2016 Democratic Convention

Black Men for Bernie Rally: 'I Like Gary Johnson, All My Friends Like Gary Johnson'

Plus: a pro-Hillary protester exposed as conservative activist James O'Keefe

|

Protesters
Robby Soave / Reason

Occupy DNC Convention and Black Men for Bernie hosted a rally at a park near Philadelphia's City Hall on Wednesday, where the mood was peaceful, pleasant, but very much opposed to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

"We were all a little heartbroken yesterday," Claudia Stauber, a Sanders delegate, told a crowd of more than 100 people. "But today is totally a new day."

If attendees were disheartened by Sanders's failure to capture the Democratic Party presidential nomination yesterday—Hillary Clinton secured the nomination as expected—they barely showed it.

"I can't shake the feeling that we're going to win," said Stauber. "I don' know how, or with whom in the front, but I really have this tangible feeling that we are going to win this election. The force is truly with us."

Some attendees wanted to continue supporting Sanders as a write-in candidate. Others were ready to jump on board the Jill Stein train. Still others had positive things to say about Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson.

"Gary Johnson is my second choice, and he's my back up," Keith West, a rally attendee, told Reason. He planned to work for the Stein campaign but praised Johnson's platform. "I like Johnson, all of my friends like Johnson."

A friend of West (the two are pictured above), also had nice things to say about Johnson, though she was wary of his economic and environmental positions. But Clinton was totally unacceptable to both of them.

"I don't like that she doesn't have a racial justice platform, how she's responsible for the mass incarceration of African Americans," said West. "If you look at Hillary Clinton, she's been taking advantage of black people for a very long time."

At least two members of the crowd—a young man and young woman–appeared to be Clinton supporters: they were decked out in Clinton swag. They engaged several activists and urged them to get behind Clinton. The conversations became tense—a black rally attendee told the young woman that both Clinton and President Obama had betrayed their commitments to the black community. Other pro-Sanders people offered free hugs to defuse the situation. (This correspondent did not solicit hugs, but received two of them, anyway.)

The young man in the "I'm with Her" T-shirt was interviewed by another reporter, and claimed he had been threatened by a pro-Bernie activist for daring to support Clinton. That activist overheard him, and vehemently denied the charge. The young man identified himself to the reporter as James O'Keefe, at which point I immediately recognized him as conservative activist James O'Keefe—the guy who makes undercover sting videos. He told me he is often mistaken for that James O'Keefe, but, no, it's him.

Later, some religious anti-gay protesters appeared on site. Police quickly surrounded them to prevent the rally attendees from becoming violent, although I didn't see anything that looked particularly worrisome. One officer suggested to the protesters—very carefully and diplomatically—that he might have to arrest them for disorderly conduct on grounds that they were inciting violence. (Might, mind you.) The protesters countered that they had every right to be there and had no intention to incite anyone. They eventually agreed to protest for another 45 minutes and then leave willingly. The officer accepted this arrangement.

NEXT: From Ticketing President Grant to "Do you have it up your ass?": A short history of the traffic stop

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. This correspondent did not solicit hugs, but received two of them, anyway.

    Were they dudes? Because that’s totally gay.

    1. What kind of a monster could cuddle Robby and doesn’t? Look at him, so huggable!

      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. my roomate’s ex-wife makes $64 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for six months but last month her payment was $17848 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to the website >>>>>>>. Wisejs.com

    2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once
      I tried it out. This is what I do… GO THIS WEBSTE… http://www.trends88.com

    3. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $16000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… Read More This Website… http://www.Trends88.com

  2. He told me he is often mistaken for that James O’Keefe, but, no, it’s him.

    Well, I think its nice that people sometimes experience a change of heart.

    1. Speaking of homoeroticism, my God that kid has a face for radio. He actually doesn’t look so bad here, at least from this angle; if the photo is actually true to looks I don’t blame Robbie for not recognizing him until he said his name.

    2. Maybe he just doesn’t always identify as that James O’Keefe. You ever think of that before othering him, Robbie?

  3. I heard that the food at this shindig is so bad, they don’t even offer fruit sushi.

    1. I heard the arugula is not even locally-sourced. Sad!

    2. Milo Yiannopoulos was visibly upse…oh wait that’s Robby.

      1. Milo Yiannopoulos…fruit…you just made a homo joke, didn’t you?

        1. My gay jokes are never that subtle.

      2. You know I never noticed that; they do look kind of alike! Except Milo isn’t blond of course.

        1. Milo recently went platinum blond. But he doesn’t have Robby’s luxurious flowing locks.

    3. But they have sushi burritos.

      Which sounds even worse than fruit sushi.

      1. Isn’t that just a sushi roll?

        1. Yeah, if you wrap your raw fish in a tortilla.

          1. I don’t NOT have to put up with sexual advances from you!

  4. Is that a “Bernie” shirt modeled after Slayer?

    No one needs more than one sub-genre of metal.

    1. HERESY. If you can’t dissect it into increasingly tiny sub-genres with dubious distinctions between them, it’s not metal.

      Also, I have it on good authority Slayer destroys hippy infestations…so not sure why they thought that would mix with Bern Victims.

  5. James O’Keefe ’16

    1. Seriously, since we are now living in the age of Reality TV and Cult of Personality, where ideas and issues and principles and policies don’t matter, only outrageous theatrical stunts, why not recruit James O’Keefe to the Libertarian dark side?

      1. Because pro-life people are icky.

  6. “‘We were all a little heartbroken yesterday,’ Claudia Stauber, a Sanders delegate, told a crowd of more than 100 people. ‘But today is totally a new day.'”

    Cut the crap, lady. You’re a toady slave and sycophant, and the corrupt, economically-illiterate, narcissistic oligarch stuck it up your moronic candidate’s ass, and said, “Play nice and I’ll give you some crumbs; otherwise, in four months nobody will know your fucking name.” And with Hillary’s well-documented, foul mouth, you can put odds that she said it just like that.
    Thus, your clueless Bernie groveled, after playing the tough, progressive guy and he got swallowed whole. He has no pride, nor do you. You will now suck up too, to the war monger, the thief, the liar, the political whore when you ought to be working for your family and your own personal and private legacy, career and life pursuits.
    But you are a slave. And always will be — hopeless and helpless.

    1. Nicely done.

    2. damn, don’t sugar coat it

    3. Yeah, if only Bernie had the same amount of backbone as Ted Cruz. Bernie has shown that he’s a party man, first and foremost. Which is bizarre, since he wasn’t before as near as I could tell. I guess now he wants to make nice for some reason. I’d imagine Clinton could make him pretty wealthy, if he plays ball of course.

      It may seem ironic, but there’s nothing socialists like more than a whole lot of money.

      1. Didn’t he just reclaim his independent status?

        1. Didn’t he just get his campaign loans retired by the Hillary (she has a vagina, you know!)

  7. Yeah, if it wasn’t for agent provocateurs and the Koch brothers, everyone would be supporting progressives–supporting progressives in whatever they want to do!

    Blech.

  8. “I don’t like that she doesn’t have a racial justice platform, how she’s responsible for the mass incarceration of African Americans,” said West. “If you look at Hillary Clinton, she’s been taking advantage of black people for a very long time.”
    Insight in a sea of stupidity. Almost restores my faith in humanity. Almost.

  9. “I like Johnson, all of my friends like Johnson.”

    I think robby might have made a mistake assuming he really did mean, “Gary”

  10. Oh, and for the Bernie Slayer t-shirt?

    Blech. wretch.

    Blech. blech. puke.

    1. I saw a Bernie Bathory shirt recently. It was the uncoolest thing I’ve ever witnessed. I was embarrassed for the kid.

      1. This campaign season would’ve been so much better if Bernie had rocked corpse paint.

        1. You mean he wasn’t rocking corpse paint?!

  11. “Did you hug that guy from Reason?”

    “Yeah, his hair smelled fantastic.”

    1. “he’ll rip your lungs out, Jim.”

      1. :Suddenly wants a pina colada from Trader Vic’s:

        1. Do you want to get caught in the rain, too?

          1. Well, I a’int takin’ out any personal ads.

  12. “some religious anti-gay protesters”

    Anti-gay as in “God hates fags” or anti-gay as in “the only unions the government should recognize as marriage are unions between one man and one woman”?

    1. As if there’s a difference?

      1. Exactly, just like there’s no difference between a libertarian who wants to cut welfare and a Ku Klux Klan leader.

      2. Eddie just doesn’t understand why equality under the law should apply when his holy book clearly said something.

        And he’s going to be quite upset with me for that, I bet.

        1. No, I just think that the quality of your thinking like that of this ThinkProgress article, about California increasing welfare benefits: “California Will Finally Ditch Racist, Sexist Welfare Rule.”

          Progressive logic.

          1. Compared to ThinkProgress and called a progressive.

            Yep. He’s upset I said that.

            1. You said *quite* upset. I’m slightly annoyed.

              1. (and I’d *love* to give credit to the Bible for inventing marriage, but alas, marriage exists in communities untainted by the Bible.)

              2. Yes, you were probably “quite” upset the time you repeatedly told me to go fuck myself on that thread about cops having the imperative to persecute people who use naughty language in public.

                Called a progressive is more like annoyed, that does make sense.

                You can be a touch hot-tempered, is what I’m saying here.

                1. Did I say that? I’m really sorry.

                  1. “that” = telling you to fuck yourself.

                    I really should try to reduce my f-word usage.

                    1. You already apologized for that one, I think. No worries on it either way, and I promise to put that anecdote away and not mention it. It was just a handy way to point out that sometimes you say things, Eddie. I was only tweaking your nose.

                      I should apologize too. I knew how you’d react, and I said it anyway. I’m sorry I’ve upset you.

                      Can I at least get away with it if I put “tweak” somewhere in the comment?

                    2. It’s all OK, let’s have a nice big non-gay hug.

                    3. Or if you *are* gay, I’d still hug you.

                    4. How about “a nice, big, non-sexual hug”?

                      Then again, you might get called out for ruining a good hug…

                    5. Or if you *are* gay, I’d still hug you.

                      I am indeed strictly-dickly*, and not too proud to Brony up the board with chaste affection. You’re a good sort, we’ll find a way to disagree without pissing each other off yet.

                      *No one tell him.

                    6. Our lips are sealed…. 🙂

                      /Fun Boy 3 version, though

                    7. *No one tell him.

                      About what? Your all-consuming need for cock?

      3. There’s a huge difference, Frankie. One group is honest about what they are upset about and the other group is a bunch of liars.

        1. The interesting thing is, once a gay-rights supporter learns that you want to legalize “discrimination” by private businesses, they’ll say the same sort of flattering things about you.

          That the only difference between yourself and a Klansman is that you don’t have holes in your sheets.

          1. (or at least, not for the same reasons)

          2. I guess you had no problem spotting which group I was calling liars, being one yourself.

            1. Can you guess who I’m referring to as an asshole?

              1. (see, I didn’t use the f-word!)

              2. Yes, Hammy. He’s very emotional. He’s can’t reason, so he emotes.

                1. You used to work at the drive-in, didn’t you? You’re certainly good at projection.

                  1. You might want to stay away from psychological insight, Brave Knight of Malta.

                    1. You might not want to remind me of how I rejected one of your logical fallacies.

                      Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that your mother is ugly.

        2. I haven’t been commenting around Libertarian circles for a few years. Most of y’all are overtly libertine with a poorly concealed distaste for people who voluntarily choose a greater authority for their own personal lives. Dear Gary, fearless pot head who is squishy on freedom of association is the poster boy of that movement.

          I know enough of these circles to know Libertarian thought runs from straight up anarchy all the way to “Constitutional Libertarianism” (Rand Paul’s flavor).

          I see it is not possible for the atheistic libertine Libertarian to recognize that there exists other arguments against government sanctioned “gay” marriage other than “lies” pushed by theocratic authoritarians. I have heard many. You are clearly uninformed.

          1. Yes, libertarians generally look down on people who feel they need to bow to authority.

            1. It is Libertarian not to be critical of other people’s personal choices, is it not?

              If my bowing to authority of my own volition is not forcing you to bow to same authority, isn’t this the essence of libertarian thought?

              But this was not the original point. There are other libertarian arguments against government sanctioned gay marriage that we really don’t need to be calling the dissentors dishonest.

              *I will caveat that these anti-gay protestors were likely not libertarians

              1. There is really only one, and that’s getting government out of marriage completely, something only libertarians seem to talk about. And a couple of southern states have hit on in a completely blind squirrel fashion.

                And there still no evidence from Robby that they were only protesting gay marriage. This idea that there is no conservative religious objection to homosexuality qua homosexuality is just a fantasy.

                1. There is a sliding scale to libertarianism. I don’t know what your litmus is. I include Rand at the authoritarian end of Libertarianism.

                  In that regard, there can be a sliding scale of reasons. I happen to think that a minimal amount of laws are good for maintaining basic order (such as murder and theft) that are enforced by a chosen authority. In that regard, marital laws in some societies were to retain societal growth and the least amount of chaos with regards to care of offspring (who is responsible for this child and feeding/clothing/disciplining it?)

                  I recognize that may not be your position. I also note that is not the US’s reasoning for enforcing marital laws, so in that regard, i default to gov’t stay out. Does not mean i fail to recognize the benefits in society recognizing and promoting certain types of unions over others.

              2. If my bowing to authority of my own volition is not forcing you to bow to same authority, isn’t this the essence of libertarian thought?

                Except it can when it becomes a majority. Which, in case you haven’t notice, is pretty much the case. There’s plenty of examples of authority having too much power over us.

                So yeah. Those people deserve to be chastised in my view because while it may not directly impact me it does manifest itself in the form of legislation.

                Think Soda bans. Or smoking bans. Or stuff like that.

                1. To be clear, you are apparently chastising them because they didn’t support giving them a piece of paper from the government.

                  And with that piece of paper came a whole bunch of anti-liberty connections like forced association. Forced association may be the only thing the least bit worthy of a libertarians attention, and yet they fell on the side of force on this issue.

                  Maybe you guys can get to enacting Philadelphia’s soda ban nationwide under equality under the law since it’s the same argument.

          2. I have heard many.

            Present them, if you please. You have piqued my interest and I may even subscribe to your newsletter.

            1. I responded but comment was eaten.

              Here is one that seems to be overlooked a lot in the midst of Christian vs gay argumentation.

              http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…..2190/posts

              1. Can this argument not be equally applied to married straight couples who do not have children? The article suggests that children lead to a more cohesive marriage, but the amount of children being born out of wedlock and those who are a product of divorced single parents does not support this conclusion.

                If we’re being consistent, the distinction would be between heterosexual couples who have children and both homosexual and heterosexual couples that do not, rather than simply gay marriage itself.

      4. A difference between the Westboro Baptist Church (and only them, I might add, among churches in this country) and 2012-era Barack Obama? (As well as the bulk of the American gay community before the 1990s, and the bulk of the British gay community until nearly the moment of the law change in their country?) Yes. Yes there is.

      5. As if there’s a difference?

        Well, theoretically, there is, sure. In fact, I’d bet that a lot of the people (not all, but a lot) who were opposed to redefining marriage don’t have any particular problems with gay people.

        Now, I can’t read their minds to confirm this, but neither can you, so we’ll call it a tie, OK?

  13. Ruh-Roh: Turkey shuts down 130 media outlets after failed military coup

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2…..-coup.html

    1. Erdogan is only strengthening his position.

      1. Since the Germans are willing to indict their own citizens for criticizing that asshole like a bunch of cowards let me do my bit.

        He has a dirty asshole. And he’ll need more than a bidet to clean it.

  14. speaking of cock

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/26/c…..iting-for/

  15. There people are like the flat earthers. 100 years and counting proof that socialism is an abject failure and these imbeciles think that socialism is some sort of progress. It’s like someone came up with the idea that hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat will make you smarter and there’s some idiot in a coma from hitting himself in the head with a baseball bat over and over, and he’s lying there dreaming ‘If only I could get out of this coma and hit myself one more time, it will work this time’.

    I guess you really cannot fix stupid.

    1. Modify the analogy to “hitting *other people* with baseball bats,” and you’ve got it.

    2. Retro-phrenology totally works!

    3. Except that socialism was much more popular than flat earth-ism.

      1. But just as delusional.

      2. Tip: don’t scroll down to the comments on any youtube video having to do with space, planets, gravity, the moon, 9/11, NASA, etc, etc.

  16. Threadjack:

    Sometimes I’m just baffled by people who support socialism, especially when it comes to the “free college” crowd.
    What sort of person just constantly wants society to give them free stuff, and doesn’t feel any shame about it?
    What sort of person doesn’t take any pride in making their own way? What sort of person just expects things to be handed to them on a silver platter, without having to work for it?

    The healthcare thing, I can understand. People don’t want to die. But free college is for most of these people, just going to be four years of partying while studying useless subjects that don’t provide them with marketable skills. They explicitly don’t want the “free market” telling them what to study. They want to study whatever they want, and have society pay for it. And then they probably want society to give them a job in some bullshit occupation that only exists because of a regulation.

    I see these people just going “yeah, give me some free stuff, society!” and I honestly wonder what the fuck is wrong with them. I mean I get it, people like free shit, but how can anyone debase themselves like that, demanding society pay for their bills, and not feel any shame about it?

    1. Sometimes I’m just baffled by people who support socialism, especially when it comes to the “free college” crowd.
      What sort of person just constantly wants society to give them free stuff, and doesn’t feel any shame about it?
      What sort of person doesn’t take any pride in making their own way? What sort of person just expects things to be handed to them on a silver platter, without having to work for it?

      Society is not “giving them free stuff.” They go to college and thus enrich society to a huge degree. They are basically selflessly sacrificing years of their lives just to make society a better place. The true parasites are scum making them pay (i.e. go into debt) to do so. Providing free college is merely the first step in balancing the scales.

      1. That is the argument I get.

        “Everyone being educated is a benefit to society. ”

        Me: “That is very nebulous and hard to quantify”

        “NA-NA-NA I can’t hear you!”

        1. “Everyone being educated is a benefit to society. “

          Only if they act on it.

          It’s actually a persuasive argument. It is in our interests that education is thorough, reliable and widely available to all who want it. We just haven’t set up an educational system that does any of that.

          Really, pretty much every aspect of our society is failing it’s stated goals due to everyone trying so hard to live off everyone else. I like the theory that the younger generations have had their present crushed and their future stolen by older people who wanted to get theirs first, and have adopted the attitude that, well, if that’s the damned game we want to play, then fine by them.

          Monkey see, monkey do.

        2. Does society really need more people with liberal arts degrees?
          Isn’t that measured by the amount of money they get paid in the workforce?
          If your education is a benefit to society, why can’t you find a job? Why can’t you find anyone to pay you for it?

      2. They go to college and thus enrich society to a huge degree.

        How are you enriching society if you aren’t learning any marketable skills?
        It’s a bunch of self-delusion, lies, and rationalizations to make oneself feel better about mooching off the rest of us.

    2. Because it is also combined with the idea that hard work and skills aren’t what make you rich, but rather luck: luck of who you are born to, luck about where you are born, luck about how you made your way in the world.

      If everything you have is just by chance, then there’s no harm in redistributing what you have gotten to those with “bad luck.”

      They aren’t stealing from you, they are righting a cosmic imbalance.

      1. If everything you have is just by chance, then there is no point in getting an education either. There’s no point in getting A’s instead of C’s.

    3. That reminds me of the mainstream LGBT activist community, whose pillars are free stuff and the right not to be offended. They really do seem to think that we can’t hack it in the grownup world by ourselves. But somehow, I’m the self-loathing one.

      1. Well, what has the GOP really ever offered to them?

        I think libertarianism could make good in-roads in the LGBT community, but we’d have to send people with social skills as out reach and that is something we seem incapable of doing.

        1. what has the GOP really ever offered to them?

          Well, the right to self-defense, maybe?….allowing them to keep more of the money they earn?…

          just spitballing. however, i think much of what i think they’re “offered” are policies which treat everyone the same. which may not be what you meant.

          1. Yes, but they have also offered them “God hates fags.” The GOP courting the socons since Reagan has made the GOP pretty unappealing for gays. Trump’s recent softening still has decades of bad will to counter.

            Or we going to go with the “all gays are Marxists because gay” argument?

            1. they have also offered them “God hates fags.” The GOP courting the socons since Reagan has made the GOP pretty unappealing for gays.

              Let me understand you –

              you’re saying, that the GOP and the Westboro Baptist Church are the “same thing”?

              and that “courting socons” (aka ‘taking their money’) is the same as endorsing all the views of same people?

              That’s an interesting transference of agency i’ve never actually considered.

              Does this mean that… all libertarians are also responsible for anyone who might have once said things otherwise kooky or racist or otherwise less than ‘culturally sensitive’?

              Just trying to get a handle on your argument here.

              1. Oh, OK. I’m just making it up out of whole cloth that there are valid reasons why the LBGT community, in general, feels that the GOP is hostile toward them and their political goals.

                You caught me. Gotcha commenting as its finest.

                1. Not at all

                  you just didn’t make an argument other than “westboro is icky”, ergo, GOP is to blame.”

                  i’m sure there are much better cases which make your point clearly.

              2. Westboro Baptist? No. But the GOP has long been quasi-hostile to the gay community, accusing them of nefarious “agendas”, insinuating (and sometimes outright stating) that their relationships are shameful, unnatural, deleterious to society, etc.

                Liking cock doesn’t also active a genetic preference for free shit. The GOP made it pretty clear for a long time that they didn’t like gays, fought against having the Log Cabin Republicans welcome at events, etc. It will take a long time to undo that.

                1. The GOP made it pretty clear for a long time that they didn’t like gays….It will take a long time to undo that.

                  So, you’re saying maybe… i donno…. 4 more years, and its all-good?

                  1. No, see Gilmore, it’s absolutely fine to be against gay marriage until it slips just over 50% in the polls as long as you’re part of the party that frames itself as the oppressed fighting the oppressors. For some reason.

                  2. And she should be hectored for that. But we’re talking about the general communicative tone of the parties here, not an individual.

                    My theory is that the anti-gay rhetoric was a secondary (after abortion), softball pitch to keep the socons happy, since (as it’s been pointed out on this very website) the GOP has never actually done anything concrete for them.

                    I don’t have any data for that, it’s just a theory I have.

                    1. we’re talking about the general communicative tone of the parties here

                      That seems like a definite downgrade from the earlier “GOP offers nothing but hellfire for queers”

                      My only original point hinged on this idea that “Dems ‘offer‘ gays” stuff.

                      The point of my joking retort was that policies which treat everyone the same shouldn’t be excluded in what sorts of things might benefit people.

                      Just because the GOP doesn’t offer all sorts of pandering and freebees to the special-classes of people isn’t really a sufficient argument that they therefore don’t deserve their attention.

                      One can say the same thing about blacks; but i think it would be seen as horribly offensive to say the exact same point. Is it *wrong* for black people to vote for the GOP even though they aren’t constantly pandered to? even though – gasp – there have been racist GOP members?

                      Treating the ‘gay vote’ as something which necessitates lots of handouts and special favors to “deserve” their attention just strikes me as sort of condescending (to gays!) and… well, not very libertarian.

                    2. Treating the ‘gay vote’ as something which necessitates lots of handouts and special favors to “deserve” their attention just strikes me as sort of condescending (to gays!) and… well, not very libertarian.

                      Right. Treating people equally under the law without regard to who they love is a “special favor”.

                    3. Treating people equally under the law without regard to who they love is a “special favor”.

                      Given that gay marriage wasn’t the law of the land when it was in dispute, that’s sort of begging the question.

                      Now that it is the law of the land, you’re free to bitch when presidential candidates claim they want to change it (as some have said Cruz claimed to want to do)

                      But acting as though it is a permanent feature of a party is sort of silly.

              3. you’re saying, that the GOP and the Westboro Baptist Church are the “same thing”?

                I think the sentiment is essentially the same, yeah. The WBC just isn’t terribly eloquent about it.

            2. Damn Sugarfree, you’re approaching Salon level stupid here. Being opposed to gay marriage does not equal “God hates fags”

              1. Yes, and simply opposing gay marriage is all the GOP has ever done. And oppose it with such high-minded libertarian ideals, I might add.

                1. opposing gay marriage is all the GOP has ever done

                  well… not quite *all*

              2. Being opposed to gay marriage does not equal “God hates fags”

                Being opposed to gay marriage is plenty of reason for the LGBT community to feel that the Republican party does not have their interests at heart.

                I mean, seriously people, if you think it’s a mystery why gay people don’t vote Republican then you’re not thinking very well.

        2. I nominate…

          Sugar Free!

          1. I shall go down amongst the gays and…

            Wait, let me rephrase that…

    4. The healthcare thing, I can understand. People don’t want to die

      Ironically enough, the same government that will give you free healthcare is the same government who will make you die by refusing treatments that are already available, and causing rationing and shortages where none existed before.

      Here’s some free baloney, peasants, but please don’t ask for steak, we’re out of steak.

    5. But free college is for most of these people, just going to be four years of partying while studying useless subjects that don’t provide them with marketable skills. They explicitly don’t want the “free market” telling them what to study. They want to study whatever they want, and have society pay for it. And then they probably want society to give them a job in some bullshit occupation that only exists because of a regulation.

      Just think of the stimulus! By going to school to party, a student is consuming goods and increasing demand while not taking a job away from a deserving single mother who can take her kids out of poverty. And the more partying students we have, the more demand and the more jobs are created!

      Then when they graduate, we give them sycophant jobs so we can continue increasing demand for goods while not taking away real jobs from the deserving poor!

      1. Yeah, more lies, and rationalizations and self-delusions to make oneself feel better about mooching off of everyone else.

        But really, for fuck sake, they all gotta know, in their heart of hearts, that the truth is that they’re a moocher. Imagine it. The kind of internalized repressed shame that has to engender. How could anyone stand it?

        1. Oh fuck, I think I figured it out.

          That’s where the SJWs come from. People who have a bunch of internalized shame over mooching off of everyone else, and to deal with it, they turn it outward onto other people.

        2. The percentage of society that felt embarrassed by wellfare has shrunk considerably.

          Dems have pushed the idea that those on wellfare should have noyhing to ne ashamed of even if there is no hardship need to be

          Living on generational wellfare is an accomplishment in some circles and considered gettin paid what is owed.

    6. “Sometimes I’m just baffled by people who support socialism, especially when it comes to the “free college” crowd.
      What sort of person just constantly wants society to give them free stuff, and doesn’t feel any shame about it?

      A college degree entitles you to a high paying job (regardless of your productivity level), and so they’ll end up paying it all back in taxes.

      These people live in a dream world that looks eerily like a ponzi scam.

      1. That’s what loans are for. You get a loan. You get a job. You pay back the loan.

        “Free college” is for people who don’t intend to pay back their loans. it is for people who don’t intend to have jobs that make enough money to pay back their loans.

    7. Because they subscribe to what I call the Superhero Theory of Government.

      You see, government is like a superhero. Whenever a menace threatens society, Superhero Government will step in to right the wrongs and punish the evildoers and create justice and harmony in the world. And like superheroes in the comics (well, the less gritty ones), the motives of the superhero are beyond question. Of *course* they stand on the side of “truth, justice and the American way”. So whenever there is a problem, of *course* you turn to the superhero. Why wouldn’t you? He’s on your side and he has superheroic qualities to enact the change that will make the world a better place.

      And if government (the superhero) does screw up? It is not the government’s fault. Someone tricked the government into doing the wrong thing! Generally the villains are Republicans.

      So whenever you hear some leftist go on and on about why government should do this and that, just mentally substitute “Superman” every time the leftist says “government” and it will make much more sense.

    8. Assuming that all people are as intelligent, honest, self-motivated as you are is a mistake.

      1. isn’t the opposite (what you seem to be recommending) the very definition of cynicism? (or at least the interpersonal version)

        Cynicism is an attitude or state of mind characterized by a general distrust of others’ motives.[1] A cynic may have a general lack of faith or hope in the human species or people motivated by ambition, desire, greed, gratification, materialism, goals, and opinions that a cynic perceives as vain, unobtainable, or ultimately meaningless and therefore deserving of ridicule or admonishment.

        1. I’m not saying distrust everyone, just be aware that there is some minority of people who are shameless takers. I’ve met a few, but I still think most people are good.

          1. Yeah, I don’t get the shameless takers. What a horrible way to live. Like being a sociopath.

      2. Probably. I just can’t imagine any other way to live and stay sane. Being honest and self-motivated keeps me mentally healthy.

        If I engaged in the same amount of self-delusion, I’d likely be an emotional basketcase and a nutjob. Why would anyone do that to themselves?

    9. What sort of person just expects things to be handed to them on a silver platter, without having to work for it?

      It’s called a sense of entitlement. And millions of young people have been brought up with it with a vengeance. They got trophies for showing up at the game. They were excused their every transgression because they were special little snowflakes. They had ponies and magicians at their childhood birthday parties.

      They think the world owes them something because all of their life they were treated as if the world did, in fact, owe them something. Why should they expect any different now?

      1. What sort of person just expects things to be handed to them on a silver platter, without having to work for it?

        It’s called a sense of entitlement. And millions of young people have been brought up with it with a vengeance. They got trophies for showing up at the game. They were excused their every transgression because they were special little snowflakes. They had ponies and magicians at their childhood birthday parties.

        They think the world owes them something because all of their life they were treated as if the world did, in fact, owe them something. Why should they expect any different now?

    10. And they don’t see it as mooching off the government.

      They either see money from the government as truly free

      OR:

      Someone else (the evil rich), are paying for it.

    11. What sort of person just constantly wants society to give them free stuff, and doesn’t feel any shame about it?

      Someone who is developmentally stunted.

  17. ‘I loved Gary’s Johnson. All my friends loved Gary’s Johnson.’

  18. Speaking of activists who are ‘slightly less retarded’, but have lots more money…

    Tom Steyer expanding his activism beyond Climate Change – now looking to “Brainwash Millenials in General

    NextGen has already produced ads in California attacking Trump on immigration and his temperament. In one, a group of young people are filmed listening to Trump describe Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers and promising to wall off the border. In another, women look into the camera as Trump’s voice is heard calling women fat, disgusting, and ugly.

    Steyer said he hoped the broader agenda for NextGen would help undermine Trump. “I show him no respect,” Steyer said.

    No respect, i tell you. Surely that will be a refreshing change from the way other media are so often kowtowing and genuflecting to Trump.

    1. Steyer, who has earned a reputation as America’s most influential environmental advocate, has had mixed results in his crusade on climate change, despite the money he has poured into mobilizing voters around the issue.

      Characterizing the climate change hysteria as a ‘crusade’ sounds about right to me.

      He’s supporting Hillary. Enough said about this guy. Next.

      1. “Steyer, who has earned a reputation as America’s most influential environmental advocate, has had mixed results in his crusade on climate change, despite the money he has poured into mobilizing voters around the issue.”

        Should have been in quotes.

    2. Also.

      How the heck does he even know they’re brainwashed? What if they have the same info but just arrive at a different conclusion? Ah but to people like Steyer to do so is to be…brainwashed!

      Idiot.

    3. In the Papist Bandana Republics nobody mentions the Democratic pro-choice plank. Venezuela sends SWAT goons and death squads out to make sure women don’t imagine they own themselves. Brazil’s President Dilma was relieved of duties until she can be framed and impeached for something OTHER THAN offering rape victims the exact same DNA forensics and prophylaxis God’s Own Prohibitionists foam and carpet-bite over.

  19. Speaking of wanting to vomit. Warning: Autoplay ads.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/…..index.html

    1. Ok. That has to go down as one of the all-time greatest piece of pathetic cynicism ever.

      Holy shit.

      Then they wonder why Trump is doing so well. People like PEGGY DREXLER have done their bit to give rise to Trump in my view.

      There’s no secret to the Clinton marriage. It’s a fucking sham built on convenience and deceit all in the interest of gaining and maintaining pure naked power. It’s almost as if committing adultery to the left has no meaning when they pen such drivel. Dante and Machiavelli could not have scripted it better.

    2. The surprising secret to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage

      The Ultimate Aphrodisiac?”

      While the cynical might look at the Clintons’ marriage as one that turns on political gain, one in which each has garnered power from the other, isn’t that the whole point of marriage? To boost one another? To support the other despite his or her flaws, or perhaps because of them?

      TOGETHER WE WILL CRUSH OUR ENEMIES AND FEAST ON THEIR ENTRAILS

  20. What failure of message results in socialist Bernie voters liking Libertarian Johnson?

    1. Hey now. They like cake. Everyone should have cake.

    2. A shallow understanding of the issues involved.

    3. Based on the Bernie Sanders reddit, Sanders fans come in two common varieties:

      1. Anti-war, anti-establishment, drug legalization types who are generally just sick of the corruption and behaviour endemic to the current parties.
      2. People who are there for the free shit.

      I think Johnson is mainly appealing to the first.

      1. I hope so.

        We don’t need the second group.

        Unless some in the ranks smarten up. Then…it’s welcome!

        1. I was a Marxist until the age of twenty. I beat Thomas Sowell, who went through all of university before dropping Marxism after working for the government. Something similar happened to me, it took government work and volunteering for an NDP election campaign to really see how absolutely screwed up (not to mention hypocritical) the left’s view of the world is. So much corruption and waste. So many deep-rooted psychological issues in socialists that, if given the reins of power, they’d act on in disastrous ways.

          It really comes down to the individual. The number one thing is being willing to admit you’re wrong, which I think is the key problem with most diehard socialists. They construct their entire identity around it.

          1. Gee. I figured out that shit out on my own by high school without ever working from the inside! Or worse, joining – GULP! – the NDP!

            You’re a bigger man than me JT.

          2. I was a Marxist until the age of twenty

            14 for me, but at least I have an excuse of “grew up in nominally Marxist (thought closer to Revisionist) country”. Then some guy comes up with small set of market-like reforms, and economy goes up, while inflation dies down in months. Reassessment was pretty easy after that.

          3. You volunteered for the New Dictators?

          4. Or you could simply realize you’ve been had by professional hustlers and parasitical grifters–and go after restitution with blood in your eye and a schadenfreude grin.

      2. We’ll take votes–but not advice–from either cluster.
        Just explain that hitting that third party button will establish a quantum path divergence into an alternate universe where you are handed a lit joint instead of the I Vomited sticker as you leave the polls. It is the portal into instant repeal of corporate control of a fascist mixed economy, full freelance employment without pissing in a Dixie cup, and the same rights as bicyclists to not wear a seat belt. The best part is chuckling over how your cowardly old self–the sheeple too scared to vote other than for Mussolini or Evita Per?n–is probably finding a parking ticket on the windshield after voting for death and taxes back in the dark, rotten, no-happiness universe. Je je je

  21. One officer suggested to the protesters?very carefully and diplomatically?that he might have to arrest them for disorderly conduct on grounds that they were inciting violence.

    Nothing like threatening to arrest people to ‘incite violence’.

    1. “They eventually agreed to protest for another 45 minutes and then leave willingly. The officer accepted this arrangement.”

      I would have loved it if, after 45 minutes, the protestors told the cop: “Hey, officer. We’ve talked about it and we figure that if it was legal for us to protest for the last 45 minutes we’ll just, you know, protest for another couple of hours. Thanks.”

  22. Punk ass nerd nigga. Only goddamn ghetto geeks get this altered politique and those motherfuckers run street rare. WorldStar for the dredge!

  23. “I’m with Her” because who else will invade the entire Middle East and build up their nations so they all can have Starbucks on every corner.

  24. I think there has to be a better bookmarking system. I will now go out and conceive of a startup company.

    in the meantime, here’s something illustrating a point i was making the other day, about how “terrorism isn’t about the casualties”

    1. money shot

      Police said that when the man was in custody this past weekend for several thefts, he had sympathized with Islamic State and a gunman who killed nine people at a shopping center in Munich last Friday. But they said there was no further evidence of any ties.

      Aside from him just saying, “I admire terrorists, and i think people shooting innocents in the street is awesome” and later screaming, “I’ll blow you all up!!!”…. aside from that, well, there’s no *real* ‘connections’

      (which goes back to my point about Omar M, San Berdoon, Nice trucker etc… none of whom had “connections” either).

  25. SEE? Libertarians nowadays have trouble getting accustomed to looters lying through their teeth, running false flag sabotage operations and cross dressing as each other. Probably half the anonbots in libertarian-looking sockpuppets are ku-klux konservatives, bomb-throwing commie anarchists and econazis bent on outlawing electric power generation.

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

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  27. I despise Gary Johnson for the same reason that I despise Democrats? people who can rationalize _politically enforced_ discrimination as justifiable in any way whatsoever, are bigots who can and often have, used their own intolerant prejudice as a reason to massacre people they they have never met and do not know.

  28. Spoken like a true lying conservative incapable of concept-formation. The LP platform is better than the Dem platform. Gary is doing a good job by not being a christianofascist or anarchonihilist infiltrator–the kind running against him for the nomination. Attacks on his character are all any of us really expect from looters. That–and never ideas–is how they deal with each other. The read somewhere that libertarians are into logic, then try to fashion conundrums such that the only way out is to vote as in 1932: Stalin, Hitler or FDR. Hahahahahaha!

    1. Hank Phillips….But, I thought the Libertarian ideal was zero discrimination, as discrimination is an injustice based upon millions of unknown individuals and their actions, which are stereotypically misrepresented as a “known evil;” that “known evil” stereotype the sole rationalization necessary to aggressively enforce discrimination, as well as to impose favoritism for some people. That is a contradiction of the _past_ Libertarian election platform supporting the equality of individual rights, no exceptions, and the only reason for abrogating individual rights with stereotypes of “evil vs. good,” is either bigotry, or one is finding political profits in hate. Either one is contemptible, as in Johnson, more so for dragging the formerly discrimination-opposing Libertarian Party into the hate fueled mud of group favoritism, where the other two parties wallow.

      You might think you can excuse one form of discrimination as somehow less “discriminatory” than other forms of discrimination, because your favorite candidate says so, but that does not actually make you “a thinker.”

      1. More to Hank Phillips….Surely you’re not saying that there is a “right” to discriminate against one kind of sexual preference in order to impose favoritism for another kind of sexual preference. And if you are, then why is that different than saying a “right” is derived from religious preferences.

        And if one can support intolerant discrimination in order to politically impose favoritism, how is that different from the discriminatory prejudice that supports favoritism for welfare thieves with the political exploitation of working people, or the favoritism of blacks with the political discrimination of whites, or the past’s same discrimination/favoritism in reversed colors or today’s discrimination of males, to enforce favoritism for females.

        None of this regards knowledge of real existing human beings or their personal actions as in any way relevant, which _used to be_ the sole point of LIbertarianism…no stereotype driven political imposition, as that causes reactive hostility, with an unjustifiable redistribution of honestly earned opportunities and profits. And in what way is the stereotype driven hate demanding discrimination of any group, any different from the hate behind Aryan favoritism and Jewish discrimination, just because it is politically imposed in a different degree.

  29. “I don’t like that she doesn’t have a racial justice platform, ”

    Do a search for { racial justice hillary }

  30. Nader 2000! What could possibly go wrong?

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

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  32. Hudson . true that Chad `s blurb is flabbergasting… last week I got a gorgeous Alfa Romeo after having made $5229 this last 5 weeks and-over, $10k this past-munth . it’s actualy my favourite work I have ever had . I started this three months/ago and immediately started bringin home at least $80, per-hour . pop over to this website .

    ????????? http://www.maxincome20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.