Bill Weld

The Libertarian Party Moment

Taking the naked leap from the margins to the mainstream

|

It was the Libertarian National Convention's moment of truth. After selecting Gary Johnson as the party's presidential nominee on the second ballot, skeptical delegates—riven by a decades-old third-party conflict between purity and pragmatism—were now voting for a second time on whether to hold their noses and accept as their veep Johnson's pick, the internally unloved but externally impressive former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld.

Weld, distrusted and openly booed by many of the assembled for his 1990s support of an assault weapons ban, his 2016 endorsement of Ohio Gov. John Kasich for president, and his 2006 broken promise to run for governor of New York as a Libertarian, had fallen a tantalizing eight votes short of the vice presidential nomination on the first ballot. Now the simmering conflict between the radicals and realists had burst out into the open, clogging the noisy convention floor aisles with sign-waving argument and prompting futile calls from the podium for decorum and quiet.

"Please, just look at this objectively," Johnson begged voters from the stage. "If it is Bill Weld there is an actual opportunity to take the White House.…Please! Please! Please!" Representing the loyal opposition was Johnson's vanquished presidential opponent, the fist-thumping avatar of the "Libertarian Party wing of the Libertarian Party," Darryl W. Perry. "If we nominate two Republican governors as our ticket, and we compromise what we believe to take a federal handout," he warned, referring to the possibility of the L.P. receiving money from the federal presidential election campaign fund should Johnson draw 5 percent of the vote in November, "THIS. PARTY. WILL. DIE!!!"

Since it was taking a while for the ballots to be counted, and since the convention still had other business to conduct before delegates could fly home, organizers decided to allow the four candidates running for the less sexy post of national committee chair to present their cases for 10 minutes apiece while Weld's fate was being decided.

That's how we ended up with the striptease heard 'round the world.

As the C-SPAN cameras rolled and an unprecedented throng of journalists waited tensely for the Weld denouement (the convention had issued more than 250 press credentials, up more than tenfold over 2012, according to party officials) a chubby young man with a wild red beard took the stage, turned on some music, and told delegates it was time to loosen up and put their hands together. I took that as my cue to go catch the last Sunday flight to New York, thus missing the most viral episode of the Libertarian Party's biggest-ever moment in the spotlight.

As I walked out of the hotel on my way to the airport, I passed two professional-looking young organizers near the exit, their faces beginning to curl with rage and incomprehension. "Who the fuck," one of them yelled, breaking into a jog toward the convention hall, "let a naked guy on stage?!"

The headlines wrote themselves. "The Libertarian Party Barely Takes Itself Seriously. Why Should We?" asked The Huffington Post's Eliot Nelson. From the right, The Blaze's Matthew Holloway seconded the notion: "An Open Letter to the Libertarian Party: I Really Tried to Take You Seriously, For About a Week." The freakshow atmosphere was exacerbated by the fact that the gathering took place right next door to MegaCon, a huge annual gathering of people dressed as characters from Harry Potter and other fan faves, who were constantly walking back and forth among the L.P. delegates. Instagram is filled with replica Hagrids hugging third-place presidential finisher John McAfee, and Johnson talking earnestly with the actor who played Draco Malfoy.

But the those freaks blew it narrative contains a fatal analytical flaw: The radicals and free spirits lost. Ten minutes after James Weeks II's man boobs and freedom jockstrap beamed into America's living rooms, the delegates nominated Weld. The 45-year-old party of anarchists and signature gatherers, Bitcoiners and sex workers, managed to select what The Washington Post described as "the most politically experienced minor party presidential ticket in recent history."

There are moments when marginalized movements stumble blinkingly out into the sunlight of the mainstream. Sudden breakthroughs of national acceptance, or at least tolerance, for once-outré ideas can be disorienting to activists who nurtured the lonely flame in the long darkness. Accustomed to brandishing their marginalization, their otherness, like a defiant and colorful shield against a hostile world—think gay pride parades in 1970s San Francisco—these frontline revolutionaries sometimes feel conflicted about the very success they've longed for. It's like the marijuana activists who felt upstaged when California dispensary owner Richard Lee jumped the gun on fully legal recreational marijuana with Proposition 19. Hey, who's this newcomer? Why is he discounting our decades of experience?

I heard many similar sentiments at the L.P. convention, and not only from the radicals. John McAfee, the antivirus software mogul who impressed many delegates with his most-interesting-man-in-the-world charisma, 10-foot-tall butterfly gals, and insanely compelling campaign art-videos (put together by his vice presidential pick, libertarian movement glamour photographer Judd Weiss), nonetheless ruffled feathers by only embracing the Libertarian Party after announcing his presidential ambitions. Weld may have described himself as a libertarian for much of his long public life, but he only joined the party two weeks before the convention.

Aside from institutional history, many activists want to be reassured that the values they've fought so long to maintain—adherence to the non-aggression principle and to the notion that taxation is theft—will survive being represented by leaders who have more experience governing than fighting for ideas.

All of these concerns are normal and even commendable. If anything, by barely losing the fight over Weld, radicals have issued a bracing challenge to the victorious pragmatists: If this is well and truly the Libertarian Party's moment, you damn well better show some results.

There is ample reason for optimism on that front. Not only do Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have higher unfavorable ratings than any major-party presidential nominees in modern history, they each represent the most statist wings of their parties. Trump is an authoritarian, collectivist bully who wants to preserve the welfare system, boost military spending, and create an unprecedented police state to enforce his protectionist trade and immigration policies. Hillary Clinton is the poster child for nanny-state liberalism, is bought and paid for by teachers unions, and might be the single most hawkish Democrat in national politics.

The two candidates are not only repellant personally, but they also run counter to the growing small-l libertarianism in American life. For almost two decades, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think government does too much or too little, and whether it should be used as a tool to promote certain values. Based on the answers, the polling agency sorts people into four categories: conservatives, liberals, populists, and libertarians. Earlier this year, for the first time since Gallup has been asking those questions, the libertarians came out on top, with 27 percent (one point ahead of conservatives). That's up from 18 percent in 2000.

The pool of potential voters who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal"—the explicit sales pitch of Johnson and Weld—is even deeper: up to half of American adults, depending on how you frame the question. Those voters currently have no political home. It's no wonder that Johnson has hit double digits in several national polls.

With the worst big-party nominees since at least 1968, many traditional Democratic and Republican voters will be faced with a long-overdue challenge to their tribal loyalty. The Johnson-Weld 2016 ticket deserves to be taken seriously as an alternative, naked fat guys or not.

Advertisement

NEXT: Does Classifying Food as 'Healthy' or 'Unhealthy' Miss the Point?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Matt’s desperation for another phony moment ignores the vote count. We can celebrate a victory for Johnson/Weld, but too many wackos still confuse a political party with a lecture on theories, with no clue how to achieve libertarian principles.

    So Cato’s survey results will likely continue, with the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians. Mostly because we’re promoting libertarianism for ourselves instead of a free society for everyone.

    What’s the difference?

    In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

    In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist right next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. All are voluntary communities (for those who choose). The statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

    Now that we need their votes, we’ve been ignoring them for decades as anti-gummint libs beat their chests, compare their dicks and achieve nothing. Forty years and less than 6% of voters even accept the libertarian brand. Have we already pissed away the opportunity we’ve waited for? Opportunities for major change occur only once or twice per century. Perhaps someone will be promoting liberty 50 years from now.

    1. Do you use a random spew generator or is it seriously senile dementia?

      1. Michael Hihn = Tom Friedman?

        1. Nope, along with Shreek and Cytotoxic, they all comprise a real life version of the Peacock Family… I’m pretty sure they already ate the matriarch of the family.

          Yep, imagine that brood tootling around both the USA and Canada in a 1957 Plymouth Fury…

      2. Michael is immune to history. The communists and prohibitionists who saddled us with the prohibition and income tax amendments averaged less than 2% of the vote. But the 8% looter vote in the election that returned Cleveland to the Executive Mansion spurred a push for the income tax, hence the Panic of 1893 as markets collapsed in advance of the coming depression.
        The LP lately has gotten over 2% of the unverifiable vote, misreported as under 1% because secrecy that excludes the voter verifying his or her ballot invites fraud. Michael also confuses anarchism (always violent communism before 1971) with libertarian platform planks. This is an aftereffect of massive soviet infiltration in the 1980s. But I believe he’ll learn these things.

        1. Elections are won by 2% of the vote and 8% of the vote, so it’s actually FINE that voters think you’re fucking crazy!!!

      3. ” It is beside the point to accuse him of hypocrisy or lying (though some part of both are necessarily involved). His problem is much worse than that: he was sincere, he meant what he said in and for that moment. But it ended with that moment. Nothing happens in his mind to an idea he accepts or rejects; there is no processing, no integration, no application to himself, his actions or his concerns.; he is unable to use it or even to retain it. Ideas, i.e., abstractions, have no reality to him; abstractions involve the past and the future, as well as the present; nothing is fully real to him except the present. concepts in his mind, precepts-precepts of people uttering sounds; and precepts end when the stimuli vanish. when he uses words, his mental operations are closer to those of a parrot than of a human being. In the strict sense of the word, HE HAS NOT LEARNED TO SPEAK.”

        1. The hatred of a brainwashed cult is so evident here, precisely as I said. Beating their chests, proclaiming the largest dicks in the room, like 12-year-old boys … as their parents weep softly, some from their graves.

          What ignited such rage? Well, reality and freedom.

          1) I cited a survey … conducted by a top polling professional … commissioned by the Cato Institute … That’s reality.

          2) A free society? “In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist right next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. All are voluntary communities (for those who choose). The statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: ‘I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.'”

          Truth and freedom, the enemies of aggressors for all of humankind. And like all thugs, when they have no response to the facts, they attack the messenger. Count how many. (gloat)

          That was the last survey conducted by a professional pollster. They now conduct their own polls, never ask any embarrassing questions, and manipulate their cult.. See how they act? Exactly as predicted. They don’t even realize what they’ve done. A pack of wild dogs.

          Welcome to Reason libertarians. Most attracted by the bigotry and fascism of Ron Paul.

          1. “Welcome to Reason libertarians. Most attracted by the bigotry and fascism of Ron Paul.”

            Dude, this is the Reason site, not Lew Rockwell. Besides, they don’t even have comments.

            1. Welcome to Reason libertarians.

              Dude, this is the Reason site,

              Ummm, THAT’S WHAT I SAID AND YOU QUOTED ME SAYING IT
              (smirk)

            2. I’ve been reading Ron Paul speeches and columns for 16 years, and have never seen even a hint of bigotry. And he’s the most anti-fascist politician in my lifetime, at least.

              1. I’ve been reading Ron Paul speeches and columns for 16 years, and have never seen even a hint of bigotry. And he’s the most anti-fascist politician in my lifetime, at least.

                Look deeper/ Only a fascist would say “rogue judges” overturned DOMA, as he constantly says SCOTUS has no power to defend fundamental rights, a crazy version of states rights invented by southern racists. He tried to forbid the court from defending rights of homosexuals, among THE most bigoted acts in US history. He says NO founder even wrote about separation, pandering to uneducated goobers.

                He lies about the 10th Amendment, expressly denying the founding principle of delegated powers, says states can have powers that have never been delegated, never saw the 9th Amendment. … all tracing to Orval Faubus, George Wallace and the Klan. On his own words, he would agree with Governor Faubus that Eisenhower had no power to defend equal rights in 1957 Little Rock, which is a disgrace to individual liberty.

                Oh yeah, when he defended DOMA, which he’d have voted for … think about it … he was ATTACKING states rights and DEFENDING an intrusive federal government. A liberty hustler

    2. Since you’ve been a libertarian so long, I blame its failure on you, personally.

      What were you doing all this time? Jacking off, apparently.

      1. Hihn’s jacking off would be less deleterious to libertarianism than what he actually does.

        1. Hihn’s jacking off would be less deleterious to libertarianism than what he actually does.

          See! THEY DO TRAVEL IN PACKS.
          Two of them (so far) deny reality by convincing themselves then it was ME ALONE who influenced 59% of the American electorate.

          I just have to turn them on … they prove my point better than I could. What did I do?
          I cited a poll and defines a free society. THAT is all it took!!!

        2. Hihn’s jacking off would be less deleterious to libertarianism than what he actually does.

          See! THEY DO TRAVEL IN PACKS.
          Two of them (so far) deny reality by convincing themselves then it was ME ALONE who influenced 59% of the American electorate.

          I just have to turn them on … they prove my point better than I could. What did I do?
          I cited a poll and defines a free society. THAT is all it took!!!

      2. Since you’ve been a libertarian so long, I blame its failure on you, personally.

        Political retards are also identified by their addiction to conspiracy theories … just another way to deny reality.

        Having been humiliated by 91% if libertarians, he insists ….. wait for it …
        59% of American voters were ALL influenced by me alone!

        And closed with the mandatory 12-year-old playground taunt

        What were you doing all this time? Jacking off, apparently.

        Is it tribal to deny libertarian tribalism?

        1. Your sarcometer’s completely broken.

          Have

          The clouds

          Stopped

          SCREAMING

          Yet?

          1. Be specific so I can crush you for stupidity.

    3. That is one heck of a straw man you’ve erected over there.

      In a libertarian society, criminal law would be limited to acts of force and fraud against the life, liberty, or property of others.

      Government would be limited to repelling invasion, enforcing criminal law, and providing courts where people can resolve disputes without resorting to violence.

      Society would be free take care of everything else.

      hth

      1. That is one heck of a straw man you’ve erected over there.

        Doesn’t know what strawman means. Repeats memorized NAP soundbites.

        In a libertarian society, criminal law would be limited to acts of force and fraud against the life, liberty, or property of others.

        (Government would be limited to repelling invasion, enforcing criminal law, and providing courts where people can resolve disputes without resorting to violence.

        (laughing) Please explain your revelation that Ayn Rand merely erected strawmen?

      2. Why would anyone use government court to resolve disputes if there were a free market for arbitration services?

        1. Why would anyone use government court to resolve disputes if there were a free market for arbitration services?

          1) Both parties must agree to arbitration (Read most any sales contract)
          2) Where is arbitration not allowed?

    4. Hmmm, do all these trashmouth bullies hate a free society in general, or specific elements?

        1. “Hmmm, do all these trashmouth bullies hate a free society in general, or specific elements?”

          It’s ok, Mike.

          Refuses to answer ridicule. Changes to an irrelevant subject as PROVEN here:

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6251220

          I cited a Cato survey and described a free society. (gasp)
          But truth and freedom have been the enemies of all thugs and aggressors.for all of humankind.

      1. Hihn, I’m going to say this once. When you come here and do your little Rumpelstiltskin dance of rage all over everyone, missing no opportunity to point out how stupid everyone here is except you, how incorrect everyone is except you, do you believe this is an effective means of communicating your ideas to the group in a way that makes them inclined to accept them?

        If it makes you feel better, I am completely ready to concede that everyone here could put some extra effort into attempting to disagree without convincing themselves people only disagree because they are inherently stupid and/or evil. Including me.

        1. Many libertarians are not actually interested in persuading others to come around to their point of view. They are more interested in feeling superior and in validating their apparent superiority by pointing out how dumb other people are because they can’t grasp basic tenets of economic reasoning. Some of this comes from frustration at failed attempts to convert, but most of it is an ego defense mechanism. And I am talking here as much about myself as about other libertarians.

          1. More and more my attempts to convert people aren’t on economic issues, but on things like the war on drugs or police brutality.

            1. Why convert anyone at all???

          2. Well stated, Chipper,
            When I won my first election (and tax revolt), the first debate was defending myself as a well-known libertarian.

            How can a libertarian support school choice and run for a public school board? From memory (I had prepared for this), “Yes, I do believe school choice is inevitable, but not while your kids and mine are still in school. How can we best support our kids NOW

            That brought both laughter and applause … and two more anti-libertarian attacks! Thanks for shifting this toward persuasion. I ‘s run sales training for a large corporation. In every classroom was a phrase from the 1930s.

            You’re not there to debate your prospect. You’re there to agree with your prospect, and to show how your product or services will best deliver what he or she already wants.

            Most people want what liberty delivers. It’s our job to find out what they want, then show how to achieve it. Or say nothing.

            Another classroom sign, “We used to believe that good salesmen are good talkers. Now we know the best salesmen are good listeners.”

            If someone wants to have influence in their community or workplace, set Hayek aside for a while and get a book on salesmanship, or find a course at a community college. Then 53% of the electorate will no longer reject the libertarian label. But WTF do we need labels for anyhow?

            1. “Most people want what liberty delivers.”

              But do they want liberty? The people want something for nothing. The people want freedom for themselves but not for others, and for the government to bail them out. The people want what liberty delivers but they want it for free. Nothing’s free.

              1. But do they want liberty?

                They want what liberty delivers.

                The people want something for nothing.

                A few do. The rest see nobody articulating an alternative … so why believe liberty even exists?

                The people want freedom for themselves but not for others, and for the government to bail them out.

                Polls say the exact opposite.

                The people want what liberty delivers but they want it for free. Nothing’s free.

                That’s how ant-gummint libs excuse their own never-ending failure,
                Pro-liberty libs know better. They are 59% of the population, 40,000-50,000 in elected local office, but they aren’t pure enough for the goobers.

                They’ve been saying “fuck you” for decades, to all our most potential voters … then blaming everyone else for their own failures. They don’t care. On this very page, many sneer at the very notion of seeking and providing solutions. They don’t need votes, don’t need elections. Have no desire in advancing liberty … only in destroying government. as if 1% of the population could achieve anything at all.

                If salespeople sneered at persuasion, would they succeed or fail? This is NOT rocket science.

                1. “They are 59% of the population, 40,000-50,000 in elected local office, but they aren’t pure enough for the goobers.”

                  59%? That’s not my experience. I suppose that depends on exactly what constitutes pure enough to be considered libertarian. That’s kinda like redefining one’s way to success.

                  “On this very page, many sneer at the very notion of seeking and providing solutions….”

                  But the problem is way deeper. Many, if not most, libertarians can’t articulate free market or libertarian solutions or what would actually happen in a free market or libertarian society. I agree that many libertarians are impractical and as unrealistic as all the people who want something for nothing. Many self-righteously (and impotently) demand to have it NOW, eschewing any interim measures that might bring progress in a libertarian direction.

                2. “…If salespeople sneered at persuasion, would they succeed or fail? This is NOT rocket science.”

                  It’s deeper than that. Libertarians want something for nothing like most everyone else. They want a free revolution without having to go out and persuade people whether to the radical or moderate position. If there were, say, radical libertarians going around like Jehovah’s Witnesses handing out radical libertarian tracts door-to-door, the movement would be more advanced today. It’s that the movement is somewhat solopsistic – not dealing with the outside world and not doing the necessary work of real revolution. If the radicals actually propagandized, eventually the moderate position would appear reasonable to the general public, as hot water warms cold.

        2. So dogshit still smells like dogshit?

        3. Hamster of Doom
          Hihn, I’m going to say this once.

          Says the raging hamster.

          When you come here and do your little Rumpelstiltskin dance of rage

          If the reader has lost track, all I did was cite a survey and define a free society. See for yourself how retard hamsters can be!!

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6251220

          They’re ALL psycho liars! (boldface in defense of aggression. Victim chooses how to defend)

          missing no opportunity to point out how stupid everyone here is except you,

          Pay attention dumbfuck.
          1) I simply cited the results of a Cato survey and defined why a free society is the opposite of a libertarian society.
          2) EVERY later comment was in defense of aggression, so hamsters don’t know what aggression is.
          3) And for any other retards who can’t count. I was defending 59% of the American electorate.
          (snicker)

          If it makes you feel better, I am completely ready to concede that everyone here could put some extra effort into attempting to disagree without convincing themselves people only disagree because they are inherently stupid and/or evil. Including me.

          That would be believable if you’d deleted your blatant lie about what I said, and that I was merely defending myself? (sigh)

      2. Whereas you love everything equally.

        1. Whereas you love the non sequitur

    5. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Friday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $100 per hour. I work through this website. Go Here…. http://www.trends88.com

    6. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

      Evelyn Beatrice Hall aka S. G. Tallentyre. It was a description of Voltaire’s views, but not a quote.

      If we can split one or the other established party, and libertarianism is absorbed into the D or R brand, but the ideas become dominant, that’s a win. See: the early 20th century Progressives, the Populists, and the Socialists of Norman Thomas.

      1. libertarianism is absorbed into the D or R brand

        By your own example, there would be two libertarian parties. Where I know of libs in the state legislature.
        1) Two were elected as Republicans, one as a Democrat, in different states.
        2) All three started a Libertarian Caucus, cross-partisan.

        The one I knew (WA) had served on a school board as an LP member, was elected to the legislature as a Republican, rose to Chair the House Budget Committee, the 3rd most powerful politician in the state, then retired and rejoined the Party. I published him often in the party newsletter. My favorite was that he discovered WHY many oppose legalization to “protect the children.” By LISTENING, they didn’t want their kids SEEING drug usage. So his position was that only PUBLIC usage should be illegal. Pot might be a misdemeanor; heroin a felony, but only in public. Quite daring in 1998 or 99.

        I heard him say that at a community town hall, with people nodding thoughtfully. But when he said it at party meeting, two members shouted him down for “compromising with statists.” That’s when I realized how a mere handful of belligerent blowhards could bring down the entire movement. Years later, I saw proof that they had.

        We could probably end the drug war in every state now, for private usage. What you do in your own bedroom is nobody’s business (except the fascists). So is what you do in your own living room (except for the fascists).

      2. – Evelyn Beatrice Hall aka S. G. Tallentyre. It was a description of Voltaire’s views, but not a quote

        Nobody said it was, but great nit-pick!
        (It fits well for the statue comparison)

      3. – Evelyn Beatrice Hall aka S. G. Tallentyre. It was a description of Voltaire’s views, but not a quote.

        A statue of her would kinda ruin the analogy. 🙂

    7. An LP that triangulated between D and R parties might have a chance to win, but it wouldn’t really be libertarian, and we’d just have to start a new party that promoted liberty. I have no problem with the LP handing its ballot line to centrist Republicans this time around — Trump and Clinton are both bad enough that it just might work, and America deserves a third option.

      1. An LP that triangulated between D and R parties might have a chance to win, but it wouldn’t really be libertarian

        Appeal to fiscal conservatives among the Rs and social liberals in the Ds., That’s been the definition of libertarians since 1969, and is a majority of voters (per Cato survey).

    8. “…Cato’s survey results will likely continue, with the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians…”

      I haven’t been able to find a reference to that. Reference please.

      Libertarians are ever hopeful. Back a few decades ago at a Libertarian Party of Cal. convention, I heard a speech by Nathaniel Brandon regarding risk-averseness and how risk averse people resist adapting in the market and seek protection from the government, or something to that effect. I asked him how to deal with or persuade to libertarianism risk averse people, and he didn’t seem to have an answer except that every activist will have to find his or her way.

      I do think that is what the problem is – risk averse people vote against freedom and the vast majority of people are risk averse and getting even more risk averse. People will vote to their level of self-confidence and self-respect, which is not high enough in the general population to sustain libertarianism. Sad but true.

      Freedom has always advanced at the frontiers – far from existing authority with the frontier serving as filter to filter out risk averse people. The unfortunate flaw with freedom is it enables the risk takers to create a society in which there is little risk to scare away the risk averse. The risk averse then move in and overpopulate. They then demand, vote for, or simply accept tyranny.

      Sad but true. Man’s first truly libertarian society will not be on Earth

      1. “…Cato’s survey results will likely continue, with the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians…”

        I haven’t been able to find a reference to that. Reference please.

        Sorry, I usually mention that it was conducted by a top pollster. Zogby which would have helped with Google.

        In a Brand Preference structure, we look to see if the brand name enhances or detracts from the product or service. Ours was found to be “toxic.” They defined libertarian as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, 59% of the voters. Among THOSE they measured other descriptions, Only 9% of them would accept “libertarian.”

        http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7

        We’ve ignored our own majority for decades. Libertopia is a land for libertarians only. In a free society, we’d obviously be only one of many voluntary tribes.

        I asked him how to deal with or persuade to libertarianism risk averse people, and he didn’t seem to have an answer except that every activist will have to find his or her way.

        I attended his original weekly lectures, the Nathaniel Brandon Institute. He was a genius at motivation, but you asked about marketing (persuasion), which so many libertarians sneer at.

        See Part Two

        1. Part 2

          risk averse people vote against freedom and the vast majority of people are risk averse and getting even more risk averse. People will vote to their level of self-confidence and self-respect ….

          Blame libertarianism (not libertarians) who know nothing about markets, don’t care to know … so don’t care that markets are PROVEN to provide LESS risk!

          Consider Medicaid. Provider payments are so low that Medicaid eligibles have the HIGHEST rate of uninsured, thus most likely to DIE uninsured! Proof.

          Proof

          Before FDR, uninsured were treated at Charity Hospitals, paid from the collection plate. I’m an atheist but I KNOW no real Christian would allow anyone to suffer. As my doctor said, “It would be a mortal sin.” Bingo.

          Progressive sneered that health care was not a “guaranteed right.” True, but their way failed, but anti-gummint libs don’t care.

          Too long for here, but government haters have always crippled the movement. Liberty lovers fight to expand liberty. The others seek destruction, of government … even SNEER at any notion of how to replace it .

          It’s obvious where YOU stand, and thoughtfully. We need thousands more like you. It’s the same process as attracting voters. Persuasion.

          People join the party from EITHER left or right, which remain their core passion. They accept the other part, even grudgingly, as the price of a free society.

    9. I can’t tell the difference between your libertarian vs. free society. So long as people can freely leave the Marxist commune how’s that not libertarian?

      1. I can’t tell the difference between your libertarian vs. free society. So long as people can freely leave the Marxist commune how’s that not libertarian?

        WHY would they leave? I try not to repeat this too often. It’s the very first comment here.

        In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

        In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist right next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. All are voluntary communities (for those who choose). The statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

        We defend libertarianism for ourselves instead of a free society for everyone. It’s total arrogance that a free society would be all or mostly libertarians (the ideology) rather than the libertarian values and ethos.

        In that free society, libertarians would be only one of many tribes. Isn’t that obvious?

        When a professional survey, commissioned by Cato, finds the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians … the votes we need now … the chickens are coming home to roost.

        On this page, how many are pissing and moaning that we aren;t extreme enough??!!. (OMG) They’ve been shouting down our best candidates for decades.

  2. Yeah, Matt! What are you going to trust? A poll result from this year, or one from ten years ago?!

    1. Yeah, Matt! What are you going to trust? A poll result from this year , or one from ten years ago?!

      Umm, the one that asks the right questions — instead of inventing libertarian where the pollster never did? Goobers are So eager to be manipulated!

      For example, why does this one (unwittingly) insist the numbers are even worse today??!!??
      Does it even know what a Brand Preference survey is, and why they are so critical?
      Suffering such severe denial, is it also a Birther?

      1. Yeah, Matt! Learn to trust results that ask the ‘right’ questions! Not the wrong ones, DUH!

        1. Yeah, Matt! Learn to trust results that ask the ‘right’ questions! Not the wrong ones, DUH!

          Thug just ridiculed his own comment!!! Called out as a liar, also fails to provide the survey he lied about,

          What to expect from a thug who celebrates feeding people into woodchippers. (vomit)

    2. Yeah, Matt! What are you going to trust? A poll result from this year , or one from ten years ago?!

      Umm, the one that asks the right questions — instead of inventing libertarian where the pollster never did? Goobers are So eager to be manipulated!

      For example, why does this one (unwittingly) insist the numbers are even worse today??!!??
      Does it even know what a Brand Preference survey is, and why they are so critical?
      Suffering such severe denial, is it also a Birther?

      1. Just another negative rant from our local crybully.
        Please go on Hihn, demonstrate how a true Libertarian destroys his own brand. =D

        1. Looks like Hihn didn’t sleep well. So he’s back at his bedroom computer, in the same dingy t-shirt and boxers he’s had on since Friday, ranting against his personal windmill giants.

          1. Warm milk, a prune juice box, and a woobie may help with that…

            1. You know what other troll used the term “goobers”?

              1. You know what other troll used the term “goobers”?

                Other?

                That’s a terrible thing to say about an Old Man with Candy, HM.

                1. The correct answer was PB.

                  Authorship detection is an incredibly easy task and one of these days I might put on my corpus linguistics hat to do so.

                  1. The correct answer was PB.

                    Ah yes, Shreek, AKA Marcotte’s Mouldy Douchnozzle… I didn’t realise you were being serious, HM. Apologies.

                    He *is* fond of the term, “Peanuts,” and is a Sweet Georgia Peach, complete with the Mint Julip and singular, ramifying, hereditary line.

                  2. Authorship detection is an incredibly easy task and one of these days I might put on my corpus linguistics hat to do so.

                    Fascinating. I might suggest, HM, if you were to perform an in-depth analysis, I would start with comparing Hihn-spiracy with the rantings of known lunatic, and erstwhile commenter here, LoneWacko.

                    The parallels, they are there, methinks.

                    1. Let’s count the bullies ….

                      The hatred of a brainwashed cult is so evident here, as I peedicted. Beating their chests, proclaiming the largest dicks in the room, like 12-year-old boys … as their parents weep softly, some from their graves. (Boldface in defense of multiple aggressions)

                      What ignited such rage? Well, reality and freedom.

                      1) I cited a survey … conducted by a top polling professional … commissioned by the Cato Institute … That’s reality.

                      2) I described a free society. “In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist right next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. All are voluntary communities (for those who choose). The statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: ‘I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.'”

                      Truth and freedom, the enemies of aggressors for all of humankind. And like all thugs, when they have no response to the facts, they attack the messenger. Count how many. (gloat)

                      That was the last survey conducted by a professional pollster. The libertarian establishment now conducts their own polls, never ask any embarrassing questions, and manipulate their cult.. See how they act here? Exactly as predicted. They don’t even realize what they’ve done. A pack of wild dogs. I count 27 on this page.

                      Welcome to Reason’s commentariat — why every other political website monitors comments.

          2. The hatred of a brainwashed cult is so evident here, precisely as I said. Beating their chests, proclaiming the largest dicks in the room, talklig like 12-year-old boys … as their parents weep softly, some from their graves.

            What ignited such rage? Well, reality and freedom.

            1) I cited a survey … conducted by a top polling professional … commissioned by the Cato Institute … That’s reality.

            2) A free society? “In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist right next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. All are voluntary communities (for those who choose). The statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: ‘I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.'”

            https://reason.com/archives/201…..ent_625122

            Truth and freedom, the enemies of aggressors for all of humankind. And like all thugs, when they have no response to the facts, they attack the messenger. Count how many. (gloat)

            That was the last survey conducted by a professional pollster. They now conduct their own polls, never ask any embarrassing questions, and manipulate their cult.. See how they act? Exactly as predicted. In denial like Birthers. A pack of wild dogs. (Belligerant blowhards are a small but noisy minority of the commentariat)

        2. Those are false libertarians and I merely quoted a Cato survey conducted by a top pollster, Zogby.
          Which part confuses you? And why the aggression from you again?

        3. Shit Pyrate
          Just another negative rant from our local crybully

          You’ve committed aggression again, and I’m still laughing at you if you think I was crying ……

          demonstrate how a true Libertarian destroys his own brand

          I’ve never done that, but I understand why your thuggishness REQUIRES you to lie about the Cato survey … and stalk me for months because I proved you wrong, which is as easy as this …

          Correcting your bullshit (again), they commissioned a top pollster to conduct what we call a Brand Preference survey. First they asked how many voters would describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which they defined as libertarian — they, not me, Sluggo.

          That was 59%. 20% pf them rejected the same description with “also known as libertarian.”
          And a staggering 91% rejected the libertarian brand. In marketing terms, the brand is “toxic” – detracts from the product or service.

          The Cato survey is here. for those who may doubt anyone could be so shameful as liar as you … stalking me for months.

          That’s a lengthy report on several surveys. So scroll down about 2/3 for a boldface subhead “How libertarians see themselves.”

          For any other retards in the room, this too was ridicule not crying, (smirk)

        4. Shit Pyrate
          Just another negative rant from our local crybully.

          Thug launches aggression. Fools his fellow, umm, fools. Blames his victim.

  3. As a Libertarian purist, I have to stand on principle and reject these LINO’s seizing the LP mantle and instead vote for Trump. That’ll show ’em. When Trump wins the Presidency by one vote and all the world’s media shows up at my doorstep wanting to know why I chose Trump to lead this great country instead of Johnson, I’ll lay the blame squarely at the feet of you guys. I hope you’re happy, you bastards.

    1. But are you as stylish a drunk as John Barrymore?

    2. As a Libertarian purist ,,, stand on principle… and vote for Trump.

      I did say they are wackos, eh?

      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6251220

      I have an equally crazy Christian friend who says she worships Satan, “on principle.”
      And a Jewish friend who studies the Quran on principle.

      1. Sarcasm, how does it work?

        1. Sarcasm, how does it work?

          How’d ya miss mine, Sluggo?
          READY FIRE AIM.

  4. This libertarian moment feels more like a bowel movement.

    1. Perhaps you may find some of Hihn’s brown sugar coated prunes useful, no? I seem to recall something about a, “…spoon full o’ sugar..”

      1. That fucking Hihn. Cited a Cato survey and contrasted a free society with a libertarian society. HOW DARE HE.

        Truth and freedom … enraging oppressors and bullies for all of human history.

  5. There is no libertarian moment. There cannot be one, because that’s not how tribalism works.

    Look at what has happened in the last several months. We have gay marriage by judicial fiat – something libertarians have been supportive of for decades, and that Obama and Clinton specifically opposed. Yet Obama grabbed the credit, and just like Bill Clinton’s balanced budget, he’ll manage to abscond with the credit in posterity.

    And then we have #BLM. Late to the party that has long been manned by libertarians fighting for criminal justice reform and ending the “rise of the warrior cop”, the #BLM folk have managed to take the whole thing sideways. Now it is 100% about racism, with barely any chance of really addressing the training, accountability and legal reforms necessary. But reliably pushing all of that potential libertarian support over to team Hillary, who has been reliably pro-state and pro-police for 20 years.

    There can never be a libertarian moment, because libertarians don’t exist. Only donkeys and elephants. And everyone who is interested in politics just checks their team identifiers to see who they support. (for very large values of everyone)

    1. I did manage to convince a few disaffected Bernie Bro’s to vote for Johnson/Weld. I do this because I think it’s funny,and if someone else is going to make me eat a turd sandwich I am going to convince them to pick the one that has the least amount of turd in it.

      “Johnson/Weld Turd Sandwich Now with less turd !!!”

      =D

    2. Well, then Libertarians need to pick an animal.

      And a theme song:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K50UstKfJM

      1. Nice Rufus. I got a good chuckle from that. =D

      2. I think the LP’s gonna end up with the porcupine, thanks to some random informal crowdsourcing efforts (translation: people putting stuff up on their own).

    3. The reason Libertarians/libertarians don’t get credit is because even when things go their way, it’s incidental, not causal.

      That is to say… sure, Libertarians have been quietly advocating for gay marriage for a long time. But in the end, it wasn’t their legal or social arguments that swayed people, legislatures, or the judiciary. And anytime you see a libertarian/Libertarian “victory”, that’s what you find.

    4. We have gay marriage by judicial fiat – something libertarians have been supportive of for decades

      Except for Ron Paul’s cult, no libertarian would call it a judicial fiat.

      There can never be a libertarian moment, because libertarians don’t exist

      The ones you babble about never did. But the universe does not disappear if you refuse to open your eyes.

  6. But the those freaks blew it narrative contains a fatal analytical flaw: The radicals and free spirits lost.

    What party isn’t judged by its opposition based on the worst elements of its membership? The problem with the Libertarian Party is that everyone is its opposition, and the only way to change that is to rewrite the somewhat false narratives being pushed. But the visual of some asshole who had lost being still allowed to strip down and hijack the proceedings is something even the Trump and Hillary circuses would be able to avoid. Anyone who didn’t know what the party stands for after that now has the impression of something a step down from the dueling clown cars of the Democrat and Republican parties: an LP freakshow.

    1. I guess they all need a Fist of ?nema.

    2. The LP has been winning consistently by repealing idiotic laws since 1971. That is what we are about. The looter parties are about getting their machine politicians into government jobs whatever the cost. The cost is that they have to survive our spoiler votes. This is an ancient strategy, as effective as pawn power in a chess game, and as inexorable as a mile-wide steamroller. If we get a windfall vote hike, say, 8%, that will enable us to repeal the personal income tax and free individuals from thought police harrassment.
      May the best platform win… in the long run.

      1. The LP has been winning consistently by repealing idiotic laws since 1971

        GREAT satire!

        1. This fight is EPIC!

          1. Huh? I acknowledged how awesomely funny it is.
            I would have added his joke about how an 8% majority is enough to repeal the personal income tax, if it hadn’t excluded the corporate one (Not that either makes a lick of sense)

    3. Huffington Post and The Blaze were just looking for reasons to dismiss the LP as wacko, even though it is their preferred D and R parties that are running the wacko candidates this time around.

      1. Huffington Post and The Blaze were just looking for reasons to dismiss the LP as wacko,

        the Libertarian Party says otherwise,

        Here’s Gary’s HuffPost interview

        even though it is their preferred D and R parties that are running the wacko candidates this time around.

        Huffpost supporting Republicans? EVERY mention of Trump has this appended to the bottom. “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims ? 1.6 billion members of an entire religion ? from entering the U.S.”

        Gary always gets supportive coverage on the left, plus opinions on both sides, for the same reason Rand Paul did. Social issues and non-intervention

  7. If you are forced to eat a turd sandwich pick the one that has the least amount of turd in it.

    If we were allowed tag lines here I think this one would be mine. =)

  8. Even if Johnson/Weld don’t reach the 15% thresh hold all is not lost I reckon. Perhaps this is all part of the maturation process for libertarians before it potentially seizes actual power. Maybe a Hillary or Trump presidency is the final nail in the coffin for people to realize maybe it really is time for something else. After all, if they’re bad as they seem, it can be a messy four years; worse than Bush and Obama. Which, from what I’ve observed, is not impossible.

    As for Johnson seemingly not being libertarian enough. I say get your first libertarian elected. You need to get your foot in the door. Even if he’s not ‘100% pure’ anything above 1% is better than the status quo. Once people see libertarians in action maybe it will attract more voters moving forward. I hope Johnson is just playing nice but once in control, he does what he has to do – even if it means being cut throat.

    1. What’s so disappointing to me about Johnson/Weld isn’t their lack of purity-a bit libertarian is better than not libertarian at all. What gets me is they are both inarticulate and poor communicators who do a terrible job of conveying their message. They’re both bad salesmen but maybe that’s just because they don’t really believe in the product. I’ll vote for them because they’re the least bad alternative.

      1. I was there until about two weeks ago. I will always vote along ideological lines but so far I haven’t seen much out of them to identify with. I don’t think the “least bad alternative” is going to get me inspired enough to bother taking the time out of my day to wait in line to vote.

        1. Libertarians are gonna have to learn to be deliberate and calculating in their message. They will have to construct it like the progressives of the 20th century did.

          1. Umm, they were quite sincere. And did the exact opposite,

      2. I’ll vote for the LP platform despite those lame impostors in the top slot. There are really good LP candidates elsewhere, in other races for seats that write and repeal laws. All Gary and Whutzisname need do is smile, wave and brag about our platform. Gary failed utterly to brag about our platform last time he had the chance. Let’s keep reminding…

      3. It’s not even just being incompetent campaigners. That’s been true for most libertarian candidates, including Johnson four years ago.

        They completely sold out libertarianism on issues that are in play in the current political environment (praising Hillary’s evasion of FOIA, forced service of gay weddings, etc)

      4. You don’t know the message. (lol)

    2. Johnson had zero chance of getting elected from day one, though he did have a chance to make some noise in the campaign due to the terrible major party nominees. His strange embrace of Hillary, coupled with his overall suckiness as a spokesman or campaigner, has ended that chance.

      Voting for the lesser evil only makes sense if it prevents the greater evil from winning. A protest vote for the lesser evil is just stupid.

      1. ^Very much this. The tragedy I see in all this is, while I never in my most fevered delusions imagined a LP win, I thought to myself…..well a 10-15% voting block its still a 10-15% voting block….it will have to get some recognition and may lead to some real momentum to break up the “choose dictator A or dictator B” farce that we have now.

        1. 5% would get federal funds. At least they would finally be going to a good cause.
          10% would cause all the serious pundits to shake in their boots and have to explain it.
          15% would put the LP in the debates.
          35% could save America from Trump-Clinton.

          Don’t give up yet. Johnson is barely libertarian, but he’s a thousand times more libertarian than Trump or Clinton. Weld isn’t even libertarian really, but he’s a hundred times more libertarian than Trump or Clinton.

      2. Observe that this whiner cites no precedent and has not a clue of how spoiler votes force looters to change the laws. It has nothing to do with protest. Winning is that strategy that repeals moronic laws.

        1. Hank, every the craziest dumbfuck on earth!

          Winning is that strategy that repeals moronic laws

          (smirk) First, one must win elections, which your ilk has yet to fathom. A majority of elections. (gasp)

          “I don;’t need to steeenkeeng voters, because they’re all fucking stupid except for my 1.3% of Americans.

          Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
          -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

          Throughout human history, the worst abuses have been committed by those who believe they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.

          1. And yet, 40 years of the LP taking a radical line on the drug war has finally led America to a point where marijuana is fully legal in a few states, medically permitted in many states, and nearing majority support nationwide.

            1. How does that have even a shred of relevance?

              Especially, when 53% of Americans are anti-LP libertarians, with 40,000-50,000 in local elected office. Who would be more influential, 53% of Americans politically involved in their communities or less than 5% who are essentially invisible?

  9. The LP has taken their chance for a monumental libertarian moment……and wiped their ass with it. Rather than using the opportunity of the nomination of two of the least popular presidential nominees in the history of either major party to spread the ideology of libertarianism, a message of plurality that could have grabbed huge swaths of the thinking right and even possibly a significant minority of the left, Johnson and Weld have decided to act as fawning center/left stooges who ‘like weed’ in the hopes that somehow socialist millennials will deem them ‘cool’ enough to vote for now that Bernie seems to be out of the picture. It’s got to be one of the most inane political strategies ever conceived.

    If Johnson would grow a pair and stand up for 2A, vocally and clearly, he would instantly have the unequivocal support of the “nevertrump” crowd. From there he could begin to pick away at Trumps base by continually pointing out his big Gov’t/anti-civil liberties tendencies and win even more. Instead we are hearing all about what a “wonderful public servant” Hillary is.

    Johnson and the LP seems to think their future lies in wooing the left. Since socialism/progressivism is a product of an individuals fundamental inability to come to terms with reality, I doubt their “libertarian moment” will come from that direction. Congrats on the opportunity you’ve ruined GJ.

    1. You’re correct here-they’ve made terrible tactical decisions. And good luck appealing to the big govt left who’ll consider voting Libertarian sometime after hell freezes over.

    2. We had the LNC chairman on the “Hillary cleared of charges” thread a few days ago saying that even if we disagree with Johnson, we should vote for him because TEAM. That put the final nail in the coffin for me and the LP.

      Fuck the LP.

      1. Fuck tha LP and aftertouch said it with authority
        because the Libertarian Party on can’t get an electoral majority
        A political party, is with whoever I’m stepping
        and the motherfucking weapon is kept in
        a stash box, for the so-called law
        Wishing aftertouch was a nigga that they never saw
        A fat naked guy starts flashing behind him
        But they’re scared of a Hit and Rum commenter so they mace him to blind him
        But that shit don’t work, he just laughs
        because it gives em a hint, not to step in his path
        For the LP, he’s saying, “Fuck you punk!”
        Reading his natural rights and shit, it’s all junk
        Pulling out a silly club, so you stand
        with a fake-assed convention floor badge and a party membership card in your hand
        But take off the tie so you can see what’s up
        And they’ll go at it punk, and he’ll fuck you up!
        Make you think he’ll kick your ass
        but drop your act, and aftertouch’s gonna blast
        He’s sneaky as fuck when it comes to crime
        But he’ll smoke ’em now and not next time
        Smoke any motherfucker that sweats him
        or any asshole, that threatens him
        I’m a sniper with a hell of a scope
        Taking out a LP candidate or two, they can’t cope with him
        The motherfucking villain that’s mad
        With potential, to get bad as fuck
        So he’ll turn it around
        Put in his clip, yo, and this is the sound
        [BOOM, BOOM] Yeah, something like that
        but it all depends on the size of the gat
        Taking out the LP, would make his day
        But a nigga like aftertouch don’t give a fuck to say…

        1. Right about now Reason court is in full effect. Judge H.M. presiding.

      2. Fuck the LP.

        You’re right. A protest vote for Trump or Clinton will certainly extend the cause of liberty.

        1. It will if Trump’s elected. See my 2:52 P.

        2. Nixon promised freedom, right? That worked, right?

          1. It’s not about politicians “giving” us something. It’s about starting a movement. It’s about introducing people to the benefits liberty brings them.

            1. By voting for a candidate who praises the most corrupt candidate in history and opposes freedom of association (not on theoretical issues but issues that are in play in current politics) on national TV.

              1. 1. Respectfully, to say Gary opposes freedom of association is borderline mendacious. He opposes one aspect of it (wrongly) through his support of public accommodation law. If you have and can cite an example of him opposing FoA that doesn’t have to do with PA, I’ll gladly eat my words.

                2. To answer your question…Yes.

                In a democratically elected republic, you will NEVER see anything approaching “Libertopia” until the vast majority of Americans accept libertarian ideals. So the goal needs to be to make more libertarians, which means changing the mindset of current Rs and Ds.

                I didn’t, and I’d be willing to guess that you or anyone else ever has, become a principled libertarian overnight. It happens incrementally. One small step at a time. You are not going to convert Rs and Ds by clubbing them over the head with a radical departure from their normal like legalizing heroin, consensual incest and dog fucking or eliminating social security. GayJo isn’t a large departure from their normal, yet he’s vastly more libertarian than any of the current alternatives or than any of our current/past elected officials for that matter (with maybe a couple exceptions). He has the potential to drag statists in the direction of liberty. New heads under the tent.

                You can be a very principled libertarian in your personal life, and still believe, politically speaking, that the most efficient way to expand the libertarian ranks is an incremental approach.

                1. In a truly free society, libertarians would be only one of several tribes. Being a principled libertarian means promoting libertarianism for ourselves instead of liberty for everyone.

                  In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

                  In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist right next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. All are voluntary communities (for those who choose). The statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

                  There’s a severe conflict between libertarian ideology and libertarian principles, which is apparent in the two societies described above. It’s the difference between a political movement and a cult, It’s why, after nearly 50 years, we have not a single policy solution. To anything,

                  And that’s why Cato found 59% of voters are libertarian (principles), but 91%i of them reject libertarianism (the ideology).

                  Even Ayn Rand, with all her extremism, knew we must change the culture first … then the government. Unless we stage an armed revolt. Oh wait, THAT means changing the culture too.

        3. But a protest vote for a guy who praises the most corrupt presidential candidate in history, and argues against basic libertarian principles on national TV would?

          Of course, I was never suggesting voting for T or H.

    3. His problem is that he knows he can’t win…and he’s fine with that, because he doesn’t want to win anyway. His credentials are top notch (from a mainstream point of view), but he’s not interested in running a “real” presidential campaign. If he were, who knows what could happen in a year like this?

      1. His problem is that he knows he can’t win…and he’s fine with that, because he doesn’t want to win anyway

        (laughing)

    4. “Johnson and the LP seems to think their future lies in wooing the left …”

      Rand Paul tried to woo the right, the “conservatives” who were supposed to be for individual liberty, limited government, the US Constitution. They all lined up behind big government authoritarian Trump.

      1. Well, Rand fucked up massively. He properly promoted civil liberties and non-intervention in the Berkeley campus … then pissed it all away by calling for religious tent revivals based on bigotry,

        He did prove that it’s impossible to expand his dad’s freaky, so-called “liberty coalition.”

    5. Johnson and the LP seems to think their future lies in wooing the left. Since socialism/progressivism is a product of an individuals fundamental inability to come to terms with reality

      Speaking of the reality you cannot comprehend:
      1) The definition of libertarian has been “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” since 1969
      2) Socialism/progressivism has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism, which you will learn in junior high, though many understand at the age of 12.
      3) SOCIAL liberalism cannot be equated to socialism/progressivism except by ignorant goobers on the right.

      Congrats on the opportunity you’ve ruined G

      Total derp from someone without the faintest clue of what libertarian even means. (for nearly a half-century!)

      Read the Libertarian Party Platform, to avoid humiliating yourself again.

      http://www.lp.org/platform

      1. Total derp from someone who obviously has nothing better to do than troll every single comment in the thread hours after anyone else stopped reading it to have the last word. None of your counter points make any sense at all in that they address nothing that I stated. I, in know way, was suggesting that libertarianism is not fiscally conservative/socially liberal by definition, I was simply contending that GJ’s strategy has been a swing and a miss in whom he has chosen to try to appeal to. But then again I’m just a paleo-conservative, neo-confederate, Ron Paul cult follower, theist idiot.

        Take your pills. Breath through your nostrils. Sniff less glue.

        1. Bully alert!

          None of your counter points make any sense at all in that they address nothing that I stated

          He retracts that lie immediately:

          I, in know way, was suggesting that libertarianism is not fiscally conservative/socially liberal by definition,

          More than a suggestion, which is why I crushed you, and now you lie and bully.

          Lame excuse:

          I was simply contending that GJ’s strategy has been a swing and a miss in whom he has chosen to try to appeal to

          What it actually said

          Johnson and the LP seems to think their future lies in wooing the left. Since socialism/progressivism is a product of an individuals fundamental inability to come to terms with reality

          Now the bullying:

          . But then again I’m just a paleo-conservative, neo-confederate, Ron Paul cult follower, theist idiot.

          I didn’t say that either, but I’ll take your word for it,

          More aggression:

          Take your pills. Breath through your nostrils. Sniff less glue

          Righwingers are bullies, like all authoritarians.

          hours after anyone else stopped reading it to have the last word.

          He’s here six hours later! (smirk)

          When they lie about their own words, which are clearly visible, THAT is aggression.
          Does ANYONE see ANY substance here? Me neither.
          The defense rests.

    6. Johnson has pretty clearly backed the Second Amendment, coming out vocally against the no-fly/no-buy craziness. You’re not paying attention.

  10. I am the one true libertarian. Kneel before me!

    1. *inserts Crusty’s theme music*

        1. *Sasquatch played no part in the creation of this video. Sorry.

          Wow! Even STEVE SMITH! gets a shout out (of sorts)…

          1. I like my music like I like my women: arrogant, funky, and unquatched.

    2. This euphemism isn’t about masturbation, is it?

    3. I am the one true libertarian. Kneel before me!

      Another trannie, publicly soliciting blow jobs.

  11. “If we … compromise what we believe to take a federal handout,” he warned, referring to the possibility of the L.P. receiving money from the federal presidential election campaign fund should Johnson draw 5 percent of the vote in November, “THIS. PARTY. WILL. DIE!!!”

    Now this is stupid. You play the game by the rules that exist. Does this guy think the LP must never have candidates appear on PBS because libertarians don’t believe in federal funding of broadcasters? The “federal handout” represents a tiny fraction of the taxes that libertarians have paid, taking some of it back is hardly immoral.

    1. That 1971 Nixon anti-libertarian election bribery law was intended to defeat us. That failed; every bad law we oppose and repeal with spoiler votes is a victory. Plan B in the Nixon law is to turn us into whores for pelf. That too is failing because of the internet. We are beating the looters badly where it counts. If we weren’t, there would not be half the looters and birth forcers here wailing about our “helping” Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

      You can’t have it both ways. If we’re insignificant losers, there’s no point to pestering us for votes and support we lack. So why the endless stream of impostors, fakes, saboteurs, false flags, anarchists, mystics and whack jobs trying to change our course? Spoiler votes for a platform change laws–always have, and always will.

      1. Does this guy think the LP must never have candidates appear on PBS ..

        Probably. :Like the goobers who hate Streisand … as a singer, and Jane Fonda … as an actress. Partisan hatred is the main part of their loyalty oath.

    2. Well actually, taking a share of stolen loot is immoral.

      1. Which is why no true libertarian would ever attend a public university or community college.
        And if we simply cannot avoid a government monopoly, then we must commit suicide.
        On principle.

  12. Taking a leap to the margins? That’s the moment? C’mon Matt.

    It’s a moment that was missed and isn’t coming back soon. You’ve waited for this moment for years, and no one grabbed it.

    All it took was Rand Paul leaving the GOP and seeking the LP nomination. It’s about time libertarians realize there isn’t a home in the GOP. It thinks Trumpism is better than Libertarianism. I don’t care if Paul is only libertarianish. “Ish” is a start. He would have given voice to a whole host of libertarian issues that Johnson won’t have the gravitas to do.

    Paul would have been taken seriously by the media (he is a sitting Senator), he probably would have made the debates, and all he had to do was get the election thrown to the House. Imminently doable this year. And he would have galvanized the never Trump movement. He actually could have won. It wouldn’t have been playing at the margins, because he wouldn’t have the negatives earned by both Clinton and Trump.

    Alas, no one thought big. All anyone did was think marginally. If your goal is the margins, you’re gonna stay there. Truly a missed opportunity.

        1. Oh right. I have the temerity to suggest Rand won have to work to do even better. You want it handed to him.

          1. Stroke that narrative. Tell me what I was really thinking all along. Pontificate for us all on your expertise with the inner thoughts of strangers. Stroke!

        2. Oh yeah. Then CNN even changed their own rules to insure…insure…. That Rand made the debate.

          Yeah. The media ignores him.

          http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn…..rand-paul/

          1. Paul would have been taken seriously by the media

            Yeah. The media ignores him.

            Ok, students. Who can tell the class what informal logical fallacy Jack engages in here?

            1. Poor heroic. Needs to call in his posse.

    1. I too was disappointed to see how things worked out with Rand Paul. I have however come around on my thinking about him not running on the LP ticket and his endorsement of Trump. I was nauseous when I read that he would back Trump as the nominee. However he did promise prior to the debates to not run on a 3rd party ticket and to back his parties nominee. I have to hope that these decisions have everything to do with him sticking to his word rather than playing R politics. Even though it leave a pretty bitter taste I can respect the man for doing what he said he would do. That’s my na?ve hope anyway.

      1. But here is the thing. It’s amazing to watch all these Repubs pulling their hair out about Trump, and working hard still to see he first doesn’t get the nomination, and second that if he does, he doesn’t win. It’s not a small thing. But they don’t have a path. It’s not going to happen at the convention, and no one will form a third party.

        Rand has allies in the GOP Congress. Certainly more than Trump does. No one ever hands you the keys, you first have to take the risk, and then work for it. There truly was a path this year. No one who would have a real chance at winning as a third party has taken it.

        1. Very true. He may have missed his moment in history and by proxy so did the LP. Maybe that makes his refusal to step away for the Repubs that much more admirable…..or stupid depending on one’s perspective. Then again, if he did, he might have been disavowed by the left side of the LP as a conservative masquerading as a libertarian and had the movement die on the vine….

          1. Maybe. Who knows. But nothing is ever gained without taking a risk. Yes, there was one for him. Goodbye Senate.

            But nothing wrong with dreaming big. Who knows. Maybe “hello Oval Office.”

            1. I’m just waiting for Bernie Sanders to take your advice and in as an independent.

              You know: so no opportunities are missed at the margins.

              1. Oh, Brian, Brian.

                You see, Bernie can’t win the general election as an independent. And neither can Rand.

                But both could force the election to the House. But alas, Bernie can’t win there either. But Rand could, most certainly over Trump. He just has to work at convincing what are currently his GOP colleagues. A doable task for him, never for Bernie.

                But I know… You’re not to quick on the uptake.

                1. Dude, there hasn’t been a contested election in almost 150 years. You’re engaging in a carefully crafted argument based on a fantasyland in your own head.

                  Neither Bernie nor Rand are running as independents because they want to maintain party loyalty for a try on another day, and not risk being labeled “the one who ruined the 2016 election.”

                  So Bernie will sit down a be a good boy, like everyone else.

                  But, if you insist, we can pretend it’s all about contested election fantasies and go from there, filing it under “shit that will never happen.”

                  Have a great day, Jack!

        2. I’m withholding my judgment of Rand Paul until after the election. Maybe once his Senate seat is secured for six more years, he’ll make a major announcement that he’s switching to the LP. It’s an ever-so-slight chance of that happening, but you can’t blame him for not wanting to make any disturbances until after November 8th.

      2. Ron, Rand and Trump are all Republican birth-forcers absolutely opposed to individual rights for women. Every moaning anonymous troll the GO-Pee plants here convinces several women the LP is another “right-wing” gang of Lebensborn Hitlerjugend recruiters. That cowardly abortion straddle plank where we once had female Veep candidates with pro-choice defense of rights is proof of how desperate the mystics are to tarbrush us with their own coercive superstition.

        1. Trump has no “pro-life” nor “pro-choice” principles. He said what he thought needed to to get the nomination. He’ll say something different if he thinks it will get him elected. Ron is an Ob/Gyn. He was “pro-life” when he ran for Pres in 1988. I suspect Rand is an apple fallen not far from the tree, but he was also making a play for at least some of the GOP gawd squad.

          I don’t, but some people really believe that stuff! I have no wish to purge believers from the LP, nor to keep any from joining the greater freedom movement. Pulling a godwin on those you disagree with on that issue won’t win converts. I’m in the pro-choice (at private expense) camp, myself.

    2. Rand Paul voted for one of the no-fly/no-buy bills. Gary Johnson spoke out against them.

    3. Paul’s campaign would have been every bit as inept, regardless of party affiliation.
      In my life, I never dreamed I’d see anyone stupid enough to seek votes on the Berkeley campus for civil liberties and non-intervention … then pander to extreme social conservatives by calling for tent revivals! Tactics worthy of General Custer.

      At least we learned that his dad’s bizarre cult can never be expanded, so we can move on.

  13. Progs want to know if Johnson is elected, who will pave the roads and arrest people for smoking reefer?

  14. The libertarian moment is like Samsquamptch. It’s a myth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJphX1WtVSY

    1. STEVE SMITH hates you, Rufus.

      STEVE SMITH SAY LIBERTARIAN MOMENT LIKE STEVE: WHEN MOMENT APPEARS, IT’S TOO LATE!

  15. Again, the real way to measure the libertarianesqueness of a society would be things the govt “allows” you to do over the total number of things that are physically possible. The denominator does keep getting bigger, despite the government,s best efforts, and since there is some lag between something being invented and being regulated, which does get bigger as technology accelerates its own development. So maybe there is a tiny bit of something to the libertarian moment idea, but it’s just an artifa ct of this disparity, not peoples attitudes changing.

    1. When you said again, you were not kidding.

    2. People’s attitudes are changing though.

      1. Of course! 59% of Americans are “Nolan Chart libertarians,” (per Cato) politically visible and active in their communities, with 40,0000-50,000 in elected local office. As they move up the ladder ….

  16. Again, the real way to measure the libertarianesqueness of a society would be things the govt “allows” you to do over the total number of things that are physically possible. The denominator does keep getting bigger, despite the government,s best efforts, and since there is some lag between something being invented and being regulated, which does get bigger as technology accelerates its own development. So maybe there is a tiny bit of something to the libertarian moment idea, but it’s just an artifa ct of this disparity, not peoples attitudes changing.

  17. Again, the real way to measure the libertarianesqueness of a society would be things the govt “allows” you to do over the total number of things that are physically possible. The denominator does keep getting bigger, despite the government,s best efforts, and since there is some lag between something being invented and being regulated, which does get bigger as technology accelerates its own development. So maybe there is a tiny bit of something to the libertarian moment idea, but it’s just an artifa ct of this disparity, not peoples attitudes changing.

  18. Again, the real way to measure the libertarianesqueness of a society would be things the govt “allows” you to do over the total number of things that are physically possible. The denominator does keep getting bigger, despite the government,s best efforts, and since there is some lag between something being invented and being regulated, which does get bigger as technology accelerates its own development. So maybe there is a tiny bit of something to the libertarian moment idea, but it’s just an artifa ct of this disparity, not peoples attitudes changing.

  19. Again, the real way to measure the libertarianesqueness of a society would be things the govt “allows” you to do over the total number of things that are physically possible. The denominator does keep getting bigger, despite the government,s best efforts, and since there is some lag between something being invented and being regulated, which does get bigger as technology accelerates its own development. So maybe there is a tiny bit of something to the libertarian moment idea, but it’s just an artifa ct of this disparity, not peoples attitudes changing.

  20. Again, the real way to measure the libertarianesqueness of a society would be things the govt “allows” you to do over the total number of things that are physically possible. The denominator does keep getting bigger, despite the government,s best efforts, and since there is some lag between something being invented and being regulated, which does get bigger as technology accelerates its own development. So maybe there is a tiny bit of something to the libertarian moment idea, but it’s just an artifa ct of this disparity, not peoples attitudes changing.

    1. Maybe should have left out the “again”.

  21. The two candidates are not only repellant personally, but they also run counter to the growing small-l libertarianism in American life.

    I actually had to go back and read it a second time to realize he was referencing Donald and Hillary, and not, you know…. “our guys”

    1. The description fits Johnson/Weld to a “T”

    2. He’d have to be a fucking moron.
      Our guys are in the very midst of “the growing small-l libertarianism” in America,”
      The best sign is all the hatred spewing from cult libertarianism

  22. As a member of the LP (that and a buck will get me a Popsicle at the corner store across the road), I am not particularly happy about the Johnson/Weld ticket but will be holding my nose and voting for them. I’d love to see the LP turn its focus to getting a few people into Congress. Even one or two Senaotrs and/or a handful of Reps would be fabulous, and you could even start to call it a libertarian moment.

    1. Why not just vote LP in all the downballot state races? You don’t have to vote for a presidential candidate

      1. That is exactly why I am taking a precious 7 or 8 minutes out of my life to vote. Voting for the President is silly anyway.

    2. “focus to getting a few people into Congress. ”

      Won’t this be a bit easier to do if said “few people” can tell the voters, “Look, 10% supported our candidates for Prez/VP in 2016. We are no longer marginalized and, as many of you previously believed, unworthy of your vote.”

      1. Summary: “Sure our candidate sucks, has no chance to win, and you disagree with him/her on basic issues, but you have to support the TEAM”

        Sounds familiar.

        Maybe the LP should have nominated a decent candidate, and not the same guy who stunk up the room four years ago?

    3. Holy Crap! Dude where do you live that you can get a Popsicle for a buck?

    4. Yeah, you just need to find a state where the majority of voters don’t want the government to give them anything or do anything to other people for them. Good luck.

      1. Niope. Just show them how they can get everything they legitimate they want without government.
        It’s all bee done. Do YOU know how it was done and WHY it worked better? Chanting “git gummint out of it” will continue failing for another half century,

  23. I basically profit close to $10k-$12k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuable paycheck while doing it…Then this work opportunity is for you

    =============> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  24. The real world is not ones and zeroes. You have to use analog judgement. Johnson/Weld may be too libertarian “light” for my tastes, but they could represent a great opportunity to advance the cause.

    The LP and the greater libertarian movement need both the purists and the pragmatists. The purists remind us what we are fighting for as the pragmatists get a little dirty trying to move the ball forward (yeah, mixed metaphor, sorry )

    1. Johnson/Weld isn’t an opportunity to advance the libertarian cause. But they’re a great opportunity to stop Trump-Clinton.

      1. How does “the libertarian cause” have anything to do with liberty and a free society?

  25. For some reason libertarians seem to focus their energy on things other than federal politics.

    1. What I mean is that someone who really believes in a smaller government is always going to be at a political disadvantage when the debate questions are always framed in terms of what are you going to do to solve this problem?

      In real life, we all know the guy who is always bitching about the boss’s ideas but never has his own. That is the LP.

      Now you and I might know that what the libertarians really want is for the government to stop ducking things up, but what people want to hear is that a better government will do the right thing. They don’t want to hear that government is fundamentally the problem and that they will be better off if they take control of their own lives.

      Mostly because most people are incompetent and don’t want to make their own decisions.

      1. True.

        People who “believe” in the power of government will always be at an advantage in effecting the government.

        I like the analogy of libertarians as political agnostics, and everyone else adheres to some religion. They argue about what religion is best, but the need for religion is never questioned. So when we question religion itself, it does not compute to them. Plus, we don’t want to “go to church” to reform it.

      2. A way to frame the argument : “First, do no harm “.

      3. WSJ assures us the federal government is shrinking in headcount, but state and local asset-forfeiture looters are increasing like Norway rats in a Population Biology textbook problem.

        A LOT of libertarian party members know math. This sets us apart from the looter collectivists and birth forcers.

      4. Ronald Reagan said government was the problem, and he is the most popular president in recent history.

        1. Ronald Reagan said government was the problem, and he is the most popular president in recent history

          Also the most libertarian. He and Goldwater were aggressively defending gays in the 70s, decades before it became fashionable on the left.

          His Grace Commission spending cuts would have saved over $10 trillion by now. But his own party buried them. His New Federalism would have totally transformed government, but his party wanted the states to take all those federal programs but with funding controlled by Congress.

          Today, we have Ron Paul who has proposed … ummm … nothing. Except bullshit for goobers like “repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing,” (Run the entire government on FICA taxes … a quarter-trillion LESS than current spending on Medicare and Social Security alone)

          No comparison.

      5. What I mean is that someone who really believes in a smaller government is always going to be at a political disadvantage when the debate questions are always framed in terms of what are you going to do to solve this problem?

        Thank you for defining,so very clearly, the total wackiness of cult libertarians. You’ve just said you have no idea how to solve a fucking thing without government. “I don’t need no steeenkeeeng policies, Just get gummint the hell out,”

        Fuck elections. Let’s stage an armed coup. All 3% of us!!
        Oh wait, even that requires persuading people. We’re fucked,
        /sarc

  26. You’re missing the big picture & big story: Trump’s election will make it far easier for all insurgents to be taken seriously, even as prez candidates, for the next 50 yrs., & not only in the USA. That includes anti-establishmentarians of all kinds, certainly including radical libertarians. You have to knock the walls down before you can storm the castle, & Trump is that battering ram.

    1. True. But Trump is also reciting the GO-Pee platform at every whistle stop. The nearest thing to a deviation was not arresting pregnant women, but mugging their doctors instead–but even that is a hardy GO-Pee perennial. READ the GO-Pee platform–50 pages of Mein Kampf carpet-biting, then take a look at the LP Platform, available in Spanish and English, Portuguese and… and… any volunteers?

      1. It’s Geo-Pee, dummass.

      2. But this is not about platforms or policies. It’s about the people saying, we don’t need no stinkin’ professional politicians, law review editors, think tankers, etc. Once that point has been made, then you can get down to arguing policy over the coming century.

        1. But we don’t have a single policy to SHOW the political class is bankrupt. And HOW things would be better without then. And a few proposals — like Medicare vouchers — are downright crazy.

          Cato’s Social Security privatization has Michael Tanner saying the transition costs will be steep, but a one-time event; Yeah, but the “event” lasts over 30 years, declining slowly from $350 billion per year.
          Then again, he says it’s it’s nit his job to pay for it. (Remember Jose Jimenez?) That’s for Congress to do. His job is to fleece donors with slogans and soundbites.
          Even the Kochs walked away

          Merely jabbering about the political class winds up with higher negatives than even Hillary, (There may be a message there!)

    2. Trump is not an insurgent outsider. He is the ultimate northeastern elite political/media insider; friend of Bill & Hillary, NY/NJ crony capitalist, rich kid who plays a successful mogul on television, big government-loving authoritarian. People who project their hopes and dreams on this con man are pathetic.

  27. uptil I saw the paycheck four $4289 , I have faith that my mom in-law could actualie bringing in money part-time at there computar. . there sisters neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about thirteen months and by now paid for the mortgage on there condo and bought a brand new Alfa Romeo .????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  28. The “reformers” have been screwing over the LP since 06. I should have thought we heard the last of em after Barr/Root. But nooooOOOooooo.

    I don’t hate Johnson, but he’s such weak sauce at a time when we need a big gun. Rand was the same disappointment. Where was the radical Rand Paul when he was vying for POTUS? What was the point of running as a moderate? BAH!

    Now the LP has Gary as our spokesman and he’s making the rounds on talk shows in his tennies and slouching his way through interviews with a big “Golly Gee” delivery. That’s not going to inspire anyone.

    Who the fuck does he have around him? Why do his staffers let him out of the house dressed like that. And he keeps harping on getting into the debates. Let me tell you something Gary, if by some miracle you do get into the debates (increasingly unlikely as his poll numbers are dropping as America gets to know him) Hillary and Trump will chew you up and spit you out if you bring that Aw Shucks game. You claim you gave up pot months ago so you could “stay sharp”, well you’ve been about as sharp as a Nerf Ball so far. Start studying up, get your ducks in a row, have the facts at your fingertips and learn some public speaking skills. Nobody’s going to vote for a limp dick. Get a backbone for crying out loud!

    1. Maybe nobody will vote LP because of Gary. But they will vote AGAINST the DemoGOP, and for that Gary need only exist, and not spout legalize-murder anarchism or enslave-the-babes nationalsocialism.

      Although it couldn’t hurt if he were to MENTION the LP platform once a week or so… during bouts of lucidity.

      1. I doubt it. They’ll stay home or vote for Jill.

      2. Just because it’s Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche, that doesn’t mean people will rush to the polls to vote for Used Barf Bag who has no chance of preventing TS or GD from winning. Not to mention that Johnson is not the only third party candidate.

    2. He was awful in debates in 2011, so much so that they started asking him demeaning Qs. But that’s not the point of getting into the debates. Most people won’t pay att’n to anything he says, they’ll just notice that he’s there, & conclude, huh, he must be pretty good or he wouldn’t’ve been invited.

      When I ran for assembly in 1988, some friends who didn’t know I was running heard my ad on the radio, & said, wow, I know him. I asked them how they thought I was, they couldn’t remember a thing about it other than that I was on, which was the most important thing. Why do politicians use sound trucks? “Vote for Shmoo!” No reason, but if they didn’t think it at least somewhat effective, they wouldn’t use it. Why do they advertise perfume? Other than in scratch & sniff, nobody can smell it, so what difference could anything they say about it make?

      1. But none of that matters in the prez race in 2016. Bizarrely, a vote for the LP nominee is a vote for the establishment. Trump is the insurgent. Doesn’t matter what policies he promotes. He doesn’t care what they are, he doesn’t even know what they are, neither do his voters care or know. What it’s about is saying that even in as big a place as the USA, running the country is not some arcane study best left to experts, but is something anyone can understand the basics of, & that anyone in good faith can do something about. If you want to turn trends sharply towards increasing liberty, that‘s the 1st thing that people need to understand. All the bad policies exist for 2 reasons: (1) there’s a small minority who truly benefit by it; (2) the vast majority think it’s too complicated to understand. Once people are disabused of #2, it’s pretty much over regardless of #1. So elect Trump, & run up the score even if he’s winning.

        1. Bizarrely, a vote for the LP nominee is a vote for the establishment

          Any excuse to kiss Trump’s ass.

          Doesn’t matter what policies he promotes.

          Because ….

          neither do his voters care or know

          … about anything. That’s WHY they’re his voters. And why Trump also took the supporters of Rand’s dad.

          At least this will show how large a loser is the anti-gummint mentality. For those who allow themselves to see it.

    3. Seriously: what big gun? You can’t nominate an ideal who doesn’t exist, you have to have an actual person. Sure, I’d be happier with Gary if he’d find some energy and stop being nice to Hillary, but who else did we have who could have gotten the press to at least take them somewhat seriously? Johnson/Weld got on CNN because of their resumes as former governors, not simply because of the LP nomination. The Nutcase Fugitive would have been laughed at, and they would have patted Twitter Kid on the head and told him to come back when he grew up. Ron Paul’s a has been, and Rand Paul is sticking with the Rs and Senate.

      What Big Gun?

      1. It’s true Darryl W. Perry doesn’t have any qualifications, and someone needs to slap that smirk off his face. But at least he knows how to articulate a position. I’d sooner have him bitching about not getting in the debates than Gary having his ass handed to him in the debates.

        1. There’s still time for Gary to find some real policy solutions. The Fair Tax alone will totally humiliate him. So far, thank God, he’s avoiding Cato’s crazy Medicare vouchers and Social Security privatization.

      2. and stop being nice to Hillary

        He knows he needs the independent voters, not wackjobs who are 2% of the voters.

        The independents HATE all the hate and insults that you demand.
        He’s simply refusing to insult and attack her personally. Do it on issues instead (gasp)

    4. Warren dreams of an LP candidate who talks like an asshole.

      learn some public speaking skills

      (laughiing)
      How many elections have you won? This is why we ignore your ilk.

  29. I’m inventing a machine that will flip a public bus (empty) and set it on fire at the same time.

    1. What does it do to private buses?

    2. Do you then use it to light that giant cigar?

  30. I’m the motha’ Flippin libertarian

  31. I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 104usd 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.CareerPlus90.com

  32. So where is Gary Johnson on the police shooting race mess?

    1. This link is to the search RESULTS at google. Quite a few. Take your pick.

      1. Luckily, he said the Alton Sterling shooting could be murder. Impossible to rule out when tens of millions have seen the horrific video.

  33. “The pool of potential voters who describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”?the explicit sales pitch of Johnson and Weld?is even deeper:”

    They’re not big enough to take down the two parties, and many of them will end up voting for one of them.

    Most of the country is obviously not fiscally conservative. We’re certainly not “liberal” in the classical sense of the word. We’re barely liberal by the modern definition – the left is becoming VIOLENTLY intolerant of speech and expression. Sexual orientation and identity politics just happen to be cause celebre.

    This “silent majority” simply does not exist in any meaningful number. The country’s going down the wrongest of paths and extreme discontent among disparate groups is taking it to even worse places.

  34. … “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”?the explicit sales pitch of Johnson and Weld?is even deeper:”

    They’re not big enough to take down the two parties,

    59% per a Cato poll conducted by a top pollster (Zogby) Here

    Most of the country is obviously not fiscally conservative.

    Obviously false. Same survey.

    We’re certainly not “liberal” in the classical sense of the word

    The opposite has been widely reported. Classical liberalism had virtually no socially liberal content beyond slavery. Women’s suffrage at the end.

    … the left is becoming VIOLENTLY intolerant of speech and expression.

    It’s easy to confuse the rank and file with the leaderships, both left and right, who are both severely manipulative these days.

    Sexual orientation and identity politics just happen to be cause celebre.

    On the surface, because they’re topical and being reported. Look more deeply.

    The country’s going down the wrongest of paths and extreme discontent among disparate groups is taking it to even worse places.

    There are no viable alternatives unless and until libertarians start talking policy solutions (which doi not now exist) instead of theories and soundbites for our own choir.

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

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.ReportMax90.com

  36. his 1990s support of an assault weapons ban, his 2016 endorsement of Ohio Gov. John Kasich for president…

    Now the simmering conflict between the radicals and realists

    Yea, sounds like you have to be a “radical” to oppose this guy. That ignoring the 2A and a Kasich endorsement, who cares if he is ideologically a libertarian, as long as he has the L next to his name, amirite?

    1. He’s not that stupid on gun rights. As we learned in high school no rights are absolute …. for the obvious reason that they can conflict with each other. Ever hear, “There’s no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?” That’s it.

      Or. “You right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.”

  37. Why would a Leftist vote ‘Democrat Lite” (Johnson) when they can vote full on socialist (Clinton). And why would any Conservative consider voting ‘Democrat Lite’ rather than just not voting. Epic fail by the Libertarian Party. Enjoy another 1% showing. And when that happens, I think all the faux libertarians that are really just libertines who are too hip to call themselves Democrats, should be purged (bye bye Gillespie, Weld, Johnson, Chapman and the rest).

    1. And if Johnson/Weld gets 6%?

      1. If that unlikely situation occurs, then obviously Johnson and his backers are right: people don’t want ‘liberty’ they just want squishy moderates.

        1. Why would you lie so shamelessly about what ANY “Johnson and his backers” have EVER said?
          Just say’n

    2. Hrm… I don’t accept the label, but I’ve been called things like “progtard” ’round here, so I’ll speak up.

      I plan to vote for Johnson, and will tell any pollster that calls me so, because I really really want a third, distinct voice in the fall debates. And to top it off, the things I disagree with Johnson on aren’t pressing enough to make me regret the choice should he win.

      1. You have to pass a loyalty oath … by the new McCarthyites … to post here without being called a progtard.
        And only thugs use baby talk like that. Or “progs.” It’s like their secret handshake.

    3. Why would a Leftist vote ‘Democrat Lite” (Johnson) when they can vote full on socialist (Clinton)

      Mostly because you have no idea what a leftist is … laughably assuming they’re all socialists.

      hat are really just libertines

      That explains your confusion on leftists. And no idea what a libertarian is either.

  38. Grab freedom by the Johnson is it, Mr. Welch?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.