Election 2016

If Trump Wins, Libertarian Legal Scholar Randy Barnett Wants a New Party

Says it will be time for an "American Constitution Party." Isn't it *always* time for an American Constitution Party?

|

As noted here yesterday, the prospect of Donald Trump winning the Republican presidential nomination or the actual presidential election in November has spurred all sorts of responses from members of and fellow travelers with the GOP. Two examples: Radio host Hugh Hewitt has said he's all in for whomever the Republicans nominate while freshman Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse claims he'll never vote for The Donald.

Then there's the libertarian legal giant, Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law School.

As one of the architects of the legal challenge to Obamacare's individual mandate, Barnett is an outspoken opponent of governmental overreach who is often critical of the Republican Party's own excesses on that score. At the same time, he has never been shy about calling out what he says is "the mistake that is the Libertarian Party." Despite his anarchistic tendencies, Barnett has long held that third parties are wasteful indulgences in a two-party system such as our own.

And yet here he is, in USA Today with a full-throated cry to establish a new political party if Donald Trump actually becomes the GOP's presidential nominee:

[Trump has] made clear he cares nothing for the constitutional constraints on the president, or on government generally. His ignorance of our republican Constitution — to match his ignorance of much else — and his strong-man approach to governance would make Trump's election a political cataclysm second only to Southern secession in its danger to our constitutional republic.

For this reason, millions of patriotic Americans who would ordinarily vote GOP — including most conservatives and all constitutionalists — will never vote for him. Yet were he somehow to win without them — say by moving to the left of Hillary Clinton to capture the Sanders vote — a Trump presidency would doom America as an exceptional nation.

Well, maybe. I think the threat posed either by Trump winning the GOP nomination or the actual election come Novermber is overblown. There is no doubt that Trump has little to no idea how the goverment actually works (hence his inane discussion of his sister the judge "signing" legislation just like Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court!). And his natterings about "opening up" libel laws so he could more easily sue The New York Times and other media that criticize him. At the very least, such sentiments display a touch of Berlusconi that should be anathema to Americans, legal and illegal. Yet this sort of skylarking strikes me as similar to Ted Cruz (a Harvard Law grad, right?) braying about "judicial retention elections" for Supreme Court justices (both Cruz and Trump are also sour on birthright citizenship, too). Which is to say: Such ideas are idiotic, contemptible, outlandish, and…more impotent than a Hemingway protagonist. Emperor Trump ain't gonna happen, for all sorts of reasons that I'll get to in a second. 

At the same time, Barnett is right that Trump is a profoundly stupid and ignorant man. Indeed, he's ignorant in the way that only billionaires can pull off (because only the very rich can afford to surround themselves with so many yes men that they never learn when they are wrong about anything). But being stupid is no crime in America and especially in the nation's capital.

I may be overly jejune about it all, but I see a Trump candidacy and/or White House stay as quite possibly a powerful refresher course in civics and citizen engagement. As libertarian-leaning Rep. Justin Amash told Reason in a new interview at the International Students for Liberty Conference last week, Trump "cares about power. He doesn't really care about things like the Constitution. And I'm concerned that he could push us in a very dangerous direction." But I'd say it's far more likely that both the GOP and Democratic members of Congress would dust off the Constitution, a document they all spent plenty of time ignoring so far in the 21st century, and get serious about limiting government the minute Trump started barking orders.  

Having said that, Trump's comments and ire directed at immigrants, particularly Mexicans, are truly vile and disturbing, all the more so because they are redolent of fascist big men who are always yapping about homelands being invaded by people who come here to cut your grass on the cheap. My hope there is a Trump candidacy or even presidency will flush the nativist sentiment not just out of the Republican Party but out of acceptable political discourse. The dirty secret of U.S. politics is not that we don't like immigrants (even illegal ones) but that we actually love immigrants (even and maybe especially illegal ones). Last summer, for instance, even as Trump and most of the other GOP candidates were denouncing immigrants, "sancturary cities," the popularity of soccer, and the like Gallup found that 65 percent of Americans favored a "path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants. In fact, even 50 percent of self-described Republicans did. Not just legalization, but citizenship.

And let's be clear: Trump may be the one who has most fully seized on being anti-immigrant as a political issue, but he's far from alone among Republicans in pushing such a nativist agenda. Ted Cruz, for instance, has called for deporting all 12 million (or so) illegals, and back in 2012, Mitt Romney called for "self-deportation" as a way to forestall forced deportation (what a sweetheart).

When George W. Bush introduced his version of the Dream Act after winning re-election in 2004, it was his fellow Republicans as much as pro-union Democrats who strangled the plan in the crib. And diehard GOP stalwarts such as Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama (who has counseled both Trump and Cruz on the issue) and Rep. Steve King of Iowa (who has repeatedly likened migrants to livestock and mocked the "cantaloupe calves" of Mexicans trying to better their lives aren't exactly outliers in the Party of Lincoln.

Which isn't to say I disagree with Barnett's call for a brand-spanking-new party:

What the nation needs is a new party that is expressly dedicated to upholding the Constitution of the United States, however it may cut politically — a party that can attract principled conservatives, but also any American who is tired of crony capitalism, runaway government and rule by an out-of-touch political class….

Parties die. The Whigs died because they could not bring themselves to stand against the Democratic Party that overwhelmingly supported or, at least, tolerated slavery in the South and its extension into the territories, thereby threatening the North. So a new Republican Party very quickly arose to replace it. Now the national GOP establishment's failure to listen to the people is on the verge of giving us Donald Trump. If it does, it deserves to be replaced by a party that puts the Constitution first and politics second.

It is (almost) time for an American Constitution Party.

Read the full article.

Yes, it's always time for an American Constitution Party. And the plain fact of the matter is that each of the existing major parties, whose origins date back to before the Civil War, have violated the spirit and letter of the Constitution so frequently and pervasively each deserves to go the way of A&P, Woolworth's, Enron, the Canton Bulldogs, and other once-great institutions of the United States.

I'll add just this much: The Democratic Party establishment is no great shakes, either. Bernie Sanders' campaign will almost certainly die tonight, but the fix was in on him from the get-go, thanks to the Dems' super-delegate scam and other processes that all but awarded the nomination to Hillary Clinton before the primary process ever got started. And yet, just as the GOP establishment failed to realize how angry Republican voters and independents were after eight years of an awful, out-of-control George W. Bush presidency, so too are Democrats and independents pissed at Obama. He got everything he wanted in his first two years, which is the main reason why the Republicans clawed their way back to at least partial power in Congress. Since then, Obama has shredded the Constitution when it suits his purposes, obfuscated about all sorts of terrible policies such as secret kill lists and unacknowledged drone wars, and simply failed in producing any sort of tangible successes in improving the economy or America's standing in the world. At least in her fight against Sanders, Clinton has portrayed herself as a champion and inheritor of President Obama's policies. Good luck getting elected with that as a platform.

Then again, against Candidate Trump, how can anyone lose…?

NEXT: The Oscars Wanted Parents to Worry About Child Abduction and Rape

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. How about the LP just takes their nominating process seriously?

    1. If the LP nominates an accomplished businessman with a successful record as a limited-government governor with two-party appeal, shouldn’t he crush these clowns in a landslide? Oh wait, they did that last time and got 1 percent of the vote for Gary Johnson.

      1. And if Americans wanted a president who would adhere to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, Ron Paul would be wrapping up his second term about now.

        1. word.

          This is the best election ever. libertarian republicans get to watch this clown show with no pony in the race.

          Remember when the RNC changed the delegate rules bc of Ron Paul. Now that change has come back to bite them.

          Trump is going to win it all.

          1. Well, at least authoritarians will be happy.

      2. It doesn’t help when even Reason doesn’t mention the LP debate that happened this weekend.

      3. Do libertarians really expect that with no party structure, organization (staff, volunteers, money, voter lists; you name it, they don’t have it) they could somehow elect a President?

        It’s like trying to construct the Empire State Building without laborers or building materials.

        1. That is how most Presidents were elected up until the late 19th century.

          1. times have changed just a bit since the 19th century. You’re claiming sclerosis as a feature?

          2. This. Also, to say the LP has no organization is disingenuous. They do. It’s small, but they don’t have much money to keep a huge group. Some states have better parties than others.
            And the fact that even the small l publications like this one don’t seen to even publush the simplest things on the LP (like the current conventions and debates) doesn’t help.

            1. That’s exactly the sort of thing I’m getting at. Details count.

              1. I’m a little upset reason has only put up one article about people running for LP. And it was McAfee. There could be coverage about about the upcoming debate. I think it’s on Fox biz. There could be a serious article about the platform. I’d even be happy if the articles were against the platforms of these candidates.

                1. They mentioned Johnson a few times when he announced he was running again

                  1. Austin Peterson won the “straw poll” of students for liberty. Well, cruz won. AP was second. Carson, then Johnson in fourth. Not that it means anything, it was online and small. But I think the lp is less of a victory lap for Gary than most people think.

      4. Hell, I voted for Gary Johnson and I’m not a libertarian. That’s more then most libertarians I know in the flesh can say.

        1. You know libertarians in the flesh?

          1. Like biblically?

          2. A few. And no, not in the biblical sense.

      5. GayJay got less than 1%.

      6. And yet that 1% was the highest vote the LP has ever received. The problem was not Johnson, the problem is instead a party that does not want to win an election (seriously), and a system that denies an electoral microphone to most candidates.

        Problem 1: The LP does not want to win elections. Oh they say they do, but one hour at any LP convention at any level will quickly disabuse you of that notion. The party is about play acting at being a party. I helped get one Libertarian elected to a nonpartisan public office, but I was only one out of three people in a city of 100,000 who bothered to walk precincts. But what do you expect from a party that worships not voting?

        Problem 2: It’s nearly impossible to campaign at the national level without the support of the mainstream media. Most people didn’t vote for Johnson because most had never heard of him. And of those who had (New Mexicans) most probably didn’t even realize he was on the ballot. Much of the already anemic LP election energy is spent just getting on the ballot to begin with.

      7. Where Johnson screwed up in 2012 was by largely turning his campaign into focusing primarily on just one issue- drug legalization. Don’t get me wrong, it’s certainly a legitimate issue to debate. However, the second he focused on that more than anything else (including dressing up as a marijuana leaf) he shot any chance he might have had to hell. People don’t want candidates obsessed with a single issue (yet another reason people will eventually turn away from Trump in even greater number).

    2. How about the LP recognizes that it can’t wait until the end of May to start a campaign?

  2. As noted here yesterday, the prospect of Donald Trump winning the Republican presidential nomination or the actual presidential election in November

    The former is likely, the latter is a shot longer than something very long that I don’t have the words to describe.

    1. Warty’s doomcock?

      1. something very long that I don’t have the words to describe

        Fun fact: H.P. Lovecraft’s final collapse before his early death was brought on by an attempt to describe the Doomcock.

    2. I hate to say it, but I really think a Trump presidency is likely. Like others have said on here, the Dem base just can’t give many fucks about Hillary, and Trump is even pulling working class Dems over to the independent side. BUT, unlike the rest of you rubes, I’ll be moving to Mexico, not Canadia.

      And here is an article about the aforementioned Dem exile: http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…..atic_party

      1. The only way Trump is president is if, as John points out below, that Trump has a yuuuge amount of quiet but unacknowledged support that doesn’t show up in polls.

        But even then, you wait until the general when Trump gets to face off against the Clinton machine– which includes a very, very hostile media– not just hostile to Trump but hostile to anything that’s Not-Democrat, and I suspect that silent support– if it does exist– will start to erode.

        Needs moar dashes.

        1. Yeah, Trump will have to go against Hillary as well as the media who are hell-bent on getting her elected.

          1. So would any GoP nominee. I can’t stand Trump, but I fail to see the difference between him and anyone else vs. Hill and the media.

            1. The difference is is Trump’s chance of uttering a gaffe that will sink him, even amongst his current supporters is near to 100%.

              1. Trump has already uttered so many gaffes that had to sink him. Yet his support keeps growing. I’m not sure why this will change now.

                1. Trump has already uttered so many gaffes that had to sink him. Yet his support keeps growing. I’m not sure why this will change now.

                  The change is that we’re in the general and the media will switch its game from horserace “look at this crazy guy! He generates ratings” to a full-court press against him.

              2. “Trump’s chance of uttering a gaffe that will sink him”

                I think this is profoundly wrong.

                Look at all the shit he’s said so far, and look where he is.

                These “gaffes” are why people prefer him to the ‘calculated politics’ of the establishment. His ‘gaffes’ are one of his greatest assets, because of the endless press they generate.

                1. After sitting at the poker table with a number of people who seem to be coming round to Trumptopia, I think very few of them are really paying attention to the really asinine things that the Donald has said.

                  I heard a lot of things about what he meant or other bullshit.

                  Nobody is really paying attention yet.

              3. Based on all his gaffes that have doomed him so far? If anything, Trump is the only Republican immune to media attacks.

                1. If anything, Trump is the only Republican immune to media attacks.

                  Until he’s the nominee at least.

                  1. Until he’s the nominee at least.

                    This.

                    1. But so far, Trump is facing some knuckleheads that most people consider with opinions ranging from ambivalence to mild dislike (and stomping them). In the theoretical general election, he would face someone (Clinton) that almost everyone on the right, most in the middle, and many on the left view with disgust.

                      Yes, Trump is also hated on so many levels from all ends of the spectrum. Just can’t underestimate the animosity towards Clinton. Seems like a very competitive race.

                      I think this election goes way beyond the legendary battle of Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.

                  2. What ammunition has the media “not yet” fired at him that will stick w/ the people who are supporting him?

                    Because the media’s line of attack hasn’t been particularly subtle so far.

                    1. Line of attack? You mean “giving him literally 10x the free media of any other candidate, with breathless fascination”?

                    2. “‘Line of attack? You mean “giving him literally 10x the free media of any other candidate, with breathless fascination”?”

                      That didn’t answer my question, which was, “What negative-spin can they possibly try that they haven’t already”?

                      If you think the ‘free media’ thing so far has been completely in his favor, its only going to get worse once (if) he wins the nomination.

                    3. That didn’t answer my question, which was, “What negative-spin can they possibly try that they haven’t already”?

                      If you think the ‘free media’ thing so far has been completely in his favor, its only going to get worse once (if) he wins the nomination.

                      Worse? I don’t think so. He carries a strong majority of R candidate coverage right now. All they have to do is talk about Hillary more than Trump and it’s a sea change. We don’t have any idea how the public responds when Trump just doesn’t get his message out.

                    4. ” We don’t have any idea how the public responds when Trump just doesn’t get his message out.”

                      You’re equating “less Free press” to “not getting any press”?

                      He’s a freaking billionaire. If he’s the nom, i sincerely doubt he’ll ever get less press than he wants or needs.

                    5. What ammunition has the media “not yet” fired at him that will stick w/ the people who are supporting him?

                      My honest opinion has been that the media has been treating him as an amusement figure because they’re still in horse-race mode. I believe the recent KKK/David Duke stories are the beginning of the new trend. They’re like rock-climbers at the beginning, finding their footholds.

                      My guess is the media will start giving Trump less point-and-laugh treatment, and more dark-and-foreboding treatment.

                    6. “I believe the recent KKK/David Duke stories are the beginning of the new trend”

                      The “new trend” which started last June?

                      He did everything short of campaign with Dylan Roof as a potential running mate.

                      If you think “racist” is some new super-weapon, you havent’ been paying attention.

                    7. What ammunition has the media “not yet” fired at him that will stick w/ the people who are supporting him?

                      It’s not the people currently supporting him that the attacks have to stick with, it’s independent voters, many of whom already have a negative view of Trump (and Hillary, FWIW). Put another way: sure, he’s winning a plurality of votes in Republican primaries, but remember that only 26% of registered voters are registered R’s. And not all of them actually vote in their state’s primaries either. Pulling a number out of my ass, I’d guesstimate that no more 10% of any state’s registered voters actually vote in the R primaries (and that’s probably really generous). So if Trump wins 40%, that’s only really 4% of all registered voters who voted for him in the primary.

                      How many more voters will he appeal to in the general? How many of all those millions of independent voters will go to the polls to vote for him? How many will be frightened enough by the media to choke back their vomit as they vote for Hillary (the “lesser evil”) in the MOST IMPORTANT ELEKSHUN EVAR!1!11!!!!!! How many will just stay home? Who the fuck knows.

                    8. “” it’s independent voters, many of whom already have a negative view of Trump (and Hillary, FWIW). “

                      See my original comment below = the only thing that matters is if he pulls more new blood than he loses.

                      And he pulls a lot of new people, and he increases turnout.

                      Hillary does the opposite.

              4. wrong. They are calling his lack of condeming david duke immediately his “47%” moment. Except its not. The media will keep trying to get one to stick but they it won’t work.

                People don’t vote for trump because he is consistent or does the right thing. His appeal is twofold. It appeals to those who want to tell .gov/progs to “piss off” and to those who want to tell .gov/progs “F themselves”.

                He has tapped in to mind of the average white, who is sick of getting blamed for everything and taxed on everything else for no return.
                I bet the oscars raised his percentage 2 points

                The man has transceded politics

            2. His supporters threatened to shoot me because I dared question the feasibility of hunting down 11 million illegals and building a YUGE wall.

              I’ve never been threatened by a candidate or their peeps as the try to win my vote.

              Think about it – I want your vote, but if you question me, my supporters will shoot you.

          2. I wish I had rights to sell seats to that debate. Don King should be the promoter for those debates they’ll be so hilarious.

            Until election day, when the joke, the pain, the misery will be on all of us.

        2. I think it is that cross-over Dem vote that is largely unrecorded and makes a Trump presidency fairly possible (I won’t go so far as to say likely).

          1. In crossover states, he’s been competing w Sanders for the anti-establishment vote, so it’s remarkable he did as well as he did in NH. If people start seeing the Republcan nomination locked up by tonight, in crossover states down the road those votes are going to swing to Sanders, and then suddenly he’s competitive for the Democrats’ nomination again.

            1. Open primaries are a bizarre feature of US politics, aren’t they? In what other countries are voters from other parties actually sought by parties as counsel in their nominating process?

        3. Polls don’t mean shit this far out. I wouldn’t worry about those until all the bad blood of the primary gets put to bed and the Dem/Rep voters start to fall in line and realize they have to vote for Clinton/Trump or Trump/Clinton will win.

          My completely unscientific reasons as to why Trump is going to win, in no particular order:

          1. The country is sick of the Democrats.
          2. Trump is the best salesman running, AINEC.
          3. Nobody is excited for Hillary, but the people that vote for Trump really like the idea of voting for Trump.
          4. Trump induces derangement in his opponents’ supporters like no other candidate. Since voting is mostly about social signaling, noticing that a certain candidate’s voters are all nuts makes the apathetic moderates swing in another direction.

          1. 1. The country is sick of the Democrats.

            By “The Country” you mean the states that are solidly red, because from where I sit, the sentiment is that there are still far too many republicans and moderate Democrats who don’t stand up to the Republican juggernaut.

            2. Trump is the best salesman running, AINEC.

            Agreed. Hillary will have the media selling her, though. She won’t have to lift a finger in that regard.

            3. Nobody is excited for Hillary, but the people that vote for Trump really like the idea of voting for Trump.

            Agreed– if Hillary’s opposition was Ronald Reagan, this conversation would look entirely different.

            4. Trump induces derangement in his opponents’ supporters like no other candidate.

            So did Sarah Palin.

            1. I sit in a blue area of a blue state. I know exactly two people that are bonafide Trump supporters, and am generally surrounded by people that vote for whoever the winner ends up being (Republican demographics in Democrat areas are a good proxy for the swing vote, IME). And they’re all sick of Obama and want nothing to do with Hillary, constantly lamenting the lack of options on the D side. I think he’s got an opening, especially since, immigration excluded, his positions fit right in with most squishy moderates’ (Wall St and the Chinese are stealing your future; entitlements should never be cut; here’s a big tax cut with no spending offsets; etc).

              Trump is a curiosity at this point, but I think he’s going to be able switch gears in the general without losing his core supporters to an extent that Hillary simply can’t. The media will try to drag her carcass over the line, but with people self-segregating on their media intake more than ever I just don’t see it happening. She’s also, without a doubt, the worst campaigner I’ve ever seen. She’s going to underperform the expected Democrat total by a significant margin.

              So did Sarah Palin.

              That idea only holds for the general. Palin would have been bounced before this point.

              1. “. She’s also, without a doubt, the worst campaigner I’ve ever seen.”

                that’s the cherry on top of the other obvious problems

                her turnout is going to crater.

        4. Trump will crush Clinton. He is in tune with the people, she seems like a con artist. Trump polls better with Democrats than he does with Republicans — he was a Democrat for most of his life, after all.

          1. The great thing about Trump is he will actually call Clinton out on her many scandals. The debates will actually be interesting.

            He may be an establishment liberal but he’s not the “go along to get along” type of establishment liberal.

            Most Republicans know he’s not a conservative but support him as a means of payback. Personally I can’t wait to read about Trump using the IRS to target the left’s institutions for audits.

        5. What people who say “the media will start tearing into him” don’t understand is that when that has happened so far, his polls go up. Exactly how many in the MSM have been supportive of him to begin with? I’m not a Trumpster either, but the Conventional Wisdom has been wrong about this from the start all the way back to “he can’t say that about immigrants and expect support” AKA Day One.

          He’s going to get the nomination and he’s gonna beat Hillary because A. most people can’t stand her (Dem turnout has been the lowest it’s been in three decades) and B. most of the Trumpsters aren’t voting FOR him, they’re voting AGAINST everyone else. Ask any Trump supporter about his positions and the first thing out of most of their mouths is “he’s not a politician”.

          1. What people who say “the media will start tearing into him” don’t understand is that when that has happened so far, his polls go up.

            The point-and-laugh strategy doesn’t really work. The media has been on a point-and-laugh campaign since day one, and not just point-and-laugh at Trump, but point-and-laugh at Trump’s supporters.

            For people who have serious thoughts about Trump as a candidate, when the media points and laughs at you, it tends to harden your resolve. The media has essentially been accidentally selling Trump up to now. I believe that the criticism will turn more serious, more pointed, and decidedly more dark when we start getting long think-pieces about “A Nation Under Trump”– articles that don’t point and laugh at Trump and his supporters, but really start to paint a dark picture of a Trump presidency.

            (Dem turnout has been the lowest it’s been in three decades)

            Dem turnout for the primary? You know that doesn’t mean much in a winner-take-all general, right?

        6. But even then, you wait until the general when Trump gets to face off against the Clinton machine– which includes a very, very hostile media

          Because the media has been *so* adoring of Trump til now?

          To my nose, it’s been hysterical pants shitting over Trump since he got into the race.

        7. I’m not sure I have as much faith in the corporate media being as left wing as you describe them. Those corporations have a vested interest in laws being generated and executed by the conservative Republicans they pay for.

          1. Yes that is why the media is so busy shilling to have Wickard overturned so we can return to a government of limited and enumerated powers. Between that and their obsession with ensuring every toddler is packing heat I can see where you would be skeptical of their loyalty to progdom.

      2. And here is an article about the aforementioned Dem exile: http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…..atic_party

        Los Doyers:

        I’m not sure what to make of that. Most states have closed primaries– is this a strategic move by voters to sink the opposition party by electing the unelectable in a primary, setting the stage for a Democratic general win?

        1. Tens of thousands of Massholes just decided to do such a strategerific move?!

          1. I don’t know. I’m saying I don’t know what to make of it. Is Mass politics becoming more red than blue? I find that equally difficult to believe.

            1. MA is pretty working class. And Boston isn’t one of the, uh, most racially tolerant cities in America. I can see why Trump’s bullshit would appeal to the average MA voter. Here is the Dem response: http://www.bostonherald.com/ne….._the_party

        2. Given the tight race between Bernie and Hillary here I doubt that.

          I could see some small number of Hillary supporters who think the race is in the bag for her doing that to try and get her faced off against the candidate of her choice but Bernie has very close to the majority of the support here and none of his supporters would vote for anyone but him leaving Hillary very little room to sacrifice votes for strategic purposes in Massachusetts.

      3. That brings up an interesting question. In an election between a centrist Democrat and an authoritarian Republican, will Libertarians go with their Republican roots and vote for a candidate that represents the complete opposite of their beliefs?

        1. If both democrats weren’t authoritarians this would be a relevant question. As it stands I have a crazy feeling libertarians will vote for libertarians.

    3. “” the latter is a shot longer than something very long””

      No its not.

      Not that i think its a good thing, but there is a very strong chance of a Trump win.

      I could list a dozen reasons. One of the most compelling is, “Cytotoxic thinks its impossible”, therefore it must be obviously true.

      The case is basically what Los Doyers says…

      (*that hillary not only fails to motivate & unify Dems, she actively repels large chunks of independent voters. The “I’ll vote for anyone on earth EXCEPT Hillary Clinton”-population is far larger than you can imagine…)

      …plus the “incumbent-party tends to lose when the economy is less-than-stellar, and the sitting president has a less than 50% approval rating” etc statistical biases in favor of a party-switch.

      When you add up the various factors, it would seem to be that all the GOP needs to do is elect someone ‘neutral’ and they’d coast to a win. Of course, Trump sucks donkey balls, but when it comes down it, as long as he replaces the GOP voters he loses because he’s “not conservative enough” with new blood, he adds up to the same thing.

      Of course, most of this is meaningless until we get towards the back half of this year. Anything can happen.

      1. (*that hillary not only fails to motivate & unify Dems, she actively repels large chunks of independent voters. The “I’ll vote for anyone on earth EXCEPT Hillary Clinton”-population is far larger than you can imagine…

        See my response to KDN above. Hillary’s opposition generates high negatives outside of his support. Again, if Hillary were running against Ronald Reagan, it’d be over in a landslide for Reagan.

        .plus the “incumbent-party tends to lose when the economy is less-than-stellar, and the sitting president has a less than 50% approval rating” etc statistical biases in favor of a party-switch.

        Whoa, whoa, c’mon Gilmore, are we going to do this again? Remember the run-up to ’12? When no president has been re-elected in a bad economy and record high gas prices? I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe those rules apply any more.

        1. He’s gonna get the nomination then lose to that abomination.

          The only upside will be enjoying the collective psychic pain of the GOP.

          1. The GOP is… MUST be already feeling the collective psychic pain. They’re going to be relegated to permanent ‘third party’ status, and in my opinion, the country is diving head-first into a long term single-party rule.

            1. I should be clear: At the presidential level. I believe that congress and senate will continue to swing both ways (puns intended) because those elections are local affairs.

            2. I think you’re right, the pants soiling is already starting.

            3. “, the country is diving head-first into a long term single-party rule.”

              Weird, how the GOP has a boatload of presidential contenders, while the Dems could barely muster anyone with brand name other than Dinosaur Clinton.

              And weird, how the state/congressional seats have been trending GOP for the past 2 decades.

              I think this, like the “gaffes” point above, is a huge misunderstanding.

              1. Weird, how the GOP has a boatload of presidential contenders, while the Dems could barely muster anyone with brand name other than Dinosaur Clinton.

                To me, that’s a sign of party unity. The GOP is anything but united, and the Democratic party– while having its internal problems seems to be vacillating between Communism and Democratic Socialism Lite. I also believe the Democrats reward “criminality” within its own party with its SuperDelegate system.

                And weird, how the state/congressional seats have been trending GOP for the past 2 decades.

                Which explains the rise and ascent of Executive Power.

                1. My point is simply that this often-forecast “Future Democrat One Party Rule” is horseshit

                  not only is it not happening, Dems seem to be suffering a generational crisis where they’re pulled so far left by young voters that they would be simply un-electable as Bernie is as a national candidates.

        2. “Hillary’s opposition generates high negatives outside of his support”

          I’m not even clear what you’re saying, though im pretty sure you’re wrong. Your above-referenced comment isn’t any better.

          “Remember the run-up to ’12? When no president has been re-elected in a bad economy and record high gas prices? I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe those rules apply any more.”

          the statistical stuff i’m talking about is only relevant in 2-term presidencies. There is a strong Party-Switch bias after 2 terms, and it correlates v/ strongly with economic conditions+presidential approval-rating. I think if you were going to analyze 2012, the most significant thing about it is how *close* it was when Obama should have crushed Romney, who was very much like Hillary vis a vis the Dems – someone repellent to the most ideological base.

          “More of the same” tends to sell poorly when “Same” isn’t doing all that hot in the drivers seat. Its just a fact that incumbent parties have a hard-sell after 2 terms. the few cases where there was ‘torch passing’ were notable for their exceptional contexts, v/ popular presidents.

          Nate Silver argued with others about this issue and i found his analysis unconvincing, particularly in how he used Congressional examples to muddy the water.

          1. I’m not even clear what you’re saying, though im pretty sure you’re wrong. Your above-referenced comment isn’t any better.

            That statement was muddy. Hillary’s opposition: Trump, generates high negatives. People who don’t support Trump really hate him.

            The rest of your comment is spot on… IF Hillary were running against someone like… Ronald Reagan (to sound like a broken record).

            My take on this election is:

            Hillary fails to generate strong positives: True
            Trump’s supporters really like Trump: True
            Democrat base wants hope and change for real this time: True
            Democrats will rally behind their nominee: True
            Trumps negatives are high: True

            I believe that Trump’s clownishness will destroy him in the general. All the stuff that’s “worked” in the primary will be the thing that kills him after he gets his (presumptive) nom.

            1. “Trump, generates high negatives. People who don’t support Trump really hate him.”

              Yes, i know and i addressed this in my original comment.

              What you seem to not get is that none of those opinion polls matter when it comes to votes. So lots of people will “not vote” for either Trump or Hillary. All that does matter is that the people who DO exceed the number that they’re potentially losing from the negatives.

              And he is getting huge turnout and wider support from unlikely GOP sources than he is losing in ‘negatives’. The fact he’s getting such large margins of victory in exceptionally-high-turnout primaries should hammer this home. It just gets magnified in the general election.

              Contrast this with hillary, who is seeing relative declines in primary participation compared to Obama… and gets *narrower* victories than what polls suggest.

              “I believe that Trump’s clownishness will destroy him in the general.”

              again – if that were true, it would have already been true. Its not. Its been an asset. You think things will change but its not clear what evidence you have for “why” other than your gut feeling.

              1. I can’t ultimately say one way or the other, because in the end, it’s all just stock-picking.

                But:

                again – if that were true, it would have already been true. Its not. Its been an asset. You think things will change but its not clear what evidence you have for “why” other than your gut feeling.

                I’ll repost another comment I made above:

                The point-and-laugh strategy doesn’t really work. The media has been on a point-and-laugh campaign since day one, and not just point-and-laugh at Trump, but point-and-laugh at Trump’s supporters.

                For people who have serious thoughts about Trump as a candidate, when the media points and laughs at you, it tends to harden your resolve. The media has essentially been accidentally selling Trump up to now. I believe that the criticism will turn more serious, more pointed, and decidedly more dark when we start getting long think-pieces about “A Nation Under Trump”– articles that don’t point and laugh at Trump and his supporters, but really start to paint a dark picture of a Trump presidency.

                I’m saying I think that there’s be a major shift in media tone if (when) Trump wins the Primary.

                The only question which I can’t answer (obviously) is how effective will the new tone be?

                1. It will be a shift in tone but also a shift in amount. Will the media put Trump live on the air anytime he feels like calling in, at the exact optimal moment for his campaign?

                  1. It will be a shift in tone but also a shift in amount. Will the media put Trump live on the air anytime he feels like calling in, at the exact optimal moment for his campaign?

                    *nods in agreement*

                2. “I believe that the criticism will turn more serious, more pointed, and decidedly more dark when we start getting long think-pieces about “A Nation Under Trump”– “

                  Oh, you mean like the cover of the National Review?

                  If think that “long think-pieces” are going to influence the average voter, you’re insane

                  The media has unloaded everything and the kitchen sink at him, and its only helped him.

                  And, contra nikkis argument below (“” Will the media put Trump live on the air anytime he feels like calling in”) – they can’t suddenly stop covering him when he becomes the GOP nominee. The media makes money by selling ads. And trump, loathsome though he is to most of them… is the political equivalent of a “100-Year Hurricane” – something that keeps eyeballs on the news channels.

                  The media is Dr Frankenstein, and Trump is the monster. They can’t unmake him.

                  1. The media has unloaded everything and the kitchen sink at him, and its only helped him.

                    I’m arguing they haven’t. I’m guessing– and sure, I could be wrong– but I’m guessing you haven’t seen the kitchen sink yet.

                    At this point in our disagreement, all I can say is “We shall see”.

                    Maybe I believe what I believe because in my serial-political depression, I can actually imagine Hillary as president but literally (LITERALLY!!1!!) can’t wrap my mind around a President Trump. At least I can’t visualize a majority of Americans voting for him.

                    1. “At this point in our disagreement, all I can say is “We shall see”.

                      yes. which is what i was saying about “everything could change in 6 months”

                      But i still think based on the metrics as they stand today, and the indications in primaries so far…. the idea that Trump is a “Long shot” is a complete mis-read of the situation.

      2. “Cytotoxic thinks it’s impossible”

        Lol, same here. His insane vitriol against everyone who disagrees also adds to the fun of anticipating how wrong he will be.

      3. most of this is meaningless until we get towards the back half of this year.

        This. Until this fall, it’s a coin toss. All I know for sure is this is gonna be a long, LONG spring and summer. I’m already sick of this election shit.

      4. I could list a dozen reasons. One of the most compelling is, “Cytotoxic thinks its impossible”, therefore it must be obviously true.

        I could kiss you for that line Gilmore

      5. “I’ll vote for anyone on earth EXCEPT Hillary Clinton”

        If we could harness the hatred for Hillary into electricity, we could power down all coal fired plants tomorrow.

        Bernie would be a disaster. But I *hate* Hillary.

  3. Alt text, WTF? Did he seriously do that???

      1. I laughed, but I felt bad about it.

      2. Well, nobody’s ever accused him of having class.

    1. He didn’t do it to his face. Sheesh.

    2. i hoped it was Krauthammer.

  4. There has to be a way to “idiot-proof” the American Constitution Party for it to work, otherwise it just gets hijacked. Bachman, Palin, Cruz and others have all eagerly attempted to cast themselves as experts on the document.

    But people don’t want to prove they are smart anymore. Too much work.

    1. Look at how quickly the TEA Party got hijacked by so-cons. It’s not encouraging.

      1. To be fair, the Tea Party didn’t actually try to be it’s own party. Despite the token protests of some that it was a non-partisan group, it was obvious from the get-go that it was just a sub-division of Republicans.

        1. I guess my point is they went from single-issue advocacy to being co-opted by the so-cons for their smorgasbord of special interest crap. Sure, “taxed enough already” and the concomitant “fuck you, cut spending” is ostensibly Republican but that’s how party splits happen, through grassroots disenfranchisement. In this instance, no split happened because the groundswell group either lost message discipline, was demonized by the left and the press or was subsumed by so-cons.

          I guess no need to use the word “either” in that equation.

    2. Hrm…

      Given: the people calling for a “constitution party” are never in the majority.
      Given: A constitution party would want to maintain ideological purity of it’s candidates, especially considering how many people claim to like and understand and adhere to the Constitution that are actively disliked by people who call for a “constitution party”.
      Then: A constitution party must either (A) not allow anyone that wants to register with the party to do so, or (B) not allow just anyone to vote in it’s primaries.

      Which would be entirely within the bounds of what a political party should be able to do. But it might be a hard sell.

  5. Definitely not a historian but it seems new party’s really come about with a cult of personality figure creating it. Someone who can independently get 15-20% of the vote regardless of party apparatus that surrounds him/her. it just collects nuts if it doesn’t have a figure like that.

    1. +/- Ross Perot

      1. He’s still alive and kicking, wondered what he’d been up to lately and checked his Wiki.

        1. He’s been hanging out with Lou Reed.

          1. He’s an interesting guy. The Keebler elf I mean, not Lou Reed.

  6. By the way, as I was getting ready for work this morning, it kind of hit me why Trump is finding his success:

    Everyone wants to make fun of Trump as the rich 1%er and paint him as ‘out of touch’. But he’s not. When I watched a couple of Trump speeches kindly posted by some commenters where they had done voiceovers (one as gay trump, the other as british trump) but not changing a single word of what he said, it hit me: Trump is one of the most ‘regular guy’ candidates that’s ever ran for president in my lifetime, and I suspect in History.

    He talks like two construction workers having a beer and talking about their ex-wives. The mocking, affected imitations of reporters and other candidates– the rambling annoyed grievances with certain political constituencies.

    Trump connects with the regular guy.

    1. Everyone wants to make fun of Trump as the rich 1%er and paint him as ‘out of touch’. But he’s not.

      Not sure who you think is doing that? Because I’ve seen most people who talk about this acknowledging exactly what you say: he’s “just like you,” only with megabucks.

      1. He’s pretty much how regular guys think they would be if only they had megabucks.

        1. Wtf is a regular guy? And if we’re all going to collectivize can we at least bring back phrasing?

          1. When I say ‘regular guy’, I’m kind of paying homage to the Rodney Dangerfield film, Easy Money.

          2. Well, okay, maybe speaking for all “regular” people might go too far, but, if I (and a lot of people I know) had Trump-money, then that’s definitely how I’d roll.

            1. I call those people “bullies.”

            2. “if I (and a lot of people I know) had Trump-money, then that’s definitely how I’d roll.”

              Why roll when you can be carried on a litter by slave-bearers? (snaps fingers) “More kiwi, orphan-girl!”

              1. Slight problem with that Idea

                But I think it’s the combination of the New York braggadocio and the fact that he makes no secret about his money that makes it a non-issue. It’s not an act trying to make a pretense that he’s John Q. Public.

                1. “Slight problem with that Idea”

                  problem solved years ago. All my slaves are expert-Roller-Bladers.

                2. Trump is comfortable in his own skin. Whether that skin is an act is another matter, but he’s clearly comfortable in it.

                  Probably all that time on TV. Like Reagan, he’s now a natural in front of a camera, while you can see the self conscious falseness if the pols in every move they make.

        2. +2 chicks at the same time

      2. Well, my opinion on that one issue may be due to a lack of watching and reading Trump news. I’ve seen it a couple times, but I’m not going to dig in my heels on that because that may just be a symptom of my not reading the reams of opinion-pieces on Trump. I know Ron Bailey did it in passing yesterday.

        1. Got it.

    2. So Trump’s just a loud moron whose constituency is other loud morons who assume he’s smart because he’s rich?

        1. YOU DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, LOS DOYERS!!!

      1. He’s a 70 year old billionaire version of Eric Cartman.

        1. I thought he was a 70 year old billionaire version of Mr. Garrison.

    3. Trump does connect with the regular guy and the regular guy is an idiot. There’s always a simple fix to every problem that makes the problem worse. The problem is the economy, the regular guy has little control over it and depends on the smart guys to keep things humming along – but the smart guys don’t look so smart and the regular guy is worried that maybe they don’t actually know how to fix it.. Here comes Trump, a maly man with no doubt he knows exactly how to fix it and everybody’s just too stupid to see how easy it is. So they flock to Trump – this is a man who knows how to fix things! If you’re not a regular guy and know something about economics, you know Trump’s talking out his ass. Maybe there’s some placebo effect, people believe things are going to get better and consumer confidence leads to more economic activity, but it’s the anti-capitalists and the crony capitalists, the misanthropic Greens and the bureaucratic state leeches that are killing us. The economy can’t run with that much baggage and so many people working so hard to make it stop running. But Trump’s gonna fix it all by building a wall. Maybe if you sent Al Gore and all his buddies, the entirety of the executive branch agencies, every lobbyist and every executive from every corporation that ever hired a lobbyist, every head of every union and half the membership of the pubsec unions on a fact-finding trip to China with a one-way ticket and then built the wall we’d be getting somewhere.

    4. I’m a construction worker, he does talk like a construction worker. I hate some of my co-workers.

      The worst one I heard is this construction worker actually convinced the rest of the jury that a guy was guilty because he looked guilty. The guy was proud of it. work wise the guy is real sharp too.

    5. Trump connects with the regular guy.

      It’s funny that you link to a pic of Rodney Dangerfield. I’ve thought for a while now that Trump is basically a less funny version of Dengerfield’s Al Czervik character from Caddyshack.

      I can see it now (if he gets elected): it’s some state function with a lot of prime ministers and dignitaries from other countries. Trump goes up to one their wives and asks “Hey, baby, you want to 20 dollars the hard way?”

      “You must’ve been something before electricity…”

      “Last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it…”

  7. But I’d say it’s far more likely that both the GOP and Democratic members of Congress would dust off the Constitution, a document they all spent plenty of time ignoring so far in the 21st century, and get serious about limiting government the minute Trump started barking orders.

    Ah, to be young and naive again. If Trump succeeds in getting himself crowned King, there’s a thousand more would-be Kings going to be taking notes for the next coronation. If the GOP couldn’t get their shit together to stop Obama any better than the Dems could get their shit together enough to stop Bush, I don’t have much hope they’d get their collective shit together enough to stop Trump – especially when they’re in favor of the general principle of the Divine Right of Kings but merely quibble on who holds the crown and Trump’s going to be doing plenty enough stuff the GOP favors and plenty enough stuff the Dems favor. Free abortions for some, free miniature American flags for others.

    1. As we learned yesterday, Trump will teach those damn Ds not to overreach like they have under Obama.

      You know, just like Obama’s win was going to teach Rs the same thing after Bush.

      “Don’t build a powerful machine that will be used against you in 4-8 years” seems like a really tough lesson.

      1. Sad but true. How people can assume that their political opponents, who they’ve cast as near-demonic, will somehow “get it” if they just experience how awful overreach is is beyond me.

      2. “Don’t build a powerful machine that will be used against you in 4-8 years” seems like a really tough lesson.

        We won’t lose forever, eventually, we’ll be back in.

  8. Great rant Nick, plus I had to check what “jejune” means.

    Will be voting again for Gary Johnson if he gets the libertarian nomination.

    The only way the Dems and GOP will change is if there’s a mass defection from them in the voting booth.

    1. the defection has already happened. The VAST majority of registered voters are not Democrat or Republican but unaffiliated (not independent you nitwits, that IS an actual party in several states).

      1. Unaffiliated outside a polling station but the vast majority still vote Dem or GOP once inside.

        1. ^This. People like to think of themselves as “independents,” even though most people consistently vote for the same party their entire lives.

          1. Because everyone psychologically just wants a shot at being a part of the winning team.

            (cries fishy tears)

            1. sad but true.

              one of my favorite parenting moments… taking a Sunday to go through each candidate on the mail in ballot with my daughter. she made different choices than me on a few, but she did not vote straight party lines (most races don’t have a third party to vote for)

            2. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a single winning candidate. Doesn’t bother me.

              1. I haven’t either. It does bother, though. Not because I want to back a winner, but because not enough people vote for the pro-liberty candidates.

  9. He didn’t want a third party after the ass reaming we have been getting from both parties for the last 20 years? Trump comes along and everyone is losing their minds. It has more to do with his threat to the entrenched powers than any principled outrage.

    1. Yes, anarchist Randy Barnett is most interested in protecting the entrenched powers.

  10. My hope there is a Trump candidacy or even presidency will flush the nativist sentiment not just out of the Republican Party but out of acceptable political discourse.

    I’m sympathetic to the idea that Congress might re-read the Constitution as a reaction to Trump, but what would the mechanism for this part be?

    1. I don’t see this. A Trimp presidency will just mean that every appropriations bill is a christmas tree. Is there a better position for a dealmaker to be in than negotiating with someone else’s money?

      1. I don’t think it will happen, but I at least understand the mechanism Nick proposes for it. But he doesn’t give any mechanism for converting cathartic racism into anti-racism again.

        1. We hate Central Americans who take our jobs less than robots who take our jobs?

          1. OTOH, I’m pretty sure that we could win a war against Central America, if it came to it. Robots…not so much

          2. When it comes time to send wave after wave of men at the robots’ laser cannons, the fertile Hispanics are our only hope.

  11. Having said that, Trump’s comments and ire directed at immigrants, particularly Mexicans, are truly vile and disturbing, all the more so because they are redolent of fascist big men who are always yapping about homelands being invaded by people who come here to cut your grass on the cheap.

    But in a strange way they’re not redolent of fascist Big Men who are yapping about homelands. They’re redolent of bigoted small men who whine about losing our jerbs. There’s a difference. Once comes from a place of shrewd and cunning competence, the other comes from having too many beers and a bad upbringing.

    1. too many beers and a bad upbringing

      I denounce classist bigot Paul!

      1. I don’t disavow my classist upbringing. My mother was British, or have you forgotten?

        *waves 6″ Union Jack*

        1. *waves 6″ Union Jack*

          Well, at least that’s a creative name for it. I guess as long as you’re not in public, go nuts.

          1. I just have to keep 1000′ away from a school.

        2. I’m a member of the Commonwealth with one of my passports. I should start adding “u”s everywhere.

          1. I’m a member ouf the Coummounwealth with oune of my passpourts. I shouuld start adding “u”s everywhere.

            That’s how, right?

            1. “Cumonwealth”, I believe.

            2. No, like this: “muy pasusportus”. It’s the Latuin Comumonwealtuh.

          2. Herouic Muulattou?

            1. Wasn’t he in “The Day The Earth Stood Still”?

          3. Herouic Mulatto. You can only add them where it might make sense, you can’t just throw them around everywhere, then it just looks like you’re making fun of the limeys.

            1. The limeyus are funny enough asus isus.

    2. I know this puts me at odds with lots of others here, but I believe that sovereignty is one of the few legitimate state activities. I think the immigration laws we have should be far less restrictive, but I do believe the federal government has the power to set such policy, and that whatever the law ia, they should be obliged to enforce it as written or change it. So while I disagree with Trump’s desired solution, I think he has a valid criticism of the status quo. Nobody should get to pick and choose which laws they follow. The obvious solution is to have fewer laws, but that’s a different soapbox.

      1. You’re not alone.

      2. Rush occasionally makes a good point.

        Romney, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, you name it. Any candidate who’s ever called here, I’m polite and civil. And I’ve routinely said to each of these emissaries, no matter where they’ve been (in order to make my point, in order to let them know that I’m not buying what they’re selling), “I’ll gladly, openly support your amnesty — happily so — if you will guarantee that none of those being granted amnesty can vote for 20 years.” And not a single person trying to sell it would even entertain the idea.

        It’s a reasonable compromise, but no one will go for it.

        1. I wouldn’t either. That’s a perceived solution to the GOP. Which is Rush’s constituency. I would prefer a much more open immigration policy and some easy path to citizenship or guest worker as the immigrant preferred. Because a lot of the immigrants Trump is ranting about are sending money home and would rather go back there if they could support their families there. Obviously there are some who choose to stay and make lives and have families here. And there are some who are committing real crimes, not just violating per se regulations. But there’s lots who don’t want to be citizens and want to work here.

          1. But you have to make a reasonable compromise of some sort. I’m all for a more open guest worker program, but the sticking point is always over those who are currently here illegally. We can’t deport them all and granting blanket amnesty without conditions is a non-starter.

            1. I agree. But the voting restriction is just party politics without any real world consequences in my eyes. Let’s find something that isn’t just a way of fucking the other TEAM that we can do.

              1. I don’t see where that compromise is going to be other than around voting rights. A large portion of the GOP base has made it clear that they would be fine with deporting everyone. They’ll have to be satisfied somehow.

                1. What’s to keep those people from being disenfranchised when the government changes that law 15 years down the road?

      3. Putting aside the question of terrorism or terrorists sneaking in as “refugees” and what not, the whole Immigration thing is the INEVITABLE result of our government policies and direction. We are simply following in the same path as European nations.

        If you look at Denmark, they’re very skeptical of foreign carpetbaggers showing up on their shores. The Danish people (to name one example) apparently have a strong identified connection to their taxes and the benefits they receive from government. They see interlopers and recent immigrants as not having paid in. Other European nations have the same kind of attitudes.

        I don’t agree with a restrictive immigration system, but I sure as hell am not surprised there’s a groundswell against a loose immigration policy.

        1. The problem isn’t the policy. Or rather, the problem is that the de facto policy is not the policy defined by the law. I work with lots of blue collar guys. Literal construction workers, and the most common view I hear is that the same men who cut corners getting here cut corners in their work. And They don’t feel that way about all hispanics. That’s what Trump is really tapping into. “How come some people get to take shortcuts to living the same life I have? I don’t get to take shortcuts.” I’m not sure that’s true, but it is a real feeling.

          1. Oh no.

            If you’re not for OPEN BORDERZ, you’re just an evil smelly stupid hateful RACIST RACIST RACIST!

            At least that’s the Progressitarian argument.

        2. It’s the opposite here. We need illegal immigrants to pay in their FICA taxes and not take any benefits later to keep the system solvent.

      4. but I do believe the federal government has the power to set such policy,

        Why? The Founders never explicitly gave the Federal government such power and until the Supreme Court’s ruiling in Chy Lung v. Freeman* in 1876, it was recognized that immigration was a state-level affair. Indeed, Chy Lung v. Freeman overturned California law that prohibited immigration from China; however, at the same time, Congress passed the Page Act, which excluded all Asian immigrants. The government could barely be of one-mind concerning its policy.

        *To justify Federal control of immigration policy, the court pointed to a trade treaty signed between the USA and China. (China – Most Favored Nation status since 1868!)

        1. Okay. I’m open to arguement about which government in our federal system should make that determination. But I still feel that even in a libertarian State, immigration is a question of sovereignty and a legitimate State interest. For me, I think the Federal government is the only government in our current configuration. Because we have no state borderposts and would prefer it thus.

          1. For me, I think the Federal government is the only government in our current configuration. Because we have no state borderposts and would prefer it thus.

            Yes, but for an immigrant to go between state borderposts, he or she must first enter into a port. Now, I realize the Feds control every seaport, airport, and border crossing de facto, but that seems to me the type power grab by the Federal government that would have caused the Founders to spit blood.

            1. But you at least agree that one of the legitimate use of powers by a government is to make policy about who and how people may enter their territory? I don’t see how there could be a government without that. An anarchist community, maybe a large one, but not a government.

              1. Replace “government” with “nation-state” and you’d be correct. However, there was life before the concept of the Westphalian nation-state.

                1. Yes there was Mulatto. and people moved even less freely than they do now.

                    1. So a single anecdote about 13th Century England is conclusive? How about 16th Century Germany along the Rhine? You couldn’t move shit without paying a toll. And this same England expelled all its Jews just a century later. How is that consistent with your premise?

                    2. So a single anecdote about 13th Century England is conclusive?

                      I didn’t institute the 1500 byte limit, John. How about the invitation for Jews and Germans to migrate to Poland issued by Boles?aw the Pious? If they couldn’t move in the first place, why bother issuing the charter?

                      How about 16th Century Germany along the Rhine? You couldn’t move shit without paying a toll.

                      And yet, anyone who could afford to pay the toll could move along the Rhine. For years, it didn’t matter how rich you were, the US wouldn’t let you travel to Cuba directly.

                      And this same England expelled all its Jews just a century later. How is that consistent with your premise?

                      Just what do you think my premise is? Things never change?

                    3. Just what do you think my premise is? Things never change?

                      That things were more free before Westphalia. And clearly they were not, at least if you were a Jew. And sorry but “hey could move all you like as long as you were rich” doesn’t make your argument. Most people were not free to move. It is almost like the nation state enhanced overall freedom or something. Like maybe a system of local warlords wasn’t such a good idea.

                    4. How about people who didn’t swear allegiance to the King? Did they have the same right to settle? I’m not arguing, just asking.

                    5. No Brett. You couldn’t leave the country without permission of the King. That is where the concept of passports came from. Mullatto is confusing a period where the King of England gave his subjects a long leash with the overall state of freedom.

                    6. You couldn’t leave the country without permission of the King.

                      Unless, “you” means “serfs” that is absolute nonsense.

                2. Okay. And they typically found non-violent solutions to large-scale immigration? Because the city-state models of democracy and republicanism I am familiar with (admittedly a small set) did not.

                  1. And they typically found non-violent solutions to large-scale immigration?

                    Well, in Poland’s case, things didn’t get violent until 600 to 800 years later, yes. Nevertheless, don’t make John’s error in arguing from a naturalistic fallacy. I merely mention a matter of historic record, an “Is”…that entails nothing about an “Ought”.

                    1. I understand. I am honestly hoping that there is a better solution in the range of things already tried than the ones I am aware of. Even with all of my arguments here, I feel like we’re pretty close to the level of immigration that would happen freely anyhow. In most cases it’s far harder to get out of where you are than into the US. People who can afford a passport and a plane ticket fly here and do the same thing people who can’t aquire those things do. We just don’t talk about them.

        2. The irony of course is that the Lung v Freeman decision was built around loosening restrictions instead of tightening them. I’m curious to know what immigration policy would look like had it been left to the states.

          1. It would have been a mess and likely resulted in states restricting movement between the states or worse going to war with each other as one state adopted immigration policies its neighbors objected to.

            On a practical note, if you love open borders and Mexicans, I don’t think you are going to like the results of letting Arizona, Texas and New Mexico set their own immigration policies.

        3. And Chy Lung is a well reasoned decision. The Constitution gives the powers over foreign affairs and foreign trade to Congress not the states. That necessarily means it has the power over immigration. If it didn’t, what happens when say Texas seals it border with Mexico and a military conflict erupts? Can Texas lead the rest of the country to war? If not, how is Texas fighting a private border war with Mexico consistent with Congress being given exclusive power over foreign affairs?

          The whole “but the states used to handle immigration argument is one of the dumber ones out there. The states handled it because Congress allowed them to. Congress always had the power.

          1. The Constitution gives the powers over foreign affairs and foreign trade to Congress not the states. That necessarily means it has the power over immigration.

            Only if you view immigration as a foreign affair. I don’t see how the operation of a port is necessarily a foreign affair that requires the intercession of Congress.

            If it didn’t, what happens when say Texas seals it border with Mexico and a military conflict erupts?

            You have the nerve to talk about dumb arguments while peddling Chicken Little shit like that? What if Florida allows flying saucers to land at Cape Canaveral and an army of Space Ebola-infested alien zombies pours out?

            1. Yeah because open conflict at the border could never happen.

              http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..ince-2004/

              I am sure there is no danger Texas would ever over react to this and create an international incident. No danger there.

              And immigration is foreign affairs. The only way to think it is is if you don’t believe in national sovereignty and borders. That is fine and all but that is clearly not what the framers thought. If you don’t like it, go amend the Constitution.

              1. That is fine and all but that is clearly not what the framers thought. If you don’t like it, go amend the Constitution.

                Bullshit. If it was what they thought they would have said so in the Constitution. How do you explain the 100 years of American history before the Federal government attempted to wrest control of immigration from the states? If you don’t like it, build a time machine.

                1. Bullshit. If it was what they thought they would have said so in the Constitution.

                  They did. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, ? 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” You are just assuming that doesn’t cover immigration because that is what you want it to mean.

                  And there is no way you can say the states can regulate immigration consistent with the Congress’ power to regulate international trade. If a state can deny you entrance, they prevent you from trading. Allowing states to govern immigration would effectively give them the right to regulate trade by just denying foreign entry into the state. Could California trade with Japan if no Japanese nationals were allowed into the state? Sure but it is pretty hard to claim California isn’t impeding and regulating the trade by saying all trade with Japan must be done remotely and never in person on California soil.

                  I am sorry, the Constitution doesn’t always give you your fucking pony.

                  1. Yes John, Naturalization doesn’t entail immigration. If it did, “natural-born” citizens would be described as being “naturalized” by birth. The only immigration anchor babies make is from inside the womb to outside. They are separate enough concepts to require two different terms.

                    And there is no way you can say the states can regulate immigration consistent with the Congress’ power to regulate international trade.

                    Nice to see you’ve accepted the all encompassing-definition of Commerce Clause.

                    I am sorry, the Constitution doesn’t always give you your fucking pony.

                    What the fuck are you talking about? I merely asked Brett why he thought the Federal government had the power to set immigration policy, considering that it is nowhere explicitly stated that they do and for the first 100 years of the country’s existence, they were fine with the states legislating immigration law. Brett didn’t react by hopping up and down while frothing at the mouth like Yosemite Sam, and I don’t see why you should either. Jesus Christ, John, you could have just stated your opinion without all the accusations and ire.

                    1. Nice to see you’ve accepted the all encompassing-definition of Commerce Clause.

                      That is even more fucking stupid. By your logic states could prohibit movement between the states consistent with the commerce clause. Hey the clause only says Congress has the power to regulate trade. Yes, I know there is a right to travel but that is a different section. There is no right to immigrate into the country.

                      The argument is just stupid and no one buys it. It is one of the dumber hills open borders people die on.

                    2. John…I WASN’T MAKING AN ARGUMENT! You got that fuckface? Was that stated in simplistic enough monsyllabic Anglo-Saxon for your pea-brain to parse? I stated a historical fact. Can you point to a case earlier than Chy Lung v. Freeman concerning Federal control over immigration? If not, shut the fuck up. I have little patience for your rhetorical shadow-boxing against an argument no one has made combined with your ignorance of the subject.

                      And no, passports weren’t invented to keep the King’s subjects on their land, they were invented to provide for “safe conduct” of subjects (domestic and foreign) when they traveled outside the King’s jurisdiction. Have you ever read what’s on your passport?

                      “The Secretary of State of the United State of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen (national) of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection”

                      not

                      “This person is property of the United States”

                      I’m done with you.

            2. “What if Florida allows flying saucers to land at Cape Canaveral and an army of Space Ebola-infested alien zombies pours out?”

              Dude, that happened years ago. I mean, where do you think those Florida People came from?

            3. It’s a hard problem made more difficult by how much the government is involved in daily life. Ideally, a freeholder could provide land he or she owned to an immigrant or group of immigrants if the freeholder believed it was in their interest and the interest of the community. Although it would have to be something like that as all land would be held privately. Another solution would be higher standards of living in the places that people are immigrating from. Something that I think most of the people on this board would agree is also the result of government intervention. Both ours and others. I don’t agree that it can be different and still have a government.

        4. Did the US have a large welfare state in 1876?

      5. I think there are major issues in importing a culture different from our own, Especially when the US has abandoned the melting pot in favor of multifailism.

        Libertarianism forgets other people have ideas different from them and will use these ideas at the voters booth.

        A republic can only function if we have a moral people. Society requires people to not only obey laws but to obey norms for cooperation in daily life. If half the population became assholes who cut in line, were not cooperative in daily life, and did other legal but shitty things society would decline.
        Or what would happen if mass protestors protested on major roads everyday

        Libertarianian republics would be great if it was full of only libertarians who followed the NAP and the immigrants were all libertarians. we don’t live in that world.

        The libertarian folly is that libertarians think people think like them.

        1. I think there are major issues in importing a culture different from our own

          Yes, letting in those Jews and Italians sure destroyed American culture.

      6. I don’t think many people would mind if the immigration laws were enforced according to info that came to the att’n of the feds, i.e. if they happen to know you’re here illegally, out you go. But methods to find out such things about people would be burdensome on the rest of us. They already make you prove it to employers by showing them documents sufficient to fill out I-9, what more do they want? It’s already more than they make you do to vote for them!

  12. *tilts head, gives puzzled look*

  13. I think the threat posed either by Trump winning the GOP nomination or the actual election come Novermber is overblown.

    God bless you, Nick Gillespie.

  14. What are you guys so upset about?

    Think of all those salty ham tears coming tonight and tomorrow from both sides of the aisle. Delicious.

    1. But they’ll be mixed with so much bitter victory spittle.

      1. Take the pleasures that you can.

        1. I’m going to have to dilute the tears and the spittle with something over 100-proof in order to enjoy what is happening.

      2. I expect many proud comments that Trump winning 30% of the GOP vote is proof that the majority is on his side, and so anyone against him is against The People.

  15. OT (kind of): I got my voter registration card from my home state of Oregon and they got my party affiliation wrong. Harumph.

    1. No, they sign everyone up as a Democrat.

      1. Actually, they signed me up as a Republican.

  16. Since then, Obama has shredded the Constitution when it suits his purposes, obfuscated about all sorts of terrible policies such as secret kill lists and unacknowledged drone wars, and simply failed in producing any sort of tangible successes in improving the economy or America’s standing in the world.

    This isn’t why any of the libtards I’ve talked to are angry with Barry. They are all annoyed that he hasn’t gone prog enough for their liking or completely destroyed the Republican party.

    1. ^This

    2. I’ve disagreed with Obama on pretty much everything except re-opening relations with Cuba, but it took Trump running and likely winning for me to appreciate Obama’s prudence and caution.

  17. Barnett looks like Wes Cowan:

    http://bit.ly/1UwNW6j

    And Trump is no Berlusconi who at least owns one of the all-time great soccer sides in AC Milan. Until he does something similar, tread carefully Nick.

    /narrows gaze. Adjusts Milan scarf.

    1. Trump has made a habit of trading his wife in on a newer model every few years but he is apparently a teetotaler and a workaholic. I don’t think there will be any Bula Bula parties in the Trump White House as disappointing as that is.

      1. For awhile post-Python, John Cleese made training videos for businesses. In that line of work, he got to rub shoulders with quite a few businessmen and corporate officers, one of whom was Donald Trump. In an 90s-era interview, I remember him describing Trump as constantly making deals, and being on the phone wheeling and dealing, fourteen plus hours a day. He mentioned that Trump had the kind of personality where he couldn’t not do that, couldn’t turn off the need to constantly negotiate and argue.

        Cleese felt that the personality type Trump has was akin to a form of mental illness, and he felt in many ways sorry for Trump.

        The book Rick Reilly wrote about caddying for a variety of famous and interesting people had a chapter on Trump. In it, Trump is exactly as you’d imagine his character to be, along with a great eye for detail—he hops off the golf cart to praise a group of landscapers on some stone path they’re putting in, and indefatigable enthusiasm and optimism. It was an interesting look at the guy. Really similar impression to a later chapter covering the gambler Dewey Tomko, who is described as sleeping less than four hours a night, and (paraphrasing) ‘as a shark needs water, Dewey needs action. If he doesn’t have a bet down somewhere, he’ll die.’

        So, if all that’s true, hypothetical President Trump will at least have a busier schedule than the current inhabitant of the Oval Office.

        1. That’s a very bad thing. Our country is at its best when the Prez is golfing

        2. He sounds like Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack. I am sorry but I find the idea of turning him loose on the Bushwood that is Washington quite appealing.

          1. +1 “We’re all gonna get laid!”

      2. Apparently he’s not only a teetotaler, but he claims to have never drunk any form of alcohol. Which makes me trust him less. Clearly he doesn’t have a religious or moral objection to alcohol, because he had his own brand of vodka, so if he’s actually never taken a drink there’s something wrong with him. Tried it and didn’t like it I understand, but complete lifelong abstinence for no reason? There’s something wrong there.

        1. Maybe he had a relative who was a drunk and it destroyed their life?

        2. Penn Jillette.

    2. Hey, what are the New Jersey Generals, chopped liver?

      /wait, don’t answer that

    3. true, but I wouldn’t mind seeing Randy Barnett sitting on the Supreme Court. It’ll never happen, but it would be nice.

    4. Soccer?

      You fucking Communist.

    5. What do you think of Donnarumma?

      1. Isn’t that a Dr. Strange villain?

        1. You’re thinking of Dormammu

          1. NEEEEEERD

  18. Who would actually join this party? He says he doesn’t want the establishment and he certainly doesn’t want the “Trump supporters”, so who does that leave? And wouldn’t most of those people already be members of the Libertarian party anyway?

    And what exactly would this party believe? I love the Constitution as much as the next person but it is not a particularly Libertarian document and it really has nothing to say about a bunch of issues that this guy no doubt considers sacred cows. For example, the entire document was written on the premise that the federal government would fund itself by collecting tariffs on international trade. I doubt Barlett will be too down with that.

    Hey, you want to go back to reading the document strictly, I am all for that. Understand, however, that means getting rid of Wickard as well as Roe and probably even (gasp) Ogberfel and turning those issues entirely over to the states. I doubt this guy is going to like that very much.

    Even if he does, most people are not ideologues. They just want politicians to give solutions that make sense. So yelling “but the constitution” isn’t going to be very compelling of an appeal to many people beyond the true believers.

    1. Do you know like, anything at all about “this guy”?

      1. Then enlighten me. Who would join this party and what would it actually stand for? And if this guy really is for reading the Constitution as written, I can’t see you joining his party.

        1. I already provided a link.

          Since the Constitution as written purports to bind people who never signed it, of course I wouldn’t support it.

          1. i thought it bound the federal govt.

            1. 99% of it is exactly that. It binds the federal government from binding us. The whole thing reads like a document detailing what the government can’t do.

              1. Right, except for the parts that grant the government powers over a bunch of people who never agreed to its existence.

                1. Right, except for the parts that grant the government powers over a bunch of people who never agreed to its existence.

                  I don’t disagree, Nikki that the constitution fails at perfect anarchy. But we’re worse off now because no one pays attention to the parts where it succeeded in limiting leviathan. If we paid as much heed to the parts that stood athwart power as we do to the parts that granted power, we’d be better off as a nation.

                  1. Sure. I’m just explaining why I wouldn’t support a pro-Constitution party.

            2. Further, most times that an entity claims that the document “doesn’t bind them”, it’s a blatant power grab by a state or locality.

              1. Exactly that Paul. I would be very happy to see the current federal government actually bound by the limits set in the Constitution.

                1. I would be very happy to see the current federal government actually bound by the limits set in the Constitution.

                  As would I. Unfortunately, as Ron Paul’s and Ted Cruz’s campaign results indicate, not a lot of people feel the same way.

    2. The “new party” would really just be the “No Donalds Club.” All the anti-Trump Republicans would get together and sing songs about how they secretly run the world. It’d be just like the current Republican party, but without having to deal with the hoi polloi.

      1. So basically a party of politicians, activists and gadflies but no actual voters. That sounds like it will work.

        1. So basically a party of politicians, activists and gadflies but no actual voters. That sounds like it will work.

          We actually have something like that, the Hillary Clinton campaign. /rimshot

          1. Or Libertarian party except they don’t have any actual politicians.

      2. Why don’t they just go the superdelegate route, like the Dems?

        1. I don’t thing there are as many in the Republican party and a good number of them are supporting Trump. And Trump may win a majority even without them.

    3. Presumably they’d want the state constitutions & city charters read strictly too.

  19. How is this scenario now a win-win for everyone involved?

    1. It’s proof of the libertarian moment.

  20. Meanwhile

    Many readers would probably be stunned by some of the people who are secretly supporting Trump and don’t want to admit it on the record. His coalition includes not just rock-ribbed conservatives and God-fearing evangelicals but Ivy-League-educated professionals. Some realize he’s not actually that authentically conservative and look the other way. Some, who fancy themselves moderates, admire the businessman’s malleability. Yesterday, as an example of someone in that vein, former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert (who lost to Ted Cruz in the 2012 Texas Senate primary) endorsed Trump. Others just like to jump on bandwagons and back winners.

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228020/

    The guy in the next cubical, the guy changing your oil, your kid’s teacher, your mother even, they all could be secret Trump suppoerters without you knowing about it. Let the pants shitting begin.

    For the record, I am always skeptical of claims that the supporters of this or that candidate are there but just afraid to admit it. They have been claiming that about candidates for years. It has never once been true. I doubt it is here but there is a first time for everything and it is so much fun to think about the hysteria this article must have inspired among Washington Post readers.

    1. Yesterday, as an example of someone in that vein, former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert (who lost to Ted Cruz in the 2012 Texas Senate primary) endorsed Trump.

      Why would Ted Cruz want that loser’s endorsement?

      1. Because he is not a Libertarian and takes the votes whenever he can get them even when they come from those he considers beneath him?

        And who this guy is is not the point.

    2. I’ve had several acquaintances quietly signal that they are supporting Trump. They do it quietly even though Trump is very popular among MA republicans. Because here in MA, particularly inside Rt 128, when Trump supporters are publicly discussed, the consensus among the right thinkers is that they are worse than child molesters and people who talk at the theater.

      1. people who talk at the theater.

        Actors or Black people?

        1. Either, but only if they are in the audience.

        2. I only talk during movies at home, but I’m doing it like a riff track, not telling the characters “don’t go in the basement!”.

          1. So you’re the one to blame when they fall thru the trap door.

      2. I thought they were the exact people who talk at the theater.

        1. They’re the people unwrapping their Werther’s Original five minutes into the show.

      3. …particularly inside Rt 128…

        What’s the range of a neutron bomb? Asking for a friend.

      4. From my sampling, Trump’s very popular among pagans.

    3. The guy in the next cubical, the guy changing your oil, your kid’s teacher, your mother even, they all could be secret Trump suppoerters without you knowing about it. Let the pants shitting begin.

      Let’s see: Have an office, change my own oil, kid’s teacher is a union shill, and mother is dead. Guess I’m safe unless I see Donald Sutherland walking down the street.

      1. The teacher could be lying Hetero. Trump supporters are everywhere. And the more loudly someone claims not to be one, the more likely they are and are just trying to throw you off the scent.

      2. I think that means you’re a Trump supporter.

  21. My hope there is a Trump candidacy or even presidency will flush the nativist sentiment not just out of the Republican Party but out of acceptable political discourse.

    I hope so too, but I’m not counting on it.

    1. Even if he did, what difference would it make? Those voters would just go vote Democrat or form their own party. And Barlett would still be bitching. The only thing they could do to make Barlet happy would be to either give up their right to vote or maybe die.

    2. The Great Depression didn’t flush government economic intervention out of the Democrats- in fact it became the centerpiece of the party.

  22. Don’t we already have a Constitution Party?
    http://www.constitutionparty.c…..statement/

      1. Hey- the plug!

        They are a bit churchy for my tastes. I get mine on Sunday. On the other hand, I’ll take preachy Constitutionalists over the Trumps and Clintons.

      2. Pay your bet, fucknut.

  23. Most people like the Constitution for the same reason they like their favorite football team. And just because it’s your favorite team doesn’t mean you like the owner, the general manager, the coach, or the quarterback. In fact, you may hate any or all of that bunch–because they’re on your favorite team.

    Just because people like “the Constitution” doesn’t necessarily mean people like the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right not to be forced to testify against yourself, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments, etc., etc. To them, “the Constitution” is like a brand identity.

    Like being a Bengals fan, like wearing a Harley Davidson t-shirt is for some people. Some people like “the Constitution” for the same reason they wear a cowboy hat.

    Everybody keeps trying to find a substitute for outreach. I think we’ve got the evidence and reality on our side; we’ve got the morality behind our ideas right. I don’t think the problem is that people don’t understand our positions, exactly, either–although they may not understand us. But if they understood us better, they might hate us more.

    What do you mean I’m responsible for my own retirement?

    1. What do you mean I’m responsible for my own retirement?

      What do you mean I’m supposed to take care of myself so I stay healthy?

    2. Thanks, Ken. Hey, I just poured a bowl of Cheerios. Would you mind coming over and taking a shit in that too? 😉

      1. If the solution were simply getting better looking candidates, that would make me feel really hopeless.

        You mean all this suffering under authoritarian and socialist solutions is because the statist candidates are better looking?

        We can achieve big changes. Fifteen years ago, I wouldn’t have expected to see gay marriage or legal, recreational marijuana. Those changes didn’t happen because we elected libertarian candidates. Those changes came about by changing people’s hearts and minds.

        We can change things without needing to have libertarian politicians–as evidenced by things like gay marriage and legal marijuana. George Wallace went from, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” to completely repudiating segregation because enough of his constituents changed their minds. The politicians we already have are all the politicians we need to effectuate libertarian change. We just need a more libertarian constituency.

        I don’t know about you, but that makes me feel better. There’s nothing wrong with that bowl of Cheerios.

        1. (fishy smiles…perhaps naively, but fishy smiles)

  24. Maybe the problem is that people don’t like our ideas. If we had the right candidate, I’m not sure that would make a difference. If we branded the ideas of the Constitution as “The Constitution Party”, I don’t think that would make a big difference either. The problem is that not enough people like our ideas and too many of them despise our ideas–and the principles of the Constitution.

    There’s just no substitute for outreach. We don’t need another vehicle for our values. We need to persuade more people to share them. We shouldn’t be looking for votes. We should be looking for converts. We shouldn’t start a new party. We should start a new religion. Change their hearts and values, and the politics will eventually fall into place.

    1. The problem is most people are so poorly educated they have no idea what’s in the Constitution and, more importantly, why. They do not understand the basics of how governance works in our system, and have little concept of the system our Founders originally envisioned.

      Bottom line – we have become too stupid as a country for self-governance, but the government has become too big to be ignored.

      1. I think a lot of people know what we’re talking about–and they hate us for it.

        They don’t want child molesters to have the right not to testify against themselves.

        They don’t want to be responsible for educating their own children.

        They want to be able to torture terrorists, and if you’re against that, they think you’re on the side of the terrorists.

        People who have abdicated responsibility for their own lives are viciously spiteful towards those who think we should all be responsible for ourselves.

        It’s true that they don’t understand us. It’s also true that the more many of them come to understand us, the more they hate us.

        What do you mean other people should be free to make choices for themselves? What if their choices adversely impact me?

        They think the purpose of government is to stop others from making choices that might adversely impact them. That’s what they want. It isn’t just that they don’t understand. And they hate us for pointing to the Constitution.

        When we point to the Constitution, it makes them feel like hypocrites and liars for being patriotic. You know why?

        It’s becasue they are hypocrites and liars. Well, that, and they think of the Constitution as being American like apple pie, rock & roll, ’57 Chevys, and bikinis are American. For a ton of Americans, telling them we should abide by the Constitution is like telling a cholo he should only eat fish on Fridays becasue he painted the Virgin of Guadalupe on his low rider.

      2. You can see it on this thread. Hazel and Mullatto are convinced the Constitution gives them their pony on immigration. Any “constitution party” would quickly devolve into a “the constitution requires you to give me my fucking pony” party.

        Even Bartlett, he claims he supports the Constitution yet, the Constitution seems to always require exactly the kind of government he prefers. Amazing coincidence isn’t it?

        1. Even Bartlett, he claims he supports the Constitution yet, the Constitution seems to always require exactly the kind of government he prefers.

          Do you have any evidence to back this up yet, or are you still just basing it on the fact that he doesn’t like Trump?

          Pro-tip: Google will work better if you spell his name “Barnett.”

          1. It is an affirmative statement. Prove it wrong. Color me skeptical that Barlett finds many instances where the Constitution requires things he doesn’t like. IT is just human nature.

            1. Ugh, if only Jeb Bartlett was going to be our next president. *sighs longingly*

            2. You want me to prove random affirmative statements wrong? You really are on the Trump train, aren’t you.

              1. Yes. It is easy. Just find an example of him saying the Constitution requires a policy he admittedly doesn’t like. Do that and you win the argument.

                Meanwhile, I can only point to the multiple instances of him saying the constitution requires policies he likes, like free trade and open borders. I can’t say he only does that because that would require me proving the totality of his beliefs. If there is an example that disproves my generalization, it is up to you to provide it. But you are being asked to provide a single affirmative example. You are not being asked to prove a negative.

                1. I can only point to the multiple instances of him saying the constitution requires policies he likes, like free trade and open borders.

                  Which you haven’t done even a single time. Your argument against him is at this point 100% baseless.

                2. He wants to repeal the 16th Amendment. Congratulations, you’re wrong again.

                  1. Okay, that is one thing. At least you understand the argument.

                    And sorry if I don’t share in your automatic worship of top men. And I am note sure the fact that he finds one thing wrong with the entire document says much. But it does answer the challenge.

          2. Wasn’t he the president on The West Wing? God, that show was terrible.

            I think part of the problem is that, since at least the 1960s, and probably since around 1937, people have come to accept “constitutional” as meaning “the law is good” and “unconstitutional” as “the law is bad.” Not all bad laws are unconstitutional and not all good ones are constitutional, but if you point out, say, that nothing in the Constitution prohibits anti-sodomy laws, people will freak out and accuse you of being a homophobe.

            1. Yes. And anny constitution party would quickly devolve into that line of thinking.

        2. Barnett. His name is BARNETT. Jesus Christ on a fucking cracker, hire a MOTHER FUCKING PROOF READER FOR YOUR COMMENTs OR LEARN HOW TO FUCKING SPELL!!!1!!!!!!

          Sorry, I had to get that out…

  25. Trump “cares about power. He doesn’t really care about things like the Constitution.

    So how is Trump different from other conservatives?

    1. ZOMG!!!11!!!! I LUV YOU PB!!!!!

    2. Absolutely nothing, Shrike.

      In reality, all conservatives–each and every one of them–look just like the boogeyman in your head.

      1. I liked Barry Goldwater. I like FiCons in general if there are any left.

        I just don’t like SoCons.

        1. You’re a friggin’ retard.

    3. Have you paid yet?

      1. Yes. Matt Welch got my MO for $20.

        1. No, he didn’t.

          BTW, how’s my stagnant biotech doing?

        2. Pay your bet fucknut.

    4. Yep, the cat just dragged me back in, and no, I haven’t paid my bet off yet, or admiited how laughably wrong I was about Jeb Bush.

  26. The US and Canada are the only industrialized countries the grant citizenship to kids born in the country to nonresident or illegal aliens.

    1. Interesting tidbit. What’s your point?

      1. “We need to be more like other first-world nations! In this regard, anyway.”

    2. Far as I’m concerned if you’re born here you’re an American.

      1. I’d go further. If you believe in First Principles as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, you can be an American. Now leave me the fuck alone!

  27. There’s already a Constitution Party. Unfortunately, they’ve nominated Howard Phillips, Michael Peroutka, Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode.

    1. I don’t know who any of those people are, but my understanding is that they’re supposed to be cultural conservatives?

    2. There’s a Conservative Party too.

      http://home.conservativepartyusa.org/issues/

      They have officially endorsed Ted Cruz.

      1. I’m the sec’y of the Bronx Conservative Party, but we have no affiliation with the Conservative Party USA. We’re affiliated w the state party, which has nothing to do with this Nat’l organiz’n, though I do know Wm. Palumbo.

  28. ” Trump’s comments and ire directed at immigrants, particularly Mexicans, are truly vile and disturbing”

    And he still won more Latino voters in Nevada than either Cruz or Rubio.

    Rubio actually explained the reason why far better than any of the political pundits who scratched their heads wondering why brown people won’t just do as they’re told and be *deeply offended* =

    “Americans of Hispanic descent are voters. They care about the future of our country. They care about everything else people care about. They care about jobs. They care about terrorism. They’re impacted by illegal immigration negatively in communities that are overrun by that,” Rubio said. “I’ve always said that about Americans of Hispanic descent. It’s the press that tried to categorize people by race and ethnicity, but if you’re an American of Hispanic descent, you’re paying the same tax rate, your kids are going to the same school, and you’re worried about terrorists like everybody else.””

    Identity politics don’t matter to everyone the way progs think they should.

    1. Maybe Hispanics who came here legally are not very keen on giving citizenship to the ones who didn’t. It is almost like they are human beings with their own interests and opinions or something.

      1. Maybe there’s millions of Hispanics living in this country like other fucking Americans of all stripes who are tired of being thought of as immigrants. Many of whom had family living on this rock before there was enough Irish to fill an AA meeting, yet somehow mic’s aren’t collectivized so casually

    2. And no one better tell Dalmia or she will get the Hispanics to drop their paint brushes and stop putting up drywall and come out and whip some white people’s ass.

    3. He sure likes to work in the word terrorist.

      1. I mean it is not like anyone has overstayed their visa and committed some monstrous act of terror. Rubio is just another pants shitter to think control of the border has anything to do with terrorism.

      2. Yeah, Rubio thinks terrorism is his “Key Selling Point” the way Jesus is for Cruz.

    4. and you’re worried about terrorists like everybody else.

      Actually, Marco, I’m not at all worried about terrorism.

      1. And we know with a metaphysical certitude that you are correct in that assumption. And if you are wrong, the chances are you won’t be the one who dies, so why should you be worried?

        1. I’m not making assumptions. I’m expressing my own emotions, which do not include worry about terrorism.

        2. I’m not particularly worried about being killed by a guy yelling “Allah Akbar”.

          I am worried about government overreaction and their efforts to protect me by stripping away every liberty I once enjoyed.

          1. I’m not worried about terrorism. We have the DHS and TSA for that. Right? Right?? Why is everyone looking at me like that?

            1. But what if DHS and TSA are underfunded?

              1. Tax remittances to Terrorstan, obviously. If those camel jockies balk just make it 10 feet taller.

      2. “I’m not at all worried about terrorism.”

        Likewise, I don’t think candidates are worried about you

    5. Gil,

      The problem with your argument is that the narrative actually is accurate for the most part. It’s true that not every Latino dislikes Trump, and he did win a plurality of the Latino Republican vote in Nevada. That doesn’t tell us much about his broader appeal. And poll after poll of the Latino population as a whole in this country confirms that he is indeed by far the most unpopular candidate (and probably the most disliked figure, excluding universally reviled people like terrorists or murderers, etc.) in this country with the Latino population. His net favorability ratings in the community are consistently around -50 to -60, which is historically awful. People here regularly say “No one likes Hillary” and “everyone hates her” and her net favorability among the electorate is about -10 to -15. Her total unfavorables are about the same as Trump’s net favorables with Latinos. The vast majority of polls indicate that he does worse with Latinos in general election matchups than other GOP candidates, and a much higher percentage of Latino Republicans even say they’d refuse to vote for Trump, compared to Cruz or Rubio. The only way to spin this is to cherrypick a couple of datapoints from very narrow portions of the Latino community where Trump looks alright and to conclude from that that the media narrative is false. But that’s an illogical and dishonest way to look at data.

      1. i’m not overstating his (or the GOP’s) appeal w/ hispanics.

        All he needs to do is not be “nearly as bad” as others. And he’s already proven to do better.

        Even if he does the same as previous GOP candidates, he’s benefiting from very large GOP turnout. If that trend stays the same in the general, this quibbling about his relative appeal w/ minority groups is pretty meaningless.

        1. “All he needs to do is not be “nearly as bad” as others. And he’s already proven to do better.”

          Doing better in the primaries (in one state no less) doesn’t prove he’d do better in the general. That’s my point. If 90% of Trump-supporting Latinos would vote for Cruz and Rubio, but only half of Latinos who support those two would vote for Trump, then Trump is worse off in a general in this demographic, and that’s not even accounting for Latinos who are Democrats or Independents.

          “Even if he does the same as previous GOP candidates, he’s benefiting from very large GOP turnout. If that trend stays the same in the general”

          I don’t know if it does. One thing to keep in mind is that while the large turnout is probably to some extent enthusiastic Trump supporters going to the polls for him, it doesn’t mean that all the people voting for other candidates are going to be enthusiastic about supporting Trump in November. Opposition to Trump is probably contributing to high turnout as well.

          “this quibbling about his relative appeal w/ minority groups is pretty meaningless.”

          It’s not meaningless. Hillary isn’t an inspiring candidate, but a lot of people will turn out for her just to stop Trump. Mitt Romney got 60% of the white vote in 2012, and Obama still beat him 4% points. There isn’t an infinite amount of room to grow in that demographic, and if Trump does even worse among non-whites and increases turnout from those demographics, then he’s in an even bigger hole than Romney.

          1. “Doing better in the primaries (in one state no less) doesn’t prove he’d do better in the general. That’s my point.

            Its a bad one. Because Trump winning in NH, SC, and NV – very different states with different populations and constituencies – is definitely an indicator of his potential strength in the general election.

            “”Hillary isn’t an inspiring candidate, but a lot of people will turn out for her just to stop Trump.”

            Another point you’re wrong about.

            The high ‘dislike’ ratings say little about people voting ‘against’ someone. Hatred for Trump isn’t going to motivate Democrats who wouldn’t otherwise be voting. Democrat turnout relies on things other than simply anti-GOP animus. There’s decades of data showing this.

            By contrast, Hillary is someone that everyone over the age of 40 has an intimate familiarity with, and many of whom have a profound dislike that goes back decades.

            The Anti-Hillary vote is real. The Anti-Trump vote is entirely speculative and inconsistent with Democrat voting patterns.

            1. “Its a bad one. Because Trump winning in NH, SC, and NV – very different states with different populations and constituencies – is definitely an indicator of his potential strength in the general election.”

              As long as his favorables among the total population are what they are, they’re really not. It just shows that he has broad geographic appeal among Republican voters.

              “The high ‘dislike’ ratings say little about people voting ‘against’ someone. Hatred for Trump isn’t going to motivate Democrats who wouldn’t otherwise be voting. Democrat turnout relies on things other than simply anti-GOP animus. There’s decades of data showing this.

              By contrast, Hillary is someone that everyone over the age of 40 has an intimate familiarity with, and many of whom have a profound dislike that goes back decades.

              The Anti-Hillary vote is real. The Anti-Trump vote is entirely speculative and inconsistent with Democrat voting patterns.”

              I think your whole argument here is speculative. The fact is that enthusiasm for Trump is limited to a segment of the Republican party. Relying on Hillary hate alone to win when you are even more unpopular with the general public than she is isn’t enough. And anecdotally, I know a lot of people voting for Sanders who really dislike Hillary, but nonetheless will unhesitatingly vote for her if she’s up against Trump in the general. Not saying it necessarily indicates anything larger, but make of it what you will.

              1. And to reiterate something I’ve said previously – I do think Trump has a chance. A Hillary win isn’t a foregone conclusion. A gamechanger like an economic collapse or a terrorist attack could hurt her. If Trump manages to shift his rhetoric enough to win over new voters, if he somehow gets a decent share of the black vote, or if their turnout is well below 08 or 12 numbers, then he could win. I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just don’t think it’s particularly likely, and I think that’s a conclusion consistent with the data we have available. Of course, Trump has all but prove the data wrong once, so he could do it again, but that doesn’t mean he will.

  29. If trump wins or goes as independent, and Hillary wins and snubs enough of Sanders policies by general, I think there would be enough hatred to grow both the LP and the green party. Especially in the states that are not as evenly divided, which makes the lesser of two evils vote happen with more vigor.

    1. Yayy! 2%! 2%! 2%!

      1. I think nationally, 2 might be about right. I think in some states, they’d be up around 5-7.

  30. The only real purpose for the Republican party was as opposition to the Democrats. How’s that worked out over the past 100 years? By my measure, not so well. They’ve lost every major public policy debate.

    I’d support Barnett’s new party if I thought it would stand in front of the freight train called progressivism and win occasionally. As a trench tactic it’s fine, but it’s pathetic in terms of bringing about policy or politics that has any meaningful impact.

    Its a pipe dream.

    1. How would it be any more effective than the Libertarian party? The Libertarian party gets a few percent sometimes and it always gets on the ballot.

    2. “They’ve lost every major public policy debate.”

      BUT WHY IS THE COUNTRY NOT PERFECTED BY NOW, THEN?? THERE MUST BE A REASON

  31. I’ve got a novel idea: how about a “Libertarian Party.”

    1. Shh… we’re not supposed to talk about them.

      1. It is kind of sad isn’t it? Libertarian law professor finally gets fed up with the GOP and says we need a new party. The LP really is the homely girl. They don’t even warrant a revenge fuck from this guy.

      2. “SugarFree|3.1.16 @ 2:41PM|#

        Shh… we’re not supposed to talk about them.”

        I talk about them all the time. They have awesome hats

    2. Seriously, how wold his party differ from the Libertarian party? I can’t see how it would.

      1. “THIS TIME WE’LL KEEP ALL THE LOSERS OUT!”

        1. What about colloidal silver enthusaists?

    3. Bah, never work. Just end up with some annoying burn-out running every year.

    4. Best year yet I think. There is a tipping point in these things too.

    5. The Libertarian Party became a misnomer when they nominated Barr.

  32. The solution is a multiparty system. Each party must form coalitions as needed to effectively govern. This also could allow some amount of fluidity for a libertarian politician. No longer would they have to caucus with the R’s, and effectively endorse social conservatism, militarism, and nationalism. They could instead move as a coalition back and forth dependent upon the issues. In this system the smaller parties punch way outside of their weight class since their support is necessary for the larger parties to do anything.

    How this is achieved is beyond me.

    1. A four party race between Sanders, Rubio, Trump and Hillary would be very interesting and actually represent the different factions of the country.

      1. I really hope sanders does not win the nomination. Him invoking FDR, his ideas in the 1980s, him not liking free enterprise thinks he is a hard socialist.

        1. me thinks he is hard socialist. he is either very stupid and or pure evil.

          1. Why can’t he be both?

    2. Make each House race proportional representation with in state. Doesnt change anything in Wyoming, but in CA, it takes less than 2% to win a house seat.

      Once the big states start electing 4-5 parties, it becomes possible to get the numbers in a mid size state. 16% for a KY seat, for example.

      1. That is a very good idea rob. It would solve the problem of the Congress refusing to stand up to the President because around half or more of the congress is always from the President’s party.

        They system was not designed with a two party system in mind. It is a miracle it worked as long as it did.

        1. Yes. I don’t think game theory had advanced to prove first-past-the-post elections have a natural stability at a two party system. That’s fairly recent.

    3. How this is achieved is beyond me.

      What you are talking about is a parliamentary system. The cause of our two party system is the Electoral College. The EC was designed to give small states (population wise) a voice in electing the POTUS. In order to achieve a parliamentary system in the USA, you would need to amend the constitution to eliminate the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College. At which point New York, California, Florida, and Ohio are the only states that need to vote.

  33. I’d say it’s far more likely that both the GOP and Democratic members of Congress would dust off the Constitution, a document they all spent plenty of time ignoring so far in the 21st century, and get serious about limiting government the minute Trump started barking orders.

    First of all, that would require them to peak into their pants and find a pair. Secondly The Donald would have “a pen and a phone”, just like his predecessor.

    Although the salty ham tears of all the prog-tards who have spent the last several years cheer-leading every time Obama expands executive power, and the GOP establish-tards who likewise cheer-lead all of GWB’s expansions of executive power will be delicious.

  34. What do you guys think of this mtrueman character? Troll? Dishonest?

    He seemed pretty upset in the law firm article that it was pointed out that study really didn’t confirm his or her biases since it was a negligible difference in percent.

    So he or she had to make set up a strawman that he could easily knock down…”see it shows cons are cons and dont hire women” and “libs are libs”. Therefore correct. Even saw a false dichotomy thrown in there were he established the two terms when there are clearly more than that.

    1. He argues in bad faith and should be ignored. The same goes for me, though.

      1. Thanks. Any time i see him post i will remind people to ignore the troll cause mtrueman argues in bad faith.

      2. Thanks. Any time i see him post i will remind people to ignore the troll cause mtrueman argues in bad faith.

      3. Thanks. Any time i see him post i will remind people to ignore the troll cause mtrueman argues in bad faith.

      4. Thanks. Any time i see him post i will remind people to ignore the troll cause mtrueman argues in bad faith.

      5. Thanks. Any time i see him post i will remind people to ignore the troll cause mtrueman argues in bad faith.

        1. You are doing a good job so far

        2. Guys! MTrueman is one of the squirrels!

    2. He seemed pretty upset in the law firm article that it was pointed out that study really didn’t confirm his or her biases since it was a negligible difference in percent.

      LOLOLOL

      1. What’s so funny?

        1. What isn’t? Your assumptions about mtrueman’s biases? Or the fact that you think he was the idiot on that thread?

          1. Reading his comments. He tried to claim since there was a discrepancy that it must be due to cons not wanting to hire women or something. Not sure where he got that.

            And his conclusion was the study proves cons are cons and libs are libs. Not sure what that even mean or where it was going. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

            The difference was what 3% or so. Seems like noise to me.

          2. What does this mean?

            Mtrueman writes:
            I don’t see these arguments. There’s unresolved questions over the statistical analysis and harrumphing over ‘election years,’ but nothing solid. The findings seem uncontroversial to me. Conservatives are conservative and liberals are liberal. Seems self-evident.

          3. Or what about this one?

            Mtrueman writes:

            I think this is as good an example of intellectual cowardice as any of the comments here. Conservatives, rather than defend the choice to not hire women, nit pick at the survey, question the motives of the surveyors and other quibbles, anything but agree with the findings and defend them. A case book example of intellectual cowardice.

            How did he arrive at this conclusion that the 3% difference is a choice not to hire women? Sounds like he is setting it up such that it can only go down 1 rabbit hole or the other. In other words a false dichotomy.

          4. Why would one agree with the findings at face value? Should one not question who makes said study or their methodology to arrive at a certain conclusion?

            1. Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

              1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
              2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

              Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

              He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

              Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              The smart thing to do is to give his worthless ideas all the respect they deserve; ignore them and move on.

              1. Sounds like a psychopath.

                1. boring douche, more like

          5. Nicole: Still the worst.

    1. Everything about that link was pointlessly great.

  35. How about we all just step back, take a deep breath, and then pile in for a group hug?

    1. GET AWAY FROM ME, CRUSTY!

  36. I sometimes read the H&R comments before I read the driving article. But I have my limits. Late to the party, can someone sum this up for me.

      1. *Kicks Crusty Juggler off the lifeboat to make room for my mother-in-law.*

    1. Sorry, I usually get about halfway through the headline before getting bored and jumping to the comments.

    2. Go out to the garage.
      Check the top drawer of the workbench for 60 grit sandpaper.
      Masturbate with it.

      There, you’re all caught up.

  37. Do you folks think Sanders wins the nomination? i sure hope not.

    1. are you kidding? after today he’s toast.

      1. Good.

        After seeing his bread lines comment, deodorant comment, wanting to be FDR, admiring the Castros….i think he is a top down central planner totalitarian type socialist.

        1. i think he is a top down central planner totalitarian type socialist.

          You say this as though there is another type.

          1. Good point

          2. Come on, there are totally other types! There’s Castr…um, Stal…well, there was that Mao guy….let’s see, there was Che…Ok, in theory, there could be another type. Sort of.

        2. Whenever I hear him, he sounds more authoritarian than Trump. All he talks about is what “we” need or should do, which relates to his personal preference on this issue.

          1. Exactly. and he is angry and jealous.

          2. That’s because Sanders actually says he’s going to use government force to implement his agenda.

            Trump doesn’t have a specific agenda, so it’s difficult to pin down where he would place his jackboot. But everything I’ve heard from him indicates that he has no respect nor any understanding of how power is wielded in a Constitutional Republic. His only experience with executive authority is as the chairman of his own companies. IMO he is possibly worse than Sanders, especially if somehow he gets the Republican establishment behind him.

          3. That is because he is a socialist. Why does this surprise you?

    2. “folks” is not a word, it like sheeps.

      OK, go ahead and correct my grammar at will.

      1. “it’s”

        never fails.

      2. “Folks” is actually a word. It’s a plural noun for a group of people, kind of like guys but AFAIK with out any gender implications.

        Folk is an adjective generally applied to things like art and music to differentiate popular culture (folk music) from “high” culture (opera).

        Comes from the same root as the word Volk in German.

        That’s all, Folks!

      3. Folks like sheeps. Heh.

        1. We’re going to need a moderator here. I fail to see how double pruralss convey any information.

  38. The 8 essays linked at the bottom of http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/political.html explain why nobody should be in or devoting resources to the LP.

  39. I think there’s a good chance Hillary’s going to kill herself this year. If she doesn’t, eventually she’s put on trial, & goes down in hx as a mega-villain. If she dies, she’s a martyr, the lady who could’ve been president.

    1. But she has to make it look like a natural death, or at worst an accident.

  40. mtrueman|3.1.16 @ 3:47PM|#

    GILMORE and the rest of them see nothing wrong in conservatives avoiding hiring women. But rather than admitting the obvious, or, god forbid, defending the practice, they are happy to snipe at the study, those who are responsible for it, or those who write about it..

    This is another one from mtrue…i am curious how he determined this?

  41. “. And yet, just as the GOP establishment failed to realize how angry Republican voters and independents were after eight years of an awful, out-of-control George W. Bush presidency, so too are Democrats and independents pissed at Obama. He got everything he wanted in his first two years, which is the main reason why the Republicans clawed their way back to at least partial power in Congress. Since then, Obama has shredded the Constitution when it suits his purposes, obfuscated about all sorts of terrible policies such as secret kill lists and unacknowledged drone wars, and simply failed in producing any sort of tangible successes in improving the economy or America’s standing in the world. “

    I’m sorry I see no evidence whatsoever for this assertion.

    Democrats might have some issues with their parties establishment as a general rule those issues fall under the heading of insanity because they all center around a belief that the party is too timid and always loses political fights to Republicans. None of them have any issue with the policies actually pursued by Obama or the party itself

    1. Failure to change how cannabis is handled by the FEDs is a great hurt to a considerable number of Dems.

  42. Randy Barnett is hardly given to wild exaggeration. He is concerned primarily with the Constitution as befits a constitutional scholar such as himself. Constitutionally, Trump is worse than a disaster and not merely because of his unexcelled ignorance, but because of his equally unexcelled malice.

    However, in terms of psychological stability Trump represents something far worse than ignorance and malice. The man is unstable with wild oscillations between his feelings for those who praise him unconditionally and those who express even the most minor criticisms.

    Giving power to people amplifies their most basic qualities. Amplifying Trump would be like amplifying cholera.

  43. There’s only one thing better than following the Constitution: Electing someone who will force everybody to do what you want. Sad but true.

  44. Nick, I’m not supporting any political candidate for president, and wrote specifically abut my problems as a libertarian with Donald Trump. “The Wrong Donald Trump” at http://jneilschulman.agorist.c…..ald-trump/

    But in my view Donald Trump is no worse a statist than Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a socialist who wants an absolute government-run command economy, Cruz and Rubio are Neocons, and Hillary is no different than Neocons.

    Plus, 20 months ago Cruz, a Harvard-educated lawyer, saw no problem being a subject of Queen Elizabeth II. That would have been a red flag for any of the writers of the Constitution,

    I like that Trump has the Neocons in an all-out panic. I don’t know what he would do as president while i do know what the others would do — and it’s nothing good for liberty.

    In this case the Trump card and the wild card is the same thing.

  45. Wow, so many words, and no one has mentioned Duverger’s Law.
    Until the US changes its voting method, it will remain stuck with a two-party system, period.

  46. I believe there is a flaw in the comments so far. Everyone seems to believe that the election will be “fair and just”. It won’t be. Democrats have a history of doing whatever they can to ensure a win. Republicans have been playing catch up. I’ve already seen a report of a voting machine “malfunction” that registered Trump votes for Rubio.

    The Clinton machine will stop at NOTHING to pull off a win. N O T H I N G ! ! ! They’ve been waiting and planning for years. Heck, Obama may even lend a hand with his Chicago machine.

    Clinton will be your next president. And bad one at that.

  47. “At least in her fight against Sanders, Clinton has portrayed herself as a champion and inheritor of President Obama’s policies. Good luck getting elected with that as a platform.” This may surprise some of you–in fact it surprised *me*–but as of 2/29 Obama’s job approval numbers were actually a net positive according to Gallup: 49-46. http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm

    Pauline Kael is supposed to have said that she couldn’t understand how Nixon won in 1972 because nobody she knew voted for him. Libertarians and conservatives are subject to the same sort of self-deception. Everyone you know thinks Obama has been a terrible president, therefore *everyone* thinks that.

    (This is not a defense of either Obama or HRC. I am merely saying that the Obama coalition of 2012 seems to be surprisingly intact.)

    1. See i don’t see her as likeable as obama though. I dont think they get the turnout for her…same goes for trump

  48. Yes, it’s *always* time for an American Cocktail Party.

    . . .

    Wait, what did Nick write again?

  49. I’m never quite sure why when some libertarians go to great lengths to organize and actually run a presidential candidate and libertarians don’t actually vote for them. A Libertarian has less in common with the Republicans they invariably vote for than they do with Democrats. I do, however, understand the frustration that Libertarians feel when the presumptive candidate is an unabashed authoritarian.

  50. There already is a Constitution Party. And the last I heard, libertarians really, really don’t like it!

  51. “Then again, against Candidate Trump, how can anyone lose…?”

    – EXACTLY –

  52. I’ll say it again:

    Mark Kirk (R) – US Senate – is running on immigration.

    http://classicalvalues.com/201…..coattails/

    Trump now has political backing from a member of the R party. Interesting.

  53. We already have a Constitution Party. Join it!

  54. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.center90.com

  55. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.center90.com

  56. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.