Hit & Run

College Kids are Feeling the Bern

But they're willing to live with Hillary.


It's no secret that Bernie Sanders has won the hearts and minds of a majority of American college students. It's also becoming increasingly likely that he'll need to rely on a large turnout of young adults if he has any hopes of winning the presidency.

As Molly Ball wrote in The Atlantic:

In 2008, there were whole states Obama won on the strength of the youth vote. In North Carolina and Indiana, he won the under-30 vote and no other age group—but he carried both states in November because youth turnout was so high. That's the trick Sanders hopes to repeat, first in the primary and then in the general election.

Earlier this month, Reason TV covered the Democratic debate held on the campus of the University of New Hampshire in Durham, NH, where we spoke with supporters of both candidates:

The pro-Clinton crowd topped out at a modest 20-30, while the pro-Sanders group peaked at about 300 fervent demonstrators mainly focused on climate change and "keeping fossil fuels in the ground."

The Sanders supporters were loud, boisterous and frequently chanted in concert with a 7-piece marching band made up of middle-aged folks in colorfully eccentric attire. All of the demonstrators we spoke to were UNH students, many of whom would not commit to supporting Clinton if she ended up being the Democratic nominee. While they were all passionate about the environment, health care, and student loan relief, almost none of them were able to articulate how the democratic socialist senator from Vermont would be able to achieve or afford any of the policies they so passionately support.

You can watch these politically active college students express themselves in their own words in the video at the top of this page. 

NEXT: Hillary Clinton's South Carolina Victory Puts Her on Track to Win the Democratic Nomination

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

  1. "...the pro-Sanders group peaked at about 300 fervent demonstrators mainly focused on climate change and "keeping fossil fuels in the ground."

    "While they were all passionate... almost none of them were able to articulate how the democratic socialist senator from Vermont would be able to achieve or afford any of the policies they so passionately support."

    This just in! Socialism's supporters are morons. News at 11.

    1. More on the news at 13.

      1. +%#$%& FILM

        1. It isnt really news by the time it makes it to film , is it?

  2. """You can watch these politically active college students express themselves """

    Not every student can express themselves. How come I get the feeling that the British think that Orwell's 1984 is an instructional manual not a warning

    """Hampshire school calls police after pupil looks at UKIP website"""


    1. The school said it called 101 for advice after a student was viewing a range of different sites and was referred to a specialist team.

      The jokes write themselves.

    2. No wonder the British police are too busy to bust child predator rings operating in the open.

      They have their hands full just policing internet site views of a fringe political party.

      Priorities ya know.

    3. How come I get the feeling that the British think that Orwell's 1984 is an instructional manual not a warning

      They are SOOOO superior.

    4. ""If my son had been accessing these websites on a regular basis - then maybe there would be cause for concern," Mr Taylor [the dad] said.

      ""But it's a one-off incident and I don't think it merited such an extreme section of the police coming in.""

      Stick a fork in "Great" Britain, it's done.

  3. It's no secret that Bernie Sanders has won the hearts and minds of a majority of American college students.

    The big secret still seems to be that "college kids are idiots and no one should take them seriously"

    1. Bernie's the wild chick you pick up in the bar, Hillary's the girl you take home to meet your mother. Well, not you you, just if you're like the bastard child of the Marquis de Sade and Lucrezia Borgia, you're done four hits of the brown acid and wound up in a really bad bar and you keep your mother in several Tupperware containers in the refrigerator.

    2. That's why politicians seeks them out. They are naive, passionate and their ignorant, short term perspectives make them easily manipulated.

  4. "You can watch these politically active college students express themselves "

    Yeah, no thanks.

    1. I'd really rather read sarcastic comments about them. It will do less damage to my brain.

    2. So much this. I work with a guy who's a total Bern Victim. I've had to bite my tongue nearly off because I want so badly to call him in his bullshit: it isn't what's good for the most downtrodden, or what's good for the nation. It's because he believes that Bernie is gonna walk into the vault where they keep his student loan promissory note and hand it to him so he can rip it up. He's almost said so himself.

  5. This generation may be even worse than the 1968ers. Alright, fine, let's do socialism again for a couple decades, just so these idiots can learn why it doesn't work, again. I have to wonder what it is (if anything at all) that history textbooks say about the Soviet Union and Cuba that allows young people to reach adulthood with a positive view of socialism.

    1. It's not the books it's the teachers

      Or if it's books, they're reading "a People's History of the United States" as high schoolers like I did... Only told to accept it at face value rather than just see it as another form of propaganda

    2. It took a while, but the 1968ers succeeded in taking over pretty much the whole country.

    3. They don't see the connection.

      Despite the words they use, they don't actually want socialism. If you asked them if they want gulags and state ownership of all industry, most of them would say no.

      What they actually want is a capitalist society with strong redistribution via taxation.

      So saying, "Why don't they learn anything from Cuba and the USSR!" is completely missing the point. The question you would need to ask is, why they want us to emulate western Europe. And about half of those places haven't crashed and burned (and the ones that have, like Greece and Spain, were marginal cases to begin with).

      Now I've seen some of those places, and by and large we're better off here in the US. But pretending that anything to the left of what we have now is an avid endorsement of the Great Leap Forward is just based on your (completely appropriate) strong bias against leftism.

      They don't want Cuba. They want Norway. And contrary to what some folks on here seem to think, there is a difference between those two countries.

      1. Stop being nuanced and thoughtful, JJ. First of all, it's not like you and it's freaking me out. Secondly, this isn't the place for that. You have to scream and yell and be as hyperbolic as possible if you want to fit in. You want to fit in, don't you, JJ?

        1. Goddamn fucking communist liberals, oppressing Christians! White straight men are the most oppressed group in this country, and voting Republican is the only way to get the godless faggots and worthless "urban youth" put back where they belong!

          Why ARE black IQs so much lower than whites? Maybe they really are just more inclined to being criminals, because they're animals! I know that Irish fellow agrees with me!

          Having a new supreme court justice that might overturn Heller and Citizens United will mean the end of the republic! Even though it will only put the laws back to what they were 10 years ago, we all know that 10 years ago the republic didn't exist! It only sprang into being when those two decisions were handed down correctly!

          1. That's better. Thanks, JJ. I knew you could do it.

            So are we still on for that Mondrian retrospective at SAM?

            1. "Mondrian retrospective at SAM"

              Code for value meal #1 at the Golden Arches?

              1. Bong hits and Borderlands2

                1. I'm game. =D

          2. We need to ask Anthony Fisher if he disavows Gojira. I don't see reason disavowing gojira so we all know what that means.

          3. Norwegian Socialism depends upon capitalist oil companies to get it's socialist oil out from under the North Sea.

      2. 1. Western European states are socialist or moving along the socialist axis, not capitalist with strong redistributive taxes. And all of those states are either crashing (Greece, Italy, Spain) or have peaked and are barely holding on (UK, France, Germany). I've been to many of these places and lived in Italy and Japan for several years each.

        2. Even the Nordic states aren't doing well - not poorly either - and those are the only ones that actually are capitalist societies.

        3. These college kids *don't know the difference anyway*. I've said this before - but both styles of economy described above are called socialists here in the west (and even in Western Europe - where socialists keep pointing to the 'Nordic model' as an excuse for ever more government control of the economy and culture) and that's what they know.

        That's why they're in the can for Sanders - even though he's an old-school socialist in the Lenin/Mao/Castro model and none of them even think for a moment that its possible to do the welfare state *without* a huge central government to *direct* each 'sector' of the economy for the greater good.

        1. So you really, truly believe that the vast majority of college students draw no distinction between the Nordic states, and the Soviet Union circa 1920s & 30s (or China in the 50s/60s, etc.)?

          You think kids actively want and are agitating for famines to kill tens of millions, forced collectivization, and mass disappearances from the secret police? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying, when you claim they don't draw any distinctions like that.

          1. How many of those people actually know about that stuff except in the most vague and 'intellectual' terms?

            To a college student today *Vietnam* is ancient history.

            Cuba is a 'paradise that will be despoiled by McDonalds' once trade is opened up with the US.


            So, no, I don't think these people want and are agitating for famines, cheka, or anything like that. I just think they truly don't understand - because this sort of thing is only touched upon in world histories in school, and the counter-narratives are pushed hard by the professional socialists - that that stuff is a *natural result* of socialism and not a vague aberration that happened to a few foreigners, like, over a hundred years ago.

            They simply do not understand that 'welfare state' and 'socialism' are not inextricably entwined, that you can have the first without the second if you're willing to. At least for a somewhat longer time period before you run out of other people's money.

            So, they want welfare state. And in the US the only way that's pushed to get that welfare state is . . . socialism. So they go with anyone who calls for socialism as that's the only way they know how to get their welfare state.

            All the shit that follows? Well, that's just some of them there 'unintended consequences'.

            1. Fair enough. Like I said below, I don't necessarily agree, but I understand your point now much better than I did initially.

            2. These kids just want welfare. They don't know very much, but they do know that the Nordic model demonstrates that the government can take care of everyone as if scarcity doesn't exist. So, they're voting for a post-scarcity world. As if it's just that simple.

              Never mind how little they know about a culture that embraces 50%+ taxes in order to take care of everyone.

              Hell, Norway has a royal family. Do we need that, too? Perhaps a wizard and a witch in a castle, too?

              There's also a fair amount of nationalism in Nordic socialism. Next time a Norwegian is giving you crap about your lack of socialism taking care of the less fortunate, ask them what they think of gypsies and Muslim immigrants. They start sounding like Donald Trump real quick. Welfare is for Norwgians because no True Norwegian would be lazy, so if they're poor, it must be bad luck. All bets are off for anyone else.

              Square that with your compassion, college kids.

              1. These kids just want welfare.

                Brian here is right. A moderately successful welfare state is possible with a homogeneous society and vast natural resources. Particularly when those resources come in the form of natural gas and oil (and lutefisk.)

                But someone like Sanders completely misrepresents what goes on in Scandinavia to his followers, they get the welfare picture, but not the neo-fascist, racist, financially self-sufficient part of the picture. Or the part where the middle class actually pays for everything, not the (much less wealthy) 1% there.

                And even with these factors, Scandinavian welfare societies are crumbling. Healthcare is technologically 10-20 years behind the US, and all of it is rationed. Education isn't far behind on that curve. It's impossible for most people to get private healthcare or insurance, because they're already dropping an insane portion of their paycheck to finance everyone else's.

                So what Sanders is promising is Cuba, Venezuela, or Greece. Not Scandinavia. No matter how many times he invokes "Denmark" or "Sweden" in his speeches.

            3. This. How many of these students would stare at you blankly if you brought up the Holodomor. If you found one student there that could tell you anything about Stalin's purges or come close to giving an accurate number of deaths from, say, the Great Leap Forward I would be shocked. It is actively surpressed by their teachers and not much discussed in the media.

          2. 'So you really, truly believe that the vast majority of college students draw no distinction ..."

            These same people are saying we should "keep all oil in the ground"...

            If they're so economically ignorant about "energy", why should one assume a far more nuanced and informed view on the history of socialism?

            I've heard millenials argue the reason the Soviet Union failed was " bad leaders".

            If you think young people deserve more credit, I think you need to show why first.

            1. Sorry bout the italix /I blame iphone

            2. Actually, it's practically 'common sense' even among many older people that communism is the perfect system, and only fails because of the flaws of human nature.

              I'd say it's almost established conventional wisdom among the youth that countries like the Soviet Union failed for reasons other than being socialist, or even in spite of being socialist.

          3. Lenin wasn't selling famines to kill millions, mass disappearances and secret police before the revolution either. Those things just sort of happened as one step to the communist utopia was followed by the next one.

            Wrt West European socialism, it's hard to say what direction it would have taken without those countries basically being dependencies of the US during the Cold War.

            1. The problem with utopia is that everyone in it wants to screw it up

          4. You think kids actively want and are agitating for famines to kill tens of millions, forced collectivization, and mass disappearances from the secret police?

            Actively, openly, consciously? No. But you're gonna crack some eggs if you want the omelette. And they want omelette, they all want omelette.

          5. I wonder if the kids really know what Sweden is really like.

            What a 20% VAT means. What 50% taxes means.

            I think they assume Sweden is just like America except university is free.

            In fact, I suspect many of them are like those refugees: unrealistic expectations abound.

            1. I wonder if the kids really know what Sweden is really like.

              It's as if they don't understand what it means to progress from paying for your own education loan for a ten year period to paying for other people's education expenses for the rest of your life.

              And that analogy holds only until the education costs begin to increase yearly as universities find ways to spend that windfall of cash they're going to get in their Social Sciences departments.

          6. The ones I've spoken with just believe they need the right Top.Men. Running things. And since Americans are exceptional we'll never have those sorts of evil thing happen here...

            I swear I know one who should have a trigger warning stamped on her forehead. Her twisted, irrational nonsense is going to burst than aneurism in my head sooner or later.

        2. "Western European states are socialist or moving along the socialist axis, not capitalist with strong redistributive taxes. And all of those states are either crashing (Greece, Italy, Spain) or have peaked and are barely holding on (UK, France, Germany). I've been to many of these places and lived in Italy and Japan for several years each."

          All of those countries have capitalist economies. They also tend to have strong redistributive taxes. Some of them have collective ownership of certain industries, and they have varying levels of government regulation. But all of them have capitalist economies to one extent or another. Private property and ownership of the means of production is not outlawed in any of those places.

          1. The private property rights are extremely compromised, and labour markets are rigid in southern European states (not the functional northern ones).

          2. Private property and ownership of the means of production is not outlawed in any of those places.

            Well, yes, if by "private ownership" you mean there are people's names on the legal paperwork. But if almost all of the owners' business decisions are made for them by government regulations then all they have is their names on the letterhead.

            We already have that in the U.S. in the insurance and banking industries. Follow a banking or insurance executive around for a month, and you'll find that 90% of the decisions are constrained by federal or state regulation, and probably 99% of the time when the bank screws over a customer it's because it's illegal to do otherwise.

            But college students think the screwing is done by evul corprations and the answer is more government regulation.

      3. Do they understand the difference though? I understand the difference between Norway and Cuba is that while Norway does have high taxes and lots of services, their actual marketplace is very deregulated and free, and they respect traditional Western values like freedom of concience and rule of law.

        Do you see the college kids clamoring for those things which make Norway successful?

        I mean I know they know Norway is better than Cuba, but I sort of doubt they know why, and their policy ideas are much more likely to lead to Cuba than Europe.

        1. I mean I know they know Norway is better than Cuba, but I sort of doubt they know why, and their policy ideas are much more likely to lead to Cuba than Europe.

          Now that's something I might be sold on. I don't necessarily agree, but I can see where I might be persuaded to change my opinion to match that statement.

          1. Obviously I don't mean every single one of them. There are plenty of perfectly intelligent college leftists, I'm sure there are literally millions of them that are smarter than I am, who understand the differences and don't want to go full commie, but on the aggregate I think I'm right. You would be stunned by the amount of people who would brush off a comparison with something like "Cuba isn't really socialist," or "Western Imperialism," or my personal favorite "well Europe is the developed world and Cuba isn't, we're talking about the first world duh," with no further introspection as to why those countries are the way they are.

      4. "They want Norway."

        They think they do.

        But I don't think they actually want to be a major petroleum exporting nation full of white christians.

        1. Yeah they do. *Everyone* wants to be a major petroleum exporting nation full of white Christians. They just won't admit it.

      5. Norway? I thought American liberals wanted to be more like...CANADA!

        1. Norway has attractive women.

          1. Yeh but Montreal can rival any place.

            The women here are HOT. Hot baby!

              1. /narrows gaze. Quietly takes sip of smoothie.

                1. How would anyone know when they are covered up with Gore-Tex ?

      6. Perhaps you're more sanguine than me because you don't live on a college campus. Plenty of them do indeed want real socialism, and you'd have a hard time naming an industry they don't want to nationalize or a price that doesn't need to be set by the state.

        I grant that for the majority (the bona fide socialists are merely a significant minority, but a vocal one, and far more dedicated and therefore dogged in their views than the others) are more "Scandinavian" socialists. But that;s not entirely reassuring to me, because it's not even an internally coherent position. Wouldn't admirers of western Europe want to lower corporate income taxes? Or do away with minimum wage like Switzerland? And doesn't Denmark have privatized airports or something? There are plenty of ways in which those countries are less socialist than us. Bring them up, and suddenly these Scandinaviaphiles will favor the American way, in those particular respects. Really, Sweden and Denmark (and Norway, though they have oil) are just the closest thing to socialist success stories that people can cite.

        Besides, Norway only works for Norway. Once they get Norway, how do you know they won't want Cuba? If it doesn't work, either we go back to capitalism, or forward to more socialism.

    4. We used to refer to ourselves as '69ers.

  6. The amount of economically illiterate derp in that video is just amazing.

    1. Nah. Economic derp is the norm. What would be amazing would be those college students, or any group of people for that matter (including mainstream economists), having a grasp of even the most basic economic principles.

  7. Who on Earth did Bernie Sanders think he was, going up against Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama?

  8. The account has tweeted multiple times a day, only at Trump, since December 2015. (Its photo is a picture of Mussolini photoshopped with Trump's hair.) Gawker explained: "We came up with the idea for that Mussolini bot under the assumption that Trump would retweet just about anything, no matter how dubious or vile the source, as long as it sounded like praise for himself."

    Brilliant stuff from Gawker that really encapsulates progressivism. Isn't what is said, but who says it that really matters. The awful quote in question is pretty apolitical, and apparently after days of throwing out bait it's the best they could get: "It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep."

    The media hit jobs on Trump have been pretty absurd of late. As if the truth isn't bad enough.

    1. That sounds like something Teddy Roosevelt would say.

    2. Someone should set up a bot tweeting economic advice from Hitler or Mussolini or their economic ministers and then call progs Nazis when the retweet it approvingly.

  9. From FB:"46 more states to go. No other candidate would ever get my ass out of the house! These marches all over the country by THOUSANDS are being ignored by mainstream media. Go out and VOTE! Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in our lifetimes that will stand up to corporate interests. It's now or never. #Bernie2016"

    Thousands, eh? Corporate interests, eh?? Ignored by the mainstream media, eh??? Now or NEVER???? Well it's settled, I'm voting for Obama!

    1. I love the blank look on the faces of these idiots when I explain to them that 70 or so percent of the big oil corporate interests are owned by public union pension funds and that most corporate interests management fat cats own less than three percent of the corporate interest. If you want to know who profits off of evil oil it is retired cops, teachers and firefighters. Without Exxon they would be eating dog food. Wait...no they wouldn't. Dog food is more expensive than people food these days. They would be on food stamps.

      On the few occasions when I get a response it is usually garbled nonsense.

      1. The Fed Gov is the biggest profiteer from big oil.

        It certainly makes more $ per gallon of gas than anyone else and with taxes on all the by products it probably out earns anyone else there as well.

      2. The state itself, also. The gas tax in CA is 40 cents a gallon. The oil company's profit is approx 8 cents a gallon.

        Remind me who the evil one is?

    2. Who are you voting for? Who are you passionate about? What carries the same spirit in his OR HER heart?

      You coward. Don't tell us, tell your farcebook friend! Stir it up. And remember to be as unreasonable as you can because emotion is the only thing that will win you the day!

    3. Just did a little math, and an estimate of our voting-eligible population from 2012 was 235,248,000. Of that, about 54.9% voted, making an estimated voting population of 129,151,152 people. Even if you take the maximum people possible to still say "thousands" (999,999), that still only .77% of estimated voters. Something that doesn't even hit the 1% mark is not even close to being a significant amount of people.

  10. Britain has a specialist police team for interviewing kids that look at political material? What possible party's material could be more extreme than one that send the police out because a teenager read something?

    1. Squirrels again, meant as a response to DJF above

  11. Yet another example of why the voting age should be raised to 30.

  12. So Cytotoxic is claiming that he was right on the Irish election results since Fine Gael and Fianna Fail might form a grand coalition.

    This is what he said on Wednesday:

    The two austerian parties are already saying they'll go coalition.

    Hmmm...leaving aside the fact that Fine Gael and Labour have already been in a coalition for five years he can't be talking about Fianna Fail since that party did not say they would go into a coalition.

    And when I pointed out that the Governing coalition might not get a majority of seats he replied with:

    From what I read it's pretty much a sure thing that they will.

    So he was clearly saying that Fine Gael and Labour would get a majority despite the opinion polls saying the opposite.

    Not to mention that a Fine Gael/Fianna Fail coalition is far from "a sure thing" at this point...

    1. https://reason.com/blog/2016/02.....nt_5938190

      His statement of "I was right...technically!"

      And I was right, as usual: Fianna Fael and Fianna Gael could, if they wanted to, make a grand coalition. Those two parties are not *that* different. They have bad blood from the Irish Civil War.

      Notice the "could, if they wanted to" which can't be squared with his other statements.

      1. They have bad blood from the Irish Civil War.

        So they are about like Republicans and Democrats.

        1. Well the bad blood between Dems and Reps dates from the 1850s...

      2. Basically, I was right, you're butthurt and spitefulness notwithstanding. The 'sane' parties dominated.

        1. Stop Lying. You were referring to Fine Gael and Labour, not Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.

    2. Cytotoxic is right about everything, even when he is wrong.

      1. I thought it was more that he was wrong about everything, even when he's right (because his reasons are wrong)

        1. Nope. I'm just right.

          1. JEB!

  13. .300 fervent demonstrators mainly focused on climate change and "keeping fossil fuels in the ground."

    Even if we replaced 100% of coal fired electricity w green shit, and had 100% electric cars & light rail...we will still need oil for a million things. These people are idiots

    1. Where will get plastics? Recycling? And I assume all metals with be dug up and refined with Green Energy?

      1. Where will get plastics? Recycling?

        Mine the landfills.

          1. Saw him live back in the 90s. The ticket said "If you are easily offended, please do not attend." He meant it.

            1. I saw him in 85.

              That guy could shut down a heckler like no one I've ever seen.

              1. By the time I saw him he was old and getting feeble. His lifestyle was not kind to his body. Wish I could have seen him in his prime.

            2. These days, that line should read "if you are easily offended, FUCK YOU!"


    2. And these fucks fly home for winter and spring break.

  14. Pretty thin gruel. I guess I'd fuck that girl that appears at 2:08 in the video, but the rest of them are zeros on the zero-to-one scale.

    1. I'm guessing the dad is a doughy east coast jew, and the mom is a shiksa with an outstanding rack.

      Interesting combo.

      1. I knew the jews were involved somehow...

        1. It's a classic combo on the contemporary college campus.

          It can be oh-so-right. But, I've also seen it go horribly wrong.

  15. Free college = more of this bullshit.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

    1. Free college means a more better, more smarter, more educated civilization!!!


  16. It's no secret that Bernie Sanders has won the hearts and minds of a majority of American college students.

    WAIT! I have strong polling data that shows Millennials are libertarians.

    1. I thought the Libertarian Moment is upon us?

    2. damn libertarians, always wanting free stuff.

  17. Global Warming? is a great issue. A politician can signal their social position and blame all the right (wrong) people while doing absolutely nothing about it and no one will notice because another set of bad people are standing in the way. It's everything a pol needs in a single issue.

  18. Hillary versus Donald. Some interesting points

    1. A third Democratic advantage is simple self-interest.

      Half the nation now receives U.S. government benefits ? in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, student loans, rent subsidies, school lunches and Earned Income Tax Credits, etc.

      Folks who rely on government benefits are unlikely to rally to a party that promises to cut government.

      Good one.

      1. Folks who rely on government benefits are unlikely to rally to a party that promises to cut government.

        Libertarian Moment!

        Or just convince them otherwise with Weed, Mexicans and Ass-sex.

      2. The "Scandinavian model" is real.

  19. Meh, I still think Baby Boomers are the most reprehensible shitheels if we are going to broadly generalize on generational lines (which is stupid). They're the ones at the top that ultimately demand the largest example of generational theft via wealth transfer with Social Security and Medicare.

    I can get the resentment of college kids when all their lives growing up they were told that they absolutely had to go to college to get a good job and that they're special and that they should follow their dreams and do what they love and all that crap that turns out to be completely untrue when you hit the real world.

    It makes for a very receptive audience for snake oil salesmen like Obama and Bernie who promise them something more than just free shit, which is the abolition of personal responsibility altogether.

    1. If we use an anaconda as a metaphor for baby boomers, it's still digesting their generation.

      It's impossible to escape them. Pretty much all decisions run through them. Once they're gone, it's the following generations who will be truly free. The rest of us are just spectators.

    2. The generation that kept electing FDR were the worst by far. As in the Boomers' parents and grandparents.

      1. So the Jazz babies were the worst?

        1. I'm just going off the top of my head but at least the great jazz musicians/singers were pre-baby boomer.

          I just watched the final X-Files. Chris Carter clearly is a progressive. He left his trail of popcorn all over the place and it was irritating. But that episode with that were-monster was hilarious.

          1. 'the were-monster'

            Man, is this La Fin Du Monde going down nicely.

          2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_Age

            Chris Carter clearly is a progressive

            A Hollywood leftist is a leftist? Shocking result.

      2. This. Greatest Generation? More like Statist Generation.

        1. Fuck you for agreeing with me, asshole.

    3. They're the ones at the top that ultimately demand the largest example of generational theft via wealth transfer with Social Security and Medicare.

      Uh, The oldest baby boomers are just now reaching 70. Only 3 to 5 years worth are collecting retirement benefits. Most of the boomers, by concentration, are in the peak earning and tax paying years.

      1. They are just riding the wave. They didn't make it.

  20. Does this mean we won't have riots between Hil and Bern partitions at the convention? I was looking forward to that.

  21. I've been known to pop that Chick Webb, Irving Berlin, Kid Ory, Bix Beiderbecke, Fats Waller, Nick LaRocca, Jelly Roll Morton in the old CD player.

  22. Two Observations:

    1) This is yet another reason America desperately needs mass immigration. It's the only way to dilute these assholes.

    2) This is why libertarians should probably put economic growth more at the top of their agenda for now. As long as these people are flitting around in 'funemployment' or perma-schooling they will just get more and more retarded.

    3) Ending cheap college loans and the rest of the government-post secondary complex is even more important than ending Obamacare.

    1. And by two I mean three.

      1. That's okay, I just assumed numbers work differently in Canda.

      2. Libertarians will never achieve anything politically because libertarians do not seek power. That's the libertarian conundrum. You can't change things without seeking out the power to do so, but libertarians are not the kind of people who seek out that kind of power. The people who seek out that kind of power do so to keep and expand it, not to dismantle it.

        Voters support people who want government to do more, not less. Sure, some voters would like government to do less, but once you name specifics they object because they have friends or family who would lose their job or entitlement if those specifics became reality. That's why Republicans talk about smaller government while never naming any specifics.

        You like to ridicule for being a pessimist, but that's reality. Talking specifics is suicide as for as getting votes, and acting on specifics while in office guarantees being ostracized or shunned. That's why you see so many people coming out for ending the drug war once they lack the power to do anything about it. If they did while they had their job then they would either be fired, or find everyone they work with so uncooperative that they couldn't get anything done.

        1. Libertarians do not need power. We need votes, not antichoice republican or anarchist commie-democrat infiltrators diddling with the platform. The Solomon Asch experiment showed only a quarter of the population has individual discernment, so no danger of our stuffing the House and Senate. All we need is as many votes as caused the losing looter to lose that hand in the till. Cowardice will not get us votes. Here's what cowardice looks like once mystical prohibitionists have turned medical practice into an extortion ring: "people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
          Young women look at the population clock, then at medical cartels, then at christianofascist gunmen, and OF COURSE turn to Hillary. That's half the voters right there!

      3. You love to mock and ridicule me for comments like this, so I will ask you to actually comment on the substance of my comment. What can libertarians do to achieve that kind of power? How can libertarians get people who will be harmed by their policies to vote for them? How can libertarian-minded politicians dismantle power without being marginalized and rendered powerless?

        1. By "harmed by their policies" I mean "lose their do-nothing job or did-nothing entitlement." Just trying to head off some of your pedantic retorts that ignore the substance of my post that you will no doubt ignore.

          1. Hey Sarc. Apparently Hihn has the answer. =D

        2. I will agree with you by posing your sentiment in the form of a question: who was last person to run for elected office with the goal of scaling back the power of that office?

          1. Run or won?

          2. Calvin Coolidge

            maybe Ted Cruz.

          3. John Hospers, Ed Clark, Roger McBride, recently, Art DiBianca in Austin... they that consistently get 2 to 5% of the vote today write tomorrow's laws. That is how the communist income tax got into the Constitution, before any Americans could say Gulag, death camp, Auschwitz, Trebkinka or genocide.

        3. I'm not sure that it could be done. But if it could be, it wouldn't be through libertarians seizing political power, it would be through changing the minds of the American voter, and that can only be done by doing the same thing the left has done: Taking over the news and entertainment industries, and taking over academia. Until you can do that, the most that libertarians can hope to do is to be one of many voices inside a big tent political party.

          1. You are probably right, but there's an interesting twist here.

            The Leftists have gained great sway over the media and over education for several decades yet the Democrat party, where most of them organize, has steadily lost power in local, state and now the federal government. If this trend holds, the Left will have gained power over minds (the unthinking ones) yet will have lost most political influence.

            I'm not sure what this means. It could be that their worldview and policies merely get enacted by the increasingly left-moving Republican party. Or, it could come about that votes in congress, and decisions by the SCOTUS, no longer have sway over the executive branch that somehow falls into permanent Democrat hands.

          2. The looters have voted. That's all. They have taken over nothing--they are too lazy to even get up to pocket a handout--but they do vote.

      4. 2 plus 2 equals doubleplusgood 3 Got it. =D

      5. You really would be perfect as a Grand Inquisitor, Monty Python division.

    2. The trouble with 1) is that any mass immigration would be from Latin America, who are even more socialistic than these kids

  23. College Kids are Feeling the Bern
    But they're willing to live with Hillary.

    Now tell us something we didn't completely know.

  24. The difference between Libertarians, and Democrats IMHO is that Democrats will always settle for second best.
    Het someone has to pave the roads right ???? =D

          1. /Drunkinly cries

            1. Drunkinly? Like getting drunk how your family does?

    1. In Libertopia we have flying cars and don't need no damn roads!

  25. George Will this morning, regarding Bernie: "It turns out the faculty clubs and student safe spaces of American campuses are just not big enough to nominate a president."

  26. Duh! They don't want to be drafted off to war or prison any more than we did when we were their age! Now there is a libertarian party to vote for, but it is heavily infiltrated by GOP Jesus freaks who won't let fellow cowards stand up for women's individual rights. Once the joke was: "Trouble? Call a hippie!" Now it's "Call a libertarian!"
    The party is becoming less of a force voters could count on and more like James Taggart. Remember the scene where Lilian Rearden says to James "I am sure that I can count on you." His reply: "How can we ever be sure of anything?"
    The Nixon and LBJ parties will probably grind these youngsters into sausage--because we stood blinking while their nationalsocialist and internationalsocialist infiltrators confused and paralyzed the LP. Plunkitt always asked: "Can I count on your vote?"
    What was it Spooner recommended we do with this secret band of robbers and murderers?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.