Donald Trump

Roger Stone Says Libertarians Should Support Trump Because He's Anti-Drug War and Pro-LGBT Rights

"I'm a Nixon guy," but the drug war "was Nixon's greatest mistake," Stone tells Reason.


The dirtiest trickster
Reason/Robby Soave

Veteran GOP political operative and proudly self-admitted "dirty trickster" Roger Stone tells Reason that libertarians should vote for Donald Trump, primarily because the alternative is Hillary Clinton, but also because (according to Stone) the GOP's presumptive nominee is anti-drug war and pro-LGBT rights.

The man Trump once described to the New Yorker as called a "stone-cold loser" who "always tries taking credit for things he never did" is now one of Trump's staunchest defenders despite having left his official role in the campaign in the summer of 2015.

In an interview in the Republican National Convention (RNC)'s media filing room within Cleveland's Huntington Convention Center, Stone conceded that Donald Trump is "not a pure libertarian, but he has some libertarian instincts." Stone cited Trump's "enormous skepticism about the war on drugs," which he said, "is an abysmal expensive failure." Stone added, "I'm a Nixon guy and this was a Nixon policy" but that it was "Nixon's greatest mistake."

Stone suggested that Trump would audit the federal reserve and credited him with having a "more friendly attitude toward the LGBT community" than any of his Republican primary rivals.

When asked about Trump's hostility to free trade agreements, Stone insisted Trump is pro-free trade but that deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are misnomers. "They call [NAFTA] free trade, but that's bullshit," Stone said.

Of the libertarians who are more inclined to vote for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson than Trump, Stone professed "huge affection for Gary Johnson," but insisted that "if you are for radical reform, which is the Johnson message, radical reform can come in the form of Donald Trump." Stone also says he "has a high regard for" the Libertarian vice presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, "even though he supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act."

Though Trump has tried to have it both ways when it comes to his supposed reluctance for military interventionism, Stone lays the blame for the rise of ISIS (which he describes as "an imminent threat") on the foreign policies former President George W. Bush ("Bush's policies created ISIS") and Hillary Clinton ("Clinton's policies armed ISIS"). Stone thinks Trump would use "all this extremely expensive technology we pay for," such as drones, before he resorted to sending troops to the region.

"I'm a libertarian," Stone says, "but I'm not an isolationist, I'm a non-interventionist. I do believe that we have vital national interests and I'm not naive. There are people around the world who want to fuck us, and you have to deal with that. But I do think Trump would ask, 'What is the inherent interest of America?' before we go marching off to war. The Bushes certainly never did that."

Reason asked Stone how he squares what he describes as Trump's "friendliness" to the gay community with the official GOP platform which still opposes gay marriage. Stone replied, "platforms are an anachronism," citing previous GOP platforms which vowed that the US would never abandon the gold standard or officially recognize Red China. Stone says Trump, or any nominee, is not required to not be bound by their party's "meaningless" platforms. 

NEXT: Reason's Facebook Live Republican National Convention Coverage

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

  1. Never trust a man in a Searsucker Suit.

    1. Not a seersucker suit in the picture.

      Instead, he opted for more of the Matlock look, as recently used by Saul to gull old people into hiring him.

    2. 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…

      1. Are you wearing a seersucker suit, though?

        1. She was supposed to get her seersucker suit from Cook Brother’s Clothiers.

          Went to Sears instead.

          That’s how you make 17K a month.

    3. Don’t you trust Colonel Sanders *rising intonation*

  2. “I’m a libertarian,” Stone says,

    That word does not mean what he thinks it means.

    1. If the thinks Trump would make a worthy president, he ain’t a libertarian. He’s no more a libertarian than fellow Nixon supporter Ayn Rand.

      1. Ayn “My philosophy has stayed exactly the same since the age of nineteen, except for all those references to Nietzsche” Rand loathed libertarianism.

        1. That’s why Objectivism is only appealing to teenagers.

          1. I was more making fun of the fact that Rand pretended that Objectivism was some kind of constant philosophy she founded at a young age and followed through her whole life, which is utter bullshit (especially if you read any of her letters and correspondence from her late teens and early twenties, when she was a diehard Nietzsche fangirl).

      2. Except Rand didn’t go around saying she was one though.

        1. True… Ayn Rand was either less deceptive or more self-aware than Stone.

    2. Brittany, I want to go to your party, but I don’t want to dissect your frog.

    3. I like how he, presumably with a straight face, describes himself as both a libertarian and a “Nixon guy” in the same interview. Nothing screams “libertarianism” like Richard Nixon.

      1. He is basically doing us a favor, by letting us know upfront that he is full of shit. How nice of him.

    4. That word does not mean what he thinks it means.

      In his defense, there’s a decent swath of the libertarian community that isn’t about anything except legalization and LGBT rights.

      1. A decent swath? Like two guys?

        1. *squints*

          Not sure if realistically questioning assertion or sarcastically insulting LP.

          1. Looks like a floor wax/dessert topping situation to me.


        1. We’re pro-gay but anti-Mexican around here. The conflict comes in when we realize that Mexicans come with the weed. Oh, the dilemma.

  3. … The libertarian case for Trump?

    1. Wait, Trump isn’t the Devil incarnate? Does not fit narrative…

    2. We’ve been making it here a long time, not paying att’n?

    1. I’m not seeing any evidence that this guy isn’t John.

      1. John’s suits aren’t that nice.

  4. Stone also says he “has a high regard for” the Libertarian vice presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, “even though he supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.”


  5. RE: Roger Stone Says Libertarians Should Support Trump Because He’s Anti-Drug War and Pro-LGBT Rights
    “I’m a Nixon guy,” but the drug war “was Nixon’s greatest mistake,” Stone tells Reason.

    One would only vote for the fascist Trump the Grump because they would want a fascist state.
    One would only vote for Heil Hitlary if they would want our socialist slave state to continue down the path of totalitarianism.
    Ask me again why I’m not voting for Trump of Hillary.

    1. Because neither of them are real Republicans like Johnson and Weld?

      1. Hey-oh!

    2. Why are you not voting for Trump of Hillary??

      1. Votes don’t throw dey own selves away.

    3. Trump is anti-drug war now? Last I heard he was pro-police state and railing on about how we must stop the heroin epidemic.

      1. He’s been for legaliz’n of all drugs for 20 yrs., until the campaign started. I trust him to be lying lately.

        1. And if he wins and we end up with Attorney General Christie, what then?

          That alone gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about it.

          1. That’d make me LOL just to think it! Because Trump loves to order Christie around, & Christie loves to lick his ass.

  6. It’s good to know that Roger Stone thinks Trump would make an acceptable president; that someone who ‘gave’ money to the influence peddling racket known as the Clinton Foundation should be in charge of law enforcement; that someone who used strategic bankruptcy to screw people who made the mistake of selling him goods and services has the integrity needed to command the military; that someone who holds the crudest form of mercantilism as his economic compass to order the government’s response to economic and fiscal crises.

  7. Not to belittle the multiplier effect of forced wedding cake commerce, but if Trump was actually to say something about scaling back the drug war, that might actually be huge. But I don’t recall seeing anything suggesting that.

    1. In the 90’s he said the only way to win was to legalize them all. He’s either changed his mind or is keeping it very quiet.

      1. Trump says many things, some of them he may actually believe sincerely.

        1. Trump says many things

          And never the same thing twice.

            1. Not PAL or SECAM?

              1. Oh you had to pull the SECAM card di’unt you?

          1. “You can never attribute the same Trump quote twice.”


            1. “Bitches ain’t shit but hos and tricks.”

              -Emily Dickinson

            2. You can never run your short fingers through the same river of hair twice.

            3. I have a real quote for Mr. Trump. Well, not completely real, as it’s in English: “First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak.”

          2. Trump said “legalize the drugs” consistently, and for over 20 years. It was and is a politically unpopular position so it is likely his sincerely held belief.

            1. Trump has not said that consistently as of late, no matter how much you repeat it. He’s repeatedly said that he isn’t even in favor of recreational legalization for marijuana (though he’d allow the states to do it), let alone all drugs.

              1. Trump dissembled on his long-held legalization views while campaigning for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

                Gary Johnson is against drug legalization as the Libertarian Party nominee.

                1. So now the goalposts have shifted from what he’s said consistently for 20 years, to “he only changed his position because he ran for the GOP nomination”? Plus an irrelevant reference to GJ?

              2. I trust that he’s lying now, like Gary Johnson about Hillary. I don’t mind our friends lying to our enemies.

                1. But when he says he’d trash the constitution, it’s good that he’s honest, right?

                  1. He doesn’t say that, some lying HyR headline writer does.

            2. Trump said “legalize the drugs” consistently, and for over 20 years. It was and is a politically unpopular position so it is likely his sincerely held belief.

              When you spend most of your adult life doing rails of blow off models’ tits, your view on drugs would probably be pretty liberal.

              1. Trump did blow? I thought he didn’t event drink coffee.

            3. Trump from 20 years ago would make a good president.

  8. Shorter Stone: Here is a slightly less virulent strain of syphilis.

  9. “The man Trump once described to the New Yorker as called a “stone-cold loser” who “always tries taking credit for things he never did” is now one of Trump’s staunchest defenders despite having left his official role in the campaign in the summer of 2015.”

    Maybe Stone really believes in Trump.

    “They call [NAFTA] free trade, but that’s bullshit,” Stone said.”

    He’s spot on there. Libertarians agree, or used to at least. (Doesn’t mean Trump would implement actual free trade policies though)

    1. Cato says on the whole NAFTA and TPP are a net benefit, which carries weight with me.

      And kinda like you said, even if Trump is against NAFTA and TPP it does not mean Trump’s support for sky-high tariffs is a good thing.

      1. Cato says on the whole NAFTA and TPP are a net benefit,

        Of course “net benefit” and “libertarian” aren’t necessarily the same thing.

    2. I think libertarians agree that agreements like NAFTA are far from perfect, but there’s never been any consensus that they’re more bad than good.

      1. Maybe not a consensus but opposing our trade agreements didn’t hurt Ron Paul

        1. Paul also advocated unilaterally lowering/eliminating tariffs. Trump has constantly talked up trade wars. That’s why he’s viewed with more skepticism.

          I also don’t think Ron Paul is an infallible god. I think this is an area where he’s wrong.

      2. You’re arguing against a point I didn’t make. Whether it’s a net positive or negative is a different matter, NAFTA actually being free trade is indeed bullshit (a misnomer). I haven’t read a libertarian dispute that. Have you?

        1. Not sure it counts as “disputing” whether these deals are in fact “free trade”, but I think the writers at Reason generally defend them as “free trade”.

          1. I think the writers at Reason generally defend them as “free trade”.

            Yeah but we’re talking about whether libertarians consider them “free trade”.

            1. Says the guy carrying water for Trump

              1. Trump is the only pro-liberty candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party is is the only other pro-liberty candidate.


        2. NAFTA actually being free trade is indeed bullshit (a misnomer)

          Sure. Any government involvement in trade isn’t “free” trade.

          But is it more free that what we had before it?

          1. “But is it more free that what we had before it?”

            I’d say no. I’m not a libertarian, but I admire Rothbard and agree with him here. It has served to further entrench government into the economy.

            1. In what way, exactly? How does the fact that I can buy something from Mexico decrease my liberty?

        3. You’re correct in that they aren’t totally free trade, but they usually are freer trade. And thus to someone looking to advance free trade, whether or not they’re totally ideal isn’t that relevant.

          1. “You’re correct in that they aren’t totally free trade, but they usually are freer trade. And thus to someone looking to advance free trade, whether or not they’re totally ideal isn’t that relevant.”

            Right, but in the case of NAFTA it isn’t simply falling short of completely ideal, it actively hurts free trade in favor of special interests. One step forward, two steps back, so to speak. I think someone could make a good parallel with the CRA here, and libertarians would fall on both sides similarly.

            1. State precisely what you mean.

              Are you saying “it fails to lower trade barrier X in order to protect industry Y”, or are you saying “It lowers trade barrier X which helps industry Y, but hurts Z” ?

              Because you do realize that the default state of having trade barriers is favoritism towards Z, right? The default pre-NAFTA state favors special interests. Lowering certain trade barriers may harm some people and help others, but that *isn’t* favoritism, because it only harms people because consumers are then free to choose to buy from someone else. Keeping trade barriers up as a negotiating ploy harms consumers in order to help special interests – which is what Trump wants to do (at best).

              The most libertarian policy would be to unilaterally drop all of our trade barriers, irregardless of what happens in other countries. ANY act of negotiation to get other countries to open their markets effectively favors special interests. SURE, NAFTA was negotiated that way, but Trump isn’t proposing unilaterally dropping our trade barriers, he’s proposing raising them to “negotiate” for other countries to lower theirs – for specific markets and industries. In other words, if you thin NAFTA wasn’t free trade, then Trumps preferred policy would be even more crony capitalist than you think NAFTA is. That’s his whole schtick – he wants a “better deal” for US producers in foreign markets, NOT a better deal for US consumers in US markets.

    3. Trump’s trade war bullshit is a greater threat to my standard of living than anything Hillary could come up with a divided Congress, that’s for sure.

      1. Trump’s trade war bullshit is a greater threat to my standard of living than anything Hillary could come up with a divided Congress, that’s for sure.

        So on the one hand, Congress – great big fans of Trump, by the way – is going to simply roll over and play along with Trump on trade, but they’re going to fight Hillary tooth and nail?

        I don’t see it. Congress is going to get pilloried for going along with Trump or for obstructing Hillary. They’ll take the easy way out with either candidate.

    4. I can agree that no currently active trade deal is free-market; but that isn’t Trump’s argument. Every bit of trade rhetoric he’s had this year suggests that he wants more trade restriction, not less, with each restriction geared toward specifically favoring American labor regardless of its impact on the market.

      That phrase I just described Trump with could be used to describe the AFL-CIO or NEA without changing a word, and I sure as hell don’t want to be on their side on free-market economics.

      1. He wants make a deal, a good deal, a deal that will help Americans. You see, we’re getting screwed because our politicians don’t know how to make good deals. Trump deals, get it?

        Me either. But most people are dumb enough to think that’s just good policy.

      2. All that is true…but only a small proportion of int’l trade is “in play” in that sense. The vast majority of int’l trade is uncontroversial, there being no interests arrayed vs. it. Therefore the damage will be minimal.

        Organized labor in the private sector has declined enormously & is still declining. You could give them everything they wanted, & hardly notice. As time goes on, you’ll notice even less. It’s public sector unions that are the real bitch now.

  10. Fuck that. If I’m gonna vote for Evil, it won’t be the lesser one.

  11. Ha! Sorry, but things like TARP, the auto bailouts, the stimulus, single-payer health care, and refusing to consider entitlement reform just can’t be swept under the rug.

  12. THanks for the Mansplanation, Stone.

  13. So um is there any reason to believe that Trump supports any of the positions that Stone lays out here, or indeed any of the positions that Trump himself has variously stated support for?

    1. Trump will support whatever you ask him to for as long as the interview lasts.

      Hillary, on the other hand, is the principled one who is currently running on undoing pretty much everything she, her husband, and Obama have worked on over the past couple decades in favor of whatever is the trending under the social justice hashtag this week. He commitment to Wall Street, however, remains unshakeable.

    2. Why would Trump support drug legalization from at least 1990 to as late as 2011 if he doesn’t believe it is the right thing to do? When confronted on his position during this campaign he only half-ass walked it back. His answer that “it should continue to be studied” is better than what Gary Johnson says.

      1. I’m really not that interested in what Private Citizen Trump mouth-farted about drugs 20 years ago. My interest is in what Presidential Candidate Trump is saying he will do about drugs when he is in power to do something

        Well, I did not think about it, I said it’s something that should be studied and maybe should continue to be studied. But it’s not something I’d be willing to do right now. I think it’s something that I’ve always said maybe it has to be looked at because we do such a poor job of policing. We don’t want to build walls. We don’t want to do anything. And if you’re not going to want to do the policing, you’re going to have to start thinking about other alternatives. But it’s not something that I would want to do.

        In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state. Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states. And of course you have Colorado. There’s a question as to how it’s all working out there, you know? That’s not going exactly trouble-free.

        So leadership. Much president.

        1. I said it’s something that should be studied and maybe should continue to be studied. But it’s not something I’d be willing to do right now.

          That alone is demonstrably better than Gary Johnson’s position.

          1. You haven’t changed your handle SIV. Does that mean that Trump has announced he is in favor of legalizing cock fighting?

            1. These sexual euphemisms aren’t so abstract now.

          2. How? Making a reference to “studying” the issue makes him better than a guy who openly advocates recreational legalization of marijuana?

            I will be the first to admit that I think Johnson’s drug policy isn’t satisfying, but it’s still better than Trump’s by a long shot.

            1. SIV is a deranged Gary Johnson hater. He hated him to delusional levels in ’12, and the pushback from some hardcores this cycle has been the greatest moment of his life.

              1. So you’re saying that SIV is not Big Boi, as previously thought?

            2. Studying the issue of drugs generally, not marijuana, which is more than Johnson says. And even re marijuana, voters could consider Johnson’s opinion suspect, because he’s in the biz. Like Trump on eminent domain.

        2. I mean, he DOES say something sort of maybe potentially positive about medical marijuana (should WHAT, Donald???). And he does say states should be left alone… sort of. Though his implied criticism of CO seems to make it seem he thinks the state-level experimentation is “troublesome” (fucking hippies).

          But of course he may just decide to appoint Christie as AG as a booby prize and Christie’s a “the law’s the law”-type when it comes to the devil’s weed.

      2. Why should we think he has any interest in addressing drug issues at all?

    3. From the little attention I’ve paid to Trump– other than what I read in the media– I believe that Trump as a candidate stated he had no issue with trans-bathroom usage (to name one) and Trump as a private individual indicated he thought a certain amount of gun control was A-ok.

      But what I detect (and I may be completely off the mark here) is that Trump’s support has come from the deepest of the red right and he seems to shift his rhetoric to match his supporters’ rhetoric.

      1. I don’t think his base supporters at best ambivalent about everything except immigration and terrorism (Trump even seems to have a lot of wiggle room in those areas; he has made an intense personal/emotional connection to a substantial portion of the electorate). That was why he was able to get away with so much Republican platform heresy during the primaries.

        I feel like he’s been shifting his rhetoric and strategy lately to be more in line with Republican dogma in an effort to unite the Party around him. If he comes across as a generic Republican he has a chance — a good one at that — to win the election.

        1. No, they’re a pretty big 2nd amendment crowd.

  14. I suppose it will soon be time to start hearing the tiresome refrain that if libertarians don’t vote for Trump, it will be 100% our fault if Hillary wins.

    1. As a libertarian, I have come to accept that I will be blamed for literally every bad thing that happens in the world.

      1. Somalia!

      2. We’ve been blamed for rape? I keep losing track between abjectly blamed on whites/males and explicitly blamed on libertarians.

        1. All libertarians are white males, so that Venn diagram is just gonna be concentric circles.

        2. Well, yeah. Libertarians believe in that pesky “due process” bullshit.

    2. That’s been going on ever since Johnson’s name started appearing in polls, actually. Notably, GayJ is drawing more from Hillary than from Trump (though it’s possible that he’s mainly pulling away R-leaning individuals who reject Trump).

      1. No, that’s been going on since 1972.

    3. I suppose it will soon be time to start hearing the tiresome refrain that if libertarians don’t vote for Trump Hillary, it will be 100% our fault if Hillary Trump wins.

    4. it will be 100% our fault if Hillary wins.

      I honestly couldn’t care less who wins between the two. They are equally horrible, albeit for different reasons.

      Blame away.

      1. I don’t believe they are equally horrible. I believe that on every meaningful measure, Hillary is demonstrably worse. However, they are both so bad that I too don’t care which one of the two wins.

        I see it as Andropov vs Chernenko. Would you really get too exercised about which of the two wins if you lived in the CCCP?

        1. Considering Andropov was a British plant, & Chernenko at death’s door….

      1. LOL fair enough, although I think Team Red will be turning the volume up to 11 on that song pretty soon.

  15. No article about Roger Stone is complete unless it includes a link to a photo of his Nixon tattoo.

    1. Well, that’s… something.

    2. No article about Roger Stone is complete without mention of his extensive collection of shoes.

  16. I’m sure a longtime Democratic party operator could also lay out an equally nebulous case for why libertarians should vote for Hitleray.

    If/when one does, I will give about as much credence as I’m giving this guy.

  17. Stone conceded that Donald Trump is “not a pure libertarian, but he has some libertarian instincts.” Stone cited Trump’s “enormous skepticism about the war on drugs,” which he said, “is an abysmal expensive failure.”

    The fact that some of Trump’s stated positions (which may or may not be the actual policies he will implement if elected) overlap libertarian positions is purely accidental. He is not approaching the issues from libertarian principles, and that does actually matter in how his policies actually come out.

  18. I would rather vote for Nixon’s corpse.

    1. “Flabby, pasty skin, riddled with phlebitis… a good Republican body. God, I loved it.”

      1. We could use a man who had the courage to proclaim that he hadn’t lived a thousand years and traveled a quadrillion miles to look at another man’s gizmo.

      2. “I hear that. I spent most of my teen years loving my body. Of course it was tough love…”

        1. “I’ll go into people’s houses at night and wreck up the place. Muahahaha!”

    2. What about Nixon’s head?

      1. What about the headless body of Spiro Agnew?

    3. If Rand Paul pulled some Weekend at Bernie’s shit with Nixon’s corpse, this has a lot of potential.

    4. Futurama did it.

  19. So um is there any reason to believe that Trump supports any of the positions that Stone lays out here, or indeed any of the positions that Trump himself has variously stated support for?

    You crazy kid.

  20. I would rather vote for Nixon’s corpse.

    So, you admit it.

    You’re ready for Hillary!

    1. “I didn’t live a thousand years and travel a quadrillion miles to look at another man’s gizmo.”

      1. “A thousand years may have passed, but the average voter is just as drunk and stupid as ever.”

      2. Damn your nimble fingers!

  21. You’re ready for Hillary!

    Dear Late P Brooks. I’ve never done you no wrong. So I don’t deserve that.

  22. Who the fuck is Roger Stone and why the fuck should I give two shits about what a self described “Nixon guy” thinks about anything?

  23. Trump is about as libertarian as Gary Johnson, which is slightly more than Hillary and Steve Chapman, but slightly less than Judge Napolitano. There is no alternative. Abandon all hope.

  24. I’m tired of Trump’s schtick. It was funny at first but the idea of a full presidential term with either of the major party monstrosities in the highest office in the land makes me sick to my stomach. At least Trump’s campaign was amusing for a while. I’ll vote for Johnson or Sweet Meteor of Death, depending on my level of optimism come election day. Plus I heard there will be rare Pok?mon hiding at your local polling station.

    1. SMOD will do less damage to the Earth than GayJay has done to the public perception of libertarianism.

      1. I doubt Gay Jay has had any significant effect on the public perception of libertarianism. That’s because LP candidates don’t impact public perception at all. You say Bob Barr, Michael Badnarik, Browne etc, and people look at you blankly. The candidates’ impact on the public consciousness is as ineffectual as flinging tears into the rain.

        1. Ha. My wife was reading a political article the other day and asked me “who’s Gary Johnson?”

          I told her it was the actor from that play where everyone got AIDS.

      2. Because real libertarians are Trump-fellators like yourself.

      3. Pssst, you’re the only one who cares about Johnson’s position on homocakes.

    2. I’m not half as tired of Trump’s schtick as I am of his supporter’s schtick. I see what’s in for him, but the phantom blowjob crowd baffles me.

      1. I should have been more specific. My main fatigue is with those goddamned centipedes. Watching them crawl all over dead bodies to scream Trump’s name last week was vomit-inducing.

      2. the phantom blowjob crowd baffles me.

        I’m not convinced it’s “phantom blowjobs.” I’m pretty sure some of those dipshits really do have their mouths permanently surgically attached around The Donald’s penis. Kind of like Human Centipede except mouth to dick instead of mouth to anus.

        1. “Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I’d never know ’cause I wouldn’t eat the filthy motherfucker.”

      3. What is in it for them is pissing people like you off. That is about 90% of it at least for me. It is so much fun listening posers like you get all butt hurt.

        Trump is just a politician. He will if elected disappoint his supporters and critics both. There is really no reason to get upset about him. But people like you seem to want to and people like me enjoy poking you about it.

        I don’t see what is in it for you being butt hurt about Trump and his supporters. Doesn’t social signaling and class snobbery ever get old? Just a little bit?

        1. “I’m sucking this idiot’s dick to make you mad! Is it working yet? What about now?”

          1. And it is working. And since when is “Trump is just a politician. He will if elected disappoint his supporters and critics both. There is really no reason to get upset about him.” sucking his dick?

            That doesn’t even make any sense. You don’t know anything about Trump. You are no better than his worst supporters. All you know is that it looks good to throw a fit about him. That is it. It is pathetic kind of funny. I have a weakness for wanting to torture idiots. What can I say?

        2. The tears of his supporters will be the best part of Hillary’s victory, by far. I will be drinking them like ambrosia.

          1. If Hillary wins, a lot of people will be happy. Good to know you will be one of them. My life won’t change much either way. So, I won’t be crying no matter what happens.

            1. I won’t be happy. I’ll just be wallowing in Schadenfreude.

              1. That is called being happy. Whatever works for you. I really don’t care. Just prepare yourself for the possibility that Hillary might not win. Loving her might just not be enough.

            2. John,

              I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt and say that you won’t care too much. But you know damn well that is not true for a huge number of Trump supporters, and for his opponents as well if the opposite happens.

              1. That is true most of Hillary’s supporters too. If Trump wins, there will be a lot more people pissing their pants and wallowing in their own misery than are if he loses, thought there most certainly will be some.

                So what is your point?

        3. “It is so much fun listening posers like you get all butt hurt.”

          “Doesn’t social signaling and class snobbery ever get old?”


          1. I am a total snob guilty as charged. I love looking down my nose at idiots like you. I don’t do it to signal. I just enjoy it.

      4. The rise of the alt-right, and terms like “cuckservative”, is absolutely nauseating.

        1. No less nauseating than terms like Trumpkins. No one has any sense of humor or style anymore. I will give the alt-right credit for at least trying to be subversive. That is more than I can say for anyone else. Is there anything more pathetic and conformist than talking about how much you hate Trump? Is there anything that takes less thought or balls than that?

          1. I don’t hate Trump, I just think he’s a carnival barker.

            1. IN a lot of ways, but why is that a bad thing? Being a carnival barker is a more reputable line of work than being a politician or certainly a journalist. Why not let the carnival barker have a try?

              1. Because I disagree with his positions.

                1. Good for you. Then what difference does it make that he is a carnival barker? You don’t like his positions just says so.

                  1. Because I don’t like someone shouting bullshit in my face. I prefer if they have their bullshit views quietly.

                    1. So you don’t like bullshit? Okay, I guess that is why Hillary winning is going to make you happy. I don’t think you really know what you think. You mostly seem confused.

                    2. You’ve certainly got a good read on Joe M from there 50 or so words he’s written thus far.

                    3. Well don’t know you know? Anyone who disagrees with John is a Hillary supporter.

                    4. If you don’t support her, why will her winning make you so happy? I can only take you at your word

                    5. Find the one place where I said that.

          2. Is there anything that takes less thought or balls than that?

            Hating Hillary.

            1. Last I looked the entire mainstream media and culture were behind Hillary. Hating Hillary doesn’t seem very popular, at least not with the powers that be. It is good that you like her. You don’t seem like the kind of guy who has many balls. So, pro Hillary is likely a good position for you.

              1. The fuck you know about it? I don’t have many balls. Just the two. But they’re huge.

                1. I am sure you think you do but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. I bet you have never taken a contrary opinion in your entire life.

                  1. My disappointment at your ignorance of my views is almost as massive as my balls.

              2. Since when is the MSM the entirety of our society? Clinton has terrible favorability ratings. Get outside of DC for a second, and most people aren’t fans of her or Trump.

                1. But the social sanction of supporting Hillary is basically nil. Even though a lot of Democrats don’t like her, they are not going to h ave a fit if someone does. They will however, have a fit about someone supporting Trump. Supporting Hillary is much easier in most circles than supporting Trump.

                  1. And here’s your typical binary view of things coming out again. Stuck in that rut of thinking that if someone doesn’t support Trump they must be a Hillarybot.

              1. To be fair, there are a few places where that would be extremely dangerous.

        2. I think it’s cute, but should be spelled “cockservative”, although it’s pronounced halfway between o & u.

          1. Some would spell it with “a”. Depends whether you hear it as cack, cock, or cuck.

    3. I am fervently praying that the media uses Pokemon as a Hillary turnout operation, and it backfires on them and leads to write-in candidate Pikachu squeaking out a narrow electoral college victory.

      1. I can see the re-counts as a review panel argues over whether or not “Electro-Rat” counts as a vote for Pikachu.

        1. Then the House of Representatives has to decide Pikachu v. Raichu… hmm, there’s potential there.

      2. Pikachu’s platform:

        -Clean energy in the form of massive electric Pokemon factory farms.
        -Legalized cock fighting.
        -Mass deportation of Ground-type Pokemon.
        -Evolution removed from public schools, because not everyone wants to be a Raichu.
        New healthcare program entirely based on Pokemon tears (holy shit this movie is dumb).

        1. *standing ovation*


        2. -Legalized cock fighting.

          I could vote for candidate Pikachu.

    4. I’m voting for “take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”

  25. Question re: the phrase “LGBT rights” that gets bandied about by the Reason staff all the time:

    What does this phrase even many at this point? I got that it used to indicate support for gay marriage and a general end to legalized discrimination against homosexuals in certain arenas, both public and private (the latter of which is, of course, anti-libertarian, but that’s beside the point of what I’m asking). But…what now? It seems to me like we’re mostly getting into the areas of special rights and preferential treatment, or else we’re delving into the whole bathroom issue.

    1. What does this phrase even many at this point?

      “Hey, I hear the cool kids are having a cocktail party. Can I come?”

      Since I am not aware of any legal discrimination against gays, especially since the gay marriage thing happened, I can only assume they mean positive rights. Which is to say, the sort of privileges libertarians used to be opposed to.

      1. It has been about nothing but positive rights since the sodomy laws were overturned. What the hell “right” does anyone have other than to live in peace and not be fucked with by the government?

    2. It means punishing those who don’t support gay marriage, labeling them as equivalent to segregationists, and eliminating their opinions from polite society through the force of law. Anyone at a cocktail party could tell you that.

    3. To progressives, it means votes.

      To libertarians, I take your point, it does seem to be a pretty generic entry in lists of things to fight for on Reason these days.

  26. Where’s John? He’s not earning his keep!

    1. SIV is pinch-hitting.

      1. SIV = single issue voter. And his issue is those damn Mexicans if I remember correctly. So Trump’s is practically the most perfect candidate ever for SIV.

        1. No, it was about legalizing dog-fighting. Which is nowhere on Trumps’ platform.

          1. I thought it was cockfighting, not dogfighting. Although maybe he’s obfuscating and supports both.

            1. Nope. Sorry. You are right. Cockfighting. I derp’d.

              1. I mean, if he perchance found himself at a dogfight or a bear baiting or what have you, i don’t think he’d turn right around and walk out. He’d place some bets and he’d stay till it was done, because his mama raised him to see things through, like a Gentleman.

            2. So if Trump wins and we get fewer Mexican immigrants it stands to reason that would hurt cockfighting in America. Cockgihting is much more popular in Mexican culture than here. #NeverTrump #KeepCocksFighitng

            3. It was cock-fighting. Which until now I assumed was pitting roosters aggainst each other in mortal combat. I now am struck by the horrific possibility that he means legalizing dueling with penises as weapons.

              1. cockservative

              2. Puerto Rico is just a flight away.

              3. Two magnificent cocks, lunging against each other amid a circle of excited men, until one has battered the other into exhausted submission.

          2. Serious note time, after going hands on with a pitbull who’d decided it needed to kill my dachshund mix rescue, I believe there is a special place in hell for people who participate in dogfighting. The sounds my dog made as he was trying to get away still show up in my nightmares.

            Second serious note, after that episode I got a lot more serious about every day carry.

        2. I keep thinking Simian Immunodeficiency Virus.

      2. SIV is pinch-hitting.

        Better than pinch-catching, if you know what I mean.

    2. Too busy furiously masturbating.

      1. I don’t necessarily mind being a part of your sexual fantasies, but you could at least be kind enough to ask permission.

  27. radical reform can come in the form of Donald Trump

    The episode where Jayna took the form of Donald Trump was the worst Super Friends episode ever.

    1. “Form of: YUGE ORANGE DILDO!”

      1. “Form of: Bucket of Toupee Glue!”

        1. God, i hope that’s not a euphemism.

          1. Depends on what you’ve been eating over the last few days.

            1. Lots of pineapple, salmon, and asparagus.

    1. I’ll vote for anything involving cocks.

  28. Marijuana Policy Project gave Trump a C+ based on his statements as of 2015.

    Stone cited Trump’s “enormous skepticism about the war on drugs,” – Documented where? I’ll bet it can’t be found on his web site. I searched and it was not to be found on the first page of the search results.

  29. 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.