Gary Johnson

Dead Abe Lincoln Says: Vote Gary Johnson

New pro-Gary Johnson project "Balanced Rebellion" matches a voter most afraid of Clinton with voter most afraid of Trump so they both can feel good about voting for the Libertarian.


The Gary Johnson-supporting SuperPAC AlternativePAC has launched a new project, called "Balanced Rebellion."

Via their site and using Facebook, they link a voter who would like to vote Libertarian from a specific state who says they would feel obligated to vote Hillary Clinton if they had no other choice to another voter who says they'd feel obligated to vote Trump in that situation.

This is intended to solve the problem of the would-be third party voter who fears their vote would enable the candidate they most hate to win. You know, the old "A vote for a third party is a vote for whatever candidate you most hate."

As Matt Kibbe, who runs the PAC, explained in a phone interview this morning, you will actually be informed of the existence of this specific other voter, but just a first name to protect the other users' privacy.

The site and idea are explained in a long-form comedic video starring "Dead Abe Lincoln." The 5-minute ad attacks Trump as your drunk racist Uncle and Clinton as a corrupt pol trying to "make millions on political favors." If America is Gotham City, then Clinton is the Mob and Trump the Joker. Johnson then is Batman.

Dead Abe then explains some of Gary Johnson's good qualities, such as being a popular GOP governor in a Democratic state who managed to cut taxes, who wants to end wars, and not spy on you. It tries to stress that even if you don't believe in all Johnson's policies, you still might be able to see he's a better presidential choice than Clinton and Trump.

The video is the creation of the Harmon Brothers, profiled last month in the Washington Post for being the famous makers of rulebreaking longform web-based ads, whose initial rep is based on "turning gross into gold" (they invented the "pooping Unicorn" for the Squatty Potty product).

"Taboo products, if we believe in them, are our specialty," Jeffrey Harmon, one of the four Mormon brothers who run the agency, told the Post.

Jeffrey Harmon says in an emailed statement via Kibbe that "Early indicators suggest this Balanced Rebellion ad is as viral as the mega viral fiberfix ad we released last week."

AdWeek on that fiberfix ad, which got 3 million Facebook views in a day with no paid push.

The Harmon Bros. "dead Abe Lincoln" video for Balanced Rebellion:

NEXT: Friday A/V Club: Bureaucratic Comedy

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Like Dead Abe Lincoln is one to talk!

    1. Could they possibly have chosen a more ironic president to present this message/in this way?

      1. They, unlike Dead Abe, do have a second shot.

        1. Vote Third Party, What’s the worst that could happen?

          1. Civil War?

            1. “I’m not just the spokesperson for third-party, liberty-driven, catastrophic political tragedies; I’m also a member!”

      2. No irony at all — Abe is the last third party candidate to win.


  3. This is interesting, I’ll give them that.

    I want to say something incredibly inflammatory, but I know Mr. Doherty reads the comments and I’m not sure he shares Robby’s youthful love of the extreme non sequitur.

      1. You have chosen…wisely.

  4. I eagerly look forward to hearing how counterproductive this is from all the Reason commentariat who is never fucking right about absolutely anything related to campaigning.

    1. Yeah….well….your mom eagerly looks forward to hearing how counterproductive this is from all the Reason commentariat who is never fucking right about absolutely anything related to campaigning.

      1. I learned it from watching her.

        1. Are you the imbecile who was whining that Gawker was subject to censorship? Or just a random ignoramus?

          1. Gonna have to go with “neither”.

  5. “Hillary’s policies are the same as Dick Cheney’s, except Cheney supported gay marriage sooner.”

    Okay, that made me laugh.

  6. Didnt someone try this for Nader in 2000?

    Wasnt there thoughts that vote trading might be illegal?

  7. How high can morale possibly be in the Dem/Hillary camp? They have to know they’re universally (I hope. I pray) despised, right?

    1. I’d have high morale if I knew I was most likely going to win.

      Not a certainty, but a probability.

  8. Third-party candidates can serve no role other than spoiler, as anyone who paid attention in kindergarten can tell you. Equally obvious is that libertarians will not, on the whole, put on their big-boy diapers and make an actual fucking choice.

    1. Which diaper brand do *you* use?

      1. The Huggies knock-off commie brand.

        1. Look, you don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 brands of diapers.

      2. Calvin Klein, and I’m voting for Hillary Clinton, even though I don’t agree with her on everything.

        What’s really fucking funny is watching libertarians be all sad about not agreeing with Gary Johnson on everything, as if it matters.

        1. even though I don’t agree with her on everything

          I like that this is how the Bernie Bros all rationalize falling in line with the cronyist neo-con who represents absolutely everything Sanders ran against.

          1. Tony was always With Her. Bernie wasn’t a “pragmatic” choice. He had an argument with american socialist about it once that was really cute to watch, like a kitten determined to destroy that other kitten that it sees in the mirror.

          2. She represents like 90% of what Sanders ran on, and I was never a Sanders supporter, as I’m not a weirdo hippie who orgasms over 90 year-olds promising the United States of Denmark.

            Surely nothing is quite as absurd as Trumpians trying to lure Bernouts. As if white supremacists and liberal hipsters are a winning coalition in this country.

            1. Tony|8.26.16 @ 3:42PM|#
              “She represents like 90% of what Sanders ran on,…”

              Sop she opposes the 10% where the Bern had it right? Surprise, surprise!
              All wars, all the time, courtesy of that felonious hag!

        2. Tony|8.26.16 @ 3:31PM|#
          “…and I’m voting for Hillary Clinton…”

          Well, imagine that! D idiot presses the D lever!

    2. Choose the form of the Destructor! Otherwise Ray will do it for you.

      1. Not the stay puft marshmallow man!

    3. Do you feel all grown-up, licking those cankles?

      1. It’s cankles or spray-tan balls. No such thing as not making a choice!

        1. So do want shit sandwich, or shit soup?

          Can I have the salad instead?

    4. Tony rushes in, throws a temper tantrum, accuses everyone else in the room of being childish.

      Self-awareness Tony, learn what it is, practice it, become a better person. Or at least a more effective whiner.

      1. So be a grown man and tell me who your choice is for president.

        1. I can’t vote, I’m a filthy foreigner. But my choice is Gary Johnson.

          1. He’s not a choice, and how convenient.

            1. Actually, he is by nature of the electoral system, no matter how many times you throw a hissy fit over it. Unlike some people, I’m unwilling to be a pathetic sycophant to a criminal nutter.

              1. I’m not being self-serving in making this point. I want as many would-be Trump voters as possible to falsely think that voting for Gary Johnson is a legitimate alternative.

                1. Funny how the whole point of this is to take votes away from both Trump and Hillary.

                  And self-serving? Tony, you come on here and lecture everyone as if you’re some high-minded idealist. And then to turn around and support one of the most corrupt and dishonest politicians in recent memory. And not only do you support her, you continuously lie and deny to prop her up. And for what? Some pathetic self-gratification of ‘your TEAM’ winning? You’re as self-serving a scumbag as they come, and no matter how many times you declare you aren’t, guess what? You’re a proven liar, your words are worthless. You can deny, but it doesn’t change what you are.

                  1. I’m not going to convince you that HRC isn’t the corrupt demon spawn from your rightwing media diet. But it’s weird to be called an idealist. Libertarians are basically people who sit around and daydream about utopia all the time. This is an activity that I engage in once or twice a year, much reduced from when I was a little child. I seriously don’t get it. Voting for Gary Johnson is among the more practical of measures libertarians could take. At least it’s voting.

                    1. You’re so profoundly boring Tony, all you’ve got is this talking point that libertarians are childish compared to the model of maturity that is you. And then you throw a temper tantrum over someone disagreeing with you on the internet and start declaring that they’re children, while stroking your own ego.

                      Again, self-awareness Tony. Learn it, practice it, become a better person. Grow up a little bit.

                    2. “Rightwing” media like the New York Times


              2. Wait, aren’t you from the future? Who ends up winning?


              -signed, the Federalist party

              1. The Whig Party and the National Republicans would like to join your open letter, sir.

                1. So take my goddamn bet.

                  1. If you should only vote for someone who has a good chance to win, is everyone voting for Clinton in a solidly red state (or in general, votes Democrat is a solidly R state or district) or vice versa (for both) wasting their vote? Don’t you live in Oklahoma? Why don’t you vote for the only candidate who can win that state? Should everyone who voted for Mondale have voted for Reagan or not at all in 84? You come in here lecturing everyone about how intellectually superior you are, yet you can’t even figure out how the electoral college works.

                    1. I wrote elsewhere on this thread about my views about there not being an ethical distinction between voting in a swing state vs. a foregone-conclusion state.

                      If you want more, I’d say that the popular vote isn’t nothing. And this particular electoral map is looking a little different from how it has before.

                    2. What kind of self delusion does it take to think that voting in any way correlates with making a binary choice? The sum total of all the votes in this comment thread will not change the election.

                      Therefore this is absolutely no excuse for voting Hillary. It is all shame and no pragmatism.

                    3. Tony switches back and forth between making practical and moral arguments, even if they contradict each other, for why you must vote R or D depending on what is most convenient for him.

                    4. There’s no excuse for voting Republican if you care about improving the world and basic human decency, but at least you’re making a grown-up choice, which is more than can be said for Stein and Johnson voters, who are mistaking an election for an exercise in self-pleasure.

            3. Tony|8.26.16 @ 3:33PM|#
              “He’s not a choice,”

              To fucking ignoramuses like you.

        2. I have a choice. You don’t. You HAVE to vote for whoever the DNC tells you to, because you’ve wrapped your self-worth up in a false dichotomy.

          I’m sorry, but no one who understands the position your capitulation to cowardice and sloth places you in could possibly take your theories or opinions seriously. You aren’t a person on this subject, you’re an inanimate object. You’re lawn furniture.

          1. If you think a presidential election in the United States is anything but a real dichotomy then you’re a fucking moron who needs to go back to school. I didn’t make the rules, and I don’t necessarily like them. But you don’t believe in a lot of actual facts, do you?

            1. Your argument is an appeal to the neverending nature of the tiny slice of history you’ve experienced so far, whichs apparently outweighs empirical reality and the rest of all of human history. Pretty much speaks for itself.

              1. All right, well I have a standing wager of $10,000 that the next president will be either a Republican or a Democrat. So far, no one has taken me up. Wanna go?

                1. Head on over here and you can make some money on the silly libertarians! Right now you can use that $10,000 to make a quick three hundred bucks shorting Gary Johnson rather than wasting it on sheer pomposity!

                2. Do I want to bet $10,000 on a complete unknown? No, not really.

                  Prevailing trends state that it will almost certainly be a Republican or a Democrat. That doesn’t say what you apparently think it does.

                  Seriously, your logic is appallingly shitty. It’s embarrassing. You make your political “choices” based on their impact on your social life, and then rationalize backwards to justify them. Most of us came to our viewpoints through the struggle of introspection and study.

                  You aren’t equipped with the proper tools to even comprehend and process the deficit you face here.

                  1. But you’re all really stupid people who believe in a bunch of asinine horseshit that has no factual basis whatsoever.

                    I was reading Heidegger and Leibniz when you were jacking off to Ayn Rand for the 50th time. All I’m saying here is that the next president will be Clinton or Trump. This is not a controversial opinion.

                    1. But it is an opinion. It’s not a fact, which is the claim you’re making. Which makes you either an idiot or a liar. Your choice.

                    2. It’s also a fact.

                    3. “Look at me namedrop Heidegger and Leibniz, not at the moronic self-righteous content of my posts! Look at how much smarter I am than you libertarians! This doesn’t reflect on my intellectual insecurity at all!”

                    4. I’m insecure about many things. I admit realities. Do you? Can you even admit that the next president will have an R or a D after his or her name? Namaste.

                    5. The next president will have an R or a D after his or her name. This is not a good thing. I will not endorse it by voting for either. That you will, with great self-righteousness, makes you part of the problem.

                    6. You personally are not endorsing the reality of our politics, as if anyone gives the slightest shit, and I’m the self-righteous one?

                      Seriously, no one cares. Not even your mother. It’s a secret ballot.

                    7. Sure, the next president will likely have an R or D next to their name. Neither are choices that are beneficial to the American republic or the American people in general. This isn’t even a libertarian position, this is a ‘both these people are horrible, awful people who should never be allow access to political power, ever.’ Either choice is choosing stagnation, corruption, destruction and death, and those who choose to back their brand of destruction are partially responsible for the suffering they encourage. So, if I had the option, I’ll make the choice for the sane man in the running, on the off change he’ll succeed, or at least to support his message and present the American people with a good choice.

                    8. It’s only my respect you stand to lose, so knock yourself out.

            2. Your vote does not in fact matter.

              A vote for Hillary is a capitulation with no actual benefit. Her policies will not spare you just because you voted for her.

          2. Tony wears cowardice, sycophancy and a lack of integrity as badges of honour. He’ll throw away any and all convictions he has, lie and lie and lie again just so he can get the dribble of self-worth he can from being associated with a ‘winning side’. And then he lectures other people on their behaviour, as if any of us would have any interest in becoming a degenerate scumbag like him.

            1. It’s so bizarre how so many people equate “principles” with “making sure never to achieve anything positive in the world, ever.”

              1. Tony: “I’m going to come on here and lecture libertarians on being amoral monsters, and then turn around and support an amoral monster.”

                No Tony, I equate ‘principles’ in actually believing in what you say, not spewing out self-congratulatory words that stroke your ego.

                1. I don’t think you’re amoral monsters, just stupid.

                  1. I don’t think you’re amoral monsters, just stupid.

                    And based on your actual postings here, you’re lying. You have consistently degraded people and accused them of what you consider moral depravity. Sorry, but the context of your behaviour here delegitimizes that claim. If not, I suggest you start issuing apologies to everyone you have called a racist.

                    1. John Titor|8.26.16 @ 4:02PM|#
                      “And based on your actual postings here, you’re lying. You have consistently degraded people and accused them of what you consider moral depravity.”

                      He’s certainly lying and a compulsive liar, but he’s also a moral cripple; a juvenile unwilling or more likely unable to take responsibility for his actions.
                      If he had the power, he would be a thug and willing to have you killed for not doing what he prefers.
                      If he were a juvenile, it might be worth offering assistance, but since he’s an adult, he’s worthy of derision and insults.

                  2. Can you actually outline any principles you live by? Not cherry picked positions, but actual principles? I’d love to hear one. I mean a real principle, one that you believe in and support in your day-to-day life.

                    1. Principles? No, Tony doesn’t have those, and he doesn’t believe that anyone else really does, either. He’s admitted before that he doesn’t even believe parents would take care of their kids if the government didn’t force them to, which is really projection so epic you can see it from space.

                      He’s an insecure, angry, small-minded authoritarian who is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.

                    2. Don’t hurt anyone.

                      There’s never an excuse for rudeness.

                      Two puffs, then pass.

                      It’s noon somewhere.

                    3. Don’t hurt anyone.

                      …says the guy shilling for a warmonger because she’s the “realistic” option.

                      There’s never an excuse for rudeness.

                      …says the guy whose first comment in the thread called everybody else here a baby.

                    4. Well the only other option is the guy who wants to bomb the shit out of civilians on purpose.

                      And I didn’t make an excuse, did I?

                    5. “Well the only other option is the guy who wants to bomb the shit out of civilians on purpose.”

                      Uh…that’s Hillary, too.

                      Your cognition is dissonancing again.

                    6. Tony|8.26.16 @ 4:12PM|#
                      “Don’t hurt anyone.”

                      You’re lying, you piece of shit.
                      How do you think taxes are collected? You stand for thuggery end to end.

                    7. There’s never an excuse for rudeness.

                      And you practice that principle here by….screaming at people about how immature and stupid they are?

                    8. I’m off work today. See principle #4. Not that I’m making an excuse.

            2. He’ll throw away any and all convictions he has, lie and lie and lie again just so he can get the dribble of self-worth he can from being associated with a ‘winning side’.

              No, just his team. At this point, he’s delegated his thinking to the Party. If, tomorrow morning, they were to tell him that the key to greater prosperity was tax cuts at the highest brackets, he’d be here telling us all about how a rising tide lifts all boats. If they told him that the Iraq War was a stunning success he’d be here praising George W. Bush and telling us that he was actually really a Democrat at heart.

              1. I was radicalized against Republicans when they instigated the Iraq invasion with lies. Believe it or not, I actually do support most of what’s on the Democratic platform, and I think any sentient being can tell the difference between them and Republicans, especially now.

                1. Believe it or not, I actually do support most of what’s on the Democratic platform

                  Most. Haaahahahaha!!! You believe whatever is on the Democratic platform. They could tell you the moon was made of Green Cheese and you’d be hear swearing to us about how moon-rock was a delicious part of this organic, gluten-free breakfast.

                  As I said, they could declare that the stunning success, and you’d be here praising George W. Bush, no, wait, better, telling us all how it was really Hillary Clinton who made it happen and those damned Republicans just stole credit for it.

                  1. Yeah you got me, I have no capacity for independent thought.

    5. If you’d ever made it through kindergarten, you might be aware that electoral politics is not part of the curriculum.

      1. I didn’t attend one of those remedial loser schools that churns out libertarians.

        1. You sure are a well-trained authority fetishist, that’s for sure.

        2. Tony|8.26.16 @ 3:28PM|#
          “I didn’t attend one of those remedial loser schools that churns out libertarians.”

          We can tell. You remain a moral cripple.

        3. “I didn’t attend one of those remedial loser schools that churns out libertarians.”

          I’m the QA engineer for a software platform that moves billions of dollars. What do you do, again?

          1. Make fun of libertarian computer geeks who think they learned everything there is to know about ethics and politics in C++ class?

            1. A C++ class contains more ethics than typically seen in a Yale degree.

    6. Equally obvious is that libertarians will not, on the whole, put on their big-boy diapers and make an actual fucking choice.

      You are correct, at least, in recognizing that either choice is shit

    7. Tony,

      Wouldn’t that only make sense if you lived in a swing state? If third party voters “spoil” California for Clinton, or Texas for Trump, then their campaigns were dead long before that. On top of that, what if you’re far from both candidates? It’s not like people here are BernieBros who just don’t think Clinton is far left enough, there’s basic and vast philosophical and principled chasms between both candidates.

      1. This I think is a good question and open to debate. My opinion is that there is no justification for making a moral distinction between an action in California and the same action in Ohio. Swing-state voters are not the Morlocks of American politics, doomed to compromise their precious souls so that we red or blue staters can remain pure and vote our conscience. I don’t think that passes an ethics smell test. If it’s the right thing to vote for Clinton or Trump in a swing state, it must be the right thing anywhere else.

        Plus, the only reason there are red and blue states is because people vote one way in large numbers. So if every liberal in California took the position of a Jill Stein voter, it would turn into a red state. Thus third-party supporters not only insist that living in a non-swing state affords them the luxury of being morally pure, they must insist that such an option is not actually open to the vast majority of like-minded people in their state.

        1. “My opinion is that there is no justification for making a moral distinction between an action in California and the same action in Ohio.”

          But why? This is a double-standard, because your entire argument is supposedly based on pragmatism and realism (only these candidates have a good chance to win, hence one must vote for one of them) but in places where that argument is obviously weak, you suddenly have to resort to a half-assed moral argument?

          Also, if every liberal in CA voted for Jill Stein, she would probably win CA’s electoral votes. But not every liberal is closer to Jill Stein than Hillary Clinton politically, so that doesn’t even really make sense. Also, you can’t simultaneously refute an argument with realism (if someone said to you “if everyone who’s voting for Hillary voted for Jill Stein, she’d win!” you’d obviously retort that that’s an unrealistic scenario that would never happen) and then defend your own argument with essentially the same scenario, but slightly modified (Stein winning enough votes to deny California to Clinton).

          1. I realized my error in the “everyone in California votes for Stein” scenario. If that happened, then those voters would merely be enabling Trump’s win nationally after denying Clinton California’s electoral college votes. It would still be spoiling. If the whole country lost its mind and made Hillary third place to Trump and Stein, well, there’s a reason both of us appreciate this as a nonsense scenario, right?

            The ballot is winner-take all. Rational voters will not splinter into many groups but will form coalitions that can win an outright majority against an opposition that is attempting to do the same. Hence we have the two major parties. It’s not a conspiracy or an assault on our personal morality, it’s just the mathematics of our form of election. Even if we had a different system that made space for minor parties, they’d still form coalitions that would leave us roughly in the same place. Libertarians are not shut out. Some of their ideas have a home in the Republican party and others have a home in the Democratic party. I acknowledge the quandary.

            I do get annoyed at people treating a presidential election as the perfect time to go around boasting about how above-it-all they are. IMO it’s the exact wrong time for that, being an actual binary choice.

            1. You still didn’t address the hypocrisy of using realism to refute an argument for voting third party why using a scenario that’s essentially equally unlikely to make your argument for why you’re obligated to vote for R or D.

              “I do get annoyed at people treating a presidential election as the perfect time to go around boasting about how above-it-all they are. IMO it’s the exact wrong time for that, being an actual binary choice.”

              You’re the one who came to a libertarian site to let everyone know how intellectually and morally superior you are for voting for Hillary Clinton. Who exactly is the one going around boasting?

              1. *while

              2. You’re not obligated to do anything; it’s a free country. I merely suggest that voting third-party is tantamount to voting for the major-party candidate that least represents your values.

                All I originally asked for was someone to step up and say “I’m voting for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump because I recognize that as the actual choice before us.”

                1. You’ve talked about the right thing and making the moral choice, how are you not talking about obligations? If you’re going to be a condescending ass, at least be up front about instead of disingenuous on top of that.

                  1. I thought I made it clear that voting for Johnson or Stein is not a matter of ethics but a matter of stupidity. It’s a winner-take-all ballot. The math of such is obvious.

                    The point is that it’s an exceedingly simple moral choice. Do you support Trump’s or Clinton’s policies? It’s the easiest question most humans will ever have to face. Easier than picking out an avocado.

                    1. You clearly have argued it’s a matter of ethics, and you just did so again in that very fucking comment.

                    2. You’re ignoring any possible benefits of the libertarian party making a decent showing and setting themselves up for future growth. That and there are people like me who consider Hillary and Trump equally bad options. If Gary Johnson wan’t on the ballot I’d either not vote or write in Batman.

                    3. “Do you support Trump’s or Clinton’s policies?”
                      Neither. On a libertarian site, one would expect you to understand that.

    1. I wouldn’t put a man so cuckolded by the thought policing of the anti-male SJW agenda in charge of my country, I’ll tell you that. If only we’d known!

  9. The ad claims Johnson supports religious freedom.

    It’s one thing to say “at least he’s better than Donald or Hillary,” but making him look like a supporter of religious freedom is taking liberties with the truth.

    1. Look, he fought a war to free the slaves!


      1. oops, meant to respond to DJF

    2. What’s the point of being a libertarian if you don’t take liberties?

    3. You should find one of those bakeries that are being shut down because they refuse to serve gays (I assume there must be thousands or perhaps millions of such places, given how much you talk about it), chain yourself to the door, and vow a hunger strike until America finally gives its persecuted Christians the respect they deserve.

      1. I’ve given plenty of links in previous comment threads. It’s not that rare.

        And in any case, by the “it rarely happens” standard you’re proven too much, because before Lawrence v. Texas, it was rare for gays to be prosecuted for sodomy which was (a) adult, (b) consensual, (c) conducted in private, and (b) without the risk of disease. You are setting yourself up for having your examples dismissed as anecdotal.

        It’s simply a question of virtue signalling and team membership – gays qua are cooler than Christians qua Christians.

        1. I should say “in the home with the consent of the homeowner” rather than “in private.”

        2. Also, I suppose you admit that the ad was wrong about Johnson and religious freedom?

          I mean, you could have said, “you liar, Johnson totally supports religious freedom just like the ad says!”

          But you probably realized a claim like that wouldn’t pass the laugh test.

          So you went with “OMG you suck” instead.

      2. Sorry, but that’s kind of a silly argument. It’s either right or wrong. Just because its rare, doesn’t make it right. I mean there’s probably less than ten cases a year of a person wrongfully killed by the police. So, do we write it off as okay?

        1. Less than ten? Off by an order of magnitude. A

  10. Trump is not going to eat Muslims, he’s not going to import them so how can he eat them?

    Lincoln needs to go back to killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, putting the country into debt and working on his plan to deport blacks

    1. Look, he fought a war to free the slaves!


    2. I do find it ironic they chose Lincoln given the nature of his regime. What with the invading of one’s own country over tax collection, mass censorship, closing of newspapers and arresting of editors/journalists, central bank creating, judge deporting and generally voiding what the founders created (ie a voluntary Republic)…

      1. Yes, the Southern states (and their decision to secede) was a shining example of voluntarism.

        I’m glad everyone remembers Lincoln started the war by firing Fort Sumter at those innocent cannonballs.

        1. No one was injured or killed at Ft Sumter. It hardly merited a full scale invasion. Oh and we must not forget that Lincoln sent a letter to the admiral of the fleet that was dispatched to reinforce Ft. Sumter (which, at that point, was a foreign stronghold in SC that was to be used to force collection of the recently doubled tariff) thanking him for getting the desired result. The ships arrived during the bombardment but did not engage because the desired result had been achieved. Also, it’s not like Lincoln threatened invasion and bloodshed over tax collection in his first inaugural address. Oh, wait…

          1. “No one was injured or killed at Ft Sumter. It hardly merited a full scale invasion.”

            What level of aggression does merit it? What merited attacking Fort Sumter? Seceding and fighting a war because a somewhat anti-slavery president got elected and the Southern elite wanted to preserve their “right” to own and exploit human beings wasn’t exactly merited, but for some reason in these arguments everyone is supposed to take that for granted.

            “(which, at that point, was a foreign stronghold in SC that was to be used to force collection of the recently doubled tariff)”

            Uh, that wasn’t exactly an undisputed notion.

  11. Yeah, I don’t know, Brian.

    Good ol’ Abe and his admin set up and started National Academies of Science, with the sole purpose of advising future admins on all things scientific, particularly potential problems that science uncovers. That is how much Abe valued science.

    NAS said this about climate change:

    CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing the earth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes.
    The evidence is clear.”

    Now, I fully understand that Abe’s reliance on science will leave most libertarians behind, at least Johnson agrees with most of that statement. But I guess it’s not to him one the defining issues of our time, since he proposed no solutions other than he is open to considering a carbon tax.

    I think Dead Abe will demand of Johnson that he gets a bit more serious about one of the defining issues of our time. Being open doesn’t cut it anymore, because all it means is he might do nothing.

      1. Lincoln, Reagan, Clinton…if only the various First Ladies could have conjured up the ghost of Abigail Adams to tell them to cut out the slumber-party horseshit and stop embarrassing the country with their dumb superstitions.

    1. one the defining issues of our time – oh my!

      you’re obviously a genius, so might I ask just how many defining issues of our time are there?

      1. Ask NAS…they said it. But what do they know, they’re just scientists.

        1. Jackand Ace|8.26.16 @ 4:10PM|#
          “Ask NAS…they said it. But what do they know, they’re just scientists.”

          Linus Pauling on vitamin C:…..uling.html
          But, he was a scientist, right?

        2. I am not doubting that the NAS group wrote “one of the defining issues of our time” – I was asking you, just how many defining issues of our time are there?

          1. If your curious, do your own study! Have fun!

            1. superficial, lightweight response of a magical thinker

    2. Okay, Jackass, I gotta say I’m impressed that you were able to turn Abe Lincoln into another of your inane rants about global cooling global warming manbearpig climate change.

      1. Thanks! Enjoy your weekend!

    3. What? Is this a parody post? It doesn’t really make sense as parody or as a serious one either, so I’m confused.

      1. Someone tried to cover some of Jack’s lies last week, but lost count.

    4. Did you know that Abe Lincoln went his whole term without approving Social Security? If you believe in Social Security, Abe Lincoln says you’re an asshole.

      1. Actually, Abe didn’t have an opinion about climate change either. But he had one about the vue of science.

        1. And you presume he agreed with ignoramuses like you?
          Tell us about fracking again, Jack. Friday afternoons are good for a laugh!
          Oh, and have a painful, miserable weekend!

    5. Jackand Ace|8.26.16 @ 3:32PM|#
      “Yeah, I don’t know, Brian.”

      You finally got something right.
      Oh, and fuck off.

    6. Update…Johnson flip flopped. Not open anymore. So he’s got nothin.’

      A true libertarian! So much for the science that Abe said you should listen to!

  12. The video needs to get to the point sooner. I’m sure a fair number of folks will lose interest within the first 30 seconds and never see/hear the actual “balanced rebellion” pitch.

  13. This basically is solving the prisoner’s dilemma of 3rd party voting by coordinating with the other “suspect”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.