Donald Trump

Clinton vs. Trump: Who's Worse?

Libertarian-leaning luminaries weigh in.

|

Hhenderson777/Wikipedia

P.J. O'Rourke once called Hillary Clinton "a chowder-skull" and "a bossy little rich snoot of a goody-two-shoes." So it surprised a lot of people when the political humorist announced that he's voting for her. Clinton, O'Rourke said on the May 7 episode of the NPR show Wait Wait…Don't Tell Me!, was "the second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she's way behind in second place, you know? She's wrong about absolutely everything. But she's wrong within normal parameters!" Of the presumptive Republican nominee, he warned: "They've got this button, you know? It's in a briefcase. He's gonna find it."

Rand Paul once called Donald Trump "a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag" and said "a speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president." But the Kentucky senator—who, like O'Rourke, occupies the ideological space between a libertarian and a conservative—affirmed in April that if Trump won the Republican nomination, he would support him. "I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate," he said at a press conference. "Think about it from this perspective. I'm from Kentucky, and Hillary Clinton recently said she would put coal miners out of business, and she would put coal companies out of business."

It's not unusual for libertarians to have a hard time backing either major party's presidential candidate, but the dispiriting choice between Clinton and Trump has even the most Republican-friendly members of the movement holding their noses. So reason decided to ask some prominent libertarian and libertarian-leaning figures which candidate offends them more. Unlike O'Rourke and Paul, the people surveyed below are not making endorsements here—many will be voting for a third-party candidate or staying home. They're answering a simpler question: not Who will you vote for? but Which one of these two is worse?

Radley Balko
Washington Post blogger and former reason staffer
"Ugh. I guess I'd say Trump is worse. Clinton is at least a known commodity, and clearly better on trade and immigration, though even those are grading on a steep curve. Trump seems marginally less enthusiastic about starting wars, but who knows? He's been all over the place. On criminal justice, Clinton has a proven record of awfulness, but has vaguely vowed to do better. Trump has a record of demagoguing crime, has brought horrendous people like Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie into his campaign, and has vowed a heaping pile of more awfulness as president. So I guess that one goes to Clinton. I'd imagine Clinton would be a standard center-left Democrat on tax, spend, and regulatory issues. Trump's policies could well be economically calamitous. So again, a begrudging nod to Clinton.

"It's probably also worth noting that as a white guy, I'm of a demographic that has the least to fear from a Trump presidency (and there's still plenty to fear). For Latinos, blacks, and Muslims, the prospect must be terrifying. So I guess in short, I'm thinking Clinton would be terrible. But Trump would be worse, and could be catastrophic."

Dave Barry
novelist and newspaper columnist
"Speaking strictly as humor columnist, I believe that a Trump presidency would probably be funnier, assuming you don't care what happens to the nation. Whereas a Clinton presidency would be mainly grim. On the other hand—again, assuming you don't care what happens to the nation—it might be SO grim that it would actually be funny.

"So bottom line, I think that when the time comes to go into the voting booth and make a decision, I will just kill myself."

David Boaz
executive vice president of the Cato Institute
"I've heard libertarians say, 'We know how bad Hillary is, so the mysterious Trump is a better bet.' But we do know much about Trump. He's been clear and consistent on a few issues: banning and deporting Mexicans, building a wall around America, banning Muslims, and taking a sledgehammer to the world's most important trading relationship (between the United States and China). He is indifferent to federal spending and against entitlement reform. He thinks he doesn't need advisers or policies or principles. He has no earthly idea what he thinks about taxes, abortion, minimum wages, debt, health care, or most other issues. Most disturbingly, he shows disdain for Congress and the Constitution.

"A few libertarians have said that war is the greatest threat to life and liberty, and Trump is less hawkish than Clinton and most of the other Republican candidates. True, he has criticized the Iraq War and nation building and even read a speech proclaiming that 'unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct.' But he has also promised to 'bomb the s—out of' ISIS and 'take out their families.' And his ignorance, anger, and impulsiveness about trade and immigration would surely make for rocky international relations.

"It's a tough choice for freedom lovers, maybe the toughest ever. For now I'm reluctantly inclined to agree with P.J. that 'she's wrong about absolutely everything. But she's wrong within normal parameters!' I work at a nonprofit and don't endorse candidates, but I do remember the (only) immortal words of Eugene Debs: 'It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.'"

Penn Jillette
half of the comedy/magic team Penn & Teller
"For many years I have believed two things about presidential politics: 1. Every major-party candidate was smarter than me. 2. There is no one worse than Hillary Clinton.

"I have been proven wrong on both of these this year."

Virginia Postrel
Bloomberg View columnist and former reason editor
"That the president of the United States should not be a self-aggrandizing, xenophobic bully who scorns the rule of law, lacks a sixth-grade knowledge of how the government works, neither appreciates nor understands the decentralized workings of the economy, and believes conspiracy theories he reads in the National Enquirer shouldn't be something readers of reason need to be convinced of. But, alas, too many libertarians have convinced themselves that all politicians are equally terrible (correctly discerning that Hillary Clinton is awful in many ways) and that we'd be better off if someone would blow up the system. Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law. For the very reason that she is such a conventional politician, her opponents would know how to effectively oppose her. Trump would be much harder to counter and would simply ignore the checks on his powers, claiming—with some justification—a mandate for one-man rule."

Glenn Reynolds
professor of law at the University of Tennessee and blogger at InstaPundit.com
"I favor Trump over Clinton, on the theory that he will bring in a fresh crop of thieves, while Hillary will enable the current crop to burrow in deeper."

John Stossel
host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network
"It's just too horrible a choice to contemplate and I can't make a decision. I know Hillary will be bad. She wants to micromanage all life. Trump? Who knows what Trump will do. Maybe he'll stop bad wars and pandering to political correctness. More likely he'll start a trade war that will further destroy our economy."

NEXT: Heather Mac Donald (Manhattan Institute) guest-blogging about 'The War on Cops'

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. Why not vote Libertarian?

    1. Go ahead.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v7XXSt9XRM

      But don’t even think about not voting at all.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pSh0VAVYn4

      1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week..
        .Go This Website…. http://www.trends88.com

    2. “Why not bother to vote Libertarian?”

      Seriously, a couple of milquetoast ex-Republicans as an alternative to the establishment? Really? Even if they win, who’d be able to tell the difference?

      1. Legalizing marijuana and tackling entitlement reform would be nice. Sure, Congress might be recalcitrant, but at least the executive branch could temper Congress’s recklessness and advocate in favor of those views (in the fantasy world that they would win). There’s a huge difference between Johnson and Clintrump.

        1. There’s a huge difference between Johnson and Clintrump.

          The main one being, the former isn’t going to win.

          1. …which isn’t a good reason to support Clinton or Trump.

            1. well, it points out that the difference btw johnson et al *doesn’t matter*, and the differences between Clinton & Trump do.

              1. well, it points out that the difference btw johnson et al *doesn’t matter*

                Only if you’re dumb enough to believe that a third party has to outright win to make a difference.

                and the differences between Clinton & Trump do.

                Right, the duo that wants to shred the constitution into oblivion. I have principles, so I can’t vote for either.

      2. Also, Cato’s fiscal evaluations of them when they were governors had very bright points. That counts a ton for me.

        http://www.cato.org/blog/cato-…..lliam-weld

      3. Do you understand Libertarians would be defending our freedoms from government overreach, while Clinton/Trump would be attacking them, especially on freedom of speech, fourth amendment unwarranted and unreasonable searches, and government crony selling of favors.

        Instead of the same line coming from Clinton/Trump telling us about the freedoms they want us to abandon, we’d have a candidate telling us why he’s vetoing bills that reduce our freedoms. Instead of the same line coming from Trump/Clinton and the rest of the establishment about spending our money and the need to spend more of our money, the Libertarian will be vetoing bills that spend that money.

        1. Do you understand Libertarians would be defending our freedoms from government overreach

          Yes, if you can find some who are running, please send the link, I will vote for one of them.

        2. Based on what?!

          Trump wouldn’t be helping government overreach. Where has he indicated that he would do that? Where have our politicians not already been doing that?

          Trump is actually a change. Maybe Trump can actually get it right since he doesn’t owe politicians in DC so much, but rather they owe him.

        3. Based on what?!

          Trump wouldn’t be helping government overreach. Where has he indicated that he would do that? Where have our politicians not already been doing that?

          Trump is actually a change. Maybe Trump can actually get it right since he doesn’t owe politicians in DC so much, but rather they owe him.

    3. Why vote at all? It is liberating not to have to waste constant energy worrying about who is marginally less terrible.

    4. “They’re answering a simpler question: not Who will you vote for? but Which one of these two is worse?

      1. Reason is doing the same thing that every establishment hack and pollster and DC clown does – present the choice as one or the other of these shitheels. And that sort of crap is exactly why voters end up feeling stuck and forced to vote for one of them or else they will ‘throw their vote away’.

        Reason should be fucking ashamed of itself for playing this BS game.

        1. Who’s reading Reason and thinking there are only two choices? How many dozens of stories have there been on Johnson? Maybe wait for the article where all the writers say they’re going to vote for Hillary and then vent.

          1. It doesn’t matter whether you ASSUME readers know the choices in the election. What matters is that the media presents the REALITY of that election choice rather than defer to the preferred agenda of hacksat the DNC and RNC

        2. On the contrary, it is a useful exercise in leading readers to the obvious conclusion of seeking an alternative.

          1. If only. Asking which is worse is, I guess, fine. But Reason should always make the point, the question should be who is worse: Clinton, Trump, Johnson or Stein.

    5. Are there any libertarians running for POTUS? Links please.

    6. I’m making over 17k dollar 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… http://www.trends88.com

    7. I am. Guess it has something to do with personal integrity.

  2. How did all the Obama votes work out 8 years ago?

    1. Interesting to see the nicks showing up in the comment section.

      1. Huh – I was present in lower-case.

      2. That was before the cocktail parties. Once you’ve had 3 cocktail party invites, you’re too prestigious to hang out with the likes of H&R commentariat. Except for Bailey, he still comments occasionally.

        1. And what sort of man could resist fruit sushi?

    2. That’s a good lesson against voting to punish the other party. You’ll end up just punishing everyone

    3. My general worldview and attitude about things usually tends to put me closer to conservative than liberal, (some social issues being an excepion), but can you imagine a McCain presidency with basically a green light to use unilateral force? You think Obama bungled Syria, Iraq, and Libya? I dare say we’d currently be in massive wars in all three, (plus Afghanistan and probably Yemen), if McCain had his way. And his economic stances aren’t so very different from B.O. The only positive I think he has over Obama is that he’d be less inclined to annoyingly lecture us about bullshit trendy issues and better on guns.

      1. dare say we’d currently be in massive wars in all three, (plus Afghanistan and probably Yemen), if McCain had his way

        I mean this very literally: How? Would he have reinstated the draft?

      2. McCain scared the shit out of me. Hilary scares the shit out of me this time.

      3. Yeah, that’s it: There’s your “normal parameters”. I still voted for McCain, but I didn’t think Obama would be this bad. I was just glad Hillary didn’t get the nomination!

  3. I know style is Postrel’s thing, but she’s elevating it above all else. Her (and others here) main opposition to Trump is that he doesn’t mimic being “presidential” and his followers are icky.

    I’d flip Balko’s rhetoric back on him: yes, she’s a known quantity: she’s started multiple wars, destabilized the Middle East, ran guns through diplomatic missions, and laughed in the face of the rule of law regarding her negligence in the server issue. Moreover, I’m convinced she had a private server because she was running a pay-to-play with State Department access and funneling billions in treason money through the Clinton Foundation.

    I don’t see how it gets worse than that.

    1. It could be worse with trump, have no doubt. It’s the dice roll with almost no upside that has most people spooked. I hold out hope that the legion of illegal Clinton machinations will come to light and delegitimizatize the national govt. But then, I’m an optimist.

    2. Same thoughts here. Clinton IS a known quantity. She brings corruption, amorality, and lust for pure unadulterated power to new levels; Tammany Hall and Nixon were amateurs compared to her. I believe she literally (and I literally do mean literally) has no morals of any kind other than thinking she deserves to rule the world.

      Trump’s defining feature is his inconsistency. He’s a blowhard with no focus. The things he claims to want to do can’t be done — his wall is a cartoonist’s fantasy, so it’s moot whether Mexico pays for it. He can’t deport 12 million people, he can’t stop Muslims coming in, he can’t force trade deals on China and everyone else. So what would he do? He’d bluster and say stupid things and no one would take him seriously.

      The worst knock against Trump is his authoritarianism, but at worst he’d be Charlie Chaplin while Clinton would aspire to the Real McCoy’s absolute power.

      And as for the future — I know what Clinton would do to the Supreme Court, and it would take years to recover from that. She’d also set the Democrat Party to thinking she was the future. Trump couldn’t be any worse for the Supreme Court and would likely be better, and the Republican Party would recover after him like the bubble he is.

      1. The Republican party has become a rubber stamp for the Democrats so long as they will raise defense spending

      2. Exactly. Some in the article promote the adverse fantasy that Trump would ignore the constraints on his office & act illegally to subvert them. I don’t think Trump is interested enough in doing so, and in any event would be doing so in the open, because he thinks he’d be doing right?so he would be prevented from doing so. Meanwhile we know Clinton subverts her office illegally behind closed doors, so she might actually accomplish much evil before anyone found out; she probably already has!

        Trump would almost certainly be much better for court appointments, judging by what he’s said. If you take the things he says seriously when you don’t like them, why not take serious the things he says that you like? If you don’t take anything he says seriously, he’s a blank slate, which by the law of averages (assuming he’s like the avg. Joe or Jane American) would be mediocre (by definition), not bad.

        Deez Nutz here (the people being asked) had to arrange their opinions to make them come out even between Clinton & Trump, when it’s obvious Trump would be better.

        1. Hillary would also have a complicit media dismissing everything she does as ‘phony scandals’ and ‘Republican claims’.

          Trump will have the media hounding his every waking moment, not making excuses for him. And if he even steps slightly out of line, the establishments of both parties will impeach him in record time. There is no way the Democrats would do the same for the FERST WOMYN PRESIDENT EVAR!!!11!!111

          On a somewhat related note, I have long believed that Hillary will pick Elizabeth Warren for her VP pick, so that she can energize the liberal base. But having Warren waiting in the wings might give enough Democrats an incentive to cross the aisle and vote to impeach her for any of the many crimes we all know she is going to commit as President. So she will pick somebody that is impeachment insurance. I wonder if Joe Biden has any plans for the next 4-8 years?

          1. He’s not eligible for VP any more.

        2. I could be on Trump being a “do nothing” president.

          1. A do nothing president would be a relief.

    3. Hillary has also, literally, called for gutting the first and second amendments.

      I don’t know how anyone that calls themselves a libertarian can support her for that alone.

      1. I’m not sure you can call that “support”.

        But the “Hillary is bad within normal parameters” type argument seems like a load of crap to me as well.

        1. It is. They don’t come out & say so, but “normal parameters” means what they’re used to hearing in the cocktail parties by “experts” rather than an uncouth real estate mogul & part-time gadfly.

      2. If she’s elected, she’s also going to appoint Obama and/or Lynch to the Supreme court. You can kiss the 2nd amendment goodbye if she’s elected, that’s a certainty. And we will get entangled in more wrong headed situations in the middle east. So more turmoil in the middle east and more middle eastern refugees which Hillary will relocate to a town near you. Think about those things. I’m not sure how anyone can think Trump is worse.

        1. I agree with you that Hillary would do everything in her power to kill the 1st, 2d, 4th, 6th, 10th and 14th amendments as quickly as possible. She may even try to kill the 3rd just for shits and giggles. Unless the Dems win a super majority in the Senate I would love to see her nominate Obama for the Supreme Court. After eight years of of being insulted/ignored by Barry the Republicans would love nothing more to bottle him up, abuse him at committee hearings and then vote “NAY” in three part harmony as a personal slap of his face. With Lynch it would be “Go meet with Bill at Sky Harbor until the Sun goes nova.”

          1. Only the GOP will not do that. Well, they may do that part about fucking with him, but they will approve him. The dems will play the race card and there is nothing Republicans, besides Trump, are more terrified of.

            1. “They just want to keep the 1st black off the sup. ct.” “But there’ve already been blacks…” “Shut up, racist!”

    4. Her (and others here) main opposition to Trump is that he doesn’t mimic being “presidential” and his followers are icky.

      For me, Trump’s crass style is far, far less important than all the other things he’s terrible on. Trump praised TARP, the auto bailouts, and even Obama’s stimulus. He loves the idea of government healthcare almost as much as he loves enormous tariffs and strangling international trade. He absolutely refuses to consider reducing spending on entitlements and has no serious proposal about reducing government spending. He’s not trustworthy at all on civil liberties either. There’s basically nothing that makes him better than any regular shitbag Republican.

      Trump is a disaster for those reasons. I suspect most others on here who aren’t apologists for Trump also have some or all of these things as their main opposition to him, rather than his crass style and supporters as you claim.

      1. And Clinton is good on those issues?

        1. Clinton is clearly not good on any of those issues. And her corruption is immediately disqualifying (unlike Trump’s coarse attitude.) Neither Trump nor Hillary comes close to acceptable, which is why I will not vote for either one of them.

        2. She is clearly worse on EVERY issue. Unless you are a Leftard who is more concerned with importing Mohamadeans than reducing spending or defending individual Liberty, in other words, most of the “Reason Staff”. She will aggressively attack the 1st and 2nd Amendments, things that “libertarians” used to care about. She will support an expansion of group rights, which Reason also likes.

      2. Yeah, his style isn’t the problem. If anything he ways is to be believed, he would be awful on civil and individual rights.

        Yes, Clinton would too, dickheads. I’m not playing. I don’t want either and I’m sticking with that.

      3. One of the worst things about Trump, and there are quite a few, is that he wants to wage a trade war against the world. The best things going for Trump is that he would not be looking for a way to start a real war with Russia and that he is not deluded with a R2P doctrine that would have the US taking sides in every pissant conflict on the planet.

      4. Completely agree, Eric. His “crass style” is the one thing I kinda appreciate about Trump. It’s his absolutely horrible positions on almost everything else that disqualifies him.

      5. I suspect most others on here who aren’t apologists for Trump also have some or all of these things as their main opposition to him, rather than his crass style and supporters as you claim.

        And most of the people who ARE apologists from Trump aren’t libertarians at all. They are just closet racists who love Trump because he promises to crack down on immigrants and Muslims trade with China.

        And I hate those people not because of their low-class status and lack of education, but because of their racism and xenophobic. It’s their preferred policies I oppose, not the fact that they are white trash.

        1. trollin’, trollin’, trollin’……time for a new schtick, hazel.

    5. I suppose that to some people Clinton’s history of horribleness is merely “wrong within normal parameters”.

      It’s a pretty sad commentary on the state of US politics that your bill of particulars against Clinton falls within normal parameters for horribleness.

      We all know that Trump would be an American Berlusconi, a buffoon who would continuously offend ordinary propriety and ignore the sensibilities of the ruling elite. I suppose that many are more fearful of the certain embarrassment of a Trump Administration than they are of the certain ruin of a Clinton Administration.

      1. Trump V. Clinton

        “Embarrassment or Ruin?”

        I like it.

    6. I find it discomforting, even disconcerting and disturbing, writers for libertarian publications like Reason and even those who claim to be libertarian, simply won’t reject Hillary.

      There are no redeeming qualities where she’s concerned.

      She’s plain awful where libertarian/classical liberal principles are concerned.

      I don’t understand why they are set on choosing between Hillary/Trump when they DO have a reasonable alternative in Gary Johnson.

      1. I find it discomforting, even disconcerting and disturbing, writers for libertarian publications like Reason and even those who claim to be libertarian, simply won’t reject Hillary.

        I don’t understand why they are set on choosing between Hillary/Trump when they DO have a reasonable alternative in Gary Johnson.

        Respectfully, Rufus, can you point to someone in this article that doesn’t reject Hillary?

        The question posed is who is worse, not whether they’ll be voting for one or the other.

        In fact Jesse comes right out and states:

        Unlike O’Rourke and Paul, the people surveyed below are not making endorsements here?many will be voting for a third-party candidate or staying home. They’re answering a simpler question: not Who will you vote for? but Which one of these two is worse?

        1. There always feels there’s a ‘yeah but’ to me. I could be wrong.

      2. They’re officially nonpartisan.

      3. Come next January someone is going to be sworn in as President. It is very unlikely that that someone is going to be Gary Johnson. It is very likely that it will be either Trump or Hillary (though less certain than is generally the case once the major parties have no one else left in the nomination process.) So the question is- Hillary or Trump? I don’t actually like GJ that much, but I’d take him in a minute over either Hillary or Trump. But Gary Johnson doesn’t enter into the question.

    7. Donald Trump is a known big government-loving authoritarian. A president Trump would set back the cause of individual liberty and limited government for another generation, decades, our lifetime.

      President Trump would discredit the GOP and divide libertarians, Republicans, conservatives, classical liberals, independents. He would pave the way for a hardcore socialist, a more electable younger version of Bernie Sanders.

      Vote libertarian or let Hillary Clinton catch the blame for the fallout from the Obama era – exploding national debt, collapsing Obamacare, economic stagnation, meltdown in the Middle East and Europe, etc.

      1. Donald Trump is a known big government-loving authoritarian.

        Which makes him, de facto, indistinguishable from Hillary.

      2. Great point, let Hillary own the results of the status/left turn.

        1. Yeah, that’s always how it goes down. Red-faced, they throw up their hands and apologize for fucking everything up.

          Uh-huh.

    8. Which is funny when you consider that their hero Block Yomomma is one of the least “presidential” presidents to ever occupy the office. He has spent eight years attacking and demonizing his personal enemies.

      1. Block Yomomma

        *wipes single tear from cheek and begins to clap*
        Welcome back, Mike.

      2. “He has spent eight years attacking and demonizing his personal enemies.”

        … All the while complaining about the divisiveness and lack of unity in politics today.

      3. their hero Block Yomomma

        LOL! Using a racist caricature of urban black culture to make fun of the black president! Too funny! Never heard that one before!

        1. Can you think of a better one?

        2. mike has used that for 8 years. It is known.

    9. Otto Spielbach (if you remember Howard Stern’s WNBC show) would be worse than Hillary, but Trump’s no Spielbach. Actually, no, Spielbach wouldn’t be as bad as Hillary, because Spielbach was open about what he wanted to do (“I promise you, my 1st day in office, I will hit the button!”), so he wouldn’t be allowed to do it, while Hillary would act deviously.

  4. Gary Johnson needs to show some toughness if he has any. This terror crap is number one and he he needs address it somehow. Farting around with his goofy self with Samantha Bee is lame.

    1. He doesn’t have any.

      1. He’s tough on a bag of Doritos.

    2. I am so tired of recently naturalized US citizens like Samantha Bee – born Canadian, she and her husband became citizens in 2014 – advocating to change US law to match that of America’s frozen, curling-obsessed hat. You don’t understand the 2nd Amendment? How the hell did you pass the citizenship test? I’d have flunked her, and told her to try again, after first boning up on the concept of inalienable rights.

      1. after first boning up

        Uh-huh.

  5. Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides…

    Someone hasn’t been paying attention.

      1. It can only be described as “Trump derangement syndrome”. The press would fawn over a President Clinton, carrying her water through her criminality, constantly covering for her misdeeds and misrepresenting her opposition. This alone ought to make her worse than Trump. The list goes on and on. It is bizarre. It definitely makes me think that a number of “Libertarians” are nothing of the sort. No, it makes me certain of it. Looking right at you Nick.

        1. In Postrel’s defense here, this is from the August/September 2016 print issue, so it would have been written back in October 2015, before anyone could have possibly guessed Clinton would skate on violating NARA and mishandling classified information.

          1. That is an excellent point, the timing make most of those quotes look moronic. Any suggestion of Hillarity being reigned in is delusional after the FBI decision.

          2. Ah okay, their complete out of touchness makes sense now. I was wondering how they could possibly be that bad.

          3. So did they do a separate version for each of the different candidates at the time?

            1. Shit, and how many variations would that be? I find this hard to believe

              1. That said, this was probably written before the FBI decision. But I dont think Reason predicted the front runners back in October

                1. What can be predicted is that any opposition to Hillary’s policies would be treated by the media the same as opposition to Obama’s policies. The media will just pull out their old columns and do two quick “replace with” updates “Racist to Sexist” and “first black to first female”. Done.

          4. Postrel was still making that argument as recently as 2 weeks ago on the Fifth Column podcast. (yes that still pre-dates the no charges decision, but it’s still a wacky argument that Kmele pressed her on)

    1. Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides…

      Someone hasn’t been paying attention.

      Apparently. Hillary has already said she is willing to go way farther with executive order than Obama did. And she has zero respect for the rule of law or the limitations of public officials. She’s already gotten away with more stuff than anyone who has ever been a public official, while in the State Department and I can guarantee you that this is a clear signal to her that she can do anything she wants to and get away with it. The thought of her being any way near the Whitehouse is terrifying.

  6. Clinton is a treasonous, mendacious habitual liar. She should be swinging from a tree.

    Trump is just a clown.

    F all these so-called libertarian writers.

    1. Most disappointing: Penn Jillette.

      1. Who’s worse….Penn or Teller?

      2. It’s kind of what I expected from him, though. His thing is always that he doesn’t know the right answer and doesn’t want to tell other people what to think.

        1. I think it’s more than that. I think Penn is the kind of person who realizes how farcical it is that people turn to celebrities for vote endorsements, as if they know any fucking better than the rest of us. Refusing to participate in the charade and mocking it instead is worthy of high praise in my book.

          1. They may indeed know better than the rest of us some kinds of fucking.

        2. I kind of liked his answer, for that reason. I mean, I often put my ideas and predictions in pretty strong words, but in the back of my head there’s always the question: “And what the hell do you know?” You can’t go around hedging everything you say with “But what the hell do I know?” (or you wind up ruling Douglas Adams’s Universe, which would be unpleasant) but it’s sometimes worth being explicit.

      3. Remember Penn got fired by Trump two years in a row on Celebrity Apprentice, and both times was extremely pissed about it after. He really should have included a full disclosure statement.

        1. Yeah, cuz Penn really needed the gig.

          1. Well, not ever having followed the show, I had no idea that the two knew each other at least a little bit personally, which would have been nice to mention

        2. Not sure what you are basing “extremely pissed” on — everything I’ve seen suggests he recognized it as all part of the show. Trump didn’t start claiming Penn was pissed until Penn started saying, in his opinion, Trump wasn’t qualified to be President. Then Trump flailed around at Penn like he does anybody else who criticizes him.

          On the other hand, he worked with Trump for weeks on end on that stupid show and probably has a good read on Trump’s character and intelligence (or lack thereof).

    2. Clinton=elite statism
      Trump=populist statism
      Elite statism is marginally less bad

      1. Clinton = international socialism,
        Trump = national socialism

        On the theory that more open borders and more open trade goes along either the international part of the socialism, Clinton would be marginally better. But it’s a turd sandwich either way.

    3. The current generations of Americans have rejected American exceptionalism and the US Constitution. The choice between Clinton and Trump is a choice between European/Latin American-style “democratic socialism” or Russian/Chinese-style “state capitalism”.

  7. I’m sorry, but how is this even possibly a debate? The slimy piece of shit Hillary belongs in a fucking jail cell for the rest of her miserable life at the very least. Truly she deserves to be executed. Trump may be awful, but as far as I’m aware, he hasn’t committed treason.

    1. Trump would implement policies that Clinton would not even think of (trade wars race based immigration controls). He has been fomenting racism (yes liberals use the racism accusation far too much, but in this case a spade is a spade).

      1. BLM is the biggest race agitation movement that the US has seen in decades and its poisoning the well for criminal justice reform, all to. get Hillary elected.

        Fuck them, her and Soros.

        1. Oh, no, Soros is a Libertarian, apparently, just like Hillary! Talk about a place going down the toilet.

        2. It is also one of the batshit-craziest organizations to achieve media celebrity in history. E.g., from the BLM website:

          When you design an event / campaign / et cetera based on the work of queer Black women, don’t invite them to participate in shaping it, but ask them to provide materials and ideas for next steps for said event, that is racism in practice. It’s also hetero-patriarchal. Straight men, unintentionally or intentionally, have taken the work of queer Black women and erased our contributions. Perhaps if we were the charismatic Black men many are rallying around these days, it would have been a different story, but being Black queer women in this society (and apparently within these movements) tends to equal invisibility and non-relevancy.

          And, what should one make of their inspiration to quote Assata Shakur on the Get Involved page of the BLM website?

        3. BLM is going to get us a militarized police state and that’s exactly what some of our esteemed leaders want. BLM are being played like puppets, useful idiots.

      2. What race-based immigration control are you talking about? Muslims are not a race you know. Granted I am not sure that would even be allowed but everyone today just throws race out at anything they don’t like. Sort of like yelling, when you don’t have a valid point start yelling or cry racism. In case you were thinking Hispanics are not white, they are.

        1. Mexicans are closer to being a race, and Boaz up there thinks Trump wants to ban Mexicans

      3. Trump cannot implement those without a willing Congress and pliant Supreme Court. Hillary’s corruption gets along fine without those.

        1. Exactly.

      4. “yes liberals use the racism accusation far too much, but I’m gonna do that too.”

    2. Trump would be awful with your support and consent. You would be complicit in Trump’s awfulness.

      Let unpopular Hillary Clinton take the blame from the collapse of central planning and statism and pave the way for decentralization, individual liberty, limited government.

    3. Trump would be awful with your support and consent. You would be complicit in Trump’s awfulness.

      Let unpopular Hillary Clinton take the blame from the collapse of central planning and statism and pave the way for decentralization, individual liberty, limited government.

  8. “Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law”

    Yeah right

    1. Holy shit, that is some top shelf delusion right there. Or maybe Virginia doesnt have a teevee.

    2. ^^^ This was my thought upon reading that. A fawning press to rubber stamp every move Clinton makes, actively help cover her corrupt ass and help sell future expansion of government (Obama has already started the ball rolling for her on single payer for instance) and nanny statism. No one knows how long the House and Senate will remain in the GOP’s hands over the next 4-8 years, not that they’ve provided much of a check on Obama. So that check may not remain in place. I can’t believe none of these sages brought up the Supreme Court vacancies that will have to be filled over the next term ot two! That is a huge issue for me. Hillary has been already talking about trying to overturn Citizens.

      Trump will have a hostile press on his back from day one. He will get little Congressional support for his crazier ideas whether Congress is majority GOP or Democrats. At this point gridlock is my best hope. Well, it has been for a couple of decades actually. This is not an endorsement of Trump or to say I will vote for him but the reality is we will either get Trump or Clinton. The arguments of these folks are not very thoughtful from a strategic point of view.

    3. If so, that would be a first.

  9. Trump is bad but The Hildebeast is exponentially worse.

    1. The spectrum of badness isn’t one dimensional. I don’t think it’s possible to create an absolute ranking of badness of different politicians.

      1. The spectrum of badness isn’t one dimensional. I don’t think it’s possible to create an absolute ranking of badness of different politicians.

        Now you’re thinking with portals!

        1. “We hope your brief detention in the relaxation vault has been a pleasant one.”

  10. 15 dollar minimum wage,suing the oil companies,higher taxes on the ‘rich’ and a hawkish foreign policy? Then there’s Hillary’s attacks on the 1st and 2ed amendments. Trump is a fool and blow hard ,yet,I doubt he will get many of things he wants. Hillary has all the worst traits of Bush and Obama and then some.

    1. The things that Trump could do unilaterally do as president are enforcing existing immigration law, jawboning trade partners to open their markets, ending the refugee resettlement program and rolling back or at least pausing federal regulations. Those are not exactly libertarian positions, but they’re also not anti-libertarian ones. Everything else that he’s proposed would require congressional action, and he will not be given a blank check by congress for all of those, especially higher tariffs or mass deportations. He also will not be pushing to gut the first and second amendments.

    2. I forgot to mention Hillary picking S.C. justices. You want Obama on the court? Or worse?

      1. Practice saying, “Justice Abedin.”

  11. It says something, I’m not sure what, that intelligent, politically connected people have convinced themselves that a corrupt career politician, leading an openly facist political party is considered the safe and sane choice over an inexperienced outsider. All because the outsider has made a few intemperate comments.

    Its some form of mass hysteria.

    1. Oh, it’s not just these “intelligent, politically connected people” that are convinced Trump is worse. I have a friend on FB that ADMITS Hilary has pulled tons of bullshit, but people should vote for her because “it’d be great for women to see a woman as president” (because it’s done so much for blacks to have Obama as president) and, apparently, shit Trump has SAID is WORSE than the shit Hilary HAS ACTUALLY DONE! These people live on another planet where logic and reason don’t exist.

      1. Exactly, because nothing could be better for women than to have the first woman President also be ,by a mile, the most vicious, corrupt President in my lifetime (and yes, I was alive when Nixon was President; I was a toddler when LBJ left office). That will advance people’s opinions of women in positions of power.

        Boy, that is some weapons-grade stupid right there *SIGH*!!

    2. Elitism signaling – Trump is a rube, and these folks don’t want to be associated with that. They prefer a crook. Principles be damned.

  12. How can either one be even a thought? People keep saying “Oh but the republicans will limit what she could do”. I say bullshit. The debt ceiling was raised numerous times aleady, The healthcare law is around, and funded, and really they gave him most everything he wanted, all while they were in control of congress.

    So ppl saying Hillary’s power will be limited by congress are spewing bullshit. You didn’t see them rush to stop Bush, or Obama. So what makes anyone think they will stop Clinton, who has more crooked allies than the previous two.

    Don’t lie to yourself and say congress will be there to save the day, because you’re just jerking off. With her you’ll definitely pay, and work harder every day until you’re broke and she has everything her way. While she’s out there getting a wax, you’ll be working more hours just to cover the increased tax.

    1. Theory: They’re not trying to convince you, they’re trying to convince themselves.

      Just a theory.

      1. I set you up a brand new hamster wheel in the yard for you. I’d rather watch you spinning your wheel for some of the day, rather than watch these fake ass libertarians and “liberty” loving conservatives jerk each other off while feeding each other shit all day.

        1. No one is forcing you to read it.

          1. Says Zeb who tried forcing me to read at knife point.

          2. Zeb, you’re generally a decent person but that was a fucking dumb thing to say.

            1. Zeb, you’re generally a decent person

              Everybody likes a compliment.

              1. OK, Crusty, you’re generally a decent person.
                Oh wait, that’s not right.
                mmmmm…. Crusty, you pour the liquor with a generous hand.

            2. Seemed like a reasonable response to “I’d rather watch you spinning your wheel for some of the day, rather than watch these fake ass libertarians and “liberty” loving conservatives jerk each other off while feeding each other shit all day.”

    2. I say bullshit. The debt ceiling was raised numerous times aleady, The healthcare law is around, and funded, and really they gave him most everything he wanted, all while they were in control of congress.

      Donald Trump is in favor of all those things, or at the very least he would be if it meant he could accomplish an objective he wants. I actually think Trump will be a much better partner to Congress than Obama.

      Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist too but one who won’t deign himself to work with Congress if they don’t give him what he wants. Trump would actually compromise like hell with Democrats to get things done including a healthcare law that will be just as shitty as Obamacare, more spending and probably even gun control if it meant tough enforcement of immigration law.

      Don’t lie to yourself and say congress will be there to save the day, because you’re just jerking off. With her you’ll definitely pay, and work harder every day until you’re broke and she has everything her way. While she’s out there getting a wax, you’ll be working more hours just to cover the increased tax.

      I’d be working extra hours anyway to pay for the fallout of Trump’s economic retarded trade wars.

      1. So if both are bad, that may leave another option right? Why all this choking up when Johnson enters the room?

        Listen I know you’d vote for me. I’d build a really nice cabinet, and put you in there. It’d be around 2800 ft sq. and have some really cool wood in there, plus a maid. Crusty can do the gardening, and we have so many chippers around here to grind the wood scraps.

        Being I’m not running, you can at least go down for the Johnson and swallow all that pride.

    3. you’re just jerking off.

      You’re not even trying.

      1. These euphemisms aren’t abstract enough anymore?

        1. I must better learn from the elite one, and the one that juggles crust.

    4. People keep saying “Oh but the republicans will limit what she could do”. I say bullshit.

      Exactly. Would this be in the same way that they’ve limited what Obama was able to do? Because that strategy hasn’t been what I’d call an unqualified success.

  13. Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law.

    Citation required.

    1. Loretta Lynch will keep her honest!

      1. You mean “Justice Lynch.”

  14. Meanwhile, Clinton is crushing Herr Drumpf in 8 battleground states

    Trump is going to get slaughtered and it won’t even be close. The only question is how pissed off the Trumpaloes will be at Gary Johnson when they need to find a scapegoat for their humiliating defeat to the worst candidate the Democratic Party has ever run.

    JOHNSON RISING: 13% in latest national poll

    Ideally Clinton maintains such a comfortable lead that no one feels compelled to vote for her to ensure Trump loses. Resulting in an extremely low popular vote win for Clinton and high numbers of the LP.

    1. I don’t know what polls you’re looking at, I didn’t even click the links, but Hillary and Trump are virtually tied now, according to the RCP average. I don’t see a single poll where she’s up by more than the 4% margin of error, and Johnson is at 8.1% and has never been higher than 10.

      1. CNN article: Poll: Advantage Clinton as conventions begin

        There’s a .pdf link in there with the actual data. They asked about Clintrump head-to-head AND about the 4-way race. ORC Intl does the polling for CNN.

        1. CNN is garbage.

    2. Preeeety sure you can toss out any poll that has the libertarian and green party candidates taking 18% of the vote

  15. “I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this country with a few tweets and a couple of rallies. Hmmm? You know… You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go ‘according to plan.’ Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell social media that, like, a transparency law will be broken with impunity or access will be sold for profit, nobody panics, because it’s all ‘part of the plan’. But when I say that one little old border is going to get a fence that I’ll never actually be able to build, well then everyone loses their minds!”

  16. Assuming Team Stupid doesn’t fuck themselves out of a House majority (a sad possibility), a Clinton presidency just means another 4 years of Obama but with somewhat less media fawning. Clinton has no where near the cult support Obama has in the Democratic Party and the media. No one is going to respect her administration and in 2 years the Republicans can take back the Senate and set themselves up to retake the presidency in 2020.

    The only question is if that Republican party is going to be the party of pissed off, befuddled rednecks that fall in line between a populist nut or a party that actually values our Constitution, limited government, sane foreign policy and free trade and free markets.

    If it’s the former I hope they never win another goddam election. They deserve to go extinct.

    1. So you want the Republicans to go extinct but not the Democrats? That says it all. You are clearly not alone, here.

      1. Democrats’ sin is not being libertarian ideologues. Can you blame them? Republicans’ is being anti-intellectual epistemically closed theocratic panderers who start wars based on lies and torture people. You excuse all that when you equate their monumental corruptness and ineptitude with Democrats merely believing different things than you do.

        1. Peak derp, it can be reached!

        2. Oh, Tony, still hanging around here? You actually mentioned “monumental corruptness” and were not speaking about the Clintons. All these years and you remain completely intellectually dishonest. Sad.

    2. Yeah, definitely no damage can be done in 4 years.

      1. #MostImportantElectionEvah!!!111tenplusone11!

        1. #MostStrawman-yStrawmanEvah!!!111tenplusone11!

  17. #FeelTheJohnson bitches!!!!

  18. I keep hoping Trump in office will terrify both parties sufficiently that Congess will reign in the Imperial Presidency.

    Or they’ll declare him Chancellor.

    1. Trump in office will pave the way for a socialist authoritarian.

    2. Trump in office will pave the way for a socialist authoritarian.

    3. Trump in office will pave the way for a socialist authoritarian.

      1. The squirrels mock you nonsense.

      2. Trump in office will pave the way for insurgents of all kinds at all levels, and in many other countries as well. You want to elect libertarians from LP as well as from the major parties? Then elect Trump 1st. Of course he paves the way for all kinds of insurgents, but he’s the best chance at breaking the dynamic of kleptocracy spiral that public choice theory predicts for republics/democracies.

  19. Dave Barry and Glenn Reynolds probably have the most sensible responses.

    To me, the best thing about either of the major candidates is that it seems likely that they will end up being a one term president. Why do we keep reelecting these assholes?

    1. “We” don’t. “They” do. Fuck them.

      1. “Why do these assholes keep reelecting these other assholes?”

        Better?

        1. Yes, but there is an obvious answer for that, too. They are assholes.

          1. Nice Spaceballs reference.

  20. “So bottom line, I think that when the time comes to go into the voting booth and make a decision, I will just kill myself.”

    Dave Barry always elicits a Crusty chuckle. The next time I am sashaying about a Barnes and Noble while sipping on a Grande Chai Tea Latte (3 Pump, Skim Milk, Lite Water, No Foam, Extra Hot) and I see one of his books on sale, I am going to purchase it. Thanks, Dave.

    1. First check to see whether it’s one of his humor books or one of his serious books. He’s been doing some of those lately.

      1. (the humor books are funny that the serious books)

    2. Wow, he really is a master of persuasion.

    3. That’s almost my drink. I go no water,soy. I’m growing breasts but I don’t care.

    4. That’s a good drink, except for the skim milk. You get light water, but skim milk? Simplify by asking for Hot Chai no milk.

  21. Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich

    I’m going to write in Dave Barry

  22. RE: David Boaz
    executive vice president of the Cato Institute

    Can this guy give a quote to back up his assertion Trump wants to ban and deport Mexicans? To allow him to state such a thing and not ask him to back it up is like the pass the media gives to Obama. I believe if Boaz had said illegal aliens he would have been correct. I guess the Cato Institute isn’t one to give the law a second thought?

    1. Some members of the Cato Institute’s board, I assume, are good people.

      1. My thought exactly.

    2. David Boaz is an ass. I remember seeing him on Stossel’s show a few years back. I forget what exactly the subject was, but he was talking about why blacks/Hispanics/gays tend to be more in the Democrat camp, rather than the Republican camp. One of the things he said in regards to blacks was something along the line of, “well, can you blame them, given the Republicans treatment of blacks historically.” What? What has he been smoking. The Republican Party was founded by fucking abolitionists. The whole reason the party came to be was to end slavery. It was the Democrat party that mistreated and had disdain for blacks. The guy doesn’t have a damn clue what he’s talking about.

      1. He’s referring to the GOP using the southern strategy to bring segregationist Democrats into the fold in the 1970s.

        Which has always struck me as bizarre since said segregationists were no longer in a position to do anything more to blacks by that point, and in almost every case reformed their racist views, at least publicly. All the damage they did had been done as Democrats.

        1. FFS, the “southern strategy” is a myth. A bogeyman that progressives tell their children to justify why they believe that they’re not still “the party of slavery”.

          It’s the same strategy libs are using to coopt Lincoln.

      2. Long before the southern strategy, the Republicans pretty well pushed out the blacks. Gary Greenberg explained it once. It started early in the 20th Century. Blacks were politically homeless from maybe 1910-35 in that neither major party wanted them. It was nothing about Republican policies, it was just about Republican leadership saying, “We don’t want you around.” The Democrats started courting them after about a generation of that.

  23. I guess its cool that the awfulness of politics is being shoved in folk’s faces so forcefully, but some new savior will come along by 2024 (if not four years previous) and everyone will forget all about it in their eagerness to empower whoever it is to finally get stuff done.

  24. “Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law.”

    I see that other people flagged this quote.

    Trump runs stuff up the flagpole, no matter how crazy, and sees what happens. If he gets enough negative reaction, he seems to back off and go on to something else.

    Hillary is more principled – her principles being bad ones.

    So basically what Dave Barry said, except with “vote for Darrell Castle” instead of “kill myself.”

    1. Basically, Hillary’s ideological commitments – her commitments to very bad ideas – have fused with her machine-politician corruption so that it isn’t really useful to speak of them separately any more. She’s corrupt *and* promotes awful policies. Her self-aggrandizement encompasses both her left-wing ideology and her crookedness.

      Trump is self-aggrandizing, but this self-aggrandizement hasn’t fused with a coherent ideological agenda. He wants to make his mark as President just like he made his mark as real-estate guy and TV guy. I doubt he’ll be tied down by ideology.

      1. I voted Cthulu last election, and I see no reason to change my vote this time around. Lesser evil is for pansies. Rip that bandaid off, voters for evil.

        1. I voted Cthulu last election, . . . Lesser evil is for pansies.

          assumes facts not in evidence

          (that Granmaw Felony would be the lesser evil)

  25. I highly, highy doubt that either trump or Clinton would turn us totalitarian, hbut they’re doing a great job setting the stage for their successor to do so.

    1. Trump would set the stage for a socialist totalitarian successor. Unpopular Hillary Clinton would mark the end of the Obama era and pave the way for an alternative direction; individual liberty, limited government, decentralization.

      1. Odd, individual liberty, limited government and decentralization are not concepts I’d associate with Hillarity.

  26. Trump could be impeached. Hilary can’t. Hilary is worse.

  27. I can respect hating Trump. I can respect hating Hillary. I can understand voting Trump because you hate Hillary. I can see voting GJ. I personally won’t vote. But I can’t see any good reason why anyone would vote Hillary.

    1. She’s not Trump.

      That seems to be good enough for some people.

      1. I don’t think many are voting for Hillarity because she is not Trump. I think some might give that as an excuse but it’s basically that she is the Democrat candidate and however bad they will support her.

        1. Sure, but not people around here

    2. I can also see voting for Jill Stein, Green Party. I’d even prefer a Green to Hillary.

  28. Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law.

    Yeah, nothing says that like someone who just dodged being indicted for numerous felonies.

    1. What difference, at this point, do those felonies make!?

  29. Yes, Trump’s ideas and proposals might be swore than Hillary’s, but Congress and the courts are going to keep Trump from being able to do any of those things. We might actually see some reining in of executive branch powers. Hillary will get everything she wants.

    1. Hillary will get everything she wants.

      That is what gets it for me. It doesn’t matter that Hillary might not get the slavish devotion the media and the Democrats give Obama, she will get enough for serious damage to be done. If Trump proposes something stupid, almost everyone (including most Republicans) will do something to stop it. That is something none of the luminaries talk about.

      Plus the first and second amendments will be under attack from almost the second Hillary is elected.

  30. OT: Baghdad Bob or John Kerry?

    Warning: Auto-play video

    Secretary of State John Kerry insisted Sunday that a recent spate of terrorist attacks reflects that ISIS is “on the run” in Iraq and Syria.

    I don’t think ISIS is an existential threat (threat? maybe. Existential threat? absolutely not), but I couldn’t help but read Kerry’s quotes in Baghdad Bob’s voice.

    1. Reminds me of how the drug warriors used to say that the escalation of ultra-violence on the US-Mexico border was a sign that the war on drugs is a success.

      That was about 15 years ago. The violence, corruption, and drug flow have only gotten worse.

  31. I’m not going to vote for either.

    I do hope the vote gets kicked to the House. The weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments would keep us entertained for weeks.

  32. Relatively on topic: Clinton pledges constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United ruling

    Hillary Clinton committed Saturday to introducing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision within her first 30 days in office, if she’s elected president.

    “The amendment would allow Americans to establish common sense rules to protect against the undue influence of billionaires and special interests and to restore the role of average voters in elections,” a Clinton spokesman said in statement.

    1. Provided of course those billionaires aren’t named Clinton or Soros and that the special interests in question aren’t unions or contributors to the Clinton Foundation or the DNC.

      1. Of course! These people are truly average voters or represent them.

    2. I wonder if she’ll get more traction with repealing the 1st amendment than with repealing the 2nd amendment.

    3. She can propose all the amendments she wants — she wouldn’t get any of them.

      Now, gutting the Constitution with her SCOTUS appointees who will just ignore what that document says — that’s reality.

        1. Yeah, four years of Hillary might be survivable, but 20 or more years of a Hillary picked court? What rights would be left protected after that?

          1. They will discover that the Communist Manifesto (as interpreted by the Frankfurt School) was lurking inside the Constitution all this time, and we just never noticed before.

    4. If anyone is opposed to the undue influence of billionaires* in politics, it’s Hillary Clinton.

      *who have not yet donated to the Clinton Global Initiative

    5. The president has no role in the constitutional amendment process.

      1. True. The last prez I remember suggesting any constitutional amendment was Nixon. I’m not sure it even got a committee vote. I don’t even remember what it was, or what they were.

    6. If that’s the extent of her effort, we gots nothing to fear.

    7. “Common sense rules”?

      Since when has the meaning of “common sense” been “totalitarian”?

      Someone once said that if you want to know what somebody really is, give them power. Power revealed Clinton to be bottomless pit of lies, deceit and depravity. There is nothing she would not do given power. Giving her more power should be considered “suicide by vote”.

      With no power beyond that of bluster, Trump has shown himself to be a hideous pile of ignorance and mental illness. What kind of monster would be created if he had the power of the presidency?

      This reminds me of the scene in “Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman” where the two monsters are being charged up by the apparatus that Frankenstein used to give life to his creation. They end up destroying each other (at least until the next sequel).

      What will the sequel to America be like?

    8. would allow Americans to establish common sense rules

      Why are all “common sense” rules not?

      Doublespeak. Patriot Act…

  33. So, I heard Virginia Postrel on one of the Fifth Column podcasts.

    She seems like she thinks she’s smarter and more informed than everyone else, but everything she says is bitchy and pedestrian, first level thinking.

    The bitchy isn’t an issue, though if she had something interesting to say.

    1. “Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides”

      And shit like this, does Postrel actually beleive that?

      Does she genuinely believe the current President, or the one before, were held in check by the system?

      1. Postrel is just rationalizing her sexism.

    2. Is that a consequence or a job requirement of being Reason editor?

  34. Clinton is the establishment’s candidate of both major parties.
    The GOP will let her invade any county she chooses without congressional approval.
    They’ll be some culture war skirmishes. Maybe she’ll try to get a Dept of Transgender and/or expand ObozoCare.
    But for the most part it’ll be business as usual…NSA, Drug War, the debt will rack up, etc, etc, etc.

    If Trump gets elected expect congress to discover the US Constitution and limits to Executive power.

    1. The GOP will let her invade any county she chooses without congressional approval.

      It’s not like they have any way of stopping her without a supermajority in the Senate

    2. Plus, Trump might actually end the federal level of the drug war.

  35. I’m never going to understand why so many libertarians, particularly prominent libertarians, seem to genuinely believe that a Clinton presidency would be in any way better than a Trump presidency. I will freely stipulate that Trump espouses positions which are hostile to liberty, that he has an…imperfect…understanding of economics, particularly re: things like trade and employment, and that he seems to consort with the kind of folks you definitely do not want to see wandering the halls of power. Christie, I’m lookin’ at you.

    1. But this whole “wrong within normal parameters” thing is totally myopic. Think about it. Trump has no political experience. He also has a tendency to back off when he encounters resistance. Trump is going to be too much of an outsider to do much horse-trading in smoky back rooms, and he won’t have the political capital to punch anything through Congress. In his case, Congress actually would be an effective check.

      On the other hand, Clinton has had decades of experience subverting the checks and balances of government. She’s known to be an amoral narcissist who believes normal rules of ethics, never mind laws, don’t apply to her, and has been proven right! Nothing she has said indicates that she would be any more of a friend to liberty than Trump. In fact, thanks to her political experience she knows what she can get through Congress, and she can find enough critters to do it. Trump could talk about terrible things and get nothing done; she could talk about slightly less terrible things and get them all.

      1. “wrong within normal parameters”

        This is just such a stupid thing for otherwise intelligent people to say.

        1. I am gonna have to go with “ostensibly” intelligent because with quotes like that their intelligence is really in question.

          1. To me it’s the difference between someone losing their temper and telling you they’re going to rip off your head and shit down your neck, and someone holding a gun that you’ve seen them shoot someone with in the past telling you very calmly that they’re going to shoot you. The one is not a pleasant person, sure, but the odds of their actually doing what they say are slim to none, whereas the known murderer holding the previously-used murder weapon is making a credible, believable threat.

            Shit, you want to talk about “normal parameters”? I know a lot of loudmouthed blowhards who brag too much and aren’t necessarily nice or pleasant people. They’re not dangerous, they’re just tedious. Their “normal parameters” are pretty harmless. On the other hand, “normal parameters” for a sociopath include some pretty terrible things. I’d rather the one than the other if I’ve got to choose between the two.

            1. Not only that, but Trump’s extravagance is in the realm of what the normal MITS & WITS say. “Normal parameters” apparently excludes regular folks. There is nothing Trump opines about that couldn’t be gotten out of many of the people in your neighborhood, which is why he’s a populist. “Build a fence.” “Check out those Moslems before you let them in.” “See if we can get better deals in foreign trade.” You may not agree with the things he says, but he’s no Charles Manson.

      2. “in smoky back rooms” is so 1960’s

        Maybe: “in tea rooms and veggie sandwich shops”

  36. Are Johnson/Weld still running?

  37. Who wants a game? I want a game!

    I’ll give my favorite recipes as treats to the first person to spot the diverse idiocies herein.

    Excerpt for funsies:

    It turned out that 10% of the tots who had the earliest bedtimes were obese as teenagers. About 16% of the kids with the middle bedtimes were obese as teens, and 23% of the kids with the latest bedtimes were obese as teens. So there’s something of a dose-dependent relationship going on here.

    “For parents, this reinforces the importance of establishing a bedtime routine,” said study author Sarah Anderson. “It’s something concrete that families can do to lower their child’s risk and it’s also likely to have positive benefits on behavior and on social, emotional and cognitive development.”

    SCIENCE.

    1. You have no disciprine!

      1. Is that a funny or an answer? There’s Butterfinger cookies on the line here, so this is what you’d call an important distinction.

        The answer can, naturally, be funny. This is preferable, even.

        1. Well, it was an attempt at funny

    2. God I hate this. This may have always been en vogue among pseudo-researchers, but it seems to have come to prominence lately. Causation and correlation are not even close to the same thing and it’s dangerous to think they are. Parents who let their kids have bad habits sometimes let their kids have bad habits. That’s right. I said it.

      1. Maybe that’s why the researchers placed this in their discussion section “Our results should be interpreted in the context of the following limitation. First, observational studies like ours cannot establish causality, and it is possible that underlying biological mechanisms drive both a child’s obesity risk and sleep requirements.”

        Maybe…just maybe…the way research works in this field is that before jumping into the “gold standard” of a randomized controlled trial, several correlational studies are conducted so that researchers can winnow out irrelevant variables before designing a controlled experiment.

        Jus’ sayin’

        1. They should be putting that in the headline/abstract, not the fucking discussion section.

          1. Why? If you were even semi-awake with a hangover during week one of your quantitative methods class, it’s quite obvious from the abstract that it is an observational study.

        2. I’m not disagreeing with what that phrase. But immediately after it, they qualify with:

          However, randomized intervention studies have included recommendations about bedtime as part of multifaceted approaches to childhood obesity prevention.

          And only cite one article that appears to control for TV viewing (it’s behind a paywall, but the abstract makes it clear). That’s it? What they’re effectively doing here is saying “we can’t prove causality, but it’s there,” without sufficiently supporting it. At best, that might just be shoddy authorship (not including multiple citations when you say there are multiple examples).

          Furthermore, we have this quote from the lead author:

          “For parents, this reinforces the importance of establishing a bedtime routine,” said study author Sarah Anderson. “It’s something concrete that families can do to lower their child’s risk and it’s also likely to have positive benefits on behavior and on social, emotional and cognitive development.”

          Absolutely implying causality.

          My earlier post maybe should’ve been clearer. I’m not surprised that authors include such disclaimers in actual journal articles, as reviewers may freak out a little if they don’t. But when portraying/relating their work, the scientists seem to believe (or at least want you to believe) that what they found was causal.

          1. I believe you’re reading too much into Anderson’s statements. She’s saying that she observed a statistically significant relationship between teen obesity and bedtime, but no where that I can see does she claim that relationship is strictly bivariate. It’s most likely that a confounding variable exists, but what it exactly is needs to be determined through additional research, but what she can say from here data is that if you alter one variable (bedtime), it will probably have a stat. significant effect on the other variable (teen obesity), but the exact mechanism is not clear.

            Again, we don’t know the exact mechanism for muscular hypertrophy. We do know that one variable (weight lifted) effects another (muscle growth), but we don’t know exactly why (various theories like repair of micro-tears in muscle tissue, hormones, etc. have either been proven false or are inconclusive at this point). Are you saying we shouldn’t lift weights to grow muscle because, even though a correlation has been observed, we aren’t fully clear on the mechanism of action? Yes, Anderson et al. haven’t proven a casual relationship between bedtime and teen obesity, no shit, but her data suggests that if you tweak one variable an effect can be seen on the other. I don’t know why people are getting their dander up about that.

            1. I believe you’re reading too much into Anderson’s statements.

              Perhaps, perhaps not. And their admission in the article that there is likely a confounding variable is noted. But to say that changing your kids’ bedtime routine is something “concrete” you can do to alter their weight isn’t sufficiently supported. The authors note over and over again that socioeconomic conditions have an impact on both bedtime routine and obesity rates. So, they’re hearing the hoofprints but suggesting there’s a unicorn nearby. That’s really what’s at the heart of this for me.

              Again, we don’t know the exact mechanism for muscular hypertrophy.

              I don’t see that as apples to apples. In every single case of someone lifting weights, muscles grow or increase in tonus and you’d be hard-pressed to think of confounding variables to control for (other than maybe starvation). You might be able to tweak the outcome a bit with diet, but you aren’t going to bulk up without lifting. In the obesity/sleep schedule, you can easily be rail thin and have a horrible sleep schedule. Or you can be a total lardass and follow a perfect routine. The implication that you can significantly alter obesity statistics with better bedtime routines is way too close to “this one weird trick.” Lifting weights to improve muscle mass and tone is not a weird trick.

              1. But to say that changing your kids’ bedtime routine is something “concrete” you can do to alter their weight isn’t sufficiently supported.

                Again, I believe you’re misquoting Anderson. She didn’t say earlier bedtimes are a “concrete” way to directly alter weight; she said “It’s something concrete that families can do to lower their child’s risk“. This is an epidemiology study; the results are about relative risk. Now I’ll be the first to say that science reporting, especially about health, is terrible; however to argue that Anderson et al. or the Forbes reporter are saying that earlier bedtimes will make your kid thin is not being fair to either of them. Table 3 of the study clearly showed the results as relative risk with a confidence interval of 95%. What the data suggests is that a 5 year old who goes to bed before 8 PM on a weekday has a 48% less risk of becoming an obese teen as compared to one who goes to bed after 9 PM, assuming all other things being equal. Of course, if that early bird spends his days like this guy, he’ll be obese regardless of what time he goes to bed. [CONT]

                1. Now in the study, the authors admit that it could have nothing to do with bedtimes, though they cite previous randomized trials that suggest there might be a casual mechanism. Nevertheless, it could be that parents who let their kids stay up late are more permissive in other things, like snacking or nutrition. But Anderson et al.’s study wasn’t designed to look for that. That’s what the discussion section is all about, stating the limitations of the study and suggesting future research. Note that I don’t necessarily agree with Anderson et al.’s conclusion, but I don’t see, based on the data she collected, that she’s out of line to suggest that earlier bedtimes reduce risk of teen obesity.

                  1. I really disagree that I’m misquoting Anderson. I agree that “lower risk” implies YMMV. I disagree that mere correlation is enough to recommend action when there’s a much more obvious answer. You do not always need causation (and defining causality in practice becomes an incredibly slippery slope) to recommend that someone should alter a behavior, but it’s important to distinguish between unicorns and horses. The authors are recommending altering bedtime routines to alter obesity risks. Why not just publish an article that says “obesity and sleep related? Interesting…” instead of making lifestyle recommendations based on correlative evidence? There is absolutely no reason to go around even suggesting that a better sleep schedule will keep your kids thin when changing their diet will have a much more profound effect and everyone knows it. Nobody would publish an article suggesting that to lower your kids’ weight, you should go make more money, although the correlation certainly exists. That would be controversial. Saying “kids should have bedtimes” is not controversial. The authors did not *need* to suggest it, but they did anyway.

                    There’s also potentially an argument to be made that journalists and scientists should be more aware of how the public is going to perceive their findings. Constantly talking about “links” to everything leads to misperceptions and a lack of public confidence in scientific rigor. Not my hill to die on. It’s simply worth a thought.

                    1. There’s also potentially an argument to be made that journalists and scientists should be more aware of how the public is going to perceive their findings.

                      Oh, they’re aware. They want to bend the public’s thinking to their own way of thinking.

                2. 48% less risk of becoming an obese teen as compared to one who goes to bed after 9 PM,

                  Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly. It should be only having a 48% risk as compared…

                  1. Remember the true bottom line “More grant money research is needed.”

        3. Maybe…just maybe…the way research works in this field is that before jumping into the “gold standard” of a randomized controlled trial, several correlational studies are conducted so that researchers can winnow out irrelevant variables before designing a controlled experiment.

          Absolutely.

          The problem is, 95% of the voting population doesn’t distinguish between correlation and causation and will use said study as support for implementing policy/law. In the hands of the good, such a study can be used for good. Quite the opposite in the hands of the evil (or stupid).

          AND

          She does use her correlation to further an agenda when she says:

          “For parents, this reinforces the importance of establishing a bedtime routine,”… “It’s something concrete that families can do to lower their child’s risk and it’s also likely to have positive benefits on behavior and on social, emotional and cognitive development.”

      2. I’m reading the study. It’s even worse than the article.

        Iron Chef Pork Roast

        Take you a three- to five-pound pork roast – I fancy the shoulder – and stick it in a gallon ziploc with a cup of salt. Work the salt around so it is evenly distributed. Seal the bag, squishing out as much air as you can, and refrigerate overnight.

        The next morning, calculate how long it will take to cook your roast at 1 and 1/2 to 2 hours per pound and subtract that answer plus one from your desired supper time. Then remember claiming you’ll never use math back when you were fourteen and stupid, and feel old for a while. At the designated time, take the roast out of the bag and wipe off as much of the salt as you can without being picky about it.

        Preheat the oven to 200. The pork needs to be elevated, and shoulder makes abundant drippings. You can either use a roaster with a deep reserve under the rack, or roll up some foil to make a stand for the pork.

        In a bowl, mix up equal parts ketchup, Coca-Cola, oyster sauce and soy sauce. Baste your roast well and stick it in the oven. Roast fat side up and uncovered to an internal temp of 190 (this is very ish, I generally know by stabbing it), basting well every hour on the hour and by gods don’t skip this step.

        Inspired by Masaharu Morimoto (he’s so dreamy!), with a h/t to HeroicMulatto’s wife on the brining.

        1. I’m reading the study. It’s even worse than the article.

          Why? The math did its work and showed there was no relationship between obesity and their bullshit, low-construct validity measure of “maternal sensitivity”.

          Maternal sensitivity was computed as the sum of three 7-point ratings of observed maternal behavior toward the child: supportive presence, respect for autonomy, and hostility (reverse coded)

          There was no evidence of an interaction between bedtime and maternal sensitivity, and thus, for parsimony, we present the RR (95% CIs) for adolescent obesity omitting this interaction term.

        2. Thanks HoD! Bookmarking and trying later this week.

        3. What’s the salt for, kashering the pork?

    3. I don’t see a problem with it, obviously poor fat kids stay up late because they are waiting up for their parents to finish trekking 20 miles through their food desert to find dinner, until they are forced to give up and come home with nothing but gas station microwave gmo burritos and a 12 pack of canned high fructose corn syrup

    4. ‘A significant finding in the current study, and in others in the past, is that later bedtimes were more common in families of lower socioeconomic status, families who are non-white, and those who are less educated. This may be because parents in these groups get home later at night from work, or it could be due to a host of other reasons that the study didn’t look into.’
      I don’t think an early bedtime is going to help with those problems.

  38. Clinton is awful, corrupt, not terribly bright, and evil.

    But in a known way, so that’s ok.

    The hell?

    1. My thoughts exactly. You have that esp for sure. What am I thinking now????

  39. It’s probably also worth noting that as a white guy, I’m of a demographic that has the least to fear from a Trump presidency (and there’s still plenty to fear). For Latinos, blacks, and Muslims, the prospect must be terrifying.

    Wut.

    Latinos – only something to “fear” if here illegally, according to Trump. I mentioned something like this last night, it is not the executive’s prerogative to selectively enforce laws. Trump’s enthusiasm for deportation is perhaps disconcerting.

    Muslims – again, the only thing here is immigration policy. Nobody is talking about rounding up all Muslim visa holders/citizens and shipping them somewhere else. IIRC, Trump’s exact phrasing was that it would be a temporary ban on immigration until we can figure out what to do. Again, obviously not a purely libertarian argument, but definitely not off-the-charts crazy.

    Blacks – Diamond and Silk disagree. Seriously, I keep seeing this and have no idea where it’s coming from. I had an Uber driver recently inform me that Trump wants to deport African Americans back to Africa.

    1. “I had an Uber driver recently inform me that Trump wants to deport African Americans back to Africa.”

      Undoubtedly some prog/democrat told him that.

      1. Yeah I immediately suspected it was probably on the Twitter. But just the fact that someone would see that and then believe it without even thinking to fact-check is astonishing and depressing. Then attempt to spread it around… This is how propaganda works.

        1. You have to deactivate your logical and critical thinking abilities to be a leftist, so it’s not surprising.

    2. He’s confusing Trump with Abraham Lincoln.

    3. Latinos – only something to “fear” if here illegally, according to Trump. I mentioned something like this last night, it is not the executive’s prerogative to selectively enforce laws. Trump’s enthusiasm for deportation is perhaps disconcerting.

      If there was a serious attempt, do you really think ‘legal’ Latinos wouldn’t be affected?

    4. I keep seeing this and have no idea where it’s coming from

      Democrats do this in every year that is evenly divisible by 4.

      Well, actually they do it all the time, but it spikes in years evenly divisible by 4.

  40. Dammit

    McDonald’s and Starbucks can agree on one thing.

    Following McDonald’s lead, Starbucks says it will also use filters to block customers from using its Wi-Fi to watch porn. Anti-porn groups Enough is Enough and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, who fought for the changes, commended the businesses’ decisions.

    1. Anti-porn groups Enough is Enough and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, who fought for the changes, commended the businesses’ decisions.

      Maybe I’m odd, but those sound like pro-porn groups.

      1. +1 Moms Demand Action

        1. I love when mothers *demand* action from others to protect their kids.

          Never mind ALL the responsibility and power rests in their hands to raise their own fucking children.

          1. IT TAKES A FUCKING VILLAGE RUFUS WHAT DONT U UNDERSTAND

            1. Not when the freaking village is outside your door with pitchforks and torches all because your teeth are different and you drink blood…..but in a totally consensual way without violating anyone’s liberty or property.

              So, screw those villagers!

              1. Which is why sensible vampires live in castles.

    2. People watch porn in public?

      1. about 20 years ago I remember watching an older man (about 50, IIRC) flipping through a Hustler magazine in the middle of a crowded airplane. That was weird. No one said anything about it.

    3. And I wanted to watch Hamburglar porn….

  41. ‘…He (Trump) has no earthly idea what he thinks about taxes, abortion, minimum wages, debt, health care, or most other issues…’

    I’m willing to bet most candidates including Obama know jack-shit about most issues too. They just know how to speak as though they do. So this criticism against Trump rings hollow for me.

  42. You know it’s an election year when libertarians start arguing about whom they’re too principled to vote for.

  43. There is more wisdom in the comments here than there is in the article itself.

    (But no, Grand Moff, Hillary is not going to beat Trump in a landslide.)

    1. From your lips to Allah’s ear.

      But I fear the election is hers to lose. The $2-3 billion smear machine that will be Hildog’s campaign and the free of charge mainstream media tsunami has barely revved up.

    2. Personally, I could see Hillary beating Trump in a landslide.

      I could also see Trump beating Hillary in a landslide.

      It could also be close.

      I think at this stage anybody making a prediction or trusting the polls is making a YUUUUUGe wild-ass guess.

    3. And if we put our minds to it, we can be funnier than O’Rourke, Barry, & Jilette put together.

  44. I KNEW IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE REASON OFFICIALLY ENDORSED CLINTON.

    1. I should have known.

      1. It’s another opportunity for our president to talk about that discount Glockstore has been the cause of these killings.

  45. I usually respect Radley Balko, but he’s parroting some leftist propaganda here. How in the world would a Trump presidency be terrifying for blacks? For citizen or legal resident Hispanics, the only problem is that they might be harassed and/or accidentally swept up in any aggressive wave of deportations (which will probably never happen).

    Interesting that none of those questioned mention the major benefits of a Trump presidency:

    1. The media will do its job and investigate and scrutinize the executive branch.
    2. The Senate is probably going back to the D’s, so we won’t have the batshit insane SCOTUS nominees we’d get with HRC.
    3. Most of the bad things he wants to do are impossible.
    4. He’ll spend so much time fighting the bureaucracy that very little of what he wants that is possible will happen.

    1. You’d have to be a buck-toothed cousin-fucking moron to support Donald Trump for president.

      Sorry.

      1. Takes one to know one.

      2. Perhaps, but if that’s the case, what kind of a loathsome creature do you have to be to support Hillary Clinton?

      3. So you’re supporting Trump? Figures.

      4. ..ah, Progressive rhetoric at its finest.

      5. …but what if her buck-teeth just make her cuter?

    2. The GOP will lose ground in the US senate just because of whose terms are up & their relative popularity, but that’d be the case regardless of who got the prez nomination. Trump won’t have coat-tails, but neither will he discourage regular R turnout. It is likely that many of the new voters he’ll attract will be ticket splitters, and he’ll also get a lot of D crossover votes who’d be voting mostly D for other offices anyway.

      However, no matter who controls the senate, no batshit insane judge nominees if Hillary’s not elected, but if she is elected, probably many batshit insane ones would be confirmed also regardless of party control. The Republicans just can’t hold that line.

      1. Trump won’t have coat-tails

        His presence on the ballot is going to drive Democrat and Hispanic turnout, and demoralize a lot of the GOP base and right-leaning independents. They’re going to lose more seats in the senate than they otherwise would have, and may even lose the House.

        He won’t have coat tails, but he does have skid marks — the kind that take a generation to wash off.

  46. OT:

    Two Baton Rouge police officers dead, multiple shot, authorities say

    ADVOCATE STAFF REPORT Published Jul 17, 2016 at 9:26 am | Updated Jul 17, 2016 at 9:57 am

    Beware the comments

    1. Ah, there’s an intellectual in there. You know because his comments starts with: “I exclude GOOD blacks from this missive…..that said…”.

    2. Three dead. Fucking fuck. Another month of national mourning followed by the police state ratcheting up even faster.

  47. “Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law. For the very reason that she is such a conventional politician, her opponents would know how to effectively oppose her.”

    —-Virginia Postrel

    Exhibit A: Hillary Clinton put together a business partnership that stole taxpayer money intended to reimburse the proverbial “widows and orphans” who lost their life savings in a failed, un-FDIC insured Savings & Loan and funneled that taxpayer money into her husband’s campaign instead. Everyone in the partnership went to prison for this–except for Hillary and her husband.

    Exhibit B: When FBI files containing all of the background information and secrets of the Clintons’ political opponents were illegally misappropriated by the White House, they were subsequently found in the possession of Hillary Clinton. Yes, it is public knowledge that Hillary effectively used the FBI to gather dirt on her political opponents–but she was never held accountable.

    1. I find it hard to believe that Postrel is actually that stupid and ignorant about how Washington actually works. Hillary would command zombie like loyalty from her own party and the media and would just be just as or likely more unaccountable than Obama has been.

      How do otherwise reasonable people like Postrel talk themselves into believing such nonsense?

      1. They really, really don’t want to give any appearance of supporting Trump.

        Not that I blame them; the man is the social equivalent of raw sewage. Have fun getting that smell out, Reince Preibus and Mike Pence.

        1. That’s about it. They have to appear nonpartisan. Also, Postrel has to appear “serious”. (Sorry, Va.) I’ve never known anyone who was social w Trump, so I’ll take your word for it.

    2. Wasn’t that IRS files? So many I can’t keep track.

  48. Are we talking about the real Hillary and Trump or the omnipotent demonic she-monster version of Hillary and the “outsider” Trump?

    1. Leave Hillary alone!!1

      /Tony

      He’s been saying that a lot.

      I was thinking Trump’s antics would be the most amusing thing coming out of the next presidency, but it’s possible that watching lefties pathetically spin for Hillary’s indefensible actions might be even better.

      1. You guys should have coffee with some of the Bernie or Busters. You can talk about all the wars Hillary singlehandedly started and agree that there most be smoke where there’s fire what with all the Republican investigations over the years, even if they never were able to nab her for anything. Then you can awkwardly ignore the fact that the only alternative is a mentally ill orange fascist.

        1. If Hillary loses, will you please come and pout here? And tell us how it’s all our fault, too.

          1. I’m reserving my venom for liberal neo-Naderites, actually. I can appreciate that this is a difficult election for you guys.

        2. Tony|7.17.16 @ 11:43AM|#
          “…most be smoke where there’s fire…”

          You mean destroying evidence under subpoena? That sort of fire?
          Peddling influence for ‘contributions’ while she’s SoS? That sort of fire?
          That woman stinks enough to attract catfish while she’s standing on a bridge.

  49. Exhibit C: According to documents from both the Clinton Foundation and the Department of State, while Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State, she accepted tens of millions of dollars both from foreign governments and from various defense contractors who needed her approval for the sale of arms to foreign governments. By the Clinton Foundation’s own admission, they broke an “ethics agreement” Hillary had with the Obama Administration governing such “donations”. Perhaps more astounding, Hillary Clinton continues to accept donations from foreign governments–even while she’s running for President. This is all public knowledge, but she has not been held accountable.

    http://tinyurl.com/o6x639e

    Given this abbreviated list of Hillary Clinton’s completely unconventional abuses of power and the inability of her political opponents to exploit them politically or hold her accountable for them, why would you say:

    1) Hilary would be subject to the checks that the system provides?

    2) Hillary has a modicum of deference to the law?

    3) Hillary is a conventional politician?

    4) Hillary’s opponents know how to effectively oppose her?

    All four of these assertions have been manifestly disproved, and they are specifically why Hillary Clinton is worse than Donald Trump.

    1. It’s illegal for Hillary Clinton to accept donations from foreign governments, and she’s not doing it, so you’re lying.

      1. I guess Bill Clinton is lying, too:

        “Bill Clinton acknowledged for the first time on Tuesday that he will have to rethink his role at the Clinton Foundation and its fundraising should his wife Hillary Clinton be elected president. However, the former president stopped short of saying what those changes would be.

        . . . .

        Mr. Clinton’s comments square with the thinking of his wife’s campaign team. Advisers to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and people close to the family say the foundation’s practices will no doubt change should Mrs. Clinton win in November. One senior campaign adviser said that Mr. Clinton wouldn’t be able to continue to raise money for the foundation. This adviser added that if Mrs. Clinton is in the White House, the foundation couldn’t function as it did when she served as secretary of state.

        Mr. Clinton on Tuesday did not reveal any plans and said, “I don’t believe in counting chickens before they hatch.”

        “Bill Clinton to Rethink Clinton Foundation Role if Hillary Wins”
        The Washington Post
        June 14, 2016

        http://tinyurl.com/j5wcb22

        That Hillary has continued to accept donations from foreign governments while running for President has been confirmed dozens of times. The Saudis, for instance, have given her millions since she resigned as Secretary of State. It’s public knowledge. Your ignorance isn’t my problem.

        1. You said Hillary Clinton is taking foreign donations, then said it again. Would you like to correct your statement to refer instead to her family’s charity? The one that yeah takes money from Saudis and others to pay for work on AIDS and malaria mitigation. Isn’t there a real scandal she’s involved in you could pretend to be butthurt about?

          1. OK now you’re not even trying.

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

            “Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors”
            Mother Jones

            http://tinyurl.com/o6x639e

            These sorts of foundations are typical vehicles for bribery. In corrupt countries, you put the families of the people you want to bribe on your foundation board and give them a big salary. In the United States, I guess you put your family on the board of a charitable foundation.

            And who’s to say what happens to all that money once Hillary is no longer in office? I guess that will be decided by the people who control the Clinton Foundation board–Bill, Chelsea, and Hillary.

            Eight years isn’t a terribly long time to wait for an investment to mature.

            1. I agree that it’s a scandal for the US to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. That we did that while they donated to the Clinton Foundation doesn’t demonstrate some quid pro quo. If this constitutes a conflict, then the Clinton Foundation would simply have to cease to exist, because everyone donates to it.

              The convoluted mustache-twirling money-making scheme you’re implying exists is of course too silly to entertain. She could just have someone write her another book, you know.

              1. That we did that while they donated to the Clinton Foundation doesn’t demonstrate some quid pro quo

                Words fail. Words fail.

                1. Why would Hillary trust someone (or nation) if they stiff the Clinton Foundation? That is probably the one way she can be sure they are trustworthy if they give a large donation to her family’s personal charity. Sure somebody might have given a billion dollars to the Red Cross, but what the Red Cross has done is nothing compared to what the Clinton Foundation has done. And if they won’t donate to the charities that will do some good then how can she trust them to do what is right for the world?

              2. I agree that it’s a scandal for the US to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. That we did that while they donated to the Clinton Foundation doesn’t demonstrate some quid pro quo.

                You’re talking about this as if the legality is important. It doesn’t matter to me whether what she did was illegal–not in this discussion.

                The question is whether accepting money from foreign governments both while Secretary of State and afterwards should disqualify Hillary from being President in the minds of voters.

                1) Hilary would not be subject to the checks that the system provides. She’s walking all over them even as I type.

                2) If Hillary has even have a modicum of deference to the law, she doesn’t have one iota of deference to propriety.

                3) Hillary is not a conventional politician–she’s manifestly unethical.

                4) Hillary’s opponents do not know how to effectively oppose her.

                All of these are reasons why Hillary is worse than Trump. I can’t think of much good to say about Trump on the issues–although his criticism of the Iraq War was spot on and Hillary is a bigger neocon warmonger than Bush Jr. ever was. However, it doesn’t really matter where Hillary stands on any particular issue–the fact is that she’s disqualified herself from office by gross acts of impropriety. Some of those disgraceful acts go back decades, and some of them are ongoing.

                1. Trump’s criticism of the Iraq war was even more flagrant a pander than Hillary’s apology for her authorization vote. He has not been consistent. He doesn’t have any principles, you know.

                  There’s lots of hot air about HRC’s corruption, but I think we can all agree that Republicans in Congress will not allow her to trample over checks and balances–they’ve hauled her before committees and special prosecutors for decades. Either that’s been an ongoing witch hunt or they’re incredibly incompetent at proving anything.

                  1. “Trump’s criticism of the Iraq war was even more flagrant a pander than Hillary’s apology for her authorization vote.”

                    Trump certainly wasn’t pandering to Republicans by opposing the Iraq War, and the left denounced him for it–said he was standing up for Saddam Hussein.

                    “There’s lots of hot air about HRC’s corruption, but I think we can all agree that Republicans in Congress will not allow her to trample over checks and balances”

                    That you can’t tell the difference between hot air and facts doesn’t surprise me.

                    You should at least be able to see that despite all the awful things Hillary has done and have become public knowledge over the years, she’s never been held accountable by the Republicans in Congress, and there is no reason to think that will change in the future–if and when Hillary gets executive privilege, control of the Department of Justice, the bully pulpit, the power to sign budgets, etc., all along with the keys to the White House.

                    Her unaccountability will be even worse if she gets the keys to the White House.

                    Don’t give her the keys to the White House.

        2. As first spouse, Bill won’t need the Clinton Foundation to pay for his lifestyle. The taxpayers will cover it. I suppose Chelsea might need some of its largesse, but I’m sure there’s plenty already in the till for that.

          1. Didn’t Chelsea husband get filthy rich while bankrupting several pension funds.

            I guess the old saying is true. A girl DOES marry a girl just like their father (or in this case, like her mother).

      2. Ken has a thoughtful and fact-filled post supported by a link to Mother Jones, and that’s your response? Weak, even for you.

      3. “Nuh-uh! ”

        – Tony

      4. The $250K speaking fees don’t count as donations, because she had to work for those.

        1. Those 20 minute secret speeches to Goldman Sachs are the modern version of Jim Wright’s book, which he sold by the palette to unions.

    2. Yeah. If Trump wins, you’ll see lefties kissing libertarian ass like they were during the Bush administration. If Hillary wins, you’ll see everyone from The Daily Show to political pundits on her side.

    3. WHAT KIND OF LIBERTARIANS ARE YOU PEOPLE?????

      Here’s what our candidates say about Hillary Clinton:

      JOHNSON: Hillary Clinton, a wonderful public servant, I guess I would say that.

      WELD: Old friend. Nice kid. Knew her in her 20s. We shared an office in the Nixon impeachment, real bond, lifelong. Seriously. Not kidding.

      These are the LP candidates on Hillary Clinton. And they are the best candidates in the 2016 race. Seriously. Not kidding. The 2016 race is that bad.

  50. I cannot think of any way in which Clinton is better than Trump. (No, not trade: anyone who thinks she is in favor of “free trade” ignores what Democrats do that they say “protects” unions, the environment, workers in other countries, etc.)

    Some of the ways she is worse: Supreme Court, massive new government spending, obeisance to SJWs, massively corrupt, demonstrated incompetence in foreign affairs. Trump has spoken against excessive regulation, but we all know Hillary wants more.

    I know there are libertarians who think she is better on immigration, but that’s delusional. She wants to increase Obama’s Muslim refugee program by 550%, which will inevitably requires more statism to support and surveil them. She wants to continue the flood of Latin American illegals, which inevitably requires more statism to support them, and enhances the electoral power of the Democratic Party, and thus statism.

    Trump is also much more of a pragmatist, and would be more willing to listen to non-state, market-based approaches to problems.

    1. Let Clinton be worse. Let her pave the way for a real alternative; individual liberty, limited government, decentralization.

      If you support big government-loving authoritarian Trump, you will go down with the Trump ship and the next president will be a millennial Sanders 2.0.

      1. That’s a legit argument, but its not the question that was asked.

        That’s “should you want the worse candidate to win”?

        The question was simply “which is worse”.

        Not that i care. I just think it cheating to answer questions no one asked.

        The part of your theory i don’t really buy is “Sanders 2.0”. Yes, there will be leftier lefties to come in the future, but not like sanders, who was a proper old-school pro-Castro/Sandinista marxist-socialist.

        they’ll be shallow lefties who make paens to a more theoretical “sharing” society, but their idealized example of the Democratic Socialist Europe isn’t going to stay all shiny forever. Europe is up to its knees in serious fucking problems. In 4 years, they’ll be up to their waist. Pointing at a ramshackle coalition of faggy euro govts with aging, retiring union workers, constantly-protesting-do-nothing youth, and hordes of angy immigrants as the “ideal” will have less and less appeal.

        i could go on. just my $.02.

      2. Let her pave the way for a real alternative; individual liberty, limited government, decentralization.

        I wish I could share your optimism. Unfortunately, this never seems to happen although “we” “try” it over and over again.

      3. Just like Obama did?

      4. I find it hard to find an area in which Hillary is less of a “big government-loving authoritarian” than Trump. She’s demonstrably worse on all the things I listed.

      5. No, unfortunately it’s not going to happen. The voters want an authoritarian who will bully their neighbors. That’s really all that a majority of voters want. That and free shit. The people who want liberty are about 15% of the electorate.

        1. People don’t want liberty. They wan’t security at the expense of other people’s liberty.

  51. If Gary Johnson doesn’t get into the debates he can’t be elected. Since media can not talk about anything but Trump and Clinton then his ideas will not be heard. Personally I would rather cut my balls off and have them for breakfast than vote for either of those two losers. Hell that goes for any Democrat or Republican. As Mary Katherine would say why encourage the bastards. Let the country become a dictatorship; it couldn’t be any worse than Clinton or Trump.

    1. It would be great if he got into the debates, but he still can’t be elected.

      1. No but he could throw it into the House and they would pick him over Trump

        1. Ha, but no. The GOP will stick together, and I think Democrats hate libertarians more than they hate Republicans.

          1. Correct. The Republicans like big government too just in a different way.

        2. The House has to choose between the top two vote-getters in the EC.

          Unless Johnson beat Clinton in the Electoral College, a Trump vs Johnson vote would never happen.

          1. No; the House votes among the top three. The Senate only gets to choose between the top two.

  52. Hillary is worse by far. She would also have a lapdog press to cheerlead her moves against the 1st, the 2nd, and the inevitable move to government run healthcare when Obummercare tanks. She is the most corrupt candidate for Pres that I have seen in my 40 plus years in this country. Plus I live in progressatopia and will enjoy the rivers of tears if Trump manages to win. I seriously doubt he takes it though.

    1. I still think Trump will win. She’s a terrible campaigner with tons of baggage, bad health, and who wants to increase Muslim immigration, control guns, bow to BLM and SJWs, and open Obamacare to illegals. I don’t see that as a winning platform.

      1. I’m ready for our bet Papaya. I got the Hildebeast you got Trumpkins. Name the prize. I want to have something to look forward to on that grim first Wednesday in Novermber.

        1. A round of drinks at the next meetup?

          1. Yeah, I was sorry to have missed the last one. Anything in the day is just tough for me. We could do that or maybe a hardcover book of winner’s choice off Amazon. Cap it at 25-30 bucks?

            1. Sure, up to $30 on Amazon. We’ll try for an evening next time. Acosmist says he might be in town in October, but let’s do something before then.

              1. Right on to the bet and the meet up.

    2. No doubt about it, she’s worse. And recently, it seems that the worst possible people wind up in the highest offices. Her chances are good for winning just because of her level of evil.

      1. We are going to be trading in an absolutely terrible Senator, Boxer, for an arguably even worse one, Kamala, in Novermber so I very much agree. They just seem to keep getting eviler and eviler.

        1. It is not even arguable. Harris is much worse than Boxer.

          1. Boxer is an absolute dimwit who has accomplished nothing. I think Harris might be more effective at pushing the progressive bs because she is craftier.

            1. And utterly evil. She is just a nasty horrible bitch.

              1. Hillary’s running mate?

  53. One point should not be missed.

    If the GOP had nominated ANYBODY else from among their primary field, this question would be a no-brainer. Even Lindsey fucking Graham would be favorable over HRC from a libertarian POV. The only reason HRC even has a chance is because Trump is getting the nom.

    Which makes you wonder, since Trump and the Clintons are old friends…. [/conspiracy theory]

    1. The idea that someone with Trump’s ego would run in order to throw this to Hillary is silly.

      1. It’s not that silly of an idea, since Bill called Trump and encouraged him to run as a Republican.

        1. There’s another explanation for that: Bill doesn’t want Hillary to win. Why should he? It would overshadow his legacy, interfere with his babe-chasing, and reward the woman who’s been tormenting him for years.

          1. You think so? I think old Willy would be loving it. I can imagine him roaming the halls of the Capital, tushy squeezing all of the young interns.

          2. Bill could have sabotaged her at many, many points during this process.

            1. Many think he already has. Google Bill sabotaging Hillary.

              1. If he wanted to sabotage someone he could have thought of someone better to run against her than a know-nothing misogynist.

                1. It was a pretty good pick for ol Willy if that’s what he wanted. Trump steamrolled 17 other GOP candidates and now is polling neck and neck with the Hildebeast. Regardless of what happened early on, I think it’s a WIN/WIN for Trump. Either he winds up president or the Clinton’s will give him Manhattan and a cushy job at the Clinton foundation. He literally cannot lose.

                  1. He only “steamrolled” the GOP field because the media gave him tons of free coverage and, unlike every other candidate, he doesn’t give a shit about winning any elections in the future, so he could afford to act like a caricature of conservative positions with impunity.

                2. a know-nothing misogynist.

                  SJW alert!

          3. That’s what I thought, but Bill would appreciate a shot at more loot.

      2. His ego has been fed enormously through this process. He doesn’t have to win the presidency for that.

        I don’t think the plan was for him to get the nomination anyway. He was supposed to introduce chaos into the GOP nomination process, force the eventual nominee to make outrageous statements to try to keep up with him among the base, and suck enough oxygen out of the room early on to prevent the eventual nominee from getting face time with the American public for as long as possible.

        Never in HRC’s moistest dreams did she think he would actually win the nomination, but that’s gravy.

        1. That is just nonsense. Moreover, even if it were true, it is clear that it has completely backfired. She is going to lose to Trump.

          1. I don’t think she’s going to lose to Trump. But even if she does, that just means she would have lost even more badly to any other GOP candidate.

            1. Doubtful. Trump is going to drive GOP turnout in a way that the others would not have. If the nominee had been Cruz or Rubio, it would have been a repeat of 2012 where a huge swath of voters stay home because the GOP has told them to fuck off.

              1. Have you been paying attention to the activities of the RNC this week in Cleveland? They just told the NeverTrump folks to fuck off, even more intensely than what they did to Ron Paul supporters in 2012. And NeverTrump is much bigger than Ron Paul was.

                When RNC sends me a letter asking for donations with a return postage paid envelope, I’ll be sure to send it back to them. With a 0 for the amount and a printout of the news story. My donations are going to congressional candidates this year, not anybody who’s going to funnel the money toward a disaster of a candidate.

                1. The number of actual Never Trump people is not very large. The vast majority of people who voted for other candidates either listed Trump as their second choice or say they will vote for him. The number of actual Republican voters who are never Trump is very very small.

                  1. That’s what people couldn’t believe when I told them late last yr. that Trump would be a lot of people’s 2nd choice. They couldn’t fathom voters liking any other serious Republican contender & also Trump!

                2. And what choice did they have? The Never Trump people are never Trump. They either had to tell them to fuck off or not give Trump the nomination, which would have destroyed the party. The Never Trump Republicans are pathetic. They lost the election and can’t seem to accept that fact and expect the party to overturn it to make them happy.

              2. Certainly if it’d been Rubio. Cruz, maybe not. But even Cruz wouldn’t drive turnout as much as Trump.

    2. Christie or Jeb would not have been a ‘no-brainer’. I actually suspect they’re worse than Trump, though they might have been more electable in the general.

      As someone who is very uncomfortable with the idea of a Trump presidency, I can say without hesitation that a ‘Christie or Jeb’ v Clinton contest would have been even more soul-crushing than the one we wound up with. Better ‘Ambitious Evil’ v ‘Narcissist Clown’ than ‘Ambitious Evil’ v ‘Ambitious Evil’.

  54. I wasn’t sure if I was reading an article about Libertarians or a HuffPo piece honestly. The simple fact that they defended Hillary in ANY way, even after calling her awful, makes me never want to hear what these people think again! Clinton is an outright Criminal and a solid part of the system. I would take Pee Wee Herman as president over her, but we have someone even better, a Billionaire Business man who loves this country. No Donald Trump isn’t the Ideal candidate, but that person will never exist – the last one and the only one in my lifetime and I suspect for at least the rest of my life, was RON PAUL – he didn’t want to run our lives was why he was running for POTUS. But unfortunately that boat sailed and most Americans missed it. Speaking as someone who believes in and lives a Libertarian lifestyle, Not Politically, but philosophically, just because you run as a Libertarian doesn’t make you a Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson is just a wimpy moderate. Again Trump isn’t ideal but out of all the candidates he is a true outsider who doesn’t care about PC-ness or the media – he isn’t turning this into a fundraising gala and he is going to rock the boat so hard – its terrific! And it will give the people a chance to better themselves as well as good Libertarians and lets make America Great. I truly don’t believe Trump is the monster the media makes him out to be and he is way less a MONSTER than Hillary Clinton. If I am wrong Ill eat my shorts. @ KultOveKristofer

    1. it will give the people a chance to better themselves as well as good Libertarians and lets make America Great.

      and life is precious, and god, and the bible.

  55. I think both Trump and Hillary will pander to the people* because they are both so vain as to desire to be like by their constituents at all costs.

    * The problem is that they don’t consider everyone in the US to be their people. Instead, their people consist only of those that vote for them – when deciding which of the two is worse you need to decide which of their constituents is worse.

  56. This whole thing is a perfect example of how Trump is about class more than anything else. All of the people in this article are part of the same self appointed elite class of self appointed intellectuals. And every single of their opinions is some variation of “sure Hillary is horrible but Trump is one of ‘them'”. The only thing interesting about it is that they don’t seem to even realize they are doing it. How someone could lack self awareness to that degree is a mystery to me.

    1. Trump is a billionaire whose every possession is gilded, John.

      1. What the fuck does that even mean? You need to look into getting on some medication because you seem to be full on delusional these days.

        1. These days? That suggests there was a day when Tony was not.

        2. How is he not elite? His entire brand is “elite.” He does also happen to be a buffoonish man-child acting as de facto king of the white supremacists–if that’s whose honor you’re defending.

          1. No he is not. That is what makes it worse for these people, he is a traitor to his class. Just go away Tony. Your stupidity has long since gotten tiresome.

            1. Maybe they think he’s obviously unqualified to be president of the United States. Because, you know, it’s obvious.
              Traitor to his class? He is the physical skin monster embodiment of his class. He is a caricature of his class. What the hell are you talking about? Oh, you’re John. You never make sense when you have an alternative.

            2. Again, what the fuck are you talking about John? Nothing in the above article says “he’s a traitor to his class”.

              They are explciitly talking about his stated policy positions – trade, immigration, spending, entitlement reform, criminal justice. Where the fuck are you getting this “they hate him for being one of them” thing? Unless by them you mean “utter retards on everything”. (God Knows, we can’t express prejudice against one of those wrong-about-fucking-everything people)

              1. And their position is irrational. There is no objective case for believing Trump would be worse than Hillary. They only claim otherwise because they care more about class loyalty and social signaling than they do about the truth.

                You are no different. You so desperately want to be seen as one of the smart set, you will say stupid and irrational things to do so. I can’t understand why anyone who has any kind of intelligence and confidence would care to be seen as part of some self appointed smart set. At some level you must understand how degrading it is to have to talk yourself into believing in nonsense for fear someone might think you are part of the wrong crowd.

                1. Hillary’s stated positions and objective record are more pro-open-borders, and more pro-free-trade than Trumps. So yes, there are in fact objective reasons for believing Hillary is better than Trump on those issues.

                  1. And she can and will repeal the first and second amendments. But you don’t care about that because caring doesn’t make you feel good about yourself.

                    1. Trump’s stated positions on the First Amendment are just as bad. He’s threatened to sic the IRS against Amazon because Jeff Bezos said mean things about him.

                      And Trumps positions on eminent domain and foreign trade and the budget and entitlements outweigh Clinton’s positions on guns.

                    2. Trump’s stated positions on the First Amendment are just as bad.

                      No it is not. He said he wanted to change libel law back to what it was before 1960. Hillary wants to make it illegal to criticize candidates running for office. Go read the arguments before the court in Citizens united. The Solicitor General said exactly that.

                      And what chance do you think Trump would have of actually doing that? The media would go insane the the Republicans would fold in a day. Obama sent the IRS after hundreds of people and used it to suppress the vote in 2012 and got away with it. Hillary would do even worse and thanks to her media protection and loyalty of her own party would get away with it as well.

                      And yes Hazel, you don’t care about guns because they are not fashionable. Hillary would overturn Heller and make 90% of the gun owners in this country criminals. But you don’t care because you don’t care about that or those people. They are not your people and defending them doesn’t allow you to social signal.

                      Hillary is much worse. She is only better to you because you don’t give a fuck about anything but social signaling.

                    3. Clearly, Hazel cares more about the importation of foreigners than she does about the 1st or 2nd Amendment. She also cares more about “open borders” than criminality or national security. Spending, increased regulation, socialized medicine pale when compared to open borders, apparently TDS, indeed.

                      And yes, as long as she can look in the mirror and be better than those rednecked hicks who dropped out of 2nd grade…

                      Hazel Meade = Ezra Klein?

                    4. She also cares more about “open borders” than criminality or national security.

                      You have to want to put people in prison and drop bombs on the Muslims to be REALLY in favor of liberty.

              2. John’s reading, correctly, into the “within normal limits” bit.

          2. Is this where you start talking about how he didn’t disavow the KKK hard enough, long enough, passionately enough?

            1. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, AW. Except with Hillary’s money trail.

            2. It’s more about how when he praises the Jews his audience gets awkwardly quiet.

              1. All audiences get awkwardly quiet when anybody brings up Jews.

          3. Trump is nouveau riche in the eyes of the MSM elitists. John is correct in saying that they don’t want ‘one of those’.

        3. He puts faux crackled gold finish on everything. Ugh, so tacky

      2. Hillary can do no wrong. #Beaproudslavetothestate

    2. What the fuck are you talking about?
      Nothing in the article points to Trumps class (as if he was a member of the lower class anyway).

      He’s wrong on immigration. He’s wrong on trade. He’s wrong on civil liberties. He’s wrong on spending. He’s wrong on entitlements. He’s wrong on eminenent domain.

      He’s wrong on pretty much every single other issue that libertarians care about. These are POLICY POSITIONS.

      They have noting to do with Trump’s vulgar bullying and utter lack of tempermental suitability to be president.

      1. And Hillary is much more wrong on all of those things and is a career criminal who will have the complete support of he own party and the media.

        You are just sad Hazel. You really are.

        1. No, in fact, Hillary is more libertarian on both trade and immigration. Open borders is the correct libertarian position, and free trade is the correct libertarian position.

          1. If you consider crony corporatism and criminal enforcement of foreign copyrights free trade sure. And you delussional if you think the country is going to tolerate open borders in the current international environment. Events are going to force the next President to effectively close the borders. You watch.

            Beyond that, Hillary wants to repeal the first two amendments of the constitution. And she will have the power to do just that by appointing Supreme Court Justices who will read them both out of the document. But you don’t care about free speech and you certainly don’t care about gun rights. I have never once seen you say a word about gun rights. All you ever do is talk about issues you think will make you look like you are part of the enlightened set. And gun rights are things dumb people care about.

            You don’t give a shit about freedom Hazel. You care about your own vanity and social signaling. You are not fooling anyone.

            1. Nevertheless, free trade and open borders are the doctrinaire libertarian positions.

              Thus, to return to the original point, the article above is about Trump’s policy positions and has nothing what-so-fucking-ever to do with his crass style.

              You can certainly debate whether above commenters are correct about his policy positions. But you can’t debate the fact that they are talking about his policy positions.

              1. Gun rights and free speech are too Hazel. Or at least they are to people who care about something besides social signaling.

                And his positions are not worse than any objective measure. Their case saying otherwise is ridiculous and there is no way they would believe that about any other candidate. So why do they believe it now? Because of class solidarity. That is the point that apparently went right over your head.

                1. Nope, open borders is the only issue! THE. ONLY. ISSUE.

              2. Open borders is not a doctrinal libertarian position.

                Even so-called open borders advocates favor controls at international borders that they would never approve of inside the country. I haven’t seen any libertarians saying we should not check for disease or criminal background before letting people in. So the difference between them and Ron Paul-type libertarians is a matter of negotiating the price.

                Everybody recognizes that you can’t apply the NAP in areas where there’s no overarching legal authority, as in the case of international borders.

              3. But many otherwise radical libertarians, at least for several decades, have not been doctrinaire about open borders. David Brudnoy, Gene Burns, & Ron Paul weren’t/aren’t. I don’t think Neal Boortz has been. I’ve seen a lot of anti-open-borders libertarians of the sovereign/constitutionist/biker types. So to the extent it’s doctrine, it’s not so universally so as most other issues.

          2. Hillary’s publicly-stated support for free college tuition and a $15 minimum wage nationwide both cancel out her supposed open borders libertarianism.

            Open borders are only libertarian if the people come here to work and earn their own money, not to mooch off the taxpayers.

          3. No way is Hillary more libertarian on trade. She’s pretty much boxed now into a position where if there’s any environmental consideration in either the exporting or the importing country, or there’s a threat to an organized labor group, she’ll be for trade barriers. She owes it now to labor groups she stiffed recently if she wants them not to be implacable foes.

            1. And Trump is just flat out against trade because he’s a believer the whole Buy American schtick. Hillary = “Maybe you can buy some stuff from Korea as long as it’s not bad for unions or the environment or (insert list of special interests here)”
              Trump = “You can’t buy any stuff from Korea, because AMERICANS should have those jobs.”

              Slight advantage to Hillary.

              1. He’s not flat out against all trade. Nothing he’s said suggests that, because he only thinks particular deals are bad.

  57. At Nutroots Convention

    Trump panic drives progressives toward Clinton
    At Netroots Nation, there was little love for Hillary but plenty of concern about the need to defeat the presumptive GOP nominee.

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..z4EgN1zVxW

    Prog holding nose and voting for Hillary for the sake of the welfare/warfare state.

  58. Seems some idiot determined to make his cause be viewed as bad nationally shot a couple cops in Baton Rouge.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..rouge.html

  59. The best argument I’ve seen in favor of Trump is that he’s an asshole, but he’s only one asshole. He will be challenged by Democrats and prominent Republicans, and also face constant scrutiny from the press at every turn. Clinton, in contrast, will be thoroughly protected by her party and the press will continue to run interference and do everything they can to prop up the “historic” first female president. I hate Trump, I’ll be voting for him, and it’s not even a close call for me. I’d rather roll the dice with him then guaranteed Snake Eyes with Clinton.

    1. That is exactly the truth. The only way to hold a President accountable for anything is if some of his own party will turn on him. Democrats have become like night of the living dead. There is no misconduct, no matter how blatant that would cause Democrats to turn on a Democratic President.

      1. Well said. Trump is all talk – libertarians might not like what he says but he won’t be able to do a thing. Isn’t that a win? I want my politicians to do nothing.

      2. ‘The only way to hold a President accountable for anything …’
        If you want presidential accountability then vote for a republican. The press will rediscover their principles and do their job.

    2. The only reason Trump exists is because the media doesn’t give him scrutiny. He’s good for ratings. To claim that Hillary is shrouded in down-filled blankets by a fawning media is ludicrous for anyone who’s been semi-conscious at any point in the last two decades.

      1. The media doesn’t give Trump scrutiny.

        1. Tony spent all his trust fund money and has to whore himself out to Media Matters, getting $0.25/post for trolling libertarian and conservative websites. No room for a conscience when your belly is empty.

      2. The only reason Trump exists is because the media doesn’t give him scrutiny.

        Good: likely to elicit a response. Bad: needs far more subtlety. C+ trolling.

      3. I will agree that he was given a ton of face time by the media during the primaries… because they wanted to starve all the real Republican candidates of coverage. He doesn’t need to be scrutinized to destroy him, you just need to let him keep talking.

  60. Hillary’s support for man-hating feminism is no trivial matter. I won’t vote for either of them. Probably a nose-holding vote for Johnson.

  61. Breaking news:

    Multiple police officers shot, some killed, in Baton Rogue.

    I dont know how to link from a phone.

    1. http://www.wbrz.com/news/3-off…..ar-brpd-hq

      There you go. Just horrible. This shit has to stop.

      1. If your goal was to reduce freedom and increase militarization of the police, that would be a good way to go about it, but I’m still going to assume incompetence over malice (for the cause – obviously there was malice for the police).

        1. Their goal is to start a revolution. The BLM and black panters and such are nothing but leftists. They don’t give a fuck about police brutality. They want a leftist revolution. They just want to tear shit down.

          1. 2016 is turning into 1968, with Trump as the law and order candidate, and Hillary as the “just like the previous President, but with less charisma” candidate. And people think Hillary has a lock…?

            1. Yes, and libertarians should be creaming their panties to vote for the law-and-order candidate.

              1. Look at Trump’s Supreme Court short list, and tell me that isn’t a libertarian dream compared to whoever would be on Hillary’s.

                Hillary wants more gun control. Trump does not.

                Trump has talked about excessive government regulation. Hillary, of course, wants more.

                Hillary wants to expand Obamacare to illegals. Trump wants to ditch it.

                1. You mean the list some conservative typed up and handed to Trump?

                  The guy can’t maintain a position on most issues for more than 24 hrs, but you think he’s going to remain faithful to a list he didn’t create that was put out months ago.

                  1. If the choice is A) a possibility that Trump will appoint good judges, vs. B) a certainty that Hillary will appoint bad ones, the way to bet should be obvious.

          2. Kind like Trump voters.

            1. Yeah Hazel, Trump voters are out shooting police and want to burn the country down. Go fuck yourself Hazel. You are just ignorant and at some level know it and try to compensate for your insecurity by social signaling. And anyone who is not doing the same can see right through it.

              1. I’ve heard more than on Trump voter explicitly say that they are voting for Trump because they think he will blow up the system. I’m pretty sure they have even used the words “let it burn” at times.

                1. And if you think that means literally blowing up the system by killing cops and creating anarchy, rather than having a whole sale changeover in our political leadership, you are moron.

                  Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch Hazel, what the hell is the matter with you?

                  1. And if you think that means literally blowing up the system by killing cops and creating anarchy, rather than having a whole sale changeover in our political leadership, you are moron.

                    Once again John calls anybody who disagrees with him stupid. And then denies it.

                    1. Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it Ted. Hazel’s equation of Trump voters to the people murdering cops was idiotic. If you are too stupid to see that, that is your problem not mine.

                  2. Is TDS John and there is no cure.

                2. I think that’s referring to the Republican establishment, lobbyists, etc.

                  1. It should be obvious that those are metaphors from the Trump side, Hazel. From the BLM side, not so much.

                    1. You’re right, BLM is totally different from Trumps supporters.

                      BLM actually has human legitimate human rights abuses to complain about.
                      Trumps supporters are just racist assholes.

                    2. You are just a fount of nuanced wisdom these days….

          3. To be fair, BLM has condemned the violence.

            At the risk of going on a tangent, here is how I see it:

            Police brutality in general is a problem because of too many laws and police unions which make it nearly impossible to fire bad cops.

            Police brutality affects black people more because the unfortunate fact is that crime levels are much higher among young black men, especially in major cities. That’s not where the story ends though.

            Aside from gender and age, the trait that has the strongest correlation for criminal behavior is being raised by a single mom. The percent of blacks be raised by singles moms is 3x the rate of whites and almost 4x the rate of Asians. It’s gotten so bad that even leftists dingbats like the group I linked above are taking notice.

            How did this happen? It’s because decades of left-wing antipoverty programs subsidized single motherhood, and a larger fraction of blacks were involved in these programs than other races.

            1. There are true truths about this issue; that blacks of all social standing get treated terribly by cops and much worse than whites of equal social standing, and that blacks as a group are more likely to be criminals or violent than whites. We talk about the first one but no one dare mention the second one and its causal relationship to the first.

              A lot of this is the old Willie Smith axiom; why do you rob banks? Because that is where the money is. Why do cops harass black people? Because that is where the criminals are.

              1. There’s a shitload of white criminals too.

                It has more to do with targeting poor people in densely populated areas than skin color. Poor people generally can’t fight back in the courts, and densely populated areas are much easier to police. Added to the fact that poor people are more likely to be forced into crime, and densely populated areas provide more opportunities for such.

                The resulting disproportionate impact on blacks is just due to the fact they are more likely to be poor and urban. You don’t see rural or suburban blacks being disproportionately targeted.

                1. Black men have a better chance of dying a violent death before the age of 25, than the entire population did during world war II. The black community has an enormous criminality and violence problem. It just does. And that is why cops tend to treat all blacks worse.

                  I don’t know how you fix that but it is the way it is.

                  1. The urban poor have always been a hotbed of criminality and violence. 100 years ago you would have said the same thing about Italians, 150 years ago about the Irish.

              2. Except that jacking up blacks for being “more likely to be criminals” only makes sense if the cops are somehow blind to the other tells that a person is Up To No Good.

                If cops jack up guys, in a color-blind way, because the guy looks shifty, and it turns out that they go after a higher proportion of blacks (because blacks both commit more crimes and more often look like they’re commiting crimes) then that’s not a problem.

                If cops crank skin color into the jack-up/don’t jack-up decision, then that’s just cops indulging their bigotry, with no rational basis UNLESS you want to add the proposition that either:

                A. Cops are blithering incompetents who can’t tell whether a [skin color redacted] guy’s behavior is suspicious or not, or,

                B. Black’s have some Secret Superpower that lets them look like honest folk when they’re actually Up To No Good.

            2. All true. But BLM condemning the violence is like an old Bolshevik condemning what the USSR became.

            3. Just because you condemn violence does not mean you didn’t incite it.

  62. My favorite comment about Clinton is from Christopher Hitchens, who said that when she felt compelled to speak about her Christian faith, she looked like a dog being bathed.

    Meanwhile, in Venezuela:

    Back at the cancer clinic, Mari d’Alessandro, tells me her son just finished a chemo treatment last week. She needed a particular medicine to raise his white blood cell count. She hasn’t been able to find it yet.

    I ask 11-year-old Hugo if he’s worried. He says no. He says he still plans to be a paleontologist when he grows up, because he loves dinosaurs and wants to dig up their fossils.

    His mother hugs him tight, tears pooling in her eyes.

    Government is just the name we give to things we do together…like letting little boys who love dinosaurs linger and die because accepting foreign medical aid would embarrass the ruling elite.

  63. THEM COSMO FAGGOTS DONE DID VOTED FOR BLOCK INSANE YOMMAMMA

    1. You’re not in Baton Rouge with a mask on by any chance, are you?

    2. Stop it Warty. You tell me how someone like Postrel manages to believe something as stupid as the idea that Hillary would be accountable as President. She is smarter than that. She can’t believe that. The only explanation I can see for her saying it is that in the circles she runs in there is just an enormous amount of social pressure to think that Trump is some kind of evil other. So she says something completely stupid to avoid a ton of social approbation.

      The COSMO label only stings and hangs around because it contains a grain of truth. I don’t understand why you of all people refuse to see that. It is not like you are one of them. Why do you care so much to defend them?

      1. it doesn’t sting. I find it a little strange that someone would regard “cosmopolitain” as an insult.

        It’s as if they were running around sneering “edutarian”. Vaguely amusing and says more about the person uttering it than the target.

        1. And I am sure it doesn’t sting you Hazel. I have no doubt about that.

      2. it doesn’t sting. I find it a little strange that someone would regard “cosmopolitain” as an insult.

        It’s as if they were running around sneering “edutarian”. Vaguely amusing and says more about the person uttering it than the target.

        1. It has become an insult because its meaning has changed. It now means to be part of a certain group insular and ignorant class of self appointed elites. I happily fling it because it is true. As someone who actually is well read and well traveled, I am tired of people unworthy of the term claiming it. The people in I 95 corridor are some of the most ignorant hicks on earth. I met people living in mud huts in southern Iraq who had a better grasp of reality than these losers.

          1. I was reading a book about the Crusades period recently. There was a section about Richard Lionheart’s distaste for England, which he disliked because it was cold and raining all the time; he much preferred his lands in France. He valued his kingship in England only because it allowed him to approach other European kings on equal footing.

            It struck me that this is exactly how many of the Western countries’ leaders think. They don’t really give a shit about the nations and people they supposedly represent, but use the status they get from being “national leaders” to hobknob with other elites on the international stage.

            1. That is a good analogy. Richard was his mother’s favorite son. He was raised to consider himself from Aquitaine and not be English. A good piece of historical trivia is name the one queen of England who never set foot in the country? That answer is Richard’s queen Berengaria. She was from Navarre and never went near the place.

        2. Of course it can be an insult, when it contains the implication that the person is not loyal to their own country.

      3. It’s all about social signaling. The Cosmos have to say that Trump is worse or else, no more cocktail parties and hanging out with their leftist friends, the cool kids, you know.

        4 years of Clinton and this country will not resemble in any meaningful way, a constitutional Republic. Hillary will do 10x the damage Obama has taken 8 years to do, within months of being in office. With the full support of at least 20% of Republicans, which will be all she needs for her reign of terror.

        1. They don’t think her reign of terror will affect them. So, they don’t care.

          1. Exactly that. Sort of reminds me of the migrant camp in Lake Como. All of the sudden all of the rich liberals who have been calling everyone racists and xenophobes are freaking the fuck out because some of the migrants have shown up on their doorstep.

            We’re now divided into a sort of caste society with the ruling elite and the ruled. It was never supposed to be like this under our system. Voters to blame. We’ve lost the republic, just as our forefathers warned of.

        2. You’re actually totally wrong about that. There are plenty of issues where some libertarians wouldn’t want to publicly express their opinions lest they be socially ostracized, but on Trump, one really doesn’t have to do that. Trumps actual positions are so at odds with libertarianism that there is no need to defend or support him. A sane libertarian that understand his own philosophy will simply disavow him entirely. It’s not like a mainstream libertarian harbors some secret love of border walls and Muslim registries. We’re against all of that shit.

          Saying that we’re afraid to show our Trump love is like saying that the only reason we’re not out there showing off our White Power tattoos is because of our white liberal guilt. It completely mistakes *who we are*.

          1. Well, that wasn’t what I said. I said they have to say Trump is worse than Hillary, because that’s what signals that you’re one of the cool kids. There’s no requirement to say anything positive or negative about Hillary. But you must say Trump is Hitler and way worse than Hillary, or no more hanging with the cool kids. And I do know this because I’m surrounded by aging hipster douchebags, and all I hear is ‘Trump is worse than Hitler, Trump, Trump blah blah blah’. I never hear mention of Hilary from these assholes, ever. And they would say the same exact things about any Republican, no matter who it was. It’s not been so long ago that all I heard was ‘Romney’s a racist, Romney war on women!’. Yeah, I remember that.

            1. aging hipster douchebags

              That would be “cosmopolitan” to you, Hazel

            2. Actually I hear from many of my aging hipster friends lots of terrible stuff about Hillary. They largely believe she’s a crook, and they were going to vote for Bernie. Now some are considering Gary Johnson, some Jill Stein. Many of them are objecting loudly to the people insisting that people HAVE TO vote for Hillary because Trump. The people saying Trump is Hitler are mostly Hillary boosters, making the lesser evil argument, and I’m advising them all to vote third party unless they are in a swing state and it’s close. ANY third party. if they want to vote Green that’s great. I’m out there sending the message that any third party is better than either of these two choices. Unlike the ‘Vote Trump, because Hillary’, AND the ‘Vote Hillary, because Trump’ crowds.

      4. Yelling at Hit n’ Run commenters and calling them hicks is pretty much the same thing you’re accusing Postrel of.

        1. Some of them are. And Postrel isn’t calling anyone a hick. She is just talking herself into believing obviously stupid things to avoid the charge of being a hick.

    3. I think Mike done went and called you miscegenated, Warty!

    4. MUH BRAINZ HAZ SHRIVVULLD AS MUCH AS MUH BAALZ! NEEDDZ MOR ROYDS!

  64. On a lighter note:

    “While presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s logo has been praised by many designers, it prompted intra-party grousing last year. It features an “H” with an arrow pointing right, leading some Democrats to complain that the arrow did not point left.”

    I read that 5 minutes ago and I laughed for 2 minutes straight.

    1. Too bad she didn’t point it to the left. With the way our writing system works it would have made a clear mental picture to the average viewer of moving towards the past.

      1. Which is why they pointed it to the right.

      2. (((Looks like the future to us!)))

    2. She’s pointing to the vast right wing conspiracy, but we’re all too sexist and foolish to believe her.

    3. I saw it as Hillary is the left vertical with a raging red hate-boner totally fucking the right (vertical).

      /Suderman

  65. It’s important to post statements like this, lest a stray observer mistake the Reason comment section for a representative sampling of what libertarians believe.

    1. Yes Hazel, not all Libertarians are white trash. I wish you could understand how silly you sound.

      1. You and your Trump-voting ilk are an embarassment to the entire libertarian movement. When this is all over (meaning when Trump gets his ass brutally trounced in the election) I hope you all disappear under the rock you richly deserve to crawl under, so I won’t have to spend the rest of my life explaining how people like you don’t represent me or anything I believe in.

        1. Trump isn’t going to be brutally trounced. He might not win but he isn’t going to get trounced. So, you might as well get that fantasy out of your head now. And if Hillary wins, you can watch all the damage she does and know that well at least the right sort of person is doing it. And if you object, all of those smart people you keep wanting to associate yourself with, will go right back to hating you. That is how fascism works; there is always an other to hate.

          1. Give it up, John. Hazel can’t even think outside her vag.

        2. I’m not a Trump supporter. I’m staying home, but John is right, Trump is not going to get trounced. It will probably be close and the electoral map may put Hillary over the top. Trump probably has to win OH, FL, and PA to win. That’s not impossible. I don’t see a landslide happening, the polls are too close and will probably stay that way.

      2. You and your Trump-voting ilk are an embarassment to the entire libertarian movement. When this is all over (meaning when Trump gets his ass brutally trounced in the election) I hope you all disappear under the rock you richly deserve to crawl under, so I won’t have to spend the rest of my life explaining how people like you don’t represent me or anything I believe in.

        1. the entire libertarian movement.

          I presume you’re referencing the thing that involves the fat man stripping at the convention, and a candidate who insists on forcing bakers to make nazi-cakes, and assures drug warriors he’ll keep the “bad drugs” illegal?

          Those people get embarrassed? I’d never have guessed.

        2. Now that is stupid. There are very few people here who are enthusiastic about Trump.

          If you think merely favoring Trump over Hillary is an embarrassment, then that means you clearly support Hillary over Trump by a big margin. That’s an embarrassment.

          1. I wouldn’t say I am enthusiastic about Trump. He is a flawed candidate. But, life doesn’t owe me a good choice.

          2. I’m voting for Gary Johnson. if it was close, and I lived in a swing state. I might consider voting for Hillary.

            Trump is worse than Hillary by a wide margin, because he wouldn’t *just* be worse than Hillary on the issues, but because of what he would do to the Republican party.
            He has already caused the GOP to shift leftward on trade, and probably on criminal justice reform. If he won, those changes would be cemented as permanent shifts in the GOP. I can’t let that happen.

            1. I mean, he’s made the GOP more statist on trade and probably on criminal justice reform. (not leftward) . He’d make the GOP more statist on a lot of other issues as well. If he wins, you might as well throw in the towel on any kind of economic liberty for the next 60 years. it’ll be international socialists vs. national socialists for the forseeable future.

              1. 60 years? You’re giving Trump way too much credit. It’s more likely Hillary will screw up the country for the next 30 years with her SCOTUS appointments.

            2. If he won, those changes would be cemented as permanent shifts in the GOP.

              Bullshit. Bush II favored several policies that became verboten in the GOP 2 years after he left office. His stance on immigration was already verboten during his second term. Trump would be even more of a one and done than Bush.

              1. I certainly hope you are right. But I’m prepared to make sure of it by making sure Trump loses.
                Die in a fire, Trump, and all his illiterate, unlibertarian supporters.

            3. If he won, those changes would be cemented as permanent shifts in the GOP. I can’t let that happen.

              ROFLMFAO Sooo, this is really all out of concern for the GOP?! Because you are a lifelong Republican? I have just this moment decided that I will vote for Trump, just for you. You have made Tony look intellectually honest by comparison to your comments in this thread.

              1. Sooo, this is really all out of concern for the GOP?! Because you are a lifelong Republican?

                No, but my primary strategy has been to try to push the GOP in a more libertarian direction. Trump pushes it in the OPPOSITE direction. Particularly on economics, which is the one area where the GOP was actually closer to the libertarian point of view than the Democrats.

                Now the fucking Trump retards have fucked all that up, and all because they can’t handle the fact that a bunch of Spanish-speaking Catholics might compete with them for jobs. Nothing could be less libertarian than hating immigrants because they’re going to steal your job and trying to use the force of the state to stop them.

                Especially if you’re using as an excuse the idea that a bunch of Roman Catholics are so culturally foreign that they are going to somehow destroy US society. We should be thanking our lucky stars we’re getting Spanish Catholics and not Muslims, but noooooooo …. omg, the mexicans are so alien to our way of life they’re going to DESTROY AMERICA!!

            4. You’re worried about “permanent shifts in the GOP,” but apparently you’re not worried about Hillary’s corruption, cronyism, incompetence, vulnerability to blackmail, toadying to the SJW left, expanding Obamacare to illegals, raising the minimum wage, keeping the floodgates open to all the anti-libertarians of Latin America and the Middle East, and appointing justices who will tear up the 1st and 2nd Amendments. And you’ll actually vote for her.

              And you call other people an “embarrassment to the entire libertarian movement”….

        3. “You and your Trump-voting ilk are an embarassment to the entire libertarian movement. When this is all over (meaning when Trump gets his ass brutally trounced in the election) I hope you all disappear under the rock you richly deserve to crawl under, so I won’t have to spend the rest of my life explaining how people like you don’t represent me or anything I believe in.

          This visceral reaction from Hazel isn’t limited to people who are voting for Trump. I got the same reaction for saying that Trump > Hillary–even though I also said that Trump was < Piece of Shit and that I was voting for Johnson.I think Hazel shows that it's possible to be reasonable about things--and have TDS, too. It's sort of like somebody with a gambling addiction making the right bet. However, just because you go all in at the correct time doesn't mean you don't have a gambling addiction--know what I mean?I read Postrel above and I see the same thing. I think Hazel has rational reasons for despising Trump and his being anti-free trade may be the best of them, but you can't have TDS, explain yourself in TDS terms, and then expect people who are leaning towards Trump to buy into your reasoning as objective, too.

          1. Maybe I’m angry because I’m fucking right, and I’m tired of a bunch of fucking retards screwing everything up all the time.

            We could have nominated Rand Paul, for fuck’s sake. But no, a bunch of morons whose pet issue is hating on the mexicans had to go join forces with a lunch of economically illiterate retards and nominate a mentally ill fascist instead. Fuck them all. We don’t need these people. We need these people to die in a fire. The soon the better.

        4. Back in the early days of Hit & Run, when things got like this, we used to take a break in the thread and have everybody say something nice about the commenter immediate above. Threaded comments make that harder than it used to be, but there are great things to like about both John and Hazel.

          Maybe talking about Trump v. Hillary doesn’t bring out the best in either one of them.

          I just wish Hazel understood that for a lot of people, it isn’t about issue v. issue between Hillary and Trump. If they were the same on the issues, some people might prefer an obnoxious and petulant President to a crook. Putting Hillary in the White House is like putting Al Capone in charge of the FBI–only ten times worse. It isn’t a matter of issue v. issue. It’s about a total abandonment of propriety.

          Meanwhile, I’m voting for Johnson and hoping Trump wins. I bet that isn’t good enough for Hazel or John.

          1. I’m voting for Trump, but if polled before the debates, I’ll say I’m voting for Johnson, to help him into the debatesmdash;even though Johnson’s awful in debates (or maybe any Q&A), and I think LP is, on balance, bad for the libertarian movement (I finally got out early this century). I just think there needs to be more precedent for consider’n of dark horses in gen’l elections, or generally.

            1. I suspect there are a lot of people who support Trump but won’t say so in polite society.

          2. If you don’t care about the issues, then you don’t care about principles.
            Fuck appearances. Fuck propriety. I care whether actual libertarian policies actually get implemented. I care whether the net sum of human liberty in the world increases or decreases. I don’t five a flying fuck if the person who implements them has an R or a D next to their name.

  66. Hillary Clinton would probably be the worse president.

    Here: let’s compare.

    On January 20, 2017, Clinton is inaugurated. She begins nominating SCOTUS appointees friendly to gun control, while “strengthening” Obamacare. Political incentives guide her to increase health care research and treatment on cardiovascular disease and cancer, winning her enormous support from AARP.

    Meanwhile, on January 20, 2017 of the Trump presidency: he engages in trade war with China, while also fiercely negotiating immigration policy and boarder walls with Mexico.

    On July 15, 2018 of the Clinton presidency, an experimental FDA anti-cardiovascular-cancer vaccine goes haywire, mutating the patient’s own livers into freakish, chest-busting monsters, which escape the lab and go on the merry way, shoving their ovipositors down people’s throats and impregnating their livers with the vital essence of the future chest-busting liver babies. Only ~2% of their population survives, living in a nightmare world of scavenging and trying to keep their mouth’s closed.

    Meanwhile, On August 21, 2018 of the Trump presidency, Trump initiates a simultaneous nuclear exchange with China. ~90% of the US is killed in the Chinese nuclear counter-attack, which leads to the usual post-apocalyptic, green super mutant wasteland.

    I have spreadsheets covering all of this.

    So sorry, but green super mutants beat liver ovipositor babies. So, Hillary is worse.

    1. [polite applause]

      Do your spreadsheets run a computer that makes beepbeepboop noises and has lots of big blinking lights? I love those.

      1. My spreadsheet runs on a computer, with numbers, and that’s all you need to know that this is SCIENCE, BITCHES!

    2. I will cancel all my other newsletter subscriptions so I have more time to devote to yours, if indeed you have one, sir.

    3. Turn this into a screenplay. This sounds so much better than 99.999% of the dreck Hollywood is currently churning out.

    4. Still more accurate than climate models!

  67. “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

    -Woody Allen

    Sigh…

    Trump is a jackass. BUT… and this is important, he doesn’t have support in Congress for his ideas. Clinton is entirely evil and incompetent in every way that a non-cartoon politician can be. AND her party supports her in her delusions.

    So…

    Vote Trump.

    Yay…?

    1. A good part of the GOP also supports Hillary in her evil aspirations and they WILL get things done. Terrible things.

  68. Keep in mind that the first thing Hillary will do (besides jetting around the globe and striking shady deals with every corrupt leader on the planet) will be to attack the 2nd amendment and appoint Lynch/Obama to the SCOTUS, where they will remain for the next 30 years. If that doesn’t dissuade everyone from thinking Hillary is worse than Trump, I’m not sure what it takes. Trump might even if by accident appoint someone who is at least marginally better than the 2 aforementioned horrors. I also think Trump will be somewhat better than Hillary on the 2nd and on foreign policy. I think he would have to work really, really hard to be worse, and I don’t see it.

    1. But Postrel says the Republicans would know how to deal with that and would oppose her. I can’t even type that with a straight face. How the hell did Postrel say it without bursting out laughing? I guess she really would rather go to the Gulag as long as it is run by the right people. Pathetic.

      1. Bullshit. Postrel is either very naive or delusional, or just playing the ‘Trump is more worse’ social signalling game. Even Democrats know how bad Hillary is, most of them just don’t care, winning is winning as far as they’re concerned. While what’s left of the rule of law is being systematically dismantled by the Hillary admin, these delusional folk will be running around social signaling about how WE won, we won!

        1. Yes but OPEN BORDERS!!!!!!!!

  69. Meanwhile, in Pakistan:

    Police arrested her brother, Waseem Azeem, and presented him before the media in Multan, where he confessed to killing her. He said people had taunted him over the photos and that he found the social embarrassment unbearable.

    “I was determined either to kill myself or kill her,” Azeem told The Associated Press as he was being led away.

    He said that even though Baloch was the main breadwinner for the family, he slipped her sedatives the night before and then strangled her in her sleep.

    “Money matters, but family honor is more important,” said Azeem.

    Nearly 1,000 women are murdered in Pakistan each year for violating conservative norms on love, marriage and public behavior. The so-called “honor killings” are often carried out by family members.

    Such killings are considered murder. But Islamic law in Pakistan allows a murder victim’s family to pardon the killer, which often allows those convicted of honor killings to escape punishment.

    But remember: anyone concerned about Muslim immigration is just a racist, straw-chewing yokel, who *gasp* probably likes Trump *ptooey!*

    1. Look for the refugee crisis in the middle east to increase dramatically after Hillary is elected. Feature, not a bug.

      1. And Hillary wants a 550% increase in Muslim refugees over Obama’s numbers. More Democratic voters! More need for welfare, social workers, anti-racism trainers, and government surveillance! It’s all good.

        1. In saner times, she would be hanged for treason.

          1. But Hazel says she is more Libertarian about immigration. Letting a violent mob in for the purpose of terrorizing her opponents; how Libertarian of her.

            1. It’s also very libertarian to let in vast numbers of terror supporters, and then whine about government surveillance.

            2. Yeah, John, those Mexican immigrants are “terrorists”. They are going to terrorize you by stealing your job. I bet you wet your bet at night cowering under the covers afraid that the Mehicans are going to take your job.

              1. True, the ones who attacked Trump supporters weren’t terrorists, merely a violent mob. OK then!

                1. Who objectively has more to feel justifiably terrorized about?

                  A) A US citizen who might lost their job to a Mexican immigrant (or trade!)

                  B) A Mexican immigrant who might be arrested and deported to a foreign country, separating her from her US citizen husband and young children. OR, A mexican-born fully assimilated child of an undocumented immigrant who was taken here at the age of 3 and has lived in the US her entire life, but can’t get a legal job or go to college?

                  I’ll give you the answer. Group B has a RIGHT to be fucking angry. Group A, to the extent they vote for Donald Trump, is a bunch of fucking assholes with no respect for human rights. They are the aggressors.

                  1. Trespassers have no right to be angry when the law is enforced.

        2. And a violent mob to put the fear in the bitter clingers.

  70. Well, let’s see. How has accountability worked with the First Black President? Does anyone think the First Woman President will be any different? That is enough in itself to prefer Trump. Add to this the fact that liberalism, since the re-election of Obama freed them up, has revealed its inner IngSoc much more obviously. If you want to replace Big Brother Barry with Big Sister Hilly, with 4 more years to strengthen the power of the Thought Police, then go ahead and prefer her.

    1. We will look back on Obama’s 8 years as the good times. Hillary is 1000x worse than Obama. Anyone who thinks she’s just 4 more years of Obama are deluding themselves.

    2. There are over 100M women in the US eligible for the presidency.

      I think we can do better than Hillary Clinton for the first.

      1. I think Hillary as president would make us go backwards as a society where gender is concerned. (Sort of how there is MORE of a focus on race now with Obama as president)

        We’d probably see a men’s rights activist running in 2024

        1. Trump is kind of what I’d expect an MRA to act like if they were very wealthy. Imagine if Longtorso could purchase a supermodel instead of a RealDoll.

          I saw a TV movie about Trump’s life once, and his main motivation for succeeding in business was getting turned down by attractive women. Not that there was necessarily any truth to that, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

          1. Now that you guys mention it, Trump is clearly the MRA candidate.

  71. Can we get a different thread please?

    this is a topic that was worn threadbare months ago. no one is changing their minds. also, i think it was unfair terribly to drag poor radley into this.

  72. Look on the bright side: the two major party candidates are so unpopular that the nut party (the one that is AGAINST new laws and spending) is polling in doubles digits for the first time ever.

    Whoever gets elected and whatever stupid policies they try to enact are going to meet enormous resistance. Dare I say it, we may even have a jen-you-wine bone-a-fide libertarian moment.

  73. Anyone who thinks Trump will not start wars is delusional. That’s the entire fundamental basis of his entire campaign – launching new witch hunts against muslims, immigrants, blacks, women, and anyone else he can demonize. He’s promised to bring back mental hospitals like the Gulag, and he always crying about the opiate scourge. Anyone who thinks he’s better than Hitlary on war is delusional. At least she’ll try to keep the wars ‘over there’.

    1. Ask your doctor about increasing your dosage.

      1. Exactly – Trump will accuse anyone who opposes him of being ‘mentally ill’: ‘Build…Institutions for People That Are Sickos. We Have Sickos All Over the Place.’ Then he adds, “I feel that the gun-free zones and, you know, when you say that, that’s target practice for the sickos and for the mentally ill. They look around for gun-free zones.”

        1. How anyone can predict what Trump will do is kinda stoopid.

          Hell, the man himself has no idea what he will do.

    2. Yes. Because culture wars == foreign intervention.

    3. Shutup, shreek, you’re irrelevant. Don’t you have some cankles to lick?

  74. “Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law. For the very reason that she is such a conventional politician, her opponents would know how to effectively oppose her.”

    BAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA
    OHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! OHHHHH!!!! CAN’T BREATHE!!!!!! BWAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! HAAA HAAAA!!!!!!!

  75. Anyone who thinks Trump will nominate a decent Supreme Court Justice is delusional. He has shown nothing but contempt for a judiciary that rules properly on laws that stand in the way of his business frauds. Anyone can copy a list of justices from the Heritage Foundation web site and say, “I’ll pick someone like them.” He won’t. He’ll pick his limo driver or Corey Lewandowski or another lap dog who he can manipulate. He thinks like Putin and Erdogan. At least Hillary will select Obama, who I would *LOVE* to see on the SC because I have great fondness for the guy despite his many foibles. He says mostly the right things about the First Amendment, which is my favorite one of them all. His thinking on Citizen’s United is misguided, but if it is overturned then that’s great for other media outlets where the bigwigs will start plowing their money.

    1. Well, you’re a proglodyte and partisan hack, shreek. Anyone can figure out exactly what you’re going to say at any given time.

      1. Why can’t you just ignore me like the rest of your bomb-dropping war-mongering buddies learned to do (the hard way)?

        1. I don’t know this place too well, but are you talkin ‘ about the current Administration?

          1. He’s a troll. His former posting name was shreek. Now he’s both Palin’s Buttplug and AddictionMyth. AddictionMyth is Buttplug’s passive aggressive alter ego. He’s so dumb, his sock was exposed within 10 minutes of being created.

            1. He’s also “daijal”, his inner Muslim terrorist.

            2. Technically it was Shrike, and the commentariat ‘clarified’ it a little, if I have my Reason Lore straight…

      2. A cursory glance at the retarded blog web site Weigel has created indicates that his mental illness is getting progressively worse.

          1. Clicking on “AddictionMyth” takes you right to his retarded new blog. Daijal links to the same thing.

  76. The problem is, he knows us better than we know ourselves. That’s why I went to Benghazi, last night.

    — But that’s outside quarantine.

    I had to see it. There wasn’t much left. But when I was there it was strange. I suddenly had this feeling that everything was connected. It’s like I could see the whole thing, one long chain of events that stretched all the way back before Benghazi. I felt like I could see everything that happened, and everything that is going to happen. It was like a perfect pattern, laid out in front of me. And I realised we’re all part of it, and all trapped by it.

    — So do you know what’s gonna happen?

    No, it was a feeling. But I can guess. With so much chaos, someone will do something stupid. And when they do, things will turn nasty. And then Hillary will be forced to do the only thing he knows how to do. At which point, all Trump needs to do is keep his word. And then…

  77. Here’s my case for why Hillary is worse than Trump.

    1. Hillary will be completely lawless. She’s already been given the green light by the FBI and Justice Dept.

    2. Hillary will gut the 2nd amendment.

    3. Hillary will appoint Obama and/or Lynch to SCOTUS, a lifetime appointment.

    4. Hillary is a known warmonger who will use her newfound powers to cause further chaos in the middle east AND use that to dramatically increase refugee settlement in the West, potentially fueling more terrorism.

    5. This one is important. The media will give Hillary a free pass, no matter what she does. They will cover for her. Just the opposite is true for Trump. This more than anything makes Hillary the more destructive of the 2 bad options.

    1. There is no way Lynch or Obama would get the 60 votes of support necessary in the Senate.

      Unless the Dems take away the filibuster again, which is actually possible.

      1. Umm, they’re both black. All the Democrats have to do is say that the only reason the GOP won’t vote for either of them is because racism. The media run with this, and next thing you know, the votes are there.

        1. They could do that with a more obscure nominee, but Lynch and Obama are far too well-known to, and disliked by, the public for them to get away with that.

          1. Don’t mean to nitpick, but Obama isn’t really disliked by the public. His approval rating was over 50% last I checked. Not sure about Lynch.

            Terrifying, I know.

            1. Yeah, Obama is way more popular than Hillary, so if she can get elected POTUS… and the media will scream both racism and ‘Who’s more qualified than Obama?! He was president for 8 years! This is all racism!’. Obama will absolutely get approved as the first black SCOTUS justice. I mean, that other guy, Uncle Tom Republican, he doesn’t count.

              1. Thurgood Marshall wouldn’t count either?

      2. You assume that the Republicans would stand firm. I find that highly unlikely. How many Obama appointees have the Republicans stopped? I can’t think of a single one. If Hillary wins, the Republicans will roll over in the name of comity and giving the President the appointments she wants. A few Republicans would put on a show of opposition but not enough to stop it.

        What about Republicans gives you any reason to think they would do otherwise? I sure don’t see anything.

        1. Dems had 60 votes in the Senate for both Sotomayor and Kagan, so the GOP couldn’t do squat about it even if they wanted to. Sotomayor was about the best they could hope for anyway, while the Kagan pick was a travesty (as she was an Obama administration lawyer), she was obscure enough that they could get away with it.

          1. NO they did not. The Democrats never had 60 votes. That is why they had to cram down the original Senate version of Obamacare.

            And the Republicans have never filibustered a Democratic nominee for the court for decades now. You are kidding yourself. The Republicans would confirm anyone Hillary sent up.

            1. They had 60 votes from when Arlen Specter switched parties in March 2009 until Scott Brown won the MA special election in Jan 2010. During which time both Sotomayor and Kagan were approved by the Senate.

              A version of Obamacare actually did pass the Senate through ordinary procedures. It was the conference committee reconciling differences with the House version that had to be rammed through after Brown’s victory.

              1. Numerous Republicans voted for both

    2. Standing O for this.

      Full disclosure — I don’t pull the lever for the major parties, and often avoid the sham entirely. With that said, the clown seems to be tiring of the entire circus already, even before his official nomination, and I’d be astonished if he ever landed the Office.

      Nevertheless your #5 is indeed, as you say, important….
      And accurate….
      And extremely compelling.

      1. Agreed about #5. Although I’m still voting 3rd party.

  78. Related:

    “Elections are about fucking your enemies. Winning is about fucking your friends.”
    -James Carville

    A 15 minute compilation of why Trump will win in a landslide:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXVbJnjmo4

    1. Thanks, that is awesome.

    2. that video is like a extended argument for why people SHOULD beat their children.

  79. Trump would be a disaster. Clinton would be worse.

    1. Supreme court nominations. With Trump, there’s at least a chance that his nominations won’t be complete butchers. With Hillary, her nominations will be eager to dismember the 1st and 2nd Amendments, the rest of the Bill of Rights, and any lingering shreds of restraint that our current tortured and broken Consitiution still imposes on the federal government.

    2. Checks and balances. The media, Congress, and the Courts will be hostile to Trump and his agenda, including his wackier measures. For Clinton, they’ll roll over just as they have for Obama.

    3. Populist Authoritarianism vs Elite Authoritarianism. Trump’s Populist Authoritarianism will impose huge burdens and deadweight economic losses from government intervention. Clinton’s Elite Authoritarianism will impose those same deadweight losses, and will create obnoxious social divisions as well. The Populists are incoherent, while the Elites are acting like they want to bring back a medieval lords-and-serfs society, complete with a priestly class from the Church of Our Lady Gaia of Political Correctness.

    Trump is a toxic bufoon. Under other conditions I’d vote Libertarian or stay home, and I’ll most likely do so yet. But it may still turn out to be an election with the slogan “Vote for the toxic bufoon. It’s important.”

    1. I will probably vote libertarian. However, I must say that should Trump win, the ensuing wailing and gnashing of teeth will be the greatest show on earth.

      1. What I don’t get is how people ignore the things Trump gets right. He is absolutely right about the regulatory state and energy policy. Those two things alone would make him a better President than the last two. And if you could replace Scalia and hopefully the notorious RBG and Kennedy, he could reshape the court in a positive way for a generation or more.

        I am having a hard time seeing anything he could do that would be in light of those things so bad that it would make him a disaster. People seem to forget just how big of a disaster Obama is and how easy it would be for Trump to be better.

    2. “The Populists are incoherent, while the Elites are acting like they want to bring back a medieval lords-and-serfs society, complete with a priestly class from the Church of Our Lady Gaia of Political Correctness.”

      Oh, the amateur commentariat on a roll this Sunday afternoon, and superior to much of the article itself! Very, very nice.

      Also to supplement my bellicose and flatulent guffaw earlier, where I needed to pick myself up off floor, Postrel embarrasses herself. In spite of her obnoxious self-identification as an “intellectual_, and yes she has called herself such, did she vaca under a rock since her Reason days? She was always a tad too hawkish for my tastes, and was better off arguing why private trash collection is better than public, but really… did she get hit on the head/? Jesum Crow! “…modicum of deference to the law…” under Clinton. Are you sh—ting me???

  80. Fuck this.

    Goodbye.

    1. I’m not leaving, not even if Stossel, Napolitano, and Harsanyi go and there’s nothing at all left here except fake libertarians.

    2. “This” being Michigan, of course.

  81. Glenn Reynolds almost makes sense!

  82. Glenn Reynolds almost makes sense!

  83. My $0.02

    Like I said on another thread. Gun to my head, I’d rather have Trump. He’s more “impeachable”.

    Clinton could eat a baby on live TV and get away with it:

    “I did not eat a baby”
    “Was that wrong? Did I do that?”
    “This is a partisan witch hunt!”
    “Why are we talking about this old news?”

    And nothing else will happen.

    In fairness to O’Rourke, I listened to the segment, and it sounded like a smart-ass joke.

    1. AZ Guy-

      You missed the first move- “This is all a ‘vast right-wing’ conspiracy”.

      1. oops! Can’t forget that one.

  84. I wonder how many Trump supporters there are among BLM. Perhaps this video has an answer:

    https://youtu.be/7T5YZ6TefQQ?t=1m20s

    1. Top comment: The chick at 2:18 is mixing up “triggered” with “hungry”.?

  85. People forget it’s like this every election. Reason made a video about the mudslinging from the election of 1804, where the candidates accused each other of being Injun half-breeds and wanting to legalize cannibalism and murder.

    Relax. Trump is not the next Hitler. Hillary is not the next Hitler. If the country can recover from a borderline dictator like FDR, I don’t think there is much to worry about it.

    1. If the country can recover from a borderline dictator like FDR

      True, the country survived FDR, but his “legacy” is still here. He tightened the ratchet several turns and left it there for the next guy.

      1. The country survived??? Hell, I don’t think it survived 1914. Too much of the Austrian in me, I guess.

      2. Yeah. We never recovered from FDR. Survived, but still sick. We didn’t recover from his successor’s most terrible legacy, either, namely world police.

    2. Every country can recover from every crisis, except for the last one.

      BTW the only way we recovered from the FDR idiocy was because of the Red Scare. Imagine how fucked up the country would be if not for the Taft Hartley Act.

  86. Balko has always been a commie. He, like Nick, was attacking the Republican’s for not confirming Obama’s nominees fast enough.

      1. Mark Ames runs a group called Shame Project? How did he not spontaneously combust from hypocrisy?

        Well, at least he isn’t impregnating 14 year olds and threatening to kill them to make them get abortions anymore.

    1. In 2002, Balko wrote about how he “infiltrated” a leftist anti-globalization protest in Washington DC and had a violent reaction to seeing protesters burn a US flag. “I’d never seen a public flag burning before,” Balko wrote. “But believe me, watching one burn ? in person ? does some crazy things to you… Anger bubbled up from my gut. None of this was all that funny any more. Mostly, I wanted to pound these smug little shits.”

      Or maybe he’s a National Socialist who aspires to be Hitlery’s Go-balls

  87. Anyone even considering the corrupt cunt Hillary over Trump is a total moron and devoid of all logical, intelligent thought.

    1. Old Hickory is right on this one

      1. He’s just sore after Harriet Tubman dildo-fucked him off the twenty.

  88. All the answers are reasonable, even if you find them unconvincing. It’s the responses that are embarrassing.

    1. What is embarrassing is that you think that statement is in any way clever. It almost makes me embarrassed for you, since you seem incapable of it yourself.

  89. Plus, with Trump there’s always the chance we’ll hit the jackpot & have him act on what he said for decades shortly before the current campaign, i.e. legalize all drugs. The pattern has been for people to wait until they’re out of politics before calling for drug reform; Trump reversed the pattern by waiting until he was in politics to stop calling for it. That means he’s just keeping mum or lying about it to get elected, but will force freedom on the people once he does.

  90. Trump would be better on the green energy lunacy that is plaguing places like Germany where companies are relocating to stable electricity supplies.

    1. Yes. And that is a big deal. It isn’t to these idiots because they can afford the higher rates and think their lights won’t ever go out

  91. It’s amazing that these people think the person who had vowed to destroy the First and Second Amendments via Supreme Court nominees is the better choice. A person who has a track record of cronyism, protectionism, and reckless negligence. Exactly how is the unknown quantity any worse?

    Neither is a great choice for President, it comes down to SCOTUS appointments this time around, and Trump simply wins that one. It’s shitty, but that’s reality.

    Hopefully an article will be forthcoming that focuses on why these same libertarian luminaries will support, campaign for, and vote for the only Libertarian running for President.

  92. As terrible as Trump is, Hillary is far, far worse. Whats most infuriating is that people fail to see it, or excuse her by saying that Trump and/or the Reps do it too. Really, what sets he apart in my opinion, is her obvious desire for power, along with her many scandals and acts of corruption that she always dodges. Trump would be a terrible president, make no mistake (and I could never vote for him) but Hillary must be kept away from office. We’ve actually seen just what kind of politician she really is.

    If I do vote, it will be for Johnson. He may not be perfect, of even a real libertarian for that matter, but he is miles ahead of the two main villains. Hell, even Jill Stein would be a better option.

  93. I’ve never seen any reason to believe Trump wouldn’t just be another Ventura or Schwarzenegger gridlocked nothingburger after a move to the middle hoping vainly for a second term; and if in fact he doesn’t back off his crazier ideas, they still won’t get done. If Hilary takes enough Dems with her into Congress, however, she has enough experience and connections to do immensely more harm, in the Supreme Court alone.

    That said, your vote will not be the tie-breaker, no matter what. Lots of ways to vote against Clinton without voting for Trump, including not voting at all. What ever helps you get through the next day.

    1. I’m inclined to think that Trump might be the worse President (I find it hard to guess what he might do as President- worst case scenario is that he keeps his campaign promises) but that electing Hillary would set a worse precedent.

      I keep asking my progressive friends “So, does the thought of President Trump make you rethink the amount of power the federal government and especially its executive branch should have?” They keep missing the point. I kind of want Trump to win just to put a scare into them/piss them off, but I’m pretty sure they still wouldn’t get it (and I really am a bit afraid of what he might do.) They’d just be more determined to win next time.

      Dunno- all I have wanted from Presidential politics, for a long time now, is to not have to care very much who wins.

  94. Hillary has a proven track record of incompetence, corruption, pettiness and failing upward. Trump has a track record of narcissism, needless insults, ups and downs with his ventures but a number of successes regardless. Should be an obvious choice.

  95. Does it really matter if you sell your soul to Wormwood or Beelzabubba’s Chief High Handmaiden?
    Either way, you will still roast in hell.

  96. Seems to me Congress will take their jobs seriously as a balance to the executive branch, holding up money and stopping anything crazy, if either Johnston or Trump is elected. If Hillary is elected we’ll get more rubber-stamping of whatever the President wants and that hasn’t worked out well so far.

  97. Postrel is wrong. Reynolds is correct.
    Trump is a wildcard but his uncertainties are isotropic – as likely to be good as bad.
    PLUS he will be constrained by American historical precedents and Constitutional norms.
    PLUS the entire left apparat – academia, media, Hollywood – will work against him.
    Hillary is entirely without conscience.
    PLUS she is unconstrained by American historical precedents and Constitutional norms.
    PLUS the entire left apparat – academia, media, Hollywood will work to enable her.
    Conclusion: even if you hate Trump, evil with a headwind beats evil with a tailwind.

  98. Wow. These guys prefer a woman whose only business is the buying and selling of influence, laundering the money through fake charities. You can be wrong about a candidate but you can’t survive electing a known criminal. There will be no moral underpinning whatever.

    1. Yeah, that’s what I mean when I say it isn’t about issues–it’s about propriety.

      It doesn’t matter what Al Capone thinks about abortion, taxes, and foreign policy–we don’t put Al Capone in charge of the FBI no matter where he stands on any issue.

      Hillary Clinton is like that. I’m not saying she’s right on any particular issue, but even if she were better than Trump on every issue–what about our sense of propriety?

  99. Our trade deficits keep growing and growing and we have lost the ability of millions of Americans to become part of the middle class. We are becoming a country of service jobs. Tariffs were in place for a reason, too make sure we could not lose all of our manufacturing jobs. Taking companies to countries that pay dollars a day instead of dollars an hour is an unfair advantage to us and floods us with cheap products that make it impossible for us to compete.

  100. Our trade deficits keep growing and growing and we have lost the ability of millions of Americans to become part of the middle class. We are becoming a country of service jobs. Tariffs were in place for a reason, too make sure we could not lose all of our manufacturing jobs. Taking companies to countries that pay dollars a day instead of dollars an hour is an unfair advantage to us and floods us with cheap products that make it impossible for us to compete.

  101. I have little confidence in either candidate’s respect for the Constitution, but I see one major difference. Both the media and Congressional Republicans have shown no hesitancy in going after Trump when they think his rhetoric is in excess, and I have no doubt the same would apply during a Trump Presidency. With Clinton, on the other hand, the media and Congressional Democrats have consistency and strongly supported her, covered for her, lied for her, and when all else failed closed their eyes for her regardless of how egregiously she has acted.

    Trump says he wants to do bad things, for which he gets criticism. Clinton actually has done bad things for which she received praise. I know which I would prefer in the White House.

    1. Your view is shared by many, and is quite obviously correct. It appears that reasonable disdain for Trump’s demagoguery has blinded some Libertarians to Hillary’s more gently-stated (that grating screech notwithstanding), yet dangerous ideas.

      1. …dangerous, in the sense they’re shared by many in Congress and the judiciary. Those entities would block the more ludicrous of Trump’s proposals.

  102. I think Trump would be marginally better because it would take longer for him to initiate a Civil war, and by Civil war, I mean one in which we shoot at each other.

    *Due to the fact that he’s much better on the 2nd amendment

    1. Trump appears better about war overseas, on balance. He’s been all over the place rhetorically, but consistently opposed to Middle East meddling in general. Much constitutional harm has flowed from the past two administrations’ refusal to constructively disengage from turmoil-inciting passive/aggressivism, or inability to constructively impose military force. Either of the two would be better than the Forever War proposed by the current admin. I suspect Ed Snowden’s chances of repatriotization would be greater under Trump, considering Hillary’s demonstrable aversion to FOIA and whistleblowers.

      1. Correction – “Either of the two…” – Nah. They’re both aspects of the Forever War. Rejecting passive/aggressivism and/or imposing overwhelming military force would be preferable to the current state of affairs.

  103. RE: Clinton vs. Trump: Who’s Worse?
    Libertarian-leaning luminaries weigh in.

    Which is worse?
    Cyanide or arsenic?

    1. Considering Hillary’s greater ability to get her repellent policies by Congress and judges, as opposed to the brick wall posed by those entities regarding Trump’s campaign bluster, I’d characterize the poisons as cyanide & cheap vodka, respectively.

  104. The fact that Hillary’s not a criminal, just careless, means that it’s not a vote between Hillary and Trump. It’s quite literally a vote between Hitler and Trump.

    And I don’t mean to say that Hillary is Hitler.

    I am saying that you’re voting for your next dictator if you vote for Hillary. She’s demonstrated that she has that power, and that her typical voters are that stupid that they won’t hold her accountable for anything.

    It it was just Hillary and Trump, and she didn’t have all of those scandals she’s been involved with, you would have an argument, but you’re talking about a woman who is held accountable for nothing, is extremely adept at covering up her scandals, and when she can’t cover up her scandals, she’s got the blind loyalty to be given a free pass.

    You combine that with the amount of loyalty Democrats have in the News, education, and entertainment, and you know that Hillary has the means and will to become dictator. You vote for Hillary, and you vote for the final end of all we understand this nation to be.

    1. Emphatically agree. Trump’s bluster has far less power than Hillary’s ability to further Statist rule. I prefer what almost certainly would be a creamsicle-haired eunuch to a militarist, FOIA-averse nepo-FLOTUS.

  105. Whose worse: Clinton or Trump?

    ClinTrump.

  106. Virginia Postrel, Radley Balko, P.J. O’Rourke etc. seem to disregard the plain fact that presidents cannot act unilaterally. In picking HRC as the lesser evil, they’re choosing policy preferences patently repellent to Libertarians, yet with a much greater chance of passing congressional and judicial muster than Trump’s campaign promises. That’s okay with Virgina, Radley and P.J., apparently. Trump represents much of what I politically despise, as does Hillary. I find her political ‘competence’ more scary than Trump’s bluster.

    1. “…presidents cannot act unilaterally.”

      Seems like you’ve missed that whole Commander-in-Chief part and how it has increasingly been used in the age of the imperial presidency. Time for you to hit the books, son.

  107. “Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law. ”

    lol

  108. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  109. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  110. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  111. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  112. “Penn Jillette
    half of the comedy/magic team Penn & Teller
    “For many years I have believed two things about presidential politics: 1. Every major-party candidate was smarter than me. 2. There is no one worse than Hillary Clinton.

    “I have been proven wrong on both of these this year.” ”
    .

    Okay, Penn, if you actually said this, then I believe you. You *were* dumber than George W. Bush.
    .

    Talk about self-immolation.
    .

    Oh, and “Reason”? You didn’t talk to a any libertarians outside the nitwitted range of far right libertarians, which is only a very, very small slice of libertarianism. Do better, will you?

  113. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  114. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  115. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  116. So this eliminates field tests as a basis for probable cause, right? Since they have just been proved to be so inaccurate that they test “positive” for a chocolate bar.

  117. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  118. Everybody can earn 150$+ daily… You can earn from 4000-9000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good earning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  119. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.