George Will

George Will Leaves the Republican Party over Trump: 'Make sure he loses'

Iconic conservative commentator officially joins the ranks of independents

|

At a Federalist Society lunch in Washington yesterday, conservative columnist and TV commentator George Will announced that he changed his Maryland voter registration this month from Republican to unaffiliated. "This is not my party," he told the crowd, according to an account by PJ Media's Nicholas Ballasy.

Will, who has arguably been the most biting and prolific member of the conservative anti-Trump club, reportedly cited House Speaker Paul Ryan's endorsement of Trump as one of the last straws, and was noncommittal about whether he would support Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson. Asked by Ballasy to recommend what conservative anti-Trumpers should do now, Will said: "Make sure he loses."

But what about that last-gasp reason, resonant among many of the legal thinkers at the libertarian/conservative Federalist Society, for backing even a revolting Republican—the Supreme Court? Will's answer was revealing: "Sure, but I'm also concerned with the fact that I do not really believe Republicans think clearly enough about what they really want in judges," he told Ballasy. "Having a Republican president is not an answer in itself."

Will over the past half-decade has become one of the leading critics of the muddled conservative doctrine of "judicial restraint," frequently citing Damon Root's "wonderful book" Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court. In conversation with Nick Gillespie and I four months ago at the International Students for Liberty Conference, Will explained it this way:

The most interesting argument in American governance today is not between Republicans and Democrats, it is between conservatives—using the term inclusively here—who believe that we need, as conservatives have been saying for years, a deferential judiciary, passive and deferential to the majoritarian branches of government; and, on the other hand, those like Clark Neily, who wrote the wonderful book Terms of Engagement…Damon Root, me, others—Randy Barnett—who argue on the contrary that what we need is an engaged judiciary asserting the fact that the essence of America is not majority rule, it is liberty.

That conversation, in which Will refers to Trump as "Voldemort" and warns of America's looming "authoritarian moment," can be seen below:

Gillespie and I also interviewed Will about his libertarian evolution in 2013, which you can read here and watch here.

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.

500 responses to “George Will Leaves the Republican Party over Trump: 'Make sure he loses'

  1. So he supports Hillary. WHAT A SURPRISE

    1. Hey MJ, he’s got to support one or the other.

      1. Doesn’t matter who he supports, he will get one or the other, his sonorous, idealistic chin wagging notwithstanding.

      2. Did you even read the article? My guess is that Will will come out for Johnson/Weld.

      3. Yeah. To heck with casting a spoiler vote and actually making a difference in the laws.

        1. The spoiler or wasted vote is nonsense in most case. Yes, the conventional wisdom is a vote for Nader in Florida in 2000 did make a difference in who won the White, until you realize the Supreme Court picked the president, not the voters.

          Further, according to a privately funded audit of Florida ballots after that election, the Gore preferred recount method would have still elected Bush-43, but the preferred Bush method probably would have elected Gore.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11…..wanted=all

          What is a wasted vote in November will be a Hillary vote in Alabama, or a Trump vote in Hawaii.

          So I say vote your beliefs.

    2. REASON SUPPORTS HILLARY. You read it here first!

      1. Well, after supporting Obama, reason writers should just go full proggie !

        1. or as we like to call it “complete douchebag”

      2. It would mean more appearances on Bill Maher and MSNBC. More cocktail party invitations too.

    3. I’m not voting for Trump. Does that mean I support Hillary?

      1. Not only that, it means that you voted for her!

      2. no, but you’re a libertarian. Will has ALWAYS been a Pub. Any other nominee besides Trump and he still would be. He is an actual Team shill who wants to take his marbles because his choice lost, not because he’s acting on some principle.

        1. So, you’re saying that his “choice” hasn’t lost in all of the election cycles for which he has been a public figure? Really?

          He must be infallible!

        2. If Will has a reason to quit the GOP now, he had one a year ago. It’s a stupid decision to make over one Presidential nominee. It sounds like he’s just having a hissy fit.

      3. Yeah, and it also means you’ve given up your right to complain about the gov’t while she’s in office

        1. Yeah, and it also means you’ve given up your right to complain about the gov’t while she’s in office

          Not even close. If I don’t vote for Kang or Kodos and one of them wins because of millions of other morons I have no control over, I still get to rip whichever one was elected for being the swine that they are.

      4. Not voting klepto means you are capable of logical induction and statistical inference–and have the guts it takes to actually change the laws. Congratulations!

    4. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
      This is what I do.______http://www.earnmore9.com

    5. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
      This is what I do.______ http://www.earnmore9.com

    6. Make 14800 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website…
      Read more on this web site.__________ http://www.Trends88.com

    7. Make 14800 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website…
      Read more on this web site.__________ http://www.Trends88.com

    8. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $13285 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site….
      This is what I do________ http://www.Trends88.com

  2. As I recall Will said this same kind of shit about Reagan and fought him tooth and nail…until Reagan won in a landslide and became wildly popular. Will is the worst kind of establishment R. He is emblematic of what is wrong with that party. If I were a Republican I would write him a ‘Good Riddance’ letter.

    1. I bet if Trump is elected within a year Will will be kissing his ass and trying to pretend he is Trump’s biggest fan, just like he did with Reagan.

      1. kissing the ass of those in power is how Will makes his living

      2. I’ll take ten cents’ worth of that action if you are offering 999999-to-1 odds.

    2. Wait, I thought Will was accused of stealing Carter’s debate prep papers and giving them to Reagan during the 1980 election.

      1. I don’t remember that. Without looking it up the first things that come to mind are:

        How would Will have access to those notes?

        Is Will the one who made that accusation?

        Seriously I don’t know, I just remember him giving Reagan the same treatment Trump is getting now…until he saw Reagan was the winning horse.

        1. IIRC Jimmy Carter himself made the accusation, which Will denied and Carter subsequently apologized for. In any case, it appears Will did help Reagan with debate prep in a conflict of interest given his job as a reporter and columnist.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debategate#Aftermath

          1. Next thing that comes to mind –

            *laugh*

            So Carter thought the only way Reagan could kick his ass that badly was if Reagan cheated.

            1. But Carter was so complex and unpredictable.

              How could a simpleton like Reagan have been so prepared?

              1. Reagan was no simpleton. Anyone who knew him could attest to that,

    3. Note how the Trumptard is incapable of attacking the argument. Notice how he can only attack the arguer. Also note the massive amounts of butthurt.

      1. yes, I see. very interesting.

      2. Aren’t you just a Canadian? Didn’t you vote for Trudeau? If so, how are you qualified to criticize………anything……..ever?

        1. Cytotoxic is the worst supporter any cause could ever ask for. No matter how correct, not matter how righteous, not matter how wise the position, Cychotoxic can make it sound like the position of morons.

          1. It’s his special gift.

          2. Get Reason to ban folks who can add, subtract, spell, infer, differentiate and use modus ponens and Cyto and ilk will be gone in a heartbeat. Bauble-recitin’ illiterates can then hold a Tea Party here and burn crosses and books all day.

          3. No you see that’s the effect of the gap in intelligence between me and most people here. You’re craning your heads up so high it’s distorting your view of reality.

            Honest to God Hank down below is starting to look less insane.

      3. Yes, but we all knew you’d say that, Cytotoxic, didn’t we? And we all know why, of course.

      4. “He’s racist! He’s scary! I’m shitting my pants!”
        — George Will

        There was no argument to rebut in the first place.

    4. WHYCOME ESTABLISHMENT FAGGOT NOT LIKE TRUMP

      1. oh look, they got a chance at the good life!

        http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/mus…..of-idaho/#!

        1. Good thing CAIR is there to set the record straight…the refugee boys DIDN’T have knives when they sexually assaulted the 5 year old special needs girl. Nice try, Islamaphobes

        2. Muslim migrant boys

          Worst band name evar

        3. Yea, it sucks some white chick got raped, but those Crusades were 1,000,000 x worse !!!11!!

          -Proggie

        4. Yea, it sucks some white chick got raped, but those Crusades were 1,000,000 x worse !!!11!!

          -Proggie

          1. There is a poster in The Federalist named Eliasism who continually tries to make that point.

        5. Thanks for the World Nut Daily link. Really good to see you go Full Retard.

  3. “Asked by Ballasy to recommend what conservative anti-Trumpers should do now, Will said: “Make sure he loses.”

    George Will has been the leading voice of propriety and decency for decades.

    But how can it be it be alright to let Hillary win the Presidency when she continues to accept money from foreign governments?

    “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

    http://tinyurl.com/o6x639e

    Hillary Clinton is the Manchurian candidate minus the brainwashing and ideology, Mr. Will. She’s on the payroll of foreign governments–she’s auctioned American foreign policy off to the highest bidder!

    If Hillary were a Republican, I think we could count on Mr. Will’s sense of propriety and decency to lead the charge against her. I don’t understand why Will’s sense of propriety is effectively leading him to call for installing Hillary into the White House instead.

    I think this is what we’re talking about when we talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    1. Hillary, as bad as she may be, is still one of them and therefor preferable to establishmentarians of all stripes, to an outsider like Trump.

      The cynic in me thinks that they’re all on the take and worried that Trump will expose it all.

      1. I think Will is especially attached to traditional values, and betrayal is traditionally the worst possible sin (see Dante).

        It’s just odd that someone who usually sees the moral dimension so clearly apparently misses the observation that while Trump may be a betrayal of modern conservatism (see Goldwater and Reagan), Hillary represents a betrayal of propriety itself.

        As I was trying to explain to Hazel the other day, there’s an important difference between being obnoxious and wrong on the issues (like Trump) and representing a total betrayal of all sense of propriety (like Hillary).

        Being obnoxious and wrong is bad, and George Will rightly wants to punish Trump for that. However, if we effectively put a child molester in charge of an orphanage to punish Trump–and, thus, violate all sense of propriety–then we’re not thinking clearly about what decency and propriety really mean. And isn’t that last part what Trump Derangement Syndrome is all about?

        Trump Derangement Syndrome is when you become so anti-Trump, you lose all sense of proportion, you lose sight of your goals, and you lose sight of what’s really important.

        1. Trump isn’t wrong in the issues.

          I agree that a lot, or even most, of the butthurt from #nevertrumpers is a visceral repulsion to his boorishness.
          Which I fidnd to be a childish response. It’s the right’s version of style over substance and identity politics; things that those same people ridicule in the left.

          Beyond that, we live in a society where a teenage pop singer receives accolades for simulating sex on stage live to a world wide broadcast audience and a no name woman began a celebrity centi-millionaire thanx to home made pornography. Trump is vulgar, but so is our culture. Thinking that a Father Knows Best Synodouche, like Romney, will resonate with people in this culture is delusional.

          1. “Trump isn’t wrong in the issues.

            Trump is wrong on every issue I can think of–from free trade to subjecting gun purchases to some arbitrary watch list.

            “Trump is vulgar, but so is our culture. Thinking that a Father Knows Best Synodouche, like Romney, will resonate with people in this culture is delusional.

            That’s a double edged sword. In a world where aesthetics matter more than substance, Trump’s supporters see him as having substance just because he doesn’t care about the aesthetics.

            And he’s still wrong on the issues.

            He’s a Democrat in every way that matters, and people who like Will, who grew up watching Goldwater and Reagan, know he’s a Democrat in every way that matters, too.

            1. Every word out of Trump’s mouth comes from the Republican Mein Kampf Platform. Fifty pages is more than a Republican reads in a decade, so small wonder this is a surprise to them.

          2. Trump’s wrong from a libertarian POV on plenty of issues, but so are the other candidates, so it’s a matter of degree. Clinton is so broadly wrong that even if she were a saint, she’d be a bad choice for libertarians. Johnson is right in 2 ways: symbolically (i.e. by running as LP nominee, it doesn’t matter as much what he says as an individual candidate) and in his record (fiscal hawk, cannabusinessman). Trump unfortunately is incommensurate w Johnson on fiscal matters; he’s never been in charge of gov’t funds, but Johnson’s had to deal w only a small state under unusual circumstances, i.e. a legislature dominated by the opposite party.

            I have a hunch that as president, Trump would actually be better or narcotics issues than Johnson, regardless of what both of them are saying now. I also have a hunch that a president Trump would be a better brake on Congressional spending than a president Johnson would be. Johnson would be better on international trade, but Trump nowhere near as bad on trade issues as has been caricatured here?he just fancies himself a great negotiator, and if you say you’re throwing trade wide open, then there’s nothing to negotiate, but the point is that he wants to wheel & deal, so it’s not like trade’s going to be throttled anywhere. Trump’s going to be better on guns, because Johnson says he just wants to hold the line, not make it either easier or harder to own or acquire weapons. Johnson’s better on immigration.

            1. Most of the entire last paragraph is fantasy. Pure fantasy.

              There is no reason to believe that Trump would be better than Johnson on ANYTHING. There is every reason to believe Trump means what he says about trade-he’s been complaining about the ‘yellow peril’ for a long time now.

              This inability to see things as they are is doom for libertarian efforts. We cannot afford this kind of delusionalism.

              1. You voted for Trudeau…………

                1. That’s a lie.

              2. “This inability to see things as they are is doom for libertarian efforts.”

                That is hilarious coming from you.

                1. Tell us all about the Swedish Rape Epidemic and how Ebola is coming for us.

              3. Calm down. These are brainwashed Tea Party shills, not libertarians. They are here to drum up support for banning abortion since, poor babies, no female will listen to them for five seconds.

            2. I don’t care where Hillary stands on the issues vis a vis Trump.

              I care that she accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, and I care that she continues to accept money from foreign governments while she’s running for President.

              She freely admits this. I don’t think people really grok that . . . fact.

              1. “I don’t care where Hillary stands on the issues vis a vis Trump.”

                Well Ken I think that says it all. Freedom for some, monomaniacal obsession over foreign government money for others.

                1. Would you put a mafia don in as Attorney General just because he agreed with you on some issue?

                2. Freedom for some,

                  This only makes sense if you think Hillary will increase freedom. Which strikes me as delusional.

                  1. Hillary will decrease freedom less than Trump.

                    How about that?
                    Trump will in NO WAY increase economic liberty, and promises to decrease civil liberties by a substantial amount. By contrast, Hillary promises to slightly decrease economic liberty. And maybe slightly increase civil liberties in some ways and decrease them in others.

                    So it’s like choosing between -1 and -5. Hillary is the lesser evil.

                    1. Hazel,

                      The only way Hillary could ever be the lesser evil, is if Ol Bezzlebum himself were running. Hillary is part of the Fascist Progressive movement. (I know, big words, you’ll just have to look them up)

                      Hillary will decrease economic freedom in every way with the possible exception of allowing you to continue to buy cheap, made in China goods. (or wherever global business decides to go)

                      Trump is a jerk in many ways, but he is more likely to restrain the domestic regulatory monster that Hillary would expand.

                      Hillary believes in Progressive Civil Liberties. IE, your rights depend on what group you belong to. There is no reason to expect she will be better on civil rights in any way.

                    2. “he is more likely to restrain the domestic regulatory monster that Hillary would expand.”

                      He said, with no evidence to back that statement up.

                    3. Trump is a jerk in many ways, but he is more likely to restrain the domestic regulatory monster that Hillary would expand.

                      Cite please.

                      It seems to me that many people around here have descended into fantastical delusions in the face of the abhorrent reality that either Trump or Hillary will be the next president.

                      This is one of them. Snap the fuck out of it.

          3. “Trump isn’t wrong in the issues.”

            Yes he is, and why are you here? Trump is an anti-libertarian; this site is libertarian. Why are you here?

            1. Why are you here? YOU VOTED FOR TRUDEAU!

              1. Libertarianism is not a specificially American philosophy. And one who cares about liberty does well to care how it fares in America, the land of liberty.

            2. Trump is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, actually stronger than any other republican presidential candidate in my lifetime.

              He’s Aldo less interventionist than any president since Reagan.

              Not all libertarians are no border cosmos – and he’s right on that too.

              Finally, he’s right on trade – and libertarians are wrong.

              1. So, basically, you want a Pat Buchanan paleoconservative.

              2. Trump wants to restrict access to guns based on an arbitrary list made by the feds with no due process, no way to know you’re on it until you try to do something it restricts and no way to get yourself off.

                Trump wants to intervene in Syria, he just doesn’t like how we’re doing it. He though going into Iraq was a good idea when he thought it was about taking their oil. He was for intervention in Libya because of how the people were treated.

                Finally, he’s wrong on trade and you have no idea what you’re talking about.

            3. Wait, why the fuck are you here? Since when do Canadians vote in American presidential elections?

              1. If corpses can vote, why not Canadians?

            4. Trump is wrong in my mind on some things and very much right on others.

              So far as “anti-libertarian” goes, I must have been out the day that it was decided you would be the keeper of the secret scroll containing the mandatory issue positions to be considered libertarian.

              By my measure, you wobble between stupid positions with specious arguments, and overboard “libertarian” positions without any hope of implementation.

              So, why are YOU here?

        2. I don’t think he wants to punish Trump. I think he’s disgusted that his “team” would pick that guy as their quarterback.

          If I were a republican, I’d be in the same boat. Well. Maybe not.

          I didn’t take a principled stand and tell the Libertarian Party where to step off when they nominated Bob Barr. I just rolled my eyes and went with it. Because, those kooky libertarians! If I had believed for a second that he represented the bulk of the party…. ?

          Trump won his nomination with the voters. And then he got a lot of the party leadership to fall in line. That should be a pretty clear signal to Republicans that “this is who we are”.

          1. “I don’t think he wants to punish Trump. I think he’s disgusted that his “team” would pick that guy as their quarterback.”

            I still think Trump’s most important constituency is from a demographic that really represents disaffected Democrats.

            These blue collar, white, middle class people who are sick of being demonized by the Democratic party elites for being blue collar, white, and middle class (in progressive parlance, that’s stupid, racist, and selfish).

            The white, blue collar, middle class has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party since FDR and the Great Depression. They aren’t Goldwater/Reagan Republicans, and they don’t want traditionally Republican things. The things they represent are why Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party to become a Republican.

            So, no, it isn’t that George Will’s party picked them. It’s that George Will’s party was invaded by disaffected Democrats, who hate being marginalized and demonized by progressives. The Democratic Party is now for Black Lives Matter, illegal aliens, LGBTQI+, environmentalists, feminists, Muslims, and government employees. If you’re not one of them, then you’re the enemy, and the party has chased the white, blue collar, middle class out of the Democratic party and into the arms of Donald Trump.

            1. “So, no, it isn’t that George Will’s party picked them. It’s that George Will’s party was invaded by disaffected Democrats, who hate being marginalized and demonized by progressives.”

              You’re right that the Democrats have abandoned their traditional blue collar supporters for the progressive freak show. But I don’t think that a party’s acquisition of a lot of converts is an invasion.

              1. It is when those people hijack and sabotage the GOP into oblivion.

              2. It’s just that they took over the nomination process.

                If they hadn’t done that, I’m sure they’d be most welcome–just like the Reagan Democrats were.

                But they supported Reagan!

                They didn’t nominate someone against him.

              3. Much like Labour abandoned the UK equivalent.

                Why did so many traditionally Labour areas vote for Brexit?

                1. SUNDERLAND, England?Labour politician Paul Brannen set out to fight a referendum campaign that would unify residents of this northern industrial town around the benefits of staying in the European Union.

                  But as he stood early Friday morning in a vote-counting hall watching the blue-collar district’s strong backing emerge for leaving the EU, a pale Mr. Brannen said he realized where pro-EU campaigners had fallen short.

                  “We should have done more on immigration,” he said.

                  1. “Oh, we just didn’t do enough to soothe their scared racist souls.”

                    Right. The unaccountable rule-from-afar and the Kafkaesque kudzu of ever-growing regulation had absolutely nothing to do with it?

                    Immigration was just the straw.

            2. You missed a couple (which overlap a lot): The Democratic Party’s also for a lot of the super-rich, and for those who represent some great aggregations of assets in business. Oh, and they’re also for lots of powerful foreigners?not immigrants, foreigners.

            3. George Will, and the rest of the establishment GOP, are what used to be known as Neo-Conservatives. They were War Party Democrats who jumped ship to the GOP when they thought they saw the anti-war folks taking over the Democratic Party. These folks, that today include the living Bushes and most of the establishment leadership were never, and are not know conservative or libertarian.

              Both parties have been throwing the peons under the bus economically, politically and socially for some time now. Fortunately, or unfortunately, take your pick, the peons have grabbed on to Trump as someone who might change things.

              You will recall, that the “Tea Party”, a loose alliance of fiscal conservatives and libertarians, attempted to move the party by voting in their own and the establishment responded by cooking the rules in elections even more and cooking the rules in the house and senate to politically castrate the folks they elected.

              I don’t know what you, or the powers that be expected. It was going to be this, or armed insurrection. We should not count out the armed insurrection yet either.

              Not advocating it, but the pressure is going to need to be relieved … one way or the other.

          2. I think that’s right. If you believe in conservative values you can deal with the temporary setback of Hillary winning. It gives you a bogeyman to point to while licking your wounds and re-grouping for the next round. Who knows, she could easily preside over the next recession and get kicked out after 4 years. But if Trump takes over your party from the inside, it would be a much greater setback in the long run. If Trump were to get trounced in the election and as a result the Rs lose the senate and/or house, that would be a sure sign to reject what he stands for and move back to whatever values you think the party should represent. Of course, we’re talking about the stupid party here, so that’s definitely not guaranteed to work either.

            1. ^I think this is exactly right. They ought to let the enemy be from the other party, rather than own it themselves.

            2. So all the primary voters & caucusers who got Trump nominated will change their minds & reject what he stood for next time if he loses this time? You forget that Trump was a grass roots phenomenon. The party leadership didn’t want him.

              1. Gary Johnson got trounced in the general election in 2012, yet LP nominated him again for 2016.

                1. And since he could not sell a soda to a thirsty man, he is going to get stomped again.

              2. So all the primary voters & caucusers who got Trump nominated will change their minds & reject what he stood for next time if he loses this time?

                Next time around they might be interested in actually winning, instead of throwing a fascist temper tantrum.

            3. Exactly.
              If you want the R’s to move in a libertarian direction, the last thing you want is for a bunch of hard-hat Democrats to take over the party from the inside.

              And if it happens, as a libertarian, you’re best strategy is to defect and make sure that that party loses.

            4. Absolutely wrong. Here’s what happens if Clinton wins while tame Republicans like Ryan and McConnell retain narrow control of the Senate.

              Within a couple of months they pass comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty and a Trans-Pacific trade agreement – and Hillary signs them.

              At that point, the Republican Party is over. That final betrayal (and all the betrayals like Will’s) destroy the party permanently.

              1. Within a couple of months they pass comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty and a Trans-Pacific trade agreement – and Hillary signs them.

                Great. I’m for both of those things.

          3. Trump won his nomination with the voters. And then he got a lot of the party leadership to fall in line. That should be a pretty clear signal to Republicans that “this is who we are”.

            Yes, it certainly is.

        3. Agreed on Will. I have a lot of respect for the man, but I think he’s very much a product of Washington and thinks in very traditional, literally conservative political terms. I think he sees Trump as a dangerous outsider who would do irreparable harm to the political system, whereas, as fellow traveller P.J. O’Rourke put it, Clinton is “wrong within normal parameters”. In Will’s reasoning, a Clinton victory is just another four years of Obama, which gives the Republicans a chance to get their act together, whereas a Trump victory is a long-term injury that sets the D’s up for an easy victory in four years.

          1. This is true. I am not a Republican, I am beginning to think they are worse than the Democrats overall (it’s like the Democrats are the Iranians, openly hostile to us, and the Republicans are the Saudis, pretending to be friendly but actually the more dangerous of the two), but if I were a conservative, I would do exactly what George Will is doing here. As much as Republicans and conservatives have compromised and sold out their principles over the years, at least they always paid lip service to the idea of free markets, executive restraint and rule of law. Trump openly and enthusiastically rejects all of these things. For the party leaders to even grudgingly fall in line behind him is a rejection of everything they purported to stand for. I hope Johnson can get enough momentum to appear as a credible alternative and miraculously win the Presidency, but if you put a gun to my family and told me I had to pick Hillary or Trump, I would take Hillary without a second thought. We know how bad she will be. There is a chance Trump won’t suck as badly, but odds are he will be even worse. The felon is the safer bet.

            1. I believe, that all of you need to revisit free markets.

              Consider, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause, was to maintain the entire US as a free trade, or single market area. This was necessary, to prevent the various states from enacting trade barriers between themselves.

              This has generally been effective, because, generally speaking the same laws apply, the same minimum environmental regulations apply, the same legal framework apply. Simply dropping trade barriers was effective because, in the economic view, only natural advantages applied.

              Tariff free trade between nations, is however more difficult, and the more different the laws, environmental regulation, and legal frameworks are, the more difficult it becomes. Not only because they are different, but also because, if agreements are not kept, there is no higher authority (not that I want one) to appeal to. The result of this is that ‘Free Trade’ does not exist anywhere other than within a single nation.

              1. So, following our unproven theories a little further, it would seem that it would be a benefit to get subsidized goods from nation C. In fact, there are issues with this that remain unresolved.

                First, someone had a business that supplied those goods that lost the race, including wealth, etc, not due to inefficiency perhaps, but because the US business had to clean up Cadmium rather than dump it into the river/ocean against a competitor that did just that. Is this your idea of ‘Free Trade’? How about the decision to use “cleaner” energy sources, or the scrub the exhaust from power plants? This results in higher costs for the US competitor and lower costs for the competitor with less expensive power.

                But there is more. In a nation that has an extensive social safety net. In some sense, you pay for the labor to build your inexpensive iPhone, and via taxes, pay the workers who would have built it here as well. So, how much did the iPhone really cost you? And once again, how do you reconcile “Free Trade” with a the modern social state?

                1. As libertarians, you can’t just blow by these issues. When you do, people do not take you seriously. The appeal of libertarian economic theory is not apparent, nor is the assertion that eventually the other countries will have to adopt modern standards too reassuring to the folks suffering from these issues today.

                  If you expect to every get serious treatment as a party, you have to grow up into a party that actually offers answers and realistic benefits. At this point, I don’t see that we are there yet.

                2. Yes, and the fact that the US regulatory environment makes us less competitive provides something of an incentive to get rid of some of those regulations doesn’t it?

                  I would think, from a libertarian standpoint, this would be an argument in FAVOR of free trade.

      2. VG, I think you hit the nail on the head.

        1. Yes, just hide behind the Establishment vs Us narrative. Wouldn’t have to engage real arguments. CULTURE WAR for all!

          1. Are you related to Shreek somehow? The similarities…

            1. They’re only distant cousins, ok! On both sides of his family! That’s normal where he comes from!

    2. “Asked by Ballasy to recommend what conservative anti-Trumpers should do now, Will said: “Make sure he loses.”

      What a ballsy answer.

    3. “I think this is what we’re talking about when we talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

      I think this is why no one cares about ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’. Yes Ken, it’s bad that she takes money from foreign governments. That’s still better than advocating Smoot-Hawley 2.0 or being a mentally ill fascist, like Trump is.

      1. No, having a President that’s on the payroll of foreign governments is not better than being wrong on any particular issue.

        It’s the difference between the committing an act of injustice, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the government willfully abandoning the rule of law.

        1. “It’s the difference between the committing an act of injustice, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the government willfully abandoning the rule of law.”

          The latter is already baked in. The former would clearly be less worse with Hillary. Clearly and obviously.

          1. You’re being willfully obtuse.

            Accepting money from foreign governments is not baked in. It’s so obviously awful, that no one may have thought to bother to make it illegal.

            1. Okay, fair enough. It’s really awful. Still not as bad as any of Trump’s Big Ideas. Still won’t cause another Great Depression. She’s still not outright insane.

              1. You still don’t get the difference between being wrong and impropriety.

                We’re not talking about whether a child molester should be punished.

                We’re talking about whether we should put a self-admitted and unrepentant child molester in charge of an orphanage.

                Being obnoxious and wrong on the issues is being wrong.

                Putting a child molester in charge of an orphanage is impropriety.

                If you can’t see the difference between Trump being obnoxious and wrong and Hillary selling American policy to the highest bidder, both from the State Department and the White House, then you may be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome yourself.

                1. “If you can’t see the difference between Trump being obnoxious and wrong and Hillary selling American policy to the highest bidder”

                  Oh that’s cute. Trump is merely ‘obnoxious’. What a nice way to reduce his various fascist ideas to something so benign.

                  This kind of sophist mendacity is not going to work on me, or anyone with a brain.

                  1. “Oh that’s cute. Trump is merely ‘obnoxious’. What a nice way to reduce his various fascist ideas to something so benign.”

                    You quoted me saying that Trump is both “obnoxious and wrong”, and in response you faulted me for saying that he’s only obnoxious?

                    You may be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

                    1. Yes Ken, I faulted you for mis-representing the problem. That’s not TDS. TDS is more sophistry on your part.

                    2. Trump Derangement Syndrome means people’s opposition to Trump is so visceral that it makes them take leave of good sense.

                      If the shoe fits, wear it.

                    3. Hillary is treasonous, as Ken points out. Cytotoxic can’t understand that.

                  2. This kind of sophist mendacity is not going to work on me, or anyone with a brain.

                    Appropriate that you separated the two.

              2. “She’s still not outright insane”

                Hmmm, I don’t think I agree on this. I might agree that she is evil though.

            2. Or, as Al Gore was fond of putting it, over and over again:

              “There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law.”

              All that Dame Hillary has to do is to assert that the law does not apply to her, that she was the most transparent SoS ever, that she has always been a selfless public servant, and the MSM will repeat those assertions without fail. Unfortunately, so do the Libertarian Party’s candidates for president and VP. Only Trump calls out the utter corruption of the Clintons.

              I’ve been a LP member for 25 years, and have loathed Trump for even longer. Still, the pathetic performances of the LP’s candidates are pushing me to vote Republican, or perhaps to abstain from voting since it’s a farce anyway.

              1. I’m guessing what Johnson & Weld are trying to do is butter up Clinton so a few more of her voters will think Johnson & Weld are largely similar to her, & push them up in the polls. They seem to be trying for Democratic votes more than Republican ones; maybe they’re trying to implement Gene Cisczewski’s idea of targeting the Democrats for destruction.

              2. I was a LP member (& officer, candidate, & helper) for 25 yrs. as well, until 2002. I voted for the nominee for prez & VP (but voted for them on the Conservative Party line) in 2004, 2008, & 2012, but this is the 1st time I’ve been enthusiastic about the Republican apparent nominee. He wasn’t my 1st choice this time or even my 2nd, but I’m happier about voting for him than I was about Bush Jr., McCain, or Romney. McCain in particular felt yucky, especially since I’d no idea Obama would turn out to be this bad. However, I’d decided that voting for Libertarian Party nominees was a bad thing for the libertarian movement?that we need to break away from the failed experiment of having our own political party, and operate politically or non-politically in ways more suited to our position.

        2. Ken, unless yo find a way to equate your argument to back bacon and maple syrup, I don;t think he can process it.

      2. Go ahead and gloss over her support of extrajudicial assassinations and her gun-running that destabilized Libya and Syria.

        1. All bad. Still better than the main alternative.

          1. So it’s better to be personally involved in an assassination program THAT TARGRTED AMERICAN CITIZENS without due process and to personally ok the overthrow and assassination of a head of state (the only one in the area that voluntarily gave up his WMD program, btw) and the gun running program that further destabilized that nation as well as Syria, which led to the power vacuum that led to ISIS than it is to be a boorish clown that wants to abolish most of the regulatory apparatus and enforce existing immigration law?

            You are a fucking retard. A total fucking retard.

            1. “abolish most of the regulatory apparatus ”

              Um. Who wants to do this? Johnson?

              “enforce existing immigration law?”

              Well immigration law is pretty awful. Oh you forgot keeping out Muslims and Smoot-Hawley 2.0. And Trump’s interesting ideas about taking Syria’s oil. But hey only a total fucking retard would ask for honestly and completeness in an argument. That shit’s for homo liberal faggots!

              ” the gun running program that further destabilized that nation as well as Syria, which led to the power vacuum that led to ISIS”

              As truly awful as Hillary’s stupid foreign policy endeavors have been, there is no reason to believe that Syria or Libya would be much different if she hadn’t done that.

              Hey how’s that post-Orlanda ‘pendulum swing’ going in the polls? Still swinging? Swung back? Or just totally fucking retarded.

              link text

              1. So your defense of her pretty much personally destabilizing an entire region is “they’d probably be fucked up anyway.”

                Your idiocy is astounding. Especially if you take even a cursory glance at what Libya had become after Quadaffi had openly abandoned his weapons program and reentered the civilized world. She’s personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. But trump is worse because he won’t be totally open borders.

                Again, you’re a fucking retarded bootlicking piece of shit if you think rhetoric can possibly outweigh her crimes against humanity.

                1. I think it’s more –Trump would be worse because he says mean things.

                  1. No, it’s because Trump has pledged to start a trade war over his stupid inferiority complex towards those crafty Orientals, he’s pledged to tear up the First Amendment like Clinton, and he’s otherwise a buffoon who doesn’t care to understand how the government *actually* works.

                    Meaning it wouldn’t take very long before frustration kicks in and he goes the executive order route like Obama.

                    1. Oh no! A trade war with our biggest trading partners that need us as badly as we need them.

                      I’m sorry, but I fail to see how that even remotely compares,to being in on ordering Americans killed that haven’t even been charged with a crime, implementing the plan to assassinate a head of state and then destabilizing two countries leading to ISIS getting in control and directly causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

                    2. you think trump is going to stop the assassination program?

                    3. I don’t know. But what I do know is that Trump hasn’t been personally involved in ordering the deaths of American citizens not yet charged with a crime.

                      Let that sink in. She participated in ordering the killing, at the hands of our government, of American citizens that hadn’t been charged with a single crime and who the government had accused of nothing more than exercising (distastefully) his 1A rights.

                      Trump is a turd. I get it. But she acted in concert with those that have illegally murdered Americans and then gloated about it. I don’t give a fuck what trump has done in his profession life. I’m sure he’s used the rules the government has in place to his benefit. But I can’t think of a single thing he’s done that comes close to what Clinton has done. And anybody that could vote for her as the lesser of two evils in light of her actions when compared to his words is an absolute moron with zero principles…like Cytotoxic.

                2. Don’t forget about how the Qadaffi boys were trying to negotiate with US military officers to prevent war, warning them that the “freedom fighters” were actually al-Qaeda type Islamic terrorists, until Hillary shut it down.

              2. If a law is awful (immigration law in this case), then you change the law. You don’t ignore it.

        2. Sloopy, haven’t you heard? Only optics matter. Fuck substance.

          1. Gah, using the word optics to mean appearance.

            1. My defense: it’s popular usage.

        3. Don’t forget about her fast and furious gun-running to Mexico. There is no way that the BATF would do that without authorization from the SoS.

      3. If it were found that Justin Trudeau was accepting money from foreign governments, he wouldn’t last a week.

        1. Pretty sure he’d last longer than a week.

          Sorry, Ken, but much like the emails thing this isn’t going to matter. No one cares. Whether they should or not is another story.

          1. I care.

            A lot of people care.

            That’s why her unfavorable ratings are so awful:

            Average of polls from 5/24 to 6/22:

            Hillary Clinton Favorable: 40.2% Hillary Clinton Unfavorable: 55.6%

            http://tinyurl.com/gszc7ue

            Hillary Clinton isn’t wildly unpopular for just no reason.

            And just because you like Hillary doesn’t mean everyone else does.

            1. Bloomberg has done the message testing and people aren’t nearly as bothered by Hillary’s (large and voluminous) impropriety than by Trump’s.

              http://www.redstate.com/leon_h…..rse-trump/

              1. That wasn’t the point.

                You said that “no one cares” about Hillary accepting donations from foreign governments.

                But 55.6% of the American people dislike her for some reason–and a lot of that has to do with them thinking she’s a crook.

                There are a number of reasons why so many Americans think Hillary Clinton is a crook. Here are some of the possibilities (in no particular order):

                1) She accepted millions from foreign governments while Secretary of State.

                2) She continues to accept money from foreign governments while she’s running for President.

                3) She’s a crook.

                1. “But 55.6% of the American people dislike her for some reason”

                  And many of them are still gonna vote for her. Okay, maybe they care, just not enough for it to matter at the ballot box.

                  1. Do you even know what you’re arguing about or why anymore?

                    1. Yes Ken. You have stated that lots of people care about Hillary’s up-front bribery. I am stating that they either don’t care or don’t care enough for it to matter. And I am right.

                    2. The thing is — and this is what’s really damming about Trump — is that even though Clinton has done illegal crooked stuff and is known for being corrupt, she’s still disliked less than Trump even though we don’t have solid evidence of him ever breaking the law.

                      I think his tax returns get leaked or something, and he takes a dive in the polls.

                      Not now, of course. His opponents will wait for him to get nominated first.

                    3. Clinton has the MSM supporting her while it is castigating Trump. Were the press not taking sides, the numbers might be very different.

                    4. I think his tax returns get leaked or something, and he takes a dive in the polls.

                      LOL whatever’s in there has got to be worse than selling national security secrets to foreign governments.

          2. On one hand you are all about principles Cyto, and moments later “No one cares”.

            I get it, you hate Trump. Not my favorite guy either. But here is how I see it.

            Voted Libertarian in the past, for losers that had good theory but no practical ideas.
            Hilary may be the most evil person to run for President in modern times.
            Trump is loud and impulsive, but to date when cool thinking and action was required in his life he produced it, and had success.

            So, based on PERFORMANCE rather than rhetoric we have LOSERS, EVIL, and SUCCESS.

            Guess you can guess how that is going to work out.

            1. I was talking about public perception, which is entirely different from my principles.

      4. Sorry, Cytotoxic, but Hillary’s record of amoral, self-aggrandizing, self-enriching, felonious activities disqualifies her from being a legitimate candidate in my book. That means it doesn’t matter who her opponent is, she should not take office.

        1. Of course she ‘shouldn’t take office’, but in the real world someone does and all of those things, as bad as they are, are still less bad than Trump, yokeltarian angst notwithstanding.

          Of course Johnson should be president.

          1. in the real world someone does and all of those things, as bad as they are, are still less bad than Trump,

            I regard Hillary’s record of actual activities as disqualifying. What in Trump’s record of actual activities is disqualifying?

            it may just be me, but when someone is disqualified, they are gone. History. Not someone I can support, regardless, period, full stop. Its called “standards” and “principals”. Give it try sometime.

        2. In a sane society, both Clinton and Trump would lose terribly.

          Just because Clinton broke the law and is quite arguably the most corrupt major party nominee in history doesn’t mean The Stupid Party’s nominee should automatically win. They should both lose because they’re both horrible people and bring out/represent the worst in Americans politics.

          Trump is just Obama on steroids given the “magic-wand-waving authoritarian” image he’s cooked up. Dumbass voters don’t understand that given the way the Founders created our government, it’s *supposed* to be very difficult to make sweeping changes. Because the Dems and Repubs keep rushing things, they tend to fuck up the country at large.

          1. One of the favorite conservaderp retorts to this is that while Trump just *says* bad things, Clinton has *done* bad things, therefore nothing Trump says matters. Brilliant device.

            This is not a strawman. Some twat named Wareagle really tried this one.

            1. Yeah, I hate that shit.

              It’s what happens when you can’t genuinely argue in favor of a coherent philosophy and instead define yourself negatively based on whom you hate. The proggies and righties nowadays all do it.

            2. Yes saying mean things about terrorists is exactly the same as causing the deaths of hundreds of thousand of people via reckless intervention, taking bribes while in high government office, advocating the repeal of the 1st amendment and the neutering of the 2nd, supporting and funding mob violence.

              All because “Drumpf hut mah feelzzz.

              Your a great example of the childishness of #nevertrumpers.

            3. Reality offends you. Would you and your mangina like a safe space? The reality is that all Trump has done is talk. And talk some more. Hillary has a history of selling influence, taking actions take result in death and then lying about it. But sure, in moron world where you live, words > actions.

              It’s a massive strawman, especially the part where you infer that noticing Hillary is a criminal implies support for Trump. It doesn’t. But thanks for the Cytoderp.

              1. You forget the part where Trump routinely brags about gaming the system to his advantage, and even then there’s still no reason to believe he’s as successful as he claims. (Why do you think he doesn’t want those tax returns released?)

                Face it, Trump is a giant conman who couldn’t even become a major success even while bribing politicians and bending the law to his will.

                1. Face it, Trump is a giant conman who couldn’t even become a major success even while bribing politicians and bending the law to his will.

                  Shit, if having my own private jet, helicopter, giant suite in Manhattan, and more money than I’ll ever be able to spend in my lifetime is “failure” or a “minor success,” sign me up.

                2. (Why do you think he doesn’t want those tax returns released?)

                  Unless he is required to by law, why should I give a shit?

                  1. No one cares about Hillary’s emails but WHAT IS TRUMP TRYING TO HIDE IN HIS TAX RETURN!!!1

            4. So, are you saying that talking about killing you is exactly the same as killing you?

    4. “She’s on the payroll of foreign governments–she’s auctioned American foreign policy off to the highest bidder!”

      That’s exactly right and the fact that this isn’t getting more coverage is indicative of the fact that most of the media are DNC hacks.

      1. The truth is that there’s a no shit fascist candidate running for president this year. And her name is Hillary. From a slavishly loyal media to an open contempt for the constitution to blatant in your face cronyism, to using mob violence to intimidate her political opponents.

        1. I’ll just say again: it’s not hard to come up with reasons for opposing Trump, but it’s damn near impossible to come up with one for supporting Hillary.

          It’s a bit exasperating that noticing reality on a libertarian site attracts no more intelligent a reply than “Team Red shill!!11!” It’s easy to support neither and also notice how one of the two has become more horrible each time she had more power.

          1. Completely right wareagle! Both would be terrible presidents, but Trump is not evil. Same can’t be said of that disgusting bitch Hillary.

    5. But how can it be it be alright to let Hillary win the Presidency when she continues to accept money from foreign governments?
      Because this is less about party, per se, and more about maintaining the status quo. No one is more establishment than Herself. Trump threatens to expose the myth of specialness that the elected and chattering classes cloak themselves in.

      Will’s a blowhard who has used “propriety and decency” as his schtick, much like Ann Coulter uses purposely jarring rhetoric as hers. I would say Will’s actions fly against your hypothesis that he would be against Herself if she were a Pub.

    6. George Will has been the leading voice of propriety and decency for decades.

      So, in different words, George Will is a blowhard intellectual who just differs from his progressive counterparts by who he sucks up to. This jerk can’t even be bothered to unambiguously endorse a couple of former Republicans on a third party ticket for fear of upsetting his buddies.

      1. “This jerk can’t even be bothered to unambiguously endorse a couple of former Republicans on a third party ticket for fear of upsetting his buddies.”

        Yes, that’s the part that makes me think a lot less of George Will. He could have taken the high ground and endorsed the Libertarian candidates. Instead he just petulantly declares he’ll help make sure Trump loses.

  4. George Will?

    I thought he died a decade ago.

    1. I have a ton of respect for the guy.

      Who else could write such Thanksgiving death porn–and mean it?

      https://reason.com/blog/2004/11…..death-porn

      If Trump wants to win, he better figure out why these people are so pissed off and address their concerns at the convention.

      If he just calls them a bunch of losers and ignores them, he’s in trouble at the convention–never mind November.

  5. In conversation with Nick Gillespie and I four months ago…

    These kinds of embarrassing grammatical mistakes never happened when Welch was in charge.

    1. Don’t talk about Matt!

  6. George goes full and explicitly cuck. Sad.

    1. Sad!

      But in all seriousness, Will has a point. For years he’s been one of the Right’s most eloquent writers/speakers, and he’s been staunchly critical of the “imperial presidency” of both Obama and Bush.

      Then the pissed off GOP voter turns around and nominated a know-nothing authoritarian like Trump because they’ve been unable to stop the Dems/Obama on certain issues. I don’t blame George Will. The GOP voter has now become the five-year-old child who throws a tantrum when mommy and daddy don’t give him ice cream for dinner. Fuck ’em.

      1. The GOP voter will now be limited to old white cranks and alt-right weirdos like the one you responded to. That’s death. Unless they dump Trump, and maybe even if they do, they will not be a viable party in the future. You can’t do this. The Dems will basically have the youth and various minority demos locked up for a long time.

        A Federalist article had it right: replace the GOP with a Liberal party, like Australia’s. It’s the only hope for a remotely plausible opposition to the DNC.

        1. Well said.

          They’ve become delusional and knee-jerk opposed to any sort of logic.

          1. As has a large portion of the H&R commentariat. Hence the dire need to project their immaturity and other negative behaviors onto me.

            1. Meh. Just ignore it.

              I think most of it is in jest. *shrugs*

              1. In this thread, Cytotoxic thinks people can’t tell he’s talking to his sock puppet.

                Tell us more about how you voted for Trudeau.

                1. …what?

                  I didn’t vote for Trudeau you retard. I didn’t vote for anyone!

        2. Lets think about what’s GOING to happen.

          Trump is GOING to be epically trounced come November. I mean, it will be ugly, and I will enjoy the Trumptards tears. (And if you don’t think so, don’t bother replying because you’re too stupid to argue with).

          But what happens after that?
          The two party system has a certain stability. If the Republican party implodes, what happens? Will the Democrats break up too? That might be a good outcome.
          Or will the logic of the two party system force it to remain in existence as some sort of rump party incapable of winning the presidency? A perpetual punching bag composed of religious nutjobs, quasi-fascicts, and angry white men, the butt of every joke for the next 40 years? (Gosh, I’m bored of that.)

      2. I don’t blame George Will.

        Why not? As a leading conservative writer, it’s his job to advocate and sell conservatism, both to voters and to the Republican party machinery, and he has obviously failed miserably at both.

        1. I do blame George Will. I remember reading his writings avidly. I have some of his books in my library. That said, it is time to tell the truth, he is just another establishment shill.

  7. *Burns denim in solidarity*

    1. Nice.

  8. For example, your colleague, Damon Root, has written a wonderful book. Overruled, I believe is the title, everyone here ought to read it.

    Clark Neily, who wrote the wonderful book Terms of Engagement

    Wonderful?

  9. OT: why does Euro 2016 have priests officiating the games?

    1. And HOLY FUCK, that Swiss goal was insane.

      1. Fabia?ski, for his part, has been superb.

        1. Xhaka, and the walls fell.

          1. NO MORE FUCKING EUROBALL PLEASE.

            1. This^

  10. Will, a Fox News contributor, said a “President Trump” with “no opposition” from a Republican-led Congress would be worse than a Hillary Clinton presidency with a Republican-led Congress.

    Assuming Republicans retained the majority in both the House and Senate in 2016, Will said “gridlock” in government is a good thing “nine times out of 10.”

    “Gridlock is not an American problem. It’s an American achievement,” he said, explaining that there are some countries that “wish” their governments were gridlocked.

    Will added that gridlock often “stops things” the federal government should not be doing.

    Are Republicans predicted to keep majorities in the House and Senate?

    Any outcome is guaranteed to be amusing (Hillary’s public frustration at having her legislation shot down, for example). And this election has finally made my relatives listen when I say that politicians aren’t leaders, they’re the worst among us.

    1. It is most likely that the Republicans keep the House (they won it when facing Obama in 2012, and it is unlikely Clinton has better coattails than Obama), while the Senate will probably follow whichever party wins the Presidency due to all the tight races. So Clinton will face a friendly Senate and hostile House, just like Obama faced for 4 of his 8 yrs in office. That means she gets the nominations she wants, but not the spending (just like Obama).

    2. Hillary’s public frustration at having her legislation shot down, for example.

      Hillary will have a pen, a phone, the Supreme Court, the Federal Courts, and the Federal bureaucracy.

      What does she need the scribbles of Congress for?

      1. Political cover and/or a scapegoat?

  11. Anyone who votes for Trump because of the Supreme Court is completely delusional. He is no more likely to pick a ‘principled conservative’ than Hillary. Anyone can copy a list from the Heritage Foundation website and say, “I will pick someone like this.” In fact he is more likely to pick his limo driver or Corey Lewandowski, assuming they make up by then. He has only contempt for people who thwart his agenda, and has said things far more threatening to the Constitution than Hillary did. The Senate should have voted on Garland when they had the chance.

    1. This.

      Wait, they can’t still confirm Garland? Why not?

      1. Because they’re being held hostage by the idiot Trump voters? The Stupid Party is going to regret not confirming Garland should Clinton not only win but win in a landslide.

        1. Then they are idiots for letting themselves be held hostage. Bite the bullet and do it: confirm Garland already. She’s gonna be president, and the Dems might even take the House.

          George Will also got this right a few months back when he wrote about the GOP’s silliness regarding judicial noms.

          1. They’re going to continue being held hostage because McConnell’s thinking is that if the GOP is going to lose anyway, it needs to Trump voter to turn out and keep the Senate in GOP hands to thwart a President Hillary Clinton.

            If they vote to approve Garland, the thinking goes that GOP voters will be pissed and they either won’t turn out or they’ll just vote for Trump and skip the down-ballot races. (Which I’ve expected to happen for months because these new GOP voters are Trump Voters, just like certain Obama Voters only turn out when he’s on the ballot.)

            1. Then he’s an idiot. Trump will turn out the vote alright-for Hillary and the Dems.

              It’s going to be a massacre.

              1. They’ve made their bed with Trump. Even if it’s October and he starts ranting about Mexican judges or whatever, they still need his voters for the Senate races of NH, OH, PA, NV, WI, FL, and so on.

                The GOP doesn’t really have a “Trump problem” so much as it has a voter problem.

                1. Whatever vote Trump gets out will never ever ever outweigh the damage he’s doing and will be doing for decades.

                  They have a voter problem that is being exacerbated thousand-fold by Trump. They have to say no to his idiot white trash fanbase. Just say no!

              2. I suspect that Trump is going to win the presidency.

                He is going to hang all her baggage around her neck like a death wreath. She really has no good response for it and the media, although they prefer her, are not going to leave Trump uncovered because it brings in too much revenue.

                1. “He is going to hang all her baggage around her neck like a death wreath.”

                  Hilarious. Yeah, any day now.

            2. Yes, the new Trump voters will largely be Democrats who cross over for prez, and people newly motivated to vote who may just skip down-ticket. But people who voted GOP down-ballot before will still do so.

              1. ” people who voted GOP down-ballot before will still do so.”

                They better. Right now Texas and Arizona are competitive.

              2. Not if they don’t show up at the polls.

    2. So, you’re also saying Trump is just as likely to choose progressive justices as Clinton is. I find that hard to believe.

      1. Because it is ridiculous, as is the general pants shitting about Trump. I can’t recall anyone actually making an argument against his proposed policies. It’s just “Racist! Hitler! Authoritarian!”.

        Fine, hate Trump. But do they have to be such unsightly embarrassments when they do it? Rub a couple of neurons together and produce a real argument.

    3. Anyone who votes for Trump because of the Supreme Court is completely delusional. He is no more likely to pick a ‘principled conservative’ than Hillary.

      Simply by throwing darts at names blindfolded, Trump would be more likely to pick a “principled conservative” than Hillary.

      The pants shitting nonsense that comes out of AntiTrumpers is just pathetic. Completely unserious. “I’m butt hurt, therefore Trump must be the Devil!”

  12. Good for Will. Nice to see that he has sense and principles.

    Erick Erickson was even more on the dot back in April: “A lot of Trump voters have failed at life and blame others for their own poor decisions. They’re using Trump as a vehicle for revenge”

    1. Another case of “not an argument”.

  13. Oh, and anyone who thinks that Brexit means that Trump has a chance is delusional. There’s a difference between a referendum and a presidential contest for one thing. For another, polls have actually been pretty accurate in America, and the latest one shows Hillary with a double-digit lead. For yet another, the Trump campaign can’t fundraise for shit.

    1. Only if you assume that Rasmussen isn’t * really * a poll, or that only two candidates will be on the ballot, or that the poll the previous day didn’t matter, or that polls in swing states (where elections actually get decided) are irrelevant. Way to cherrypick:

      Thursday, June 23
      General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Rasmussen Reports Clinton 44, Trump 39 Clinton +5
      General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 44, Trump 34 Clinton +10
      General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 43, Trump 34, Johnson 6, Stein 5 Clinton +9
      North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Trump 48, Clinton 46 Trump +2
      North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein PPP (D) Trump 43, Clinton 43, Johnson 4, Stein 2 Tie

      Wednesday, June 22
      General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson Economist/YouGov Clinton 43, Trump 39, Johnson 4 Clinton +4

      1. Shorter Cyto: a single poll that is an outlier from all the others, and that doesn’t include people who will be on the ballot, conducted before anyone has even won their primary race, is conclusive proof that Clinton will win and Trump has no chance.

        Hell, we don’t even know that Trump is going to be the nominee, since the delegates to the GOP nominating convention could decide to alter the rules to unbind all the delegates on the first round, and throw it to Cruz or whoever. Weird shit can happen.

        1. Sigh…..link text
          Re convention: I really want to believe Trump can be dumped, but it is the longest of shots. Then again, so was Brexit….

          Cruz would lose against Hillary. Sucks but it’s true. They should run Mark Sanford instead. Can probably find him in the Appalachians.

          1. ^^ genius millennial doesn’t know how to hyperlink

          2. While Trump was clearly the worst of the options for the Republican primary, I think dumping him would actually do more long term damage to the party than keeping him, so I can’t imagine they’ll pull that play. Totally ignoring the will of the voters will likely induce a voter revolt, which will come in one of two forms: voters stay home, or they become more active in the party in an attempt to overthrow such dismissive leadership. Keeping Trump and watching him lose will do about as much long-term damage to the party as running Goldwater (who was also viewed, however falsely, as a racist, warmongering, extremist nut).

          3. Mark Sanford is only going to win if Argentina gets to vote.

      2. All the polls in the UK said Brexit would not happen. People fucking lie to pollsters.

        1. That’s a lie. A couple said it was going to happen.

  14. I do not expect a Trump presidency to look all that different from a Clinton presidency. Talk is cheap. Think tanks like the CFR will tell him what to do.

      1. Unfortunately that always seems to be a crap shoot. Certainty can’t be any worse than Clinton as far as that goes. Her bad picks will be on purpose for sure.

  15. Cytotoxic is providing a master class in parroting the exact elitist talking points and attitudes that fueled Brexit and Trump. Nicely done, sir. Sneering dismissal of anyone who doesn’t buy what the Top Men are peddling is precisely why this election season is playing out the way it is.

      1. Ah, safe and sound in your bubble I see.

        1. All Trumptards are neoconfederate racist whores. Lew Rockwellite cunts shilling for Trump.

          1. Gilmore isn’t like that. He used to be smart. One of the better commenters. I guess he got jealous of me or something, and he also got all retarded when Reason started attacking Trump. Sad!

            1. We all got jealous of your sweet-ass life. Living like a king in your mom’s basement, jacking it seven times a day and no hopes of kissing a girl anytime soon. In Canada.

              Yeah, you got it all figured out.

              1. Typically piercing intellectual argument. Really insightful.

      2. Could a more apt summary of the anti-intellectualism infesting this place be found? “Stop saying things I don’t want to hear! FASCR FOR U”

        1. Geez. Learn how to take a compliment, already.

    1. “Cytotoxic is providing a master class in parroting the exact elitist talking points and attitudes that fueled Brexit and Trump.”

      What fueled Brexit is disgust at the EU. What fueled Trump is a bunch of losers who need a vehicle through which to feel like winners.

      Christ this is pathetic. This is just like the ‘violent tea party rhetoric’ weak-sauce talking point that gets trundled out by lefties whenever some crazy shoots somebody. I get it: you really want the things I am saying to be not true but they are and you’re desperate for some way around it.

      “Sneering dismissal of anyone who doesn’t buy what the Top Men are peddling is precisely why this election season is playing out the way it is.”

      Whining about people with expertise calling out the stupidity of people without it is exactly the kind of anti-intellectual, uncerebral habits/behaviors libertarians have to dissociate from.

      When someone is stupid, like say a Trump supporter, he/she should be called out for being stupid, not coddled.

      1. Forget it; he’s rolling.

        1. Well what the hell we supposed to do, you mo-ron?

      2. What fueled Trump is a bunch of losers who need a vehicle through which to feel like winners.

        Exactly this. Love him or hate him, Cytotoxic nails it.

        Trump’s entire platform is to convince you, the voter, that you’re a loser who needs to vote for a winner like him if you want to stop being a loser.

        “We’re losing. We don’t win anymore. We don’t win with China; we don’t win with Mexico; we don’t with Japan; we just don’t win anymore.”

        That’s the main appeal of “Trumpism.”

        1. I LOVE YOU TOO CLINT EASTWOODCHIPPER

          SMOOCHES

          NO HOMO

          NTTAWWT

          To be honest, the quote you quoted is from Erick Erickson. Red State has really improved itself. Their commenters seem to be more intelligent that ours. They have some of the most searing anti-Trump commentary you’ll find.

          1. Oh, was that from Red State? Huh. I was just doing a basic Trump impression from memory. He always talks about how “we’re losing” even though things like total manufacturing output have never been better.

            I think Trump is truly erratic because of how he’s manipulating the voters. He’s causing them to feel even more depressed than they already would have been had they just paid attention to Washington over the last few years.

        2. Cytotoxic: “What fueled Trump is a bunch of losers who need a vehicle through which to feel like winners.”

          Exactly. White supremacist trash masturbating on hentai.

          1. * masturbating to hentai

            1. I’ll back right back

            2. You forgot to change sock puppets ignoramus.

          2. And the sneering dismissal continues.

            Gosh, a large group of voters who has been fucked in the ass by government policies and programs marginalizing them, and who are routinely dismissed and insulted by their betters, are looking for a candidate who doesn’t want them fucked in the ass by government and doesn’t insult and dismiss them, are just a bunch of racist losers.

            Keep throwing fuel on the Trump fire, guys. You’re doing an excellent job of illustrating exactly why this man you hate has so much support.

            1. Indeed. I’d love to see their reactions this November when Trump wins.

            2. Indeed. The blindness is astounding.

              1. Blindness? No, that’s called ‘not being delusional’. Or ‘being able to read a poll’.

            3. “Gosh, a large group of voters who has been fucked in the ass by government policies and programs marginalizing them”

              These people are responsible for their own problems, and Trump would cause devastation for them as much as anyone.

              Do you have anything but ‘ELITS R BAD’ because if not you need to stop.

      3. Whining about people with expertise calling out the stupidity of people without it is exactly the kind of anti-intellectual, uncerebral habits/behaviors libertarians have to dissociate from.

        I think I see where you are going wrong, Cytotoxic.

        Exactly who are these Top Men with such sterling records that we should defer to their expertise? Be specific, please, so I know whose shoes to lick.

        1. The pollsters who have called every election since the year 2000. The microbiologists who knew that Ebola wasn’t going to cause an epidemic in America, unlike some people.

      4. I have noticed, that “people with expertise” are often no smarter than the average person. And often the affection with broad theory and statistics, result in really stupid decisions.

        I am often amazed for example, how wrong the “people with expertise” are when predicting economic performance, “settled science”, and the likely result of any particular election. In short, too often, “people with expertise” is a shorthand for a modern day priesthood.

        Finally, for a guy living in his mom’s basement you sure do know how the world ought to work.

        1. “I have noticed, that “people with expertise” are often no smarter than the average person.”

          I have noticed that people who say this tend to be complete blockheads. Experts may get things wrong but they are usually right more often than not with some exceptions like modern day economics. That’s why most buildings aren’t falling down.

      1. RC Dean *used* to be an intelligent commenter. Or maybe I was being too generous.

        1. I’d be surprised if his reputation around here has changed over the years.

          Yours, otoh, is still perfectly intact. You used to be laughed at. You’re currently being laughed at. And my guess is that you’ll be laughed at for years to come.

          1. That’s the price I pay for being a lot smarter than you and most people here. A small price.

        2. Here’s where I am:

          (1) Hillary is utterly unsuited to be President. Anyone who takes her seriously at all as a candidate is a useful idiot at best, and an amoral crony at worst.

          (2) Trump’s rise (and the Brexit’s win) show how large swathes of regular people are disconnected and unhappy with their ruling class, largely because their ruling class does a poor job of hiding how much they loathe and despise regular people.

          I don’t want Trump to be President, capisce? But I think he is definitely a symptom of a deep, chronic, and (if untreated) terminal condition. Pretending his supporters are just racist morons is living in a state of denial.

          (3 Appeals to the authority of the ruling class cut no ice with me, and generally manage to illustrate exactly the attitudes that fuel these populist uprisings.

          1. “Trump’s rise” demonstrates what, exactly? Tell me, if he’s tapping into such a large ocean of hate, where’s the money? Why’s his campaign broke?

          2. This will be entertaining when Trump epically loses in November and it is revealed that the “large swaths” of disaffected people are actually considerably less than 50% of the population. Soon to be a marginalized minority of white racists, their final renunciation and rejection by society complete.
            Trumps supporters will either accept it and evolve, or crawl under a rock and die, because they will NEVER again have power.

        3. “RC Dean *used* to be an intelligent commenter. Or maybe I was being too generous.”

          That was before your Trump Derangement Syndrome set in, Cytotoxic.

          Now that it’s set in, everything you thought you knew before is different. Now everything from up to down, from right to left, from right to wrong, and even who’s “intelligent” in your eyes–you see all of that now in relation to Trump.

          There are professionals and medications that can help Cytotoxic with his weird fixation, and, yeah, anybody who doesn’t think RC Dean is intelligent because although he despises Trump, he doesn’t despise him enough? That’s someone who’s gone over the edge.

          1. Funny enough, that’s Trump’s MO: someone criticizes him, even someone who’s been friendly in the past, and Trump unloads with the negative tweets and such.

            Cytotrump does the same thing: “RC Dean used to be smart, now he’s become a shell of himself. Sad!”

          2. Actually I noticed RC Dean started getting stupider a while back too.

            This ‘TDS’ bullshit still isn’t going to do anything but make you look desperate.

          3. The people who are really deranged are the people who think Hillary Clinton is so bad the republic must be saved from her by voting for Trump.

            Seriously, Clinton is vanilla establishment. The world isn’t going to end if she wins.

      2. Bitch.

  16. Is anyone REALLY amazingly good with photoshop?

    I think it would be priceless to do a memorial graffiti-mural of George Will, and have pictures of people (maybe rich lowrey & charles krauthammer) pouring 40oz’s on the ground next to it.

    “homie is out the game”

  17. every 4 years people like George Will argue we need to support the next guy who’s up because its his turn and support the party, etc and now someone the rank and file want is nominated and he picks up his balls and goes home.

    1. Yes, because the choice of the ‘rand and file’ is retarded and evil.

      1. Not an argument.

        1. Yes, it is. I’m not voting for retarded and evil, just because the other side is , well, not retarded and evil.

  18. can’t think of George Will without his sports machine!

    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-ni…..hine/n9910

    1. Wow, SNL was actually kind of funny once.

    2. In case anyone cares what the reference was

      1. Where’s the Andrew Ridgeley Sports Machine?

  19. All I learned from this thread is that Cytotoxic would vote for Hillary. If he was old enough to vote. And not a Canadian.

    1. I am old enough to vote. I wish I was young, but now I am old.

      Also, I’d only vote for Hillary if it were close and Trump was still the alternative. It’s not going to be close.

      Johnson 2016

      1. ^This.

        We’re fucked anyway unless Johnson/Weld can win, but that’s unlikely so as a libertarian voter you’d have to consider which is more important: taking a chance on Trump given Supreme Court picks, or focusing long-term on fixing the GOP by hoping Trump loses in a blowout so that Rand Paul and Justin Amash can rebuild the party around libertarianism?

        1. If both Trump and Clinton had coronaries today and went teats up Johnson/Weld would still stand absolutely no chance. As for rebuilding the GOP as a libertarian party, that just won’t happen. I don’t like it either but a large majority of most people on the right and the left just don’t agree with us.

          1. Well, if the Trump GOP stays for a while then libertarians are truly fucked. One of the two major parties (or both!) have to utterly collapse in order for the LP to rise up.

        2. Meanwhile, Hillary eviscerates the 1A, 2A, 4A, private property rights and free association.*

          *at least that’s what she says she wants to do with her SC picks.

          1. I think Trump is just as likely to shred all those you names except for the 2A.

            He’ll throw a bone to conservatives on guns, but otherwise some crony will be appointed.

            Clinton could do worse by nominating Obama but I think he just wants to leave the WH and chill (hopefully).

            1. One the one hand Clinto has explicitly said that she’ll have a litmus test for her picks on all of those issues. On the other hand you imagine that Trump will do the same, even as he’s provided a list of conservative-libertarian justices because he hut mah feeeelllzzz by sayin mean things.

              Totally legit argument.

              1. Yes. The SC argument is the same as usual: a certainty that the Democrat will appoint statist justices, versus a chance that the Republican will do the same. It’s better to take a chance on the latter.

                1. Like Bush 43 and Roberts? How about the other Bush (41) and Souter?

                  1. I’m not disagreeing. They were pretty much duds. But we did get Thomas and Scalia and Alioto. Do you think a Democrat would have appointed them?

                  2. Did they provide a list of justices they would choose from in advance? HMMMM?

              2. On the other hand you imagine that Trump will do the same, even as he’s provided a list of conservative-libertarian justices

                Because we all know Donald Trump is a man of honesty and integrity.

                I’ll bet he does know a single name on that list and some GOP operative like Ed Rollins spoonfed him the whole thing.

                1. *does not know

                  /stupid phone

              3. I don’t think Trump cares that much about SCOTUS. He’ll nominate off that list he got because it’s more convenient and he’ll consider it a bone to throw to those who do care about SCOTUS.

                1. Yep.

                  Trump is not an ideologue, but he is loyal to people that have supported him and he’s openly contemptuous of the media. All of that leads to the conclusion that he’ll pick judges who his friends recommend, because he doesn’t have his own opinion either way, and he won’t cave to media pressure, like every other republican does.

                  1. More desperation projected as argument.

        3. Paul & Amash can help build libertarianism within the GOP regardless of who’s president. The GOP’s got millions of members, including many office holders at all levels, & it’s not like a Republican POTUS dictates to them what kind of ideology to have. The party’s -ism is built much more from the grass roots up than from the top down.

        4. There’s no ‘rebuilding’ the GOP if Trump goes on to November. They will not be a viable party.

      2. Yes, It’s not even going to be close, so why not vote for Johnson?

  20. (Warning: I’m a fan of Geo Will; he’s no libertarian, but he’s usually right and he always writes well, whether or not you agree with him).

    1. In support of his anti-Trumpism, Will has said that a Republican Congress will put Clinton on a much shorter leash than they would Trump.
    2. People who are vehemently against Trump (yes, I’m one of those) don’t dislike him because of his boorishness. In fact, I’d find that a plus, all things being equal. No, the major problem with Trump is the shallow, superficial understanding he has of any issue, and his bullheadedness that there is no reason for him to dig further into any issue and perhaps find facts that would contradict his applause lines. He speaks at a 3rd grade level. I think the only 4 syllable word I’ve ever heard him utter is “ridiculous.”
    3. Closely related to #2 is that he almost always speaks in very broad generalities that keep us in the dark as to what he is actually going to do — although an educated guess is that he’s never read the Constitution would ignore it if he could, and if the Republican Congress would let him.

    1. In support of his anti-Trumpism, Will has said that a Republican Congress will put Clinton on a much shorter leash than they would Trump.

      Assumes facts not in evidence. They could barely be arsed to look into her malfeasance when she was SecState. What on earth makes anyone think they will do a 180 once she is in the Big Chair?

      1. Given their track record against Obama they’d most likely cave to her at the first chance on every issue. Meanwhile, they’d reflexively oppose Trump in a vain attempt to score points with the DC media.

        1. Given their track record against Obama they’d most likely cave to her at the first chance on every issue.

          Damn those worthless “Vichy Republicans” for caving to Obama on cap-and-trade, tax hikes, card check, a public option healthcare plan, higher spending budgets, paid sick leave laws, and gun control!

          NO MORE CUCKS!

          TRUMP 2016

          1. yes, ^this, I am afraid is the only responsible decision

    2. No, the major problem with Trump is the shallow, superficial understanding he has of any issue,

      Have you heard Gary Johnson before?The other GOP nominees?

      Closely related to #2 is that he almost always speaks in very broad generalities that keep us in the dark as to what he is actually going to do

      Would you prefer Rand’s deep understanding of mass incarceration and his specific plan to stop it?

      “I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”

    3. Speaking at a 3rd grade level is an intentional persuasion technique. It works.

      1. It works at getting Hillary Clinton elected president.

    4. He has policy positions at his site.

      Instead of whining about his presentation being comprehensible to the peasants (you know that they get to vote too, right?), how about putting on your big boy pants and making real arguments about his policies?

    5. Will has said that a Republican Congress will put Clinton on a much shorter leash than they would Trump.

      Then he is a delusional schmuck.

      The Congress putting the president on a short leash? Anyone who says that after the Obama presidency needs to put down the bong now.

      The Congress couldn’t put a criminal like Lerner on a short leash. She came, she pissed in their faces, she went on paid vacation.

      The Congress has proven to be impotent in stopping the power of an imperial presidency. The Supremes have at times been a break, and at times a co-conspirator, but when Hillary appoints even one more, she’ll have them in her pocket too. And of course, she’ll have the federal apparatchiks as well, wholly unrestrained by the Supremes.

  21. Defections like Will would make sense if the other side was a significant upgrade or there was a better option. But can will sit there with a serious face and tell people Democrats are *less authoritarian*? Because that’s retarded beyond belief.

    1. Really, his only choice for defection is to come out in favor of Johnson/Weld (or maybe Constitution party or a write in or not vote at all, but all of those options are basically the same as excusing yourself from the conversation, and as a pundit I can’t imagine he’d go there). He can’t bash Trump for not being conservative and then turn around and embrace the arch-enemy of conservatives. Doing so would squander all credibility and out himself as a fraud.

    2. Johnson is a significant upgrade.

  22. Will is exhibit A of ‘Conservatives that hate Trump because he’s just like them’.

    1. I honestly don’t see the difference in Sanders, Trump and Clinton. They each say stupid things. So Trump does it with more gusto big shit. The content is the same plus ou moin.

      The difference, I think though, is the Democrats have sufficiently implanted in the minds of people they represent the downtrodden and what not despite their policies – which has been persuasively argued in my view – usually hurt the people they’re trying to help.

      Until this psychological edge shifts, Clinton can, so to speak, tell people she’ll kill their family for the common good and get away with it.

    2. Nah, Will has become more libertarian-ish over the years. I think The Jacket even interviewed him last year for Reason TV.

  23. It’s not Clinton is any better, quite the contrary. This guy’s reasoning explains it all
    https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..for-hilary
    Capitalist Pig Comes Out For Hillary

    In Hillary Clinton, voters get another term of Obama, and Bush before him. She’s a mixed-economy power-luster, same as the old boss. If they are to survive, Republicans must present a capitalist alternative. Right now, they can’t.

    And when Hillary’s policies fail, as they will, her socialist ideas will rightfully be denounced.

    But President Donald Trump would be the standard-bearer for American capitalism, despite the fact his ideas are exactly opposed.

    …And when Trump’s policies fail, as they will, American capitalism will unquestionably get blamed.

    This is why I’m supporting Clinton: Long term, the damage levied by Donald Trump to capitalism in America will be immeasurably worse than that wrought by Hillary Clinton.

    So if you MUST somehow limit your choice between the two and since the world will continue to burn and shit will continue to fail, then it becomes a question about who do you want to take the blame.

    For example, I have noticed countries courting socialism and communism need to experience it in full and hit rock bottom first before any meaningful changes happen. We see Argentina emerging now from that scenario in completely the opposite direction. And Venezuela is going through that transformation now.

    1. But there’s a difference between those countries and the United States – or at least countries exposed or having been a product of classical liberalism. The former never experienced it so it *could* make sense they have to go through this process. However, there’s no excuse for us in the West given our experiences with capitalism to abandon it, turn to socialism and its inevitable destruction only to turn back again. We have to suffer because of a few brain dead, ignorant left-wing dipshits?

    2. And when Hillary’s policies fail, as they will, her socialist ideas will rightfully be denounced.

      I doubt it. Blame will be directed at the obstructionist Republicans, who, as per usual, will have done a fine job of setting themselves up as the whipping boy for the failures of their nominal enemies.

      1. In following the writer’s reasoning, “if Hillary’s policies fail” – which, in his reckoning are the as Bush’s and Obama’s policies – just how long will it take for people to notice? 16 years in and the public is asking for more? The writer may want to peek outside his bubble periodically.

        1. Bush is still held up as the model of an economic libertarian. Why? Because proggies are dumbasses and because the media is corrupt.

          How many people today actually associate Bush 43 with Medicare expansion, higher education spending with worse results, the ethanol subsidization bullshit or anything else other than wars and KKKORPORASHUNS?

    3. We see Argentina emerging now from that scenario in completely the opposite direction.

      Argentina’s done this before. And, like a dog and his vomit, they just keep going back for more caudillo socialism.

      And Venezuela is going through that transformation now.

      Like Nicaragua, I expect Venezuela to have a brief period of rejecting caudillo socialism, and then be back lapping up that same old puddle of statist puke.

      1. Well I give that could very well happen. Everything seems to be cyclic. America happened then progressively devolved from that great experiment. It’ll take another revolution again likely followed by another downward spiral.

    4. But why do you think Hillary’s even a contender now? It’s because people credit Bill for the great American economy of the 1990s, & think he’ll be calling the shots again if she’s elected.

      I’ve known people, Daddy among them, who credit or blame whatever POTUS did that week for how their stocks did.

    5. then it becomes a question about who do you want to take the blame.

      Cuckism 101. “Let’s not have power so the other side gets the blame.”

      Because they’re ok with Progressive Totalitarianism, as long as they don’t *blamed*. Because having people think ill of you is the absolute worst thing in the world. They might even call you a *racist*. Oh, hold me, I’m so scared!

      1. The unexamined premise is that after the disaster, they’ll come back to power. They return from Galt’s Gulch to save the Land.

        How do they plan to win a presidential election after Hillary imports and christens millions more Big Government voters?

        PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
        http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
        Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
        http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
        Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

        1. PEW Research report on Muslim Americans
          http://www.people-press.org/fi…..report.pdf
          Muslims Lean Democratic over Republicans over 6 to 1
          Muslims Want bigger government over smaller government over 3 to 1

        2. THIS is a huge point.

          IF immigration of the sort we currently have continues unchecked, the Democrats will have recruited enough third world socialist voters to lock themselves in for at least a generation. You want to build a libertarian future in the USA? Then you better put aside your utopian theories for a bit and consider how that happens with continued massive third world immigration.

          In the real world, you want to move the US toward libertarian ideas while immigration flows at a rate that does not swamp you politically with socialist voters. Current Libertarian politics are self defeating.

          1. “IF immigration of the sort we currently have continues unchecked, the Democrats will have recruited enough third world socialist voters to lock themselves in for at least a generation.”

            Lies. There is no reason this has to be the case-unless Trumpistas chase them into the Dem party.

            1. There is no reason this has to be the case-unless Trumpistas chase them into the Dem party.

              Denial of the facts of reality.

              The numbers are the numbers.

              Trump hasn’t been relevant in politics til this year. Those poll numbers are from a few years ago. Did Trump’s evil mojo travel back in time to give Muslims and Hispanics their political opinions?

          2. THIS is a huge point.

            One which none of the Open Borders pants shitters at Reason have ever addressed.

            Because they can’t. The facts are the facts. Since reality isn’t on their side, they have to rely on sneers and personal attacks.

      2. The point is not being scared of criticism but rather if you want if you want the idea of captilism or free markets to be tainted.

        Like I said, people don’t learn until they run out of options. The suffering needs to be immense first until they change.

  24. Man, everyone’s fighting with Cytotoxic on this thread. Can’t you all see his massive intelligence? He clearly has an amazing grasp of the American people and who they’ll vote for from up there in Canada! [/sarcasm]

    Wonder how long he’ll avoid posting here after the Hilldabeast’s defeat?

    1. I offered to bet him on Trump vs. Hillary, but he declined.

      1. For claiming to be so damn sure Hillary is going to win, you’d think he’d take such a bet. It’s gauranteed money as far as he sees it right? So why not take it?

        1. I won’t indulge worthless trailer trash for gambling.

    2. It’s not that my intelligence is massive, it’s just that they’re retarded.

  25. I left my office-job and now I am getting paid 98 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    =======> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  26. You know, when you consistently get things demonstrably wrong, at like a child, and get shut the fuck up, the correct response isn’t usually double down on the stupid.

    It says a lot the Cytotoxic tries so hard to pump himself up with rhetoric and by using sockpuppets.

    It proves he realizes he’s a clown, which is a level of insight you wouldn’t assign to him.

    Buuuuut? it’s reached the “Mary” point, 200 posts in a thread and half are Cytotoxics childish crying about Trump and not being liked by the commentariat.

  27. IF U VOTE REPUBLICAN U THROW VOTE AWAY.

  28. Trump is not Mussolini, but he is likely to be Herbert Hoover. He’s already talked up “public works projects” in the past and if the economy goes into recession within the next year that buffoon is going to justify his tariffs proposal. Then he is going to get enough support to draw down immigration which won’t even help the people he’s claiming to help (because a lot businesses won’t be able to get low-skill/low-wage employees and that will only retard the economy).

    What I find ironic (and hilarious) is that Trump defenders here will point to Clinton as an excuse to vote Trump, yet they wouldn’t dare do the same in 2012 involving Romney/Obama.

    If you actually look at Trump, he really isn’t *too* different fron your typical Republican. More spending on “defense,” promises not to touch old people’s precious benefits and he pledges to implement an across the board tax cut. AKA, the Bush 43 fiscal policies.

    1. The idea that the economy will suffer if we have less immigration is very arguable. Mass immigration has huge negatives: lower wages, higher welfare spending, higher housing costs, etc. It feeds the Democratic Party welfare state, and you do know that it’s an intentional plan to import a new electorate more friendly to statism, right?

      1. You rely on negative racial stereotypes to justify intended restrictionist policies, which is most certainly *not* pro-liberty.

        It’s like saying: “Gee, why even have free speech or due process when those bad people we hate will also get the same liberties?”

        Political gain/loss is no excuse to vote against liberty. It’s how you know a lot of nationalist Trump voters are downright racist when they say shit like, “You know ? I’m pro-life but should we really care if black women and Latinas are aborting their babies?”

        Frankly, I think a lot of Hispanics and blacks vote against the GOP because there are too many older white Republican figures who seem outright hostile towards minority communities. And I’m not talking about Donald Trump, but Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, etc.

        1. It’s not a “racial” stereotype because Latin America and Islam are not races. They are cultures (more than two, of course), all of which suck from a liberty perspective.

          1. Latin America is headed in a much better direction than America.

            1. Latin America is headed for America, fool.

        2. You rely on negative racial stereotypes

          LOL

        3. Political gain/loss is no excuse to vote against liberty.

          Where exactly is the “liberty” in forcing above median tax payers to massively subsidize low income immigrants?

          Frankly, I think a lot of Hispanics and blacks vote against the GOP because there are too many older white Republican figures who seem outright hostile towards minority communities.

          Hispanics and blacks generally vote against the GOP because they tend to be in lower income brackets and benefit from the massive tax cuts and government spending Democrats lavish on them.

          1. “Where exactly is the “liberty” in forcing above median tax payers to massively subsidize low income immigrants?”

            No evidence that’s happening.

        1. There’ve been libertarian opinion leaders for a long time who opposed unlimited immigration to the USA because of adverse effects on liberty: David Brudnoy & Gene Burns come to mind. Many libertarians of the “sovereign”, Constitutionalist, & biker types have had that opinion too. When that many people are down-the-line libertarians but disagree with your analysis on this point, you’ve got to take it seriously as a strain of libertarian thought. I’ve been thinking about it for the past 20 yrs., still not sure what the right side is, while previously I’d been a no-borders type.

          1. Charles Murray on Immigration

            For all his ranting about Trump, Charles Murray may be to the right of Ann Coulter on immigration.

            4. Immigration reform must begin first with enforcement of existing immigration law. If it takes a wall, so be it.
            5. And while I’m at it, I’ll mention that English should be the only language in which public school classes are taught

            But Milton Friedman was right: You can’t have both open immigration and a welfare state.

            I would get rid of reuniting-families provisions,
            get rid of the you’re-a-citizen-if-you’re-born-here rule,
            and make immigrants ineligible for all benefits and social services except public education for their children.
            Everybody who immigrates has to be on a citizenship track (no guest workers). And I would endorse a literacy requirement.

            But, to go back to basics: None of this works unless illegal immigration is effectively ended.

            Of course, he’s just Racist! Racist! Racist! too.

          2. Papaya, while an idiot on many levels, and a disgusting bigot, was called an idiot this particular time for the following statement:

            The idea that the economy will suffer if we have less immigration is very arguable.

            More people is stimulus. Cheap labor is stimulus. This isn’t even debatable.

            1. Frankie’s polite, wise, nuanced views are always such a pleasure to read, and such valuable additions to any discussion.

              Slightly better than Cytotoxic, but that’s not saying much.

              Things that aren’t “stimulus”: more welfare recipients, more crime, more people in jail, more languages, more power for SJWs, more Democratic voters.

              And while this come as a shock to you, supply and demand works for labor, too: more unskilled labor drives down wages at the bottom.

              1. And while this come as a shock to you, supply and demand works for labor, too: more unskilled labor drives down wages at the bottom.

                Are you fucking serious?

                Cheap labor drives the cost of goods and services down which means more money left over after necessities are paid for. That extra money can now be invested in products that improve quality of life and free up time for more productive work.

                A woman who can hire an inexpensive immigrant nanny to watch the kids is now freed up to pursue more productive work providing goods and services to others, IOW creating wealth that would otherwise not exist. She goes out and starts a business creating something of value through the efforts of her labor. She creates a new product that is more valuable than the sum of it’s parts and in the process creates even more productive jobs.

                Wages are not wealth. Labor is not zero sum.

                1. To say that something has negative side effects is not the same as saying it’s “zero-sum.”

              2. “more unskilled labor drives down wages at the bottom.”

                I’ve debunked this lie dozens of times, as well as the ‘immigrants take r welfare’ lie.

            2. More people is stimulus. Cheap labor is stimulus. This isn’t even debatable.

              Why isn’t it debatable? The notion of saturating the system with low-skilled people who don’t speak the language and are either hostile or indifferent to the culture as a recipe for success, however, IS debatable.

              1. Why isn’t it debatable? The notion of saturating the system with low-skilled people who don’t speak the language and are either hostile or indifferent to the culture as a recipe for success, however, IS debatable.

                That’s what I said about all those goddamned Irish Catholics and dirty Southern Europeans that overran this great country in the last century.

                Seriously though, if you’re worried about not speaking the language, don’t be. By the third generation, the immigrant language is usually lost. As for culture, what culture would that be? Culture in San Francisco, or culture in Mobile, Alamaba, or culture in Chicago? In any case, culture probably goes along with the language as well. And if you’re justifiably concerned about welfare, then you wouldn’t have a problem of simply granting unlimited work visas. Assuming you can’t have open immigration and a welfare state, you can have open immigration through work visas since they would by ineligible for welfare. Problems solved.

                1. Irish Catholics and Southern Europeans had no revanchist movements, no totalitarian and world-conquering religious beliefs advanced by terrorism and requiring government surveillance, wanted to be Americans and not simply import their old cultures, weren’t encouraged to be separatist by multiculturalists, and didn’t burden the welfare state because there wasn’t one.

                  Other than those things, your analogy is spot on. /sarc

                  1. I’m simply talking about work visa programs since I’m hoping that’s something we can at least agree on. If you’re talking about completely open immigration, then that would be a different conversation.

                    You’re making a lot of assertions that I wouldn’t accept without looking at data. According to you, working Mexican immigrants want to make the Southwest part of Mexico or an independent country? Working Muslim immigrants strongly want to make the U.S. obey and enforce Sharia law? I don’t buy that.

                    You’re also making a lot of assertions about 19th century immigrants. Irish immigrants didn’t want to retain many elements of their Irish culture or pass it on to their children? Italian immigrants didn’t want to retain many elements of their Italian culture or pass it on to their children? I don’t buy that either, if that’ something you’re arguing.

                    1. You’re making a lot of assertions that I wouldn’t accept without looking at data.

                      Oh, you’ve asked for it now, Eric. This is the point where Papaya posts his extremely credible citation of how 60% of Muslims want Sharia law, from ZeikHeil.com

                    2. Or one of his nutbar blogs. Who needs Cato when you’ve got Gates of Vienna.com?

                  2. I was raised Catholic in an Irish-American family. My immigrant forebears did raise money for the Irish Republican Brotherhood back in the Ould Sod. The US-based Fenian Brotherhood even raided British North America from the US side. Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of being bomb-throwing anarchists.

                  3. “Irish Catholics and Southern Europeans had no revanchist movements”

                    Neither are any of the immigrants America has today.

            3. More people is stimulus. Cheap labor is stimulus. This isn’t even debatable.

              And it probably works just about as well as any other Keynesian stimulus, namely not at all.

      2. Also, the economic worries about immigration — although genuine — blindly accept the zero-sum game narrative.

        Suppose one million immigrants showed up and settled in a certain area. If there are not enough apartments/condominiums, someone would have to build more. You’d be creating construction jobs and also employing painters, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, welders, etc.

        Those immigrants all have to shop for food and clothing, so that contributes to sales taxes. The rent money they pay contributes to property taxes. People get jobs producing the food/clothing that goes to the stores, not to mention the stocking of shelves/inventory, transportation (truck drivers), sales clerks, security, and of course new small businesses popping up which creates more competition and leads to lower prices of consumer goods.

        1. Not to mention the economic benefits of cheap labor.

          1. Yeah, that was the purpose of my comment. 😛

            PapayaSF, like my conservative/conservatarian friends, always focuses on the loss and never the gains. It’s the obsession with “loss aversion” which, I think, has propelled Trump’s support the most. He tells people they’re losing things, and if they’ll just elect him president he’ll make them stop losing things.

            It is creepy and eerily similar to Obama ’08, just with different rhetoric.

            1. Of course there are gains, but the immigration cheerleaders tend to be blind to the costs, which are substantial, especially with Third World and Muslim immigration into broke welfare states committed to the fantasy of “diversity.”

              1. There’s no evidence of large costs.

          2. Not to mention the economic benefits of cheap labor.

            Only when they don’t settle in your neighborhood.

            1. There’s still the welfare burden.

            2. Actually, especially when they are in your neighborhood.

              Again: no link between immigration and welfarism. None.

        2. Also, the economic worries about immigration — although genuine — blindly accept the zero-sum game narrative.

          Krikorian, Borjas, Brimelow, etc. must be blind to your esoteric positive-sum arguments. It’s the only explanation.

    2. Gee, I’m a Trump defender, but I did vote for Romney in 2012, and don’t even think he was a particularly bad candidate. He was far from the best the Republicans could nominate, but also far from the worst, for liberty’s sake, and ultimately it didn’t matter because people were voting only for or against Obama anyway. (That’s why I wanted the GOP to nominate the most libertarian candidate they could, preferable Ron Paul, because I knew there’d be no difference in electability among the major contenders.)

      I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008, but I didn’t think he’d be anywhere near as bad as he turned out. I was just glad Hillary didn’t get the nomination!

    3. What I find ironic (and hilarious) is that Trump defenders here will point to Clinton as an excuse to vote Trump, yet they wouldn’t dare do the same in 2012 involving Romney/Obama.

      I want Trump, and I preferred Romney over Obama. Who didn’t?

  29. I still argue that Trump is better (though not ideal) than Hillary on these grounds, which should appeal to libertarians.

    – Almost certainly better Supreme Court picks.

    – Opposes Obamacare, versus “let’s expand it to illegals.”

    – Better on gun rights.

    – Better on taxes.

    – Better on regulation.

    In my view, not shared by many here, being immigration restrictionist today is a net win for liberty, because it stops the importation of anti-liberty voters (primarily Latin American and Muslim), relieves stresses on the bankrupt welfare state, and lessens the need for government anti-terror surveillance.

    Libertarians should also prefer a Trump victory for a number of more abstract reasons.

    – A pragmatist businessman who wants to win is more amenable to liberty-oriented solutions than a leftist ideologue.

    – Trump clearly likes this country, and its traditions, in ways Hillary does not. Those traditions are what fostered liberty, even if Trump wants to restrict liberty in some ways. So Trump is still a net plus, compared to Hillary.

    – An “uncouth” President may help degrade the office in the minds of voters, making Presidential-worship and statism in general less attractive.

    – Libertarians want to upset the political order. Hillary will sustain it, Trump will upset it. Libertarians will have an easier time post-Trump than post-Hillary, because the political order will already have been upset by the larger populist force that Trump represents.

    1. I forgot one huge issue: Trump stands up against the SJW/multicultural onslaught, a gigantic threat to liberty, while Hillary supports it.

      1. That is a huge issue. It is the means by which the Progressive Theocracy beats down opposition.

        As long as people who fight against Big Government immediately bend over once they’re called “Racist!”, there is no hope.

    2. If you look at the CNN town hall transcript, on guns Trump is better than Johnson.

      On drugs Trump may be better than Johnson too; the “reading” problem there is that each has made recent statements inconsistent with things they’d said over a long time previously.

      Your last 2 bullet points can’t be emphasized enough as reasons to elect Trump?& the more he wins the popular vote by, the more solidly those effects will be achieved. Especially considering what the Johnson-Weld ticket is saying, every vote for Trump has more symbolic effect than one for Johnson.

      And all this would be true even if Clinton weren’t in the running for prez! Combined with the desideratum of keeping her out of office?heck, maybe even keeping her from being loose & at large?the reasons for electing Trump are overwhelming.

      And that’s not even considering the symbolism of votes for Clinton. Every vote for Clinton is saying corruption is good?don’t be good, be evil!

      1. To your last point: I’m not voting for Clinton. Anybody picking a alternate candidate, rather than Evil Mark I or Evil Mark II will be denying the eventual winner of their sanction. Clinton in `92 only garnered 43% of the popular vote. D’ya think that mattered a bit in, say, his loss on Hillarycare?

    3. being immigration restrictionist today is a net win for liberty, because it stops the importation of anti-liberty voters (primarily Latin American and Muslim)

      Winner!

      PEW Research report on Muslim Americans
      http://www.people-press.org/fi…..report.pdf
      Muslims Lean Democratic over Republicans over 6 to 1
      Muslims Want bigger government over smaller government over 3 to 1

      1. PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
        http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
        Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
        http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
        Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

        This is the Big Game. Electoral power. All other issues are derivative.

        Repubs can barely beat Dems now. Four years of Hillary and amnesty and open borders and the Left will own an electoral majority for Big Government in Presidential elections. They already own the federal bureaucracy. They will own the Presidency and the Supreme Court too. The US will be a one party Progressive state.

        Game Over.

        The US will never have any chance of liberty again if Hillary wins. If Trump wins, the spigot of Big Government voters is turned off. That preserves a *chance*, that one day, liberty returns.

        1. Sadly, I think you may be right. I try not to be apocalyptic about elections, but Obama + Hillary could be a mortal blow to liberty in America. We’d have a Supreme Court that would look at the Constitution and see every SJW daydream. The downsides of Trump seem trivial by comparison.

          1. The Brexit vote gives me a little hope. The first actual rollback of the Leviathan. Maybe. At least they got the vote. If Trump gets the vote, hope is still alive. With HIllary, it’s over.

  30. Wow, when did most of the commentators here turn into Johnesque Trumptards? What ever happened to not voting or voting third party?

    It’s almost as though ‘libertarians’ don’t grasp the fact that as long as they keep eating whatever shit the GOP offers them, the GOP has no reason to ever feed them anything but shit.

    1. When did more than two or three commentators here say they were voting for Trump?

      1. Dammit! Well? fair cop well done.

    2. As evidenced by the large number of people definitively starting they’ll vote for Trump itt.

      Oh wait?

    3. You missed the Yokel Revolution.

      I don’t even recommend H&R comments to new libertarians anymore. The commentariat has become an abomination.

      1. Yeah, it’s everyone else.

      2. I don’t even recommend H&R comments to new libertarians anymore. The commentariat has become an abomination.

        Cytotxoic Sr. weighs in.

        1. LOL. But don’t you understand? They have pure, abstract principles, and real-world facts and events that contradict their mental maps must be ignored!!

          1. I HAVE THIS HERE CHART

          2. They have pure, abstract principles, and real-world facts and events that contradict their mental maps must be ignored!!

            This could be said of some here (myself included), and of libertarians more generally – that’s been the crux of the debate between deontological vs consequentialist schools of libertarianism since inception. However, it distinctly does not apply to Francisco. He has little capacity for abstraction (to such a conspicuous degree it sometimes seems like an intellectual disability), and no real principles that endure any longer than necessary for adjudicating any particular issue or controversy in his mind. He’s pitifully ignorant of nearly any of the basics of libertarian philosophy or its major thinkers and contributors. (I’m especially fond of his contention that Ayn Rand, from whose magnum opus he cops his s/n, rejected the NAP, not because Rand was an especially brilliant expositor, but precisely because her work is so popular, accessible and rudimentary, and he couldn’t even comprehend that). He is a knee-jerk, emotionally driven person who thinks libertarianism is, in its essence, whatever his gut sense of righteousness is at any particular time. This is why you will often find him defending an aggressively expansive central state and its trappings on the grounds of “fairness” or “equality” to the exclusion of liberty, and then turning around and reversing his own arguments when the issue changes.

            1. Essentially, Francisco is Otto in A Fish Called Wanda, dismayed to find out that the central message of Buddhism is not, in fact, “every man for himself”.

              1. Oh, burn! LOL. Thanks.

            2. He is a knee-jerk, emotionally driven person who thinks libertarianism is, in its essence, whatever his gut sense of righteousness is at any particular time.

              I defy you to find a case where I’ve argued against my first principles.

              1. A person may do as they choose, provided they don’t violate the rights of others in doing so.
              2. The only legitimate purpose of government is to defend the rights of the individual.

              Those tenets maximize liberty. If you’d like to debate the reasoning behind that, serve it up.

              I’m especially fond of his contention that Ayn Rand, from whose magnum opus he cops his s/n, rejected the NAP

              First, I took my moniker from a character I liked in a novel. I am not an Objectivist and disagree with Rand on many aspects of her philosophy.

            3. Second:

              Objectivism: Ayn Rand rejected natural or inborn rights theories as well as supernatural claims and instead proposed a philosophy based on observable reality along with a corresponding ethics based on the factual requirements of human life in a social context.[16] She stressed that the political principle of non-aggression is not a primary and that it only has validity as a consequence of a more fundamental philosophy. For this reason, many of her conclusions differ from others who hold the NAP as an axiom or arrived at it differently…

              Complete adherence to the NAP makes you an anarchist. There can be no government without an initiation of force. Rand was not an anarchist and therefore rejected the NAP at some level, as do I.

              on the grounds of “fairness” or “equality”

              I’ve argued nothing from the grounds of “fairness” or “equality”. I have argued positions on the grounds of equality under the law and 14A. A premise that need not be in conflict with first principles.

              1. I’ve been here a long time and this Ayn Rand thing of yours has gone well past its appropriate 3-month flirtation in 9th grade. You’ve got to be at least a junior in high school by now. Not cool.

                1. Read much?

                  I am not an Objectivist and disagree with Rand on many aspects of her philosophy.

                2. You’re, what, in your 50s? and still haven’t gotten over your freshmen sociology class Marx phase, so, you know, glass houses and throwing stones and all that, Tony.

          3. Trump: the libertarians’ real world, down to earth, pragmatic candidate. Shame on all of us quixotic purists who can’t get over his little quirks like being a thorough-going statist in just about every conceivable respect, even more so than every GOP nominee in recent memory. I mean, come one, right?

            1. Pro: 2nd A
              Pro: judges who support the Constitution
              Anti: government regulation
              Anti: Obamacare
              Anti: SJW/PC
              Anti: Muslim immigration (which is a net win for liberty, “freedom of movement” notwithstanding).

              That’s a “thorough-going statist”?

              Look, I never said Trump was ideal, just that he’s preferable to Hillary, and has some positive aspects from a libertarian viewpoint.

              1. “Anti: government regulation”

                Lies.

                “Anti: Muslim immigration (which is a net win for liberty, “freedom of movement” notwithstanding).”

                Spoken like the fascist retard you are.

                1. 1. Google it.

                  2. When has Muslim immigration ever improved liberty for non-Muslims? It increases government surveillance and welfare costs.

      3. I suspect some sort of Trumptard reddit campaign is behind it. A confluence of red-pill mens-rights and tea party yokels got it into their heads to create a bunch of sock puppets to take over the reason message boards.
        Die in a fire, every last one of you fucktards.

        1. They are why abortion should be legal and encouraged.

    4. I used to lurk around these parts in 2012. I’m seeing the same arguments in favor of voting for Romney, i.e. it’s better to “stop the Dems now” and worry about the Repubs later. Note that Romney was talking about “going after China” for currency manipulation (as if the Fed here doesn’t do similar things), he wanted “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants, he pledged to “rebuild the military” which meant hundreds of billions in new Pentagon funding, and he was going to somehow cut taxes and reform entitlements (the guy who did RomneyCare).

      But the Trump defenders here have to rely on bogus that he’s “noninterventionist” even though he backed interventions into Libya and Iraq, plans to have the troops commit war crimes, says he’ll bring back torture, and threatens to bomb the shit out of other countries. (He also seemed to accept the notion of sending tens of thousands of troops into Iraq/Syria to fight ISIS.)

      1. “I used to lurk around these parts in 2012”

        You’re a sockpuppet, you’re here every day.

        1. yep

      2. Only the most deluded libertarian would think that Romney would have been as bad as (or worse than) Obama, by almost any measure.

        1. Count me as deluded then. The Kenyan looter at least is not a committed ku-klux prohibitionist. Prohibitionist looter jerks completely raped the economy in 1893-4, 1906-7, 1929-33, 1987-92, 1998 and 2007 ALWAYS with asset forfeiture as a means of enforcing prohibition laws. Far better to have blacks imagine the elections aren’t rigged to exclude them (and the Kenyan did help the Klan jail mainly black folks for dope). Electing a mystical whack job prohibitionist and not even getting polyamorous relations legalized? SHAME! Go write on the blackboard ten thousand times: I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask another to live for my sake.”

          1. You didn’t need this post to confirm to me you were deluded.

          2. What the hell did I just read?

            1. Ah! Bovine incomprehension is no longer a communist/green party thing. Prohibitionists will find lots of fast friends among the other looters.

          3. Milquetoast ’50s-suburban family-man Mitt Romney was a “committed ku-klux prohibitionist” and “mystical whack job”? I’m not a fan of the LDS, but… huh?

          4. Don’t feed the troll people. You only encourage more bizarre rants like this one.

            1. I think he ate some spoiled poutine.

    5. What ever happened to not voting or voting third party?

      It’s almost as though ‘libertarians’ don’t grasp the fact that as long as they keep eating whatever shit the GOP offers them, the GOP has no reason to ever feed them anything but shit.

      You could as easily say that about LP this time re prez & VP. And you can just as well ask why the GOP should offer what you want, when they, & anyone else, can get more votes offering what other people want?

      It’s the voters who give the candidates shit when they don’t offer what the voters want.

      1. Candidates need votes to win elections. If a candidate can reliable count on a group to vote for him no matter how much he ignores or assaults their interests, he has no incentive not to keep ignoring or assaulting their interests. If they make their voting for him conditionally on him minding their interests, he has a greater incentive to mind their interests. That is the point. That is why ‘lesser evil’ voting between the major parties is counterproductive in the long run.

        1. Lesser evil voting has its place, but you can’t do it over and over.

          1. In this election, the “lesser evil” is letting someone you hate win so you won’t sully yourself further by endorsing the two-party system with your vote.

    6. It’s been happening for a while and then The Trumpening made it crystal clear just how many anti-intellectual yokeltards infested this place.

      1. I’d rather be a cosmotarian than a yokeltarian.

      2. Progressive policies apparently entail the usual self satisfied progressive attitudes.

        Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is evil, ignorant, and stupid.

    7. If Hillary wins this time, she appoints multiple SC Justices and imports and amnesties her way to an electoral majority for the one party Big Government State.

      Voting 2nd party won’t mean anything, let alone voting 3rd party.

  31. What ever happened to not voting or voting third party?

    Listen, only childish ignoramuses throw their votes away on losers.

    1. Losers are dupes who waste their votes on the DemoGOP. Third party spoiler votes are worth ten times their weight in repealing idiotic laws and taxes. Where did prohibition laws and communist income tax planks come from before ending up in the Constitution? From third-party platforms and candidates getting LESS than 2% of the vote. I vote libertarian, and my vote repeals laws and cuts taxes EVERY TIME! I vote for me and my platform, not grinning looter apes.

      1. Correlation is not causation. It wasn’t the inclusion in those 3rd party platforms that got those things done.

        Besides, the Prohibition Party in the USA has continued to exist all along. They’ve nominated Jim Hedges for president this election. But no sign of liquor prohibition returning. Guess that’s not what does it, huh?

        1. Readers familiar with logic, probability and differential equations are welcome to search “the case for voting libertarian” with audio and diagrams in two languages. You’ll never vote looter again.

  32. Fuck the Cubs!!

    1. See, that’s mean.

      Fuck the Dodgers, though.

      I mean, seriously. Fuck the Dodgers.

      1. FT NL National League team. There haven’t been any Dodgers since the end of 1957.

        …and Let’s Go Mets. FT Wilpons, though.

  33. “If you kill your enemies, they win.” -Justin Trudeau – Canadian PM

    1. Not the guy I want as Commander in Chief.

  34. The most interesting argument in American governance today is not between Republicans and Democrats, it is …

    This whole paragraph is peak bow tie. There’s 7.5 federal judges who give one shit about the Constitution and he wants a more “engaged judiciary.”

    1. peak bow tie

      hahahahaha

  35. The republican party will not fund any of Trump’s private fantasies (super wall, massive deportations), and the dems will almost certainly join them. It’s a bit nonsensical to fear Donald operating on carte blanche from the adoring republican underlings.

    Trump could deal a blow to free trade and economic liberty, but Bernie Sanders and Clinton would do the same. That’s because the nation is increasingly in favor of “America first” protectionism and “economic justice”. The outsiders championed their cause Free trade was a major villain in the Trump and Sanders camp that led Clinton disavow her husband’s achievements.

    As of now, I would only vote for Trump if Clinton is indicted and Gary Johnson can’t rise about 8,9% of the popular vote. It’s startling just how stark the choices are this year – a celebrity figure arguing for killing family members of terrorists and a disgraced former SS who may have committed borderline treason.

    1. End sanctuary cities, end welfare for illegals, enforce employment law, and many of them go home under their own power, just like they got here.

      1. Thanks not interested in your fascist police state.

    2. Trump could deal a blow to free trade and economic liberty, but Bernie Sanders and Clinton would do the same.

      Keep in mind that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA.

      Clinton would sign the TPP (despite whatever she was saying to the Democratic base), Trump wouldn’t, so that makes Clinton better on trade right off the bat.
      With Trump leading the R’s the D’s would objectively be the more pro-free-trade party.

        1. And you’re just another team red player. Team red players will rationalize any reason they can be against the TPP, just because they can’t stand supporting anything that the other side does.

          1. FEE is “just another team red player”? Since when?

      1. But once Trump is done making his mystical Deals with the Chinese, not only will they unilaterally end all trade restrictions on us despite his new tariffs, they will also give us all free blowjobs.

        You’ll see. It’s in his book.

  36. George Will dumps the GO Pee Drug Warriors for the Babies? No problemo. There are at least three other fanatically religious prohibitionist parties: Tea, Prohibition (oldest 3rd and 3rd oldest), and Constatuchun (to rewrite the 14th to start with All ova fertilized…). All of these parties want to bust them hippies into federal penitentiaries for Killer Weed, and jail them Jezabels for pregnancy termination. Sir Oswald Mosley’s interviewer has no end of company that’ll have him.

  37. Packers and Movers Faridabad – http://getpackers.com/packers-…..faridabad/
    Packers and Movers Chennai – http://getpackers.com/packers-and-movers-chennai/

  38. Packers and Movers Faridabad – http://getpackers.com/packers-…..faridabad/
    Packers and Movers Chennai – http://getpackers.com/packers-and-movers-chennai/

  39. Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:12 AM
    To: Libertarian Party of Ohio

    Wed 11/7/2012 12:15 AM
    KevinXXXXXX
    I would have voted for Obama, but voted for Gary Johnson.
    So your logic doesn’t work with me.
    Later.

    Yes the Lib party sold out the authoritarianism long ago

  40. What the hell have you mammals been going on about?

    1. In the formation:

      Trump > Hillary

      Trump < Piece of ShitErgo Hillary < Trump < Piece of Shit1) Hillary people get upset when you say Trump > Hillary even though you said Trump < Piece of Shit.2) Trump people get upset when you say Trump < Piece of Shit even though you said Trump > Hillary.

      That’s 95% of the thread.

      1. “We all agree we don’t like eating shit, but it’s important everyone understand that you’re not a real libertarian if you don’t prefer gobbling a nice solid stool to gross soft milky diarrhea. That’s self-evident.”

  41. Ken, again ,you’re still wrong that Trump > Hillary.

    I really don’t care that much of Hillary takes donations from foreign governments. She’s corrupt and she’s a crony capitalist, and she’s going to hand out favors. Who really gives a fuck whether they are foreign or domestic interests? Does anyone think that taking donations from the Saudis means she’s going to let them build some terrorist training camps in the middle of Texas so they can blow up buildings? I mean what are you afraid of? That’s it’s all a secret pot to implement Sharia law and that Hillary is a secret Muslim?

    What Hillary would do is corrupt and wrong, but not any more corrupt and wrong than the government we have now.
    Whereas the things Trump would do range from economically disasterous (abbrogating trade agreements), to plainly evil (killing the families of terrorists).

    I’m voting for Gary Johnson because he’s the most qualified candidate in the race with the best record. He’s be neither corrupt, nor incompetent as president. The fact that he’s a libertarian is just icing on the cake. If that means Hillary wins the election, so be it. Trump and his ilk need to be sent a message. They, and everything they stand for, everything they represent, need to be thoroughly rejected by society. In four years, the Republicans can pick someone who isn’t a mentally ill fascist, and make Hillary a one-term President.

    1. If fascists are what it takes to finally rid us of this plague of the Enlightened?, by all means bring on the fascists!

      1. Your handle is extremely fitting.

      2. I’m with the Resistance in Ingress. I suspect libertarians picked Resistance over Enlightened 10 to 1.

    2. “I really don’t care that much of Hillary takes donations from foreign governments. She’s corrupt and she’s a crony capitalist, and she’s going to hand out favors. Who really gives a fuck whether they are foreign or domestic interests?”

      There’s this thing called Trump Derangement Syndrome, and the symptoms have to do with being so anti-Trump that we take leave of our senses.

      Taking money from foreign governments while the Secretary of State or while running for President is fundamentally unacceptable–like putting an unrepentant, self-admitted child molester in charge of an orphanage is fundamentally unacceptable. Comparing Trump to that because he’s wrong on some issue (or obnoxious) is missing the point.

      We don’t appoint mafia dons to be Attorney General. We don’t assign Al Qaeda operatives to run the CIA. The Secretary of Defense shouldn’t accept money from the Russians, China, or ISIS; our Secretary of State shouldn’t accept money from foreign governments, and our Presidents shouldn’t accept money from foreign governments while running for President.

      It’s the difference between obnoxious and wrong and doing away with the rule of law, and if you can’t see the difference between Trump being obnoxious and wrong, on one hand, and Hillary’s behavior being fundamentally unacceptable, on the other, then that is a strong indication that you may be suffering from the acute symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

      1. Ken, Your CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) is raging.

        Trump has stated that he would order US Troops to commit war crimes. That, by itself, even in isolation from everything else abohrrent that he has advocated, makes him unfit to be president.

        Trump is not merely obnoxious and wrong. He advocates things that are EVIL.

        1. You mean when he said he would bomb the fuck out of ISIS in retaliation?

          If he literally stated that he would “order U.S. Troops to commit war crimes”, then I’d like to see that quote.

          You know Obama has killed hundreds of innocent children with drone strikes? The most recent were earlier this month. Obama has also assassinated an American citizen without a trial, and he violated the Fourth Amendment rights of some 300 million Americans by way of the NSA. He initiated a war in Libya without Congressional authorization, too.

          But he didn’t accept money from foreign governments.

          Again, you can’t seem to grok the difference between breaking the law and abandoning the rule of law.

          And I’m not sure the things you’re complaining about Trump for are even breaking the law. They sound more like policies you disagree with. Like I said, show me where Trump promised to order American troops to commit war crimes.

          I’d show you how Hillary both accepted money from foreign governments while Secretary of State and continues to do so while campaigning for President, but there’s no need for that. Hillary, Clinton Foundation documents, and the State Department all agree that’s what happened and what is happening.

          1. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/…..-families/

            Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would kill the families of terrorists in order to win the fight against ISIS.

            http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..12496.html

            Donald Trump has reiterated his desire for the US military to carry out the intentional killings of terrorists’ families.

            In the latest Republican debate, during which much of the world focused on a gag that referred to the size of the Mr Trump’s genitalia, the frontrunner said he would endorse the murders.

            Taking part in the Fox News GOP debate last night, the billionaire was asked about General Michael Hayden saying that the military would refuse to follow illegal orders such as the intentional killing of terrorists’ families.

            Mr Trump said: “They won’t refuse, they’re not going to refuse me ? believe me.”

            Wow, do you have a short memory, or what?

            1. “The wife knew exactly what was happening. They left two days earlier, with respect to the World Trade Centre, and they went back to where they went.

              “And they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Centre, flying into the Pentagon and probably trying to fly into the White House except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane.”

              . . . Mr Trump said that friends, family members and girlfriends of the terrorists “were put into planes and they were sent back, for the most part, to Saudi Arabia. They knew what was going on. They went home and they wanted to watch their boyfriends on television”.

              That’s from your link. He was talking specifically about the family members who were sent back before the 9/11 hijackers did their thing. He’s saying they must have known what was going on, and he wanted to use the military to after them for effectively being accessories before the fact to 9/11.

              He did not say he was going to order them to commit war crimes. He said he wanted to do something to the associates of the hijackers that YOU interpret as a war crime.

              Incidentally, going after everyone and anyone associated with the 9/11 hijackers–as determined by the POTUS, anywhere in the world, mind you, is specifically authorized in the AUMF. Personally , I’d like to see the AUMF sun-setted, Doing what he’s talking about may be a war crime according to European intellectuals, but it’s also duly authorized by Congress.

              1. “He did not say he was going to order them to commit war crimes. ”

                STOP LYING

            2. Do you understand why Trump wanting to go after the associates of the 9/11 hijackers who fled the United States before the attack–and giving the keys to the Oval Office to someone who’s not only taken money from foreign governments in the past but continues to do so–are maybe on two separate levels?

              “(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons”

              http://tinyurl.com/bl38ta9

              I hate the AUMF. It doesn’t have a sunset clause. It’s been used to justify all manner of evil, up to and including the NSA tracking 300 million Americans’ phone calls. I want to repeal the AUMF.

              But if going after anyone the President “determines” was associated with the attacks on 9/11 is a war crime, it’s also authorized by Congress in the form necessary for a declaration of war.

              It should also be noted that I despise Trump. It’s just really weird that despising Trump isn’t enough. No, I’m supposed to despise him more than someone who openly accepts money from foreign governments while Secretary of State and while she’s running for President. What Hillary is doing is so awful, no one ever thought it was necessary to make it illegal. I guess they didn’t account for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

              1. What the fuck are you talking about Ken? First of all, the 9/11 terrorist DIDN’T have families in the US. That’s a complete fabrication. Secondly, even if they did, who cares? They’re still non-combatants. And you don’t kill people without a trial.

                And thirdly, it’s it patently obvious that’s NOT what Trump meant. You’re seriously going to swallow whole this mealy-mouthed walk-back? He was advocating killing the families of ISIS terrorists. The whole 9/11 thing is a giant piece of pure horseshit.
                I can’t believe you actually believe a word of it.

                1. Not only is it obviously what Trump meant, it’s obvious from what he said in your own link!

                  He’s talking about going after the wives of the 9/11 hijackers–the ones he said left just days before 9/11.

                  IF IF IF he’s wrong about what he said happened, that certainly doesn’t mean he didn’t say it.

                  Go read your own link again, and while you’re doing that, think about what it means that you’re so easily sucked into believing that Trump wants to kill the families of every terrorist just because they’re family. You’ve completely lost it.

                  This is like going after Palin for saying that she could see Russia from her backyard. I don’t know what’s more frightening, seeing what Trump says served up in such an obviously bogus manner or seeing you so willing to believe anything bad anybody says about him–no matter how obviously ridiculous.

                  You had a much better take the other day about him being anti-free trad, and that if there’s any libertarian litmus test, that’s it and Trump fails. The only problem you keep running into is that people like me aren’t voting for Trump (we’re voting for Johnson) and Trump being wrong on the issues isn’t a total abandonment of universal principles–like Hillary taking money from foreign governments.

                  1. Ken the original quote is
                    “”The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,”

                    The thing about the 9/11 hijackers only came up afterwards.
                    And the 9/11 hijackers didn’t have wives, so it’s obviously bullshit.

        2. Trump has stated that he would order US Troops to commit war crimes. That, by itself, even in isolation from everything else abohrrent that he has advocated, makes him unfit to be president.

          Seems to me it just makes him honest, given that Hillary would simply do the same thing but lie about it.

      2. Ah, so you’re an avowed bulverist.

        And btw, I’d rather have a ‘Mafia don’ as the attorney general than a fanatical authoritarian. You seem to forget that there are worse things than corruption. True believers are almost always worse than self-interested robber-barons.

        So yes, being wrong on ‘some issue (pretty much every issue, and the more important the issue is to individual rights, the more wrong he is)’ is a way bigger deal than Clinton taking bribes. Anyone who prefers a sincere fanatic over a bribe-taking robber baron just isn’t sufficiently familiar with European history.

        1. Once you have a mafia don as the attorney general, the attorney general itself becomes a meaningless position.

          I certainly wouldn’t sell the attorney general position to a mafia don just because he agreed with me on the drug war or some other issue. You’re just going to have to find someone to vote for who agrees with you on that issue and isn’t a mafia don.

          Luckily we have someone like that in Gary Johnson.

          Meanwhile, if anybody thinks I’m going support a mafia don like Hillary Clinton just because she’s better than Trump on some issue, . . .

          That’s ridiculous. She’s the Manchurian candidate minus the brainwashing. Doesn’t that make her even worse than the Manchurian candidate? You don’t have to brainwash her. She’s just doing it for the cash.

    3. THIS. Very eloquent post. KS is desperate for a rational to justify Trump. That’s his reason for banging on about foreign governments.

      The only you make is that the GOP is not going to be a force after they get Trumped. Politically unvaible

  42. George Will leaving the Republican Party? Oh boo hoo. It’s for the best. He is not intellectually nimble and does not deal well with change. He is stuck in his sclerotic1970s patrician Republicanism which has won us exactly zero elections. Had he been Supreme Allied Commander in the ETO during WWII, I’m certain our forces would have been making futile frontal assaults against fixed machine gun fortifications a la WWI. Now along comes Trump, an imperfect candidate to be sure. But he is bold, dynamic and iconoclastic. He is winning converts among the so-called Reagan Democrats and even with the youth vote. Like it or not, right or wrong, Trump is our candidate and needs our support. Yet Will would rather lose with Hillary than win with Trump. If he wants to pick up his toys and go home, I’d bid him watch the door doesn’t hit him upon his exit.

    1. — “1970s patrician Republicanism which has won us exactly zero elections”

      Depends on what “1970s patrician Republicanism” means and who “us” refers to, I guess. Or did the Bush family suddenly get stricken from the Social Register and I just missed it?

  43. I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Learn More From This Site..

    ========> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  44. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, 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.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  45. I agree, George, that we need Liberty. But give me the Vegas odds of Hillary ever appointing a judge that believes in that concept?

    1. She’ll go out of her way to find someone that will rule against the Second Amendment.

  46. Well once again the thread has demonstrated that I’m smarter than the vast majority of people here with the exception of people like HazelMeade and Clint Eastwood Chipper and a very, very few others.

    When Reason comes under serious management, the first thing they need to do is clean this place up. Just ban people who support Trump and who can’t make serious arguments for a start.

    1. What a know nothing twit you are.

      And I love how you go full Proggie, dreaming of banning the people whose arguments you can’t match. Go curl up in your safe space.

  47. if you let the other side have the power long enough sooner or later there will be only one side, the side thats in power. giving up power is a risk i don’t want to take.

  48. how could we miss him if he didn’t go away? so long sucka

  49. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, 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.OI3..

    ====== http://www.BuzzWage6.com

  50. RE: George Will Leaves the Republican Party over Trump: ‘Make sure he loses’
    Iconic conservative commentator officially joins the ranks of independents

    It is indeed a shame Mr. Will refuses to join the LP.
    If only he can get past the ideas of The State is beneficent is some areas (it isn’t), then he would see the light and jon us.
    Sadly, I do not see this man becoming enlightened to the true ideals of freedom.

  51. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  52. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

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

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.