Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson-Supporting PACs Ready TV Ads

Themes: "Americans deserve better," and Johnson and Weld's experience with and fealty to tax cutting, the Constitution, and civil liberties.

|

A newly launched PAC supporting the Libertarian Party's presidential ticket of former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld is ready to run a TV ad starting today (as well as a radio one) in the state of Maine's 2nd congressional district.

The PAC has the major-party-baiting name of "Americans Deserve Better" and the web address of "Vote for the Adults."

In an email sent to Reason, Chad Crow, who works with the PAC that is managed by longtime Libertarian Party hands Geoff and Nancy Neale of Texas, said he believes this can have a big payoff since "Maine allocates their electoral votes by CD instead of winner-take-all for the whole state, and that they have a long history of supporting independents."

Crow says the PAC is very pleased with the luck that timed their rollout of the ads with Maine Sen. Susan Collins (R) publicly rejecting Trump.

The PAC intends to run the ad for two weeks, then poll to see if it seemed effective. They promise "a pretty robust buy on broadcast, cable, radio and online."

The ad stresses the governors' experience and tax cutting and unemployment records, and calls on an American desire to have the country be brought "together, to rise above as did President Eisenhower, President Reagan, make us all feel good about being Americans."

Another Johnson-supporting PAC has another potential TV ad in the works.

The below ad from PurplePac, the PAC run by Cato Institute co-founder Edward Crane, Crane said in an email this morning might run on Fox this Sunday. In general, "Nothing more planned until I get some money" though Crane believes that if Johnson can indeed get in the presidential debates that big money will flow.

The ad stresses, first, that Johnson is not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and also states that "America deserves better" than those major party choices. The ad stresses that Johnson stands for the Constitution, civil liberties, fiscal responsibility, and freedom, and calls him "the honorable choice."

Advertisement

NEXT: Mandatory Minimums Aren't the Answer to Sexual Assault

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. “Johnson-Supporting”

      1. America Loves Johnson

        1. my best friend’s sister makes $63 an hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her payment was $14k just working on the internet for a few hours. you can try here >>>>>>>>>>> http://sha.howdays.com/

    1. Dammit, I thought the squirrels had eaten this comment. Sorry for the double post.

      1. Double clutched, eh?

      2. I’m hung on whether to accept this apology.

        1. *Narrows gaze inadequately*

  2. Everyone likes a well-supported Johnson. Thanks, folks, you’re a great audience. Tip your waitress.

    1. “It’s like that thing just has a mind of its own.”

    2. “American Jockstrap PAC is responsible for the contents of this ad.”

    3. Only the tip? I thought we were going full Johnson.

  3. The PurplePac ad undermines Johnson by making him look uncertain. It also has that Ron Paul wacky feel. I would not support it. OK now bully and insult me for pointing out the obvious:

    1. OK now bully and insult me for pointing out the obvious:

      There are many better reasons to bully and insult you.

      1. But ignoring him is even more effective. And satisfying.

        1. Ah, yes, the Tarran Doctrine. Generally the best way to go.

          1. Shriek is turning into Hihn?!

            1. Maybe Shriek has always been Hihn?

              Have you ever seen them in the same place twice?

              1. WTF?!?

                Have you ever seen them in the same place twice?

                Have you ever saw them both in the same place at the same time?

                1. Seen

            2. Hihn departed not long after my arrival so I’m not familiar with him.

              I just remember Tarran urging people to ignore PBP as the best means of dealing with his posts.

              1. Hihn has not departed, he often times does not show up until a day later to then corpse-fuck the thread.

                1. He is stewing and plotting his reply under the light of his spermacetum candles as we speak.

              2. He’s not gone. He was never a very frequent commenter.

                1. Childish name-calling (with giggles) is safer than being humiliated on an actual issue.
                  That’s the core of all thugs, crush any opposing views,

                  It’s also why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of even libertarians. (Per Cato/Zogby survey) (The Paulista Cult)

                  1. So, what’s the over/under on Hihn being a canned-response troll bot with algorithmically determined replies?

                    I mean, were I doing a parody account for him, my responses would have been strikingly similar to the ones proffered here.

                    Never disappoints.

                    1. So, what’s the over/under on Hihn being a canned-response troll bot with algorithmically determined replies?

                      SPOILER ALERT: Michael Hihn actually died in the spring of 1997, though no one in the outside world knows the exact date. His death was covered up by the inner circle of the Hihntifada for nearly three years. The Hihn-bot came on line in late November 1999 and, due to the after-effects of Y2K, went totally insane even by the standards of its flesh and blood predecessor. It has since tried to send robotic assassins back in time to kill all True Libertarians, leaving the bot to reign supreme as the only True Libertarian.

                      One of the Hihn-bot assassins successfully traveled back in time and registered a confirmed kill. Its victim? MICHAEL HIHN.

                    2. Guy Behind the Guy, Jr.
                      “Michael Hihn actually died”

                      Childish name-calling (with giggles) is safer than being humiliated on an actual issue. That’s the core of all thugs, to crush all opposing views,

                      It’s also why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of even libertarians. (Per Cato/Zogby survey) (The Paulista Cult)

                      (self-defense from aggression by a Donald Trump clone)

                    3. Zunalter
                      Childish name-calling (with giggles) is safer than being humiliated on an actual issue.

                      Never disappoints

                      Always prove me correct. (snicker)

                  2. “That’s the core of all thugs…”

                    Wait, are black people allowed to post here?

                    1. DEATFBIRSECIA|8.11.16 @ 3:31PM|#
                      “That’s the core of all thugs…”

                      Wait, are black people allowed to post here?

                      Why would you ban them?
                      CORE members are nonviolent, but they ARE black.

  4. Johnson is gonna be huge

    This Johnson is better than the first two

    1. Being the best President Johnson ever is a low bar to hurdle.

      1. A new and improved Johnson

        1. …without the racist, statist aftertaste!

          1. Johnson 2016 – he’s been eating a ton of celery.

      2. Johnson, because the third time’s a charm.

  5. Earned media only goes so far, and mostly only reaches the minority of voters who are politically engaged.
    Need these ads running outside the political shows. Too bad there’s no big sporting event going on now.

    1. agreed, he needs to murder somebody NOW! preferably in self-defense. with a shovel.

      1. “Johnson Beater Killed with Shovel”

  6. Apparently the Clinton campaign is reaching out to GOP voters using the phrase “vote your conscience,” by which they mean vote for their candidate. It would seem that the Johnson campaign could capitalize on that.

    1. How tone-deaf do they have to be to want to bring up the issue of voting your conscience?

      1. About as tone-deaf as my proggie friends in 2008 who assured me they had been up in the air over McCain vs. Obama but, once McCain picked such an inexperienced VP, they had to vote for Obama.

        1. “Let’s make a pitch to voters with highly developed consciences but low intelligence…” I though such people were already Democrats.

          1. Conscience must mean something different to you.

            1. I didn’t say informed consciences.

            2. Democrats have a conscience, it’s just warped and demented.

    2. Hillary 2016 – Vote Your Conscience, This Is Your Last Chance Before The Concept Becomes Obsolete

  7. The really sad part of this election cycle is that “None of the Above” had a really good shot, but declined to run.

    1. Giant Meteor was pulling 13%. Put that on the debate stage

      1. I was hoping GM would crash the debate.

    2. I think a nun in the buff would also do well.

  8. I basically profit close to $6k-$9k every month doing an online job. For those of you who are prepared to do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earn valuaable paycheck while doing it… Then this work opportunity is.

    See Here>>>>>>>>>> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  9. Commitment to the Constitution is commitment to limited government? Some should read Article 1, Section 2 to Gary Johnson and see how some of what’s in there sounds. What kind of radicals are these Republican retreads?

    1. There was a young woman from Ealing
      Who had a peculiar feeling
      She layed on her back
      And opened her crack
      And pissed all over the ceiling.

      1. I’ll be in my bunk.

    2. Are you butthurt about the misspelling of “choose”?

      1. From Misspellings in the U.S. Constitution:

        The most common mistake, at least to modern eyes, is the word “choose,” spelled “chuse” several times. This is less a mistake than it is an alternate spelling used at the time. The word is found in the Constitution as both “chuse” and “chusing.”

        1. Daniel hadn’t written his Big Book of Hitler and Nicole at that time.

          1. Noah.

            1. WHATEVER!

              /takes shot and skulks off.

            2. +300 Cubits.

              1. *ping*

        2. “chusing.”

          I don’t know what this is but it sounds dirty.

        3. I chu-chu-chuse you!

          Fun link

      2. Nah, I’m not a snob. I just insist that people who say they want radical change actually advocate for radical change. I’m with the voice-over in the commercial. America deserves better. That would be Jill Stein.

        1. Yes, vote for someone who supports voodoo and picked a full-on Jew-hating bigot as her VP. Your mask has slipped so far that the love for bigotry and ignorance isn’t even vaguely concealed.

        2. America does not deserve to become Venezuela.

          1. AmSoc must think he’s part of the political class who does well under socialism.

        3. Unfortunately Stein is better than Trump or Clinton. Then again so is a small soapdish in my bathroom. That’s not a high bar to clear.

          Stein is nowhere near the candidate Johnson is, though.

    3. AmSoc, Article 1 Section 2 doesn’t say what you think it says?

      The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

      No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

      1. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

        When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

        The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

        1. Yeah, I have no idea what AmSoc is getting at with its snarky comment.

          Nothing in Art 1; Sec 2 conflicts with GJ’s view of the role and scope of government. It merely says that there is a house of representatives with the power to legislate and set taxes. How does that conflict with GJ’s desires?

          1. I have no idea what AmSoc is getting at with its snarky comment.

            I do. It’s a snarling, bigoted, inbred imbecile, and just wants to make sure you know it.

          2. He doesn’t like the directly proportional (flat) taxation. Radical means do what we’ve been doing for 100 years but harder.

            1. Most of the taxation powers were changed by the 16th amendment anyways. And it only says what could be done, not what must be done.

        2. Here is where you screwed up PUPB:

          AmSoc, Article 1 Section 2 doesn’t say what you think

          1. Ehh, it started out as “I don’t think Article 1 Section 2 says you what you think it says”.

            And then I rewrote half of it.

    4. There once was an american socialist,
      To list his follies would make too long a list,
      His butt or his brain,
      An attempt in vain,
      To feel the sides with your fist.

  10. All Gary Johnson has to do is say that after reconsidering he won’t push for the “Fair Tax,” and he’ll shoot up in the polls.

    1. Which would be totally consistent with what it means to be a libertarian these days.

      1. what it means to be a libertarian…

        Shooting up poles?

        1. Just shooting poles i think. They don’t have a schedule classification.

      2. Right. No libertarian would favor the “Fair Tax.”

        1. Because? Not enough social justice for you?

          1. I see nothing inherently wrong with a consumption tax.

            1. Except for the coercion, you mean?

          2. Ah, thanks for going the retarded route. Easily ignored.

            How about too much tax and welfare?

        2. The Fair Tax is fucking stupid. Try telling the core-middle class ($40-100k) that a 30% sales tax is good for them.
          Progressive tax rates cause the rich to subsidize over 40% of the entire tax share for that core middle class.
          So the Fair Tax would wipe out the subsidy creating a 55% tax increase on the core middle class.
          And what kind of dumbass doesn’t know that the rich consume only a tiny portion of their income, so the Fair Tax will collect a much lower rate from far fewer dollars.

          But faux libertarians are as easily brainwashed as profs … slogans and soundbites. Progs offer free stuff. Anti-gumminbt goobers offer free tax cuts. (shrug)

          Meanwhile, as the goobers start screeching below, Forbes says the same thing.

          The latest data on spending as a share of income published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Show that lower-income households spend more than they earn?presumably aided by tax credits and other cash transfers, gifts from family members and friends, and borrowing (see chart). People earning over $150,000 spend only half of their income (and the share continues to fall as incomes rise … Compared with a broad-based income tax, the proposal effectively allows a 50% deduction for the average high-income household….

          Ooops.

          1. Couldn’t we also reduce spending?

            1. Couldn’t we also reduce spending?

              Sure, but that’s part of the con on “free tax cuts.”

              What would happen if a candidate said, “I support the Fair Tax, as huge tax cut for the rich, paid for with $400 billion in spending cuts.”

              Progressives every prayer would be answered. “Those fuckers want MORE tax cuts for the rich. I propose a $200 billion tax cut, targeted at ONLY the oppressed middle class Paid for by closing loopholes for the mega-rich and large corporations.”

              See, we pay the price today for NEVER challenging the absolute craziest claims by progressives,

          2. The core middle class that according to everybody has disappeared? That middle class?

            Lower income households spend more than they earn because they are given money by the government and pay no income taxes. People making over 150k spend half of their income (note it doesn’t say net income), but they already pay 40-50% in taxes. If they suddenly did not have to pay income tax, thereby giving them a 80-100% increase in disposable income, you would have us believe they would go on consuming at their previous level and save everything else? Forbes hasn’t bothered to think things through, and neither have you.

            1. you would have us believe they would go on consuming at their previous level and save everything else

              That would be the best case scenario, IMO. Capital formation FTW!

              1. That would be the best case scenario, IMO. Capital formation FTW!

                But his math and his facts suck. As shown here.

            2. The core middle class that according to everybody has disappeared?

              Ummm, the one I defined.

              Lower income households spend more than they earn because they are given money by the government and pay no income taxes.

              I quoted Forbes saying that.

              (note it doesn’t say net income),

              The source says net income … You own math proves you wrong.

              t hey already pay 40-50% in taxes.

              YOU say they pay 90-100% of gross income on taxes and consumption!

              REALITY is an average tax rate of 28% on a million plus, 20% on $150,000 plus. See the far right in this IRS data table

              If they suddenly did not have to pay income tax, thereby giving them a 80-100% increase in disposable income, you would have us believe they would go on consuming at their previous level and save everything else?

              YOUR numbers say they’d save 40-50% of their income but pay 23% of income , a tax cut of 47-54%, IF they consume it all

              Correcting for THAT error, they’d save 28% but pay 23%, an 18% tax cut IF they spend it all.

              Forbes hasn’t bothered to think things through, and neither have you.

              YOU say the rich pay 90-100% of gross on taxes and consumption??
              Progs BELIEVE we had a postwar boom at 91% tax rates, AND that Keynesian stimulus has always worked. Tribal legends are hard to overcome.

              1. Check the table in the article. It says “pre-tax”. That’s not net income. Sorry. Try again.

                1. Check the table in the article. It says “pre-tax”. That’s not net income. Sorry. Try again

                  (yawn) Doesn’t matter, Point being, gross or net both prove it’s a massive tax cut for the rich and a massive INCREASE for the middle class.

                  Do themath. How can ANYONE with an IQ above 50 believe everyone above $150,000 spends 78% of their gross income on taxes and consumption?

                  And the table DEMOLISHES you guys. The “low-incomes” who spend an average of 150% are NOT welfare recipients. Go back to the table. Zoom in. That’s up to $70,000 income. So an even bigger fucking of the middle class.

                  Do YOU spend OVER 150% of your income on consumption?
                  Here’s a point-by-point refutation of all the lies.

                  http://www.factcheck.org/2007/…..e-fairtax/

                  Thank you for playing. Please select a lovely parting gift.

                  1. Shorter Hihn: “Yes, I can’t read and I was completely wrong. You called me out on my bullshit, but it doesn’t matter, because I’m still right! Yay!”

                    The average tax for someone making $150k a year is not 20%. The average income tax is, but that does not include medicare tax, social security tax, the effect of corporate income tax, and all the other stuff you left out of your calculations. All of that tax burden would be eliminated by the Fairtax, so you have to account for that as well as the base income tax rate.

                    The people making less than 70k are not spending 150% of their income. Again, you cannot read your own table. The bar is a little less than halfway between 110 and 120 percent. Do you get tired of being called out on your absolute inability to read? Or are you just lying?

                    I’ve read the factcheck article (in fact I read it around the time it came out). No, the Fairtax is not a perfect plan, but it is vastly superior to what we have now. Perhaps you could point us toward a better proposal? It seems to me that all of you posting here amounts to whining and bitching about how badly the libertarian brand is doing, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen much in the way of constructive comments from you.

                    And my parting gift was making you look like a dolt. It was lovely.

                    1. but that does not include,….. l the other stuff you left out of your calculations.

                      Ummm, the corporate income tax and employer FICA shift to individuals.

                      All of that tax burden would be eliminated by the Fairtax,….

                      ) Wrong again. SHIFTS to workers from employers,

                      Pay attention. The average income tax at $150,000 is 11%, plus employee FICA of 3.8%, for less than 15%. versus 23%. Add employer FICA for 19% now, versus 23% Fair Tax. Oooops/

                      The people making less than 70k are not spending 150% of their income.

                      Good point. Correction: “The “low-incomes” who spend an average of 113% are NOT welfare recipients. Go back to the table. Zoom in. That’s up to $70,000 income. So an even bigger fucking of the middle class.

                      Or are you just lying?

                      (lol) Were YOU lying about the tax rate at $150,000?

                      No, the Fairtax is not a perfect plan, but it is vastly superior to what we have now.

                      Your math sucks.

                      Perhaps you could point us toward a better proposal?

                      Why would I need one? But it’s here

                      my parting gift was making you look like a dolt.

                      You made an ass of yourself again, but not as crazy as you saying the rich spend 90-100% of their income on taxes and consumption>

                    2. You can’t read or you lie thinking nobody will check your numbers.

                      FICA is not included in federal tax rates. There is no 11% federal tax rate. A simple visit to a tax calculation website (I used smartasset.com but there are plenty) will show a married couple filing jointly will pay $33,390 total (federal tax 23,868 and employee FICA 9522) which is just shy of 23% of their income. Doesn’t include the other 9522 employer “contribution”, which is also 6.2% plus 1.45% (you pulled the 3.8% figure right out of your ass). If you add that in, adjusting both gross and tax figures, you get a rate of 27%. Versus the 23% Fairtax. To quote you: Ooops.

                      As to the table, please explain how people making less than 70k a year can possibly spend more than 110% of their gross income year over year. Again with the handy tax estimator, a 70k earner would have an after tax income of $55k. You seriously believe everyone making that is spending 79 thousand a year? How are they doing this? Who is extending them 24 thousand a year in credit? Maybe you should try thinking about the implication of the bullshit statistics you’re citing before you cite them.

                      So again, you’re a dolt. Next.

                    3. Even crazier!

                      FICA is not included in federal tax rates.

                      Umm, Social Security and Medicare YOU mentioned.

                      The average income tax at $150,000 is 11%,

                      There is no 11% federal tax rate.

                      YOU MISSED “AVERAGE!”

                      IRS data. Right column. Average tax rate for $100K-200K is t …. 12.7% (smirk). I used the midpoint.

                      (you pulled the 3.8% figure right out of your ass).

                      (pees in pants laughing) It’s not collected on full $150,000. Check the max income, Slick.

                      First he attacks me like this:

                      The people making less than 70k are not spending 150% of their income. Again, you cannot read your own table. The bar is a little less than halfway between 110 and 120 percent.

                      I jam it up his ass … so now he attacks because I DID use the table, and HIS numbers (OMG)

                      please explain how people making less than 70k a year can possibly spend more than 110% of their gross income year over year

                      Your numbers, chump. Source is Bureau of Labor Statistics

                      iMaybe you should try thinking about the implication of the bullshit statistics you’re citing before you cite them.

                      YOU CLAIMED THEM! (OMG)

                      The bellowing buffoon has been brainwashed but refuses to see it. Typical of his ilk.

                      (My tone and boldface in defense of repeated aggression by a bully)

                    4. I’ve enjoyed watching you become increasingly unhinged.

                      You cannot tell me a table from an article you provided is my numbers. The fact that the numbers from the article you provided don’t make any sense is your problem, not mine. And appealing to authority doesn’t help you. Even the article is reduced to speculating how your table could be true.

                      The maximum social security portion of FICA is $7347 in a year. There is no maximum for Medicare contribution, which is 1.45 percent regardless of income. Calculate those numbers out. My FICA number is correct.

                      The owed tax on a 150k income is a matter of fact, not opinion. There are multiple tax calculators you can use to figure it out. It is not 11%, average or otherwise.

                      You were wrong, Hihn. Be a man and admit it. Or continue to be a child and stomp your foot and call people names. Oh, and change your pants since you peed in them.

                    5. My aggressor keeps getting crazier!!!

                      This is the guy who says FICA taxes are not federal revenues (OMG)
                      Doesn’t know FICA taxes are Medicare and Social Security!!!

                      You cannot tell me a table from an article you provided is my numbers.

                      I already documented your bullshit. First you attack me for ignoring the numbers YOU provided. Then you attack me because I DID use them.

                      Attack, attack attack. Aggression. Bully, Thug.

                      It is not 11%, average or otherwise.

                      I linked to IRS data. (smirk)

                      Welcome to tribal partisanship. Same blind faith as a Bernie supporter. Same psycho denial as a Birther. I’ll be linking to this thread for years.

                      No, I am NOT a Kenyan (walks away laughing even harder at the thug)

          3. From the article:

            Because it is also a flat rate tax, it would be especially regressive, especially compared with the current income tax where rates rise with incomes.

            False… With prebate included, it’s more progressive than current income taxes

            Also, the base presumption that taxes need to be as progressive as possible is dumb as hell.

            1. The prebate is the worst fucking part.

            2. Also, the base presumption that taxes need to be as progressive as possible is dumb as hell

              Umm, nobody said or presumed that. And you’re wrong. The prebate — READ IT — is based on the ESTIMATED consumption of a family at the poverty level, thus — like the income tax poor folks won’t pay it. On average.

              You cite a Wikipedia entry written by the Fair Tax people. Is that why you linked the photo and not the entry? Most of it is the same bullshit as their website, word for word.

          4. What is your proposed tax system?

            1. No direct federal taxes on individuals whatsoever.

              1. And no I don’t consider an income tax to be an “indirect” tax.

            2. I’d like to see every man, woman and child pay an equal dollar amount.

              Then we’d see if 50+ percent of the voting public would vote to grow government.

              1. That could work.
                I’ve thought about making a fake bill per person for the debt. Maybe spam mail as many people as possible, in hopes they’d see it and think about it longer than an evening.

              2. I’d like to see every man, woman and child pay an equal dollar amount.

                Francisco, taxes should hurt. You’re willing ot hurt everyone, including yourself. So your tax would roughly double, as you lose the current huge subsidy from the rich,
                Sacrificing for liberty! Who could get elected on that?

          5. So its libertarian to have rich rich people pay more tax? Since when?

            1. So its libertarian to have rich rich people pay more tax? Since when?

              For how long have you suffered this severe literacy problem?

          6. So its libertarian to have rich rich people pay more tax? Since when?

    2. OH FFS someone has to ask.

      You know who else shot up the Poles?

      1. The firemen in Upside Down?

      2. I saw this stripper once…

      3. Firemen in reverse?

    3. “shoot up in the polls”

      Is that another “Johnson” joke?

  11. Clinton, on the other hand, enjoys imense “earned media” coverage. For example,here’s ten minutes of the Clinton News Network cutting off, shouting down, and shutting out anti-Clinton guests.

    (Clinton doesn’t really do “earned media”, not by definition. Trump gets “earned media,” most of it damaging. Clinton enjoys the undying adulation of cynical journalists trained and graduated by progressive institutions. Not exactly the same thing, especially since the media she should “earn” is covered up or explained away by her fawning media henchmen.)

    1. Now, Commodius, not all of those journalists are cynical; some of them are True Believers.

      1. Which is the larval stage and which is the adult?

        1. They’re both larval stages… The adult stage of a journalist is like that of a mayfly.

          It involves a couple hours of fucking followed by a sad and immediate death.

          1. I always thought candy crowley was more of an ouroboros.

            1. Weird! I’m currently listening to the song Uroboros by Lumisokea:

              https://opaltapes.bandcamp.com/track/uroboros

          2. It’s funny because the final stage of a mayfly is called the spinner.

    2. Isn’t this basically what Fox news did during the Bush years? If I recall, they basically had to resort to having professional liberals on staff whose job was going on TV and getting beat down.

  12. Do either of the PAC’s answer the “Why are all libertarians so racist?” question?

  13. “Nothing more planned until I get some money” though Crane believes that if Johnson can indeed get in the presidential debates that big money will flow.
    ————–
    But if he doesn’t get name recognition via ads like this, he won’t get to 15% to get into the debates. Catch 22

    1. “Nothing more planned until I get some money”

      I’ll take “things a hooker says” for $200, Alex.

      1. I’ll take “things a hooker says” for $200, Alex.

        Best one liner today. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

  14. Lessons in media failure: Trump and his 2A remarks. They obviously meant exactly what he said, and the fact that he didn’t immediately say that it was off-the-cuff gallows humor, and apologized to second amendment advocates for misrepresenting them, is the only reason the story has traction. Instead he doubles down and now his surrogates are stumbling to cover for him. Just pathetic.

    1. and the MSM gives Hillary a pass on the multiple times she referenced the RFK assassination as the basis for her staying in the 2008 race. Got coverage then. Not notable now.

    2. Total cuck. You just want to bomb syria for hillary.

      1. Is this satire?

        Also, Trump fans don’t exactly have room to throw stones there. Trump wants tens of thousands of ground troops in Syria.

        1. It’s a term of endearment between us cucks.

  15. OT

    Feds forced to cancel 23-year wolf study after too many killed by Alaskan officials

    link

    Also:

    In 2014, state officials killed an entire pack of 11 wolves that had been monitored by federal officials for seven years.

    1. Like the Bradford Pear and Kudzu…god bless government intervention. They fuck up everything so well.

    2. I think you missed some of the best stuff

      State officials shot and killed wolves outside of the federal preserve as a part of the state’s program to increase the size of a local caribou herd. The Alaska Dispatch News reports that wolves were responsible for 47 percent of caribou calf deaths between 1994 and 2003 and about 80 percent of adult caribou deaths in that same time frame.

      According to the National Park Service, the goal of the Alaska program is to increase the population of the caribou herd so hunters may kill more of them.

      This whole “putting the thumb on the scale of nature’s balancing act” is not a good look.

      Yet i totally trust these people to “address” global warming.

      1. it’s the same with AGW.. we have to protect undeveloped countries’ human populations so that hunters can kill them. it’s part of the post-human futurism.

      2. They should have relocated some of the wolves to the east coast to control the deer.

        1. They should have starved the wolves and then relocated them to Washington to control the politicians.

  16. Here’s my effort at a campaign slogan: Better than the Devil or the Deep Blue Sea.

    1. Between a Cock and a Hard Face?

  17. Here’s my effort at a campaign slogan: Better than the Devil or the Deep Blue Sea.

  18. Too little too late.

  19. Americans Deserve to Suffer = Vote Hillary

    1. I thought you’re posting under Dennis now. If you’re not Dennis, who is Dennis?

        1. I didn’t know you were called Dennis…

        2. Well, a certain part of Crusty is called Dennis.

          1. You’ll never guess which one.

            1. We all know it’s your butthole.

              1. That’s the last time I tell you a secret.

              2. Well that explains all those “say hi to Dennis for me” comments.

                1. And why he’s saying that to everything he eats.

      1. GILMORE tried to transition to Dennis. It was very brave of him, like Caitlyn Jenner brave, but when faced with the reality of having to use Dennis-pronouns and Dennis-bathrooms he decided not to have the surgery that would have reshaped GILMORE into a Dennis permanently.

        1. Until next time he rewatches The Wire again.

          1. Well, he is going to remain a dennissexual and do a little light dennisvestitism on the weekends, purely as a stress reliever.

            1. we are all truly Dennis

              /lights votive candle

        2. GILMORE tried to transition to Dennis….

          Not at all. I contain multitudes.

          1. You don’t have to pretend with us. This is a safe space.

      2. Do you remember in Happy Days when Fonzie wore a sweater vest?

        It was sort of like that.

        1. Or this is just someone that has hijacked GILMORE’s old handle–something our more persistent and hateful trolls have been known to d– and the real GILMORE/Dennis is in a filthy rec-room in some depressing suburb of the internet, gagging on a set of truck nuts duct taped into his mouth, struggling to scream as starved rats chew the meat off his pelvis.

          1. Oh very nice – that certainly won’t inspire vivid nightmares tonight after I finish this spicy Italian food.

  20. One of the commentariat suggested “Vote Trump. Don’t let the child molesters win!”

  21. Feel the Johnson. It gets better the second time.

  22. The PAC has the major-party-baiting name of “Americans Deserve Better” and the web address of “Vote for the Adults.”

    Terrible messaging. The zeitgeist is for kicking the bums out, not letting more adults in. Condescending messages about voting for “adults” works for National Review and Vox-reading would-be wonks, but that slice of the population is insignificant. Nothing about freedom implied or even a directional change; hell, anything would be better than this sleep inducing, content-free cry for adult guidance.

    1. Clinton is not a bum to be kicked out?

    2. The PAC is advised by the last 5 LP national chairs plus assorted LP illuminati, not some random outsiders with money to squander. Surely they are crystalizing the essential LP message this election season.

    3. Nothing about freedom implied or even a directional change; hell, anything would be better than this sleep inducing, content-free cry for adult guidance.

      Agree. Its sort of the consistent theme of his campaign = Don’t do anything to actually suggest there’s anything unique or different about your approach to politics – just say “more of the same! with ~30% less ‘shitty'”. Its not how you brand yourself or make a political argument. It gets lost in the wash as an undifferentiated also-ran, which is suicide when the main reason people are voting is to “Keep the OTHER asshole out”

      1. wait, so the messaging should be to get voters to want to stick Johnson INTO the other asshole instead of keeping the OTHER asshole out? Or would that leave them voting for their own asshole in hopes that the other side provides the Johnson?

  23. FAIL. It’s targeted at Republicans and conservative independents. Not near enough right/left balance. which ,most elected libertarians agree is critical. Especially when 59% of Americans self-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. (Per Cato)

    The opening words should include, “We want government out of your wallet, out of your bedroom and DEFENDING your rights.”

    1. He would be much better off just being his own true self and targeting more centrist democrats and “good government” liberals who are turned off by Hildog’s nonexistent ethics.

      Because policywise, there’s really very little difference whatsoever between Johnson/Weld and Clinton/Kaine.

      1. Because policywise, there’s really very little difference whatsoever between Johnson/Weld and Clinton/Kaine

        Yep. EVERYONE who defends marriage equality and abortion rights MUST be closet socialist. Unless one reveres the Constitution, especially the 9th Amendment.

        1. “I agree with Bernie Sanders on about 73% of the issues.”
          -Gary Johnson

          1. I appreciate you agreeing with me.

        2. You know who totally reveres the Constitution? Stephen Breyer.

      2. That is absolute nonsense. If you seriously think Johnson would be a centrist Democrat your perception is skewed as fuck.

        I could at least respect that if it was coming from a purist ancap or minarchist, but coming from someone who is on the Trump bandwagon and voted Romney in 2012 (Do you think the gap between Mitt and BO was larger than Clinton and Johnson? Lol) it’s laughable.

        1. Mike has been getting steadily dumber as he is forced to defend Trump, like Dave pulling Hal’s chips out while the computer sings “Daaaiiiisssyyyy, Daaaiiiisssyyy” slower and slower.

          1. Mike has been getting steadily dumber as he is forced to defend Trump

            THIS is what it calls defending Trump:

            Not near enough right/left balance. which ,most elected libertarians agree is critical.
            The opening words should include, “We want government out of your wallet, out of your bedroom and DEFENDING your rights.”

            THIS is why they stick to childish name-calling, else they make public fools of themselves again.

            1. Michael,

              That comment, and SugarFree’s response, was not aimed at you. Domestic Dissident used to go by the screen name of “MikeM” hence why SugarFree called him Mike.

              1. Instead of MikeM? Thanks.

        2. “I agree with Bernie Sanders on about 73% of the issues.”
          -Gary Johnson

          1. “I agree with Bernie Sanders on about 73% of the issues.”
            -Gary Johnson

            So you admit you lied,
            ALL extreme socons “think” this way. EVERYONE who supports marriage equality and a woman’s unalienable rights MUST be a socialist. It’s not like libertarianism has been defined as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” since 1969.

            It’s a bipolar disorder.

          2. Is that all you’ve got? An arbitrary % comparing him to Sanders given by a presidential candidate trying to win over disaffected voters who might vote 3rd party is proof that Johnson is really a centrist Democrat who agrees with Clinton on everything, in contrast to the stout defenders of liberty, small government, and the Constitution that are Donald Trump and Mitt Romney?

            1. there is nothing arbitrary about isidewith percentages. soon Google will buy it and figure the collective choice for all of us. no need to bother with primaries or campaigns. anyone could be president and we will all side with him/her/it. nirvana

              1. there is nothing arbitrary about i side with percentages

                Agree. It’s more dishonest than arbitrary. Or Ignorance. 73% LOOKS big, because it’s SUCH a big number! But useless. Look at the damn test before judging.

                http://www.isidewith.com/elect…..ntial-quiz

                There are 2 or 3 questions on each of these issues. Social. Environmental, Economic, Domestic Policy, Healthcare, Electoral, education, Foreign Policy, Criminal, Immigration, Science, Estate Tax

                Funding space travel and Supporting Common core are EACH equal to “reduce spending to reduce debt.”

                Fact is, extreme socons BELIEVE that only socialists are socially liberal. And he began by saying there was very little policy difference between Johnson/Weld and Clinton/Kaine which was soundly ridiculed, justifiably.

                1. there are actually more like 50 or 60 questions, and you can weight the importance of each question. You can also skip the questions you don’t care about at all.
                  But it’s funnerer to throw rocks at caricatures and to stay locked in a 2-party mindset

                  1. there are actually more like 50 or 60 questions,

                    There are 32.
                    http://www.isidewith.com/elect…..ntial-quiz

                    But it’s funnerer to throw rocks at caricatures and to stay locked in a 2-party mindset

                    Retardation is the driving force for tribal partisanship.

        3. Calidissiden
          someone who is on the Trump bandwagon and voted Romney in 2012 (Do you think the gap between Mitt and BO was larger than Clinton and Johnson? Lol) it’s laughable.

          a) Who are you babbling about.
          b) One more extreme socon PISSED at libertarianism. (sigh)

          1. Domestic Dissident

    2. Something, something, something, (CATO). Yatta, yatta, yatta, (91% CATO)

      Fuck Off!

      1. MORE aggression. Reality and evidence are threats to their tribal bloviating

        Something, something, something, (CATO). Yatta, yatta, yatta, (91% CATO)
        Fuck Off!

        Thugs be mouthy! Birthers aren’t the only ones who suffer severe denial.

        Cato/Zogby survey (Scroll down roughly 2/3 to the subhed, “how libertarians see themselves)

        In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: ?.”Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” …

        The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

        100 – 9 – 91% rejection.

        Now guess how TINY are conservatives who are extreme both socially and fiscally.
        But like extreme progs, they BELIEVE all Americans are eager for their message.

        Any questions

        (My tone and boldface in self-defense from aggression by a bully who HATES facts. Facts destroy bloviators)

    1. Linked here before, but bares a re-link because of outrage. But what you wrote sounds like the volunteer was already dead when the cop shot her; she was very much alive before that.

  24. I love their logo from 1992.

    Do you even brand, bros?

  25. The Current HOLY SHIT OMG TRUMPS SAID(!*~#$*(!WHAT!!?!?!?–Du Jour


    Trump escalates claim that Obama founded ISIL

    And he gives Clinton credit for being the terrorist group’s co-founder.

    (holds card up = 9.1)

    1. Its really fun to see my lefty friends get all sputtery with rage every time this happens.

      HOW DARE HE!! DOESN’T HE KNOW THAT HE IS INSULTING THE LIGHTBRINGER?!

    2. I’m curious to see if Ed decides to give this one a go. He’s routinely said that US policy “created” ISIS.

      Curious to what degree they might recognize that once you start making those sorts of vague, rhetorical ’cause-effect’ claims, it becomes fair game for anyone to suggest that “whomever in power” is therefore the author of history.

    3. Wait until Cytotoxic hears this one.

      As a metaphor, it’s not bad. Obama and Clinton fucked up Syria and that led to ISIS.
      So they’re responsible for ISIS’s existence.

      1. There’s no such thing as blowback, Hazel. All those ISIS jihadis would have been jihadis regardless. No one ever gets angry when America or any other country bombs their family and friends into a sticky red paste.

        1. I think what you meant was, “Sunni and Shia were never involved in power-struggles before BOOSH”

          1. An excellent reason for us to not to involve ourselves, person assumed to be GILMORE.

            1. I have always been a consistent advocate for letting everyone in the middle east kill each other without our help.

    4. It’s like the MSM have completely given up on the notion of “hyperbole” or “metaphor”. Every single thing is be taken absolutely literally all of a sudden.

      1. All Republican candidates in MSM reporting are evil, crazy, or stupid, sometimes having more than one of these attributes. Trump is crazy and perhaps evil or stupid.

    5. +1 community organizer

  26. I think there’s an apostrophe missing in the disclaimer of the Purple PAC’s ad. It’s a little thing, but if they are trying to promote him as the candidate of quiet competence, little things like that matter.

  27. Jeez – the second ad looks like it cost about $1.99 to make. And the first ad looks a little cheaper.

  28. Gary Johnson has to show that he can be a credible Commander In Chief, by giving a Major Foreign Policy Speech and/or releasing ads on that theme.

    That is the one main thing he has to do to get defecting Republicans to consider him before voting for Clinton.

    He doesn’t have to be a full-on hawk, but he has to show that he is serious about foreign policy and national defense, beyond anti-interventionism “because unintended consequences” etc.

  29. Gary Johnson has to show that he can be a credible Commander In Chief, by giving a Major Foreign Policy Speech and/or releasing ads on that theme.

    That is the one main thing he has to do to get defecting Republicans to consider him before voting for Clinton.

    He doesn’t have to be a full-on hawk, but he has to show that he is serious about foreign policy and national defense, beyond anti-interventionism “because unintended consequences” etc.

  30. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Reportmax90.com

  31. Anna . I agree that James `s storry is really great… last thursday I got a top of the range Mitsubishi Evo after bringing in $4828 this last 5 weeks and just over ten grand last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the best work I’ve ever had . I began this four months/ago and straight away started to bring in at least $87, per-hour
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.