Gary Johnson

Glenn Beck: "I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson"

GOP delegates from D.C. also switch to the L.P. candidate, but don't believe those Jeb Bush rumors.

|

In a brief interview yesterday with jeff4justice of the No More 2 Party System YouTube channel, the increasingly libertarian political commentator and media impresario Glenn Beck was asked whether he was going to vote for Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson. Beck, who had previously gushed about L.P. presidential candidate and eventual runner-up Austin Petersen, replied: "I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson," though "I haven't made my final decision yet."

Beck also gave a brief mea culpa for previously playing into binary, two-party thinking, and vowed that "You're going to see some changes at The Blaze come this fall that I think it's going to be very good for libertarians." Watch the whole clip here:

In other Johnson-endorsement news, The Daily Beast reported yesterday that the vice chair of the Washington, D.C. Republican Party, Gary Teal, has announced that he's voting for the Libertarian and therefore resigning his post within the GOP. He was joined by three other D.C. delegates to the RNC:

Justin Dillon, Kris Hammond, and Peter Lee—who were wearing #NeverTrump buttons—spoke to The Daily Beast in the hallway of Quicken Loans Arena, just minutes after Donald Trump finished his keynote speech on Thursday night. "The RNC has bungled this nomination process by having bad rules," Teal said, referring to a controversy over nominating rules that caused chaos on the convention floor Monday. "And now at this convention, they've sacrificed integrity in favor of unity."

Prior to the convention, Rhode Island Republican State Sen. Dawson Hodgson, who is described as "prominent" by The Providence Journal, resigned as a delegate and pledged his support to Johnson. Other elected officials supporting Johnson include:

* Nebraska State Sen. Laura Ebke (R).

* Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, who was elected as a Republican but switched to Libertarian.

* New Hampshire State Rep. Max Abramson (R).

* Montana State Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer (at least as listed on the Johnson/Weld endorsements page and on Wikipedia; Schwaderer's June 28 Facebook post extolling the virtues of the L.P. ticket concludes with less decisive language: "I recommend that you hear what they have to say and genuinely take on board their perspective. In a cycle of vitriol I believe that this ticket deserves a slot on the Presidential debate circuit; if anything the[y] elevate the rhetoric on the stage and entice all three candidates to bring this debate back to policy." I have emailed Schwaderer for clarification.) UPDATE: Schwaderer wrote back on Sunday. "That was an endorsement pre-cursor," he expained. "Representative Daniel Zolnikov (R—age 29) and myself (R—age 27) are doing a full-on release with our joint endorsement of Johnson-Weld tomorrow morning." So add another one to the list!

* Utah State Sen. Mark Madsen (R).  

Anthony Fisher found other Utah delegates who said they were leaning Johnson, and when Nick Gillespie and I interviewed a bunch of Millennial delegates at the RNC, it was hard to find any who didn't prefer Gary Johnson to Donald Trump.

Still, the big endorsement gossip yesterday was about whether Johnson was going to get the nod this week from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. A source close to Bush told Reason that nothing had changed since Bush's July 15 Washington Post op-ed, in which the onetime GOP frontrunner wrote that "I haven't decided how I'll vote in November—whether I'll support the Libertarian ticket or write in a candidate—but I do know there are a lot of things Republicans can do in the coming months to lay the groundwork for rebuilding our party and the foundation for a true conservative renewal in our country."

Johnson vehemently denied any Bush-endorsement scuttlebutt when I asked him about it in our chaotic Facebook Live interview Wednesday. Johnson campaign spokesman Joe Hunter texted me last night "No looming endorsements, contrary to what the twitterverse seems to think."

But as Johnson told Vice News correspondent Michael C. Moynihan (formerly of Reason, and currently of The Fifth Column) on Thursday, perhaps with a smidge of hyperbole, "I was here all day yesterday at the Republican National Convention, and I had one thousand people tell me they were going to vote for me….Nobody took one single poke at me."

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.

537 responses to “Glenn Beck: "I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson"

  1. Beck seemed to be shifting in a more libertarian direction for a while, but his more recent statements indicate a rtuen to a more redneck view.

    1. Are “redneck” & “libertarian” inconsistent?

      1. “redneck” is inconsistent with anything the speaker likes

          1. Charlie Daniels – Late 70’s – Long Haired Country Boy

            The classic song from his great album, “Late 70’s”?

              1. Enthusiasm would only be warranted if the Libertarian ticket were actually Libertarian. But it isn’t.

                As governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld appointed supporters of campus censorship and campus speech codes to key positions in the state civil-rights and educational bureaucracy and the judiciary. Two of his three appointees to the state supreme court were leftists who hate free speech and freedom of religion (his third appointee, who had worked in the Reagan administration, endorsed Obama in 2008, and publicly defended Obamacare and supported Elizabeth Warren).

                As governor, Gary Johnson appointed anti-free speech judges who later voted to force a wedding photographer to photograph a gay civil-commitment ceremony, even though it was not even a wedding, and doing so constituted compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and New Mexico’s RFRA. That ruling was criticized by this very blog, by professor Eugene Volokh.

                Gary Johnson is hostile to freedom of association and religion. He has said that Jewish bakers should be forced to bake cakes for Nazis (incorrectly claiming a century-old federal public accommodation law requires this result; in fact, federal public accommodations provisions date to 1964, not a century ago, and only cover things like racial discrimination, not discrimination against political groups like Nazis or sexual groups like LGBT people, although state law often does protect LGBT people).

                1. Oops. I left out the word “and” between “this very blog” and “by Professor Eugene Volokh,” in my comment above.

                2. Johnson’s policies would, in most (but admittedly not all) areas move us in a direction of greater liberty. I’ll take that, absolutely.

                  1. Johnson is certainly better than Hillary Clinton, who would be happy to put Reason staffers in jail.

                    Hillary Clinton publicly supports the Democratic National Committee plank calling for a RICO-climate change criminal investigation of climate change deniers, even though that violates free speech and criminalizes dissent. Exxon is the only entity specifically named in the plank, but the 19 senators have essentially accused the nation’s libertarian and conservative think-tanks of being Exxon’s co-conspirators (even those that receive no money from Exxon) in a RICO racketeering conspiracy in their remarks on the floor of the Senate earlier this month. Matt Welch wrote about their false attacks on the Reason Foundation here at this blog on July 12 and 13.

                    Hillary Clinton will also dramatically ratchet up pressure on colleges to adopt draconian college speech codes through her appointments to the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. She has already told activists she will step up OCR’s pressure on schools. As law professor Eugene Volokh has noted at the Washington Post, OCR has already demanded sweeping campus speech codes at the University of Montana and University of New Mexico.

                3. But the great majority of voters won’t know that, just that they’re voting for Libertarians, so as long as they don’t get elected, does it matter? It’ll just be understood as a vote for a generally freer country, not the details.

                  1. This and $.99 gets you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.

                4. Bill Weld is a joke! and a typical NE liberal big government guy and why he picked him I have no idea.

                  Gary seemed to be a decent choice but this revelation is disturbing. How could they overlook this at the convention.

                  1. I think Bill Weld’s actions as governor of Mass have to be taken in the context of the fact that he was governor of Mass and hence had to do things to placate noisy interest groups.

                    He was still miles better than most governors at the time.

                    1. Also, political appointments are generally political trading moves, if Weld appointed a former Reagan admin official to something it was likely a move to curry Party favor and given that he had no time machine to travel to ’08 to see whom said official would endorse I consider that part irrelevant.

                    2. He sucked after he left office. Iraq War, Eminent domain, Patriot Act.

                    3. And based on your handle, I am assuming the things he sucked were cocks?

                5. True libertarianism borders on anarchism and you’ll never see that in any election, ever. I’ll take Johnson over the others.

                  Do I want a freer country, every damn day. I’ll say at this point a Johnson presidency would not only stop the creep of government in our lives, it would most likely roll back government intrusion. Today, that’s a good enough start for me.

                6. Actually the SC decision upholding the 1964 act applies to anything involving interstate commerce (even tangentially) that would tend to restrict/force the mobility of American citizens. So anything that is both systemically discriminatory on a local basis (ie the effect is to eliminate the ability of a citizen to purchase locally and thus force them to travel) or that applies to ‘public accommodation’ (ie gas stations, restaurants, hotels, entertainment, etc) applies to everyone. It’s not just racial.

                  Cake baking probably does not qualify as a ‘public accommodation’ since on its face it is a completely local activity – unless the effect is systemic. At any rate, GJ is overreaching to make it an federal executive authority in that case. It (nazis forcing jews to bake cakes) is something that should await a judicial decision where the particulars are the core of the decision.

                7. These purity test are a bore and have ensured, for decades, the complete irrelevance of the Libertarian Party.

      2. Because my Mom was a bit nuts I grew up all over the place, from inner city D.C. in the 70s to backwoods Vermont in the 80s, to some very posh spots where we knew people who were heir to real fortunes. Because I am my mother’s son I’ve lived in a lot of places, and moved in disparate circles as an adult.

        I happen to like “rednecks.” I use quotes, because a lot of the rednecks I am talking about are Yankees, and I’ve come to think that you can’t really be a redneck if you aren’t from the South. I didn’t understand that, or what a redneck was (and don’t get me started on what a cracker is- very specific to Florida, and Florida crackers will upbraid you if you appropriate the term otherwise) until I lived in the South for a while. Maybe “Woodchucks” is a better term for New England rednecks. But I like the southern rednecks too, though I am warier of them (when it comes to the non-aggression principle Southern rednecks are dodgy libertarians at best.)

        The woodchucks definitely have a libertarian bent. Beyond that, they are generally more open to argument than almost any other group of people I’ve been around. But they are very sensitive to social signalling that insults them (perhaps not surprisingly- they are subject to quite a lot of that.)

        1. The whole Florida cracker think is like saying the word bitch is actually a female dog. Not how the word is used, nobody cares.

          1. That was kind of my point- I’m not sure who is and isn’t a redneck, or even what the word ‘redneck’ means. There are some proud rednecks, and some people who are called rednecks, but are insulted by the term. And then there are the ‘smile when you say that’ rednecks. Should a woodchuck from Vermont really be considered a redneck? We used to call some Vermonters that when I was a kid, but after living in the South for a bit I’m not sure the term ‘redneck’ should be applied to any culture in Vermont.

            Cracker is even more confusing- it’s both a racial epithet and a mark of pride for a small but proud culture in Florida (that I had a lot to do with for a year or so, which was… interesting.) Boy does it piss them off that it’s a racial epithet- not because of anything having to with race, but because they’re like “Being white does not make you a goddamned cracker!” I think they call this cultural appropriation at Uni these days.

            1. Are you reaching for that useful term, Swamp Yankee ?

              Georgia, north of the FL panhandle, has crackers. The pre-Braves minor league baseball team in Atlanta bore that name. There were even the Negro League Atlanta Black Crackers!

              Kevin R
              As an Irish-American, I enjoy good craic!

              1. I’m not reaching- I’m just engaging in a bit of amateur ethnography. There is the derogatory term you reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative) and then there is the Cracker culture in Florida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_cracker.

                I didn’t know much about Florida crackers until I lived in North Florida for a while. I was a bit surprised when my neighbor introduced herself as “a cracker.” I mean- I’m a white guy, and I’ve been called a cracker (a lot when I was a little kid in 70s D.C., actually,) but I have never introduced myself by saying: “Hi, I’m Tagore and I’m a cracker.” My neighbors in Florida though- proud crackers ;).

        2. That openness, combined with that sensitivity, is a double-edged sword. What you have is a lot of people who are willing to listen to reason(drink)able arguments, but who are deaf to arguments posed in terms clearly meant to lower their status relative to other groups, or at least maintain their low status.

          This is (and I could choose many examples, but one will suffice) why ‘white privilege’ is such a stupid formulation (or maybe not so stupid, depending on your aims?) If you say to a woodchuck “You know, there was slavery, Jim Crow, there’s still a lot of racism, and still a lot of dysfunction left over from the former” he’ll hear you, and he’ll understand what you mean. He’ll sympathize, because he’s not exactly on top of the world, is he? Call that the ‘black disadvantage’ formulation.

          But if you start telling a woodchuck about his ‘white privilege’ he might start asking why you, who are clearly doing so much better than him, are accusing him of something that… honestly he hasn’t thought too much about before, and that he’s certainly not much of a participant in. And he’ll probably come to the (correct) conclusion that all this ‘white privilege’ talk is a way for higher status whites to insult him again.

          And that’s how you get Trump.

    2. Beck was fairly “libertarian but…” when I listened to him c. 2008-2010. The list of “buts” was fairly long, though, and he has a hyperactive agency detection system, as the evolutionary psychologists like to say.

      Still, he’s a good spokesperson for whatever causes he chooses to support, so if he can tone down the conspiracy theories and really move in a more libertarian direction, I’d be happy to have him in the tent.

      1. I’ll say this – it was listening Beck that turned me on to Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and even Ayn Rand (though I’m not a huge fan of hers). There were a lot of things coming together at the same time, but Beck dropped those names and I liked what I read.

      2. “a hyperactive agency detection system”

        Interesting euphemism.

        1. Agent detection is a thing in the study of cognition.

          I don’t mean spotting 13 when he’s disguised as a mailbox.

          1. I wonder if we were supposed to infer seniority by the agent numbering on Get Smart!.

            1. I dunno. The same sort of duty fell to Agent 34, then Agent 44. High turnover in CONTROL’s stealth recon division?

              High numbers may indicate attractiveness – hence Agent 99.

              1. Probably by the time they got there, they realized they could afford eye candy.

      3. Are libertarian and conspiratorial views that much different?

        1. Why do you ask? Who are you working for?

      4. Beck was fairly “libertarian but…” when I listened to him c. 2008-2010. The list of “buts” was fairly long, though,

        You like big “buts” and you cannot lie.

    3. but his more recent statements indicate a rtuen to a more redneck view.

      Could you elaborate on that, please? Genuinely curious.

        1. When the time comes, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to stand ranks with Yeager.

          1. sure, but he is about as close to a personification of Warty’s Yokeltarian parody as any i’ve seen.

            (tho that video above is pretty generic enough to be appealing to anyone)

            e.g. He considers “Black Lives Matter” to be a terrorist organization

            Its worth noting – he has himself been described as a “domestic terrorist” by the SPLC for having made remarks to media about being unwilling to surrender himself during a theoretical weapons-confiscation. (i.e. he’d ‘shoot back’ at any govt agents comin’ to take his guns)

            I’m neither pro nor con the fella, but i do find him generally amusing, sometimes informative, and representative of a very-common quasi-libertarian POV that is regularly disparaged here.

            1. I like James Yeager, for what it’s worth.

              1. i certainly like him better than the Alex Jones-set

            2. I find it amusing that they are disparaged here. I also have my middle finger raised.

              1. Maybe I don’t really know what the word means, but I always associated the term yokeltarian with anti-intellectualism, not “rural” culture.

    4. He has traded the libertarian stuff for batshit crazy.

      1. Yeah, way back when he was still “Foxing”, the “conspiracy blackboard” thing was simply too much for me. Subsequently, I can’t consider him a responsible spokesperson for libertarianism and generally can’t take him seriously on anything.

        1. He wasn’t far off from the truth in his “blackboards”, it was the conclusions that were the issue.

          1. In fairness to Beck his conclusions regarding the Muslims wasn’t off. They are attempting to establish a Caliphate. (they won’t be successful)

            1. …..regarding some the Muslims…….

              Wouldn’t that be better?

        2. It’s interesting that Rachel Maddow has an almost identical ‘conspiracy blackboard’ on her show, but in her iteration everything always comes back to the Koch brothers.

          IOW, it’s only crazy conspiracy theories depending on whose team you’re on.

          1. Then Rachel Maddow’s even more like Dave Emory. Except Dave Emory does audio, no blackboard.

            In the 1990s, even early this century, I used to listen to Dave Emory with skepticism but interest, thinking it might be material to take seriously. Then after his necessary surgery that turned a great voice into Elmer Fudd (Mr. Emory’s own description)?still not completely recovered, & may never?he finally got around to fingering people I know in his imputedly nefarious cx. So I started listening to him for laughs, hoping that one day I might hear myself mentioned among those cx.

          2. Kochtopus!

        3. So he’s like Dave Emory, then.

    5. Beck has been “shifting libertarian” for like 10 years. Yet he still doesn’t get it and probably never will. He doesn’t even support legalization of prostitution, which is libertarianism 101. And who knows what his foreign policy views are these days. I doubt he wants to cut military spending.

      1. He’s a Mormon they are at heart Marxists. He can only go so far without dumping the cult.

        1. Huh?

          1. Well Karl Marx did say some nice things about restoring primitive Christianity

            But Joe Smith said them first. Well maybe not first, the Anabaptist and the Quakers were about two hundred years early but Joe Smith beat Karl Marx.

            But then Mark Twain said that the only institution that organized children better that the Mormons was the Prussian Army.

    6. Beck being the only big name in talk radio willing to openly criticize Trump puts him above the rest in terms of intellectual consistency. Yeah, that’s a bit of a “tallest midget” award, but still.

      1. You should add Mark Levin to that list.

        1. Yes, Levin does NOT like Trump at all.

  2. Be nice to see a few “D”s next to those names. Come on sane democrats, I know you’re out there. Join us. We don’t bite hard, and then only if it’s consensual.

    1. Looking for a sane Democrat? Maybe Diogenes can help.

  3. Are the two necessarily incompatible, hpearce? I think one, as a libertarian, can hold views of any kind so long as they don’t act to impose those views upon society.

    If Beck votes for GJ, it’s a signal that he is less willing to impose his views than he used to. Maybe I’m wrong.

    1. Are the two necessarily incompatible, hpearce?

      I thought we moved passed the ‘Thick’ vs. ‘Thin’ debate at least 3 years ago.

      1. That debate is alive and well. For example, John likes thick girls and I like thin girls. We will forever be at odds.

        1. Wouldn’t you be not at odds because you’re not competing?

          1. Only if they weren’t trying to work out a devil’s threesome.

            oh.
            OHHH.

            1. There is always room for one more in a devil’s threesome, hooha.

    2. If Trump wins, the new Republican establishment may wobble outside the influence of people like Glenn Beck.

      He’s supposed to be the maverick upstart, doncha know.

      1. Wasn’t John McCain the maverick?

        1. Pre-2008, at which point the media feel in love with Obama and realized that McCain is, in fact, literally Hitler

          1. And Tom Cruise was Maverick before that. Did he lose that when noted science fiction author and spiritual mentor L. Ron Hubbard died?

          2. “feel in love”. Subtle. I like it.

        2. Actually, it was a young James Garner.

          1. Or Roger Moore. Brett wasn’t the only member of the Maverick family.

          2. That was only half the time, the other half was Jack Kelly.

  4. The future is always a ground swell from grass roots. Not sure how happy I am to see what I consider establishment figures jumping on our ship.

    I still think it’s the Democratic Party that’s in trouble going forward. If the Republican Party splits into two factions with a more principled, libertarian faction on one side and a more populist, Trumpy faction on the other, I still think it’s because of all the people from the traditional core Democrat demographic that are fleeing the progressive leadership in the Democratic Party. That augers well for Republicans and badly for Democrats.

    If those two factions solidify within the Republican Party, I suppose we should expect to see the more principled side skew libertarian–and in the future, that’s the side of the party where we’re likely to find the establishment elites of today. Populists like Trump are practically defined by not being bound by principles.

    I’d always thought of libertarians as being the ground swell from the grass roots, but now it seems more likely that the establishment will gravitate towards us specifically because we’re principled. What’s the point of being associated with a party if you can’t be part of the elitist establishment? . . . that’s what the elitist establishment in the Republican Party will mutter under their breath.

    Elitist establishment and populism go together like caviar and cheap beer.

    1. No one is going to mistake Jeb! endorsing Johnson as him embracing libertarianism. It’s an entirely pragmatic choice since Johnson isn’t an incoherent blowhard like Trump or a shameless crook like Hillary. He’s simply the only candidate that will provide a semblance of decent executive leadership.

      Sure the Trump supporters will cry foul but they also whine about every conceivable thing that makes their lord and savior look bad. This is about the large chunk of disaffected voters that want neither fear-mongering nor corruption. GOP establishment nods will at least get Johnson and Weld on the debate stages.

      1. No one is crying foul or cares. If you want Glenn Beck and Jeb Bush, I wish you luck with that.

        There are not enough of those people to make a difference one way or another. They are screwed. They will never last as Libertarians and have no where else to go.

        1. No one is crying foul or cares.

          Ted Cruz’s non-endorsement sure pissed them off something awful. Cruz can’t endorse Johnson but “vote your conscience” is pretty much tantamount to saying you can vote third party if you’re a Republican/conservative appalled by Trump.

          1. It pissed them off at Ted but it is not like it changed anything except likely ending Cruz’s career.

            1. I really don’t want Cruz to leave Congress. It’s probably 100% assured his replacement will not only be worse, but much, much worse.

              Did Rand endorse Trump? I’m sure he will, if not, he always endorses the GOP candidate. Which is ok by me since it’s maybe helping to keep him in the Senate.

              1. I think he quietly endorsed Trump and is just keeping out of it. It is the smart play. No one can accuse him of disloyalty or selling out to Trump in any real way. And Kenntucky is most certainly going Trump, so it’s not like his help is needed.

                Paul has shown that he has a hundred times more sense than Cruz.

                1. Sorry John, but party loyalty is a dumb thing and Cruz, as much as I hate him, shows more spine than Rand. Rand continues to have the consistency and appeal of a slice of Wonderbread dipped in skim milk.

                  1. You like it. But you are not a Republican and will never vote Republican. The fact that Cruz got some respect from people like you, who will never vote Republican anyway, doesn’t make his decision any smarter.

                    1. Aw, thanks for the compliment.

                    2. My larger point was wondering why you think Cruz getting the respect of people who will never vote for him somehow makes up for alienating millions of people who otherwise might have in the future.

                    3. Isn’t that how it always goes – someone who bucks his party is lauded by the other side, though it’s likely the other side would never vote for him. Some years back, GA’s Zell Miller was very public in breaking from Dems and supporting Bush over Kerry. The Pubs were happy to have him though he was not going to be running again, while the Dems treated him like the crazy uncle in the attic.

                  2. Rand continues to have the consistency and appeal of a slice of Wonderbread dipped in skim milk.

                    But Johnson has the appeal of that, dropped into a toaster which proceeded to short out from the milk.

                    1. Exactly.

                  3. Party loyalty is only a dumb thing if you don’t care to be elected to office. Have you not been paying attention? Rand is making the smart play. KY is going to go Trump so why wouldn’t you want to be associated a little with that if you are up for reelection. Also, he is hoping he can work with the Tman if he is elected and if that happens it is good for libertarians. Cruz is a fucking mess and he has gotten (and will get) what he deserves for his whiney ass pedagogy.

                2. DO endorsements carry weight anymore? Do you or anyone you know of, ever say to yourselves “Who does

            2. Why should it end Cruz’s career?

              Texans consider Cruz as the only politician who’s post election actions perfectly matched his campaign rhetoric.

              He’s not going anywhere.

              1. Texans love Cruz, he’s not going anywhere and wouldn’t have done what he did if there was a serious risk otherwise.

                What Cruz did, though, was go all-in on a Trump loss, hoping to position himself as the “true conservative” opt-in come 2020

                1. What Cruz did was alienate the party regulars, and unlike Tump he is not rich, so he needs their money. So he is fucked for any national office. And he might not get support in TX if he needs it.

                  1. What Cruz did is display party loyalty to the GOP, as opposed to all the tiny-orange-toe lickers who betrayed the party by endorsing a Democrat to be its nominee.

                    1. This Exactly. At least we have the option for voting for a RINO dressed like a libertarian in Johnson be the democrat as republican and socialist as crazy democrat.

                    2. Or loyalty to purported conservative values even.

            3. I hear a lot about that, but look at the guy’s saying that Ted’s career is over. Newt? WTF, what rock did Trump pull him out from under? Some pundits?

              This election will cut two ways for the R’s. Trump will lose and the party will impload and they’ll be looking around at who is still floating and that will be the guys that, most would say, should have had a real/legit chance at the nomination before Trumps cult of personality came along. The other would be he wins and you’ll have a second coming of the Newt’s and authoritarians of the bunch. Which will kill Trump in 2020. Unless WE’RE ALL WRONG, he’s at a minimum a 1 term guy (unless the dems run some weakling).

              Time will tell for Ted if his time is over. A lot of people who are following the Jeb! vote 3rd party are only going to do it because they cannot vote for Trump. They’re quite possibly going to vote Republican in the next election if Trump’s name isn’t on it.

              This is too weird an election cycle to permanently write off Cruz. That said, this is a critical election cycle for the libertarian party.

      2. I’m really talking about beyond this one election.

        If Trump wins, I expect the lay populists in the Republican Party to care a lot less about principles in the future, and I’d expect the people who are more principled to gravitate to a more libertarian corner (over the next four or eight years).

        If Hillary wins, I’d expect the progressives elites in the Democratic Party to keep chasing whites, blue collar workers, Christians, and the middle class out of the Democratic Party and into the arms of Republican populists like Trump (if not Trump himself).

        I associate the principled “libertarianish” side with fiscal conservatism, low taxes, free trade, maybe more isolationist, etc.

        I associate populism with maybe defending government spending, soaking the rich, anti-free trade, more prone to warmongering.

        1. Trump is the only candidate Johnson included who is seriously talk about the need for the US to get out of the business of defending the entire world. Yet, people on here have convinced themselves he is the war monger. It is just bizzare

          1. Again, I’m not talking about this one election.

            And I’m not even talking about Trump, exactly.

            I’m talking about the lay people in the Republican Party, what’s likely to happen to them, and why.

            There are populists flooding into the Republican Party.

            There are establishment and Tea Party types who are more principled than the populists.

            They’re likely to gravitate into different sides and and be lead by different politicians.

            I think one of those sides is likely to be more populist–whether led by Trump or someone else.

            And the other side is likely to be more libertarianism–they’ll gravitate to libertarianish principles.

            The people in the party, I’m talking about. The primary voters and such. They’re the party. Not Trump or some other candidate for President. The nature of the Republican Party will be determined by what registered Republican voters think–and I’m just outlining which way I think the wind is blowing.

            Jesus Christ, I skewer the Republican Party and say that Trump’s emergence as a successful populist is evidence that the Democrats are bleeding support from average Americans, and all you focus on is that I might be saying something that isn’t flattering to Trump?

            There’s a flip-side to TDS, John.

            1. “Jesus Christ, I skewer the [Democratic] Party and say that Trump’s emergence as a successful populist is evidence that the Democrats are bleeding support . . . ”

              Fixed!

            2. I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I was agreeing and adding a point I thought supported what you were saying. Sorry that wasn’t clear

          2. I haven’t convinced myself of that. I have convinced myself he is a magic 8 ball devoid of thought and ready with a random non-sequitur every time you ask it a question.

            Possible answers are:
            It will be huge
            This is just terrible
            I will fix it believe me

            Even a magic 8 ball has a larger vocabulary.

            1. Whatever the voices in your head tell you.

              1. Is it too much to ask that your “zingers” not be the kind of thing that would seem stupid even on the first grade playground?

        2. I’d expect the people who are more principled to gravitate to a more libertarian corner

          Not so sure. For a lot of conservatives “principled” means Right To Life, Traditional Marriage, War On Drugs, Clean Up Hollywood, Christian Government, etc.

          1. Yeah, I think some of those issues are dead at the national level as far as unifying principles are concerned. Right to life and traditional marriage are becoming less important all the time–even in the South. Virginia and North Carolina ain’t what they used to be when I was growing up.

            And some of the issues can already be cast as populism vs. principles.

            The Drug War is a good example. I heard Trump yelling about law and order in his speech. I don’t remember hearing much about legalization.

            The law and order response to drug use is more of a populist approach. Decriminalization and legalization are more of a principled approach.

            I see foreign policy and ISIS more or less the same way. I’m not saying there aren’t any principled people or good reasons to argue for a ground war against ISIS, but warmongering against terrorists is more of a populist approach. Those who oppose a ground war in Syria are more likely to do so on principled grounds.

            On the Nolan Chart, libertarian and populist are on the opposite sides of the chart for good reason. That’s where the fissure is, and if the party splits, that’s where I expect to see it happen.

            1. The way you’re using “principled” suggests to me the better word would be “thoughtful” or “indirect” or something like that.

              1. Libertarians generally oppose wars unless they’re declared in a constitutional way–regardless of other circumstances.

                Our objections to the drug war aren’t based on the observation that drugs are bad and they’re destroying our children. We often appeal to economic principles in our opposition to the drug war.

                My objection to violating our Second Amendment rights has less to do with knee-jerk emotional responses to mass shootings and more to do with the principles of what a right is, where they come from, and whether they should be violated by the government.

                Many libertarians even have a guiding principle called the Non-Aggression Principle.

                How many times does sarcasmic say, “It’s principles not principals” in response to dozens of different issues.

                Like I wrote elsewhere, when’s the last time you saw a libertarian praise someone for being inconsistent?

                Populist voters don’t care so much about whether they’re consistent.

                1. But what about those of us who don’t think of rights as pre-existing in nature, but rather a human invention to get along better in society? Then it’s a matter of deciding what rights there should be, and that’s a matter of inferring how people will best get along in the long run. The economic principles come from there, the right to access weapons comes from there, etc. So it’s a matter of thinking about, not immediate effects but indirect ones. The populist (or any of various others) is thinking more about immediate or direct effects.

            2. On Nolan’s own version?which I prefer to think of as “the Nolan Chart”, rather than labeling other 2-axis charts that way?the word “populist” was not used. That started with Maddox & Lillie’s 1979-80 Cato study & public’n.

              1. Nolan wrote “authoritarian” or “totalitarian”. Maddox & Lillie could identify no serious broad totalitarian or authoritarian movement in the USA, so they substituted “populist” for historic reasons. They had an analysis of how all 4 -isms had their roots in the liberalism of the USA’s founding.

              2. I think populist is the right word for that quadrant of the chart.

                1. It may be an appropriate one for most analyses in the USA, but “authoritarian” is more on the mark regarding most of the analyses we do. “Populists” can sometimes be libertarians. Populism is more often a matter of style or approach than of ideology. As observed here, populists are often very consciously anti-ideology, i.e. against having ideology at all. And that’s actually a very American trait; the revulsion against -isms and ideologues. But being anti-ism trends you toward the center in most circumstances.

            3. Trump hasn’t a clue. He really doesn’t know about the Constitution. He is a used care salesman with a big portfolio. He is a brand not a leader. He isn’t that much better than the alternative other than he may appoint some decent judges. Even that is suspect. The Republic is in trouble if not dead.

              1. Either that or his audience doesn’t care about the principles or minutia about such things, and he’s catering his message to them.

                Half the people out there are of below average intelligence, and a lot of them presumably vote. They may even account for the margin of victory.

                Using intellect to appeal to stupid people is stupid. That’s one of the reasons I’m not an objectivist.

                People vote because they’re angry, they’re scared, because they care about other people, because they’re optimistic, because they’re hopeful. This is how you appeal to those people:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM

                That’s how you get them to vote for Hillary. Do you really think Trump should respond to that argument point by point? Where should he start?

          2. Not so sure. For a lot of conservatives “principled” means Right To Life, Traditional Marriage, War On Drugs, Clean Up Hollywood, Christian Government, etc.

            Those aren’t principles, they are issues.

            A principle would be a common thread between them, applied consistently. For the issues you list, a christian theocracy would be the “principle” behind them.

        3. I associate populism with defending at least some gov’t spending (often a shitload, but not in all cases), soaking the rich, and having objection after objection to int’l trade, but I can’t recall a kind of populism in the USA that was prone to war mongering in the past 100 yrs. Spanish-American War, yeah, but not since.

          1. See my response directly above at 12:40.

            War mongering isn’t usually done on principle. You get people riled up, and then they want war.

            Opposition to war and isolationism are typically done on principle. I know you’re all riled up, but I don’t think we should go to war because of this principle, that principle, etc.

            That doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptions on both sides, and it doesn’t mean that there aren’t principled reasons to go to war at various times in history. I’m talking about general tendencies among registered voters.

            1. And you can see my responses below that.

              Opposition to war AFAICT is most often just as short-sighted, basically as a rxn vs. being riled up. Just because someone tries to rile the populace up doesn’t mean they take hir side; frequently they get riled up vs. whoever’s trying to rile them up.

      3. It’s an entirely pragmatic choice

        Yep. This is a one-time good deal for libertarians. We have the next 4 months to win a few minds while people are willing to listen.

        Make no mistake. The support we have because of Trump is fleeting. Once the Rs have another “respectable” statist on the ballot, we’ll be down the road.

        1. If Trump loses they’ll probably start pushing Rubio again, but who knows. Four years can be an eternity in politics.

          1. I think the tea party folks are still around, and very principled, whether you agree with all those principles or not. I think they are small government types, which means an ally. I think there is also a large group who do want a form of… sigh, I guess the word to use is theocracy. I think that, of course, there is a large overlap. I think that religious side is the Republican version of populism. I really think a lot of Trumps support comes from independents and blue collar Democrats. Not sure how they picked the Republican nominee, there appears to be a flaw in my analysis… I will blame booz and Mary Jane.

    2. Populists like Trump are practically defined by not being bound by principles.

      In Trump’s case, that’s not fair to say. For almost 3 decades, through books and editorials, Trump has not deviated from advocating a particular platform of trade and foreign policy. It’s like the one thing he is consistent on. Indeed, he’s spent a hell of a lot more time being dedicated to those principles than to his previous marriages.

      1. Why is it wrong to trade your wife in on a newer model every few years? When did Libertarians become such prudes?

        1. Why is it wrong to trade your wife in on a newer model every few years?

          You should run that line by your wife. Tell us how that goes.

        2. Because some of us take oaths seriously? I like how cavalierly you dismiss integrity as being important.

          1. Good for you. But others of us consider the affairs of other people to be their business and refrain from judging and throwing stones at people for things that don’t concern us and about which we know nothing.

            You really have let Trump drive you to the point that you now support the public shaming of divorce?

            I will bookmark this for the next time you are bitching about the Evil SOCONS

            1. Oh, get off your high horse.

              1. How am I on a high horse. You guys are the ones talking about the immorality of divorce. Not me

                1. You guys are the ones talking about the immorality of divorce.

                  No, we’re not. I was actually praising Trump for being dedicated to certain principles, even compared to his inter-personal relationships.

                  But, spare me your sanctimony. You’re just squealing like a stuck pig because someone landed a zinger on Daddy.

                  1. You are just pissed because you wish you were my daddy.

                    And I didn’t zing you. I was kidding about the trading in the wife on a new model. My post above was in response to Moff who seems to actually think it matters.

                    1. If I had a son, I don’t think he’d look like you.

                      Or Trayvon.

                    2. No kidding. You wouldn’t be as pretty as me. .

            2. But others of us consider the affairs of other people to be their business and refrain from judging and throwing stones at people for things that don’t concern us and about which we know nothing.

              I don’t care about the affairs of people who don’t make decisions that affect my life, but I care about the character of someone who is running for high office. I think serially breaking marriage vows shows low character. If you don’t plan on keeping a vow, don’t make it. (Isn’t that what you’ve said about Cruz?) Of course, Hillary has been married to the same man for a long time and has the moral sense of a mosquito. But it’s not like I’m voting for her either.

              1. I think serially breaking marriage vows shows low character.

                I’m not sure we can say “serially”. He divorced Marla in 1999 and married Melania in 2005. Fair dinkum. However, he was fooling around with Marla while married to Ivana, which is breaking vows.

                1. He’s had 3 wives total. I consider more than 2 to be “serially”, but I guess others might disagree with that definition.

                2. Sure he was Mulatto. But again, we don’t know the story behind that. Maybe Ivana was fucking around on him first, maybe she was a nag who stopped putting out. Who knows.

                  You guys sound like the morals committee for the Massachusetts Bay Colony here.

              2. If someone is a Bill Clinton level philanderer, sure lap. But I refuse to condemn someone for being divorced a few times, without a lot more information. Trump’s ex wives don’t seem too angry or feel ill treated. We joke that he traded them in on newer models but we have no idea the truth. Why do we assume he dumped them? Maybe they walked out on him or there are two sides to the story and not just Trump saying “you are fired”?

                I think people are jumping to a lot of conclusions here without any real evidence. His kids seem to like Trump. That seems pretty inconsistent with him mistreating their mothers.

            3. “You really have let Trump drive you to the point that you now support the public shaming of divorce?”

              What you actually defended was swapping your wife for a new model every few years. That is extreme douchebaggery and deserves shaming. It is a tad different than just “we got divorced”. If you trade out your wife every few years for a hotter model you are an asshole who can’t be trusted. That seems relevant to whether or not you want to hire this guy for a job involving so much trust.

              1. Is it possible that was the arrangement? Perhaps Donald made it clear from the outset that this was the way he wanted to go forward, and Ivana agreed because she 1) wanted to be a billionaire’s wife and 2) wanted to be compensated accordingly after the marriage was over?

                1. A limited-term marriage, with a contract spelling out if and when and how it can be renewed, is a concept I first ran across in the late 1960s, in the fiction of Robert Heinlein. I have no problem with people making such agreements, but currently state laws don’t support that. They might even deem such arrangements to be prostitution.

                  A sub rosa version of LTM developing once pre-nuptial agreements became popular doesn’t strike me as implausible, however much state legislatures and courts may neglect to authorize term marriage.

              2. rudehost,

                You thinking I meant that literally is extreme humorless douche baggery to the point of near retardation. I would shame you but frankly that wouldn’t be very cricket.

                1. Yes I think you meant that literally since that is pretty much what Trump appears to have done.

                  He drops his first wife when she turned 41 and replaces her with a 30 year old
                  He drops his second wife at 36 and replaces her with a 28 year old

                  And no need to get butt hurt because I took your words at face value when your words matched the appearance of what actually happened. This is especially true when you felt the need to twist other people’s words to claim they were “divorce shaming”

                  It would be nice if you would stop fellatiing that orange retard long enough to at least get a drink of water. You can’t be hydrated one teaspoon full at a time you know.

                  1. rudehost,

                    I have never met Trump nor any of his wives. If you have and have some special insight, please share it. Otherwise you are just pulling shit out of your ass that confirm what you want to think.

                    I really don’t give a shit that he is divorced unless one of his wives or kids want to give me a reason why I should. And from what I have seen his kids seem to like him and his ex wives don’t seem to hold a grudge. If the people involved don’t hold a grudge, what right do you or anyone else not involved have to stand in judgement?

                    1. What right do I have to hold an opinion of the orange calf’s behavior? None I guess John. None of us have a right to judge anything anyone else has done. Take Hillary for example. If the FBI and the US government forgave her what right do I have to judge? Amirite?

                    2. Rudehost,

                      Saying someone’s private life should be their own business absent some compelling reason otherwise is not the same thing as saying someone committing felonies while Secretary of State is a matter of public concern.

                      Are you actually so dumb you can’t see that or are you another victim of TDS and allowed Trump to make you this stupid?

                    3. Character matters and judging someone’s character is appropriate regardless of the context. The fact that he seems to swap out wives for newer models the way he swaps out cars with your nodding approval is something I am completely free to evaluate. It is very similar to the way I listened to him speak and concluded he is irredeemably fucking retarded or the way I evaluated his use of eminent domain to steal people’s property out from under them. The guy’s whole history screams sleezy moron. Of course you seem to think these are features not bugs because TEAM RED!!

                    4. Making judgments without the proper information is idiotic. You don’t know anything about Trump’s marriages other than that they ended in divorce. Everything else you say is just assumptions you make because that is what you want to believe.

                      And if anyone is irredeemably retarded, it is the person who pulls assumptions out of their ass about marriages involving people they have never met and know little or nothing about.

                      You for whatever reason have decided you hate Trump and thus will engage in one exercise of confirmation bias after another to justify this opinion. That is all that is going on here. Have fun with it, but don’t expect it to be convincing to anyone not already off the same deep end you have gone off.

                    5. I have decided I dislike Trump because the evidence at hand suggests he is boorish low character idiot who can barely string 2 sentences together. His serial wife swapping is a tiny piece of evidence that is part of a larger pattern. And don’t worry most of the country is convinced of this as well and for very valid reasons. From his business scams to his personal life to his wackadoodle pronouncements about dealing with immigration by constructing the wall from game of thrones on our southern border and sending Mexico the bill everything about this guy screams his campaign is really a clandestine comedy skit.

                    6. I get it, you don’t like Trump. What do you want a cookie? That fact doesn’t make his marriages any more relevant to the discussion.

                    7. I don’t care much for Trump as a president either, but bringing his personal life that you have absolutely no insight about into the matter is just stupid. Judge a person on what they do or what you think they will do in the job. Everything else is bullshit. Get off your moral high horse.

          2. Hahaha. Ziiing! Cruz is a traitor for not keeping to his party pledge, but Trump is not wrong for breaking his marriage vows multiple times for a newer model.

            1. Trump never made any pledges to me. Cruz in contrast did. He pledged to every GOP voter, of which I am one, that he would support the nominee. So his refusal to honor that is most certainly my business. Trump’s relationship with his wife and ex wives is not.

              1. If you could only apply that reasoning to gay marriage….

                1. I do. I couldn’t care less that gays are married. I only care when they want to use the government to put a gun to the heads of anyone who doesn’t recognize their marriage.

                  Why do you think I think otherwise? Did the voices in your head tell you that?

              2. Trrump publically reneged on tje pledge months ago.

                When one party of an agreement violates the terms of an agreement the other is no longer bound to the terms either.

                If some hair splitting is allowed the pledge wad to support not endorse, IIRC.

                1. Oneout,

                  I really don’t care that Cruz didn’t endorse Trump. I think he was a cowardly weasel for not having the guts to say that upfront and just not go to the convention. But he can endorse who he wants. It is not like it is going to change any votes one way or the other.

                  1. He did announce it in advance.

                    The Trump campaign vetted his speeech days before he gave it. They have made no complaints about him changing it.

                    Trump and his supporters seem to be the worst winners I’ve ever seen. In my opinion Trump is making a terrible mistake by continuing to fight with and insult Cruz and his supporters. He’s already beaten them. His focus should be only on Hillary. The dsy after the speech Trump came out blasting Cruz saying he didnt care about or need Cruz’s support. He claims he’s gonna start a super pac to defeate Cruz’s next Senate run.

                    What a waste of his time, energy, and focus.

                    In my opinion he should just let it die and be a gracious winner. After it has died down he should make peace with Cruz suppoorters because he’s gonna need their votes in November.

                    1. And hes gonna need Kasich supporters as well to carry Ohio

                      So he threatens Kasich as well with the super pac.

                      Maybe someone should tell him the primary is over, he won, and now the opponent is Hillary and quit fighting with future Republican voters

                  2. What about the millions who voted Cruz? What are they, a rounding error?

        3. You’re conflating libertarians with libertines.

        4. You’re conflating libertarians with libertines.

        5. My wife is an ’83 model, I may trade her in for a 2000 with a drop top.

          1. Sounds like a good plan. Good luck.

          2. So you’re saying you can afford the pay cut?

      2. “Populists like Trump are practically defined by not being bound by principles.”

        Again, I’m also talking about the support within the Republican Party–not necessarily just their leadership.

        And when I’m talking about principles, I’m not talking about how often he gets remarried and whether he cheats on his wives.

        Populist by definition is always anti-elitist. And I’d argue that elitists are more prone to principle. A Republican populist is not as bound to Republican orthodoxy, in other words.

        Anti-elitism is about doing what the grass roots wants–whether it violates some Republican orthodoxy or otherwise.

        That kind of thinking is anathema to libertarianism. How often do you hear libertairans praise people for their inconsistency?

        1. And when I’m talking about principles, I’m not talking about how often he gets remarried and whether he cheats on his wives.

          Do you and John just skip to the ends of paragraphs or something?

          1. I was responding to John with that.

            Sometimes I wonder if it’s John’s pissed-off cowboy of a brother that gets on and posts under John’s name.

            I”m talking about a populist being unprincipled in Republican orthodoxy on free trade, for example, and John seems to think I’m going after him for having 7 children with five different women . . . that we know of.

            1. “John seems to think I’m going after [Trump] for having 7 children with five different women . . . that we know of.”

              Fixed!

              Incidentally, I’ve had 12 children with eight different women.

              Think about it.

              1. *thinks*

                So what you’re saying is that you’re better than Trump?

                1. Actually, I wrote that backwards.

                  I meant to write, “Incidentally, I’ve had [eight] children with [12] different women”.

                  It was supposed to be funny.

                  I type too fast and while I’m doing other things. It gets me in trouble all the time.

                  I used to preview everything, but then that feature broke, so now I just go with it. . . especially if I’m typing with my thumbs.

                  1. By the pricking of Ken’s thumbs…

            2. Ken.

              I wasn’t even talking to you on this subject. Are you on drugs? Did you forget to take the drugs are you are supposed take this morning?

              1. Yeah, I was responding to your response to my statement that HM quoted.

                HM quoted Ken Shultz, “Populists like Trump are practically defined by not being bound by principles.”

                To which John replied, “Why is it wrong to trade your wife in on a newer model every few years? When did Libertarians become such prudes?”

                To which I, quite correctly, responded, “John seems to think I’m going after [Trump] for having 7 children with five different women . . . that we know of.”; i.e., I was not talking about those kinds of principles.

                I was talking about being consistent with Republican orthodoxy on free trade and other issues.

                We’re all talking past each other today. The subject of Trump seems to make that happen a lot.

      3. I agree, and when he speaks foreign policy seems to be his particular hobby horse. I think that’s why it appears he isn’t principled to some republicans.

        Ask him about gay marriage or abortion and he really doesn’t give a shit. He just knows what
        the republican line says, and goes with it to get republican votes. He may well believe those things, but on his list of priorities I think they are pretty low,

    3. Both major parties are always in trouble, & always prospering.

  5. Well, if that doesn’t confirm that teh crazies are going Johnson, I’m not sure what would.

  6. You guys do realize Glenn Beck is certifiably insane don’t you? He of course if free to support Johnson. I am not sure it is a good idea to advertise that fact

    1. Anyone who didn’t figure that out a couple years ago, at least, hasn’t been paying much attention.

      1. He gets that vacant look in his eyes and starts crying and talking about Jesus. All you can say is “man is that guy gone”. The buses really don’t stop in his neighborhood.

        1. What’s so awful about getting emotional about something you genuinely believe in?

          1. Nothing by itself. It’s when you do it all the time and for no particular reason that is the problem

            1. Meh, I’ll take tears over spittle.

            2. It feels like pure theatrics. The funny thing is, Beck and his crew mocked Alex Jones for crying in the middle of one of his radio shows. Not that Jones doesn’t deserve a good mocking, but it’s hypocritical considering the source.

    2. “You guys do realize Glenn Beck is certifiably insane don’t you?”

      Insane like thinking we are going to rebuild the great wall of China on our southern border and make Mexico pay for it or more run of the mill insane?

      1. Enforcing immigration laws is just the CRAZY man.

        1. No claiming you are going to build a massive wall and make someone else pay for it is crazy and pathologically stupid much like Trump and the vast majority of his mouth breathing supporters (gazes John’s way)

        2. Enforcing them THAT way IS the crazy…

      2. Insane as in, “My political opponent’s father helped carry out the successful assassination of a U.S. President, and I, as a Presidential Candidate, feel compelled to pick a fight with them.”

  7. Having Beck endorse and actively support you is the kiss of death via the crazy train. If Johnson lets this guy anywhere near him in public, his 8% will evaporate like a mud puddle in Death Valley.

    1. Will it play poorly in Utah, too?

      1. Most Mormons I know can’t stand Beck, he dosent tow the collectivist LDS Marxist line.

    2. He’s a leader of a party who lets naked fat guys run around at the convention, don’t think the wacko beck will draw much ire.

  8. “You’re going to see some changes at The Blaze come this fall that I think it’s going to be very good for libertarians.”

    This Fall, Glenn Beck hosts The Blaze: 420.

    1. So batshit insane culture war stuff is now libertarian? What with the Cosmos too, we’re now the party of broad appeal! Can we get a ‘like’ feature on H&R?

  9. It’s really past time that you cover Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle.

    (I even note, to my sorrow, that he believes the states can legalize abortion, so you need not fear him being 100% prolife as he claims.)

      1. Yeah, but it’s mostly a moot point since the party will not be on the ballot in most states, I’m assuming. Still, they are worth a look as I also think their platform is better than Johnson’s this time around.

        1. They got on the ballot in a majority of states in 2012 – only two other parties did that, the Libertarians and the Greens.

          This year, they are only 8 states short of having ballot access in most states, and I’m fairly sure they can swing *that.*

          Here is a map showing the 18 states where they’re already on the ballot (in green), and the 22 states where they have ballot-access campaigns ongoing (in yellow). Then there’s two states where they’re going for write-in status.

          1. I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.

  10. Because Beck’s opinion is the one we sll have been waiting for.

    1. Jack however, doesn’t need Beck. He has his own guy, Ezra Klein, for his source of batshit crazy.

      1. Jack worships the technology that stops providing electricty to emergency rooms and babies on ventilators when the wind isn’t blowing.

  11. I can’t listen to his show. I’m not sure which is worse, his sanctimonious dripping wet sarcasm or his sycophants. I don’t necessarily disagree with everything he says, he just annoys the shit out of me

  12. Every time Glenn Beck says he’s a libertarian, I cringe in pain and imagine all my friends going, “HA!”

    1. Years ago when I first saw Beck on FoxNews, I actually liked him. He made a lot of sense. Then he seemed to have had some sort of mental breakdown (not sarcasm) and after that he seemed to forget all about anything libertarian and just went full on religious fundie and conspiracy theory nuttery. He’s totally lost it now. I look for any minute now we’ll be seeing him led away in a white coat with no sleeves. Seriously, I think the guy has some mental issues.

      1. He does have issues, and has openly discussed some of it on his show. His mom committed suicide when he was young. He went thru a lot of depression, alcohol/drug abuse himself. A couple years ago, he and his wife both had some serious health issues. If you used to enjoy his show, I’d recommend you give him another try. He seems to be a lot more emotionally stable in the last couple years.

        1. His radio show can often be pretty entertaining to listen to, especially when Beck and his colleagues are just joking around and laughing about topics. They often don’t take themselves very seriously, which can be refreshing. But then in the next segment he gets all ominous and adopts a ‘voice of god’-approach sermon which usually ends up with me changing stations after a minute or so.

  13. Good. I’m glad there are some small government Republicans who are not throwing their principles in the trash to support a wannabe strongman.

  14. Glenn Beck has this one weird trick to get your candidate noticed!

    1. That is awesome

    2. (Fill in the blank) doesn’t want you to find out about this!

      1. Trilateral Commission, Bilderburgers, Opus Dei, Lizard People…

  15. So the Libertarian Party is re-inventing itself as “Home of the Cucks”?

    1. That’s hilarious. All of these cuck references are very clever and persuasive in the extreme.

      1. Cuckold is a perfectly good noun. Shortening it sounds weird and uneducated.

        As I am single, I cannot be cuckolded.

        1. Maybe when you are cuckolder you will have a significant other to whom you will be a cuckold.

          1. How about when you’re a cocker?

    2. What do you call someone who cheers on someone who’s raping Lady Liberty?

  16. We have lemons, so it’s time to make lemonade.

    Trump has taken over the GOP, and will win the election. For all of his non-libertarian stances, this is still an opportunity for libertarians. (Though not much of one for the Libertarian Party, because Johnson can’t win). The GOP is in turmoil, so there’s an opportunity to change it the way socialists have changed the Democratic party.

    As stated above, populists aren’t ideologues, but that’s a good thing. That means they are interested in results more than methods. What libertarians need to do is offer libertarian solutions for specific parts of Trump’s agenda. He’s against Obamacare, so promote a libertarian-oriented solution. He’s against excessive government regulation, so work with that. He wants fewer illegals, so support eliminating the welfare for non-citizens. He wants NATO partners to pay for their own defense. Etc.

    True, you won’t get a perfect libertarian solution in any of these areas, and there are many areas where we disagree, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Make the best of what you’ve been served. Fabian libertarianism can work, just like Fabian socialism did.

  17. His vote’s fine but I hope he doesn’t start specifically advocating for libertarianism. He’s a freaking lunatic and would be an embarrassing train wreck. Besides, Alex Jones already has the crazy libertarian angle covered.

  18. I was watching some news stuff this morning, and saw a clip of Hillary’s reaction to Trump’s “I I I I alone can save you…” speech. And she started talking about her faith in Americans’ self-reliance and independent spirit, and the power of individual initiative.

    Hillary “It Takes a Village” Clinton was saying these things, and nobody laughed. I was so astounded I nearly swallowed my tongue.

    1. I thought her book was titled It Rapes a Village and covered her marriage to Bill.

  19. I wish people would stop gang raping the term populist. Populism is nothing but the idea that issues and institutions should be subject to the will of the populous. That can be either good or bad depending on the circumstances. For example, one of the big animating forces behind 19th Century populism was ending protectionism and opening up international trade. The original populists were farmers who were getting fucked by protectionism and viewed it as nothing but a system created to benefit the big east coast industrial barons at their expense. The first populist movement in Britain was to end the corn laws, which banned the importation of cheap foreign grain and did nothing but keep the landed aristocracy and let everyone else starve. Yet, every swinging dick Libertarian will tell you that protectionism is Populist!! and have a little bit of drool come out of the corner of their mouth and a few involuntary body twitches as they tell you that, such is the emotion associated with the term.

    1. And the fact is, Donald Trump isn’t much of a populist. The only really populist thing he says is the idea that he will punish companies that take jobs overseas. Sorry but his appeals to “I will represent you” and such do not make him a populist. Every politician running for office since ancient Greece has claimed to stick up for the little guy against the big guys.

      The real populist is Sanders. Sanders promises to round up the rick and take their ill gotten gains and give it to the public. That is populist message. Yet, reason never calls Sanders a populist because they have redefined the term to mean “stuff we don’t like that is supported by unacceptable white people”.

      1. It’s my understanding that a populist movement appeals to voters by saying that they’re being screwed over by an elite or a sinister cabal who have too much power and are using that power against the plain folks. THe cabal /elite can be bankers, bureaucrats, the 1%, Jews, Trilateralists, Communists, what have you. And the populist may be on target or scarily off-target. But there needs to be an “us vs. them” element pitting regular, ordinary, aw-shucks folks against scheming, exploitative evildoers.

        And it has to be more than “my party is awesome and the other party is evil,” which is Hillary’s approach, and she’s certainly no populist. It has to be an attack at a conniving clique of elitists who are ruining the country and can only be stopped by the People rising up (hopefully peacefully) and putting a stop to the shenanigans.

        1. That is one possible definition. But no one other than possibly Sanders fits that description. Again, that isn’t reason’s definition or if it is they are not applying it consistently because Sanders fits that better than Trump does and they have never called Sanders a populist.

        2. Now, as I understand it, the Populists of the late 19th century pitted the just plain folks – especially the farmers – against sinister rich dudes – bankers, middlemen, railroads, lawyers working for same. What these sinister figures had in common was that they were cheating the sturdy, honest yeomanry of what they had earned by the sweat of their brow – overcharging them to bring their crops to market, extending usurious loans, and so on.

          Real property was, well, real – soil that you could through your fingers, animals that you could milk or eat for breakfast, the house you built with your own hands. Other forms of property were not so real – pieces of paper that speculators played around with in elaborate schemes to cheat the horny handed sons of toil of what what was theirs.

          A key populist demand was having the government run the railroads – taking the trains away from speculators and middlemen. Also, easy money and easy credit.

          1. OK, I may have confused real and personal property, but populists aren’t into technicalities anyway.

          2. They wanted an end to the gold standard and they wanted the big trusts broken up. They wanted issues and institutions subjected to the popular will.

            Again, easy money and the government taking over big businesses and running them for the benefit of the people sounds a hell of a lot more like Sanders than it does Trump.

            1. “TRANSPORTATION.?Transportation being a means of exchange and a public necessity, the government should own and operate the railroads in the interest of the people. The telegraph and telephone, like the post-office system, being a necessity for the transmission of news, should be owned and operated by the government in the interest of the people.”

              Populist Party Platform, 1892

              (they’re also not big on foreigners)

              1. (I don’t think Trump would want the government to run industry – if populism is defined by the platforms of historic populist parties he’s in the clear, it’s the *attitude* which I’m describing as populist)

              2. Remember Sanders wasn’t either until he ran for the Dem nomination and put it down the memory hole.

                And what “conspiracy” does Trump claim exists. Saying our institutions are broken and the people who run them are idiots is not the same thing as claiming a secret cabal elitists out to screw everyone.

                If Trump can be slandered as a populist, then how does one criticize the current political class and point out its epic failures without being subject to the charge of “populism”?

                1. Actually, I think I’m something of a populist, in that I think there are hostile elites, but I don’t think they’re secret.

                  When you see them proudly and openly doing and saying the stuff they do and say, you don’t need a conspiratorial explanation. They sincerely believe that progressivism (if run by them) is a good thing, and they’re happy to explain this to the masses.

                  And they’re intelligent, but not intelligent enough to realize the limits of their own intelligence. And on some subjects they’re just plain ignorant.

                  And thank God, they often hate each others’ guts, so they can’t cooperate quite as much as if they were a stereotypical conspiracy.

                  So it’s not as if there *isn’t* an elite messing up the country, but the question is what are the bad things they’re doing, and can rallying around an angry Leader make things better?

                  1. It can’t hurt.

      2. “Sanders promises to round up the rick and take their ill gotten gains and give it to the public.”

        No, it’s Trump who wants to round up the ricky ricardos and rick rosses of the country, you redneck shitbag.

        bleep

          1. Rick Rolling is reserved for Astley and not James.

            1. It’s a reverse Rickroll – you *expect* to see Rick Astley and you don’t.

        1. Speaking of Ricks, which candidate promises to get schwifty?

      3. “reason never calls Sanders a populist ”

        Nope never

        Sanders peddles in the brand of populism where the wealthy are openly villainized,

        or

        Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, represents everything wrong with the populist redistributist left.

        or

        It is one thing for an intellectually challenged, self-aggrandizing, populist windbag like Donald Trump (or Berne Sanders, for that matter)

        Those are just the first few examples I turned up in a 5 second search. Do you ever get anything right?

        1. There are. I links. Provide them or go fuck yourself.

          1. Maybe use the search feature on the upper right half wit?

  20. Ruh-roh

    Zimbabwe’s government denounced leading independence war veterans as traitors on Saturday for an unprecedented attack on ageing President Robert Mugabe and vowed to identify its unnamed authors and put them on trial.

    Veterans who fought against white minority rule in the former British colony turned on their long-time ally and commander on Thursday, calling him a dictator in a jolting rebuke highlighting political maneuvering over his succession and mounting anger over economic woes.

    ———

    The political infighting has been exacerbated by an economic crisis, widely blamed on mismanagement and, more recently, the effects of a scorching drought in the region.

    Public anger over inflation, unemployment and other hardships has poured out into the streets in a nation-wide protest movement.

    “(Mugabe’s) leadership has presided over unbridled corruption and downright mismanagement of the economy, leading to national economic ruin for which the effects are now felt throughout the land,” the ZNLWVA statement said.

    “The President and his cohorts … have slowly devoured the values of the liberation struggle,” it said.

    1. I wonder how many people there are secretly thinking: “I’m starting to think that the old days of white rule weren’t entirely bad”…?

      1. How about the old days of moderate biracial rule in 1979?

        “A new government of national unity with Bishop Abel Muzorewa as Prime Minister took office on 1 June 1979. The country was renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia and a new national flag was raised signifying the transition. It was expected that all sanctions would be lifted now that the country was under democratically elected black majority rule. However, the lifting of sanctions did not occur mainly because the externally based African nationalist parties of ZAPU and ZANU, under the respective leadership of Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe, had not been involved in the political process and had not participated in the general election. Under mounting international pressure, particularly from Jimmy Carter, Andrew Young and the British Government, Muzorewa was persuaded to take part in negotiations at Lancaster House late 1979.

        “…Under the terms of the Lancaster House Agreement, fresh elections were held in February 1980 following which the country attained its independence as the Republic of Zimbabwe on 18 April 1980 with Robert Mugabe as its first Prime Minister.”

        1. The equivalent of the Kerensky government in Russia: a not-bad post-revolutionary period, before everything went to shit.

  21. Purges for everyone!

  22. Beck was on our local talk station in Philadelphia before he started doing his national show, and I remember the day the national show started because it was like he turned into a completely different person over night.

    His entire persona is just a character he plays. All this means is he’s decided the old act isn’t making as much money as it used to, and he’s decided to update it to appeal to where he thinks the audience shifting. He doesn’t actually believe anything other than telling people whatever they’ll pay him most to hear.

    1. That is likely true and doesn’t surprise me.

    2. This sounds about right.

      1. Maybe, but I’ve heard this charge leveled at pretty much every non-leftist radio host.

        1. I’m so cynical, though. I believe if there was serious money and significant social status benefits for, say running the Mises Institute, Rachel Maddow would submit her resume in a quick second.

        2. I’ve heard it about Rush Limbaugh, but I’ve always hear Hannity and O’Reilly described as true believers.

          In any case, it’s not just something I heard about, it’s something I directly witnessed from being a listener when the character version of Glenn Beck was created.

          1. I’ve heard it about Michael Savage, too.

            I’m not doubting that radio hosts put on a show/create a persona. What I question is the idea that they are simply insincere, and “don’t really believe what they are saying.” I think it’s absurd to imagine that people paid to talk politics for hours a day are saying things they don’t believe, though of course how they say it is another issue. No doubt they do what writers do: adopt a certain voice, try to be dramatic and interesting and funny. But that’s a different thing than “He doesn’t really believe all that stuff.”

            1. I haven’t heard that about Savage, but I don’t believe it. Once in a while he trolls, but he tells you he’s trolling when he does, just maybe not in so many words. I guess I relate to him a lot because I’m a biochemist & he was an ethnopharmacologist.

              The thing about him I’m skeptical about, though, is his claim never to have heard Jean Shepherd. I’d take his word for it, except I’ve gathered from various sources that it’s very common in radio for performers to deny having heard or even heard of the people they imitate. Howard Stern denied having heard Steve Dahl, but it turns out Stern used to study tapes of Dahl. The other examples I can’t recall right now, but they’re there, & apparently it’s a long tradition in radio.

            2. If you want a striking example of someone who politically cross-dressed, Jay Diamond. But he did it in a way to leave himself the loophole of non-contradiction when he went from “right” wing to “left” wing talk radio, and he even pointed out that he’d done so. He carefully picked out certain things to say or talk about when he was on the “conservative”-oriented stations that would not contradict what he said later on the “liberal”-oriented one.

              Howard Stern, OTOH, claimed Bob Grant to have been insincere about his political stances. I’d like to get proof of that; I think Stern was talking thru his hat.

    1. He does have two turntables and a microphone.

      1. But I’m not sure I like his haircut.

  23. OT: The Clinton/Kaine announcement is on CNN in the hotel lobby. The logo is an H with an arrow for the cross bar pointing….right?

    1. If I ran FedEx, I’d be suing for copyright infringement.

      1. That also crossed my mind.

    2. We read from left to right. If the arrow pointed left, it would look like it was “going backwards”.

      1. “…it would look like it was “going backwards”.”

        And honesty is not one of her attributes…

        1. Hehehe. Good one.

    3. Kaine is stepping in the Pope’s footsteps and out-marxist him.

  24. OT:
    I think this guy is proposing impeachment of the next prez if s/he doesn’t do what this guy wants:

    “Earth is hotter than ever — prosecute inaction on climate change?”
    http://www.sfgate.com/local/sc…..399670.php

    Since the current liar-in-chief has done enough to satisfy him, I guess more jaw-flapping will suffice?

    1. Whenever there is a summer heat wave it is proof the world is going to boil. A brutally cold winter, however, is just weather.

      1. Something no scientist says.

        1. Where’d you get the great rims for your goal post?

          1. Do you just grab a logic 101 vocab word at random and type it?

            1. Tony|7.23.16 @ 2:28PM|#
              “Do you just grab a logic 101 vocab word at random and type it?”

              No, Tony, I respond appropriately to your random lefty bullshit.

      2. Also storms. Just keep quiet when there is a multi-year hiatus in noteworthy Atlantic hurricanes, but when there finally is one, act like carbon is bringing on the Book of Revelations.

        1. And use polysyllabic alliteration to hype it further: Superstorm Stupidity

    2. I once suggested on SFGate that if California was serious about climate change, they wouldn’t be so welcoming to Latin America illegal aliens, who inevitably use more energy here than back at home. My comment was deleted.

      1. Maybe that have an anti-glibness policy.

        1. Or an anti-consistency policy.

        2. Maybe that have

          BLOOP BOINK DONK DERP!

  25. Can someone link me to Reason’s pant shitting article about Hillary plagiarizing Shakespeare?

    “Clinton on Tuesday compared her Republican counterpart to the Wizard of Oz, saying his grandiose entrance at the Republican national convention on Monday was full of ‘sound and fury’ but had little substance. ”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video
    /2016/jul/19/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-
    entrance-wizard-of-oz-video

    1. “And what about Lincoln plagiarizing from the Bible in his ‘House Divided’ speech?”

      /Judge Napolitano

      1. And MLK plagiarized me, the night before the famous speech I told my friend that “I had a dream.”

    2. Principals, not principles.

    3. The tune to the Star Spangled Banner was borrowed.

      1. I think I heard something about that.

        1. The tune came from the Anacreon Society, a social club.
          “Although it is often described as a “drinking song”, Lichtenwanger states that To Anacreon in Heaven “was not a barroom ballad, a drinking ditty to be chorused with glasses swung in rhythm”, but “convivial, … in a special and stately way”.[9]
          Quote from Wikipedia, so, you know, guaranteed to be 100% factually correct.

          1. I do appreciate that you appear to have replied to me with that informative content while not even noticing what my posting name is.

            1. Lol. I didn’t notice.

      2. My Country Tis of Thee?

        Totally ripped off.

  26. I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 97usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do.

    Go to the web—————> http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

  27. I will be joining Glenn by wearing my relaxed fit stonewashed jeans (Made in America!) and my Yes I Can t-shirt(also Made in the goddamn United States, not Communist fucking China) and voting for Gary Johnson.

    *sobs for America*

    1. I find this image of the universe slightly horrifying

      It reminds me of the time i accidentally joined a christian rock band.

      1. (it’s on the third screen of a three-screen list)

      2. I was referring to this, which I believe makes it clear he is “anti-abortion.” I also assumed anyone who is not pure on abortion is not fit to be a Democratic candidate for Vice President.

        1. “He backs a parental consent law in Virginia which has a judicial bypass. He supports a ban on “partial birth abortions so long as there is an exception for the life and health of the mother”. He also favors an “informed consent provision” in Virginia which requires abortion providers to “give women information about a whole series of things, the health consequences, et cetera, and information about adoption.””

          OK, I don’t know enough about the informed consent bill, but I know that Bill Clinton said he supported a partial-birth abortion bill with a “health exception.”

          Also, a judicial bypass means that a judge can authorize a teenage girl to get an abortion without telling her parents. A judge can’t authorize the girl to have a cigarette or a glass of wine, or to practice on the gun range, but a judge can authorize the girl to get an abortion without her parents being any the wiser.

          That’s some nice anti-abortion stuff Kaine has there.

    1. We have yet to see the apex of media sycophancy. but they keep amazing me. i think they’re going to need supplemental oxygen soon.

      e.g.

      Why Tim Kaine has already made history
      CNN

      the actual article is not worth reading. it is mostly a litany of facts basically saying he’s the same as anyone else ever nominated for veep. (*except – VA hasn’t had a VP run since William Henry Harrison!?!? whoop whoop)

      the NYT has been lately running a series of articles basically saying, “The Obama admin has been the greatest thing since the end of slavery and women’s sufferage – and we shall never see such a Mature, Wise, Grown Up (their words) in politics again”

      they call it ‘framing‘, i guess.

      1. Ouch…for Hillary.

      2. No one named Tim or Timothy has ever received a vote for president

        That right there is some history making shit.

        Vice President Timmaaahhhh!!!!

        1. One of the (sort of) novel journalistic methods introduced during the “coming of age of the millenials”-period has been the = “Headline-Conclusion Completely Unsupported by the Content of a Story

          I don’t think its entirely new, but the degree to which its used, and why, is.

          I presume the idea is that 80% of readers are just skimming headlines; and that these headlines serve to provide “conclusions” for people to digest in passing. As long as the idea is continually reinforced in multiple media outlets, it creates the impression of general consensus. Someone can never read a single piece of news about something, but still have developed a detailed impression about it regardless.

    2. Kaine and Pence might be the same person for all I can tell, right down to the number of syllables in their names. If they each switched to the other side, and Kaine put on a girdle, I bet 90% of the population wouldn’t notice.

      1. No girdle for Kaine. Hilary’s hoping that everyone is staring at that beer belly and not noticing the ever expanding pantsuit.

      2. If they each switched to the other side, and Kaine put on a girdle, I bet 90% of the population wouldn’t notice.

        There have been multiple ‘person on the street‘ interviews where people have swapped Trump & Clinton’s policy proposals, and gotten so-called Trump OR Clinton supporters to either demonize the views of their own candidate, or praise the policy of the opposition, simply by changing who was supposedly endorsing each policy.

        Clinton = opposed gay marriage, pro globalization, is tight with wall st, is super-hawkish and prone to intervention, helped silence and demonize “rape victims” and covered for her serial philandering husband, has been involved in a variety of insider-trading/securities scandals, voted for the Iraq war & patriot act, and supports continued NSA surveillance, has financial connections to a variety of oppressive overseas governments and there’s substantial evidence she was influence peddling *while* in office, completely opposes govt transparency efforts and has committed a range of crimes attempting to avoid them, and has called for whistleblowers like Edward Snowden to be jailed for the rest of his life.

        but, RED TIE WURSE, you see

        1. It’s interesting, isn’t it. There is a good explanation for why votes matter more as social signals and methods of self-affirmation, but you’d think that the substance of the person being voted for would matter at least a little bit more than the letter next to their name. It’s the equivalent of a sports team up and moving to a new city but still getting support from the fans in the original city.

          1. It is totally about brand and social signaling for a lot of people. The same people who six months ago were railing about how they could never vote for Rubio because he had tried to sell out on immigration are today telling anyone who will listen how their “principles” require them to vote for Johnson. You know Gary Johnson, the guy who has supported open borders and amnesty for his entire political career.

            1. I’m just amazed how impervious the brand is to facts on the ground. Even Apple stock would take a hit if they just started filling iPhone cases with sand.

              1. It amazes me too.

      3. Tim Kaine speaks Spanish, and I assume Mike Pence rounds up illegals and keeps them in his basement, much like Eric Cartman did with hippies.

  28. He always said he’d kill us’: Classmates reveal computer-obsessed Munich loner who called himself psycho refused to mix with other pupils and promised revenge on his school tormentors

    A bullied pyscho or a terrorist? Also, this:

    was found to have 300 rounds of ammunition in his rucksack when police discovered his body.

    GUN CONTROL!!!

    1. I think he was two mints in one.

    2. The “bullying” angle will be much expanded upon and run with

      *(as a way of trying to avoid any even remote suggestion that there was an islamic-angle)

      the comments they captured via Balcony Man are being touted as sufficient to re-create an entire psychological profile, natch.

      1. Bullying always makes people yell allahu akbar right before shooting the place up.

        /derp

        1. The fun part is that now the bullied kids will be treated as potential terrorists.

          Well, if they didn’t want to be profiled, they should have been bullied!

  29. Mother Jones perpetuates an old lie

    Today, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 857 into law, requiring Californians who build their own firearms to apply for a state-issued serial number. Previously, guns assembled from parts kits officially flew under the radar. No background checks were required, and no serial number had to be stamped into the finished firearm, making them effectively untraceable.

    The dreaded GHOSTGUN loophole has finally been closed! Fails to mention the minor detail about buying the “receiver” to complete the kit requires going through an ffl and undergoing a background check. Certainly no mention of the complications inherent in finishing off an 80% receiver, or gouging one out of a chunk of metal.

    Sloppy wording, or intentional lie? You make the call.

    1. It sounds a lot simpler to steal a gun, or get a strawbuyer.

      1. Well, I keep hearing that buying a gun on the street is easier than buying a book – so I dunno why anyone would bother with this “loophole” in the first place.

        1. I generally start here when I want to take advantage of the “loophole” that allows for private sales without government involvement.

          1. We might lose that this fall. Shit thing is I know gun owners that (1) support universal background checks while (2) having done the Uncle Henry private sale without using a FFL to do a check for the sale.

    2. Sloppy wording, or intentional lie?

      The NYT constantly asserts that “Internet Gun Sales” are done without any background check.

      do you think that sort of thing is “sloppy”, or intentional?

      1. What the fuck are these “internet sales” I keep hearing about? Do I order a gun and it comes out of my
        DVD slot, or what?

        I’m pretty sure that the NYT knows that all “internet sales”, except those involving electronic files, need to be shipped by carriers USPS, UPS, FedX etc. And that shipments of firearms using such carriers to anyone but FFL holders is already illegal.

  30. OMG 300 rounds?!

    *looks at boxes of ammo on shelf*

    Yikes. I’m a terrorist, for sure.

    1. Germany has very strict gun laws. You live in the United States, where guns are cheaper than books.

      1. Guns are cheaper than books? Maybe in germany, they even aren’t that expensive at barnes and noble.

    2. You could kill like 600 school children with that.

      1. Only if they’re weaklings.

        1. One bullet goes through like ten school kids. I think I read that in Salon.

          1. A single .556 round can kill multiple children.

            Yale Medical assisted after Sandy Hook, and I know people who did some of the post mortems.

            The average 6 year old has less than 2 liters of blood. If it was adults that had been shot, the body count would have been about 80% less.

            1. Yes. I am fully aware of the power of a rifle round. I was just being a smart ass. And of course a .270 or a .308 round is more powerful than a 5.56 round. Yet somehow, these idiots claim that hunting rifles are okay but “assault” rifles or not. A .270 deer rifle or a .306 is a nasty thing to be on the wrong end of.

              1. And very few realize what happens when a semi auto is rapid fired. That is why there are a lot of expended rounds at these mass shootings, many more than fatalities. They are devastating and cause a lot of damage, but having large capacity rounds does not necessarily mean there will be an equal amount casualties.

            2. Maybe Oswald’s magic bullet was a 5.56…

              1. Oswald’s magic bullet was a 6.5?52mm Carcano, less than one mm more.

                The ignorance of media commentators talking about firearms in just incredible. Now that they’ve run out of “assault weapon” hysteria, the new threat the “high-powered” or “large caliber” rifle both of which are meaningless in their relativity.

                Small-bore refers to calibers with a diameter of .32 inches or smaller.

                1. If it looks scary, and what doesn’t to the ignorant, then it is a military assault whatever.

          2. It is known.

            But even then, 600 school kids ought to be able to swarm just about anyone or anything. And you know their hands are going to be all sticky, so once they get a hold of a leg or something, you can’t get them off, even if they are dead.

            But kids these days are more likely to run than use their numerical superiority to defeat a shooter, and that’s what’s wrong with America is all I’m saying.

            1. Is there an app for that? Maybe the “cut and paste” function on the smartphone would work since we DHS has taight is that scissors are an effective means to confront an assault rifle welding maniac.

            2. The problem with that is it’s human nature to preserve your life, usually by flight.

      2. Not these days, have you seen how fat the kids are now?

    3. I’ll answer that question the way that congress discloses financial information.

      I have more than 999 rounds, but less than 100,000.

      1. Fewer than. – Stannis

  31. You can’t make the omelette of broad national appeal without breaking every single egg of libertarian principle.

    1. Look, libertarianism has already been tried everywhere from Somalia to the USA, and it’s a disaster! It’s time to try something new and shiny, like socialism!

      1. A prog me that Rhodesia was libertarian paradise and I should move there. My respobse was that Zimbabwe (as it is called now) is ruled by a socialist dictator that has high taxes on private enterprises, a horrible economy, and many state sponsored atrocities. I mentioned how I was the one against big government and socialism.

  32. I tried to buy a book the other day, and the saleslady talked me into buying a 20mm rotary cannon, instead.

    1. Can I download one of those on my Kindle?

    2. That happened to me too. I don’t know how I am going to explain the credit card bill to my wife.

      1. You don’t explain things to the wiminz, John, you mansplain it. “I’m out of beer, honey, I need to make a beer run, we’ll talk when I get back.” *comes back with beer, flowers, and nice bottle of wine*.
        .

    3. I once went to a book depository and found a bolt action rifle along with three empty shell casings.

  33. I went back and looked at Mother Jones douchebag’s earlier (2013) bit about an ak-47 “build party”.

    We crowd in as our three hosts, all expert gun assemblers, hand out waivers with a list of questions: Are you a convicted felon? Ever been dishonorably discharged from the military? Addicted to drugs? Mentally unstable? The guy in camo looks up and, to much laughter, says, “So it’s all ‘No,’ right?”

    The hosts collect our paperwork without checking IDs. We don eye protection and gloves, and soon the garage is abuzz with the whir of grinders, cutters, and drills. Sales of receivers?which house the mechanical parts, making a gun a gun?are tightly regulated, so my kit comes with a pre-drilled flat steel platform. Legally, it’s just an American-made hunk of metal, but one bend in a vise later and, voil?, it’s a receiver, ready for trigger guards to be riveted on. Sparks fly as receiver rails to guide the bolt mechanism are cut, welded into place, and heat-treated. The front and rear trunnions, which will hold the barrel and stock, are attached to the receivers.

    80% receiver, then.

    And a “questionnaire” suspiciously similar to the form 4473 you fill out at the ffl (possibly because the guys who run the “party” are assisting the builders). He claims no IDs were checked- okay.

    The whole thing is just an exercise in fearmongering.

    1. They are filling out the 4473. From your end you fill that out to get the weapon. From the Feds’ end you fill that out to get the receiver, which is the part that is marked and tracked by the feds.

      1. No form 4473 for 80% lowers.

        I just ordered 3 off the internet last week.

        1. I stand corrected. But I thought that is what constituted the “gun” in the feds’ eyes. You don’t need a form to buy the barrel and the rest of it. But I was under the impression short of 3D printing it, you could not assemble a weapon legally without it having a serial number and being known by the feds.

          1. That’s why it’s 80% completed. It’s not considered a firearm yet, and you have to finish the work yourself.

            If you order a complete lower, you need to go through an FFL.

            1. ah okay. then someone at that party had the other 20% and that form was the 4473

              1. See what Brooks said below. Probably a cover their ass thing.

                If you buy an 80% lower and finish it yourself, no 4473 required. No serial number required. It’s completely untraceable. If, after finishing it, you want to sell it, you have to add a serial number and 4473 the buyer.

                1. Fascinating. i have a couple of hand built sporting rifles my brother gave me. Now that you say that, I assume they are completely untracable and unknown to the feds, which is not a bad thing. I have no plans to ever sell them.

                  1. It’s a great way to build a “sacrificial gun” in case there’s ever confiscation.

                    “Yep, here you are, officer. It’s my only gun. The rest drown in a horrible boating accident.”

                    1. I’ve been buying guns from private parties whenever I can afford it while it’s still legal. I only have one that could be traced back to a gun store that filled out paperwork.

                    2. It’s a great way to build a “sacrificial gun” in case there’s ever confiscation.

                      If/when it come to that..

                      …I have other plans.

                    3. It’s a great way to build a “sacrificial gun” in case there’s ever confiscation.

                      “Yep, here you are, officer. It’s my only gun. The rest drown in a horrible boating accident.”

                      You really should watch that below video.

                    4. You should watch the James Yeager 2-minute video just below this titled “80% lowers” etc. He addresses this exact idea, even down to the boating accident.

                    5. His bigger point (if you’ll allow me to interpret) is not that its *really* impossible to make a gun out of an unfinished lower… (although likely far harder/less economical than many suspect)

                      …its the fact that people are pretending to be “resisting” a future reality that they’re in fact accommodating.

                      i.e. ‘what are you going to do with it?’

                      Is the money, time and effort better spent fooling around with half-made guns which you intend to then ‘hide’ when/if The Man comes knocking on people’s doors? and what are you hiding it “for” anyway, if that’s what you’re doing? Something *worse* than that??

                      Or is money, time and effort better spent a) ensuring that The Man never gets that far, and/or b) defending your own rights when and if that reality ever manifests itself?

                      I believe his point is that its “pretending to be resisting” something, which is just a replacement for *actually* doing something about the problem.

                      I think some audience would interpret him as making some ridiculous “Malheur”, anti-govt resistance type argument. that’s one superficial read on it – and i think he does try and appeal to those type of people. but he also is making a more-practical point, which is that if people are going to waste the time and money on something like that, they should be spending as much if not more time in political efforts/fundraising to fight the anti-gunners in the first place.

                    6. 2 things.

                      1) I’m part of the 1 in 10,000 that can finish it. I’m building with 2 other commenters here.

                      2) I’ve mentioned before that there’s a guy trying to kill me and my family. Yeah, most people are prepping for the government, but my family is my primary concern. I don’t care about my “collection”; I care about when this guy gets out of federal prison. I’m keeping a gun on hand, and for that purpose, and I will continue to do so. If anyone tries to take away my last gun, they die on my doorstep.

                    7. *noted

                      Still, you have to admit that he has a point. also, the ‘boating accident’ comment was especially well-timed.

                    8. I was picking the most ridiculous explanation that I could. Leave the garage open… The safe isn’t epoxy bolted in…. BOOM. All the guns are gone.

                  2. If they were “sporters”, they more than likely have a receiver with a serial number. If that receiver was bought or sold after 1968 it’s in some dealer’s “bound book” and possibly in some federal database.

                2. ” If, after finishing it, you want to sell it, you have to add a serial number and 4473 the buyer.”

                  And square up with the ATF on the “making” excise tax…
                  (ATF Form 1 and/or ATF Form 5)

                  1. All of these rules, restrictions, forms, regulations, and taxes certainly don’t amount to one iota of infringement. /sarc

        2. and here’s James’ Yeager’s view on 80% lowers (since we’d mentioned him above)

          worth a laugh

    2. How do these people explain how you actually stop people from getting guns? What about an all out ban, like the one on many types of drugs, like heroin, cocaine, etc, etc? Since the drug ban has never stopped anyone from actually getting a drug they want, how does a gun ban work? You just make everyone criminals and lock them all up? We already have the highest prison population on earth.

      1. They don’t. They rationalize it by saying “but we have to do something and anything that results in fewer guns in the public hands is better than doing nothing”. The real truth is they want an excuse to make a culture they hate illegal. They don’t hate guns, they hate gun owners.

        1. Guns are pretty much illegal for citizens to own in Brazil. But I would bet you a large sum that no matter where I am in that country, I can buy an AK-47 in under an hour, starting with no leads.

          1. It is a mandatory 2 year prison sentence for owning a gun in Mexico. And what a violence free paradise Mexico is.

          2. Brazilian Gestapo agents know all about entrapment, gringo. In fact, anyone showing up with too much cash and a hard on for Russian rifles could be mistaken for a DEA agent whose ears would fetch a bounty in neighboring Bolivia.

            1. No, I know the Brazilians, and one or more of them would be with me. I’ll be just fine.

      2. The idea is to make guns difficult to obtain, and to make criminals out of any gun owner who is not a government employee.

        It works with drugs. If drugs were legal then I could easily obtain some cocaine or whatever if I wanted. As it is I have no idea where to start. I don’t work in restaurants anymore, so I don’t have reliable access to the black market. (I have never worked in a restaurant that didn’t have at least one drug dealer. Usually a pot dealer cooking or washing dishes, and a cokehead on the waitstaff.)

        As far as prison goes, leftists love prisons. As long as they don’t like the people who are in them.

        It’s all about the principals.

    3. Just fill out the Spanish-language forms. The Gestapo handpicks goons for no second language. They’ll never read it.

      1. No hablar Ingles.

  34. No form 4473 for 80% lowers.

    Based on shithead’s intentionally misleading reportage, I’d say it’s probably not an official 4473, but some sort of CYA for the guys who run the “party”. Particularly since they are actively assisting/participating in the completion of the receiver.

    But his goal is to panic the rubes into thinking there are millions of people out there churning out unregistered untraceable ghost guns every weekend, not to provide a detailed how-to.

  35. But I thought that is what constituted the “gun” in the feds’ eyes.

    Yes. The (ready-to-assemble receivers for my 1911 builds have had to be handled by my ffl and required the 4473.

  36. Cersei Clinton with Lord Varys Kaine

  37. Izzis Reason or National Lampoon? We need endorsements from Lyndon Larouche’s fascist and prohibitionist Fusion Bomb throwers? What next? Nick interviewing David Duke for Klan endorsements of the LP?
    Remember CREEP HQ, with “Commies for McGovern” posters everywhere?

  38. Exclusive: Hillary Clinton exchanged top secret emails on her private server with three aides

    Hillary Clinton exchanged nearly two-dozen top secret emails from her private server with three senior aides, the State Department revealed in documents released to VICE News late Friday.

    The 22 emails were sent and received by Clinton in 2011 and 2012. Clinton discussed classified information with her deputy chief of staff, Jacob Sullivan, her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Secretary of State William Burns. A majority of the top secret emails are email chains between Sullivan and Clinton.

    This is the first time the State Department has revealed the identities of the officials who exchanged classified information with Clinton through her private email server.

    1. Good on this guy for keeping up the fight.

    2. What happens when at some point this fall an email is made public where Hillary Clinton has put TS material on her server and the email makes it clear she knows that and knows it is wrong? Comey is going to look like a bigger clown than he already does.

  39. Fine tuning the message

    Democrats itching to slug it out with the National Rifle Association this fall need to stop attacking the gun-rights group and start sounding a little more like it, particularly when it comes to respecting freedom and safety, according to new message testing from a group founded to enact tighter gun laws.

    ——

    With that in mind, representatives from a broad mix of progressive groups sat around a table last week at the Washington offices of Global Strategy Group, where they received a tutorial on how ? and how not ? to talk about guns. Leading the lesson were top officials from Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, the campaign wing of the group Giffords and Kelly founded after the Sandy Hook massacre.
    For example, groups seeking tighter gun laws have been trying to get away from the “gun control” label since well before ARS started testing for a new messaging strategy last year. Better options, they say, are “gun violence prevention” and “preventing gun tragedies.”

    We’re all in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but…

    1. Well, yeah. The 2A refers only to weapons of the time. You know, black-powder muzzle-loaders. Everyone knows this. Duh.

    2. “I’m pro-choice on guns.”

      That ought to do it.

      1. THREAD WINNER. Fuck the pro lifers.

    3. a broad mix of progressive groups sat around a table last week at the Washington offices of Global Strategy Group, where they received a tutorial on how ? and how not ? to talk about guns.

      I can imagine the presenter saying,

      “You really need to decide if your objective is actually making progress with gun legislation? or simply reinforcing your belief in your own moral superiority””

      I can imagine that 90% of the people in the room would have a brief flash of self-awareness, then decide that, ‘but dammit, we ARE morally superior??” and tune out all the actual ‘strategic’ recommendations.

      Because railing about “gun nuts” and the NRA and calling people racist yokels etc. will *never* cease to give them a warm-fuzzy.

  40. One of Washington’s leading gun lobbyists said he didn’t sense much of a new threat, however, saying people have been going after the “corporate gun lobby” for decades.
    “The ’60s called, they want their clich?s back,” said Larry Keane, senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Based on a description of the new strategy, Keane called it “very pretty looking camo.”
    He added, in an email, “Saying it isn’t gun control doesn’t mean it isn’t gun control. Their agenda remains the same.”

    “Oh, come on, Larry. Trust us.”

    1. Whenever a friend says something about ‘common-sense’ gun legislation, and how ridiculous the ‘slippery slope’ argument is, I always point out that just over 20 years ago, a big goal was getting restaurants to have no-smoking sections. Who could argue with that? And then a new ‘common-sense’ no-smoking law grew from that, and then another, to the point that now it’s even illegal in some places to smoke cigarettes within your own home, even with the windows closed. That all happened mighty fast.

      Perhaps all the smoking regulation is a very good thing, I’m not here to argue that. The point is, any time you give in a little to a faction that wants the complete opposite of your position, they’re going to keep after you, little by little, until they’ve completely won.

      And that’s why the NRA fights every proposed 2A restriction.

      1. To paraphrase Ayn Rand: “In any compromise with evil, evil always profits.”

        As far as I am concerned, anyone who supports legislation that criminalizes acts without victims is evil. Because when the people who are supposed to help you when force is initiated upon you are the initiators of force, then they are instruments of injustice.

        Of course the left hates the concept of justice. They like fairness through force, which is injustice. That’s why they are trying to pervert the concept of justice with things like “social justice” and “economic justice” which are in reality institutionalized injustice.

        In short: leftists are evil.

      2. Slippery Slope is a fallacy only in that it isn’t guaranteed to happen. It DOES happen and happens often.

        1. I remember when they fought to make homosexuals a protected class in this state. They chided “Oh no, this won’t lead to gay marriage! That’s the Slippery Slope fallacy! You’re so silly!”

          Before the ink was dry they were suing to change marriage laws because they were unfair to homosexuals now that they were a protected class.

          So as far as I am concerned, anyone who mocks people who are concerned about the slippery slope are in fact liars who intend to do exactly what they are telling the concerned person not to worry about.

          1. they fought to make homosexuals sexual orientation a protected class

            But you knew that.

        2. Yeah, some people seem to think that the slippery slope fallacy means that If one person contracts TB, it’s irrational to think that anyone else under the same circumstances will contract TB. That just isn’t so. When people are exposed to the same microbes under the same circumstances, TB can spread from person to person in a chain reaction. There microbes and the conditions of their transference are a legitimate connection between the victims.

          But that doesn’t mean it’s a slippery slope that’s legitimate.

          Slippery slopes can’t be legitimate. If they’re legitimate, then they aren’t slippery slopes.

          The slippery slope fallacy doesn’t mean that bad things can’t happen in succession. It just means that the connection wasn’t legitimately established.

          1. SS refers to incrementalism.

            A group has an end goal that it can’t achieve all at once due to its unpopularity, so they attempt to take smaller steps towards the same goal but pausing between each to allow the population to become accustom before implementing the next. It’s a legitimate strategy for pushing an agenda on an unreceptive whole. Happens all the time and it’s effective.

            1. You mean like, how we allow drones, but only for the ‘terrorists’ and only if the droning is ‘reluctant’ and ‘not an easy decision’ and ‘all reasonable steps to limit collateral damage have been taken’. Then one day it’s ‘anyone who clicked a link to ISIS and their immediate vicinity plus known accomplices’. Is that what you mean by ‘Slippery Slope’, Franky?

                1. Hey Franky thanks for not declaring me ‘enemy combatant’ today and using that as the ‘legitimate reason’ to reluctantly drone me! You’re the best!

              1. Is this the idea that Trump wants to target the innocent family members of ISIS just because they’re related to ISIS members again?

                I’ve seen the statements he made about that and come away unimpressed.

                The statements I saw him make were in direct reference to a question he was asked about his proposed bombing campaign–they asked him whether killing innocent family members would dissuade him from bombing ISIS.

                He said that ISIS uses their family members as human shields, and although that was a terrible thing, he would go after ISIS with a bombing campaign anyway.

                Go after him for that if you want, but it isn’t an novel or unusual position. We flattened whole cities during World War II–almost as many people died in the bombing of Dresden as died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined–and Obama has killed hundreds of children with drones over the course of his presidency. Obama’s last drone strike was just a few days ago.

                Two wrongs don’t make a right, but it’s hardly a novel point or a point of differentiation between Trump and Obama or Trump and Hillary.

                1. P.S. Drones are more precise than the carpet bombing of the past. Their real saving grace is the safety of our pilots.

                  Do I care more about American pilots than other people?

                  Yes.

                  Do I care more about American security than I do about our enemies?

                  Yes.

                  If government has any legitimate purpose, it’s protecting our rights, and if the best way to protect our rights from foreign threats is to bomb the hell out of ISIS (civilian casualties and all), then that’s what we should do.

                  I bet Hillary Clinton wouldn’t refuse to bomb ISIS for fear of hurting innocent civilians either–not that anyone in the press pool will ever ask her.

                  1. re: your point about use of force against ISIS

                    fact =

                    there is no difference between what any presidential will actually *DO*

                    all of them will more or less rubber-stamp whatever military commanders recommend.

                    each of them will spin their rhetoric to appeal to their constituencies – either amplifying or diminishing their willingness to slaughter our enemies and salt their fields and drive them before us and listening to the lamentations of their women, etc.

                    the reality is that what they care about more than anything is “appearing” to have Certainty and Focus on the subject. So they say things to appear different from one another.

                    Obama’s admin has *routinely* killed entire families of suspected terrorists. The difference is that his constituency wants to see him acting “troubled” about it, and conciliatory. “its so horrible and tough being me”. Oh, the burdens of leadership. “There may have been a few ‘accidents‘. (1/10th the actual #, of course)

                    Trump brags about his willingness to do exactly the same thing, and he’s Hitler-reborn. You’re supposed to pretend that it makes you feel bad.

                2. almost as many people died in the bombing of Dresden as died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined-

                  Killed @ Hiroshima = ~66,000
                  Killed @ Nagasaki = ~40,000

                  Initial estimates of killed @ Dresden = unknown, between 35,000-100,000

                  ruling = good enough for govt work

                  But – historians since decided the #s really sucked

                  , more than 60 years later, it seems we must lower our estimates. After four years’ work, an impressive commission of German historians this week filed its report on this issue, and it seems that even the lowest figure so far accepted may be an overestimate. Drawing on archival sources, many never previously consulted, on burial records and scientific findings — including street-by-street archaeological investigations — plus hundreds of eye-witness reports, the “Dresden Commission of Historians for the Ascertainment of the Number of Victims of the Air Raids on the City of Dresden on 13/14 February 1945” has provisionally estimated the likely death-toll at around 18,000 and definitely no more than 25,000.

                  Better comparison? The Tokyo firebombing, which killed “at least” ~100k

                  1. There were many “lesser” Dresdens, though. I don’t know if anyone has added them up.

                    1. There were many “lesser” Dresdens, though. I don’t know if anyone has added them up.

                      There are books and books and books full of people adding them up.

                      I wasn’t making any point about scale of bombing deaths or the precision of #s. Just that as an offhand reference, “Dresden” has fallen from favor as the greatest of all WWII bombing conflagrations.

                  2. I’ll use the firebombing of Tokyo reference next time. I’d heard the ’round 100,000 used, and I was going by that.

                    Regardless, the point is that, you know, the baby-boomers’ parents were alive when we killed tens of thousands of people at a time in bombing campaigns.

                    The idea that drones don’t limit collateral damage is absurd in that context.

                    1. In fact, I might go so far as to say . . .

                      Has there ever been a time in history when one country’s military power so completely dwarfed that of an adversary–and the country with the dominant military relegated itself to lesser firepower for humanitarian reasons?

                      We could end ISIS as a problem in Iraq tomorrow. I suspect the main reason we don’t is because of humanitarian reasons.

                      I think the reason Israel hasn’t driven all the people of Gaza into the sea already isn’t out of the goodness of their hearts–it’s because Israel is concerned about what doing that might do to their relationship with the U.S.

                      When South Korea refrains from invading the North despite being attacked, whether by North Korean subs or having South Korean villages shelled, I think they restrain themselves out of concern for their relationship with the U.S. A common refrain among Koreans I’ve talked to is that the U.S. wants to keep Korea divided–for that reason.

                      We are a force for restraint in the world–perhaps more so than any other country ever. And, pardon me, but our restraint in going after ISIS and other terrorists with targeted drone strikes is probably evidence of that. The alternative to targeted drone strikes probably isn’t peace and tranquility. The alternative is probably bombing campaigns, invasion, and occupation.

                    2. Stop bombing ISIS. It’s just a modern day witch hunt. Leave them alone. Protect yourselves from them, of course. But in fact they aren’t even a real threat. Who is? Saudi Arabia, as they’ve proven repeatedly. And Russia and some other places. But not ISIS. That is an internal problem to the Arab world, and they need to learn to handle it themselves. The key is for them to establish free speech and religion, and for us the key is to enable that, and not give in to the extortion, “If you don’t let us behead the freedom bloggers we will lose control of the radicals and then the terrists gonna getcha!” Haha sorry. Fool me once.

                    3. If ISIS doesn’t want to be held accountable for the actions of terrorists in the West, they should stop claiming responsibility for every terrorist attack in the West.

                      The should also stop launching terrorist attacks in the West.

                    4. And if I claim credit for an attack that means they should bomb me? You are completely psychotic. Don’t worry I won’t bomb you.

                    5. “We could end ISIS as a problem in Iraq tomorrow. I suspect the main reason we don’t is because of humanitarian reasons.”

                      I suspect that it is because we have no idea what we’d do with Iraq afterward. It’s easier to let ISIS rule territory than to rule it ourselves. And, frankly, we’re no longer able to occupy or rule foreign territory effectively. That could be seen as a good or a bad thing, but it means that we can’t really end foreign regimes anymore, unless there is a credible and better alternative waiting to step in.

                    6. I’m still pushing the rebirth of the Ottoman empire as the best course of action.

                    7. I’m with you, but I might be biased. Ottomans is definitely the easiest start in Europa Universalis IV.

            2. SS can refer to a lot of things, but mostly they derive from the idea that there’s no good stopping place between 2 extremes which are each undesirable, but towards which there are reasons impelling one. The fear in these cases is that once people get the idea that moving in one direction was a good idea, there’ll be no reason to stop short of the undesirable extreme. The reason some people think SS is a fallacy is that usually compromises are reached between the extremes, balancing the value at 1 end vs. the value at the other end.

            3. What F d’A referred to isn’t exactly slippery slope, but more camel’s nose. There’s no implication in that that the entire camel would be a good thing, only that the nose under the tent is a warning of more to come.

      3. It isn’t a slippery slope argument when a legitimate connection between a chain of events is firmly established, and the fact that our rights should not be subject to a popularity contest is a legitimate connection.

        Why stop with the Second Amendment? Why not move on to the First?

        When we’re done with common-sense gun legislation, should we move on to common sense speech legislation?

        Maybe we should put the Mormon church up to a vote. How popular can they be outside of Utah?

        The fact that pornography or Mormonism is a First Amendment right even if it’s unpopular with legislators and the idea that gun ownership is a a right even if it’s unpopular with legislators are the same idea.

        There’s no questionable connection between them. It’s the same issue with all of them on which I will not compromise. Meanwhile, the question about whether subjecting one right to a popularity contest will necessarily mean other more popular rights are rejected or compromised by popular legislation is self-defeating one because it’s still relying on popularity as the ultimate protection of our rights–and that’s the very thing I want to avoid. Our rights should be respected independent of whether they’re popular or they aren’t being respected.

      4. “And that’s why the NRA fights every proposed 2A restriction.”

        Except the abolition of trial by jury and the reasonable doubt standard.

        1. Yeah, the NRA has supported gun control legislation, trying to look reasonable, when it fact it makes them look weak and the reason (drink) I am no longer a member, and haven’t been for decades.

          1. What about GOA?

  41. After each terrorist attack, all the candidates (including even Bernie) doubled down on the “We must keep bombing ISIS!” hysteria. This most recent attack in Germany puts the lie to such stupidity and pointlessness. Johnson/Weld get that. Good for Beck for standing on principle. I wonder why Limbaugh and Hewitt don’t get it.

  42. “The battle for freedom and liberty really never is over, and there are really low points in it, but I’m not giving up, and I’m not gonna engage in phony pep talks, either.

    Rush Limbaugh”

    So he should support Johnson/Weld over anti liberty Trump. I take it he’ll be like that phoney Hannity and vote Trump. Cause it’s so cool to talk about liberty, while doing things that are antithetical to it.

    1. Conservatives often sound like libertarians when their backs are against the wall.

      “She would’ve been a good woman,” said The Misfit, “if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.”

      —-Flannery O’Connor, “A Good Man is Hard to Find”.

      It’s when their backs aren’t up against the wall that they turn into shitheads.

      1. Probably one of my favorite stories/books* of all time.

        (*depending on where you find it; i had the “complete” FOC; i believe it was the title of her first short fiction collection)

  43. My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now I am getting paid 17000usd monthly without spending too much time. you can also do this…

    ========= http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

    1. This is awesome. The bot’s name links to “fakenamegenerator.com”

      1. A female US name. Moreno? Sounds sexy. Pics please.

      2. And dajjal links to addictionisamyth’s blog. I, however, am still firmly a Tulpa sock.

  44. The headline and commentary are a bit overblown, but these are juicy:

    The news about the DNC emails just gets better and better. A few things we are seeing so far:
    1) Ted Cruz asked the DNC for $ to help fund his delegate fight in Cleveland.
    2) Jake Tapper of CNN colluded with the DNC. They gave him questions to ask his interview guests.
    3) Chuck Todd of NBC was also colluding with the DNC and put pressure on others at the network to go easy on Democrats at the DNC’s request.
    4) The New York Times co hosted parties with the DNC. This is against the law by the way.
    5) Hillary Clinton setup a slush fund through the DNC to launder donor money.
    6) The DNC actively colluded with the media to work against Bernie Sanders.

    Like I said this scandal touches all aspects of the media and the Democratic Party. Don’t look for the MSM to report on it much since they are heavily implicated.
    Don’t look for it to trend on Twitter because Twitter is also trying to hide this story. But it’s everywhere on Twitter now. And all 20k emails can be looked at on Wikileaks.
    The election is going to Donald Trump because of this. It’s too big now for anyone to hide.

    1. 5. People go to jail for this shit all of the time, even in BRIC countries. What is the USA now, 3rd world?

      1. Well, Bill Clinton fucked underage girls on flights to the Caribbean, and nobody seems to give a fuck. So, yes. Yes we are 3rd world.

        1. Those girls were just showing him gratitude for keeping the theocracy of their backs /Nina Burleigh

    2. Yes, but name one of these things that the general public will really care about.

      All people will say is, “NOW THAT YOU COULDNT GET HER WITH EMAILS, YOU’RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING NEW”.

      not one of those things has any headline power.

      the only one which i guess actually has any real effect? is for many people to learn that the DNC was working *against* Bernie Sanders.

      Which isn’t how a primary is supposed to work. There are millions of bernie supporters who are being told to now vote Hillary. A certain # of them will learn about this, and stay home.

      That is probably the most significant potential damage done. the rest, i can’t see it having much of any effect, unless there becomes some burgeoning grassroots effort on the #neverHillary Dem side to continue to hammer the media about it.

      1. I wonder if (2) and (3) will have any legs. If I ran Fox News I would run the shit out of these. Fox News is routinely ridiculed by the Left, who insists it is all lies and horribly biased, and only appeals to mouth-breathers. If they can suddenly made a big deal out of “oh yeah, we’re the biased ones? Take a gander at who your media heroes have been conspiring with. Looks like we really are the fair and balanced news!”

        But they’ll probably pass so they can have some leggy women talking endlessly about the race war on cops, and how Hillary isn’t for law and order.

        1. I wonder if (2) and (3) will have any legs

          Tapper seems to have brushed the thing off completely. there seemed to be some froth on twitter for a minute but now its the weekend and no one cares.

          they’ll probably pass so they can have some leggy women talking endlessly about the race war on cops, and how Hillary isn’t for law and order.

          As partisan as Fox & CNN are, they are still both media orgs who don’t want to diminish the apparent credibility of media orgs.

          they’ll poo-poo one another, but not hammer the point lest they ever get caught in the same sort of compromising position.

      2. Yes, theoretically the party apparatus is supposed to stay neutral other than via its formal process for endorsing candidates. Heh.

        In at least many of the states there’s an excuse, albeit not a legal one, for violating that neutrality: the state’s interference w the party’s control of its membership & candidate selection processes. At the national level there is no such interference. If the national parties, albeit taking federal $ to run their conventions, wanted to close them completely & select candidates via cockroach race or some such, there’s no federal law they’d be breaking.

    3. Well the DNC kicked off their convention today. I am breathlessly awaiting the relentless machine-gunning of anti-Clinton/ Kaine articles.

      1. Just watch cnn, msnbc, they’ll be truthful, btw, I have swampland for sale in nevada if you want to send me some money.

    4. It confirms the suspicions of those who were already suspicious, but it is great to them all have to deal with this embarrassment. And I believe this is just part one.


      1. I believe this is just part one.

        Oh, yes.

        timing is everything. the dirtiest dirt isn’t going to be before the convention, its going to drop in Sept/Oct

      2. The suspicions of the suspicious are suspiciously suspicious.

    5. Is #1 true? If so its going to be a really fucking big deal on the right.

  45. The Daily Beast reported yesterday that the vice chair of the Washington, D.C. Republican Party, Gary Teal, has announced that he’s voting for the Libertarian and therefore resigning his post within the GOP.

    Nothing says “small government” like the local D.C. Republican establishment. Maybe GayJay can get the endorsement of the BATFE Agents union too.

    1. Not sure if Republicans joining the Libertarian ranks is a bad or good thing. They may or could be a good ally but to actually be a part of it?

      Smells like one of those *Massholes* invading New Hampshire/Maine type of thing.

      1. You only have one cled now?

        1. I’d like to call a friend and ask what the fuck Warren is talking aboot?

            1. I just wasted a lifeline.

              50/50 now.

              1. Cool, you’re gonna share your poutine now?

                1. Hate to break it to you but I hate poutine.

                  1. It’s cheese, fries, and gravy! What’s not to like?

                    1. When I have to feed your mother after?

                    2. Jesus, that’s getting old. Give the guy a break, ey?

          1. Is she speak arapaho again?

      2. Not sure if Republicans joining the Libertarian ranks is a bad or good thing

        From the point of view of the doctrinaire libertarians, bad. From the point of view as the LP as a political force? Probably good, though it obviously depends on the Republicans.

        I said this a while back, but most of the country simply isn’t going to get on board with the more hardcore libertarian policy proposals just yet. If the short term future of the LP is to sort of meet the socially moderate, fiscal Republicans halfway, then I don’t think that’s such a bad thing, at least in the short term.

      3. Suppose you wanted to grow a political party. Were would you have new people come from? Also suppose you wanted to diminish another political party. Wouldn’t having people leave it accomplish that?

  46. Court Says There Is No Remedy For Person Whose Vehicle Was Subjected to Civil Forfeiture After Illegal Search

    Even if the state is not statutorily empowered to unlawfully seize contraband, (and it is not), what is the remedy for failure to comply with article 59.03(b)? Herrera argued in his motion to suppress?and argues now?that the remedy is exclusion. Yet what is the source of this exclusionary remedy? As discussed above, it is not the Fourth Amendment.

    The constitutional rule applies only when its deterrence benefits outweigh its heavy social costs, and that is not the case here.

    1. I started teaching my daughter the value of questioning authority figures. Of course, I do so as delicately as I can and generally in front of my wife who is a teacher to make sure whatever I say is age appropriate. My overall aim is to make sure she has a chance at being a free thinker and that holding a healthy skepticism of what the government says is good for her intellect – and sanity.

      Or else it all ends up somehow people blindly turning the gas chambers on.

    2. There is a remedy for an out of control unconstitutional government that no longer represents the people. Our founder talked about it, but I can’t remember. I think maybe we need to drink our Ovaltine?

      1. founders

        1. Flounders…

          1. Best fried.

        2. We knew what you meant. No need to correct a simple typo. It one of the aspects of reasonettes that first drew me to these comment sections.

          Ideas mean more than typing ability.

          Except for a few mendacious assholes, of course.

          1. That’s “Raisinets”.

      2. It’s a rather unpleasant remedy though, and for it to work the people have to be in agreement that there is a Tyrant, and that that Tyrant should be overthrown. Unfortunately, our Tyrant is the people. They have the government they deserve, as a whole, and those of us who don’t deserve it will just have to suck it up.

      3. Uh, get rid of the constitution? Damn thing keeps getting in the way anyway.

  47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_atgCKxL0NA

    I love these girls Diamond and Silk! Give that smug progressive Uygur hell girls! Notice how he tried to race bait them and they bitch slapped him down!

      1. Yeh.

        If his goal was to show them up. He lost. Him and his smart-alec responses.

        1. I forgot his name actually *is* Uygur.

          I thought you were using a derogatory term.

          1. Have I ever been derogatory except in jest?

            You stupid insipid rabid albino gopher.

            1. I may be a gopher, but guess where I’ve been burrowing?

              Hint: Rhymes with “yo llama.”

              1. I hate riddles more than I hate poutine.

        2. Oh dear me. Cenk went there.

          The *reason* the Republican party stopped slavery was because they were the ‘liberal’ party.

          Progressivism rots minds.

        3. No… everyone in that video lost, about equally. The only thing I learned from it is that democracy is, if the best of all bad options, a pretty bad option.

          1. But it’s nice to see the progressive narrative explode in the face of one.

            He squirmed uncertain on how to get back on cue with the narrative.

            I think that’s my point. Obviously, from a political policy perspective it wasn’t gold standard but I don’t think he expected that at all and I thought it was entertaining.

      2. Trump has binders full of ladies.

    1. The guy is saying he’s a legal immigrant, but is laughing about illegals. I need to tell you from experience that there is no person that I have ever met who is more pissed off about illegal immigration than legal immigrants. Think about it. You spend months, maybe years, and thousands of dollars of your own money going through a draconian process, and then the same people who made you do that let people who didn’t have to do it, get in line in front of you.

      1. Of course.

        It’s natural.

        His whole shtick was dumb.

        I don’t build a wall in front of my house! We need a pathway!

        But they answered, all things considered, appropriately each time without sounding silly. Not saying it was deserving of a prize but for once we have a couple of people who did a decent job of why Trump is popular.

        Reason. Take notes!

    2. Watching that smug, condescending prick attempt to juggle 2 ticking time bombs was worth the price of admission..

    3. “I am a legal immigrant,” says the commie Islamist apologist.

      It’s like he wants us to reduce legal immigration as well.

  48. German Authorities = We Have Conclusively Determined That No One Should Jump To Conclusions Except Us

    Or, “Absence of Evidence is Now Conclusive Evidence”

    No Islamist materials found to link Munich shooter to any “Islamist organization”.

    *noted: Had Omar Mateen never called 911 and said, “ISIS FOREVER BABY!! ALLAH AKBAR FTW”, would he have had any “links”?

    Had the San Berdoo shooters never been connected to a random facebook post saying the same… would their travel/internet habits have been ‘conclusive’ in determining motivation?

    The Nice truck-driver had no real background as an “Islamist” until v/ recently.

    In the days before the attack, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel let his beard grow[11] and told people “the meaning of this beard is religious.” French authorities stated that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel showed a passion for religion only recently;[12][13] “Mohamed only started visiting a mosque in April,” a witness stated.

    Point being = There’s a media-driven conceptual paradigm where people who commit mass-killings are supposed to tick off certain boxes in order to qualify for the “Terrorism” category; and if they don’t? then they’re exculpated.

    Its a false “either/or”

    I propose “reality is messy” and that the people who are going to do this shit are by definition going to be very-mixed bags. This isn’t an argument about munich; just saying

    1. Germany has gone full Forrest Gump.

        1. No, that’s Switzerland.

        2. No, but death is a sack of free McDonalds…

          1. No, death is a cold lasagna, suspended in deep freeze.

        3. Naive.

          It’s almost as if they’re over-over-over compensating for what’s his name.

          1. Sigmund Freud?

            1. He was Austrian.

              Stick with the program.

              /snap, snap.

              1. Who? Hitler?

          2. Sobieski?

            No, he wasn’t German.

    2. He might have been mentally ill.

      1. People who go on suicidal killing sprees are by definition severely emotionally unbalanced fuckers of some sort.

        this guy could have been in pre-schizophrenic-break condition. he’s the right age for it.

        I still think mental-illness is pretty rare as the “only” relevant factor.

        1. this guy could have been in pre-schizophrenic-break condition. he’s the right age for it.

          I’ve long believed that was the case with Michael Brown, by virtue of his abrupt recent change in behavior from his past, especially paranoia. No way we’ll ever know for sure.

        2. I consider Seung-Hui Cho (va tech shooter), James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner… clear-cut cases of people who were schizoid and delusional, and really had no other external issues affecting their decisions to go and shoot a bunch of people up. Maybe also the Oregon dude (*haven’t heard anything about him after that?)

          this might sound like i’m contradicting the “rare” argument; but i think these are notable in that there were so few other factors that seemed to influence their decision to start blasting away.

          in europe at least, the difficulty in getting hold of a firearm would seem to me a very high barrier for a genuinely mentally-ill person to cross.

          Its possible that he was in fact batshit, pre-schizo, but that someone “more Islamist than him” convinced him to do some jihading and provided the firearm as well.

        3. “I still think mental-illness is pretty rare as the “only” relevant factor.”

          I was being sarcastic.

          That’s one of the things I keep reading elsewhere online.

          Any explanation but Islam seems to be okay.

          1. If they find a wenpage he visited with the word “Trump” on it they will have the link they need.

    3. You’re quite right- while we might argue over which terrorist attacks are really terrorist attacks, and which are mentally ill people just attacking people for the hell of it, it’s clear that there is a vicious cycle. A few organized ideologically driven attacks lead mentally unstable people who might otherwise have not killed people to attack, even if their sympathies with the original ideology are tenuous.

      People are, largely, followers. If we did not have a lot of attacks like this in the past, it is _because_ we did not have a lot of attacks like this in the past. It just didn’t occur to people to go on an axe rampage.

      In that sense ISIS is likely right in claiming responsibility- they have normalized this sort of violence, and we’ll see more and more of it unless we figure out how to denormalize it again. I have no idea how we’ll do that, though.

      1. Subliminal messaging to make terrorism “uncool.”

  49. I see a business opportunity for a coder who would offer Reasonettes a viable alternative for discourse on the weekends.

    No linkeys no traffic.

    Reason is dropping the ball.

    I get half for the concept, or less, I’m negotiable.

    1. And how would I make money with this business opportunity? Ancient Romans were paid in salt, but I have more than enough of the stuff.

      That said, I will consider your proposition- not as a business opportunity, but because I think some side-games might be fun. Imagine M Hihn jousting with.. well, someone, for the right to silence the other for a week, in a little weekend game. That _would_ be fun.

    2. Be proud. You made a new commentable article appear in HitnRun!

      Now complain that I don’t have a hot chick with me right now.

      1. I’d be much more likely to complain that _I_ don’t have a hot chick with me right now. You can fend for yourself.

    3. I found a theme song for the Reasonettes.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiVt1FIpgEE

      It needs a little work on the lyrics.

      1. I still sing that song whenever I see a box of raisinettes.
        I didn’t realize it was that old (or perhaps realize how old I’m getting).

      2. We already have one

        Their solutions are our problems
        They put up the wall
        On each side time and prime us
        Make sure we get fuck all

        Don’t believe them
        Don’t believe them
        Question everything you’re told

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgG_c21NW0c

        They take away our freedom
        In the name of liberty

        Don’t believe us
        Don’t believe us
        Don’t be bitten twice

      3. Queen’s We Are The Champions. I’m sure Brian May would approve.

  50. Koch brothers “all in” for Hitlery ?

    Probably. You’re gettin’ PLAYED brothers and sisters.

    The best and only reason to support Trump is, in doing so, you identify all the right enemies.

    1. If this is true it will blow Rachel Maddow’s mind (and take away her schtick). She believes the Kochs are the enemy of all that’s good in the world. How could they possibly also support her candidate?

      1. Why not contribute contribute some nominal amount to the dark riders of Mordor?… Not enough to do anything damaging of course, it would certainly be worth it for nothing more than the entertainment dividends it would return in the way of LULZ, head explosions, and confusion in the enemy camp. In addition deflating one of their most popular diversionary hot air balloons. I think the Bush family should do something similar. Not because there is very much in the way of philosophical common ground between them and the Koch camps, but because I am just dying to see how all those partisan hacks and perpetually shrill squirrel chasers,(such as Ms. Maddow), will get through even an hour of live TV when there is no more opportunity for their principal fallback positions and dead air-time fillers, such as -..”Kochs!!!”…and “bu..bu.. but Bush did it too!!!” If everyone is forced to start focusing on things like basic principles and the like we may just enter into a new age of reason,.. you know, just like that one they had in France.

  51. Who gives a flying fart what Glenn Beck thinks on any topic?

  52. King Cuck decides to vote for Milquetoast Johnson huh…shocking

  53. Hello Everyone.

    I am Louisa Brown living in Singapore,i lost my husband 2yrs ago and everything got so hard for me and my 3kids,i felt so confuse because i have no helper and our home is about to face foreclosure and a friend introduce me to a kind lender in South Africa online and to God be the glory he approved a loan of SGD40,000 to me and now and i am doing business and my family is happy again,if you need a loan please contact him today via fidelityloanfinance@financier.com and get your loan with a good and flexible repayment in monthly basis,i wish you the best of luck.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.