2016 Democratic Convention

5 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is Unacceptable To Libertarians (and all Centrist Americans)

From clamping down on free speech to interventionist foreign policy to growing government, the Democratic nominee is way out of step.

|

Gage Skidmore / Flickr

If the Republican National Convention was more of a wake than a nominating event, what then to make of the Democratic National Convention, which unfolds this week in Philadelphia?

The DNC will be an extended explanation of why Hillary Clinton, like her major-party counterpart Donald Trump, is unacceptable not simply to libertarians but to that plurality of Americans who define themselves as independent, centrist, moderate, or anything other than a dyed-in-the-wool partisan.

Trump made clear his authoritarianism in his acceptance speech in Cleveland, declaring he will be "our voice" and that he will singlehandedly renegotiate trade treaties and defense pacts and make America smell great again through endless "winning." The one upside in the speeches made on the last night of the RNC was the belated inclusion of gays and lesbians as part of GOP America, with the nominee himself, his daughter Ivanka, and billionaire Peter Thiel openly declaring that the full spectrum of sexual orientation and identity was welcome. 

Trump, however, is hardly the only authoritarian in the presidential race. While different in flavor and expression, Hillary Clinton's vision of America similarly proceeds from a belief in her righteousness and untrammeled power and is similarly unbounded by constitutional limitations or pragmatic reality. Across issues such as free speech to foreign policy to economic regulation, Clinton is ready and willing to arrogate to her administration all sorts of power. In a country where 60 percent of us already believe the federal government has too much power, Clinton's approach is misguided, to say the least, and it helps explain her 56 percent unfavorability rating.

Here are some of the areas in which she is pushing for more control over aspects of all of our lives:

  • Federal Spending. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman used to say that goverment spending is the ultimate measure of the size of government. That's because current or future taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for spending, whether it is paid for by borrowing or inflating the currency. The federal government is currently spending the equivalent of 22 percent of GDP, a figure that is well above the historical average of 20 percent between 1966 and 2015. Clinton's spending plan, as scored by the Committee on a Responsible Federal Budget, would jack that up to 22.7 percent. As important, Clinton's tax plan would raise revenues from 18 percent to 18.6 percent, meaning she wouldn't come close to stabilizing the national debt even as she increases taxes. Nowhere does she credibly pay for promised expansions in Social Security and free college tuition for students attending public colleges. First under George W. Bush and then under Barack Obama, the United States has been on a massive spending spree that has failed to grow the economy or expand opportunities. Clinton's response to this is to throw spending into sixth gear and hope for the best. It's not just libertarians who think that the government is too big and trying to do too many things. Gallup finds that 55 percent agree with the statement that "government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses."
  • Foreign Policy and State Surveillance. As a senator from New York, Clinton voted to authorize war not just in Afghanistan but in Iraq, too, despite a less-than-compelling case for invading the latter country. She also supported extended occupations that have failed to accomplish anything other the near-complete destabilization of the entire Middle East and Central Asian regions. Incredibly, she still talks about the U.S. intervention in Libya—which she argued for forcefully as Secretary of State—as an example of "smart power." As historian Thaddeus Russell notes, Clinton is an unreconstructed Wilsonian interventionist who believes that the United States not only can make the world safe for democracy but has a moral duty to intervene. She is thus ideologically committed to interventionism regardless of consequences. Add to that her near-complete failure while serving as the nation's top diplomat (including a ludicrously botched "reset" with Russia) and her calls for increasing all manner of surveillance in the service of the global war on terror and you're looking at a huge increase in state power with little sense of balance or responsibility.
  • Free Speech. If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, calling for censorship is a close runner-up. As Matt Welch catalogued exhaustively in the March cover story of Reason, Clinton has long proposed all sorts of limits on free and unfettered speech. From attacking violent video games and TV shows in the 1990s to castigating the Citizen's United decision, Clinton always comes down on the idea that free speech is a problem. Just last December, after the San Bernadino shooting, she had this to say:

    "You're going to hear all of the usual complaints—you know, 'freedom of speech,' etc.," she said. "But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we've got to shut off their means of communicating." This was no heat-of-the-moment hyperbole. Earlier that same day, the former secretary of state was even more explicit about what she would demand from American technology companies: "We're going to need help from Facebook and from YouTube and from Twitter," she declared on ABC's This Week, announcing a strategy of fighting terrorists "in the air," "on the ground," and "on the Internet." "They cannot permit the recruitment and the actual direction of attacks or the celebration of violence. They're going to have to help us take down these announcements and these appeals."

    Trust in government is at historic lows, a trend that has been helped along by Clinton's own dissembling in various scandals, ranging from her falsely blaming the Benghazi attacks on a YouTube video to her false statements about her private email server. Every bit as much as Donald Trump, who also said he would shut down parts of the Internet in almost the same language as Clinton, the Democratic nominee sees controlling discourse as one of the perks of being president.

  • Social Issues, Immigration, Gun Rights. There's no question that the Democratic Party, at least until very recently, has been far more friendly to gay rights than the Republicans. Clinton however supported the odious Defense of Marriage Act signed by her husband in the late 1990s, which was an attempt to forestall recognition of gay marriage. In fact, she only embraced marriage equality in 2013, in a conversion that is widely seen as political. Similarly, she is generally terrible on pot, calling for a rescheduling of marijuana but still predisposed against legalization. In 2011, she explained to a Mexican audience that she's against legalizing illicit drugs "because there's just too much money in it," betraying an utter lack of understanding of black-market economics and the havoc wreaked by prohibition. She campaigned for Senate as an immigration restrictionist and voted like one, causing pro-immigration progressives to conclude she "was missing in action in providing leadership on immigration, and was in fact counterproductive and offensive." Like most Americans, she supports abortion rights but is no fan of the Second Amendment. Apart from supporting a demonstrably ineffective assault-weapons ban, she has vowed to limit gun ownership regardless of Congress, tweeting last fall, "If Congress refuses to act to end this epidemic of gun violence, I'll take administrative action to do so." In short, Clinton is not particularly libertarian when it comes to social issues and is disinclined to limit her power to act regardless of Congress.
  • Regulations, Trade, and the Sharing Economy. When it comes economic policy, Clinton is less bad than Bernie Sanders but it's a matter of degree, not kind: She favors raising the federal minimum wage to $12 compared to his $15. Across the board, she favors an activist role for Washington in regulating all aspects of the economy and voted for TARP bailouts without hesitation. Her opposition to world-enriching free trade deals (including NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership) puts her at odds not just with a majority of Americans but 60 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, who see trade deals as beneficial (among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, just 40 percent think trade agreements are a good thing). Given her wariness to free markets, it's not surprising that Clinton is a critic of companies such as Uber and Airbnb, claiming that such companies are exploiting people by classifying "employees" as contractors. She has said she will "crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages," thus strangling one of the bright spots of the economy in the interest of preserving entrenched interests.

The acid test of whether Hillary Clinton deserves to be president is this: Ask her supporters to make a case for her that doesn't reference just how godawful Donald Trump is. I fully expect her to become the next president of the United States, but that doesn't mean she deserves to win. Like Trump, she is a backward-looking baby boomer with little grasp of the present, much less the future. In a world that is rapidly decentralizing power and knowledge, she remains locked into a 20th-century mind-set built on "binary choices" that is simply incapable of effectively governing. The result of a Clinton presidency will be a continued ruinous foreign policy, a smothering of economic growth, and restrictions on the personal freedoms that we take for granted.

Related: "Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut"

NEXT: Gary Johnson Endorsed by Two More GOP State Reps

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

  1. The acid test of whether Hillary Clinton deserves to be president is this: Ask her supporters to make a case for her that doesn’t reference just how godawful Donald Trump is.

    “Oh, I’ll make *two* cases without citing Trump: She’s a woman, and it’s her turn.”

    1. Vote for Hillary. Because vagina.

      1. When will the calls come for her to cough up produce the long form proving this?

        1. until I looked at the bank draft ov $9106 , I have faith that my neighbour was like they say trully bringing home money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than 10 months and recently cleared the debts on their appartment and bought a great new Lancia . Learn More Clik This Link inYour Browser.

          ???????? http://bit.ly/2abXTUQ

      2. As opposed to… God’s Own abortion Prohibitionists?

      3. you made my day xDD

      4. She had a vagina on 9/11. On Wall Street.

    2. Which, bluntly translated, mean “She’s a vicious twunt and she has the Democrat establishment by the balls.”

      Not much of a recommendation.

    3. I’ve presented this question to the Democrats on my timeline – “Why Hillary, without mentioning Trump?”

      The one response I’ve seen over and over again? “Because of the Supreme Court.”

      You can’t even make them understand that that is STILL a negative-Trump argument.

      1. Hooray for the nullification of the first and second amendments! Hillary 4eva!!

    4. I was watching ‘Election’ on TV and considered that Reese Witherspoon’s shrill, sociopathic, overly ambitious bitch student character was like a photo-Hillary. Feeling ruthlessly entitled to be student body president.

  2. If the Republican National Convention was more of a wake than a nominating event, what then to make of the Democratic National Convention, which unfolds this week in Philadelphia?

    Oh boy. Oh boy oh boy oh boy. What with the WikiLeaks email dump and assorted tomfoolery going on in the Party right now, I’d say it’s gonna be one heck of a clown show.

    1. Short version: We are so screwed.

  3. But what about the cocktail parteez?

    1. They still have six negative mentions of Trump in this article – some entire paragraphs are entirely Trump-centric. Nick’s covered. There’s far more that could be added to this list. To include that she should really be in jail.

      To be clear, Comey’s explanation for not prosecuting made no sense. I’d love to see Reason do some digging and exposing of his bullshit lies there mixed in with all the Trump hyperbole.

      Ex: Comey claims that it would be unfair to prosecute Hillary under criminal negligence statutes related to mishandling classified material because it was used only once prior in a case of actual espionage.

      Counter: The Espionage Act has only been used roughly 12 times in its history (maybe I missed one or two). Of those, 8 came under Obama. Under Bush in 2006, they charged a low level NSA employee under one of the various negligence parts of the statutes added in 1948. The prosecutor specifically said they had no idea what his intent was. At the time, Comey was #2 in the Dept of Justice.

      Obama admin and Bush admins set new standards for prosecuting. They did it routinely.

      1. They still have six negative mentions of Trump in this article – some entire paragraphs are entirely Trump-centric. Nick’s covered. There’s far more that could be added to this list. To include that she should really be in jail.

        You guys always seem to find something to bitch about.

      2. I’m waiting for Chapman to write the counterpoint for this article: ‘The Libertarian Case for Hillary Clinton’. It should have at least fifteen mentions of how horrible Trump is.

  4. Half the commentariat exhaled in relief at the headline.

    1. +1 The Libertarian Case for Clinton

      1. It doesn’t matter how awful Hillary is, because Trump is literally Hitler.
        Literally. Hitler.

        1. You jest; but many prog commenters are *** rising intonation *** this close to explicitly saying just that.

          1. They thought Bush II was literally Hitler too.

            1. Any Republican presidential nominee is literally Hitler. This is known.

              1. Actually, when he was the nominee the first time, they just thought he was an idiot. After the extreme patriotism post-911 settled down, then he became Hitler.

            2. What was the pantshitting term before Hitler was born?

                1. “Xerxes?”

                  How was Xerxes tyrannical?? Because he wanted to conquer a military-state all-consumed by a military industrial complex and had regular slave-killings as a right of passage, and his no slavery policy was a threat to that military-state’s economy, which due to every free-born man being conscripted to the military was absolutely necessary for the continued function of that military-state??

                  1. Xerxes did a lot more than try to conquer Sparta.

                2. You know who else was literally Xerxes?

              1. The Tsar?

              2. Genghis Kahn.

                “Kaaaaahhhnn!”

        2. Anyone can visit nobeliefs.com and peruse every religious homily contained in Mein Kampf and the NSDAP platform. God’s Own Prohibitionist platform more closely resembles National Socialist ideology than anything else on this earth.

        3. It’s possible, Neither Trump nor Hitler wear hats. Also, has anyone checked to see if Trump carries children’s teeth and gold with him?

  5. The result of a Clinton presidency will be a continued ruinous foreign policy, a smothering of economic growth, and restrictions on the personal freedoms that we take for granted.

    These; and a never-ending exposure to her fake smiles, sanctimonious and cavalier attitudes, grating voice and cackling, and increasingly “stylish” pantsuits.

    1. Don’t forget the awesome SCOTUS appointments, which will overturn the first and second Amendments, and enshrine leftist fucktardery into law for generations.

      1. On the bright side, though, there’ll be more Bubba shenanigans!

        1. Yeah, that will be entertaining. And probably set back the gains feminists have made many years as they defend him.

        2. I see a lot more French Revolution style shenanigans going on. I’m sure Hillary will have some good cake suggestions for all of us.

      2. Observe the way the Christian National Socialism relies on prophecy of Doom, just like the People’s Democratic Socialism they pretend to abjure.

    2. Don’t blame me… I voted libertarian.

  6. Waiting for the complaints that there were unfair shots at trump in this article.

    1. You won’t wait long.

      1. Looks like about 2 mins.

    2. You read the articles?

    3. Yeah, all last week during the RNC, while Reason was lambasting Trump, the commentariat here was all “Yeah, but Hillary…”. Or outright accusing this space of being Pro-Hillary because they were pointing out how much Trump blows. You CAN detail all the ways he is terrible without being in her corner. I think that’s something the general population is missing too. If I get into a discussion with a Trump supporter and I point out how much he sucks, the response is ALWAYS “Oh, so you want Hillary.” Negatory.

      This week during the DNC I expect Reason to do a full number on HRC, and dispel any notion from the peanut gallery here that they are Pro-Hillary.

      1. It will be much more back handed against Trump at the same time. Like this article.

  7. She opposed free trade deals? Did I miss that?

    1. Yes. She has turned on them, calling NAFTA a mistake and saying she isn’t sure about the TPP. Meanwhile, her VP pick was only a few days ago advocating for its passage. As soon as he joined the ticket officially, Kane let it be known that he had changed his mind and decided against the trade deal.

      1. Isn’t Hillary on record proclaiming the TPP as the “gold standard” in free trade agreements?

        1. That was all the way back in 2012. Now she is against it.

          Sort of like how she once voted for a border fence, but now recognizes how racist and bigoted is. Or any of the million other positions she has ‘evolved’ on.

          1. Voted for a border fence? Oh, me needs to google that…

            1. Yeah, it’s a detail people often forget.

              Fact is, we already have a fence (complete with barbed wire) in most places along the Mexico/US border, including all the places people used to cross. There was a whole bunch of eminent domain abuses/uses to build it too. The reason it didn’t go all the way is that in some areas it’s really impractical and pointless to build one (well, more pointless).

              The “wall” rhetoric is that a mere fence isn’t good enough, not that we don’t have a barrier in most places.

          2. It’s very easy for a clinical psychopath to ‘evolve’ on any issue, based on the convenience of the aforementioned evolution.

  8. So in Germany the communists were clamoring for more economic coercion and the christianofascists for more religious laws, and the Fuehrer said “you’re both right,” we’ll join religious laws and parasitical looting into one ordered State.
    In America the lay looters are whining for less religious censorship and police brutality and christianofascists for lower taxes and deregulation, so Gary says “you’re both right,” we’ll join economic freedom and individual rights into 50 Free States and Puerto Rico. Is that were Nick is going with this?

    1. So Gary Johnson is Hitler?

      1. In Hank’s diseased, unmedicated mind, yes. Let’s just hope he finally gets some help.

  9. Flipping when it’s politically convenient doesn’t mean she opposed them. I’m going to have to do some looking around, but that’s not the way I remember it at all.

  10. Finally, the libertarian case for Hillary is here.

    How come you never write anything negative about Clinton, huh? Bunch of crypto-progressive butt-chuggers.

    1. We all know Nick is a liar. He’s going to vote for Clinton as many times as he can get away with it.

      1. Nick’s from Chicago?

      2. “Vote early, vote often!”

  11. Hillary is unacceptable first and foremost because she does belong in jail. Americans who did far less than her are in jail under the bullshit national security laws for leaking shit to the press. The Obama admin already used a law created to stop Espionage to go after leakers. They inherently set a new standard for prosecution. Others were charged without intent (one specific case in 2006 involved the negligence statutes Comey says would ‘unfair’ to use on Clinton – a NSA employee received 6 years in prison though the prosecutors admit they have had no idea what his intent was/no evidence he was acting maliciously).

    Add on the deletion of 30k emails, the Foundation…it’s a god damn disgrace.

  12. Nick,you forgot her stance on fossil fuels and so called ‘green energy’. She wants to clamp down on gas ,coal and oil and shovel more money to solar. She has stated her goal is to have the country using only ‘renewable’ energy in the future. She would most likely join in the legal attacks on the oil industry.

    1. Norway ran a teevee series like that–Okkupert. They elect a Green Altruist and shut down oilfields. So Russia takes over Norway and opens them back up as Occupied Territory.

  13. Like most Americans, she supports abortion rights but is no fan of the Second Amendment

    This could have been worded better. Most Americans are fans of the 2nd.

    1. “She supports abortion rights, like most Americans, but is no fan of the second amendment”

      Works much better.

      1. “abortions for some, small semi-automatics for others!”

    2. Depends. Are “universal background checks” something a “fan of the 2nd” can support? There’s plenty of “fans of the 2nd” that would say no, but it’s a policy/idea that has majority support of the populace.

      And down the line, you see similar things. Lots of policys/laws/ideas that enjoy broad public support are characterized as attacks on the 2nd amendment. So yeah, depending on your own viewpoints, most Americans might not be “fans of the 2nd”.

      1. A majority supports civilian firearm ownership. I’m pretty sure a majority doesn’t hold with the absolutist reading of the second that most libertarians favor.

  14. They keep telling me, “It’s about the Supreme Court nominations!” Which is about Trump, of course, but doesn’t specifically mention him.

    1. That really is the most significant thing. And it sucks. Likely Democrat nominees would be bad in many more ways, but the sorts of people Republicans nominate are also usually pretty terrible in at least one or two things. Every time I start to think that someone like Thomas or Scalia gets it, they come out with something absolutely awful.

    2. Neither looter party will run the risk of calling a convention liable to overturn the 16th Amendment. But anyone eager to back a contrary opinion with a friendly wager can search for Libertariantranslator and we’ll chaffer about specifics.

  15. Seems like the main argument I hear from “centrists” is that she is the “Devil we know”. Seems like here might be circumstances where the DYK is preferable but IMHO, this is not one of those. I know her all right and she is horrible. She’s only slightly better on economics than Jill Stein.

    1. Yes but Jill Stein’s econazi party is better on economics than that of Herbert Hoover, George Holy War Bush and George Waffen Bush. Using asset forfeiture and tax laws to enforce mohammedan-style prohibitionist Sharia law causes economic collapse as reliably as any mathematical function. Of the two mystical fanaticisms, the ISIS/GOP version is the more dangerous.

      1. No, it isn’t. Asset forfeiture, while heinous, is NOT applied on a wide scale. Hillary’s Marxist agenda will be. If you could get over your deranged, anti-religion obsession for even a moment, you would understand that.

        Seriously, get some fucking help.

    2. I knew the devil,and let me tell you,Hillary is no devil. But,as I have said,she bleeds black goo when wounded.

  16. OK, let me be brutally frank; we have a choice between Trump and Frump, and I’m voting Trump. Shrillary is stupid, arrogant, fully dialed in to a Progressive vision of the world that has only tangental connection to reality, and likely to get a great deal of her program passed by whatever Congress gets elected, at least until the Republican Party grows some testicles. If she has the slightest understanding of foreign policy, even after having been Secretary of State, I see no evidence of it. What she knows about the effective use of military force could be inscribed on the head of a pin. With a jackhammer.

    Trump is a loudmouth. He has contempt for the press and the political establishment. His platform is a collection of emotive positions that won’t work in practice, but that hardly matters because if elected he will have NO allies in Congress and will get even less done than Jimmy Carter did.

    Having watched Jimmy “Even My Own Party Didn’t Respect My Administration” Carter flail around for four years, I will never vote for a third party candidate that cannot boast at least a handful of allies in Congress. But then, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a Crank.

    1. Observe this: the evasion of the simple a fact that spoiler votes are what change national laws and policies is the mark of the entrenched kleptocracy of Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, FD Roosevelt, George Bush, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. The GOP, DEM, NSDAP and CPUSA are united in their belief that altruism armed with the initiation of deadly force is good, proper, morally right.
      No such loser will ever vote for anything resembling political freedom.

      1. I will not vote for Shrillary Clinton in order to influence policy at a later date. I would have voted for a third party if the Democrat choice was less toxic, even by a hair. Bernie would have had me voting third party, because his administration would have been less of a disaster than Shrillary’s.

        Shrillary is simply the worst Democrat candidate with a real chance of getting elected since that pious fraud, Woodrow Wilson.

  17. Five?!
    Was there a reason to stop at such a low number?

  18. Listening to you! Do tell us Nick the definition of centrist and moderate Americans? They’re like you? Unfettered access to all weapons? Carried anywhere? Denial of science on climate change? You’re the centrist?

    Thanks for the laugh.

    1. I’m guessing he’s defining it generally as “all non-statist fucks.”

      Therefore, not you.

      1. Most non-partisans are still “statists” by the popular libertarian definition, they’re just “statists” on different topics. So if you’re defining “centrists” as “non-statist”, then you’re basically saying that libertarians/Libertarians are centrists and no one else is.

      2. He might mean “people with at least a rudimentary grasp of economics and at least a minimal respect for the concept of human liberty”, which, again, would exclude most statists, socialists, and the lion’s share of Progressives.

        1. “He might mean “people with at least a rudimentary grasp of economics and at least a minimal respect for the concept of human liberty” […]”
          I’m pretty sure that excludes most people.

    2. The people who claim they believe in Climate Change forfeited any claim to having Science on their side with the assertion that “The Science is settled”. Science is NEVER settled.

      That said, the floggers of Man Made Climate Change have been caught cooking the numbers so often and so flagrantly that they re no longer entitled to a serious hearing. There may indeed be a major climate change taking place, and man may be responsible. But by lying so blatantly and so often, those who would have us believe it have undermined their own position.

    3. As distasteful as it is to agree with Jackoff, libertarians AREN’T centrist (or shouldn’t be), they encompass the individual left and the individual right – consistently telling the government to butt the hell out (albeit with a “dead rat” statist position here or there). Otherwise there’s the Statist Right, the Statist Left, and the “Centrists” or those who “vote on the issues” and pick the one who uses the most Force First. To my mind, centrists are anti-libertarians. They’re the ones who toggle back and forth between the parties, the swing-voters, who toss their vote for whomever promises to make the Scary Things go away the best. What springs to mind is the average soccer mom who will vote for more Police Force on the one hand, and damaging enviro-fascism on the other. Two seemingly disparate issues seen as being along party lines, but they’re “centrists” so they vote for the Big Hammer in either case.

      It’s a bit telling that the term centrist is used in the fashion it is. I get the sense that the brain trust behind reason is collecting a chest full of “dead rats” as the days go by. My motivation to come here getting less and less.

      1. Utter nonsense. Being a moderate/centrist is no more “anti-libertarian” than it is “anti-statist”. Of course, many will vote in “statist” ways, but many will not. And for the record, there is absolutely nothing anti-libertarian about wanting a strong police force; a government (even a libertarian one) is defined as an entity that has a monopoly on force. If you don’t want the government to have the power to protect your life and property you are an anarchist, not a libertarian. Likewise, I’m not sure what you mean by “envrio-facism,” but if you are referring to regulations that minimize negative externalities, there is nothing *intrinsically* anti-libertarian about those, either (though particular implementations may be wanting). The “environment” is a common good, and letting individual entities profit off of it “for free” is no less distorting than corporate welfare.

    4. “…Thanks for the laugh.”

      Just returning the favor.

    5. While I am no longer a libertarian, I can respect those that truly are. I have no time, however, for climate change deniers, as there is nothing libertarian about willful ignorance. People that can’t see a Tragedy of the Commons when it is staring them in the face have no business opining about economic issues.

  19. It doesn’t matter what her political positions are, because Hillary Clinton is utterly corrupt and dishonest. Her program could be perfectly libertarian and she still wouldn’t be a reasonable choice because once in power, she’d do whatever serves her interests.

  20. Clinton always comes down on the idea that free speech is a problem.

    No, not a problem. The problem.

    1. You spelled ‘program’ wrong.

      1. You spelled ‘pogrom’ wrong.

    2. I’ll agree with you, if you include hot lead as a subset of “free speech.”

      The way she keeps poking us, during an election, either she’s one of the gun prohibitionists that Truly Believes in the “small and shrinking minority” or the “90% of Americans want gun control” theories, or she really really really wants to disarm opponents.

  21. The upside of a HIllary win is that it could sink the proggie/dem party for decades. The downside is that it won’t, as they continue to play the race/gender/class card with the promise of ever more free shit.

  22. Hillary: she’s a twisted, evil, self-serving woman who will say and do anything to gain more power and wealth.

    Yeh…let’s vote for her! Woo Hoo!

  23. Unacceptable, except to Gary Johnson.

  24. Clinton is “unacceptable” to libertarians/Libertarians because she’s a Democrat.

    As to whether she’s “acceptable” to “centrist” Americans? So far, signs point to “acceptable”. Unless you’re trying to argue that Democrat partisans are really that big a swath?

    To be clear, I’m not interested in debating the individual points, I’m skeptical of the premise that Clinton is “unacceptable” to Centrists.

    1. I’m skeptical of the premise that Clinton is “unacceptable” to Centrists.

      Oh, I think she’s definitely unacceptable to centrists. But so is Trump.

      This election has bypassed the “vote for the candidate you least object to” all the way to “vote for the candidate you’re least afraid of.”

      This is late July before a November election. Usually by this time every other car is sporting a party bumper sticker. I don’t know about where you live, but around here the whole yard sign/sticker/campaign button thing is just not happening.

  25. 5 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is Unacceptable To Libertarians (and all Centrist Americans)

    A couple more is that she’s a lying, crooked, sociopath with a split personality and is married to a sleazy sexual predator who will share power with her.

  26. OK: “If Hillary isn’t elected, there will be no check at all on the hard-right Christian-Taliban extremist conservative Republicans in Congress who will confirm six clones of Roger Taney to the Supreme Court, resulting in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments being struck down as unconstitutional, and who will pass laws requiring the stoning of gays, who will bring back the ‘marriage exception’ to rape laws so that any married man can legally rape as many woment as he likes, and who will approve of selling black children in chains at gun shows for use as large-caliber, high-capacity, assault-pistol targets. And global warming.”

    1. You forgot being Pro-Breast Cancer. Tits the lumpier the better…

    2. Sounds awesome! Count me in!

  27. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Hillary is the scarier candidate because she’s “wrong within normal parameters.” Trump’s not getting Mexico to build a wall, or entering a trade war with China, or instituting a Test Act for Muslims. He doesn’t have the support in Congress, nor could he rely on enough public support to just hammer things through as executive orders. Hillary, on the other hand, has actually done bad shit while in government, shows no remorse or regret, and repeatedly indicates that she will do it again. And Congress hasn’t stopped her, nor has any public backlash.

    1. Really? Most of the public supports a border wall. Especially if he strong arms Mexico into paying for it. I doubt he will enter a trade war with China, but he will likely coerce them into backing off some of their more aggressive trade practices.

      As far as the Muslims go, I’m guessing we’re one or two more Islamic attacks away from the public being just fine with choking off Islamic immigration (if not already). Given what a fucking pussy Obama has been, I would say that will happen by inauguration day. The only people to have a hard time with it are faggot cookies and the faggot cookie media. Trump gives no shits about any of them.

      1. What in the world is a “faggot cookie”?

  28. If Clinton would promise to go back to Clinton era spending (Bill spent 2 trillion per year, half what the federales spend now), I might even vote for her.

    1. Yeah, I’m sure she will honor such a promise.

  29. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts..it’s realy thesimplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making overhourly.

    Here Going You Are…… http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

  30. In a world that is rapidly decentralizing power and knowledge

    Citation needed.

    1. What we really need is a Bureau of Sabotage. Then it might work like Nick thinks.

  31. RE: 5 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is Unacceptable To Libertarians (and all Centrist Americans)
    From clamping down on free speech to interventionist foreign policy to growing government, the Democratic nominee is way out of step.

    On the contrary, these are five good reasons why we should put this socialist slaver in office if we are going to continue down the path of socialist enlightenment and obtain a workers paradise here in this country.
    But if not, at least we have fascist like Trump the Grump to lead us down the path of true fascism.
    We all are living in a wonderful age.

    1. It would hasten the violent revolution her rule will bring.

  32. 1. she is evil
    2. she is disgusting
    3. she is obnoxious to listen to
    4. she should be in jail(like the rest of them)
    5. she is the worst human of all bad humans.

    Everyone that reads this site knows why she is deplorable to libertarians.

    1. I disagree with your premise that Hillary Clinton is human. Can you back that up with some form of evidence?

  33. You’ve got to warn us before you post frightening pictures like that!

  34. I’ll make a case for Clinton without mentioning Trump when someone can make an argument for chemotherapy without mentioning cancer. One of the two *will* be the next President of the United States, so it is positively absurd to weigh the merits of one without considering the alternative. One of the candidates has the temperament and mental stability required for the job, whereas the other does not.

    And by all means, vote for whomever you want, but an ideological purist such as yourself should not be speaking as to what “moderates” can or cannot accept.

    1. So your premise is that Hillary is unqualified because of her temperament and mental stability issues? I agree. Her undisclosed health issues are also a problem.

  35. The fact that she is a “congenital liar” is not a disqualifier?
    Nick, Nick, Nick.

  36. She will usher in more corruption. That is all I am concerned with as to another Clinton Presidency. They have demonstrated this in the last Clinton Presidency, Hillary has demonstrated it within her Foundation recently.
    The model of corruption tools has developed into the “Globilization (Started after WWII) to where the U.S. cannot enforce its own laws on the powerful elites within its country.
    They have moved, with cooperating countries, the vehicles that contain the wealth into corporate structures outside the U.S…Case in point, the Clinton Foundation in Canada.
    As each Cabinet level authority becomes an arm of the administration, there exists no desire within the Cabinet heads to stop ANY.. corruption. The IRS will not demand of Canada, records within the Canadian Bank, transfer records of the Clinton Foundation.
    It has come to, with “globalization, where it would be required to have a International Court… to understand an Americans corruption.
    Another example is the Panama Papers… only found by mistake..
    Or the situation in Banking- Swiss, where 55,000 Americans were found to have avoided taxation and only 5000 were ‘sacrificed and the others simply 2 years to move boxcars of cash down the street to a non- interchange registered Bank.
    What used to be the realm of drug runners and illegal weapons dealers is now the mode and methods of corrupt officials..
    and Hillary and Bill are defined as such.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.