Hillary Clinton

Civil Liberties and Military Force Are Not a 'Single Issue'

One way to minimize Hillary Clinton's transgressions

|

Gage Skidmore

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones thinks it's odd that Gary Johnson has supporters on the left, an argument he elaborates by listing a bunch of Johnson's positions that liberals are unlikely to like. I'm not sure he has described all those stances accurately—Johnson has rejected the use of eminent domain to build the Keystone pipeline, and he recently surprised me by telling Politico that he opposes the Citizens United decision—but that's beside the point; I'm not writing this to convince progressives that they really should vote for the Libertarian Party's candidate after all.

I'm writing it because of something Drum says after the list:

Unless you're basically a single-issue voter on civil liberties and military force, it's hard to see why any lefty of any stripe would even think of supporting Johnson.

Not to state the obvious or anything, but "civil liberties and military force" are not a single issue. They aren't even just two issues. Suppose a left-leaning Johnson supporter were to print a long litany of places where Johnson agrees with the ACLU, with additional entries for each war where the candidate has said the U.S. should not be involved. If she were to wrap her post up with a dismissive reference to Johnson's liberal critics as "single-issue voters on regulation and spending," Drum would surely think that silly. The same principle applies here.

This is particularly vexing when it comes to foreign policy. The candidates' positions there arguably matter more than how they feel about any other group of issues, because that's where a modern president has the greatest power to act autonomously. Big economic bills don't get passed without lots of logrolling and horse-trading, but the White House enters wars without even bothering to ask Congress for permission—no, pretending that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force covers virtually everything doesn't count—and most legislators have no interest in seriously challenging that. We have reached a point where the president is most powerful in precisely the area where it's possible to do the most damage.

Under such a system, it is folly to think of military force as a mere "single issue." Yet Drum somehow goes further than that: In his accounting, it's just half the issue, sharing the space with the whole Bill of Rights. I can see why that formulation might appeal to Clintonites trying to shore up her support on the left, given that she's a consistent hawk who is frequently hostile to civil liberties. But for people who care deeply about those topics, they're not minimized so easily.

NEXT: Dallas Cops Get Wise to Impending Public Pension Catastrophe, Start Yanking Their Money Out of the System

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. he elaborates by listing a bunch of Johnson’s positions

    – “”He opposes any kind of paid maternity or medical leave.””

    Johnson wants to use government to PREVENT companies from offering maternity benefits to employees?

    1. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $75h to $86h?Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business… Go this web…. http://goo.gl/Tn2qSr

    2. Just another peak into the proggie mind- no company would offer such leave if not required by the government, therefore the only kind of paid maternity or medical leave is that required by the government. (Ignore the many companies that do this of course).

      1. Yes. They are very closed to alternate solutions to anything – if you don’t agree with the specific way they want to solve some problem, you are in their mind completely ok with the problem existing. Oppose single payer? You want people to not have healthcare. Oppose welfare? You want children to starve. Oppose labor regulation? You are an advocate of child labor. It goes on and one, and makes arguing with them essentially pointless and futile.

        1. Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
          We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

          ~Fr?d?ric Bastiat

        2. It’s funny, because these people were largely the ones responsible for everything becoming so damn expensive in the first place. Regulation and safety are not free.

          Good, fast, cheap. Pick at most two.

        3. I had a lefty tell me I was against kids getting an education because I gave the dept of Ed as an example of an agency to cut. I said it’s only been around for like 30 years so how did people go to school in the 60s. His prog mind heard 60s and caused his throat and mouth muscles to say something about racist.

          1. I have enjoyed this particular thread immensely. Progressives have no interest in freedom beyond their own personal predilections. They have their agenda, the government backs it up and enforces it, and you’d best come along peaceable like if you know what’s good for you.

            That is the unvarnished image of government by the fascists of good intentions.

    3. Not requiring = opposing = BANNING!

      See: birth control
      healthcare
      Planned Parenthood funding
      etc

  2. The very fact that idiots like this are printing such nonsensical arguments, or has-beens like Bernstein are attributing motives to candidates based on their own clairvoyance, is a sign that the Hillary camp is in full-blown panic mode.

    Suddenly, the LP candidate is relevant and a target for attack, because he is a threat. I’d never thought I’d see it in my lifetime, but maybe substantial numbers of voters are finally waking up to just how bad the two-party system is.

    1. maybe substantial numbers of voters are finally waking up to just how bad the two-party system is

      Maybe, indeed. It looks more to me like Clinton-Trump is an internecine fight leaving a large number of people feeling unrepresented. Johnson just happens to be the least detestable alternative for a sizable portion of the remainder.

      1. Johnson just happens to be the least detestable alternative for a sizable portion of the remainder.

        Although he’s doing his damndest to be more detestable every day.

        1. Maybe he is detestable to libertarians, but he is not detestable to everyone else.

          1. The problem is that this may be the first election where libertarians are inclined to vote against one of the two major-party candidates in large numbers. We may not make up double-digit percentages of the electorate, but we aren’t as small as the 0.5% of the vote LP candidates usually get. Johnson is alienating one group of people (those he’s allegedly representing, no less!) as fast or faster than he’s impressing other groups of people.

            1. I disagree completely. The libertarians who might throw their principles to the side and actually vote for Johnson are a small number compared to Republicans and Democrats who do vote and want to give someone their protest vote.

              1. I think you’re missing my point.

                Yes, Johnson is the protest vote. The libertarian protest vote. Most elections, libertarians vote for one of the two major party candidates on the “lesser of two evils” basis. This election, there are good reasons not to vote for either major party candidate, from a libertarian perspective. Yet the one who would represent us seems generally uninterested in doing so.

                We usually “throw our principles to the side”. Now, there is a genuine reason not to do that, but there’s no one clearly standing up to represent our principles.

              2. By this logic then, Crusty, GayJay and Gelded Weld should abandon any semblance of either (l) or (L) ideology, policy, and “purity”, and simply either become a true blue TEAM BLUE so he can pander to every demographic he believes he needs to win. And this guy really sucks at pandering unless BLM or Gay Cakes are involved.

                In short, he needs to be both Shrill-Bot and a Bernie Bro, and scuttle any notion of LP-ism, so he can lock up than other 40% to 50% that is just dying for something different (but in reality wanting more of the same, just a different big bow and wrapping paper).

                1. Kbolino, Johnson represents enough general principles (legalize marijuana, fairly non-intervention foreign policy) that libertarian-minded people agree on that he is clearly the only choice if a libertarian-minded person was to vote based upon their principles. He is far, far, far, far, far from perfect, of course, but I think what libertarians perceive as his faults are appealing to many in both major political parties.

                  Groovy, I don’t think he is pandering, I think he is just being himself, but his wishy-washy brand of politics is appealing. I think it is enough to appeal to those who are disaffected with their parties because of issues like civil liberties, marijuana legalization, and military force.

                  Gil, I think he will be right around 5%, and that is mostly because I don’t think people will vote in large numbers this year.

              3. The libertarians who might throw their principles to the side and actually vote for Johnson are a small number compared to Republicans and Democrats who do vote and want to give someone their protest vote.

                That’s definitely true.

                I will still be surprised if he breaks 5% tho.

            2. I’ve never given a shit about the LP, or even been all that attached to the label “libertarian”, so I’m perfectly happy to have them become the “socially liberal republicans who smoke pot” party. I don’t know why so many people seem to take it all so personally.

              There is zero chance that any hardcore libertarian is going to get anywhere in national politics any time soon. I don’t see the problem with there being an alternative that is a little less awful than what the Big Two have on offer. Especially when it has the possibility of getting other Libertarians a bit more attention and better ballot access.

              1. I’m in the same boat as you. Never cared for the LP, and don’t really sweat how “doctrinaire” they are.

                I think the bitch about GJ is that, even as the generic “socially-liberal / economically-conservative”-option, he’s kind of a goof, and not very good at this “politics” stuff. I’m amazed he ever made Gov.

                I saw him on Cavuto earlier today, speaking re: the ‘bombing’ thing, and his view about getting rid of DHS… and he was an inarticulate mess. its not that i fault the guy’s opinions = he’s just not very good at articulating anything.

                The disappointment is less that he’s imperfect as a libertarian, and more that he’s quasi-incompetent.

                1. Sounds about right. If they’d found a candidate with the positions of Johnson, but who was a dynamic and engaging public personality, it could have done some real good. I still suspect he might have the best showing for an LP candidate, but that’s not a very high bar to clear.

        2. The word of the month is deplorable, not detestable.

    2. a sign that the Hillary camp is in full-blown panic mode.

      yes.

      The ‘millenial polling‘ from last week has sent her loyal media into a tizzy. they seem to think that maybe they’ve overlooked the 3rd party problem, instead wasting energy focusing on bashing Trump among voters who would never vote for him anyway.

    3. It probably won’t happen, but I’m hoping that the media’s new tactic of attacking Johnson will finally give him enough media attention that more people will realize that an alternative actually exists.

      1. Unlikely. Third-partiers, especially libertarians, are held to an expectation of consistency and conformity to principles that the Red Team and the Blue Team are not. I recently read a New York Times article on the state of the election that dismissed Johnson in a single sentence, asserted that Clinton and Trump were the only serious candidates, then went into a six-paragraph screed about how Trump is a reprehensible human being who had no business running for president. But Johnson is the non-serious one and Trump isn’t

        1. Heh. The article also concluded by claiming that Pence was absolutely no better than Trump. And these fucktards wonder why they have no credibility left?

  3. he recently surprised me by telling Politico that he opposes the Citizens United decision

    You’re making it really hard for me to vote for him.

    He opposes any kind of paid maternity or medical leave.

    That’s just a lie. He doesn’t want to outlaw it. He just doesn’t want to mandate it. You have to be a bone-deep fascist to confuse the two, as in “Everything not required is prohibited”.

    1. “I think it [the Citizens United case] comes under the First Amendment, that they should be able to contribute as much money as they want.”

      Source: Thomas R. Eddlem, “The ‘Other’ Candidates for President,” thenewamerican.com, Aug. 20, 2012

      WTF, Gary? Why the change?

      1. FTA: Johnson told me he was against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision (“I don’t believe corporations are people”)

        I would like to see the full exchange.

        1. Yes, there’s no context or qualification given.

        2. I would like to see the full exchange.

          As would I. I think it’s possible to not believe that corporations are people while simultaneously believing that they should be able to donate as much money as they want, and to publish works critical of one candidate or another.

          I’d need to see more than that one sentence.

        3. Yeah. I don’t believe that corporations are people either.

          But as far as I know, Citizens United has absolutely nothing to do with corporate personhood (besides the fact that charges couldn’t be brought against Citizens United without the concept of corporate personhood). The First Amendment doesn’t say anything about who or what has a right to free speech and free press, so the whole “corporations are people” thing is a red herring.

    2. He opposes Citizens United on the basis that corporations are not people when the First Amendment clearly is a prohibition on Congress?

      WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE LP?

      Seriously, I’m starting to think that the DNC/GOP are the adults in the room. They’ve just given up on principles and seek power instead. Maybe it’s time for all of us to just be Komarovsky and give up on being Zhivago.

      1. To avoid disappointment with politics, don’t confuse “Democrat” with democracy, “Republican” with a republic or “Libertarian” with liberty.

        You can thus avoid the unhappiness of having your unrealistic expectations unfulfilled.

        1. Yeah. The LP is just making an attempt at being a real political party. And real political parties don’t stick to principle, they just do what they need to get power.

    3. The progtards think that everything they like should be forced. Otherwise, bad people won’t do it.

    4. I’d like to see a full quote before I fully condemn him. The linked article just says Gary told the reporter he was against it, and we know how good they are at interpreting true meanings. This says he did support it.

      1. That’s from 2012, but it’s also the only thing I can find on the subject without a lot of research.

    5. As the smoker’s exhaust wafted in our faces, I remarked offhand that?with the advent of e-cigarettes?I thought there was a good libertarian case for banning regular cigarettes. “I do too,” replied the health-obsessed triathlete, recounting his support for anti-smoking efforts in New Mexico.

      Come again? I’m hoping this was another gaffe or misquote, because this article is NOT helping to garner support for Johnson.

      1. Ban tobacco. Outlaw speech by corporations. Okey-dokey with expanding public accommodation privileges for politically favored groups. Wants a carbon tax.

        And Trump is supposed to be the Dem shill in this race?

        1. It’s Dem shills all the way down.

        2. And Trump is supposed to be the Dem shill in this race?

          Supposed by whom?

          Trump is in it for Trump, Clinton is in it for Clinton and Johnson is in it, as far as I can figure, to try to get the LP in a more prominent position in national politics.

          I think Johnson is just trying to get as much support as possible. History has shown that being a doctrinaire libertarian isn’t the way to do that.
          Am I disappointed that Johnson is turning out to be not much of a libertarian? Absolutely.

          But he’s a politician running for office. I don’t expect much. If I want libertarian purity, I’ll come here and argue with people about it.

          1. I expect some purity on a clear free speech\press versus government censorship of political speech ssue.

            1. I agree entirely there. There are a few things I do expect of anyone who wants to claim to be any kind of libertarian.
              If he really said that he thought Citizens United decision was wrong, that’s a huge mark against Johnson. I can forgive him for being OK with public accommodations laws. They really aren’t likely to go away, certainly not anytime soon. But the free speech and campaign funding issue is a current one that he could hypothetically do something about and is not a place to compromise.

  4. Johnson told me he was against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision (“I don’t believe corporations are people”) and for a revenue-neutral carbon tax to combat climate change (though he would later reverse himself on this following a libertarian uproar).

    I liked this Johnson guy much better in 2012, when I heard very little about his positions.

    1. Johnson said at lot of things in 2012 and earlier which painted a different picture of him. It seems to me like he’s changed, rather than that we know more about who he always was.

      1. The “change” is trying to clip off as many Bernie supporters as possible. It makes for an ugly and insincere LP campaign, which is unfortunate because I admired Gary’s candor and honesty in 2012. Thing is – to the extent there was significant crossover between Bernie voters and Ron Paul voters, I do not think he had to go full prog on some issues to do as well as he is doing now. Those guys (and a handful (basket-full?) of women) would be pretty receptive to a more consistent libertarian message.

  5. LOL at Johnson being against the Citizens United decision. What a moron.

    Does he oppose the First Amendment in all instances, or only when it might matter?

    1. I had no idea that was his position. That, to me, is worse than anything else I have heard about him.

      1. The only actual statement on that issue I could find was “I think it [the Citizens United case] comes under the First Amendment, that they should be able to contribute as much money as they want.”

      2. Indeed, and it’s such a stupid argument: “I don’t believe corporations are people”. No shit, they are not literally people. But they are composed of people, and those people have the same rights “collectively” that they do individually.

        It seems like many people have gone FULL RETARD over such a stupidly obvious idea, that a corporation (which is not necessarily a business, although given our wonderful tax code…) should be able to represent itself as a single entity (legal personhood) in a court of law.

        The funny thing is many of them want the corporations to be “punished” for misdeeds. Well, how the fuck do you plan to sue a corporation if it can’t represent itself? Good luck proving that the CEO is directly and legally responsible for everything bad the corporation does. Oh, and he has a lot fewer assets, too.

        1. Well, how the fuck do you plan to sue a corporation if it can’t represent itself?

          Very successfully?

          1. Yeah, I suppose they’re skipping straight to the nationalization part of their agenda.

        2. Something that’s also notable to me is that nobody seems to be saying “I don’t believe governments are people”. What is so fucking special about non-governmental corporations?

        3. That’s the problem: all the Politico article quotes is, “I don’t believe corporations are people.” Did Johnson say he is against the CU decision, or did he just say that line and the writer took it as denouncing CU? Did the writer ask an ignorant, leading question (“Do you agree with CU that corporations are people?”)? There’s no transcript or follow-up on this.

          1. True enough. But Johnson should clarify what he means, because that statement on its face, while technically meaningless, aligns with opposition to CU. I couldn’t fault someone for making that connection, although you are quite right that the interviewer, having direct access to Johnson, should get a fuller picture before jumping to conclusions.

            1. That is precisely it. He is parroting, stupidly, the tag line for opposition to CU.

              And its stupid. Corporations are people for legal purposes. There are some things where you look to “natural” persons, but surprisingly few.

            2. It is hard to nail Johnson down on these positions (perhaps intentionally on his part, as he tries to look like a cool anti-establishment guy), but I’d take his own words, as quoted by Renegade above, over the description of a Politico writer.

              Though that line is from 2012, so who knows what position he’s staked out this election.

              1. I like 2012 Johnson. He seems like a pragmatic libertarian. I don’t like 2016 Johnson. I think the attention is going to his head.

            3. And its not just the tag line. If corporations aren’t people, then they aren’t protected by any part of the BOR. Non-persons have no rights, no standing, nothing. So, yeah, if you seriously believe that corporations aren’t legal persons, then you think CU was decided wrongly. In fact, you think CU should never have even existed, because nobody exists who should be allowed to even bring the case.

              1. I still don’t see how corporate personhood is at all relevant to the case. Congress isn’t allowed to restrict the free press. Whatever the hell it was that made “Hillary the Movie”, congress can’t stop its publication. That’s what the first amendment says. The legal status of the organization that produced the movie is completely irrelevant.

                The free speech/press part of the BOR doesn’t say anything about people. If alien robots came down and started producing campaign advertisements, it would be protected.

        4. The notion of corporate personhood dates back, at least, since the late eighteenth century and possibly further than that. No one believes that corporations are literally people. That’s complete and utter nonsense. The notion is that corporations are formed by groups of individuals pooling their resources and acting as one. In doing so, one should not (though on certain issues, the Supreme Court disagrees) abandon one’s natural or constitutionally protected rights.

          It’s not fucking hard.

          1. It does really seem like the ultimate goal is to banish all forms of organization except government. People working together for mutual benefit is unacceptable unless they are forced to kowtow to politicians.

            1. People working together for mutual benefit is unacceptable unless they are forced to kowtow to politicians.

              Is unacceptable unless they are doing it for the right reasons. Left and right, the same crap is happening, just in different ways. We’ve moved from rewarding/punishing actions to rewarding/punishing intent. Made a product that everybody loves? Well why did you do it? Because if you did it for some noble purpose, that should be celebrated, but if you did it to make money, that is evil and you should be punished. This actually matters to progs – not only can they not help being in other people’s business, they have to be in their minds as well.

          2. No one believes that corporations are literally people.

            Except me. Every corporation I’ve ever encountered is owned, run, and staffed by actual, living, breathing people. Why they would cease to be people when they cooperate around some economic purpose is something I just cannot understand.

  6. Jesse, do you think it’s possible that Drum was inartfully giving examples of issues where Johnson jives with the left rather than conflating civil liberties and military force into a single thing? I mean if you swap the ‘and’ for an ‘or’ it makes perfect sense. Maybe Drum is just a crappy writer?

    1. Did you actually read the article?

      1. I did. Drum mentions civil liberties and the military twice, each time joined by a conjunction in the same sentence. But that doesn’t preclude my reading. He also mentions gay rights and abortion in a sentence together, but it’s not clear that he thinks those are the same issue.

        1. that doesn’t preclude my reading.

          Editing what he’s actually saying to make it more palatable isn’t really “reading”.

          If you note my very first comment above = Drum explicitly chooses his terms to try and misrepresent the subject matter. Its not “sloppy”. Its completely misleading.

          e.g.
          He says, “johnson opposes government action to address climate change”
          (false- but at least he bothers to note there’s a difference between ‘govt action’ and voluntary action)

          He also says, “[Johnson] opposes any kind of paid maternity or medical leave”

          He takes out the “govt” part. Sort of a strange “accident” since its a distinction he makes elsewhere.

          I think there’s a legitimate argument that “you should never attribute to malice what stupidity suffices to explain” – however, this isn’t that. Drum is writing a hit-piece and you have to be fucking brain dead not to see it.

          1. So your evidence that it’s deliberately malicious rather than sloppy is that…he does it a few times?

            1. I was actually just taking the opportunity to call you a moron.

              The point was that its “not a mistake” to elide distinctions that you’ve already demonstrated an awareness of elsewhere in the same piece.

              1. You’re right naturally, oranges are terrible at being apples. But the bewildering scare quotes in your response makes me wonder if this isn’t some elaborate ironic performance art piece that I’m failing to comprehend.

                1. if you don’t understand what i said, try reading more carefully and not re-write it along the way.

                  1. Nah, I’ll just assume that your every post is a malicious attack on the English language and its speakers. I mean you’ve posted a number of things that aren’t clear, so that is the only possible conclusion.

                    1. The point of Drums’ piece is to convince his readers that Johnson is “Bad” (from the POV of the left).

                      its not particularly logical to assume that any gross misrepresentations made in that effort are merely ”sloppy” instead of intentional.

                      Its certainly possible to suggest that he’s both sloppy AND malicious. But that’s not what you seem to be saying.

                      I guess the debate now is more whether you’re being very stupid, or just willfully-obtuse in an attempt to defend someone else’s false-statements. I’ll go with “both” there as well.

          2. When it comes to leftist media attacks, I think it’s appropriate to assume malice.

            He also says, “[Johnson] opposes any kind of paid maternity or medical leave”

            He takes out the “govt” part. Sort of a strange “accident” since its a distinction he makes elsewhere.

            We cannot act without government. If you oppose government forcing people to do this, you are against its very existence.

    2. Unpossible. That would imply that California State University, Long Beach will give out journalism degrees to just ANYONE.

  7. I think that what it comes down to is that most ‘lefties’ ARE single issue voters. That single issue is ‘gimme more free shit’.

    However, there are still some people who identify as being on the left and who are still into the whole civil liberties thing. Which would be a pretty large incentive for voting Johnson since the other two candidates are very likely to piss all over your civil liberties, what little is left of them.

    1. Give them some credit. They’re two-issue voters. Those issues are ‘gimme more free shit’ and ‘take shit away from those who earned it’.

      … don’t think too hard about where that’s going to inevitably lead.

    2. I disagree. Yes, they are two issue voters, but the two issues are

      (1) Gimme that.

      (2) Punish them.

      “That” and “Them” are eternally moving goalposts, of course.

      1. Neener, neener.

        1. Ah damn, I thought I beat you when it actually seems like you’re replying to me.

          Never mind the taunting…

          1. Actually it looks like his post was a response to Hyperion, so your taunting was apropos. As it would be for me to taunt you fro your failure to interpret the threading properly, but I won’t do that because I’m too classy…

            No I’m not: Ha-Ha!

  8. It’s funny how many people here will bend over bend over backwards to defend Trump statements as misinterpreted or blown out of proportion, yet will take any mention of the weakest interpretation of a Johnson quote as proof that he’s a terrible candidate.

    1. I know Trump is terrible. I wish Johnson wasn’t.

  9. Johnson and Weld are in for a lot more of this through the next seven weeks. The Clinton campaign has announced that they’re going to be pushing to make a Johnson vote illegitimate for young people. By the time the Clinton stooges are done with him, Johnson will be Donald Trump’s more Nazi-like doppleganger. The honeymoon is over, guys.

    Libertarians should always bear in mind, progressives (or at least the progressive political movement) aren’t our friends. Where conservatives will be sent to re-education camps, libertarians will be lined up against the wall and shot.

    1. They always shoot you in the back of the neck.

      Progressives are no one’s friends. They will do anything to get and maintain power. That is their only principle. Allying with them for any reason, even when we agree on the result (such as with the whole gay marriage thing and now with legalizing pot) is dangerous.

      1. 100% this. Power is the only thing the progs value. Achieving total power over their fellow citizens is the animating principle of progressivism.

    2. Where conservatives will be sent to re-education camps, libertarians will be lined up against the wall and shot.

      Natch. Conservatives aren’t really that different from Progressives. They both want to use government force and coercion to shape society into their respective visions of what Utopia would look like. The only difference, really, is what that Utopia should be. Libertarians, OTOH, believe that use of government force to shape society is illegitimate to begin with. Conservatives can be redeemed: they already love the State. We can’t be, so of course we’ll be put against the wall.

  10. OT: The Don commits “treason”

    Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is accusing Donald Trump of treasonous behavior, because he’s specified that radial Islam is responsible for the surge of terrorist acts around the world.
    “The language that Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries,” Clinton said, citing an article by former head of the counter terrorist center Mike Olsen citing Trump’s tough rhetoric as fueling Islamic state recruitment. She described Trump as a “recruiting sergeant” for ISIS.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-…..errorists/

    That’s rich coming from someone who deliberately made state secrets vulnerable to US adversaries, among other things.

    (tw: Breitbart)

    1. Even for being in politics, her campaign is astoundingly un-self-aware. I haven’t seen anyone score so many own goals since my kid’s second grade soccer team.

    2. It doesn’t even make any sense on its face. These people have swallowed “soft power” bullshit so thoroughly they’ve forgotten how to talk like human beings.

    3. The language that Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries

      Could have said the same about FDR during WWII. Its astonishing the language people used back then. It was routine for government officials to refer to “Japs” and “Krauts”.

    4. “Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is accusing Donald Trump of treasonous behavior, because he’s specified that radial Islam is responsible for the surge of terrorist acts around the world.”

      Without even looking at the link, chances are she didn’t say that.

      When the chairman of Breitbart News becomes Trump’s campaign manager and starts making the case for Trump to a general audience, he doesn’t say shit like that.

      Breitbart News is what people in the fraternity say to each other when they’re drunk. What the people at Breitbart say really shouldn’t be repeated in front of polite company.

    5. She described Trump as a “recruiting sergeant” for ISIS.

      If that’s true, that Trump is LITERALLY a recruiting sergeant for ISIS, then it was equally when Trump Described Obama as the”founder” of ISIS. Yet, that was an inexcusable heresy against the Lightbringer.

    6. So by that logic Churchill betrayed the UK to the Axis.

      1. And Thomas Jefferson was a traitor to the American Colonies by denouncing the Crown in the Declaration of Independence.

  11. Excellent alt text, as usual.

    Big economic bills don’t get passed without lots of logrolling and horse-trading

    That’s a very strange euphemism.

    This hive-minded left-wing attempt to throw potential Dem voters off the Johnson scent is so transparent I doubt it has any effect, especially on millennials, and especially Bernie supporters. A group of people who have spent their entire lives being told they can do anything are now being told to shut up and get line because party politics; it’s not going to work.

    1. This hive-minded left-wing attempt to throw potential Dem voters off the Johnson scent is so transparent I doubt it has any effect, especially on millennials, and especially Bernie supporters

      Based on the comment-section reaction @ Slate to the ‘no decent liberal can vote for Johnson‘-piece… i’d say that’s probably right

      the ones who want to vote 3rd party are going to do it no matter what. because its more of a ‘style’ thing of voting against the status-quo. Its possible the media will flip some people from Johnson to Stein, but i don’t think the Johnson-bashing (euphemisms!) will ever result in more votes for Hillary.

      1. Question: in order to be a writer at Slate, are you required to look like a twee little dipshit with hipster glasses and a pathetic attempt at a beard, or do they just photoshop that onto their writer’s head shots?

  12. Johnson has done a great job of presenting libertarianism as a sane alternative to Blowhard or the Corruption Factory.

    That being said, Rand Paul 2020.

  13. I was thinking about this again this morning, and how shitty this attitude is towards so many liberals in safe blue states. These polls are saying Millennials are turning against Clinton, but where? Is there any info or interest in this (yet)? Do any of these progressives hectoring the kids about this care? Because when you think young urban liberal, chances are you first think NY and CA. Sure, there are plenty of such folks in every state, especially in battleground states like CO and OH. But if Clinton loses NY or CA or WA or PA, she had bigger problems than a few 20-something ‘defectors.’

    If you are a liberal in a safe blue state, and you are concerned with Clinton as president (but still prefer her to Trump), I’d think it does make more sense to vote third party. She’ll still win your state, but you do your infinitesimal part to deny her a mandate or a majority vote. Any of those who claim to understand young liberals’/progressives’ apprehensions about Clinton while panicking about her polling ought to at least address this strategy, or admit the reasoning has some merit.

    1. Without making too many definite predictions, this could be a watershed election year. The rules of campaigning have become fairly rigid–leave these states alone, focus on these states only–but it’s quite possible that disillusionment and political realignment have altered the landscape in ways no one has fully realized yet.

    2. “If you are a liberal in a safe blue state, and you are concerned with Clinton as president (but still prefer her to Trump), I’d think it does make more sense to vote third party. She’ll still win your state, but you do your infinitesimal part to deny her a mandate or a majority vote.”

      According to Gallup, Hillary hasn’t scored a favorable rating over 50% since July of 2014 (Two-Thousand Fourteen).

      According to the same collection of polls, Hillary has a disapproval rating hovering around 55% since January of this year–more than nine months.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/161…..-news.aspx

      Even if Hillary wins, the only thing Americans will have given her a mandate to do is face a grand jury.

      I would also point out that in someplace like California, where Hillary is sure to win, there is a certain amount of logic in voting for Trump. He’s not about to win the state anyway, and the problem with voting for Johnson as a protest candidate against Hillary is that it doesn’t really get my middle finger high enough in the air to where the progressives that run Sacramento can see it.

      If you really, genuinely, truly, honestly fucking hate the authoritarian progressive socialists who run California, and you’re voting in that sea of progressive blue, you might consider voting for Trump. I can’t think of a better way to show total contempt for authoritarian progressive socialists–and their whole aesthetic. Can you?

      1. Even if Hillary wins, the only thing Americans will have given her a mandate to do is face a grand jury.

        Unfortunately though, Shrillary won’t interpret it that way. These fuckwits (politicians) interpret any win as a “mandate from the masses”.

  14. So GayJay opposes the 1st Amendment? Hey, at least he’s fiscally conservative like Mitt Romney!

    1. I voted for Mitt Romney.

      1. Your mom voted for Mitt Romney.

        1. Your mom voted for me.

    2. Yep, and he pulled little Susie Gomez’ hair back in 8th grade, refused to raise his eyes above her budding chest level, and noted she might lose a few pounds. Criminal assaulter, sexual assaulter, bigoted racist, and fat shamer all in one. How is this man more qualified than Hillary to be president of the greatest empire the world has ever seen?

      1. Hillary is more qualified for the presidency than all other candidates put together because VAGINA. Barry said so.

  15. We still haven’t gotten to the point where the Democrats realize the position they’re in.

    It’s only now starting to dawn on progressives that Johnson is drawing millennials away from Hillary. The implications still haven’t hit them.

    We could wake up after the election with Donald Trump in the White House, Republican control of both the House and Senate, and with Republican control of both houses of so many state legislatures that they can call a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    It’s like intellectually, they see the millennial blip on the screen, but they still imagine that the millennials will show up on election day anyway.

    If they Democrats don’t win either the White House or the Senate, the Progressives are going to be hurting for a long time to come, too–without any depth on their squad. Bernie Sanders is an angry old man. I wouldn’t put Joe Biden in charge of a hot dog stand.

    1. The problem with the left is that it’s intellectually bankrupt. Their major contribution to the political discourse of the past eight years that they’ve held the presidency has been to completely shut down dissent. Their policies have failed, they have no solutions beyond doubling down on that failure, so they divided us against each other (and all against the white man) and make criticism forbidden.

      1. They’ve certainly substituted policy issues with charges of racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

        Ask your average Hillary supporter what her position is on free trade or the trans pacific partnership, and I bet they’ve never even thought about it before.

  16. Ask your average Hillary supporter what her position is on free trade or the trans pacific partnership, and…

    …they’ll parrot the talking points.

    1. She believes in fair trade.

    2. TPP was originally a good idea and she was for it, but all sorts of terrible stuff was added, so she’s now against it.

    1. TPP was originally a good idea and she was for it, but all sorts of terrible stuff was added it was leaked to the public and they didn’t like it, so she’s now against it.

  17. I would love to see the “long litany of places where Johnson agrees with the ACLU, with additional entries for each war where the candidate has said the U.S. should not be involved.” Would be a great rejoinder to people who are sharing Drum’s laundry list like it’s a big “gotcha.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.