Election 2016

Gary Johnson "Making Major Inroads With Latino Voters," Now at 16 Percent

Hispanic voters increasingly rejecting the "binary choice" that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump represent.

|

Johnson2016, Flickr

In order to qualify for the presidential debates, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson needs to reach 15 percent in at least five national polls before Labor Day.

He has already reached that threshold among Latinos, according to a new Fox News Latino survey:

According to an exclusive Fox News Latino poll released on Thursday, 16 percent of Latinos would vote for Johnson and running mate Bill Weld if the election were held today—only 1 percent less than the ticket of Trump and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. Johnson jumped seven points since May, while Trump lost four points.

The poll, which was conducted over the phone from August 7-10, surveyed only Latino registered voters and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The poll was conducted under the direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R).

When Johnson is not included, the Fox News Latino poll finds that Clinton gets 66 percent of the Latino vote and Trump gets 20 percent. Those shares drop to 59 percent and 17 percent respectively when the former New Mexico governor is included.

What explains the growth in Latino support? Part of it is surely an increase in name recognition for the Libertarian party ticket, which features two former two-term Republican governors and the campaign recently launched a Spanish-language website. There's also a growing refusal to focus on what both Democrats and Republicans insist is a "binary choice" that comes down to either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump. Last month, a former Florida congressman, Juan-Carlos Planas, and the former head of the National Puerto Rico Coalition, Rafael Fantauzzi, announced a political-action committee (PAC), called "Tercera Opcion, or Third Option" that makes the case "we deserve better" and that Clinton and Trump are both anti-immigrant and hostile to the interests of Latino voters.

"This year, we cannot settle for the lesser of two evils," Fantauzzi said. "The insults from Donald Trump and the double talk from Hillary Clinton are not our only options. Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are two of the most successful governors in America and they present the best hope to lead our country in the years ahead."…

[Trump is] not alone [in being anti-immigrant]. Most recently during the wave of unaccompanied minors arriving to American, children fleeing violence created by our foreign policy in Central America, Hillary Clinton said that we should send them back as an example that no more children should attempt to make the journey. Not only was this a violation of human rights, it was also a violation of the law signed by President George W. Bush which stated that children arriving to America need to be screened for child trafficking and possible asylum cases. Hillary advocated breaking the law when it was politically expedient to her. And we now know from human rights monitoring groups that over 70 children were indeed killed when they were forcibly returned to their countries."…

"We deserve better than being used as political pawns by the campaigns of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. We deserve leaders who will do what is right for Latinos regardless of which way the political winds are blowing. Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are exactly the type of principled leaders our country needs," concluded Planas.

Read full press release here.

In national polls that include Clinton, Trump, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, and Johnson, he is pulling around 8 percent on average.

Update: A Fox News poll taken in early August finds Johnson and Weld at 12 percent.

Hat tip: Inquisitr, which notes "Johnson does seem to have a legitimate chance to top the [15 percent] mark at some point in the coming weeks if his rise continues."

Advertisement

NEXT: America's Summer 2016 Election Playlist

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. Over 16% with Latinos?

    Does this mean they can be on the Telemundo debate stage?

      1. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for 25470 dollar this 7-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least 97 dollar per hour. I work through this website. Go here… http://bit.do/OpL0a

    1. Hey Brian, don’t you think that a poll showing that 66% of Latinos were supporting HRC would show that, in fact, Latino voters *had* made a binary choice between Democrats and Republicans? I wouldn’t have included that number in my essay designed to persuade the reader. You?

      1. Oh, how you doing, racist?

        Anyway, I think it’s very interesting that the libertarian candidate is polling higher with Latinos than the general population. And, despite the success with Latino’s for the DNC, with their message of being the only sane, rational choice against the white male oppressors, it does suggest that their effort hasn’t been completely persuasive, shall we say. They’re certainly not polling with the same 85%+ that allows them to take blacks for granted, and Latinos are a much bigger demographic.

        I think the election still goes to Hillary, but it does suggest that there’s something very strange in the air this election year. And, whatever the outcome is, it’s probably better than full-blown socialism. I’d much rather have stupid immigration laws or stupid free college infrastructure-make work programs than food shortages.

        But, sure: let’s say that Latino voters have made a choice…and it’s a binary choice. There. That’s interesting and informative, isn’t it?

        1. When I compare blacks to Latinos, it does seem interesting politically. Latinos seem much more politically diverse, and a much larger demographic than blacks. And, lo and behold, immigration issues are a wedge issue this year. Who’s talking about blacks? As far as I can telll, no one. Which is a shame, given how the lack of criminal justice reform affects black people disproportionately.

          I guess there can be significant disadvantages to being one race, a tiny minority, voting in lock-step in a pure binary fashion, thus guaranteeing that they’re ignored. Public choice theory strikes again. Minorities are usually hardest hit with democracy.

          1. Just to continue my conversation with myself:

            Probably, the best things black people could do politically for themselves would be to unite as a single group and tell Democrats, “Hey, it’s great that you’re pointing fingers and scaring us into avoiding the scary racist republicans, but, in the end, other than that, you’re not really doing much for us, so, this next election, we’re voting republican.”

            Then, sit back and watch as republicans and democrats pander to blacks like they’ve never done before. That would probably be enough to swing the election, so I doubt either party would sit there and let that stand.

            But, as it stands, black people are already locked in to pulling the lever for ‘D’. So, I don’t expect them to get very much beyond the status quo. For what it’s worth, it probably will be a democrat president again.

            1. Riley . if you think Scott `s comment is really great… on friday I got a great new Lancia when I got my cheque for $6472 this past five weeks and just a little over 10 grand this past-munth . it’s definitly the best-job I have ever had . I actually started 3 months ago and almost straight away started bringing in over $75 per-hour . see here …………… freedoms.top

      2. I think yer getting skered. Seems a lot of Latino voters are contemplating leaving your favored dictator’s plantation.

        How can we keep ‘progressing’ if the minorities won’t do what they’re told. They’re screwing up the plan.

      3. That’s some amusing rounding you’re doing there sir.

        If you’re going to treat 16% libertarian support as if it were 0, then every election in the last century has resulted in a 50-50 tie.

    2. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for 25470 dollar this 7-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least 97 dollar per hour. I work through this website. Go here… http://bit.do/OpL0a

  2. Anecdotally- I have encountered several people who say, “Hillary and Trump are both so horrible I’m seriously looking at Johnson.”

    Got my fingers crossed.

    1. My employer and both of my parents. Non of these people would consider the lp even a year ago.
      Maybe my dad, I think I converted him in 12.

    2. It will be lower than what the polls show. First, people generally are not as motivated to vote for a protest candidate as they are for a major candidate. Protest candidates usually over perform in the polls because a higher percentage of people say they are going to vote for them but then don’t show up to vote than do for the major candidates. Second, a lot of the team red and team blue partisans who say they are voting for Johnson will once actually in the voting booth decide they are more afraid of Trump or Hillary winning than they really have been willing to admit and will pull the lever for their team.

      Johnson will do well for a Libertarian and better than one has in a long time. I seriously, doubt, however, he will get over 10%.

        1. No way. He could easily double that if everything falls our way!

      1. Agreed.

        Another aspect is that people being polled say they support Johnson just to send a signal to the two atrocities that they are not pleased with the binary choice. Once in the voting booth I suspect many GJ vocal supporters will vote their fear, i.e. vote against the one who scares them most. In my case, that is Hillary.

        I am not happy with either of the dominant party’s candidates. My vote is irrelevant since I live in California and I am a registered Democrat, so GayJay gets both of my votes.

        1. “I am a registered Democrat”

          My condolences.

          /does sign of The Cross.

          1. That’s why I get two votes.

      2. Yeah, libertarians, it’s time to stfu about your Johnson and vote for Trump because he’s way better than KKKlinton.

        1. Trump because he’s way better than KKKlinton.

          One of the very few people ON EARTH Trump may be better than?

          Hillary fucking Clinton.

          1. I probably won’t be voting for either. The thing that troubles me is that so many of our fellow libertarians seem determined to justify a vote for Trump. I don’t derive any inspiration– at all, zero, zilch– from right-wingers or Republicans. What troubles me is to coy flirtation many here have for the RP. I fucking hate almost all of those plutocratic fucks.

            1. I fucking hate almost all of those plutocratic fucks.

              I don”t disagree. It troubles me how much I want neither of these terrible, terrible choices to be the next President.

            2. Yet you love the other plutocratic fucks?

              You know – the Clintons, Gore, people like them.

              1. Funny thing, I hold that anyone who uses the word “plutocrat” is a commie fuckhead. I look at the OP’s handle, and whatdya know, the prediction held.

            3. “Our fellow libertarians?” Is AmSoc really trying to get people to believe he’s a libertarian? I’ve never seen him post anything that could remotely be called a libertarian view.

              1. Listen, I don’t want all your freedoms restricted.

                Only the ones I want restricted. Just those. Nothing more.

                It’s very generous, really.

        2. It almost defies belief that somebody could be worse than Trump. The DNC managed to find her.

        3. Yeah, libertarians, it’s time to stfu about your Johnson and vote for Trump because he’s way better than KKKlinton.

          The trolling sockpuppet is right on this one.

          1. Not really. Trump has a higher ceiling and a much lower floor. Sure Clinton is a lying criminal plutocratic scumbag while Trump is probably only 3 of the 4 but you really can’t envision Clinton wearing an end of the world sandwich board while holding conversations with an imaginary parrot on some NY street. Trump on the other hand ….

        4. Yep – gotta get that in don’t you. The only thing worse for you than a Trump presidency would be people coming to realize its not a binary choice.

          1. Kodos: It’s true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
            it? It’s a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
            [murmurs]
            Man1: He’s right, this is a two-party system.
            Man2: Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.
            Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

            Gee, I wonder what would happen if the two major candidates actually were monsters intent on enslaving humanity? What’s that? Oh, they are? Well, we know what John’s choice is. Kodos all the way.

        5. Observe that looter collectivists understand the law-changing power of LP spoiler votes.

    3. Hopefully they don’t look too close.

    4. pity neither johnson or weld have a clue as to what libertarianism is . Both are RINO squishes ,

      1. Eh… err……

        RINO. Republican in Name Only.

        Eh…. they are the Libertarian party candidates.

        So RINO when they were governors, perhaps.

    5. Did you tell them that they could look at your Johnson as closely as they want in private?

  3. How do you say ‘libertarian moment’ in Spanish?

    1. “”la fiesta de las cucarachas””

    2. Cuantos questas los ninos.

    3. Well… er… “ma?ana”?

    4. Bocadillo de mierda contra ducha gigante.

  4. Hispanics like their Nazi cakes too.

  5. Random thoughts

    Saw Sausage Party last night. In terms of weirdness/vileness, I rate it at 0.73 Sugarfrees. I did not particularly care for the talking used condom and the food orgy finale dragged a bit.

    Saw the CNN crawl this morning that “violent protesters” burned buildings in Milwaukee. I believe once things are on fire, it’s called a riot.

    Saw an anti-vaping ad. The gist was that vaping is the gateway drug to cigarettes. The anti-vaping people are not interested in harm reduction. The are on a holy crusade to stamp out sin.

    1. Prohibitionists always try to stamp out sin. It’s just becoming easier to see the truth.

      1. We see a lot of anti-vaping ads in California that say essentially “this is Big Tobacco’s newest trick to get you addicted to their product.”

        I’m OK with public-service ads (if there must be any) that try to discourage people from smoking or to quit. But why they have to skip any reasoning on ‘why not to use’ in favor of outright attacks on a legal industry is beyond me.

        The campaign seems solely to try to slime the tobacco companies rather than focus any health issues. It’s almost as if they’re saying smoking is OK, just not evil corporations making a profit selling cigs.

        1. That orient’n’s been there in the ads for many yrs. now, but extending it to vaping is bizarre. The next step would be sliming the other businesses tobacco cos. own, or are co-owned with tobacco cos., saying they’re trying to trick you into buying [brand of] food or whatever. But they never AFAIK denigrate the corner tobacconist or tobacco farmers.

          1. Well, the anti-smoking types need to do something to justify their work-free $200K salaries. Since almost everyone agrees smoking is bad for you, they need a new demon to slay. Otherwise, they may have to get real jobs and deal with (shudder) making customers happy.

        2. All the more ironic since the tobacco companies are part of the anti-vaping coalition.

    2. Sausage Party looks like someone took a really funny Adult Swim skit and tried to make a feature length film about it. I find it hard to believe you can get ninety minutes of humor out of that premise. I can see it being funny for about ten minutes and then get very lame very quickly.

      1. Yeah. The punch line of almost every joke was just a swear word. I give it points though for not being a sequel, a prequel, a remake, or a spin-off.

        Having a talking bottle of tequila named Chief Firewater was amusing.

        1. I give it points for being offensive to the SJWs. God knows we need more of that. It just doesn’t look like there is much to it. It strikes me as a “you come home drunk and don’t feel like going to bed and are flipping channels” kind of a movie.

          1. Exactly. The previews make it look like you’re gonna get an adult version of the original Toy Story plot, but it sounds like that isn’t the case. It still piques my interest because it looks irreverant, but I’ll wait until it’s on Netflix and I’m drunk one night.

    3. I watched Alexander Hamilton last night. It had the daring casting of having a sixty-something man (George Arliss) play Hamilton.

      Unfortunately, Arliss didn’t get much chance to shine, and everybody else just stands around and declaims.

    4. I’ve never thought of myself to be a snob about comedy. There are even some frat-boy gross-out ones that I thought were funny (e.g. Superbad, American Pie). But a lot of them really do suck. They seemed to be written by stoned and giggling 14-year-old boys who think dirty words are inherently funny.

      1. Completely agree. I’m stunned at how often current movies just use profanity instead of trying to actually write something funny.

        Perhaps it’s a sign of old-fogey syndrome for me, but you can see laugh-out loud movies from way back when like “Some Like it Hot” or any Marx Brothers movie, and there’s never any profanity or vulgarity. The worst they get is some clever innuendo.

        You can even look at recent comedy classics like “Animal House” or “Caddyshack” and most of the best lines you could say in front of grade-school kids without the slightest worry. And even the more dicey parts are much more clever than current efforts.

        Example: In “Animal House”, Otter sees a middle-aged woman in the supermarket buying cucumbers and says to her as she makes a selection, “Mine’s bigger than that.” In a movie today they’d be more likely to have him say “that thing’s nothing compared to my big motherfucking cock.”

        1. Indeed. Profanity and vulgarity are fine in small doses, but they can’t carry a whole movie.

          I had the hots for Verna Bloom in Animal House.

        2. ‘Hey everybody, we’re all gonna get laid!’

          Eh, maybe that one doesn’t play too well at the grade school level.

        3. Well they certainly wouldn’t have the ‘I’m only thirteen’ part nowadays.

      2. My stepson tells me that Seth Rogan did in fact write most of his movies in Jr. HS. He just couldn’t make them until now. Looking at his work it sounds legit.

    5. “The are on a holy crusade to stamp out sin.”

      I think America has become more puritanical than the puritans. Even the SJWs are puritans in their own way.

    6. What is the gateway to vaping? Is it chewing gum? Cola? Breathing? We need to stamp it out immediately!

    7. “Is they white?”

      TW: InfoWars, but it does sound riot-ish.

      1. Wow, the comments on that site make it seem like YouTube for racists. Sort by ‘oldest first’ for some truly choice examples.

        1. Infowars is even worse than racists : conspiracy theorists.

      2. Those aren’t BLM protesters. Those are hood-rats that have been whipped into a frenzy by BLM protesters. It’s what the left does – incite mob violence.

    8. http://www.seattletimes.com/na…..ee-unrest/

      Gov. Walker activated the National Guard. Milwaukee County Sheriff called for it earlier.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../88714718/

      As a resident of Wisconsin I can say both are pieces of shit and Milwaukee is a hell hole.

      1. Well, maybe burning it down will allow for urban regrowth.

        1. It honestly wouldn’t be that bad of an idea…

  6. There was an attack on a train in Switzerland yesterday. They haven’t released the attacker’s name yet. I wonder why that is.

    1. We can never know the mysteries of mental illness Derp. The media is so stupid. They seem to be too stupid to understand that not releasing the name every time the perp is a Muslim tells people when it is a Muslim just as surely as if they had said so directly.

    2. There are 2 possibilities. The attackers motives are unclear… OR, you’re a racist.

    3. They’re still trying to figure out whether Mohammad ends with an “ad” or an “ed”?

    4. Because it was Hillary?

    5. “The attacker has “a typical Swiss name and no immigration history”, according to police.”

      http://www.express.co.uk/news/…..tack-burns

      Hans Muhammad?

      1. So a second generation immigrant?

    1. And yet, you’re still an old, tiresome, boring shadow of a man.

      I keed, I keed.

      You’re not that old.

      1. SUNDAY OPEN THREAD!

        *blows air horn*

        1. What do you mean open? I’m going to get Ken over here to make sure you all stay on topic.

          1. Cunt…turns around…cunt…turns around…cunt..turns around. Is he here?

  7. “The insults from Donald Trump and the double talk from Hillary Clinton are not our only options.

    Now we can choose the muddled ramblings of Gary Johnson.

    1. +1, Two’s company, three’s a crowd.

      1. Come and knock on our door….

    2. +1 “Gary Johnson Explains his Previous Explanation about Foreign Policy and how that Explains his views on Nazi Cakes”

  8. Johnson doesn’t want the job. Not sure why. Last night on Gutfeld he had an opportunity to explain how to get to 15% and he completely threw it away. Either he is scared of the responsibility or he scared that people will make fun of him. Also thanks everyone for not reluctantly droning me today. Much appreciated. 🙂

    1. Also thanks everyone for not reluctantly droning me today. Much appreciated. 🙂

      I’m pretty sure that’s your other handle’s line, or have you completely given up on pretending you’re not running a bunch of sockpuppets?

      1. It’s a conspiracy I tell ya. A goddam conspiracy!

    2. Yeah, he hasn’t lied yet and has been completely too reasonable. He obviously doesn’t want to be President.

    3. Hey Weigel, have you ever given any consideration to suing the DNC, or possibly dropping a dime on the Clintons? You should think about it!

    4. Dont fret dajjal, we will get around to it eventually.

    5. Maybe he just wanted to have fun.

  9. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politic…..index.html

    Multiple FBI investigations into the Clinton foundation. If Clinton does win (and I don’t mean to restart the tiresome debate over whether she will or is certain to or whatever), she will be the most compromised President in history. Clinton will be the first President I can think of whose own party would face little or no political cost for impeaching her. Clinton is so unpopular and her misdeeds so obvious and so serious that only the total support of the Democratic establishment and the major media is keeping her alive. If she were to become President, all it would take would be a single faction of the Democrats in Congress or of the major media to turn on her and start telling the truth about her misconduct and she would be doomed.

    I have never seen or heard of a President in such a situation. I am really sure how that would play out.

    1. I will say one thing, there is no way in hell Hillary would run for re-election. Beyond her health issues, by 2020, the Democrats would have someone they want to replace her and she, having made her billions and met her goal as the “first female President” and will step aside. And that would not be a good thing. A President Hillary would be totally beholden to the media and Democratic party but have no worries about the electorate. In fact, her job would likely to be to do the worst and most unpopular things necessary to advance the Prog cause and then like a good soldier take the blame allowing the dems to run what would amount to a national apology candidate who would make the public feel like they were rejecting Hillary but in fact no undo a single thing she did.

      1. I finally saw a Hillary sign in a window in SF. My sense is that the enthusiasm for her is 1/10th what Obama got. There are still more fading Obama bumper stickers.

        I’m also surprised that her rallies are all a fraction of the size of Trump’s.

        1. I think a lot of the younger math challenged women who were going for Bernie are now with Stein.

          1. Most women I run into are more vehemently against Hillary than I am. These aren’t women who follow politics much either, they just find her creepy and shrill.

        2. I drove from Washington to Boston and back over the 4th of July Weekend. I saw Trump signs everywhere. Did not see a single Hillary sign.

          That of course doesn’t mean Trump is going to win. It does, however, mean no one likes Hillary. Obama signs were everywhere in both 08 and 12. Hillary would be the first President in my lifetime who has no real loyal base outside of the media. No actual voters seem to like her or really support her. It is amazing.

          1. I drove from Washington to Boston and back over the 4th of July Weekend. I saw Trump signs everywhere. Did not see a single Hillary sign.

            You know, if Trump were to win in spite of all the polls showing otherwise at the moment, in spite of all the celebrities bashing him, in spite of all the Republicans telling people not to vote for the Republican nominee, would it be a case of the polls being wrong? Or would it be that they polled in a dishonest way, misreported the poll results, etc? Would it be enough evidence to convince the average person that the power structure is nakedly and unquestionably working against them?

            Sure, they didn’t like Romney either. Or McCain. Or Bush. Or, or, or, or. But this is the first time the Republican party joined ranks with them. I don’t know exactly what it says, but it says something.

            1. I have always thought the media uses polls to drive the agenda. A good number of people don’t have strong opinions one way or another. So the media constantly warps and pushes polls that say their side is ahead so that people in the middle who don’t have a strong opinion to fall their way because they just want to go with the majority.

              1. I have always thought the media uses polls to drive the agenda.

                I agree. The evolution of polls from “make news” to the basis of actual news is a recent phenomenon in journalism, perhaps ten years or so. They always existed by they weren’t a daily thing treated as something much more than the momentary snapshot they are.

              2. Haw many times have you answered the phone to take a political poll? I am using a product called Phone Tray to intercept spam phone calls, so I automagically get all of those calls blocked.

                I think polls are skewed because the American electorate could give enough of a shit to pick up the phone and actually take one. The methodology is tragically flawed to be considered accurate.

            2. If Trump wins, I think it will be a combination of factors; people not admitting to voting for Trump, media spinning polls to be favorable to Hillary and much more enthusiasm for people to vote for Trump (no matter the reason).

              Remember in Michigan, in the Democratic primary, Hillary was up over Bernie by double digits and lost by the upper single digits.

              1. There is no way for pollsters to tell if people are lying or who actually will show up to vote. The famous “Bradley effect” has been the hope of every losing candidate for 20 years. It never seems to appear. But that doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t. It seems to have happened in the BREXIT vote. We won’t know if and how much if it is happening here until the election.

              2. At some point, even the most professionally conducted polls will be hopelessly flawed. Perhaps we’re there already. Perhaps we’re not.

                Most of these polls are telephonic interviews. As in landline telephone. You know, the ones with a cord plugged into a wall. Then they apply mathematical transforms to the data they get in order to get it to fit the demographics that they believe truly exist. (which is really fucking suspect)

                Any telephonic polling that focuses on millennials is a joke. Any telephonic polling at all needs to be viewed with a skeptical eye.

                1. Of course, if I had read the thread carefully, I would’ve seen that Gozer had already addressed this.

                  1. I think one polling flaw is that they ask if you’ve voted in previous elections, and discount or discard your answer if you haven’t. But Trump is getting huge support from people who rarely if ever vote.

      2. there is no way in hell Hillary would run for re-election.

        Why? In a sane world, her own party would have disqualified her as being too toxic, too flawed, too all those other things you pointed out. Instead, the party machine actively hamstrung the other candidate, more than likely actively discouraged any other serious contenders from entering, and remains oblivious to the obvious to this day.

        1. I think the Democrats will pull the plug and force her not to run. Also, I don’t think her health will hold for four years.

          1. Four years of being President might kill her.

            1. You just made one hell of an argument for voting for Hillary.

          2. Based on the aging it did to Bush and Obama, 4 years might turn her into the Crypt Keeper.

            1. Sh’ll never lose enough fat.

              1. She’ll

  10. …Johnson does seem to have a legitimate chance to top the [15 percent] mark at some point in the coming weeks if his rise continues.

    I operate from a belief that the majority of journalism will pull for the Democrat, no matter who that Democrat might be, even if only subconsciously. I also stand on the assumption that a Libertarian Party candidate will draw from voters who would normally vote Democrat far greater than those who would vote Republican. So I see Johnson’s exposure only increasing in news reporting in the weeks to come. Not that Hillary needs it.

    1. The polls show that he is drawing more Democrats than Republicans. Trump does better in every poll that includes Johnson that I have seen than he does in a two way race. This is not out of the ordinary. Sarvis drew more Democrats than Republicans in the VA governor’s race. And that was another race where the Republican was supposed to be the one beyond the pale but no one liked the Democrat either.

      For that reason, I think the media is going to drop Johnson like a rock after Labor Day. They only covered him because they thought he hurt Trump.

      1. Call me anti-science, but I don’t believe those polls are in any way reflective of what’s actually going on. At the very least they appear to be misleading as the ones that I’ve seen compare a two-party scenario to a multi-party scenario. Johnson isn’t the only variable changed.

        1. Anti-Science.

          You’re welcome.

          1. He’s a libertarian. Of course he’s anti-science, we already knew that.

            1. And racist. Don’t forget that.

              1. And racist

                Pro-mexican.

      2. Makes it interesting that the Ohio GOP is trying to keep Johnson off the ballot. Although I’m guessing Kasich would rather have Hillary anyways.

        1. As Fist says, the polls are hardly certain to reflect reality. Maybe he will draw more Republicans and the Republicans in Ohio know that. It is also possible that the Republicans are mistaken or that they know he will hurt Hillary but don’t care and want to keep the LP from gaining any traction. Who knows.

    2. To what extent is that Dems who hate Hillary, but think she’s better than Trump, but since Hillary is going to win anyways, might as well vote third party?

      I know that If I lived in a swing state my voting pattern would probably change, but I don’t, so GayJay it is.

      1. There will be some of that. But that is hardly good news for Johnson. People who do that are not really Johnson supporters. If you won’t vote for a candidate if there is a possibility that your vote could make a difference, can you really be fairly said to support that candidate?

        1. How many people are out there that really support any of these God awful candidates? There are a handful of true blue believers, but probably 90% of voters are just voting to spite the other side.

          Hell, I’m voting for Johnson because I think he’s better than Trump or Clinton, but that’s a really fucking low bar to clear. I’ll even toss the campaign a few bucks when I can. That doesn’t exactly make me a Johnson supporter.

          1. How many people are out there that really support any of these God awful candidates?

            Every single one who is willing to cast a meaningful vote for them. All votes count the same no matter how much or little enthusiasm they are cast with.

          2. Nobody. The soft machine knows votes for the Party means jobs for the boys. The morons are then convinced that the opposition candidate is in Satan’s personality cult. None of them read the platforms or know how their district congressman votes on bills. It’s the looter parties, not their mindless grinning candidates and head-wound cheering sections, that make the difference.

    3. Good speculation. Cash gambling has short odds for Dems, long odds for the Go Pee and get-a-drug-test-haircut party, so Dems ain’t hurting. The LP platform committee is signalling we might help bully women if the “good faith” incentives are right. So the LP stands poised to pull spoiler votes to help the more Mohammedan party lose to the one that believes women have individual rights.
      I’m gonna MISS God’s Own Prohibitionists… the way Republicans missed the Whigs in 1860.

  11. Interesting Iranian propaganda video on recent events: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOQatlUK7-0

  12. “When Johnson is not included, the Fox News Latino poll finds that Clinton gets 66 percent of the Latino vote and Trump gets 20 percent.”

    Latinos breaking one-to-three for Trump may be unexpected to mainstream journalists, who simply haven’t been selling that narrative. According to the mainstream narrative, Trump seems to have campaigned specifically against Latinos, and yet Latinos are still more evenly split on Trump than blacks, who break against Trump nine-to-one.

    http://tinyurl.com/h9aaydn

    Pew Research. See graph.

    One of the ways to interpret this is that just because progressives want to shoehorn a diverse group of various nationalities, socioeconomic levels, and heritages under the same heading “Latino” and assume they all have the same outlook doesn’t make it so.

    1. Never forget journalists are stupid and will believe anything someone in a position of authority feeds them. In this case, journalists don’t know any actual Hispanics. They know Hispanic activists and believe whatever the activists tell them.

    2. 90% is within the ordinary for the black vote. 95% is actually the expected breakdown. Bush broke 10% of the black vote, and that was epic.

      The latino vote has been growing rapidly. Bush pulled 35% and 40%. So 20% would be an unmitigated disaster. Only Bob Dole pulled numbers in that range since Carter/Reagan.

      The Democrat race-baiting machine is very powerful. And people are surprisingly easy to manipulate into race-based camps with simple “they hate our people” attacks.

      So the narrative is part of the attack. But it doesn’t mean that the general “Trump ain’t doin’ well with the minority vote” trend isn’t true. Even if it is partially due to push-polling.

  13. Suburbanites whose Mexican grandparents were born here may not line up with the thinking of new arrivals from El Salvador. It’s the same thing with “whites”, I suppose. Who here thinks that liberals in New York City, proud rednecks from Alabama, and wealthy suburbanites of North County San Diego all agree on anything if they’re “white”?

    I suppose Italian and Irish remain meaningful cultural identifiers to fifth generation Americans, but when people of German or English ancestry are talking about “whites”, they’re talking about Italians and Irish, too. And don’t Italians and Irish check off “white” on government forms?

    At some point, we’re just need to accept that “Latinos” are becoming more integrated into society all the time, and not only are more and more Americans not thinking of them as a group that is significantly distinguished from other “whites”, more and more middle class Latinos aren’t thinking of themselves as especially distinguished from other “white” Americans either.

    It may be that when the progressives are demonizing the white, blue-collar, middle class, a lot of the people they’re demonizing are “Latinos”–who think of themselves as white, blue-collar, and middle class. When Trump rails against illegal immigrants and foreign trade for hurting their standard of living, why wouldn’t that appeal to a segment of white, blue-collar, middle class Latinos, too?

    Not everyone lines up under the progressives’ preferred label narrative.

    1. My father lives in suburban Albuquerque. His neighbors are all middle class Hispanics who fit your description. All of them to a man despise illegal immigrants and are completely done with Obama and Hillary by extension. These people are not Republicans. Many of them voted for Obama. But they have no use for him now. And they certainly are not pro open borders.

      1. HazelMeade will still call them racists.

        1. Everyone except Hazel and the Democrat Party is racist. Lately she sounds like Dan Aykroyd making the talk show rounds for Ghostbusters.

          News Flash for Dan and his ilk: if racists existed in any number like what you suggest, Barack Obama wouldn’t be a name we know today.

          1. Is that what Dan Aykroyd is doing these days? Ugh. But he’s still married to the still-gorgeous Donna Dixon, so he must be doing something right.

            1. He also sells really good vodka.

              1. You watched the redlettermedia preview of the reboot ghostbusters didn’t you?

            2. And slowly turning into the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

        2. I am sure she would. In some ways they are. They are of Mexican dissent. And have no use for lower class Mexicans or Central Americans of any class. There is so much racism that goes in in Central America.

        3. Hazel has TDS big time.

          It happens to good people.

          Hazel will get past it eventually.

          It isn’t us that Hazel has it out for. It’s the redneck boogeyman in her head.

          He’s sort of like Freddie Kruger except he’s even worse because he uses racial slurs a lot.

      2. Isn’t it racist to assume that everyone is the same because of their race?

        I know “Latino” isn’t a race. Some liberals/progressives I’ve talk to seemed surprised to learn that “Mexican” isn’t a race either.

        The psychology of “white” as a significant identifier was a function of racism. Apart from being treated better than “blacks”, “whites” thought of themselves as American or Catholic, or Presbyterian or by their profession or by some other meaningfully significant identifier. Subconsciously or otherwise, teaching whites that they were all the same because they were not black was all about racism. It was the natural flip-side of teaching blacks that they were all the same because of their race.

        Mexico is an incredibly diverse country. When I lived there, I met black Mexicans, huge population of Lebanese Mexicans, huge population of German Mexicans (Alemanians, they call them–everything from oom-pah Music with accordians to beer and chicks named Olga and Gertruda is attributable to them). Yeah, there were Mexicans of Spanish ancestry. People of mixed heritage often had indigenous ancestry, but they were distinguished from the Mayans. Putting all those diverse groups of people under the heading “Mexican” makes sense if you’re only talking about their nationality.

      3. But now they’re going to add Argentinians, who are so ancestrally Italian that they speak Spanish with an Italian accent. Now throw in Portuguese speaking Brazilians of myriad socioeconomic levels, races, and ancestries, and then throw in Spanish speaking Cubans and Puerto Ricans of whatever ancestry, too? I’ve had blue eyed, Puerto Rican girlfriends (crazy) and coworkers who were whiter than my German/Anglo-Celtic ass.

        But we’re gonna put all these people under one category and assume they’re ant-Trump because progressives want them all to identify as an oppressed group, hate Trump, and vote for Hillary?

        I’d say othering people for speaking a language is racist as hell, but a lot of the fifth generation Americans they want to label as “Latinos” can’t speak Spanish any better than I can.

        1. I have a good friend who is from Argentina. I am pretty sure lumping her in with Mexicans and Central Americans would get you kicked in the balls if you did it to her face.

          1. I was just in Buenos Aires a few months ago. Argentinians in general consider themselves superior to all other Latin Americans, and would definitely be upset if you lumped them in with Mexico, or even with Chile (another very European South-American country.)

            1. Argentinians are almost entirely Eyetalians by descent.

        2. I’ve had blue eyed, Puerto Rican girlfriends (crazy)

          This is probably extremely racist of me, but the only rule I have for dating is “no Puerto Rican chicks”.

          1. I had a Peruvian coworker in Costa Rica who thought the Ticos were passably cultured, but didn’t speak Castillan like Peruvians. Which, I’ve been to Spain, Peruvians don’t lisp. But her real meaning was all the Cuban and Mexican American managers down there were semi-literate trash. She sounded exactly like an Ivy Leaguer from Brown stuck in Virginia working with a bunch of West Virginians.

            1. Was supposed to be on the parent. This has nothing to do with Puerto Rican girls.

          2. “This is probably extremely racist of me, but the only rule I have for dating is “no Puerto Rican chicks”.

            Sometimes the crazy would get so bad, I’d start wishing I’d never been born.

            My granddaddy was a minister. He wanted me to be a minister, too. He used to take me on his visitations, and a lot of the time it was to go see people on their death beds. By the time I was 14, I’d talked to dozens of men as they were dying. It seemed to give them comfort to give advice to a young guy as they were dying.

            You know what exactly none of them ever said?

            “I’m so glad I never got mixed up with any crazy wild women when I was young”.

            You want to experience that at some point in your life.

            And there’s something about the crazy ones. I need the better part of myself to stay away, but they come after me. I swear they do.

            1. You need to really experience the crazy to know that you don’t want that, but then after you’ve been there and done that, it’s like you can never really go home again.

    2. Yep, an acquaintance of mine is Latino. He’s more anti-immigrant than most white people I know. He bitches that because he has a rather common Latino surname, employers assume he’s just some fresh across the Rio Grande newcomer who barely speaks English.

    1. BLM is basically working for Trump these days.

    2. “… the suspect, identified as Royheem Delshawn Deeds…”
      It’s like his mom said “so how do I ensure that my son grows up to be an unemployable thug? Hmm… I know! I’ll name him Royheem Delshawn!”

  14. Brilliant: Freestyle Rap Battle: Translated. From the comments: “Someone Photoshop top hats and monocles on them, please?.”

  15. OT: Politico runs excellent, first-person article on How We Killed the Tea Party.

    Jesse Benton and his pro-Trump PAC get a mention.

    1. That doesn’t surprise me. Political consultants and activists are as a general rule scum. They don’t care about ideas or anything except getting paid. They are as loathsome as journalists.

      1. But unfortunately smarter.

    2. I was never very knowledgeable about the Tea Party but even my otherwise sensible friends were absolutely convinced that it was just a bunch of racists. The media effectively tore them apart before they got off the ground.

      1. Most tea party folks I met were just deluded conservatives who were more libertarian than the GOP. They tended to be more SoCon than I was, but they were primarily just pissed at GWB for going all cronyist.

      2. I have friends who think the same and that they were a bunch of fanatics who hated Obama and just wanted to destroy him. God does the media deserve Trump.

        1. This is what Tony and shriek actually believe.

      3. I only went to one TEA party rally. It had too much of an evangelical church meeting feeling for my taste but I supported the principles they stood for. Also, half of the people there were black, including one black dude running for the Louisiana state legislature.

        1. Anyone who wants cops to force women to reproduce at gunpoint easily fits in with TEAtotalitarianism. There are 3 such parties all threatening God’s Own Prohibitionists with a spoiler vote bleed-off if the word “choice” ever enters the GO Pee platform.

    3. Simple spoiler-vote maneuvering to keep superstitious bigots in charge of the GO Pee platform. The platform is an antichoice fait accompli, so the ku-klux have served their purpose. Their other purpose was to mouth enough LP-sounding platitudes to make us seem vaguely ku-klux by association.
      The American Liberal Party was also single-issue (repeal prohibition) in 1931. Once the Dems realized GO Pee prohibitionism was driving financial collapse into Depression, and that they’d lose without a wet plank, that small party was free to disband.

  16. Politico runs excellent, first-person article on How We Killed the Tea Party.

    Comments are largely imbecilic.

  17. The Milwaukee guy killed by police was identified.

    1. The man killed in the shooting has been identified by family members as Sylville Smith

      , undoubtedly “a good young man who was turning his life around.”

    2. They successfully found the least sympathetic guy possible again. Somehow, more words will be said about him than about Aiyana Jones.

      1. Yup. And that more than anything makes me hate BLM. They are nothing but a bunch of scumbag leftists who are using this issues for their own purposes and are going to end up making it impossible to do anything about police abuse and accountability.

      2. Agitation and divisiveness are their goals. Why pick a case that everyone agrees on? This case isnt as good as the Michael Brown case, but it clearly is a good one for stirring the shit.

      3. They successfully found the least sympathetic guy possible again.

        Who’s they; the cops?

        1. The protestors. I was referring to the publicity.

      4. If I didn’t know better, I would almost think that unjustified police shootings are the exception rather than the rule.

        Thanks to getting our information on the subject filtered by Reason, we all know that can’t possibly be true.

  18. Example:


    Tim Clair ? Works at Retired
    The Tea party died bacause it was populated by jerks who don’t believe in government or law and order.

    Well, if you consider people who believe the laws should apply to everyone equally, including agents of the government, to be anarchists….

  19. When Johnson is not included, the Fox News Latino poll finds that Clinton gets 66 percent of the Latino vote and Trump gets 20 percent.

    So, 14% of Latinos abstain, or what? Seems kinda RACIST!

  20. More:

    Charlie Accetta
    For something so encyclopedic and factoid-filled, this piece really is an advertisement for the States-rights crowd, who are always at the root of conservative intransigience. You can take off their sheets, take away their Nazi flags, burn off their Aryan Nation tattoos and we’re still left with a nation full of trailer parks whose inhabitants blame the rest of us because they didn’t pay attention in school. The next version will probably be called “Trump’s Raiders” and invade every state capital that The Donald fails to carry in November. There’s no aim, just anger. There’s no goal, just bloodlust. There’s no thought behind any of it, other than the opinion that the rest of us have been picking their empty pockets all along. It would be sad, if it wasn’t so stupid.

    1. whose inhabitants blame the rest of us because they didn’t pay attention in school.

      That could apply to lots of places besides “trailer parks”. “It would be sad, if it wasn’t so stupid.”

    2. You can take off their sheets, take away their Nazi flags, burn off their Aryan Nation tattoos and we’re still left with a nation full of trailer parks whose inhabitants blame the rest of us because they didn’t pay attention in school.

      Wow, they really capture libertarians to a T there, don’t they.

      The fact that people who make these arguments are entirely unable to perceive that their caricature of “the other” is really a subconscious reflection of their own deep-motivations? is what is frightening to me.

      everything they disagree with is motivated by “anger and fear”….

      but you see, they are themselves all love and hugs and attempts to “educate” and objective policy analysis.

      A quick glance at Salon or Alternet (never mind the Op-Ed section of the WaPo)…. or a photo montage of the people protesting at Trump events…. clearly bears this out.

      1. The fact that people who make these arguments are entirely unable to perceive that their caricature of “the other” is really a subconscious reflection of their own deep-motivations? is what is frightening to me.

        Occasionally it’s pointed out that gun grabbers are motivated by their own inability to trust themselves with firearms.

        1. Gun grabbers are motivated by their own inability to trust themselves with firearms.
          report spam

          yes. people often say incredulously, “How could anyone stop themselves from just freaking out and killing their co-workers!!?” or other exclamations which suggest that they don’t believe themselves (and therefore, anyone else) from actually having even a modicum of responsibility or self-control. It assumes a very base perception of how human beings actually think/behave, which gives insight into their own very primitive thought processes.

          there is also the equally common refrain – which is remarkable how often you’ll find it – that Welfare, or Food Stamps, or any other extremely wasteful social services for the poor, regardless of how inefficient they are or the inverse effects they actually have on people’s lives, are ultimately necessary… *else the poor rise up and kill all the rich people and take their shit*.

          Many of the same progressives who wax rhapsodic about “”social justice” etc. will, without blinking, insist that the Great Society is of the utmost importance… *even if it does nothing, or worse than nothing*… because it will keep the poor in their place and prevent them from upsetting the status quo

          and when you point out the horrifying moral hypocrisy, they look at you as if *you’re* crazy, and call you “unrealistic”

          1. are ultimately necessary… *else the poor rise up and kill all the rich people and take their shit*.

            You should point out to the people who say the above that in every country that has ever tried to pay off the poor, they eventually run out of money and the poor rise up and take the rich people’s shit anyway.

      2. “…they are themselves all love and hugs and attempts to “educate” …

        The only reason he was forced to spew that hateful screed is because you offended his loving, kind and tolerant soul Gilmore.
        Look what you made Charlie do.

    3. Wait, are we rich robber barons, or poor white trash with “empty pockets”? I can never remember.

      1. We’re poor white trash in the payroll of rich robber barons in return for spreading our racist teathiglican propaganda. We stay poor and trashy because we spend all of the money on guns.

  21. The fact that people who make these arguments are entirely unable to perceive that their caricature of “the other” is really a subconscious reflection of their own deep-motivations? is what is frightening to me.

    I see (on both sides) a Pavlovian hatred of those on the other team, based on collectivist pigeonholing.
    “Caricature” indeed.

    1. I see (on both sides) a Pavlovian hatred of those on the other team,

      Sure.

      yet it isn’t quite the mirror image you might want to pretend.

      While something like Breitbart might be the “Salon of the Right”… the degree to which left media like Salon occupies itself nearly 24/7 with a hysterical demonization of “the other” is unique, and a defining characteristic of the progressive-set. Everything is evidence of Nazi-fascist-corporate-hate, no matter how trivial. wash-rinse-repeat.

      there’s definitely a parallel where Right-mediamocks the Social Justice stuff you find on campuses (OMG THEY BANNED THE US FLAG!?!) etc. But it isn’t quite as broad and deep. It points at the actual phenomena of ‘how the left engages the world’ – whereas the Left’s approach is far more inherently cynical in assigning ‘the worst possible motives and interests’ to anyone who might disagree with their agenda.

      I mean… for Fuck’s Sake, man.

      I think the “a pox on both their houses”-thing is cute and convenient and very Reason-ish in its need to create a false-equivalence. But seriously – where is the right-wing rhetorical equivalent of Pando accusing Reason of being “racist holocaust deniers”…. or Cathy Young of being a ‘rape apologist’, Balko of being a Koch-plant, etc?

  22. Yesterday I just learned of an old college friend’s son who has been kicked out of a major midwestern state university.
    His crime?

    After he broke up with his girlfriend, she got involved with the school’s “Women’s Advocacy Center”. They helped her to channel her anger against him for breaking up with her into ‘retroactively withdrawing consent’ for sex they’d had. She then filed a claim of sexual assault against him with the school (but not with the police, of course).

    According to my friend, the school gave his son two options: deny the sex was not consensual, which would mean automatic expulsion, or admit his guilt, whereby he could stay in school under probation and in a year-long supervised training on proper intimacy. He would not admit guilt, so was expelled.

    My friend consulted a lawyer, asking “what about due process?” The lawyer just laughed.

    Think this is one worth forwarding to Robby?

    1. I can believe many crazy stories about the Title IX kangaroo courts, but this sounds fictitious. They would never offer leniency for admitting guilt.

  23. Without government who will make the inroads?

    1. We don’t need no stinkin’ roads.

  24. Good times in Rio. Not unexpected.

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/08/14/us…..in-brazil/

  25. I think the “a pox on both their houses”-thing is cute and convenient and very Reason-ish in its need to create a false-equivalence.

    I waste enough of my time without making an in depth study of the relative intensity of TEAM sentiment. Like a lot of things, I leave that to others. As they told us in the run-up to the SATs, back when dinosaurs stalked the land, “always” and “never” are big red flags. I just find the whole TEAM-based world view tiresome and unproductive*. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Hell, not even Bernie Sanders is wrong about *everything*. Although Pelosi probably is.

    *not an accusation

  26. I took a couple months off Reason because I was travelling for work, so I have to ask:

    Are the new TOP COMMENTS basically just designed as a platform for Mary and other mentally unbalanced trolls? I haven’t see a single one that wouldn’t come off as completely insane ramblings to a layman unfamiliar with Reason ‘culture’.

    1. Yeah, this experiment is an obvious failure, but it’s been months and Reason still won’t pull the plug.

      Adding “solidopinion.com” to your Adblock filters is always an option.

    2. Are the new TOP COMMENTS basically just designed as a platform for Mary and other mentally unbalanced trolls?

      yes

    3. From what I got, it was a move from Reason to get a little bit more funding. It turned out to be mostly used by paid shills from the 2 main political parties. Mostly Democrats from the nature of their comments. It usually involve a lot of caricaturing of the libertarian positions that people in the comments have, and they seem to mostly be in their own bubble, never actually engaging in a conversation with anyone here.

      Kind of fascinating to see that some political parties are willing to shell money and think such cheap efforts would change anyone’s mind. Also kind of fascinating to think that people are actually paid to post such bullshit, and then are going back to their bosses and tell them they’ve done a good job. I’m amazed to see how work ethics have dropped in my short life.

      Funniest part is they must think we are not in on them. Yeah right. What sane person would give a penny to be on the tallest soapbox in a disgusting swamp like this place.

  27. I was just perusing the latest alumni bulletin shameless plea for money from my alma mater. I ordinarily just toss them on the pile to eventually find their way to the landfill, but I actually attempted to read a couple of things. The president of the school is still a gibbering imbecile; her “letter” is packed full of nonsensical academician’s pseudointellectual jargon, and utterly devoid of substance. The article on the new library is unreadable; an unrelenting barrage of convoluted inside-higher-ed phraseology about “sustainable” practices and “sense of place” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be). Meanwhile, professors I took classes from 40+ years ago are only now retiring. I don’t know which is worse- the intellectual stagnation that implies, or the certainty that those people will be replaced with the bleeding edge of identity politics scholarship who will set about promulgating the worst sort of wealth envy hucksterism and tribalism camouflaged as “diversity”.

    The old library, incidentally, was a brand new state of the art exercise in modernism as practiced in the early ’70s; I used to say, “We have a library which looks like a parking garage. Maybe they should consider building a garage which looks like a library.”

    1. The 70’s architecture hit broad and hard across the world.

      I give you my alma mater’s old building, affectionately known as “The Bunker” :

      http://christianauxjeux.blogsp…..e-hec.html

  28. Some discussion above about latino attitude towards Trump. No. 1 I don’t believe anything I see in the polls and No. 2 it seems he could win over many latinos by reminding them that Cankles plans on settling 1 million muslims here during her first term.

    1. Doing jobs Mexicans won’t do?

      1. Not every latino is a mexican and not every latino does unskilled labor. Overall they have a pretty good work ethic, family values, strong christian background, etc.

        They won’t mix well with the mohammed crowd and most of them are if not outright anti-immigration they cast a skeptical eye towards it.

        Trump’s views and policy proposals serve them a hell of a lot better than Cankle’s do.

        1. Was supposed to be a joke.

          1. Ah. I am not the sharpest when I am not drinking. It fucks up my sleep schedule.

            My apologies.

            1. It’s all good:)

    2. It’s wonderful that you don’t allow evidence to affect your opinions. Protect your opinion at all costs, that is the motto of Reason these days isn’t it?

  29. Just read a treatise that Adam Smith had penned on free market prostitution called The Invisible Handjob.

    1. From what I can tell, the major effort is doubling down on prohibition. Of course all prostitution is now human trafficking. How could ayone be pro human trafficking? The statest are very good at controlling the language. Of course helps when the media supports that effort.

      1. It makes sense, doesn’t it?

        Drug trafficking is… selling drugs.

        So sex trafficking is…selling sex, which is prostitution.

        And human trafficking sounds like sex trafficking, so….

        prostitution is slavery. QED.

    2. The next chapter is Unproductive Hands and Economic Ruin.

  30. Olympic archers are amazing

    http://www.theonion.com/video/…..pect-53498

  31. You knew it was coming: fatwa issued against Pokemon Go

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KIMdI0LbNo

    1. A Fatwa is an Intolerance type Pokemon, right?

  32. So, he promised them the goldmine and Americans the shaft. Pandering putz.

  33. Natasha Hastings is pretty, and would be even prettier without an orange anemone sitting on top of her head.

  34. Does Gary Johnson actually want to be president? Does he even want to credibly run for President?

    I’ve always liked suits in royal blue, but you have to be a bit careful with them. There’s a reason navy and charcoal are the go-tos. Even if you’re an idiot you can’t go too wrong with charcoal, and not much clashes with it.

    But hey, maybe Gary is a sharp dresser, and maybe it’s just the lighting that makes that suit look way bluer than royal blue, and.. oh, just took a look at that tie. OK, so not a sharp dresser. But hey, politicians aren’t known for their dress sense. As long as they manage to… oh my fucking God, is he wearing sneakers with that ridiculous blue and lavender clown outfit?

    I think I’d still rather have Johnson than Trump or Clinton, but it’s becoming a narrow thing. How fucking stupid do you have to be to wear those shoes with that suit when posing for a campaign snap? How fucking stupid do your people have to be to let you do that? Weld’s clothes don’t fit, but his shoes look like they might be awesome if ugly old man shell at least.

  35. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  36. US policies export violence and economic collapse. The Oct 16 1988 Austin paper reporting the 733-point Dive in the Dow also reported over 1100 killed in Juarez, just across the border from El Paso. Remember those grotesque beheadings the DEA instigated through the violence of law? Remember the 733-point Dive in the Dow after George Bush repeated Herbert Hoover’s use of tax laws and asset forfeiture to enforce laws making beer a felony?
    The Caribbean, Central and South America have through exported economic collapse been footing the bill for a US “recovery” gained by shorting foreign securities and currency futures. Basta!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.