Donald Trump

Ted Cruz Drops Out, Securing GOP Nomination for Donald Trump.

Trump vs. Clinton is now guaranteed. #NeverTrump? How about #NeverPolitics. Or #libertarian?


Screenshot via Fox News

Ted Cruz abandoned his bid for the GOP presidential nomination in the wake of his primary loss in Indiana, all but guaranteeing that reality TV star Donald Trump will square off against Hillary Clinton in November. 

Cruz told supporters in Indiana that he was staying in the race as long as there was still a chance he could be the nominee. That was no longer a remote possibility, he said. 

"Tonight I am sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed," said Cruz. "We are suspending our campaign." 

Cruz vowed to continue fighting for liberty, America, the Constitution—all that good stuff—in his remarks. He did not endorse Trump—he didn't even mention him—and he declined to throw his support behind John Kasich, who is technically still in the race but has no chance of winning it. 

"The pundits all said it was hopeless," said Cruz, referring to his ultimately doomed campaign. 

Cruz also warned Americans not to succumb to "a tyranny of political correctness," or "creeping socialism." 

Meanwhile, Bill O'Reilly has already begun selecting President Trump's Cabinet for him: Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of Homeland Security, Chris Christie for Attorney General, and Ben Carson for Secretary of Health and Human Services. If that frightens you, keep in mind that the other 2016 option, Clinton, brags about censoring filmmakers who criticize her and organized the disastrous 2011 Libya intervention. 

Indeed, the all-but-certain Democratic candidate is as hawkish as the all-but-certain Republican candidate is anti-trade. This seems like a worst-of-both-worlds outcome. While Cruz was far from a libertarian on most issues, it can be argued that he at least understands the language of libertarians—particularly on civil liberties—and was bad in the same ways as previous Republican candidates. And Bernie Sanders, despite his avowedly socialist domestic policies, is a supporter of a refreshingly restrained foreign policy.

In (mild) contrast, there's almost nothing for a libertarian to like about a President Clinton or President Trump (unless you trust Trump's foreign policy—though you shouldn't). 

If conservatives are serious about sticking to their #NeverTrump guns, they might consider giving this Gary Johnson fellow a chance. Or just not voting. There is no obligation to choose between the lesser of two evils. 

At the same time, while it's certainly true that the government has far too much power—and that corrupt former First Ladies and megalomaniacal reality TV stars will grab as much of it as they can—not all aspects of life are dependent upon politics. Go be a free person, and keep at it, no matter who wins the White House come November.

NEXT: Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary, But Little Else

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Forget it Ted, it’s Trumptown.

    1. Trump is 100% for medical cannabis. Clinton is not. Since I’m a one issue voter – the matter is decided. Now if Johnson was polling in the 40s (% you idiots) I’d give him a shot (hell – the whole bottle). But he is not.

      1. Your only issue… is pot? God, this is why libertarians have a bad rap.

        1. Unless, of course, you’re joking, in which case I’m going to leave in shame.

        2. if some (or sometimes the only) drug that helped alleviate your discomfort was illegal wouldn’t it be a pretty high priority for you? (I don’t know if that’s the case here; it’s just not, on it’s face, an absurd statement)

  2. While Cruz was far from a libertarian on most issues

    Robbie and Lyin’ Ted have something in common.

  3. The MAGA Train has no brakes, baby.

    1. Just wait until it makes the jump to light speed.

    2. Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of Homeland Security, Chris Christie for Attorney General, and Ben Carson for Secretary of Health and Human Services. If that frightens you, keep in mind that the other 2016 option, Clinton, brags about censoring filmmakers who criticize her and organized the disastrous 2011 Libya intervention.

      Hemlock anyone?

  4. The end of days, friends. Nice knowing you. Maybe we can have a HNR tap code in the camps.

    1. What is the tap for spinal fluids?

  5. aka Hillary wins the presidency.

    1. Probably, but if Trump makes a couple of good moves I think he could beat her.

      1. Such as? Not that it matters anyway, since there are few actual differences between the two candidates once you get past the rhetoric.

        1. Tone down the rhetoric on women and Mexicans and turn it up on Wall Street and anonymous corporations. Make overtures to some sort of student loan/college tuition relief. Those two things will peel off some of Bernie’s less devoted, SJW supporters. Go after Hillary hard but don’t make it about her gender.

        2. One might have said, eight years ago, that at least when the crackup comes it comes down on the heads of big-government progressives. I’m no longer sure that’s possible, as we have a solid contingent of Republicans as well as Democrats who are jobs programs welfarists. Well, fuck ’em all. You voted against prosperity, friends. Whoever wins, and it won’t be Trump, you’re getting shafted. You want red tape? You want an economy dictated by unelected bureaucrats? You want a welfare state ever verging on collapse, civil rights flushed down the toilet, redoubling our adventurous bankrupting policies abroad and at home? Well, you’ve got it, shitheads. Good job. Enjoy the pain. Thanks for taking me for the ride.

          1. (And I have no idea whether voting Cruz is a vote for prosperity, but voting Trump is most certainly a vote against it. Trump is the candidate of managed decline.)

            1. And that makes Trump different from every other candidate how?

              1. Who else in recent history impassioned the “gimme gimme” mentality of a huge swath of middle-America? They don’t want enterprise, they don’t want entrepreneurship, they don’t want innovation, they want economic security. They want to end trade and end immigration and isolate the United States, a nation fostered on trade and immigration, from the big baddies of the world economy. No, Trump is not the OG of specious populist memes, but he’s the one running on them. Voting Trump is an admission that America is no longer competitive and should pull in the oars and drift. He doesn’t offer a vision of the human spirit unshackled from bureaucracy and government management. He offers a vision of jobs programs and national works, and he’s an inarticulate bumpkin Roosevelt even in that.

                1. He offers a vision of jobs programs and national works

                  Well he sure is keeping that one a big secret. You’re an incredible mind reader.

                  1. Yes, “Make America Great” paired with nothing other than promises for a continent-stretching wall in the south doesn’t scream “national works program.”

                    1. Mexico’s paying for the wall. I thought even the lowest-information voters knew that.

                    2. Mexico isn’t paying for the wall. Nobody is paying for any wall. Hillary is adamantly pro-immigrant.

                    3. Hillary is adamantly pro-immigrant.

                      Correction: she’s pro-illegal-immigration. Since immigrants skew poor, once they get in they’ll suffer even more than the rest of us from her terrible policies, so I wouldn’t call her pro-immigrant.

                    4. “Mexico’s paying for the wall. I thought even the lowest-information voters knew that.”

                      Congrats, this is the most retarded thing you’ve ever said.

                    5. Mexico’s paying for the wall. I thought even the lowest-information voters knew that.

                      Low information voters do “know” that, along with many other things that are untrue.

                      There is a guy I have the misfortune of working with who is a low-information know-it-all, who explained to me how Trump was going to make Mexico pay for the wall, by confiscating any money that American banks or corporations were sending to Mexico until the wall was paid for.



                      Can I keep from punching him before November? We’ll see.

                    6. Why would you try to keep from punching him? Does he wear glasses or something?

          2. The statists are never going to be blamed. They write the history books. If the crash happens tomorrow, fifty years from now every schoolchild in Global District North America, Subdivision Obamaland will learn that it was the greedy quote-unquote free market capitalists getting in the way of the democratic will of the people that caused it. Just like you and I learned in school that Herbert Hoover and his fellow lazy-fairies Republican ideologues caused the Depression, and FDR was a genius for coming up with a master plan to get us out of it in only 12 years.

      2. Obama won by 126 electoral votes in 2012. Name 64 electoral votes worth of states that voted for Obama that you think are going to flip Republican for Trump?

        1. They’re ALL in play.

          1. I agree. And once the indictments start coming, reason will start trotting out the “libertarian case for Bernie” articles again in earnest.

            1. I’m trying to think of one that is truly, totally out of play… Hawaii? No, not even the Aloha State. Tulsi Gabbard wouldn’t be a bad VP choice for Trump if he wanted to do something crazy and bipartisan.

              1. DC


              1. Ty think it’s a security review still? Even after the DoS’s latest court filing?

                Keep the fantasy alive.


                  1. You do realize people went to jail and the billing records showed up a day after the statute of limitations ran out on the Rose Law Firm car, don’t you? And you also realize Comey was in charge of that and still has the red ass, don’t you?

                    And have you paid your bet yet?

                    1. Hillary is never getting indicted. Ever. Let it go.

                2. Ty think it’s a security review still? Even after the DoS’s latest court filing?

                  Keep the fantasy alive.

                  The only one fantasizing here is you. Loretta Lynch is never going to indict Hillary Clinton no matter what the evidence is and no matter what leaks are threatened by the FBI rank and file. Anybody who does leak anything will be crucified, and any information leaked will be covered up by MSM anyway.

            3. Clinton won’t be indicted for anything, if you think she will be you need to cut back on the barbiturates.

              Well, maybe she’ll be indicted for something 4 years from now if she decides to pull a Nixon, which she might, but not before she gets into the white house.


          3. I challenge SIV or anyone else her who thinks that to put their money where their mouth is. I will bet anyone here $100 that Clinton gets at least as many electoral votes as Romney got in 2012. There is no way Trump is competing in 50 states. It’s not happening.

        2. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia. Other combinations are possible.

        3. He doesn’t need 126. He needs 65. Every vote for him is one less from Hillary. And it is a reasonable bet Trumps trade message will play better in the upper Midwest than Romney

          1. Trump is going to go for all 50. I certainly don’t expect him to distribute his resources equally but he’ll campaign for them all.

            1. Trump is going to self-sabotage. This was all a plan to give Hillary the presidency. Y’all are suckers for believing otherwise.

              1. With his insulting remarks about women, immigrants, and various minorities who’s left to vote for him besides a bunch of white, redneck males? There isn’t enough of those to keep the Dimwitcraps from winning the presidency – which was probably the plan all along. The Dems are desperate to retain the presidency in light of the prospect of the Republicans retaining a majority in both houses of congress. So desperate they ran their own candidate on the Stoopid Party ticket.

                1. GOP is almost certainly giving the Senate back to the Dems. They had a difficult map to begin with (the 2010 map), royally fucked up the SCOTUS nomination fight, and are going to be painted with Trump broad brush whether they like it or not.

                  1. Yeah, with Trump in the news all through 2016, the GOP is going to suffer badly in every respect.

          2. He’ll be lucky to do as well as McCain did in 2008. The only thing that will keep him from approaching Mondale 1984 levels is how thoroughly despised Hillary is.

        4. Ohio 18
          Florida 29
          Wisconsin 10
          Colorado 9
          Virginia 13

          Are all possibilities.

          When Trump turns his full fury on Hillary I think things will change dramatically. Everyone underestimated Trump last summer. Don’t make the same mistake. I think it will be interesting.

          1. Yeah, I think anyone still making predictions about what the hell is going to happen has a pretty short memory.

            1. They’re partisan retards if they think they can predict what he’ll do.

              1. Trump was a lot more effective early on when no one believed he was a serious candidate.

                His blow-hard ‘full fury’ campaign will incite a lot of hate in the general that will hugely damage the right.

          2. There is no way Trump wins any of those states. Ohio, Florida, and Colorado have huge Hispanic and general minority populations. Virginia is as pro-establishment as it gets, for both parties. Wisconsin is a blue state, you’ve got to be kidding.

            What was underestimated last summer was how pissed off the GOP electorate was at the party establishment.

            1. All those states are also Shall Issue CCW states – and Hillary went full-retard on gun control in the primaries.

          3. Then he was running for the primary, and yes indeed people (myself included) underestimated the sheer stupidity of the Republican base (won’t make that mistake again; if they nominate Ted Nugent in 2020 I won’t be surprised).

            Now he has to compete for moderates and undecideds, and his ‘full fury’ will have the opposite effect it did before: pushing people into his opponents’ arms.

        5. It is impossible to measure how repulsive Hillary is.
          She is no Obama (as a Presidential candidate).

          1. She’s no Obama and Trump is no Romney. I don’t really know what it is with people. People have been saying all through since the beginning of the campaign that Trump can’t win, he can’t win. Geez, people, get a fucking grip. All he does is win. Hillary is fucking weak, Trump’s going to beat her, wait and see. People talk about the polls. If you look at the polls, Trump and Hillary are pretty close right now, the double digit leads for Hillary are all gone, already. Wait until he starts in on her, it will be brutal, she’ll never survive it. She’s very unpopular and unlikable. Trump is turning out a record number of voters. And people just ignore all of this, I don’t get it. It is a huge mistake to underestimate this guy.

            1. All he does is win.

              The reasons he’s won in the primaries are the GOP base being royally pissed off at the party leadership, and Democrats crossing over in open primaries to sabotage the GOP. Neither of those can be leveraged in the general election.

              1. The reasons he’s won in the primaries are the GOP base being royally pissed off at the party leadership, and Democrats crossing over in open primaries to sabotage the GOP

                There’s very little actual evidence for either of these things.

                1. maybe worth a read

                  Notable aspects to the profile = not so conservative (ergo, unlikely to be ‘punishing the GOP leadership’ for lack of conservative-purism) either socially, nor fiscally… hawkish, but also believe the GOP’s management of warfare has been stupid, and should be more cost-effective…. strongly ‘anti-immigrant’, and more prone to admire those with business acumen compared to “lawyers” and ‘politicians’.

                  in short what you see is a blend of a very large slice coming from the right, left and middle, none of whom are particularly dogmatic/ideological about *anything*… but are generally dissatisfied with modern politics and feel that something different (if unpolished) is better than “the best-qualified Bullshit Artist politician”

                  They’re normal people who want simple answers to problems, and they see trump offering that.

                  They’re NOT partisan democrats trying to undermine the GOP, or hardcore conservatives angry at the Party Leadership. At all. In fact its the partisans on both sides that “dont get” trump’s appeal.

                  1. What a piece of shit that RAND study is. A snippet of the stupid:

                    For example, Trump performs particularly well against his closest contender, Ted Cruz, among likely Republican primary voters who both strongly believe that “immigrants threaten American customs and values” (Figure 2) and that “women who complain about harassment cause more problems than they solve” (Figure 3).[1] For example, among likely Republican voters who support either candidate and strongly agree that “immigrants threaten American customs and values,” 60.1 percent say they prefer Trump and 15.6 percent say they prefer Cruz. Trump’s lead in support grows progressively larger moving from left to right, corresponding to groups of voters with increasingly strong agreement with the statements. The more strongly voters agree with these two sentiments, the greater the gap between support for Trump and Cruz.

                    Sounds convincing, huh? But what are they measuring? The likelihood that, if someone takes one of these extreme positions, they support Trump. That does not say anything about the likelihood that Trump supporters take those extreme positions; it’s a complete red herring. It’s like quoting the stat that 98% of US Presidents have been white, in order to imply that a white person has a high chance of being president.

                    It’s one of the simplest mistakes in statistics, reversing the conditional, and RAND is happy to oblige in making it. Sickening.

                  2. They’re NOT partisan democrats trying to undermine the GOP, or hardcore conservatives angry at the Party Leadership. At all. In fact its the partisans on both sides that “dont get” trump’s appeal.

                    How come Trump is losing to Hillary in the general election polling then? If Trump is the choice of the political middle he should be clobbering her.

            2. “All he does is win.” -and hand the presidency to Hillary.

              “It is a huge mistake to underestimate this guy.”

              Never have I been more convinced that we can safely underestimate this guy.

              1. After watching Trump campaign the past year, I think he’ll be driving home the Hillary scandals, slimy Bill, and kid glove treatment she has received. Throw in lots of BLM or other fascists violently protesting at his rallies and a great number of wobbly moderates will pull for the Donald. The man knows how to play the media better than even the Kardashians.

          2. If it is impossible to measure how repulsive Hillary is, then how do you know she is repulsive?

        6. “Obama won by 126 electoral votes in 2012. Name 64 electoral votes worth of states that voted for Obama that you think are going to flip Republican for Trump?”

          Wasn’t that less than 2008 though? Obama states flipped for Romney, more flipping on Hillary really doesn’t sound that incredible.

          To be fair, things are probably too far gone for that to happen now.

          1. Romney won Indiana and North Carolina, which McCain failed to win. Both are pretty reliable GOP states historically. Obama winning them was an indication of how much the country hated the GOP after 8 years of George Bush.

      3. Nope. Never gonna happen. Ever.

      4. “Good moves” lol…

        1. Night moves…

  6. If conservatives are serious about sticking to their #NeverTrump guns, they might consider giving this Gary Johnson fellow a chance. Or just not voting. There is no obligation to choose between the lesser of two evils.

    Is it really too much to ask that a libertarian magazine make a real effort to convince people to vote for a libertarian presidential candidate?

    1. Need those cocktail party invites…

    2. Nearly the entire country voted to elect a) an avowed socialist, b) an unapologetic cronyist, and c) a life-long corrupt political hack. Libertarianism is dead on the national frontier.

      1. Libertarianism is dead on the national frontier.

        Um, weed, Mexicans and Ass-Sex, Teh Yutes, libertarian moment! libertarian moment!libertarian moment!/ Gillespie.

      2. That’s the spirit.

        1. No, friend, the spirit is in my glass.

      3. To be fair, moderates don’t have anybody focused on winning their votes in the primaries.

    3. If he’s really a libertarian candidate, they won’t have to make an effort, it will happen naturally.

      1. I don’t understand. Libertarians will vote for him naturally? There are people on this very page saying they won’t vote for him. Non-libertarians will vote for him naturally? Most won’t even know who he is.

        1. There’s an “if” clause you seem to be missing.

          Libertarians may have a problem voting for somebody who wants to force people to make cakes for gay weddings and ban burqas.

  7. I just heard this on that radio… so I guess since it’s mathematically imposdible for Bernie to win, that leaves it to a fascist megalomaniac and trump.

  8. #neverjohnson

    John McAfee 2016

    1. sex, drugs, and rock n roll.

      1. women, liquor and fast cars

        1. drugs and guns and fucking in the streets

          /John Sinclair

    2. If I wasn’t aware of McAfee’s craziness, I’d prefer him over Johnson based on the debate

      1. …. wait a second, you DISLIKE his craziness?

        I thought it was a selling point.

        1. I guess compared to Trump and Clinton his craziness does seem pretty benign

          1. ^^This

      2. Crazy? Maybe but at least McAfee isn’t an unpleasant socially awkward squish.

        The LP candidate’s job is to get positive attention and spread the message. GayJay’s “executive experience” counts for nothing. Johnson is nothing but a Republican Who Smokes Pot.

        1. I don’t like Johnson’s personality either, but what I really can’t overlook is his anti-freedom of association stance. I probably won’t vote at all, as per usual.

          1. I’m hoping the LP doesn’t give him the nom. It’s the Year of the Outsider. GayJay’s a failed Republican politician who smokes pot. McAfee is interesting, principled and has better name recognition.

            1. “It’s the Year of the Outsider.”

              No it isn’t. It’s the year of Hillary gets the presidency.

    3. What happened to the “Vote Trump” thing?

      1. Like Walter Block, my Trump endorsement was strictly for the GOP primary.

        1. So you were trying to sabotage the GOP all along?

          1. Destroy it, but knowing one of the two major parties is going to win I chose the Republican candidate who I agreed with the most on a BIG ISSUE. Sovereignty, nationalism,and disengaging from international agreements, alliances and organizations.

            1. If you’re a nationalist, then you hate freedom. Why are you here?

        2. The people who feel you were the standard-bearer for Yokelism are going to be…. well, disappointed? something, i guess.

          1. I’ve been consistently clear on this.

            1. Yeah, but its not like anyone’s actually paid attention.

              1. I know

                We have “anarchists” who want a state big enough to maintain a prison system.

                I don’t

  9. And Bernie Sanders, despite his avowedly socialist domestic policies, is a supporter of a refreshingly restrained foreign policy.

    So did Lenin, while in opposition. And didn’t Sanders support the Kosovo war?

    1. He never said he doesn’t support war! He will be more than happy to conduct a War against the MeanieRich campaign if elected.

  10. At the same time, while it’s certainly true that the government has far too much power?and that corrupt former First Ladies and megalomaniacal reality TV stars will grab as much of it as they can?not all aspects of life are dependent upon politics.

    Says the guy who doesn’t have the government confiscate almost half of what he makes every year.

  11. Kasich has Trump and Hillary right where he wants them.

      1. Evidently. I just wonder if he’ll still be campaigning this time next year. Guess it beats doing your job.


    May the people get it good and hard.

  13. Will “Vote for the Crook, it’s important!” make a comeback?

    1. joe is certainly Ready for Hillary, though he may still Feel the Bern.

    2. Already starting to hear it.

      1. I hear it already from Cytotoxic which is amusing coming from the guy who said I should hang myself for doubting the Libertarian Moment.

        1. I probably told you to hang yourself for being a tiresome mendacious fuck.

  14. Will be very interesting if the Libertarian candidate mathematically covers the spread between Trump and Hillary. He’ll be credited (i.e. blamed) for putting Hillary in the White House.

    1. I predict a near-meteoric fall in Trump’s negatives over the next two months.

    2. I don’t know. If there were no Libertarian running I wouldn’t be voting at all. I sure as shit would not pull the lever for Trump or Clinton.

    3. John will definately blame us.

  15. While I will be gladly throwing my vote away on Johnson, I can only hope that tweedledum or tweedledee will at least be better on the economy than Obama. Not super optimistic but that is a pretty low fucking bar.

    1. I think Hillary will double down on the Clean Power Plan; I have no idea what Trump would do.

      1. She’ll say goodbye to Pennsylvania if she does.

        1. Oh she won’t make any statement so clearly in that camp until she’s elected.

          1. Miss this?

            “Clinton did tell a town hall audience in Columbus, Ohio in March that “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”


      2. Toss about like the fucking aspy retard he’s been since the beginning, project no vision more articulable than what fifth-grade-reading-level semiliterates can suss out from campaign placards, turn off many more voters than he wins over, and ultimately have his stained whitey-tighties pulled over his head by Hillary with her pinky.

        1. Um. Yes. That’s actually quite good.

      3. We can always hope for gridlock.

        1. Like we have now? The executive can do whatever it wants as long as it has 34 supporters in the Senate.

      4. Don’t forget 15 $ min. wage and war.Trump wants a trade war.You can not choice,wisely.

    2. I don’t see it,my advice,run and hide,run and hide.Maybe near a brewery.Or Costa Rica .

    3. At least Johnson’s statist policies, e.g. banning burqas, have zero chance of actually happening.

      1. FairTax, Nazi wedding cakes…

  16. So, Trump takes the title of “greasiest scumbag ever nominated by the Republican party” away from Tricky Dick Nixon.


    1. Hot ‘n greazy.

  17. Darrell Castle for me, unless he gets caught with a sheep or something.

    1. I’d take a sheepfucker over Trump. Maybe even a kiddy diddler, if he’s honest about it. Would be leagues ahead of Trump in terms of hucksterism.

      Christ, I am immolating in hatred tonight.

      1. That legal weed can’t come soon enough.

    2. Darrell Castle On the Issues =

      What I Promise

      “If God raised me up and made me President of the United States, what I told the states, what I told you I would do, I will do, or die trying. So help me God.”

      Well, that’s certainly clarifying.

      Withdrawal From The United Nations

      The ideas of America are not compatible with membership in the United Nations (U.N.). The U.N. is world headquarters for the church of unbelieving humanism

      Uh huh.

      “End the Federal Reserve” was fairly clear. WTF “Agenda 21” is, and its connection to ‘international sovereignty’ etc… was not.

      The list is otherwise notable for its absence of ‘anything else’.

      1. It’s also what’s *not* on the list – more war, more spending, more BS – that appeals to me.

        1. That seems to be inferring a lot from a blank page.

          Maybe you can intuit the intent from some past awareness of the guy, but as ‘campaign materials’ its thin even by High-School Class President standards.

            1. (nb – I may not agree with every little detail, but you at least won’t see any grand plans for a scandinavian socialist society, or enacting the latest brain fart of some real-estate mogul.)

              1. I may not agree with every little detail,

                Uh huh.

                Yeah, sorry, but my nominee for the “Crazy Outsider Candidates” is pretty much full with McAfee. He seems at least ‘entertaining’.

            2. It is evident to me that there is a conscious effort to control the human population by means of cultural and biological changes. Those changes are being applied primarily in Western nations, although it is possible that the cultural changes are simply more effective there. This is not a new phenomenon, although its effects are becoming too obvious for us to ignore. The people who seek to kill us, to see our bloodlines die out from the earth, normally use the brute force of government to accomplish their schemes.

              This would all sound more convincing if he threw in a “Mandrake” from time to time.

              1. A crazy candidate for a crazy world!

                Works for me.

                Have fun with your compulsory Nazi cakes. 🙁

                1. Have fun with your compulsory Nazi cakes. 🙁

                  That was johnson. I was under the impression McAfee held a cake-neutral position.

                2. McAfee was anti-compulsory Nazi cakes

                3. e.g.

                  Wilson: Perhaps the most contentious moment of the Libertarian Party debate on Stossel was the wedding cake question where Austin Petersen and Gary Johnson got into it a bit?

                  John McAfee: Did you notice I backed away from the podium a bit there? I seriously thought fists might fly. [laughing]Oh man. Gary works out, Austin works out. So I’ll just back off, drink my water, you know.

                  JW: [laughing]I’ll have to go back and rewatch that. Now, you gave a pretty simple answer to the question?

                  JM: Yeah, you don’t have to buy from me, I don’t have to sell to you.

                  W: I was just wondering if you wanted to expand on that since you were only given so much time originally.

                  JM: Sure. Let’s say the world existed of only a thousand people and there was only one baker, one pharmacy, one shoe shop, we might need to sit down and discuss discrimination. But that’s not the real world. Every fucking town in America has a Wal-Mart and a Wal-Greens ? some kind of department store. We have options as Americans and sometimes far more than we should have or need. And if in fact the Jewish baker won’t bake your Nazi wedding cake go across the street. Find somebody who will. If nobody will, learn to bake.

                  I also appreciate a candidate who uses profanity well

                  1. “If nobody will, learn to bake”

                    It’s so sad how controversial that is. Do something myself?!? Well, I never

                  2. I’ve been surprised by how sane McAfee sounds. Or I *would* be surprised if I was capable of further surprise about the events of Campaign 2016.

                    But McAfee is nuts in one respect – he thinks the phrase “a woman’s body is her own” is a slam-dunk argument for legal abortion.

                    It scarcely even advances the argument, much less conclude.

                    And of course what McAfee actually means is “the baby’s body belongs to the woman.”

                    Castle may be crazy, but he doesn’t believe in one person being the disposable property of another.

                    1. It scarcely even advances the argument, much less *concludes it.*

                    2. A lot of people – like myself – don’t give a flying fuck about abortion.

                    3. It cares about you.

                      Who do you think pays for Planned Parenthood?

                    4. Anyway, some people take an interest in when human personhood, and the human rights associated with it, begin.

                    5. Fine = correction; i care about abortion insofar that i don’t think it should get a nickel of public money.

                      beyond that, its a stupid waste of political energy when candidates choose to die on a Pro-Life hill rather than a Small Govt one.

                    6. False dichotomy.

                      If human personhood and human rights don’t start with the commencement of human life, then the commencement of personhood and human rights can be delayed until the government deems the individual worthy of such status.

                      Nope, nothing to do with small government! /sarc

                    7. When Virginia was drawing up a state Bill of Rights, it said that human rights commenced when human beings entered into a “state of society” – a loophole allowing for denial of human rights to slaves, who were not in a state of society because “society” refused to recognize their rights.

                      In contrast, the Declaration of Independence, at the same time, said human beings are *created* equal and endowed by their Creator (not society) with certain inalienable rights. This was pregnant for the future (no pun intended).

                    8. Thats honestly pretty fucking dumb.

                    9. The attempt to pretend anti-abortionism is a necessary feature of any limited govt, that is.

                    10. No, *you’re* stupid!

                      Now that we’ve both had our say, we can perhaps discuss the issue on its merits.

        2. Trump’s against war and internationalism.

          I do agree with Castle on the UN but he’s no Chuck Baldwin.

            1. Worked for Reagan.

              He wants to disengage our military from most of the world. That is the realistic result when you ask for free-riding nation states to hire us or get off the dole.

              1. A lot of people were looking for fainting couches when he suggested defense-as-a-service. Why? We’re not going to significantly reduce the military so why have those folks who benefit from it pony up a bit?

                1. If we substantially reduce our forces in Europe, the ME, and everywhere else we can significantly reduce the military while simultaneously strengthening it.

                  1. but who believes the military will be reduced, substantially or otherwise? The left talks about it, but that’s mostly to divert those dollars toward a larger welfare state. I don’t see making us Western Europe without defense as a good thing. If we’re going to have it, charge those who benefit.

                    1. I don’t see Europe or Asia paying us tribute. Practical and political concerns will force them to provide for their own defense by building up their own military or forming local alliances.
                      They’ll be good customers for the kind of stuff we make here. It’s a win-win.

                    2. building their own will mean scaling back their welfare states. Hard to imagine even more taxation there. Who knows. Maybe it was Trump’s way of basically saying “you folks need to step up a bit; we’re not your personal 9-1-1.”

                    3. Win-Win

                      You understand the best case upsides

                  2. If we substantially reduce our forces in Europe, the ME, and everywhere else we can significantly reduce the military while simultaneously strengthening it

                    That’s assuming they wouldn’t just get re-stationed here, though–which is fine, in a fashion, but that doesn’t necessarily reduce the military budget.

                2. “A lot of people were looking for fainting couches when he suggested defense-as-a-service. Why? We’re not going to significantly reduce the military so why have those folks who benefit from it pony up a bit?”

                  Fuck off slaver.

      2. WTF “Agenda 21” is, and its connection to ‘international sovereignty’ etc… was not.

        If you’re seriously asking, it refers to this:

        Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[1] It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.

        Which has fed into a lot of paranoia about FEMA camps and the like.

        1. My Bircher acquaintances seem concerned with it.

          1. My Bircher acquaintances seem concerned with it.

            I’m sure it will have as far-reaching effect on our lives as pretty much any other UN circle jerk.

            1. The UN sucks. We should withdraw and work to undermine what’s left.

              1. No argument from me there.

              2. The UN sucks.

                You may have noted i’ve never been a big fan myself.

                That said – i’m not really sure i think it sucks for the same reasons batshit loons Proud Americans like Birchers or Mssr Castle do.

                The UN does a range of practical things for ‘small countries’ that basically keep them from tearing each others throats out all the time, and providing a forum for disputes between the larger ones which forces them to articulate some kind of bullshit-grievance/Casus belli BEFORE they get into fights.

                I don’t know if ‘withdrawing’ makes any sense rather than dismantling its yukkier parts from the inside…. once ‘withdrawn’, the reality is that it would become more important to many other nations because it would become the sole practical means for any opposition to unilateral US policy. See = how they treat Israel.

                1. the reality is that it would become more important to many other nations because it would become the sole practical means for any opposition to unilateral US policy.

                  So it would become the Non-Aligned Movement in better digs.

                  Big whoop.

                  1. Basically. But again, if you have problems with ‘how they do things’, you’re less likely to change those things by one big ‘opt out’.

                    I personally think leaving the UN is fine in my own foreign policy view (*which i’ve noted isn’t much-shared by others).

                    Its just when someone suggests that ‘dismantling it’ or ‘undermining it’ (or at least “changing it”) are their particular desired goals, my point was that would less likely to be accomplished when it serves as a counter-measure to the US, than it would while we maintain the greatest influence within it.

                  2. and technically… re you point about the NAM…. i’m not sure that would be exactly the case. I think it would be far more the vehicle of a combined China/Russia/EU Anti-American power-bloc. Which smaller nations would go along with solely for the bennys.

                    One of the most aspects of realist theory are assumptions about how ‘Balance of Power’ works in practice.

                    The UN’s most valuable contribution is to artificially provide those sorts of balances in places that would otherwise be prone to greater conflict, or more frequent conflict.

                    Part of that ‘balance’ is the perceived effect (whether real or not) it has in Iimiting the potential threat posed by “superpowers” like the US.

                    If the US opts out, suddenly its a rogue power with no real offsetting influence. The obvious natural consequence would a rapid demand for a counterbalancing military capability to protect nations from potential US influence/threat, etc.

                    Who fills that new gap? China, Russia, and probably some aspirant regional powers looking to become a big dog. They would become the new “world police”.

                    I’m not sure what the great benefits are that others see coming from this particular arrangement.

        2. Yeah, i saw that too, its just that he suggested it had something to do with farmland regulations in the US and… well it was a bit of a mess really.

          Private property rights are under assault in communities and rural areas across the nation as state and federal authorities move to enforce new planning development programs, particularly under the labels of Sustainable Development or Local Visioning.

          The guy throws like 6 or 7 paragraphs at things and its still not clear what his point is. e.g. The UN’s primary problem seems to be something to do with ‘secular humanism’, not anything to problems he has with the constrictions of multilateral diplomacy.

          1. Let me lay down my thinking here.

            When it comes to selling-out, I grade major-party candidates on a curve. The more likely they are to actually win, the more I’m willing to put up with a bit of compromise for the sake of victory. In the case of third-party challengers, I’m less tolerant of compromise. You’re selling out so you can get 2% of the vote instead of 1%, what’s wrong with you?

            When it comes to crazy, I grade third-party candidates on a curve. Mounting a third-party challenge requires a certain degree of eccentricity, so that will tend to correlate with a certain amount of conspiracy theories and the like. It’s a reality you have to face. The more likely they are to win, the less crazy I’m willing to put up with.

            1. There’s good-crazy (McAfee), and then there’s boring-crazy.

                1. I don’t see any pictures of shirtless Castle wielding a shotgun in Belize alongside his various coke-party-wives.

          2. Secular humanism sucks.

            1. that may be the case. I’m not sure that’s the best argument against the UN was my point.

              1. No but it appeals to the limited number of people who might vote for a Constitution Party candidate

                1. bully for them.

  18. Prediction: Trump and Hillary name each other as running mates. Electorate’s minds blown. Libertarians inherit the earth.

    1. And during the first debate begin groping and slobbering over one another. It’s finally revealed that Trump’s been in the bag for Hill all along, and “in the bag” is a very narrowly shaded euphemism.

    2. Is this like the fantasy of the Concentration Camp inmate in Train of Life?

  19. First amendment? Goodbye. Second amendment? Probably goodbye. I love seeing the political process made a mockery of as much as anyone, but the unfortunate reality is that that withered hag or Trump is going to pick at least 1, perhaps 2 Supreme Court justices in 4 years. Maybe 3 all told in 8.

      1. I have a sig 716 on my list that I will be purchasing sooner rather than later

      2. It gets a lot worse than that. All shotguns 28 gauge and larger would be banned nationwide under NFA were it not for a DOJ position that they have legitimate sporting purpose. That position could be changed with the stroke of Hillary’s pen.

        1. “Nobody needs more than a .410 to shoot rabbits, skwerls, and small game birds at short distances”

      3. Buy a reloading press, a low end CNC mill, a 3D printer.

    1. And according to the urinator it will all be the fault of conservatives who didn’t stop the progs. We live in dark times.

      1. the urinator

        Who is this?

    2. First amendment? Goodbye. Second amendment? Probably goodbye.

      Damon Root articles will save the day…

    3. Best way forward for the GOP senate is to make a deal with Obama to nominate somebody slightly less bad than the guy he nominated. Obama gets another SCOTUS justice, GOP avoids having a Dem senate confirm President Hillary Clinton’s nominee (a fait accompli after tonight).

      1. Why would Obama agree to that?

        1. Narcissism? He gets to feel important and relevant, add to his legacy, etc.

          I agree that a person who happens to be a Democrat but is otherwise rational would never take that deal. Obama isn’t a rational person.

  20. So who is more delusional: Gillespie and Welch’s proclamation of the Libertarian Moment, German Communists in 1932, Russian Revolutionaries in 1917, Iranian Revolutionaries in 1979, those guys who thought the Khmer Rouge weren’t going to be that bad, those guys who thought Mao wasn’t going to be that bad, those guys who thought North Korea won’t be that bad under Communism, the homeless guy with a sandwich board saying that “the end of the world is nigh!” or Schlomo in Train of Life?

    1. I’m still convinced that Nick is hoping that if he says there is a Libertarian Moment long enough and loud enough, everyone will just start to believe it, and *then* it will actually happen.

      1. Well yeah, that is pretty much their political strategy. Many of their articles boil down to “if the Republicans and Democrats just realized that the libertarian moment is upon us, because we say so, then they would ditch everything and become libertarians”.

        1. No, no. I think it’s more than that. You keep saying we are in the Libertarian Moment. Doesn’t matter if we are. Random people hear that, look around, see things are not turning into Mad Max, and say, “Huh, maybe this libertarian stuff isn’t that crazy.” Eventually, actual libertarian policies don’t seem so scary, and maybe some of them actually get enacted. That’s my theory on Nick’s theory of the Libertarian Moment, and I’m sticking to it!

          1. I think it’s because they want libertarians to be more accepting of the cultural and demographic changes that they, as cosmotarians, favor. Anyone with brains enough to interpret a graph will wonder if making America non-White will be good for the cause of Small Government. No worries guys, we’re going to have a libertarian triumph real soon now!

            But maybe that’s giving them too much credit. Maybe they really did think there was a libertarian moment when they mistook Right-wing antiwar sentiment for libertarianism, and now don’t want to admit they were wrong.

            1. What haplogroups do your mtDNA and Y haplotypes belong?

  21. I plan to blank vote again.

    1. I plan to stuff the box with Johnson.

      1. Yes I will be working my Johnson lever very hard.

        1. I plan to push Johnson on every woman I meet.

  22. I’m not actually that worried about Trump himself. He might be as awful as he’s been portrayed, or he might just be saying random shit to see what sticks. I’ve come suspect that he honestly does believe that he’s identified the *problems* with American politics and governance, but I doubt he is particularly committed to any given solution. Regardless, I expect he would be more Silvio Berlusconi than anything else. That’s not good. It’s not the end of the world, either.

    I’m more concerned with the tactics that Trump has successfully used. I really thought (hoped) more people had moved past that.

    1. I’m upset that economic nativism and wealth envy are now the norm with Americans.

      1. They have been for many decades.

    2. Those “tactics” are not really what won him the nom. A lot of Republicans who voted for Trump were doing it as a protest vote against the GOP establishment that they perceive as too afraid to stand up to Obama and the left in general. Plus Democrats crossing party lines to sabotage the GOP in open primaries.

      You know who’s responsible for this, primarily? Right wing talk radio. Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, all of them chased the ratings, told their audience what they want to hear, and defended Trump come hell or high water. Savage is a clown but I thought that Limbaugh and Levin had at least a lick of sense. I was wrong.

      1. I don’t buy that. I think a majority really believes that immig’ints stole their jobs and rape their women and that trade destroys wealth. These are not in the main people who were especially attached to national politics in the first place, or the GOP especially, but glommed on to the huckster who sold them an easy cureall to what ails them: slam shut the borders, close down the ports, and bask in our new-found isolationist wealth!

        1. I especially don’t believe these are people who cared one whit for why Boehner was so reviled by “insiders,” e.g. anyone with enough knowledge of Congress to know who Boehner is. These are people who were more upset by the idea of gridlock and a government shutdown than by the fact that congressional Republicans could get nothing down. They don’t know the process, they don’t care about the process, they just want a slimy conman to tell them what they want to hear. This wasn’t a vote against the establishment, this was a vote for the economic isolationist who’s going to Make America Great, not by reforming welfarism, not by peeling back the horribly aggressive administrative state, not by restoring federalism, but by making inept threats to China and building a wholly symbolic wall.

        2. I think that’s definitely what people really think regarding trade and the effects of immigration on employment. And within their own communities or families, they may be right, up to a point. Certain sectors of the labor market don’t seem as mobile as was once assumed. Of course, I think the regulatory environment and perverse government incentives have a lot to do with that, but it’s easier to identify the proximate cause (labor competition) and rail against that.

          1. Absolutely. And if they had the slightest bit of sense they’d be damn glad that protectionist measures weren’t more successful in the past, because we’d still in the majority be slinging shit around the yard.

          2. Who did these people vote for in 2012 then? Did they just randomly appear in the past 4 years? Are they all under 22 years old?

            1. Nobody. Yes. Somewhat.

        3. Gotta disagree on that. These are largely the same voters who swept the Tea Party into office in 2010 (other than the Democrat saboteurs) on a platform that didn’t remotely resemble what you’re describing.

          1. In which case the Tea Party was never about principle, because they had their chance to nominate a Tea Party candidate. Instead, they championed the guy who’s going to lose to Hillary.

            1. The TP itself was about principle. The people who swept them into office weren’t super-principled economic libertarians; they were generic conservatives who wanted the Democratic agenda stopped.

              Six years later, the Democrats have gotten almost everything they wanted in 2010, and more even. The debt’s ballooned, Obamacare is taking root as another immortal entitlement program, and everyone in the country has to serve gay weddings upon request, and allow random adult men to share a locker room with their teenage daughters under penalty of law.

              You and I know that these events were largely beyond the control of the Republicans in Congress, but I can understand their frustration and their unwillingness to listen to more namby pamby rhetoric from the likes of Rand Paul. They want somebody who will stick it to the Democrats and they’re not accepting half measures. Trump sounds like that guy to them.

              1. I really can’t forgive simple ignorance when it leads to outcomes like what we’re facing now. It’s like the old Rothbard quote, ignorance is no vice until it’s vociferous.


      2. Right wing talk radio is not nearly as influential as you or the left might think.

  23. Well, at least the Carly Fiorina as VP choice finally makes sense. Cruz needed someone to tell everyone on his campaign staff they were out of a job on Wednesday.

    1. Will she get a sex-change and change her name to Richard Schweiker?

      1. Nowadays you don’t need an operation, you just need to *think* yourself into a whole ‘nuther sex.

        1. If Carly walked into the men’s room I’m not sure I’d notice.

          1. If Carly walked into the men’s room I’m not sure I’d notice.

            Not to damn her with faint praise, but she’s a hell of a lot more attractive than Hillary.

        2. You also don’t need to think too hard, just accuse others of not thinking hard enough.

    2. Well done Dragon, well done.

    3. I’m interested in who Trump’s running mate is going to be. Is there a Republican office-holder in the country who wants to be associated with this dumpster fire?

      1. someone who wants to be Vice President, presumably.

        1. That would require Trump winning the election, which I’d give worse odds than an asteroid impact on Inauguration Day.

          1. But the odds are definitely zero if you say no. And politicians tend to be the type of narcissists that will believe they can help improve Trump’s odds (which I obviously think are better than you do, anyway).

            1. That’s the same “logic” people use to justify buying lottery tickets. The difference being that no future employer is going to refuse to hire you when they find out you bought a lottery ticket four years ago.

              Politicians are stupid about most things, but they’re usually not stupid about politics.

              1. I honestly think Kasich is gunning for that. He has shown us he is totally off the rocker by not dropping out a couple months ago, now he is vowing to stay in… I’m of the opinion he thinks he is gonna convince trump to make him VP and he will be able to pull in the moderates, etc.

                Now, do I think Trump will pick him? No. I’m thinking trump is going to nominate Carson.

      2. You might as well be asking who’s going to be Hillary’s twink, because that’s who you get to spend the next 4-8 years getting uncomfortably familiar with.

        1. Sen. Brown of Ohio, a swing state?

          1. Probably Julian Castro to play the Hispanic angle.

        2. The highest bidder. With the election in the bag already, she doesn’t need to trouble herself with political considerations.

        3. With some horror I note that Bill Clinton is still eligible for the vice presidency. The 12th amendment says that the VP must not be ineligible from serving as president, while the 22nd amendment only prohibits people who’ve been elected president twice from being elected again… not from serving as president again.

      3. I’m interested in who Trump’s running mate is going to be. Is there a Republican office-holder in the country who wants to be associated with this dumpster fire?

        I thought Sarah Palin was up for that. (Though she’s not an office-holder at present.)

  24. To be clear: no, I’m not yet tired of winning.

  25. “We are suspending our campaign.”

    Cruz: We were hoping to be elected Queen of America by the Mercy of the Almighty God, but We will not let mere peasants decide our fate!

  26. OT: Dem AG Targets 90 Conservative Groups in Climate Change Racketeering Suit

    In a subpoena issued in March, the office of USVI attorney general Claude Walker demanded from Exxon Mobil copies of communications between the oil company and 90 different political and policy organizations “and any other organizations engaged in research or advocacy concerning Climate Change or policies.”

    The AG is requesting Exxon Mobil communications with the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, the Hoover Institution, the Reason Foundation, and the Mercatus Institute [sic], among other groups.

    1. The process is the punishment.

    2. So is being indicted for racketeering part of the libertarian moment?

    3. In a just world, not only would this get quashed, but the AG would be impeached.

      1. Wood. Chipper.

    4. You think it’s off topic, but absolutely failing to stand up to things like this is what led to The Trumpening.

      1. it’s absolutely ON topic. Along with Herself’s talking about shutting down coal operations and putting workers out of jobs. I heard her trying to weasel out of that; it was pitiful. This kind of stuff is exactly what the Trump folks should hammer.

  27. Yikes. Come in off the ledge, Robby.

    1. Why don’t you go out there and fly over the side with him.

  28. Let’s see….

    Make America afraid again.

    Make America straight again.

    Make America inflate again.

    Make America ‘bate again. That’s the number!!

    1. Soave/Gillespie 2016: Make America Bae Again!

    2. Make America Grate Again

  29. I don’t trust Trump to protect our Second Amendment rights.

    I trust him to undermine free trade.

    I don’t trust Trump on fiscal conservatism.

    I don’t trust Trump not to start or not to exacerbate a needless war.

    I certainly don’t expect him to stop a needless war once it gets started.

    I can only think of two weak-ass reasons to vote for Trump:

    1) He’s not Hillary

    2) Burn it all down

    Can anybody think of another?

    I used to think him winning the Presidency might mean the end of this phase in the political correctness war, but I suspect with a new focal point, it’ll just make the social justice warriors worse than ever.


    Swing low
    sweet chariot
    comin’ for to carry me home

    1. Yes, exactly. Trump, the champion of Tea Party conservatives.

      1. Is that in sarcasm font?

        Trump isn’t Tea Party.

        Tea Party was fiscally conservative. I’d trust the Tea Party to defend our Second Amendment rights.

        Trump supported TARP.

        Trump ain’t no Tea Party guy.

        1. I was referring to a conversation upthread. If Trump is the backlash from the Tea Party, the Tea Party was never the party of fiscal conservatism.

          1. I think Trump is the backlash from the Tea Party’s inability to get anything done.

            So instead of trying again on a principled level, they are now just going to vote for the guy waving the biggest flag.

            1. “I think Trump is the backlash from the Tea Party’s inability to get anything done.”

              What did you expect the Tea Party to do?

              They can’t do anything without Obama signing off on it. That’s the way the Constitution thingy works.

              The Tea Party wasn’t even big enough to get rid of Boehner until this year!

              The Tea Party made up less than one half of the Republican Party in the House, which represents exactly one half of one third of the federal government. And with that little bit of influence, they were able to shut the budget process down over spending.

              How much more could they reasonably be expected to do?

              And we were lucky to have them with Obama in the White House. Thank God coming after our Second Amendment rights was a non-starter–even in the aftermath of mass shootings. The Obama administration doesn’t let a crisis go to waste. They just decided there was no point in going there.

              1. Look, I am certainly not on the Trump Train. I supported, and still do, the Tea Party’s efforts to restrain the size of government.

                The people I talk to, believe that it was due mostly to the efforts of the Tea Party that the Republicans won back control of the House in 2010, and then the Senate in 2014. So they expect the Republican establishment to be beholden to Tea Party ideals, or at least smaller government ideals, but instead they just crapped on the Tea Party, calling them ‘wacko birds’, and “implementing Obama’s agenda” instead. Basically they think there’s no difference, and they aren’t going to make the same mistake twice, so they will vote for the blowhard who promises to rip everything up.

                1. “Basically they think there’s no difference, and they aren’t going to make the same mistake twice, so they will vote for the blowhard who promises to rip everything up.”

                  I see the Trump supporter phenomenon as a mixture of two things:

                  1) He’s the anti-Obama.

                  To the extent that Obama is the champion of social justice warriors, Trump is the champion of being politically incorrect.

                  The more politically incorrect Trump became, the more his supporters liked him. That’s a reaction to eight years of Obama being the Social Justice Warrior in Chief.

                  2) The Democrats under Obama have abandoned the white, blue collar, middle class.

                  That was the bread and butter of the Democratic Party. Trump did extremely well in states with open primaries–so Democrats could vote for him, too. One of the reasons the traditional Republican platform has failed to win with Trump voters is because they aren’t traditional Republicans.

                  The Tea Party was able to get ahead by appealing to core Republican values (fiscal conservatism, capitalism, etc.) because their target audience was registered Republicans whose leadership had drifted away from the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

                  Donald Trump supporters are blue collar, white, middle class, Catholics, and union workers. That is a traditional Democrat demographic. Again, the choice between Trump and Clinton is the choice between two Democrats.

                  1. I actually agree with you 100%. Particularly on point 1. Too many people underestimate how sick and tired people are of constantly being called racist/bigot/homophobe/islamaphobe, etc. If you watch or listen to someone like Milo Yiannopolous he talks about that aspect in depth, and how many of the people on the Trump train literally do not care about policy even in the slightest, they just want to give a big middle finger to the establishment and to SJW politicians.

                  2. Donald Trump supporters are blue collar, white, middle class, Catholics, and union workers. That is a traditional Democrat demographic. Again, the choice between Trump and Clinton is the choice between two Democrats.

                    Pretty much what I’ve been saying for awhile, except his supporters are mostly straight male blue collar, white, middle class etc. etc. I doubt there are enough of those left in the country anymore to elect him – even though the president isn’t elected by popular vote.

                    Yes, the choice between Trump and Clinton is the choice between two Democrats – and I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t the plan all along.

              2. What did you expect the Tea Party to do?

                That’s a double edged sword. The Republican base did as we told them to, and voted for quiet-talking economic conservatives, and it didn’t have any effect to stop the Democrats from getting their agenda passed anyway. Why should they continue doing it? Why not vote for somebody who says he’s going to sock it to the liberals on every issue?

                1. Because it takes more than control of the House.

                  You simply can’t get anything done in this country by having control of Congress. You need the White House, too. Otherwise, you need to have a veto proof majority.

                  The Tea Party didn’t have that.

                  They would have had it if we’d elected Cruz.

                  1. I know that control of Congress isn’t enough. You also need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, btw.

                    The problem is that the GOP has moved the goalposts every election. The base gave them the House in 2010, but the GOP said they need the Senate. They gave them the Senate in 2014, but the party said now they need a filibuster proof majority and/or the White House. All the while the Democrats are getting everything they want. Can’t you see where the frustration would arise?

                    1. Am I supposed to pretend this never happened?

                      “From October 1 through 16, 2013, the United States federal government entered a shutdown and curtailed most routine operations because neither legislation appropriating funds for fiscal year 2014 nor a continuing resolution for the interim authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2014 was enacted in time.”


                      What more did you want them to do?

                    2. And what were the end results of that shutdown?

                      Obamacare still in place, and the debt ceiling not merely raised but removed. Way to go, GOP Congress.

          2. That’s not what I was saying.

            Trump’s victory is the backlash from the people who supported the Tea Party 4-6 years ago only to see nothing change, plus open primary Democrat sabotage.

            1. And again, they had a chance to back the clear Tea Party (whatever that even means, but certainly anti-establishment) candidate. If this were really about doubling down on the effort, Cruz was their guy. And Cruz wouldn’t have lost seats in Congress the way Trump is bound to do, simply by dint of having to campaign for the megalomaniacal asshole.

              So at the very least, the so-called Tea Party threw a vapid tantrum and voted in the guy who’s going to lose to Hillary. But more likely, if it’s true that Trump supporters are in the main Tea Partiers, they’ve revealed a preference for a fascistic pro-government asshole over a man whom Boehner himself describes as an intolerable asshole to work with.

              1. Rand Paul said basically the same thing about Cruz that Boehner did, albeit in more diplomatic terms. There are a lot of reasons even Tea Partiers (such as myself) hate Ted Cruz.

                So at the very least, the so-called Tea Party threw a vapid tantrum and voted in the guy who’s going to lose to Hillary.

                Former supporters of the Tea Party, not the Tea Party itself, but I agree that it’s a temper tantrum. Trump has no chace, but in fairness any GOP candidate was probably going to lose to Hillary. Rubio was the only one beating her in the polls, but not by enough of a margin to survive the inevitable multibillion dollar smear campaign (plus MSM assistance free of charge, as always).

              2. Honestly I think that Drudge and some of the mainstream talk radio so hammered Cruz and parroted the “Lyin Ted” stuff that they effectively hosed any chance of that happening.

                The sweet irony is those people always rant about how the MSM is shilling for liberals, yet they shilled and shilled hard for Trump.

          3. And they were the part of fiscal conservatism. They really were.

            They held Boehner’s feet to the fire and everything.

            If the Tea Party is the new establishment in the House, it’ll be interesting watching Trump go head to head with them over the budget.

            I think the choice between Hillary and Trump is the choice between two Democrats.

            The policy differences are mostly aesthetics.

            The things I care about the most: capitalism, fiscal conservatism, tax cutting, free trade, deregulation. I care about ending the drug war. I care about the Second Amendment.

            If that’s what I care about, why should I vote for Trump?

            Is Trump any better than Hillary on those issues?

            I don’t give a crap about whether there’s a tranny in the next stall. I know Trump voters and Hillary voters think that’s really important–and that’s what they’re talking about when they say they’re conservative or not.

            1. What is Superman’s origin story on the Earth you reside? While the Tea Party might have been fiscally conservative at the very beginning, as it gained in popularity itquickly mutated into the “HANDS OF MY MEDICARE!” three-ring circus of the early 2010s.

              Please tell me you remember that and I haven’t just quantum shifted into an alternate reality.

              1. I didn’t say they were libertarians. There was a libertarian contingent, but they weren’t libertarians.

                It was like that from the start. The Tea Party was fiscally conservative–in large part–because they wanted to save Social Security and Medicare. Many of them were upset about TARP because they wanted that money to be available for Social Security and Medicare.

                I was not Tea Party because they weren’t libertarian enough for me.

                But I’m not an objectivist either. I don’t care why people are fiscally conservative anywhere near as much as I care that they are fiscally conservative. And the Tea Party was that.

                Also, I was referring to the fact that the problems the Boehner/Obama team had in getting a budget passed were because of fiscal conservatism in the Tea Party. To whatever extent the Republican Party was fiscally conservative under Boehner, it was not because of Boehner and the establishment Republicans. It was because the Tea Party forced it on Boehner from below.

                That’s why Boehner had to go.

                1. You and I have radically different definitions of the term “fiscally conservative”.

                  And I’ll leave it at that.

              2. This fiscal retardation has got to stop.

                Tea partiers said this–

                “HANDS OF MY MEDICARE!”

                because they’d been forced to pay for it their entire working lives.

                Yes, it was all a lie. So? Does the fact that some previous generation bought a bill of goods mean I can’t be pissed that I’ve been robbed my whole life? Is there something wrong with demanding that I cease being among those who bears the brunt every time the government tries to fix the mistakes the government made?

                Do I have to constantly sanction yet another theft so that someone else can live comfortably while I’m screwed AGAIN?

                It is the ‘libertarian’ failure to grasp this that allowed the Tea Party to slip from that path. Too many ‘libertarians’ jumped on the lefty bandwagon with crap like this.

          4. Uhm, on what planet? The tea party started out as a limited government party. It was high jacked by hard right evangelicals and a few racists thrown in for good measure (as they always squawk the loudest), but the vast bulk of the tea party were just people who wanted the government less involved in their lives.

            Unfortunately like many people have stated, the silent majority ends up being meaningless, and in this case they were.

        2. where is Trump attacking Second Amendment rights? Hillary is clearly against it; Trump has talked the opposite. Most of DC supported TARP; that an insider like Trump would is not a surprise. He hasn’t been doing like Hillary, or Obama before her, in taking money from the very people she/he routinely trashes.

          1. IIRC, Trump has said that citizens who are on the “terror watch list” should have their 2A rights stripped.

            1. and maybe he did. I just don’t see vehement antipathy toward 2A as a big deal for Trump. Herself is pretty clear on where she stands on guns.

          2. He’s not attacking the Second Amendment it while running for the GOP nomination, obviously. He has been a vocal supporter of the assault weapons ban in the past and never criticized the draconian NYS or NYC gun laws in the past.

            1. I don’t really foresee a Trump admin being rabidly anti-2A. Or at least there is no evidence to suggest as much.

              Whereas it’s obvious that a Hillary admin would be.

              1. I doubt he would make 2A a litmus test for the judges he would vet for nomination.

                1. I can see him rolling over for anti-2A legislation if it means he gets to make good on promises for border security. I can see him selling out conservatives on essentially anything if it saves him from a lame-duck first term.

                  1. This. A person who reverses their position when it’s convenient is probably going to do it again when that becomes convenient.

            2. attacking it in the general wouldn’t make any sense, either. It’s not hard to see a big contrast between Donnie and Herself on this point.

              1. What contrast do you see? That Donald mouths lip syncs gun rights rhetoric? So did Obama in 2008.

          3. “where is Trump attacking Second Amendment rights? Hillary is clearly against it; Trump has talked the opposite.”

            Trump is a recent convert to being against “assault weapon” bans. And his conversion process suspiciously synced perfectly with his desire to run for President.

            What I said was that I don’t trust Trump to stand up for our Second Amendment rights. But I believe he’d sell Republicans down the river on that issue if he needed to win Democrats in the Northeast for his reelection bid.

            And how far away is he from Hillary Clinton on that, really? Hillary’s not coming for your revolver either. She’s not coming for your shotgun. Hillary would ban “assault weapons” if it suited her political prospects, and Donald Trump would, too. That’s my read of the situation. If Trump is in the White House, our Second Amendment rights are mostly being protected by Republicans in Congress.

            1. like Obama’s conversion on SSM? And Herself? Such a change would not make him unusual. I think he’s further away than Hillary mostly because she just oozes a disgust for flyover country. Trump does not seem to have that visceral distaste for his countrymen. But I could be wrong.

              1. “like Obama’s conversion on SSM? “

                Have you mistaken me for an Obama fan somehow?

                Has anyone on this website been harder on Obama than me over the past eight years?

                Because I think Trump is a shithead on the Second Amendment and pathetic excuse for a Goldwater/Reagan style Republican–that doesn’t mean I like anything about Obama.

                You follow, Buddy Ro?

                “I think he’s further away than Hillary mostly because she just oozes a disgust for flyover country.”

                Yeah, see, I don’t really care if the President is contemptuous of flyover country. That’s an aesthetic issue.

                I care about whether they’re contemptuous of our individual rights. I care about whether they’re contemptuous of capitalism.

                I think both Hillary and Trump are contemptuous of both. If they care about individual rights or free market capitalism, it’s just a coincidence. They were trying to say something else completely. It just came out funny when they were trying to say it.

            2. Hillary’s not coming for your revolver either. She’s not coming for your shotgun.

              I think you’re optimistic. She will do both once it becomes politically possible, and that’s coming pretty fast if we don’t turn things around.

              Gun rights supporters are drunk on the successes of the 2000s. All of them can be reversed at the drop of a hat. Heller and McDonald are definitely getting reversed within a year or two.

              1. Sadly this looks very true. Re-enforce the defenses.

      2. Trump enjoyed large support from the Tea Party.

        “A Feb. 29 CNN poll had 56 percent of Tea Partiers favoring Trump compared to 16 percent for Cruz. A March 9 Quinnipiac University poll had Trump leading Cruz 48 percent to 40 percent among Tea Party voters in Florida, while Cruz led Trump with 38 percent to Trump’s 33 percent in Ohio.”

        1. I guess the Tea Partiers weren’t all about the Constitution after all.

          1. They were/are, but at the moment their “I am vehemently pissed at the establishment” fervor (for lack of a better word) is trumping their constitutional rights fervor.

    2. Can anybody think of another?

      3) The media will start to question the executive branch again.

      it’ll just make the social justice warriors worse than ever.

      I don’t know that they can get any worse, tbh. What would make them worse is getting more power, but Trump presidency doesn’t help with that.

      Trump would certainly give some beneficial distraction for their allies who are just in it for the signalling.

      1. You know that is the one silver lining I can see in a Trump presidency it at least he will unload on SJW and maybe stem the tide of that movement (pun intended).

  30. Hah!

    What a ludicrously awful election.

  31. Ha ha foolish mammals, let the games begin…YOUR FUTURE REPTILIAN OVERLORDS DEMAND ENTERTAINMENT

    1. You Reptiloids are on the list: I weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick.

      1. He’s a reptilian, not a reptiloid.

        There’s a vast difference.

  32. Well this is the end of my association with the Republican Party on any level.

    There is no party registration in my state, but if there was, I would change it from Republican to Libertarian tomorrow.

    1. I’m thinking of joining just so I could resign and burn my party card.

  33. Trump wins, Hillary loses and Ted quits. Is that a perfect evening or what?

    1. Fucking Beautiful

      I wasn’t going to drink tonight but I had to go out and get a 6 to celebrate.

    2. Except for the part where tonight’s events made a Hillary Clinton presidency inevitable.

  34. Half of the Libertarian Party couldn’t stand voting for a pro choice candidate. What makes you think conservatives will/should?

    1. Trump’s pro-life

      1. And pro-gun, anti-eminent-domain abuse, and all the other conservative positions he’s lip syncing.

      2. Trump “converted” to prolife – only he knows if he’s sincere, but it looks fishy that the first thing he does after his “conversion” is to pull the rug out from under faithful prolifers and give talking points to the media against them. Then saying he’d be OK with killing babies for the sins of their fathers (rape).

        Trump seems to me like the guy in Seinfeld who converted to Judaism just so that he could tell anti-Semitic jokes.

        1. Good for Trump. The last thing the GOP needs is yet another candidate suiciding on an actively pro-life platform.

          He also doesn’t seem to give a shit about gays or whatever bathrooms transgenders wish to use. Also a positive.

          1. Hilarious, given that pro-life and toilet discrimination both poll better than libertarianism.

  35. Boo. I’m voting for Gary Johnson.

    1. Will the libertarians want to nominate Mr. Nazi Cakes?

    2. I’m going to laugh at the LP if they nominate the same guy who ran one of the worst campaigns in party history last time around. Though I’ll probably wind up laughing at them regardless.

      1. Indeed. He’ll probably spend the first half of any public appearance talking about how many mountains he scaled and how many marathons he has completed.

        1. This and that.

      2. Johnson got the second best showing by an LP candidate ever. Granted that was still less than 1%, but what does that say about the other guys?

        1. 2012 featured an unpopular incumbent and a challenger whose own party mostly didn’t like him. Deez Nuts probably would have outperformed Hikin’ Gary.

  36. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at homme, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.PA5..

    ====== Online.E-cash10.COM

  37. 1) Trump is a false-flag operation designed to give Billary an easy victory.
    2) Trump has tapped into a deep aquifier of retarded, ignorant, Lou Dobbs-style populism that attracts retards like moths to a bug zapper.
    3) People are going to vote him to punish the GOP, because they deserve it, notwithstanding that either one of the Pauls would have been a much sharper thorn.
    4) Voters are mostly irrational, ignorant, driven by emotion, and believe in Top Men the way Cotton Mather believed in God.
    5) It’s all pointless, and we’re better off ignoring this smorgasbord of retarded pageantry and trying to be successful, productive citizens despite the government.


  38. My Uncle Max got Mazda MAZDA2 Hatchback just by part-time work from a home pc. hop over to this site

  39. as Sharon replied I’m startled that a student able to profit $5424 in one month on the computer . read . hop over to this site

  40. 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..


  41. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..


  42. Scott Adams predicted all this over at the Dilbert blog. With Canadian Cruz out, that eliminates every pulpit-thumping antiabortionist eager to use the force of law to force women to reproduce against their will. Seeing American voters spit in the face of National Socialism as it impersonates a free society, people all over the world can proudly rid themselves of religious totalitarianism and the transformation of individuals into breeding stock for groupthink brainwashing machines. Republican antichoice woman-bulliers now share the distinction of the longest odds against them ever becoming president over at
    Trump, Bernie and the Former First Lady all make Gary look like a desirable candidate by comparison. And comparison voting is what counts!

  43. Perhaps if some of the libertarians would deign to dirty their hands in political endeavors, and help nominate a “conservative” candidate with character, the GOP would not be facing a Trumpian Future.
    Now though, you get to maintain your place of purity on the sidelines denouncing the crude politics of both major parties, which by your inaction, you have no influence over.

  44. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..


  45. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..


  46. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..


  47. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….


  48. 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..


  49. 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..


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.