious mannerisms of Mr Burns and smarm of pajama-boy. The whole thing is more cringe-worthy than watching Hil-dog put on her “I’m a regular folk too, yuck, yuck” act.

  13. Sneaking it in at the last minute represents everything that’s wrong with Washington. It was over 100 pages long in a 2,000-page bill, and most of my colleagues didn’t even know it was in there. … I asked the chairman of Homeland Security whether the cyber bill was going to be included in the omnibus. And he didn’t know.

    Hmm. What’s Trump’s position on tar-and-feathering?

  14. Which candidate has the best record on eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, and criminal justice reform?
    Considering that whoever wins will likely get a Supreme Court appointment immediately (assuming the Republicans have a tiny backbone), let’s consider the candidates with respect to that issue.

    Commenters make your case in reply. I’m open minded.

    1. Cruz would easily be the best when choosing a court justice because he has a legal background and would probably end up with a justice who is at least very good on 1A, 2A and economic liberty.

      1. Yeah, but I want someone who is good on 4A and 5A.

        1. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

    2. Ted Cruz’s record despite his flip flops is still better than the rest of the field. John Kasich isn’t terrible on the issue of Criminal Justice reform but that’s about it.

      1. I like Cruz’s “let the states decide” stance on legal cannabis, but I fear he’s gonna eventually flip-flop on that too, just to earn brownie points with socons.

        1. I don’t think we have to worry too much about him flip flopping again. The reason why he flip flopped in favor of letting “the states decide” the first time was to appeal to “libertarian” leaning voters in the primaries. And with a number of states that still need to vote with libertarians voting in their primaries, particularly out west, I don’t see him flip flopping on this issue again. Keeping his “states’ rights” stance benefits him in a general election particularly in states like Colorado (a swing state that already legalized), and Nevada another swing state that also might legalize this year. Besides socons are already going to be happy with his positions on abortion, religious liberty, and immigratio. And if worst comes to worst he can always bring out Pat Robertson and Rick Perry, both support decriminalizing pot, and they can help mollify those voters.

    1. But but but Director Comey insisted he would just put the tip in.

    2. According to Wiki “***ERIC IS A FAG***” Pedia, the DOJ has previously successfully forced an “unnamed cell phone manufacturer” to do this.

  15. Cruz past positions sound like he is a better choice , but doubt he will/can do anything to advance libertarian principles except may be pick a better judge. Rubio presidency is going backwards to W. Trump is the wildcard,but his presidency will probably be a step towards ending duopoly of parties and help third parties. All of them of course needs to win against Clinton which i think is unlikely unless she ends up being charged with crime.

  16. its February and The great diminishing of libertarian standards Is happening now. If we can find it in our hearts to support a totally compromised, full-of-shit, authoritarian, Jeebus-thumping windbag who won’t we support?

    Principals over principles, I guess. I’m voting for Peace and Freedom Party because I hate the drug war and the military industrial complex. What do you guys believe in?

    1. If we can find it in our hearts to support a totally compromised, full-of-shit, authoritarian, Jeebus-thumping windbag who won’t we support?

      So you won’t be voting for Hillary, then?

      1. No. I have nothing against her personally and aren’t waging a yee-had against her like you are,but she’s uniquely awful on voting to send young people off to die in bullshit wars. So, no. You going for Cruz or Rubio?

        1. If the LP is on the ballot then I’ll vote for them. If not, probably write in “None of the Above”.

          1. Assuming the LP manages to nominate someone respectable.

        2. Bitch, I’m, voting for Gary Johnson.

          1. That’s probably where I’ll end up too.
            Unless by some miracle it looks like Bloomberg is going to win as an independent, and then I might vote for him just to fuck up the two party system.

    2. Not Roseanne Barr, that’s for sure.

  17. What a bunch of sad sacks right-wing libertarians must be. They pick a rainbow-bright philosophy with the commendable goal of limiting government and end up supporting slime in the sewer candidates love me Cruz. Who won’t you support?

    1. What a bunch of sad sacks rightleft-wing “libertarians” must be. They pick a rainbow-bright philosophy with the commendable goal of limiting government equality and end up supporting slime in the sewer candidates love me [sic] Cruz Stalin. Who won’t you support?

      1. No brownie points will be assigned if you say that I equated Cruz to Stalin, since I already thought of that and it’s not a particularly clever retort, anyway.

  18. Ted Cruz is a smarmy authoritarian dickbag. As much as i appreciate Amash’s defense of liberty, that doesn’t make Cruz any less of a smarmy authoritarian dickbag.

  19. Why on Earth would any libertarian vote for Cruz? How would that ever help to get a libertarian candidate to public financing thresholds? Please.

  20. Rand Paul was bad enough; but Cruz is beyond the pale. Amash has forfeited his cred, not that he cares.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.