Justin Amash

Will Rep. Justin Amash Oppose Donald Trump? Looks Likely.

"Nothing better illustrates the phoniness of politicians," he writes, "than the ease w/ which they shift from blasting one another to praising one another."

|

A series of Republicans who once were harshly anti-Trump are now lining up to kiss the Donald's ring. But it doesn't look like that line will include Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, the libertarian-leaning congressman who once suggested that Trump "presents a kind of threat to our system that is maybe in some ways bigger than what the Democrats present." If you head over to Amash's Twitter page right now, you'll see that this is his most recent Tweet:

Twitter

Hmm: What do you think he's referring to? The item right below that—retweeted from Reason—certainly suggests that he isn't about to jump on the Trump train:

Twitter

And below that, a retweet from Sen. Ben Sasse, the anti-Trump Nebraska Republican who's been calling for an independent or third-party candidate to emerge:

Twitter

I have reached out to Rep. Amash's office to ask who, if anyone, he plans to support for the presidency this November, and I'll update this post if/when I get a response.

NEXT: A Tale of Two Recoveries: Reagan vs. Obama

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. So, was THAT the libertarian moment?

    1. No. It was just gas.

  2. Favorite sitting politician.

    1. I don’t understand why he is a Republican, the party of true pant-shitting dumbasses.

      1. Because running as an (L) will get you nowhere?

      2. Because ‘libertarian’ is what ‘repuiblican’ should be.

  3. Twitter fights are so lame. Politics would be so much more interesting if they beat the daylights out of each other a bit instead of having pissing contests over the internet.

    1. In the old days, assholes like Alexander Hamilton were taken out back and shot. T’was a simpler time.

    2. The man who can wear the crown is the man who can take the crown. And that man can wear the crown for as long as he can hold it.

    3. Real leaders duel with pistols at 20 paces.

      1. Wellington : Come sir. Choose your stoker.
        Blackadder : What’s this? Are we going to tickle each other to death?
        Wellington : No sir. We fight with cannon.
        Blackadder : But I thought we were fighting with swords.
        Wellington : Swords! What do you think this is, the middle ages? Only girls fight with swords these days. Stand by your gun sir. Hup two three. Hup two three.
        Blackadder : Wait a minute.
        Wellington : Stand by cannon for loading procedure. Stoke. Muzzle. Wrench. Crank the storm barrel. Pull tee bar.
        Blackadder : “Congratulations on choosing the Armstrong Whitworth four pounder cannonnette. Please read the instructions carefully and it should give years of trouble free maiming.”
        Wellington : Check elevation. Chart trajectory. Prime fuse. Aim…
        Blackadder : Look, wait a minute.
        Wellington : FIRE!

  4. I’ve been consoling myself with the realization that having a wildly unpopular emperor is better than having a popular one.

    If Hillary and Trump were both wildly popular, they would have a mandate and the legitimacy to push Congress around and get what they want. Because they’re both wildly unpopular, they won’t be able to get as much done.

    I’d rank my preferences in this order:

    1) Popular libertarian President
    2) Unpopular libertarian President
    3) Unpopular authoritarian President
    4) Popular authoritarian President

    When we see stories about Trump’s unpopularity, we should keep this in mind: Unpopularity isn’t a negative attribute in an authoritarian President–certainly not from a libertarian perspective. Wouldn’t America be better off if Barack Obama had been massively unpopular?

    1. 0) Why does there need to be a president?

      1. Y U DUNT LIEK GOVMINT HUG AKTONS U GO TOO SOMALKEIA

        1. SOMALKEA = worst furniture store ever

          1. Dammit, you beat me to it.

            *applauds dourly*

      2. The same reason there needs to be a janitor. The real question is why should a glorified janitor be given so much power?

        1. To scrub toilets and put saw dust on puddles of vomit? Sorry but I think civilization would be better off without a majoritarian crime racket spanning 300ish million people.

          1. Outside of war, the government–especially the national government–doesn’t have much to do except keep the lights running. The idea that it exists to provide something other than the organization of martial resources in response to large-scale threats to the peace and liberty of its citizens is more dangerous than the idea that it such a body needs to exist in the first place.

        2. why should a glorified janitor be given so much power?

          Right?!

          /Richard “Dick” Vernon

      3. You can’t always get what you want, but if you have to choose?

        And if you want to go that route, “Popular libertarian President” is probably the one where there’s no emperor at all. That’s like the one where there’s no authoritarian President, and hardly anybody wants one either.

      4. Because the country is a constitutional republic and the Constitution calls for one.

        1. I’m not sure the reality of the office of President today looks much like the one in the Constitution, but I get what you’re saying.

        2. Because the country is a constitutional republic and the Constitution calls for one.

          Why does North Korea need Kin Jong-Un? Because the country is a Communist hereditary dictatorship and the men with guns demand his position be filled.

          1. That would make a lot more sense if it weren’t “arguing” in favor of a man rather than a position. It’s the whole “government of laws, not of men” thing.

            Now, a strong case can be made that it’s no longer a government of laws, or whatever, but that’s a separate issue from the design. And, of course, you’re free not to like the design, either, but that’s also a separate issue, since the question wasn’t “why does there need to be a President?”

            1. Ummm… “why does there need to be a Constitution,” this is.

    2. Of course, President Hillary will be able to shape the SCOTUS to her ideology for decades.

      1. So will President Trump. You think he’ll put in people who might strike down literally one single executive action? He’d sooner nominate his own back hair.

        1. Right but I wouldn’t expect Trump to give two shits about what SCOTUS does one day after the Trump presidency. Especially since the GOP is effectively killed/dismantled/dismembered or w/e. Moreover, all this time as a real estate developer and Kelo v. New London was decided entirely without him.

        2. I don’t believe we will be seeing a President Trump. Not with the Republicans preparing to go to war with themselves rather than elect Trump. He might be slightly better on SCOTUS nominations than Hillary, at least not as bad on the 2nd amendment, and likely not quite as bad on the 1st amendment.

          1. this is what kills me: someone like Trump is practically begging to be shaped by an inner circle of informed conservatives, but instead of trying to influence someone who is clearly better than Shrillary, they’ve decided to act like petulant little children.

            1. That’s because they’re not conservatives and have no interest in molding a President into a conservative…they want someone who will play ball with them and keep the pork flowing exactly as Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama did. We’ve had one party since Reagan left office…with only a short respite in the 1990s.

      2. In which case, her being massively unpopular is still better than her being wildly popular.

        It’s the authoritarianism that’s the problem for libertarians–not her unpopularity. Her unpopularity is an undisguised blessing. Thank Jesus she’s so unpopular. Pray she becomes even more unpopular still.

        1. Pray she becomes even more unpopular still.

          Which is why I think Trump is the best candidate for that particular job. She probably *could* sit back until Nov. and drink Mimosas. I fully expect Trump to successfully goad her into a dick measuring contest.

          1. He wouldn’t have a chance in such a thing.

  5. Justin Amash isn’t very classy, to be honest. Everyone says so. He’s a loser who is going to be on the outside looking in.

    1. Classy probably won’t help us in the fight against President Trump or President Hillary. They’re just not likely to be classy Presidents.

      The leaders of the opposition to either one of them may need to be completely bereft of class in order to be effective.

      Vulgarity, silliness, brazen, someone who can tell fart jokes at a funeral without batting an eye. If we’re going to be effective against the Crook in Chief or Trump, we may have to get Palin’s Buttplug level stupid before this is over.

      1. Vulgarity, silliness, brazen, someone who can tell fart jokes at a funeral without batting an eye.

        Could someone direct me to the sign-up form, please?

    2. Why is he denigrating the Will of the People?

      1. The will of the people is porn.

        The will of the people pizza.

        The will of the people is at Amazon.com

        The will of the people isn’t politicians. Politicians make hot chicks barf.

      2. The people have spoken – the bastards!
        – Dick Tuck

  6. I’ll update this post if/when I get a response.

    I assume that will be…soon.

    1. Soon?

      Like when Jesus comes back?

  7. I’m going with Trump. My goal would be chaos, an emerging class consciousness, and a socialist revolution. You’re telling me Clinton is going to help with this? She’s a dangerous capitalist lackey. Trump, 2016– highlighting the contradictions in the 21st century.

    1. See, this is what I was talking about above.

      That’s certainly Palin’s Buttplug level stupid–it’s just pushing in the wrong direction.

      But good effort!

      1. I’m just saying, Ken, that when Clinton/Trump come around and launch some asinine war in which the rubes’ kids keep dying and then they go to the park where some asshole, paid off politician is arguing strenuously that it’s important to vote– maybe some of those people will start looking around. You know?

        1. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but this really is the level of stupidity I was talking about. Your initial post was even better/dumber than this one, but you’re on the right track with the Palin’s Buttplug level stupid. And you should be congratulated for that.

          I’m just saying maybe it should be to more of a pro-libertarian stance, but I guess the anti-libertarian stupid shit you say is objectively pro-libertarian in a way–if reading the stupid shit you write makes people want to be even more libertarian. So keep up the good work!

          You’re doing what you can in your own special way.

        2. maybe some of those people will start looking around.

          Oh, you’re ‘just’ saying that. For a second there i thought you were ‘just’ saying that you’d like to see “an emerging class consciousness and a socialist revolution.”

    2. Because envy-based collectivist ideology has accomplished such great things in places like Venezuela, right?

      1. IT WAS THE CAPITALIST PIG-DOG WRECKERS AND KULAKS THAT DESTROYED VENEZUELA, TOVARISH!

    3. You could just go back to Cuba and lecture them again on how good they have it again.

  8. Republicans need to learn some party discipline. They love to talk about Reagan but forget about the 11th Commandment. I think a lot of Trump fans are ‘in the closet’ and if the Republicans took some pride in their candidate, no matter how they feel internally, it at least makes you look like you know what you’re doing. nobody wants to vote for a party that looks entirely chaotic.

    1. I think a lot of Trump fans are ‘in the closet’ and if the Republicans took some pride in their candidate, no matter how they feel internally, it at least makes you look like you know what you’re doing. nobody wants to vote for a party that looks entirely chaotic.

      They should throw a Trump Pride parade.

      “WE’RE HERE! WE’RE RETARDS! WE VOTE! GET USED TO IT!”

  9. OT: More guns Equal Less Crime:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05…..eaths.html

    1. I thought you were apathetic on the matter?

      1. More or less. I’m just arguing for apathy on your part.

        1. So you have no idea what apathetic means or this is just another instance of you being a bald-faced liar.

          Got it.

          1. There’s no ‘either/or’, he is both stupid and dishonest. That’s why he’s a socialist.

          2. I went to a party recently and some hothead Clinton supporter and I got into it about The election. I told him I didn’t really care one way or the other whether Clinton won and, for that matter, I didn’t really care about the fate of the Democratic Party. I feel the same way about laws designed the restrict access to firearms. I don’t jump around and wave the 2nd amendment in people’s faces when local communities act to protect their citizens nor do I cheerlead efforts to restrict access to firearms. I don’t care, really, because I– like so many others– aren’t going to buy a firearm any time soon. The particular argument about how it’s fascist totalitarianism when the government says you should show your drivers license and prove you aren’t a.) going to go home and shoot your wife and b.) are not a nut don’t interest me beyond marveling at how absolutely fucking wrapped up in hysterics other people can get about the issue.

            That’s apathy, right?

            1. Socialists don’t understand inherent rights to self defense and believe freedom means asking permission.

              And how does one prove item a, above? Pinky swear? Or do the right people from the right families get to have access to firearms?

    2. 278 unintentional shootings at the hands of young children and teenagers
      I love how they jump from photos of toddlers to then include teenagers in the stats, which also includes 18 and 19 year old adults, just to goose the stats. There are also, according to the CDC, between 300,000 to 500,000 defensive gun uses every year, and as gun ownership has risen astronomically since the 90s, and gun laws have been loosened, violent crime has fallen substantially. They really are dishonest shits. In any case, my fundamental rights do not get cancelled bcause some idiots are careless with their children’s safety.

      1. Don’t forget the hunting accident lumped in with cute dead kids. That article is everything that’s wrong with our political culture and exactly why we deserve shits like Trump and Hillary. Feels, feels, feels, more laws, more laws, more laws. Fuck off slavers.

      2. includes 18 and 19 year old adults

        Shouldn’t they now be including people under 26yo in the children stats?

      3. “Young children and other people-shaped soap boxes”

    3. LIsten, we’ve all been through this before, so let’s save ourselves some time:

      We’ll say naked appeals to emotion are not mature policy arguments, you’ll respond with a non-sequitur, we’ll point out that by this same logic swimming pools and drain cleaner should also be forcibly banned, you’ll say that’s different for some reason you won’t articulate, we’ll call you a retard, and you’ll go back to huffing your own farts and masturbating to video footage of Bernie Sanders speeches.

      Can we move on?

      1. This comment is definitely worth a clip and save, to be brought out on future occasions.

        1. Seconded. p a really summed it up nicely.

    4. One Week in April, Four Toddlers Shot and Killed Themselves

      OH MY GODDDDDDDD

    5. So what?

      My rights don’t exist for your benefit.

  10. Sasse/Amash 2016

    1. Strike that, reverse it.

  11. So now all of the Republicans who told us we needed to suck it up and vote for stiffs like McCain and Romney are having tantrums and threatening to go third party when one of their guys doesn’t get the nod.

    Guess how much credibility they have left?

    1. So now all of the Republicans who told us we needed to suck it up and vote for stiffs like McCain and Romney are having tantrums and threatening to go third party when one of their guys doesn’t get the nod.

      Amash refused to endorse Romney, though he did “support” him, which I guess means he was willing to vote for Romney himself but wouldn’t urge anyone else to.

    2. Because conservatives with principles were so happy to support people like McCain and Romney…

  12. Does Amash read the comments?

    Justin, get in on this. Together we can get a libertarianish candidate into double digit percentages. BELIEVE!

    1. I think just reading the HnR comments is pretty dicey as a political move.

  13. Decision 2016: Third Party or Turd Party

  14. All – yes, all – of the media roundtables and columnists are begging for third-party alternatives yet never mention libertarians.

    The right-wing and lefty commentators on a game site I frequent long ago brushed off libertarianism and bemoan the lack of third-parties.

    1. Mongo, are you one of the 91% of libertarians who rejects libertarianism? (Per Cato)
      You do know that libertarians and libertarianism are not the same, right?

  15. “Nothing better illustrates the phoniness of politicians,” he writes, “than the ease w/ which they shift from blasting one another to praising one another.”

    Or of spouses, other family members, or people who have just about any relationship at all. Nothing better illustrates how real & human they are, either.

  16. and I’ll update this post if/when I get a response.

    Or why not be relevant?

  17. Celebrity trumps logic.
    Celebrity trumps policy.
    Celebrity trumps intelligence.
    Celebrity trumps substance.
    Celebrity trumps money.
    Celebrity trumps campaign ads.
    Celebrity trumps facts.
    Celebrity trumps reporting.
    Celebrity trumps reality.
    Brought to you by the public school education system.

    40% of Republicans will either stay home, vote for the Libertarian Party or some other party.

    There is no point in voting between two Democrats.

    The likely nomination of Trump is a reflection of the poor education our children are receiving in our failing public schools and the lower standard of education our college graduates are receiving.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.