Constitutional Law

Cruz's Constitutionalism Trumps Trump's Trumpism

Why the Texas senator is the least scary of the remaining major-party candidates

|

"If you want someone to grab a beer with," Ted Cruz said during the third Republican presidential debate last October, "I may not be that guy. But if you want someone to drive you home, I will get the job done."

The president as Uber driver is a refreshingly modest view of the job, especially compared to the grandiose dreams of Donald Trump. The boastful billionaire probably would not drive you home, and he definitely would not have a beer with you. Although he once had a vodka named after him, Trump does not drink, which may be just as well, given the appalling things he says when he's sober.

Trump's impromptu approach to public policy suggests that if he were in the driver's seat, he would be guided by nothing but his own whims. Cruz, by contrast, assures us that his map would be the Constitution, and that difference alone makes him clearly preferable to the Republican front-runner.

"I've been passionate my whole life about the Constitution," the Texas senator says, and he seems to mean it. Cruz's campaign website mentions the Constitution more than 1,300 times, compared to the Trump site's paltry 35.

The difference is qualitative as well as quantitative. Given the blatantly unconstitutional policies Trump has endorsed, such as censoring the Internet, closing down mosques, and barring Muslims from entering the country, I doubt he has read the Constitution. If he did, it did not make much of an impression.  

Cruz, by contrast, is a Harvard Law School graduate who clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and argued nine cases before the Supreme Court as the solicitor general of Texas. "We will defend the Constitution, every single word of it," he said during the September 16 GOP debate, and he has shown a broader interest in that task than most politicians.

In addition to defending the Second Amendment, as every Republican candidate is expected to do, Cruz has opposed the federal government's mass collection of our phone records, the indefinite detention of Americans deemed threats to national security, and a presidential license to kill suspected terrorists on U.S. soil. He has castigated Democrats for trying to suppress political speech in the name of fighting corruption and criticized Republicans as well as Democrats for abusing executive power (although with considerably less specificity).

Cruz, who promises to "carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion," concedes that he would need congressional authorization for such a war. "It should absolutely take congressional approval," he told ABC News in 2014.

Cruz understands that what the Constitution omits is at least as important as what it says. Declaring that he wants to "protect the people by rolling back the federal government to the functions the Constitution sets out," he lists four federal departments, one agency, and 25 programs that he would eliminate. Consistent with Cruz's admirable opposition to crony capitalism, the programs include sugar subsidies and the federal ethanol mandate.

I doubt Cruz would get far with his list, which in any case would hardly restore the federal government to its constitutional limits. But at least he aspires to that goal, even if he does forget his fiscal conservatism and his determination to shrink government when he talks about the military.

Cruz's dedication to the Constitution is by no means completely consistent. Among other things, he supports the constitutionally unauthorized war on drugs (although he says states should be free to legalize marijuana); touts his defense of the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is grounded in an absurdly broad reading of the federal power to regulate interstate commerce; and brags about sponsoring the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which would strip Americans of their citizenship without due process.

Despite such exceptions, Cruz is clearly more inclined to recognize and respect limits on the federal government's power than Trump or either of the two remaining Democrats. For libertarians and constitutionalists, he is the least scary of the bunch.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Tuesday Primary Vote Results: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri & More

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. You cite Cruz’s defence of a law banning the barbaric and gruesome murder of helpless human life as a downside to his candidacy because he didn’t ground it in some words written on a document which authorised a powerful central state and thus betrayed the Revolution?

    Go fuck yourself.

    You shouldn’t need any rationale for banning partial-birth (or any other type of) abortion other than the fact that it is blindingly, manifestly clear that it is MURDER.

    libertarianism = inviolate, inalienable negative liberty. Without life, there can be no other liberties. You infanticides get the fuck out of the libertarian movement, and join your friends among the Nazis and the Communists

    *Not a Cruz voter (though he is the least sociopathic of the remaining TEAM candidates, by a slim margin)

    1. Oh hogwash. If it were blindingly manifestly clear that abortion is murder, it wouldn’t be so contentious. Anytime half the population disagrees with something, blindingly and manifestly go out the window.

      Go poop in a flower bed somewhere. Your command of basic English words is pissingly poorly pathetic.

      1. Touch?. You are the voice of reason and sanity. Thank you.

        1. You are the voice of reason and sanity.

          How would you know what either of those things look like?

      2. I suspect that a number approaching half the population once agreed with slavery and, later, segregation.

        It didn’t make them any less morally repugnant or antithetical to basic human rights. Abortion is no different in this regard — especially late term abortion.

        1. Do you want vagina police? Women don’t.

          Yes we now have something like 80% against abortion. When you ask that question as “do you want government involved” the support goes down. A LOT.

          What about continuing what works? Persuasion.

          And most antis think of it as misdemeanor murder and the woman (the initiator) goes free. I don’t think government involvement will reach the ends you desire. There will be side effects. Not all of them favorable. Not all of them predictable in the current technological environment.

          1. And then there will be zealots. Think of the drug war zealotry we have experienced – now in decline.

            At one time life in prison (or was it the death penalty) was mooted for 2oz.of pot. Think of that kind of zealotry applied to abortion.

            Best to keep government out of he question.

            What happens when we get cheap robot surgeons? Who do you punish?

            1. What are you even talking about? Cheap robot surgeons? Vagina police?

              This kind of mush-mouthed nonsense is a big part why libertarians are generally ignored.

              The abortion issue isn’t about punishing anyone, you fucking idiot. It’s about protecting the civil rights of human beings. Even the smallest and most libertarian government you can imagine has a basic responsibility to protect the lives and rights of its citizens, if nothing else.

              The question comes down to whether you consider a human who hasn’t been born yet to be a person. If the answer is no, you have to explain why. If the answer is yes, then it’s clearly imperative their rights be protected under the law.

              1. If the answer is no, you have to explain why. If the answer is yes, then it’s clearly imperative their rights be protected under the law.

                Shouldn’t you also explain why if the answer is yes?

                1. Because it’s self-evident that a human being possesses rights.

                  If you’re arguing that an unborn baby is not a human being, then the burden is on you to explain why.

              2. The question comes down to whether you consider a human who hasn’t been born yet to be a person. If the answer is no, you have to explain why. If the answer is yes, then it’s clearly imperative their rights be protected under the law.

                If the answer is yes, I think you still have to explain why.

                1. Because it’s a matter of scientific fact that an unborn baby is a human organism. And if we accept the concept of natural rights, then the law is obligated to protect those rights.

                  If you’re arguing that an unborn baby is not, in fact, a human being, then the burden is on you to explain how and why you’ve reached that conclusion.

                  Most pro-abortion advocates tend to bestow some magical power on the mother, in which the baby only becomes a human person upon her whim. If she decides she wants the baby, then poof, it’s a baby. If not, then it is fair game to be treated as a tumor or parasite. This is of course progressive emotional logic at it’s worst, but it really is the crux of the so-called ‘choice’ position.

                  I have yet to hear anyone argue the matter in any other way.

                  1. In other words, you believe that the baby’s rights override the mother’s rights. I’m not saying I have the answer, but I think any concept of rights has to be able to clearly delineate rights and not have overlapping, conflicting rights.

                    1. What rights though? As I said, the primary argument seems to be that a baby is only a human person based on the whim of the mother, and that is simply unacceptable from both a scientific and legal standpoint.

                      The only possible rationale that isn’t based entirely on emotional magic would be that the unborn baby is totally dependent upon it’s mother, therefore it is the mothers decision whether or not to participate in that relationship.

                      But you can easily say that about a child right up until it’s a four or five years old — and certainly about an infant. In fact, there have been several deep thinkers on the progressive left who’ve already begun to make arguments that maternal infanticide should not be viewed as a crime, for the exact rationalizations that are regularly put forth to justify abortion.

                      So again, the only position once can realistically take under the guidance of natural rights would be that babies, regardless of age, are persons protected by the constitution.

                    2. There’s one big difference between a fetus and a toddler, though. The fetus is still *physically* attached to the mother. So it’s not merely a question of dependence, and that dividing line is pretty clear. Once the child is born, it is dependent on others to take care of it, but *anyone* could take care of it – it doesn’t have to be the mother. It just seems like the pro-life position is saying that a woman’s rights to control her body are null and void once she’s pregnant. Her body and rights must be limited or controlled in order to ensure the “rights” of the unborn growing in her. And there’s certainly been a growing trend in the law towards that idea. Are women who miscarry guilty of murder? Indiana seems to think so:
                      http://thinkprogress.org/healt…..entencing/

                      And while I lean towards pro-choice, I’ve toyed with this idea involving responsibilities, and something of an implied contract, where by having sex, one is accepting the responsibility for the consequences of it, such as getting pregnant. Even going with this idea, however, it only goes part-way, and not fully towards the pro-life view. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, must she be forced to carry the child to birth, even though she did not willingly have sex?

                    3. the primary argument seems to be that a baby is only a human person based on the whim of the mother, and that is simply unacceptable from both a scientific and legal standpoint.

                      It’s also unacceptable as a straw man fallacy.
                      You forgot to also say that it’s for the woman’s “convenience”

                    4. In other words, you believe that the baby’s rights override the mother’s right

                      They are precisely equal/

                      think any concept of rights has to be able to clearly delineate rights and not have overlapping, conflicting rights.

                      Only fundamental rights can be in conflict. The only way to avoid conflict is to restrict a fundamental right,which kinda misses the point, but defines both extremes of the abortion debate..

                      Extreme pro-lifers wan to restrict the right to Liberty.. Extreme pro-choicers want to restrict the right to Life, which is why we must ignore both.

                      If both rights are to defended, then only the court may continue doing so. Only they can establish a boundary between the two rights. They are obliged to establish that a boundary that best defends BOTH rights.

              3. The question comes down to whether you consider a human who hasn’t been born yet to be a person.

                No, it comes down to what living things it’s OK to kill, & under what circumstances, whether those living things be persons or not.

                1. Their both persons, with equal rights. It’s as if we’ve never had conflicting rights before. .
                  No rights are absolute, even fundamental rights, because they can conflict with each other,
                  When these conflicts arise, ONLY the Judiciary is empowered to resole them, and they are obliged to best protect both rights, But extremists on BOTH sides deny unalienable rights. Extreme pro-choices reject the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life. Extreme pro-lifers reject the woman’s equal and unalienable right to Liberty.

                  Unalienable is not used any more, except when citing the Declaration. But Jefferson was no fool and the Founders explicitly refused any attempt to enumerate all the fundamental rights. They intentionally left undefined our rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness … and our others.

                  The immense arrogance of Justice Scalia was his insistence that HE knew what “liberty” means, All manner of tyrants then melded their hostility to individual liberty with Scalia’s hostility.

                2. No, it comes down to what living things it’s OK to kill, & under what circumstances, whether those living things be persons or not.That seems — to me — rather barbaric compared with how our Founders settled it/

          2. Technically, we already have vagina police, since prostitution is illegal.

            1. Technically, we already have vagina police, since prostitution is illegal.

              And that is working so well isn’t it?

              1. I made no judgment.

          3. Do you want vagina police? Women don’t.

            This vast oversimplification over the contentious issue of when person-hood begins isn’t changing anyone’s mind

            1. This vast oversimplification over the contentious issue of when person-hood begins isn’t changing anyone’s mind

              I’m not here to change your mind. I’m here to talk you out of another government agency. You know. libertarian. Can you imagine a way to get what you want WITHOUT government? Work on it.

              1. Can you imagine a way to get what you want WITHOUT government? Work on it.

                Protecting the rights of person-hood is a legitimate government function. Sure it would be nice to convince everyone to agree, but then again gay marriage isn’t something everyone that isn’t gay might understand.

              2. What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about here? What additional government agency are you imagining here? The Department of Abortion Prevention? Grow the fuck up.

                Libertarianism doesn’t mean anarchy. And the most libertarian government you can imagine STILL has the basic responsibility to ensure the right of it’s people to exist.

                If you think that an unborn baby isn’t a person, then please explain how and why you’ve reached that conclusion.

                1. If you think that the mother suddenly loses her rights because she became pregnant, then please explain why the fetus’ rights override the mother’s rights.

                  1. They both have rights, but only one of them made a decision that directly led to their pregnancy. I suppose personal responsibility doesn’t really enter into the equation. Regardless of which person you think has the most rights in said situation, one of them is blameless for the scenario they find themselves in.

                    1. BYODB
                      They both have rights, but only one of them made a decision that directly led to their pregnancy.

                      So? You people REFUSE to accept the inalienability of fundamental rights.
                      Always with non-rational “arguments” which ignore the concept entirely.

                      We have an issue where two extremes demand restricting the rights of somebody, to impose their own view by force of law. Thus, any free society is obliged to reject them both

                      Let’s try again on the principles.
                      1) No fundamental rights may be denied or restricted, by definition.
                      2) Thus, when two such rights are in conflict, a dividing boundary must be defined.
                      3) No, that is NOT compromise. It’s win-win
                      4) The boundary MUST that best defends BOTH rights.
                      5) ONLY the courts may draw that boundary, as the intended check against legislatures.

                      Keep that in mind. and we can see BOTH extremes inventing the nonsensical and intentional rejection of the very existence of fundamental liberties. This BOTH defend tyranny, with the vicious nastiness one might expect pf tyrants … and their followers.

                  2. But rights to what? Convenience?

                    1. One has the right to do as they will with their own personal body, which is very libertarian, the other has the right to live which is also very libertarian.

                      The only rational libertarian argument for being pro-choice, in my opinion, is if you believe a fetus isn’t a person.

                      That’s a fair enough argument, but you are by definition initiating force upon a person when you abort them in my view. That’s because I view a fetus as a person with the same rights you could grant a newborn baby. I completely understand that other people probably don’t hold this view, and thus we end up with Roe Vs. Wade, which did the job of saying exactly when a person becomes a legal person.

                      The fact that ruling, which I consider to be as rational as such a contentious issue can be, was overthrown by the progressive left as not going far enough. This is, in my view, because they can’t afford one of their dividing issues to be left alone since they necessarily require these issues to maintain their grip.

                    2. That’s because I view a fetus as a person with the same rights you could grant a newborn baby.

                      …… BUT MORE RIGHTS THAN THE MOTHER???? Hardly.
                      You defend tyranny, which is caused from your eagerness to be brainwashed .. Like this:

                      Roe Vs. Wade, which did the job of saying exactly when a person becomes a legal person.

                      Uhhhh, no. You forgot the bullshit about “the woman’s convenience,

                      This is, in my view, because they can’t afford one of their dividing issues to be left alone since they necessarily require these issues to maintain their grip.

                      You prefer your own tyrannical grip? This is an issue where both extremes are full of shit, each seeking to impose their own views over the other extreme by government force.

                    3. @Dunehunter
                      But rights to what? Convenience?

                      @BYODB.
                      One has the right to do as they will with their own personal body, which is very libertarian, the other has the right to live which is also very libertarian.

                      They also stack the deck,to support the anti-rational.

                      The only rational libertarian argument for being pro-choice, in my opinion, is if you believe a fetus isn’t a person.

                      Which is not the case. Your premise is a fallacy. Thus your conclusion may be rational, but the false premise fails the test of truth.

                      We libertarians have always had to defend individual rights from clever tyrants with pious excuses..

                      That’s a fair enough argument,…

                      You lose on a falsehood.

                    4. But rights to what? Convenience?

                      Ever hear of Life and Liberty?

                2. What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about here? What additional government agency are you imagining here? The Department of Abortion Prevention? Grow the fuck up.

                  Bless you.

          4. Do you want vagina police?

            Anatomy lesson: the organ in question here is the uterus.

            1. the organ in question here is the uterus.

              Which I 100% guarantee you MC Guru doesn’t have.

              1. That’s OK, I have two of them in the house.

                1. The jars look great on the mantle.

              2. Which matters why?

          5. “Do you want vagina police? ”

            Hyperbolic much?

            How about we just stop treating people who perform the deed as respectable medical professionals?

            And stop funding the whole gruesome industry?

            No vagina policing required.

          6. I’m on the fence when it comes to abortion. But one thing that bothers me is how those in favor of legal abortion misportray those who are against.

            Those who favoring banning abortion don’t want to be vagina or uterus police. It is not, contrary to pro-abortion portrayals, about the woman: it’s about the fetus, which they view as a child. You may disagree with them, and claim that a fetus is not a child, and that’s fine; spend your effort arguing that point rather than arguing against a position they don’t even hold. That’s advice you should follow if you hope to change any minds and, therefor, policy.

            On the other hand, you can argue all day that anti-abortion campaigners are waging a “war on women” and how a woman’s uterus is none of their business, and while you’ll keep the friends already in your circle, you’ll achieve little in terms in the way of swaying opinions because you are arguing against opinions they do not hold.

            I suspect this intellectual dishonesty is partially intentional (or at least was, before it became the rote campaign), because it’s much more appealing to argue that a woman has the right to her own body than it is to argue a woman has the right to end another life.

            As such, I don’t think I’ll ever get my wish for honest debate, because that would require one side to take an honest and uncomfortable look at themselves and their morals. So we’re left with an intractable case of zealots yelling at each other, swaying no one, and learning nothing.

            1. This pretty much nails it. I am pro-life because to me, the only difference between the twins my friend is currently carrying and my own 3 year old that stands beside me is where the child currently lives. To someone like me, justifying why it’s OK to kill a child in the womb is as repulsive as suggesting that it’s OK to kill children because they live in the ghetto, or anywhere else. I have no desire to regulate anyone’s uterus, but murder is already against the law and abortion is murder. If a pro-abortion person wants to explain to me why a baby in the womb is somehow not a human, then OK I guess. Otherwise, try and recognize the honest and sincere beliefs of pro-life people.

            2. There have been a couple of honest discussions/debates on abortion here on the Reason boards from some of the regulars, and it’s the only place I’ve ever seen either IRL or on the internet that that’s happen. Both sides laying out their positions reasonably and in good faith. One side arguing that a fetus = a person and deserving of non aggression, and the other arguing that a fetus does not equal a person and it’s simply a woman’s medical decision,

              OR that a fetus may even be a human, but that there’s no moral onus for a person to support another person with their body, even if that person were a full adult. The counter to that being that if your willful actions made that person dependent on your body in the first place, yeah there is a moral onus to take responsibility for it.

              Basically there’s an impasse among libertarians about abortion, and there’s no solution. The closest thing to a practical solution I think would be to repeal it as a federal issue and let the States decide, so that individuals could avoid giving their taxes governments that they believe are complicit in murder. But morally or philosophically, the Reason boards has convinced me that there’s not a “libertarian” solution to it.

              1. Those are not the only 2 sides? What about my side, which says it’s OK to kill something if it doesn’t mind dying & isn’t owned by someone who cares whether it dies?

                This business about “person” is a distraction from the more fundamental question about killing living things. And if you want to say there’s objective value to life, which value should be incorporated into law, then what’s to stop you from incorporating into law all other things that you think are objectively good, like sobriety or health care or NY-NJ pizza? I say all value is subjective, that being an important prop of libertarianism.

              2. a practical solution I think would be to repeal it as a federal issue and let the States decide

                Brilliant. Let’s have 50 different definitions of life, “Leave it to the States” has also been used by southern racists and other tyrants, to “justify” their rejection of fundamental individual liberties.

                Trump’s perverted constitutionalism is no more valid than Trump’s Trumpism.

                1. So, in your view, we really should have a strong central government that defines all things for everyone across the entire United States?

                  I take it you aren’t very free market either if this is a thing you actually believe. Fortunately, I think you’re just a contrarian hack.

                  1. So, in your view, we really should have a strong central government that defines all things for everyone across the entire United States?

                    (laughing) Not even close to what I said. And you just defended
                    1) 50 different definitions of life.
                    2) Which means you claim we have NO fundamental rights,
                    3) NO protection against abuse by state government.
                    4) That states have powers which have powers which have NEVER been delegated.

                    Fortunately, I think you’re just a contrarian hack.

                    Probably why you screwed this up so massively. You just defended
                    1) 50 different definitions of life.
                    2) Which means you claim we have NO fundamental rights,
                    3) NO protection against abuse by state government.
                    4) That states have powers which have powers which have NEVER been delegated.

                    And somebody ripped the Ninth Amendment out of your copy of the Constitution..

            3. It is not, contrary to pro-abortion portrayals, about the woman: it’s about the fetus,

              Contrary to pro-life portrayals about the fetus, it’s about both, It’s purely tribal to assume ONE extreme is correct, when they’re both quite wrong.

              One denies the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. The other denies the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life. Both are precisely equal, from the definition of unalienable.

              As such, I don’t think I’ll ever get my wish for honest debate, because that would require one side to take an honest and uncomfortable look at themselves and their morals.

              You can’t get an “honest” debate from a blatantlyt biased description of it.
              They’re both wrong. And it’s a constitutional issue,

          7. You want to kill yer unborn baby? Have at it, just keep yer fucking dick beaters outta my pockets to pay for the abortion.

            1. t keep yer fucking dick beaters outta my pockets to pay for the abortion.

              On me victim of shameless lies and brainwashing. Nobody’s dick is in your pocket for such a thing..

        2. Scarecrow said nothing about morality. He said if half the people disagree, it’s not blindingly clear. He niggle was with the command of the English language, not ethics.

          1. Sometimes government imposed ethics don’t work well. Ever hear of Alcohol Prohibition?

            1. Was anyone arguing government is ethical, ever?

          2. Thanks 🙂 I knew that message would be lost in the kerfuffle, but had to say it anyway.

        3. /slowly ducks behind bar counter.

          1. Why, did somebody try to claim deep dish is actually pizza?

            1. If Trump was still in Chicago he would agree, “It IS pizza.”

              The man is unscrupulous.

              1. That right there would enough to hate Trump. Especially since he is a New Yorker.

                1. He is a politician first. They are ALL like that. If New Yorkers complained he could say. “When I’m in Chicago I LOVE Deep Dish.”

                  1. That too is a crime which is unforgiveable.

            2. “Why, did somebody try to claim deep dish is actually pizza?”

              At that point, it’s literally a pie, although mostly non-sweet.

              You do know “pizza” is the Italian word for “pie”, right?

        4. But it didn’t make them obviously wrong, either. If a large # of people think something, that’s a good reason to take it seriously. They may be wrong, but they may be right.

          1. “Jews are a mongrel race which must be exterminated,” essentially why the Christian Crusaders launched the First Holocaust.

      3. When it comes to partial birth abortion, 68% say think it should stay illegal, 25% think it should be legal. I think that could be described as “blindingly manifestly clear”.

        1. Now if the pro-life extremists would only get off their asses on late-term abortion.
          That could have easily been done one hour after Roe v Wade, but political games seem to be more important than saving babies.

      4. So slavery was okay as long as half of the population (or more) agreed with it? And if half of the population (or more) agreed that it was okay to bring it back, would that be okay, too?

        1. Well, you’re a little late to the game, but I’ll humor your lack of reading comprehension anyway.

          He said it was blindingly manifestly clear. I said anything which divides the population so much is not blindingly manifestly clear.

        2. So you are against slavery, are you? Cause forcing a woman to carry a fetus in her womb against her will sure sounds like slavery to me.

          1. Wait, I thought you were against abortion…or was that Morning Woodchipper? Chip Morewood? I can’t keep all these derivative names straight.

    2. Oh FFS, its too early for an abortion thread.

      *takes a bite of leftover deep dish*

      1. What, you don’t have any pizza?

        1. Deep dish IS pizza, bro. It’s the best pizza.

          1. No, it’s some kind of bastard casserole. And not even close to the best.

            1. Your pizza, in some of it’s ‘finest’ iterations, doesn’t even rise to the level of ‘good sandwich’.

              It’s like the entire state is trying to fool people into eating “wraps” by pretending it’s New York/Italian.

          2. I’ve had some pretty good deep dish pies. I’d happily eat them again. With a fork and knife. Because it’s not pizza.

    3. You infanticides get the fuck out of the libertarian movement, and join your friends among the Nazis and the Communists

      Infanticide is the act, not the perpetrator.

      And “infanticide-enabler” would be more appropriate, anyway.

      Keep trying, though, I’m pretty close to getting logical fallacy bingo.

      1. He’s using the word in the same way that people used to refer to people who committed suicide as “suicides”. Maybe he’s trying to be antique.

        1. If I were to say that John Doe was a homicide, then you would not think he was the perpetrator of the act.

          1. I would. It’s a dated but valid usage.

            1. Hmm, Webster’s 1913 agrees.

              Learn something new every day!

    4. Murder is typically not a federal crime. Except for a few corner cases (such as killing a federal official or using the Postal Service to commit your crime) it is handled by the states. That doesn’t mean the federal government in any way condones murder. It means the federal and state governments share responsibility in maintaining society.

      1. Murder is typically not a federal crime.

        I suspect Cruz would be happy to turn the regulation of abortion back to the states, where it belongs constitutionally.

        But given that the Supremes have usurped State power to the federal level, it hardly seems fair to criticize Cruz for then playing at that level.

    5. I find it interesting that the left, not the right, decided to do away with the common sense landmark case of Roe Vs. Wade. The left cannibalizes it’s own victories because, in their view, any limitations to abortion at all is restricting access. They won this battle, only to decide that if they could take an inch why not take the entire mile?

    6. Well you know, there used to be a common sense measure in place called Roe Vs. Wade but the left decided that it didn’t go far enough. It would appear that while their justification for Roe Vs. Wade was safe spaces for abortion, they themselves don’t feel there should be any restrictions at all. Ergo we need to make a legal or people will use coat hangers, but then after the fact they say that people should be allowed to use coat hangers or it’s restricting access. It’s ludicrous. (Please excuse the hyperbole.)

      1. Damn it, sorry for double posting. I thought it deleted this .

        1. Especially when it’s so laughably dumb.
          The notion of Roe v Wade is equally ignorant of the topic, but hell, blame the left, You forgot to call them progs,

          1. When I say it was a common sense measure, I say it because it defined when it is, and when it isn’t, appropriate to have an abortion. At some point you’ll need to draw a line in the sand that says ‘beyond this point, it’s a person’ or you end up with all kinds of mental gymnastics.

            1. At some point you’ll need to draw a line in the sand that says ‘beyond this point, it’s a person’

              Thar was done decades ago, identical for both the woman and the fetal child. Changing that point requires, of course, KEEPING it identical with. It’s called “equal rights.”

              or you end up with all kinds of mental gymnastics.

              Like claiming a different personhood for different people? “God-given rights” which somehow disappear when equality is inconvenient? Sorry, both are clearly forbidden by the Constitution, and quite immoral to most.

    7. You shouldn’t need any rationale for banning partial-birth (or any other type of) abortion other than the fact that it is blindingly, manifestly clear that it is MURDER.

      McGuru, I don’t intend to change your mind, but let me show you how comments like yours come across to me, a person who supports the legality of abortion up to around the point where it is now legal in the U.S. It’s along the lines of “You shouldn’t need any rational for banning pulling the plug on brain-dead patients other than the fact that it is blindingly, manifestly clear that it is MURDER.”

      You see, I agree aborting a zygote, embryo, fetus is killing a living collection of cells with human DNA, but without a functioning cerebral cortex, they’re like brain-dead adults whose next of kin can decide to pull the plug. I know there are objections to this about “coming out of the coma” and so forth, but I’m not interested in debating those points. I only wanted you to realize that your point of view isn’t shared by everyone else, and not because people are bloodthirsty “baby killers”.

      1. You know the difference between a vegetable and a fetus? One of them will eventually become sentient. I’ll leave it up to you to figure out which one.

        1. So? Somehow, the bank is not impressed when I say that I will eventually get around to paying my loan.

          1. So you’ve never had a mortgage.

            1. NotAnotherSkippy
              So you’ve never had a mortgage

              Have you? Did you make payments whenever you got around to it, eventiually?

        2. Do you know which of two totally equal rights (by definition) s is somehow more equal and the is less equal? Oh wait, that makes no sense.l.

    8. AGREED

    9. Dude, chill the fuck out. Reasonable people can disagree about when life begins without being devilspawn.

    10. Go fuck yourself.

      Umm, the woman and the fetal child have precisely equal, unalienable and/or God given rights. One to Liberty. The other to Life. On the meaning of unalienable, do we believe Jefferson and the Founders, or some rude dude with a trash mouth?

      Without life, there can be no other liberties

      memorized slogans don’t trump the Constitution. Got anything that makes sense?

      1. A temporary limit to liberty to the tune of 9 months trumps potentially 90 years of the right to life, eh? Interesting.

        1. A temporary limit to liberty to the tune of 9 months trumps potentially 90 years of the right to life, eh?

          Non-responsiive,. The statement violates the constitutional guarantee of equal rights. Thus a straw man fallacy., based on inventing a new definition

          The woman and the fetal child have precisely equal, unalienable and/or God given rights. One to Liberty. The other to Life. On the meaning of unalienable, do we believe Jefferson and the Founders, or you?.

          If you can invent a new definition for unalienable, then I can redefine a fetus as an alarm clock, and ask how an alarm clock has more rights than an adult human? You do grant that my right to invent new definitions equals your right to do some, eh? Since that leads nowhere at all, why don’t we agree to use as what they mean?

  2. Cruz is the Manitobian candidate. He will stage a terrorist attack and then impose a Christian Caliphate named “Gilead”. This has long been the Canadian dream – see Margaret Atwood / Handmaid’s Tale. He is a scary person and I don’t trust a word he says and I would vote for Kasich or Hilary over him. But aren’t there any Libertarian candidates we can discuss wistfully?

    1. Cruz is a Mexican-Canadian and his plans centers on this pincer attack on the US. A double-flanking attack if you will.

      I have sometimes thought his weird facial expression is some sign that he’s also got Atlantic blood in his ancestry and the mask sometimes slips, which would make it a three-sided flanking attack, with the goal being to push all the population onto the left coast, where the excess weight will tip it over, causing a tidal wave which will inundate Asia and eliminate any need to worry about trade with China.

      1. Damn. s/Atlantic/Atlantis. Fuck.

        1. He does slightly resemble submariner

      2. Basically, but you forgot the part where it shuts down off-coast oil production thereby increasing prices in their shale fields. And where he bombs ISIS oil production because they are using the proceeds to create high quality production videos that are radicalizing the chillens over the youtubes, with their promises of eternal glory under Allah.

      3. “where the excess weight will tip it over,”

        So, he’s in cahoots with Congressman Hank Johnson then.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q

        (That is one of the funniest videos of all time.)

        1. Yes, his loose lips nearly sank the operation.

    2. Seriously, people? How can a guy who reveres the Constitution actually instigate a theocracy? If he goes by the 225-year-old book, he won’t go the theocracy route, because Establishment Clause.

    3. “Cruz is the Manitobian candidate.”

      Yep, he’s going to assume complete control and force us all to extend our hand before crossing the street.

      That, and poutine. Lots and lots of poutine.

  3. And if Kasich and Rubio had gotten out of his way around the time Carson dropped out, he might actually have a shot at the nomination without resorting to parliamentary sleight of hand at the convention. But now we’re guaranteed to have a split convention that results in either Trump getting the nomination anyway, or Trump being shut out and his supporters going thermonuclear.

    1. That’s absolutely correct, although Cruz himself has said a brokered convention is a bad idea. Rubio is a worm who absolutely knew he wasn’t going to win Florida but, I’m convinced, the Rep establishment encouraged him to stay in the race because they find Trump more palatable then Cruz. Whatever the case may be, we’re likely going to see Trump vs Hillary and I won’t vote for either but, unfortunately, I will have to put up with one of them for at least four years as will you.

      1. the Rep establishment encouraged him to stay in the race because they find Trump more palatable then Cruz

        ^This^

        1. Yes – Kasich is still in. The only logical reason can be that he’s there to peel off Cruz votes and ensure a Trump win.

          1. If only the GOP voters were smart enought to realize that. Every person who voted for Kasich in Ohio yesterday was actually voting for Trump.

            1. I would argue those who voted for Kasich anywhere else BUT Ohio were voting for Trump. And unfortunately, that argument will continue into the near future.

              1. You’re missing the coaitions.
                Cruz and Kasich are virtual opposites

                Every delegate Kasich takes moves BOTH Cruz and Trump further away from the absolute majority one MUST have for the nomination — or the second votes begins a totally open.convention. NEITHER Cruz nor Trump can win an open convention,, both would destroy their party, and it will more widely known that Trump polls by far the best against Hillary.

                Game Set Match.

          2. “The only logical reason can be that he’s there to peel off Cruz votes and ensure a Trump win.”

            I agree and I don’t understand it.

            1. Trump, like Kasich and the GOP money men isn’t a conservative – Cruz actually is. They really don’t like conservatives and have not nominated one since Reagan – after resisting him all they could.

              1. You know nothing about Reagan, either. He’d puke at the notion of a Cruz nomination.
                Are you aware that when Reagan announced his winning Presidential campaign, he was one of the very top defenders of…. homosexuals, even as public school teachers? Which then caused the collapse of the nationwide, anti-gay Anita Bryant Campaign — brought down by Reagan? And Goldwater Cruz? Yeah, he’d puke

            2. Agree. Totally.

      2. “That’s absolutely correct, although Cruz himself has said a brokered convention is a bad idea. ”

        A brokered convention is not the same as a contested convention. A brokered convention is when the “brokers” make the decision. A contested convention is when the delegates vote.

        1. Well and I thought 4 years ago the GOP passed a rule that you had to win 8 states to be a candidate in the event of a contested or brokered convention. At that time they were afraid the delegates were going to reject Mittens on the floor.

        2. A brokered convention is not the same as a contested convention.

          Brokers are deal-makers, not deciders Stock and Real Estate, etc. They’re the ones running around making deals for votes, so the label is honest for once!.

          Brokered convention
          In United States politics, a brokered convention is a situation in which no single candidate has secured a pre-existing majority of delegates (whether those selected by primary elections and caucuses, or superdelegates) prior to the first official vote for a political party’s presidential candidate at its nominating convention.
          Brokered convention – Wikipedia, the free …

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

    2. I don’t get this. The brokered convention seems inevitable, and I just don’t see how Trump or Cruz gets the nomination in a brokered convention, filled with loyal party hacks, who seem to all hate Trump and Cruz. For most of the delegates who hate those guys but are bound to them on the first ballot – once the first ballot is over I don’t see how they continue to vote for them…Trump and Cruz only seem to have a chance on that first ballot.

      1. It’s difficult to see exactly what the Rep establishment is trying to do here. Are they encouraging Kasich to stay in the race so they have someone to hand the nomination to on a silver platter when the convention slides into the abyss or are they trying to sabotage Cruz because they secretly prefer the deal making Trump? Whatever the case, it’s the epitome of semi-unethical shenanigans from the political parties that people are sick of.

        1. Assuming the first ballot results in no nomination, at this point I think you’d have to consider Kasich to be the front-runner. Should be good TV.

        2. it’s the epitome of semi-unethical shenanigans from the political parties that people are sick of

          Exactly right. If the GOPe goes through with that, it will be their downfall – so maybe we should hope for it?

    3. Trump and his supporters are going thermonuclear one way or another.

      1. I disagree to some extent. I think that a sizable portion of his supporters would accept Cruz getting the nomination if he won it fair and square through the primaries. But handing the nomination to Cruz (or, ugh, Kasich) through a brokered convention would make them go apeshit.

        1. There is actually a negative percent chance they would ever, in a billion years, hand the nomination to Cruz. The very exact last thing the GOP wants is a conservative. They might shut down the money train!

          1. The very exact last thing the GOP wants is a conservative

            It’s an extreme social conservative they fear. Hardly the same.

            They might shut down the money train!

            It would destroy the GOP like Goldwater, but that may have already happened.

        2. You and I agree on most things. This however…

          I wish I could say that Trump supporters would behave rationally with a Cruz nomination but I have seen little evidence for this.

      2. Some of his supporters are already thermonuclear. On another site, I was attacked during a discussion of the possibility of a brokered convention. I said it was a horrible idea (actually agreeing with the S-Trumpets). However, at the end of it, I mentioned I would be voting for Cruz in the primary but my basic thought is still ‘anybody but Hillary’. It took less than 30 minutes until someone sent an ad hominem attack my way concerning an aside to my main comment.

        The Strumpets are starting to frighten me.

        1. Trump would lose BIG at a brokered convention. His narcissism might even cause him to drop out.

    4. I disagree, if the trumpkins detonate it’ll be a fizzle, not a high order detonation. Not enough intellectual firepower there for a thermo-nucular detonation.

    5. But now we’re guaranteed to have a split convention that results in either Trump getting the nomination anyway, or Trump being shut out and his supporters going thermonuclear.

      Trump only needs 564 of the remaining 1061 delegates left. ~53%. I think Cruz has largely shot his wad with Texas and neighboring states. Trumps wins outright.

  4. My wife voted for Trump because he is scary.

    1. As good a reason as I’ve heard to vote for him.

    2. I’m looking forward to the Trump v. Hillary debates. I don’t think even biased left-wing moderators will be able to protect her from the Donald’s savaging.

      1. As much as I don’t want President Donald Trump, I have to admit I am looking forward to him getting Clinton one on one.

          1. bow chika wow wow

      2. No, immediately after Trump gets the nomination every rule will change. It will be more than just the usual DNC/MSM lining up against the establishment Republican nominee, who gamely plays along. Now the entire establishment of both parties will be in on the act of ganging up on Trump.

        I would not be surprised if the ‘debates’ involve neither nominee appearing in the same room, much less addressing the same issues.

      3. He has to be very careful with this. The majority of the women I know don’t like her, but if he attempts any mansplaining or sexist shit (as are his instincts), she’ll instantly become a sympathetic character to them.

    3. Same reason she married you?

      1. As a matter of fact – yes. She conflates “scary” with “good protector”. In my case she still claims it was a good call.

        1. 42 years and counting.

          1. Wow that’s great, congrats. We’re at 27 this year.

            1. Just celebrated our 13th yesterday. Marital bliss.

              1. But you guys hate your wives, right? 😉

            1. Shoot. I need more coffee. I didn’t sleep well last night after seeing Trump took 45% of FL.

          2. Q: At your shul, do the men and women have to smoke weed separately?

            1. Reform. Nothing done on premises. Look up “Rabbi Kahn Tacoma Wellness Center” for a former Rabbi.

    4. if it scares the people we don’t trust, Republican, democrats and foreign leaders then that is a valid reason to vote for Trump.

  5. No shit. This was true the instant Rand Paul quit the race.

    1. Most of the voters do not want a President like Rand .He’s not in the business of ‘doing things for me’.He doesn’t want to be your daddy and take care of’you’.

      1. Sadly you are correct.

      2. Only the Republicans want the President to be Daddy. The Democrats want the President to be Mommy.

      3. The usual response I got when I talked about Paul to coworkers was “That guy’s too whiny”.

        They really never heard a word he said about their liberties. They really are looking for a President Camacho.

    2. Rand was my preferred, now it’s Cruz. I wish Nick and the Jacket would have been a little less of a Cruz hater but nothing about this election has been normal.

  6. No amount of Trump ‘scary’ articles was enough to knock him out.

    You owe us a Lou Reed article!

    /throws scary blanket at Reason.

    1. Abe Vigoda agrees.

      1. Paul Kantner will contribute “Blows Against the Empire”.

  7. I would not be one bit surprised if the establishment Repubs try to push Jeb down our throats in a brokered convention.

    The pretense would sound something like “we have to save the party from a divisive candidate”. It is so bonecrushingly stupid that they would probably do it.

    1. So,we’d be forced to eat Bush? And not in a good way?

    2. If Trump went 3rd Party I’d vote for him – to destroy the Rs.

      1. I hope Bernie gets drafted into an independent run for the White House at the same time. Everybody gets all Panicky Pete over a three-way race – the usual ZOMG SPLIT THE VOTEZ!!!!eleventy!! shit – but a FOUR-way race, where there’s the possibility of a split on BOTH sides – would be interesting as hell.

        1. I think that would be a very good thing for the country, long-term, to knock over the “big tents” and let people support candidates based on ideas and plans rather than what letter follows their name in office. Eventually there would be a shake-out back to two parties, since that’s what our system tends toward, but at least they might actually represent a proper breakdown between statist authoritarians and libertarians. Or we could just end up with “Trump/Sanders: Why Bother To Vote?”

    3. It would be fun to watch a Romney / Bush ticket sink like a lead balloon.

    4. The GOP “establishment” might like to try that, but I doubt Jeb Bush wants to go down like that. It’d be worse fate than being Walter Mondale

      1. Bob Dole agrees.

        /Bob Dole

        1. I got that! Your good works are appreciated!

    5. The King of the Rednecks said exactly that:

      “I’m here to tell you Jeb Bush is gonna be the nominee,” Limbaugh warned, according to a transcript of his radio show. “That’s what they’re gonna do. That’s what they’ve always wanted.”

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..z434Dkhfiy
      Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

      1. Pay your bet, you welshing shitstain.

        1. He will just as soon as his gold shorts pay off. Gold will hit $600 any day now!

      2. That quote is a fragment of a sentence. The full sentence, for anyone not crazy enough to follow the links to the transcript is:

        “So I’m just telling you, if they succeed in this, if they sucked in denying Trump or Ted Cruz 1,237 delegates by the end of the primary process, I’m here to tell you Jeb Bush is gonna be the nominee.”

        Rush isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but he rarely says something too absolute — he usually leaves himself an out.

  8. My disappointment with the American voter and election system is … “yuuuge!”.

    The fact that all we have left is an egotistical crony capitalist, a decent, but sneaky Canadian, an elitist felon (other descriptions too long) and an antique socialist running for the President of the United States is downright appalling.

    What has become of the once great nation of the USA? Where are all the people who would be a GOOD President? Where are the good Americans who would VOTE for him/her?

    *shakes head… has a sad*

    1. Yeah. I remember when we had an entertainer as President. That worked out tolerably well.

    2. I tried to tell this place that 2012 was as good as it will ever get. Romney was a good GOP candidate and Obama was miles better than Hil-dog and the BernieBro.

      1. Pay your bet, you welshing shitstain.

      2. If memory serves, in 2012 you were lamenting how the GOP could nominate an extremist like Romney and were wondering what happened to the party of Bill Weld.

    3. The guy was a GE crony to boot.

      And he presided over a BIG military build up. Not very libertarian.

    4. You point up an irony that has me puzzled. Someone needs to write about this situation where the choices are so poor in a time that the President’s power has never been greater. The country looks on the Pres as some kind of father who walks around after a tornado and hugs people. The Constitution is in tatters as signing statements try to act as law, as the Pres orders the killing of an American citizen, as the DoD bombs country after country with no declaration of war and hardly any understandable rationale or strategy is presented to American citizens (my god, there are two American-backed factions fighting each other in Syria!). And Congress has willingly thrown out it’s very necessary role of keeping the Pres in check. Seems to me that in this sort of era that the slates of both parties should be huge and deep and anything but what they are today. Why?

      1. We have an AUMF. It is traditional. Barbary Wars.

        1. The Barbary Wars being rather well thought out and decisively resolved (at least, as far as American trade interests were concerned), the present manner of execution and the “traditional” one remain quite distinct.

      2. The strategy is rational for insurgency wars. In Burma it took the Brits 10 years to win. We have a much larger area to work in. It will take longer.

        1. The imperial Brits were also willing to tell people: your customs are shit, your culture is shit, and we’re going to string you up from a tall tree if you think we’ll look past rape and murder out of cultural sensitivity.

          The modern Americans (and Brits, and French, and …), not so much. You don’t like Gaddafi? We don’t like Gaddafi. Let’s work together! Oh, you’re a bunch of murderers and rapists who were being kept in check by Gaddafi? Oops, sucks to be your neighbors! Maybe we’ll send some SEALs. But we won’t get too carried away, after all you have a “right” to “self-determination” and we have Peace Prizes to win.

          1. The imperial Brits were also willing to tell people: your customs are shit, your culture is shit, and we’re going to string you up from a tall tree if you think we’ll look past rape and murder out of cultural sensitivity

            Yup. Touchey-feeley counter-insurgency doesn’t work, plus you have to be willing to stay indefinitely.

            1. You misspelled slay.

          2. If the US Government acted half as “imperialistic” as other countries claim, all of North and South America would be States, as well as half of Europe and a big chunk of Asia.

      3. Review the “Road to Serfdom.” One of Hayek’s points is that the rise of tyrants like Hitler and Stalin doesn’t result in the loss of liberty, but that instead it is the rejection of individualism and free markets that allows such terrible people to rise to power.

        In other words, if we had not allowed the U.S. govt to stray so far from the Constitution, our choices for chief executive would be far better, and Hillary and Trump would never have gotten past the starting block as viable candidates.

    5. Those Canuckistanians sure are sneaky, aren’t they?

      *Looks out the north window and scans the horizon*

  9. Even when Ted Cruz is saying something I agree with I have a strong urge to punch him in the face. He’s just that smarmy and grating of a speaker.

    He’s unquestionably the smartest person running for president at this point but he really can’t hide the fact that he’s talking down to his supporters and the public at large. I don’t think he could beat Hillary, especially if he insists on keeping company with theocratic nutjobs like that guy who wants to execute gays. That’s an oppo research dream.

    1. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I would merely add that the “public at large” has proven themselves worthy of any and all contempt they are shown.

  10. Fat Rush (Praise be unto Him), as de facto leader of the GOP, says Jeb Bush will be the eventual GOP nominee.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..z433nxJGLz

    One of you fucking Peanuts let Florida Man know this. Its not over yet.

    1. What’s not over? The bet was for this cycle. JEB! Crashed gloriously. Rubio came in 3rd. I was woefully wrong about Trump, but I think most people were 6 months ago.

      1. Are you Florida Man?

        Yes, it was for this cycle only.

        But Jeb Bush may walk out of the brokered convention as the nominee.

        1. How is your pet unicorn?

        2. You are insane if you think JEB! is getting the nomination out of a brokered convention in 2016.
          -Fmr. FM

          1. I’m quoting a supposed expert on the GOP.

            1. You’re quoting a fat clown that is a shock jock.

              1. He’s a fat clown shock jock who still seems to have sway in the GOP. Remember when he unleashed his ditto-minions on RNC Chairman Steele after he dared to speak ill of King Rush? Homeboy was kicked out even though the GOP retook the House in 2010.

            2. WHO GIVES A SHIT?

            3. Pay your bet, you welshing shitstain.

    2. I remember Rush, back around 1999, saying in show after show after show that there was no way Hillary Clinton was even going to RUN for Senate. Good times, good times.

  11. Cruz panders more to the NeoCon/Kristo/AIPAC/Adelson/interventionist crowd whereas DT tells them, “I don’t need your money.”

    1. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Rubio was their guy.

    2. My Mom thought Trump would be bad for Jews. Then I told her about this:

      My name is Donald Trump and I’m a BIG fan of Israel

      She change her mind. She is still voting for the Bern.

    3. I don’t think this is true at all–including the part about DT’s “self-funded” campaign.

  12. Well – past my bed time. Catch you in 4 hours or so.

    1. Pleasant dreams! That is, if that’s what “bed time” implies.

  13. The Republicans are fucked. I agree with others here that they waited too long and now it’s too late. Trump either gets the nomination or runs third party and Hillary wins.

    I figure even if Trump wins we’ll all survive and things will mostly go on like before.

  14. I agree with the premise. I think unlike Trump, Kasich, Clinton, or Sanders, Cruz will reduce overall spending even if he’s the shittiest remaining one on foreign policy.

    Unfortunately it’s too late; with Cruz taking zero states last night it’s almost certainly either Trump or Some Brokered Convention Party Hack. So, I think it’s time to stop fretting about Republicans and start plotting how to use the chaos to get enough Libertarian votes to boost Libertarian name recognition for the sake of future cycles.

    1. I have a strategy. First get 30 million libertarians to agree on a unifying issue…wait, nope that won’t work. Never mind.

      1. Yeah, first you’d have to find 30 million libertarians.

        1. There are 75 million libertarians, per a Zogby poll commissioned by Cato (2006), using the standard definition. They were measuring Brand Acceptance of “libertarian.”

          http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7

          In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way (as libertarians) Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: ?.”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” We asked the other half of the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?”

          The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

          (The second question, “also known as a libertarian,” fell 26%, to 44%). The label alone (libertarian) was 9% of “those with libertarian views, which is 5.3% of voters. 5.3% is well below other surveys, because they had three alternative responses.

          For example, of those would identify a “libertarian,” 50-75% of them dump the brand if given an alternative. 91% reject the brand alone. In Brand Acceptance, does the label rank above or below the product. In marketing terms, our brand is “toxic.”

          (At the link, scroll down to How Libertarians see Themselves.)

          1. Someone had to go and mention the number of “libertarians”… Hihny is like beetlejuice. Mention anything about how many libertarians there are and Hihny will be there with statistics that prove he’s an asshat.

            1. Ship of Theseus
              Mention anything about how many libertarians there are and Hihny will be there with statistics that prove he’s an asshat.

              So quoting the Cato Institute … and giving a link to confirm it … makes me an asshat. Versus launching an aggression, 100% personal attack, and I haven/t heard “Hihny” since I was about 12 years old

              Providing a source means that I’m considerate, value people highly, and show them where to learn more if they choose, I respect their autonomy.

              (This response is in self-defense to aggression by a literal cyber-bully.)

              1. The cry of “cyber bully” is rather sad. I don’t hate you, sir. I find your routine tiresome. You bring nothing new or interesting. Every time you write something, it’s the same shtick that no one is buying. So, either shut the hell up about it or talk about something else. You border on troll with that shit.

                1. The cry of “cyber bully” is rather sad.

                  (snicker) Now you literally BRAG about being an aggressive bully .. precisely like the punks who closed down Trump in Chicago … by shout him down. You people, the Militant self righteous … packs of wild dogs, on both the left and right..

                  (My tone and boldface are is response to repeated aggression by this stalker. They are LIVID with rage because I DARE to mention that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians . … punish me for a Cato survey (OMG) …. the American Brownshirts. SEIG HEIL!)

  15. If this Canadian Carpet-Bomber-in-Chief is so fluent with the Constitution, he would recognize that he is not a natural born citizen.

    1. That shtick’s getting old. Settled law says he’s a contender.

  16. Hey, Jake, how about the 12 million “illegals” that Cruz wants to run out of the country. Are you down with that?

    1. It’s not the “illegals” he is after. It is the actual, you know, illegals.

  17. “even if he does forget his fiscal conservatism and his determination to shrink government when he talks about the military.”

    I believe maintaining a military is one of those limits the constitution lays out. Do we spend too much on military? That is something that we can debate over. Is the percentage of the budget or even size of the military laid out in the constitution? No, so he isn’t violating his conservatism by having a strong military.

    1. Is the percentage of the budget or even size of the military laid out in the constitution?

      The term used was “fiscal conservatism” not “Constitutional conservatism”.

    2. From a Constitutional point of view, that’s actually one of the few literal things the Executive is supposed to do. Unsurprisingly, the amount that’s actually spent on the government isn’t a thing the Executive can do unilaterally. That won’t stop the Executive from ordering the entire navy on a one way trip, of course, but that’s another issue entirely.

    3. No, so he isn’t violating his conservatism by having a strong military.

      Yeah, they all say that. But ask them how strong our military NEEDS to be and they change the subject,

      Neocons are like progressives, who cannot grasp the link between technology, and automation and jobs. Just as the neocons cannot grasp the benefits of higher firepower. So we get hysteria mongering about ,,, too few ships … when we have 10 aircraft carriers, China has two, nobody else has more than one. But, see, we need 2 more carriers to defeat all 100,000 members of ISIS.

      Anyone else remember the Luddites we learned about in high school?

      1. Wait…so you’re talking about ships in an era where a remote control gizmo fired from Arizona can blow up any ship you care to mention, and you have the balls to call the American military luddites? Color me amused since they’re literally piloting robots into foreign countries. I think they get it.

        1. Wait…so you’re talking about ships in an era …

          Wait ? so you’re saying all 11 of our carriers are in the same area. To fight Drones.

          and you have the balls call the American military luddites?

          You screwed up my ENTIRE comment so badly, and you have the balls to ask such a bizarre question?

          Color me amused

          I have a different color in mind!
          I am quite concerned about ALL out carriers being stationed in the same area. Thanks for the heads up

          1. You call a group of robot pilots luddites. It would seem you don’t understand what that word means. It’s no coincidence that China has developed anti-carrier drones. It’s because they’re huge, outdated targets that any real superpower, such as China or Russia, could essentially detonate at will. This is why we only go to war with backwater proxy countries. There’s no real threat to our military from the places we actually attack.

            1. You call a group of robot pilots luddites.

              How many times will you fuck that up. Pay attention
              I said the NeoCons are the Luddite, and described it as their failure to see the true benefits of greater technology.and firepower.

              It would seem you don’t understand what that word means.

              (smirk) .

              IIt’s no coincidence that China has developed anti-carrier (babble deleied)

              Forbes is just one of dozens to ridicule the hysteria you seem to have swallowed

              http://onforb.es/1UEmXp9

              Let’s see if I get all this right. Your first attack was a colossal screw up. So you come back with totally unrelated stuff, repeat your Luddite blunder and ….

              What is the basis for your claim that all our carriers are stationed in the same area of the world? And how is that relevant to the topic?

  18. Cruz? Reason’s “anti-gummint” crowd again shouts louder than the “pro-liberty”crowd.

    Jacob admits Cruz can’t get what he says, but he “wants to.” Same sucker play as Ron Paul, who “wants to” repeal the income tax and run the entire government on FICA taxes! Even if it could pass, the math is fucking crazy. But he “wants to” do more than anyone else in America.

    Rand “wants to” balance the in five years, PLUS an equally crazy tax “plan” Most small-medium corporations have been exempt from the income tax for 30 years now. His “VAT” rate is lower than the corporate rate, but a totally new tax for many smaller businesses ? and he “wants to” cut government!!!

    This is how bullshit expands. The biggest heroes are the biggest liars

    Most high school kids, with a calculator, a the federal budget can SHOW hot to balance the budget in FOUR years. His math would balance to the penny.

    I “want to” balance. the budget in ONE year, and show EXACTLY where. Will you believe it?

    Kasich’s already done it. Tax AND spending cuts … under a Democrat President. And NO President can achieve ANYTHING if he can’t work across the aisle. But Cruz “wants do” so more, and PROVES it. And we “want to” believe it’s possible.

    He even promised to sign a bill repealing Obamacare, his first day in office!”
    “Hope and Change.” GOP version.

    1. Tax AND spending cuts … under a Democrat President.

      This only works if (a) you make “austere” cuts, (b) you have a booming economy, and (c) the vaunted “Democrat President” is willing to compromise.

      (a) is all about Congress
      (b) is hardly guaranteed
      (c) is definitely not the case right now, and is unlikely to be the case in the future

      1. Tax AND spending cuts … under a Democrat President.

        This only works if (a) you make “austere” cuts, (b) you have a booming economy, and (c) the vaunted “Democrat President” is willing to compromise.

        So you think it’s normal to cut both taxes and spending .. during the strongest economic boom in neatly a century?

        Reagan and Kennedy did it in a VERY week economy (JFK) and what it still by far the worst recession since trhe GreatD

        a) is all about Congress
        (b) is hardly guaranteed
        (c) is definitely not the case right now, and is unlikely to be the case in the future

        Are you promoting Cruz or Trump. 🙂

        The only thing “guraranteed” is that we’d have somebody with a proven record of bipartisan negotiating … and not a massive liar. Which is why Kasic polls best against Hillary.

        In the real world of governance you push for as much as you can get, every single year. That’s how it’s done.

        c) You seem to assume I was “guranteeing” Kasich would get tax and spending cuts. No, he is by far the only one positioned to get whatever’s available … from whatever the partisan composition of the next Congress.

        1. Well, Reagan was not a Democrat and neither is Kasich. I was working under the premise you established.

          1. Well, Reagan was not a Democrat and neither is Kasich. I was working under the premise you established

            Which is why I corrected you.

            1. You corrected yourself, perhaps, but it’s not my fault that I read what you wrote, not what was in your head.

              1. snicker

                kbolino
                You corrected yourself, perhaps, but it’s not my fault that I read what you wrote, not what was in your head.

                OMG Did you TOTALLY BLOW THIS:

                Reagan and Kennedy did it in a VERY week economy (JFK) and what it still by far the worst recession since the Great D.

                How in HELL do read THAT as saying Reagan and Kennedy are BOTH DEMOCRATS?
                And Kasich? WHY WOULD HE BE A DEMOCRAT?

                You ALSO don’t know that Kennedy and Reagan launched the biggest AND ONLY peacetime booms in nearly 100 years … with essentially identical tax cuts?

                Okay, I’m calling you out as a liar, a bully and a chickenshit.

                but it’s not my fault that I read what you wrote, not what was in your head

                WHERE DID i WRITE THAT. KENNEDY AND REAGAN WERE DEMOCRATS YOU ARE NOW A PROVEN LIAR.

                (my attitude and boldface are in response to repeated bullying, aggression… and now a prove liar)

                .

            2. Mikey… Miiiiikey. I’m the voices in your head. Listen to me: you’re insane.

                1. Wait a second…strongest economic boom in almost a century? What the fuck are you smoking Hihn? You’re starting to smell like a Keynesian.

                  1. Wait a second. Now BYOBD says the Kennedy and Reagan economic booms were Keynesian! (OFG) (boldface and tone in response to repeated aggression and bullying.)

                    BYODB
                    Wait a second…strongest economic boom in almost a century?

                    I said TWO booms. Named them (Kennedy’s and Reagan’s) Put it boldface. And you still blew this:

                    You ALSO don’t know that Kennedy and Reagan launched the biggest AND ONLY peacetime booms in nearly 100 years … with essentially identical tax cuts?

                    That was kbolino who didn’t know. Now we have TWO!. SOME cyber-bulles post their attacks under two or more aliases.

                    What the fuck are you smoking Hihn?

                    (smirk) Wait for it ?

                    You’re starting to smell like a Keynesian.

                    Never heard of the Reagan and Kennedy boons. Doesn’t know were the biggest in almost 100 years ? AND THINKS THEY WERE KEYNESIAN!

                    (and he’ll continue stalking and cyber-bullying me)

    2. Most small-medium corporations have been exempt from the income tax for 30 years now.

      I’m sure that would be news to them. Post a citation for this.

      1. 97% of libertarians reject the Libertarian label!!1 If 31% of all libertarians voted for 95% of the establishment candidates 45% of the time, and called their Senator, the system has a 0.00001% chance of changing for the better! It’s obvious what we need to do: tell our fellow citizens they are libertarians and sprinkle magic fairy dust into the wind. Problem solved.

        Michael Assin Hihn

        1. Ship of Theseus
          97% of libertarians reject the Libertarian label!!

          It’s 91%. And it’s the Cato Institute’s survey, not mine.
          The text, a link to the source and how to find it on the page are all here:

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5985388

          (This response is in self-defense of bullying, aggression and …. childish name calling?)

          1. You’re as predictable as you are annoying.

          2. You’re as predictable as you are annoying.

            1. So true the squirrels wanted it twice.

            2. Ship of Theseu
              You’re as predictable as you are annoying.

              Yes. You may assume I don’t take aggression from bullies.
              You’re the stalker, but I’m annoying.

      2. Most small-medium corporations have been exempt from the income tax for 30 years now.

        I’m sure that would be news to them.

        I wish you’d have bet money!.
        Sub S corporations, “pass through” corporate profits to shareholders as personal income, skipping the corporate income tax. Small numbers for example, assume 10 equal shareholders and $100 corporate profit. Each owner reports their $10 share of profits as personal income. It does’t matter if the profits are distributed as cash, I foud a source in simple English, confirming the expansion from 10 to 100 shareholders. For my point,all that matters is that Rand’s VAT is lower than the corporate rate, but is a NEW rax for now-exempit corporations.

        http://bitly.com/1M8akkN

        That’s federal. States have the LLCs you’ve seen, also exempt, but unlimited shareholders. On recent Amazon purchase I saw and Amazonxxx.LLC. — a totally tax division or something, with separate investors.

        http://bitly.com/1pLLRYD

        Ron Paul’s tax screwup is that he doesn’t know Medicare is subsidized a quarter-TRILLION per year of income taxes. He repeals the income tax, runs the government on FICA taxes — which can’t even pay for Social Security and Medicare!

        Anything else?

        1. First of all, you didn’t show that s-corps make up “most small-medium companies” and you didn’t show that most s-corps do what your linked article describes.

          Second, passing on corporate income as personal income doesn’t make one “exempt” from the tax, it simply changes one type of income tax for another.

          I would not make any bet with you since you seem incapable of understanding what you are saying, never mind what someone else says.

          1. He also thinks Kasich balanced a budget and cut taxes while conveniently neglecting the tax shift from state to federal by way of medicaid expansion.

            1. But what about the 101% of libertarians who reject the libertarian label??$?!@!? Don’t you know that Cato published the study, and is therefore infallible and I can read whatever nonsense into it that I want? John Kasich is a liberty minded man who would expand the state in order to shrink it! God you libertarians need to stop being so libertarian and start being more smarter!

            2. He also thinks Kasich balanced a budget and cut taxes

              Bzzzzzt. He worked across party lines. Both taxes and spending were cut. Obviously, you’ve never been in public office.

              http://herit.ag/1TPdPiF

              http://bitly.com/2553ClV

              while conveniently neglecting the tax shift from state to federal by way of medicaid expansion.

              Why am the only one docmenting with links?

              Tell us what Cruz ever di.. He’s the genius that wanted to shut down the federal to stop Obomacare … with no alternative. But he’s gonna sign a law repealing Obamacare on his first day office. FUCK Comgres says Oba, …errrr Cruz.

          2. passing on corporate income as personal income doesn’t make one “exempt” from the tax, it simply changes one type of income tax for another.

            That’s not what happens and not what I said. Sere IRS below Let’s do the math. Hypothetricals to keep it easy.

            You own all of Microsoft stock, all the assets, everything. On last year’s profit of $10 billion, Microsoft pays an $3 billion corporate tax. YOU paid that tax, from YOUR dollars

            C corp (regular)
            $10 B Profit
            -$3 B 30% Corp Tax
            =$ 7B corp after tax =dividend
            -1.4 B 20% personal income
            =$5.6 B after-tax net

            pass-through corp
            #10 B Profit
            =$0 B 30% Corp Rate
            #10 B Corp After tax = dividend
            -$2 B 20% personal income
            =$8 B after-tax net

            Next, IRS describes S Corps. My emphasis

            http://1.usa.gov/1R45eCX
            S corporations are corporations that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions, and credits through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income.

            Again they are now exempt from the corporate tax, thus a steep tax increase from Rand Paiul.

            .

  19. It’s about time I saw this here at Reason. While I disagree with Cruz on a whole lot of things, imperfect constitutionalism at least recognizes there are limits whereas no other candidate believes there should be limitations at all.

    Why it’s taken Reason so long to recognize this patently obvious fact is beyond me. One of these jerkwads is going to win, that much is clear. It might as well be the one guy that doesn’t think the Executive has the power of fiat. Cruz is also the only guy that actually has a record you can look at, which at this point in time is almost political suicide in and of itself.

    1. They’ve recognized it the whole time. But couldn’t risk acknowledging it until it was too late to possibly make a difference.

      Now their opposition to Trump will allow them to endorse Hillary with a clean conscience.

      Well, maybe not clean, they are icky slimy liberaltarians, but cleaner than it might otherwise have been.

      1. Now their opposition to Trump will allow them to endorse Hillary with a clean conscience. Just curious. I’m guessing your a Ron Paul supporter, Let me know, please. I keep track and my accuracy has slipped lately to only 95%.

        1. Hihniken loves him some percentages!

          1. and hates him some apostrophes…
            /you’re

        2. “I keep track and my accuracy has slipped lately to only 95%.”

          Yeah …… sure.

        3. Still slipping.

    2. I’m not going to say that its wrong that a snakehandling Pentecostal who has aligned himself with preachers who want to bring back the death penalty for gays is the “least scary” major party candidate. But I am going to say: so what?

      1. Eh, the Obama administration, including Hillary, have given weapons and probably funds to groups that have actually executed people for being gay (and a host of other indefensible reasons) That is far worse than simply associating with someone with a questionable viewpoint. It would be awesome if the worst thing about Obama were his questionable associations.

      2. I’m fairly certain that the pastor wasn’t calling for the death penalty for gays, just that they deserve death. That’s not that significant a statement, “For the wages of sin is death…” and “For all have sinned…”

        So, basically, all people deserve death. That’s a lot different than calling for the death penalty for all people.

    3. imperfect constitutionalism at least recognizes there are limits whereas no other candidate believes there should be limitations at all.

      Does that mean you and he agree on what parts of the Constitution can be totally ignored?

      1. Does that mean you and he agree on what parts of the Constitution can be totally ignored?

        As opposed to all parts?

        (Not voting for Cruz as you are right, he ignores several parts of the Constitution.)

        1. As opposed to all parts?

          Sorry, I forgot the “(sarc)”
          When I hear somebody’s not bad on the Constitution, I figure the talker makes allowance for violating or trivializing the same things. .

          1. No, as the article plainly says he’s simply the best of the worst. Is your implication here that Hillary, Sanders, or Trump would be better on Constitutional issues than Cruz? Please, elaborate.

            1. Is your implication here that Hillary, Sanders, or Trump would be better on Constitutional issues than Cruz?

              (laughing) Read it again..

              After all, my stalker thinks the Reagan and Kennedy booms.. which he never heard of … doesn’t know they were the biggest peacetime booms ….. and …. wait for it …

              … were KEYNESIAN! YES!! Nobody could invent anything like that, See for yourself,

              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5990526

              But he’ll keep stalking and bullying.
              And I’ll keep laughiing at the thug.

  20. You make mention of Cruz’s stance of partial abortion. I am pro life but I also believe abortion should be legal with some stipulations. What I find appalling is that with the many forms of birth control you still have a rediculous amount of abortions. What the hell is wrong with a 20 week ban. First they are to stupid to take the pill, then they think little Johnny is going to marry them because they spread their legs and finally they want to rush to the abortion clinic just before the kid pops out and kill it. Give me a break. Thank to the bleeding heart Left of this country no one takes any personal responsibility for their actions any more.

    1. What the hell is wrong with a 20 week ban.

      Plenty. It’s obviously unconstitutional, the flip side of late-term and partial birth abortion. Smells to me like just more political games. Meanwhile, late-term abortions could have been banned the day after Roe v Wade, so obviously and easily. It troubles me that these “leaders” seem to prefer political games to saving babies.

      Few Americans these days cannot go a entire day without SOMEBODY. trying to manipulate us.

      1. It’s obviously unconstitutional…

        If you heed Roe v. Wade, perhaps. Then again, some of us don’t believe that something is Constitutional just because the Supremes said so (Plessy v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn, Dred Scott, Korematsu, etc.).

        Yes, most GOP are all hypocrites because they didn’t ban late-term abortions when they could. They just whine about it for votes. They’re almost all evil.

        1. Wasn’t Dred Scott constitutionally decided? It was constitutional until it was not, methinks.

        2. If you heed Roe v. Wade, perhaps.

          Law of the land.

          Then again, some of us don’t believe that something is Constitutional just because the Supremes said so Then you say NOBODY can protect our right from government abuse — Ron Paul’s invented Constitution.. We have this thing called Balance of Powers, between three CO-EQUAL branches. Who else can protect us from bad laws? Nobody.

          These are human beings, in a complex and diverse society, It ain’t gonna be perfect and nobody gets everything their own way — which is the entire point.

          They just whine about it for votes. They’re almost all evil.

          The voters? 🙂
          Here’s the wisdom of the founders. “We the people …” In all these years since Roe (which is no longer applicable) There has NEVER been enough support for amending the Constitution.

          Besides, the woman has unalienable rights precisely equal to the fetal child/ That’s what unalienable means, Jefferson and the Founders were quite literate.

          1. Law of the land.

            Yes, it is. So is Plessy v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn, and Korematsu. So was Dred Scott. I don’t take much heed to what the Supremes say the law of the land is.

            Then you say NOBODY can protect our right from government abuse…

            I can. The right to self-defense is not invented in the 2nd amendment, just recognized.

            We have this thing called Balance of Powers, between three CO-EQUAL branches. Who else can protect us from bad laws? Nobody.

            How’s that working for you?

            The voters? 🙂

            I wouldn’t disagree!

            In all these years since Roe (which is no longer applicable) There has NEVER been enough support for amending the Constitution.

            True. But my earlier objections with Plessy v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn, Dred Scott, and Korematsu still apply. Live by the Court, die by the Court.

            Besides, the woman has unalienable rights precisely equal to the fetal child…

            I don’t disagree. I also know that your concept of when rights begin is viability. So my question is: Why should viability be the demarcation point of when rights begin? After all, if Stephen Hawking fell out of his chair, he’s no longer viable. Does that mean I can stab him in the brain?

            1. you say NOBODY can protect our rights from government abuse…

              I can. The right to self-defense is not invented in the 2nd amendment, just recognized.

              GOTCHA! Even THAT right must be defended.

              In 1957, 9 black students, with the right self-defense, faced a state militia. The President sent troops to defend those kids. Gov. Faubus called it an unconstitutional overreach by an abusive federal government. Faubus is now YOU.

              We have ta Balance of Powers, between three CO-EQUAL branches. Who else can protect us from bad laws? Nobody.
              How’s that working for you?

              (lol) Better than YOU, Orval Faubis. You would defend our rights from bad laws by ? the same politicians empowered to write those laws.!

              See 9th Amendment. Rights not listed in the Constititution are reserved to THE PEOPLE! (Fuck you, Ron Paul)

              There has NEVER been enough support for amending the Constitution.

              True.

              Again showing open contempt for “consent of the governed”

              I also know that your concept of when rights begin is viability

              MORE bullshit!!.

              If Stephen Hawking fell out of his chair, he’s no longer viable. Does that mean I can stab him in the brain?

              (lol) Your tribalism is so eager to be brainwashed,
              Viability includes by artificial means. Thank you for playing.

              1. Now, dear Hihn, I’d like to point out that you are cursing, loling, and writing in bold at me for no real reason. All of my posts here agreed with you in large part, disagreeing a little bit. I have been nothing but civil and you are not.

                But to get back to the points:

                GOTCHA! Even THAT right must be defended.

                By force-of-arms, yes, but not by government. I’m an An-Cap. Government is a violation of NAP by definition. You “got” nothing.

                Faubus is now YOU.

                You just called me a racist for no reason. Of course everyone has the right to self defense. Of course a state militia is evil, not because of the “militia” part of the word, but the “state” part.

                You would defend our rights from bad laws by ? the same politicians empowered to write those laws.!

                No, I’d defend our rights by arms and free association. Now, if you insist that there be government, then the purpose of that would be to punish violations of NAP (ignoring for a second that government is a violation of NAP).

                See 9th Amendment. Rights not listed in the Constititution are reserved to THE PEOPLE!

                Yes, they are. Even “unviable” babies’ rights.

                Again showing open contempt for “consent of the governed”

                No, I totally support “consent of the governed”. Even to the point that if 1 person fails to consent then the government can’t be used against them.

                (continued)

                1. Count the evasion and misdirection

                  As the victim of aggression, it is ME who decides the defense.

                  GOTCHA! Even THAT right must be defended.
                  By force-of-arms, yes, but not by government. I’m an An-Cap. Government is a violation of NAP by definition. You “got” nothing.

                  The society is not An-Cap,and you ignored every example proving you wrong. I have more.

                  Faubus is now YOU.

                  You just called me a racist for no reason.

                  Liar, You defended his acttions … even now.

                  Of course everyone has the right to self defense.

                  WHOOOSH
                  1) You say the right of self-defense is all we need.
                  2) We do NOT need government to defend that right.
                  3) That right FAILED to defend those black girls, so you ignore it like a Birther.

                  Of course a state militia is evil, not because of the “militia” part of the word, but the “state” part.

                  How would a DEFINITION have defended those girls?

                  1. Count the evasion and misdirection

                    ?

                    As the victim of aggression, it is ME who decides the defense.

                    There is no rational person on this planet who would call my comments “aggression”. I have been nothing but civil and have simply disagreed with you and told you why.

                    The society is not An-Cap

                    I know.

                    Liar, You defended his acttions … even now.

                    No, I didn’t and do not.

                    1) You say the right of self-defense is all we need.

                    Not exactly. NAP is what we need. The only thing necessary to defend NAP is individuals. Government isn’t necessary.

                    3) That right FAILED to defend those black girls, so you ignore it like a Birther.

                    A government organization stopped a government organization from doing evil, and you call that proof that An-Caps are wrong? Defund both and neither would have the means to be evil.

                    How would a DEFINITION have defended those girls?

                    It wouldn’t. My body and my guns would. My neighbors and their guns would. Aggress and pay for it.

              2. I also know that your concept of when rights begin is viability
                MORE bullshit!!.

                How? When do rights begin, at viability or before? I mean, once upon a time I got you to finally tell me that’s why you thought abortion was not a violation of NAP – as long as it was before viability. Have you changed your mind? After all, the whole “equal rights” thing, while not wrong, doesn’t apply. I have equal rights as anyone but that doesn’t mean I can stab them in the brain. It’s a red herring.

                Your tribalism is so eager to be brainwashed, Viability includes by artificial means.

                Again, if Hawking fell out of his chair, his artificial means of being “viable” is no longer available to him. So he isn’t viable. May I stab him in the brain now?

                1. also know that your concept of when rights begin is viability

                  MORE bullshit!!.

                  How? When do rights begin, at viability or before?

                  Conception (smirk)

                  Your tribalism is so eager to be brainwashed

                  Now PROVES brainwashing …

                  Viability includes by artificial means. Thank you for playing

                  Again, if Hawking fell out of his chair, his artificial means of being “viable” is no longer available to him. So he isn’t viable. May I stab him in the brain now?

                  He’s already dead. Thank you for playing,

                  1. Your tribalism is so eager to be brainwashed, Viability includes by artificial means.

                    Again, if Hawking fell out of his chair, his artificial means of being “viable” is no longer available to him. So he isn’t viable. May I stab him in the brain now?

                    (OMG) You actually fell for MORE brainwashing?
                    Where is the confliciing rights between two people?
                    Thank you for playing.

                  2. Conception (smirk)

                    So, at conception they have rights, but until “viability”… what again? Why is it OK to violate those rights until they are “viable”?

                    Now PROVES brainwashing …

                    Rrrrrriiiiiiigggggghhhhhtttt…..

                    He’s already dead. Thank you for playing,

                    Not according to Google or Wikipedia. Also, speaking of evasion…

                    Where is the confliciing rights between two people?

                    There are never conflicting rights, if rights are extrapolated from NAP (you may not aggress). This means that you may do all things that are not aggression against the things that NAP protects.

                    For instance, I may not use my so called “right” to stab at things to stab you in the brain. Also, I may not do so, even if I happen to own the land we happen to be on, unless you’ve agreed to this attempted stabbing. In fact, by inviting you onto my land, I have taken upon myself the responsibility of allowing you to survive on my land until I decide you must leave. That being said, I may not shoot you for trespassing just because you have not immediately removed yourself from my land the mirco-second I have decided you are no longer welcome. I owe you enough time to remove yourself from my land, and killing you before you have time to leave would be murder.

                    1. My stalker backs himself into a 4th corner. Now it’s NAP he doesn’t understand. He’s been flailing since his first blunder, that Judiciary has NO power to defend individual rights, andhalso attacked Separation of Powers into three Co-Equal Branches. SCREW US History!

                      The Annointed One says:
                      We need no judiciary to protect out rights because we have the right of self-defense, so we can defend ourselves. I noted 9 black schoolkids in 1957 Little Rock had the right of self-defense, which FAILED to protect them from an armed state militia, His “response” was “of course” they had the right of self defense, and ?.the evil of “state militia” was “state” not “militia!” NOBODY COULD INVENT THAT:

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5988826

                      He then lied about “viability,” tried to bury THAT blunder with a wackobird abortion “example.”. If Steven Hawking falls off a chair, is no longer viable (a lie), can genius stab him in the brain? (laughing) (same link)

                      I note that abortion involvse the conflicting rights of two individuals, Hawking is only one. Having lost AGAIN , he goes off the rails. Rights are never in conflict, he says (OMG), , cites NAP, and screws up again.
                      1) Government may not defend our rights to Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and others.
                      2) NAP allows violating our Liberty.
                      3) NAP allows theft (no property right)

                    2. My stalker backs himself into a 4th corner.

                      Telling you you’re wrong doesn’t make me a stalker, either.

                      Now it’s NAP he doesn’t understand.

                      Don’t aggress. You think “aggress” includes telling you you’re wrong but not stabbing live humans in the brain. Are you sure it’s me who doesn’t understand?

                      that Judiciary has NO power to defend individual rights, andhalso attacked Separation of Powers into three Co-Equal Branches.

                      No, I said that the Judiciary is wrong, just like it was in Plessy v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn, Dred Scott, and Korematsu. Or do you think that these are examples of the Court protecting rights?

                      “Separation of powers” was a good idea, but has obviously failed as evidenced by the entirety of US government history. Or do you think that the US government is doing a fine job of protecting our rights now? (Yet another question I won’t get an answer to.)

                      I noted 9 black schoolkids in 1957 Little Rock had the right of self-defense, which FAILED to protect them from an armed state militia

                      Yes, when you outsource your defense to others, you often suffer for it. When you outsource your defense to the state, the state usually attacks you. The fact that people have become accustomed to allow government to run roughshod over them is a condemnation of government, not a condemnation of self-defense.

                      (continued)

                    3. NOBODY COULD INVENT THAT:

                      The immaculate invention?

                      (BTW, your deep-link was either incorrect or nonsensical.)

                      He then lied about “viability,”

                      Again, telling you you’re wrong isn’t “lying”.

                      wackobird

                      You probably wonder why people insult you instead of arguing with you. This type of response may be a clue.

                      If Steven Hawking falls off a chair, is no longer viable (a lie)

                      How is it that he is still viable? Without outside help, he will waste away and die. How is that “viable”? (Not gonna get an answer, don’t know why I bother.)

                      I note that abortion involvse the conflicting rights of two individuals

                      There are no conflicting rights. There is only the right to do all but aggress.

                      1) Government may not defend our rights to Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and others.

                      Incorrect. I tell you that it COULD do so, just that it’s [A] incompetent/evil at it and [B] is a violation of NAP by it’s own nature.

                      2) NAP allows violating our Liberty.

                      No, you have no right to aggress.

                      3) NAP allows theft (no property right)

                      No, you have no right to aggress against someone’s property, either.

                      I wonder how many questions you’ll answer and how many random insults you’ll send me and how many times I’ll be called “liar”, “stalker”, and “aggressor” for telling you you’re wrong.

  21. Why the Texas senator is the least scary of the remaining major-party candidates

    Unless you’re gay. Then the fact he at best wants armed men to drag you out of your home in the middle of the night and lock you in a cage, and at worst may want to straight up murder you is probably a deal breaker in the “limited government conservative” department.

    1. Which alternative candidate would you prefer? At the moment, the only candidate that would seem to match up with your ideals would be Hillary am I right?

      1. Last election I actually voted it was a write in vote for Ron Paul in 2004. Since then I’ve been blank voting.

        1. So essentially you’re just going to sit on the sidelines and throw political grenades. Fair enough, it’s starting to look like the only reasonable thing to do. Lord knows the media is having a field day this time around doing the exact same thing.

      2. BYODB
        Which alternative candidate would you prefer?

        uh-oh

        At the moment, the only candidate that would seem to match up with your idals would be Hillary am I right?

    2. Then the fact he at best wants armed men to drag you out of your home in the middle of the night and lock you in a cage, and at worst may want to straight up murder you is probably a deal breaker in the “limited government conservative” department.

      Um, what?

      Ted Cruz has not said anything about sodomy laws that I can find, and he certainly hasn’t said anything about the death penalty for it.

      1. You haven’t been listening to the voices in his head have you now?

      2. There’s numerous classmates and professors from both Princeton and Havard, as well as coworkers from his court clerkship who are on record stating he was a vocal advocate of sodomy laws during that time period. He has never renounced those views, so I it’s hard to see his silence as anything more than biting his tongue on views he still holds but doesn’t thing he can afford to expose to the general public.

        There’s also recent video of him being introduced at a rally by a guy who calls for the execution of homosexuals during the introduction and which Cruz didn’t seem bothered by enough to comment on.

        1. And Obama is a secret Muslim/terrorist/communist.

          That’s pretty weak sauce. Maybe he’s “smart enough” not to talk about it (vs. Ben Carson and his interesting views on the use of the very limited interior volume of the Pyramids), but what he has said is pretty standard Republican fare (“marriage is a state issue”).

          1. (“marriage is a state issue”).

            I always shudder when I hear that, which makes no sense at al The Klan paid that game to get around equal rights.

      3. Anyone who can say that banning gay marriage is constitutional has severe problems with individual liberty,. I suspect he runs around tearing the 9th Amendment out of all the printed copies of the Constitution.

        1. Anyone who can say that banning gay marriage is constitutional has severe problems with individual liberty… 9th Amendment…

          I agree. I’ll add to that statement that all actions of government necessarily limit human liberty* and therefore all government violates the 9th amendment.

          *All government action is paid for by taxes, stolen from Americans at gunpoint. On top of that, all actions the government does that don’t punish violations of NAP (almost all of its actions) are aggression by definition.

        2. Show me where spousal benefits exist in the constitution. Or employer provided, tax exempt health insurance.

          1. Actually, point me at any mention what-so-ever of marriage within the Constitution. I think you could make valid arguments that marriage is covered by several sections, but I don’t recall it being explicitly mentioned.

            1. but I don’t recall it being explicitly mentioned.

              It’s not. And if you mean marriage EQUALITY, that’s covered by the 9th and 14th.

            2. but I don’t recall it being explicitly mentioned.

              It’s not. And if you mean marriage EQUALITY, that’s covered by the 9th and 14th.

            3. but I don’t recall it being explicitly mentioned.

              It’s not. And if you mean marriage EQUALITY, that’s covered by the 9th and 14th.

              1. Well, if government hadn’t made marriage a taxation issue over a patently religious issue that they have no business legislating in the first place it would be up to the churches to decide. I think we both know what most churches would decide. That’s if you wanted to actually apply the 9th amendment to this issue instead of just prattling on about it, since you wouldn’t be able to apply both of them as the 9th implies that they couldn’t legislate on it in the first place, meaning that equality before the law wouldn’t matter since there would be no law. Derp.

          2. Show me where spousal benefits exist in the constitution. Or employer provided, tax exempt health insurance.

            What’s your point? Where is ANY power over ANY aspect of marriage?.

            1. That is the so called equality you’re advocating for, Mikey: Bigger welfare state.

              1. What’s your point? Where is ANY power over ANY aspect of marriage?.

                That is the so called equality you’re advocating for, Mikey: Bigger welfare state

                (laughing) Where is any power delegated to government for ANY aspect of marriage?
                And PLEASE explain how you get from equal, unalienable and.or God given rights to … what? Food stamps? This may be even funnier than “the Bible told me to kill them..

    3. Citations undoubtedly needed.

      1. And never forthcoming.

        1. I made the mistake of clicking on his name link… He’s a Stormfront ass.

  22. 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??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  23. “your are our only hope” Ted Cruz
    not because you are right for the job but you are the last one left . So

  24. 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??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  25. my roomate’s mother-in-law makes $70 /hr on the laptop . She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her check was $16850 just working on the laptop for a few hours. original site

    ? ? ? ? http://www.BuzzSelf20.com

  26. 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??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  27. Trump Cruz….Trump Cruz

    if Cruz was a CONSTITUTIONALIST he would understand that he is INELLIGIBLE!

  28. At this point, I think it’s too late to go for a lesser evil like Cruz. It’s time to get out the popcorn and see how terrible and entertaining American politics can truly be. The only way to end the American Empire is to let it destroy itself, and hope it doesn’t do too much collateral damage on the way down.

    1. Burn your house down and maybe something great will replace it. #Nihilismworks!

      1. Historically speaking we already know the likely replacement: monarchy or straight to totalitarianism.

  29. Less scary. Still scary.

  30. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  31. RE: Cruz’s Constitutionalism Trumps Trump’s Trumpism

    No candidate will get elected spouting the Constitution.
    Only a candidate that promises free shit taken from the producing class will get elected.
    Get it straight.

  32. 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??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  33. 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??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  34. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  35. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  36. wow nice article and i get always latest news in this website so thanks for sharing such a valuable information

    http://pancardstatuss.com/
    http://pancardstatuss.com/change-pan-card-address/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.