Presidential Debate

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld Answer Your Questions on Facebook With Matt Welch

|

Libertarian Party nominees Gary Johnson and William Weld answered questions this evening for a half-hour on Facebook Live in NYC, 30 or so miles away from the site of the debate where Johnson has been excluded.

Matt Welch moderated the proceedings.

Advertisement

NEXT: USA Today Reporter Blows Jill Stein's Cover; Candidate Arrested at Debate Site

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. Bill Weld, looking like everyone’s drunk Irish uncle.

    1. The Welds are a well-established WASP family.

      1. But Theodore Weld, a distant abolitionist relative, referenced the Irish:

        referenced the Irish:

        “Attempts are made to reduce foreigners to slavery. It is not long since, the slave dealers seized a poor Irish woman, and although she protested she was from Ireland, she was only rescued by great efforts of the Abolitionists in a court of law.”

      2. OK, he looks like everyone’s drunk English uncle.

        1. “By Jove, I’m too drunk to drive, I don’t think I’d even know which side of the road to drive on…not that I know that when I’m sober.”

          1. I remember once back in my youth days, I left a friends house and I was driving just fine despite my extremely inebriated condition. The problem is I was driving right down the middle of the railroad tracks and no fucking idea how it happened. But I made it home safe and sound, after getting back on the road.

            1. Rural indiana?

  2. Matt, keep the microphone out of the wind. Duh.

    1. There was no “out of the wind.”

  3. Question? Why are you guys on the roof?

    1. I agree, the roof as venue seems ill conceived

      1. Tell that to The Beatles, also someone tell Welch to end the show with “and now..The Beatles!!” so that someone can do a mash-up tape.

          1. +1 B Sharps

      2. They got kicked out of the closet they were trying to hot-box.

    2. So GayJay can see the Freedom signal when the commissioner needs his help.

  4. Oh, good grief, Gary. Global warming? For fuck sake.

  5. Great, reference the guy who has a popular opera based on his life.

  6. Why is the Libertarian party yellow now? I see your tie Gary, it’s not doing you any favors. Look at Welch, he’s a master of style.

    1. In the United States, the Libertarian Party uses the color yellow in reference to the Gadsden Flag

      Oh. So racism?

      1. I thought it was gold in reference to the gold standard.

    2. I thought it was agreed that Kmele had won the great sartorial contests during the run of “The Independents”?

    3. Matt looks like he time warped from 1964 after stopping off in 1948 for the suit.

  7. Chile is on the Pacific, so is Canada

  8. Is TPP a treaty which can take effect if and only if ratified by the President by and with the consent of the Senate, with a 2/3 vote for the treaty in the Senate?

  9. Johnson wants to say in NATO with Europeans paying more…Castle wants us out of NATO.

    1. ‘Bout sixty years too late for that buddy.

      1. We got in, we can get out.

        1. Get back to me when you’ve got a full plan to deconstruct the integrated combat structure. Not to mention when you’re ready to fully foot the bill for NATO’s sea lane protection. Oh, and a way to legally justify the United States leaving its own organization in regards to Article 12 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

          1. Who said anything about keeping the North Atlantic Treaty?

            1. Anyone who has any degree of knowledge when it comes to the legitimacy of diplomatic documents? You signed a long standing treaty of alliance and mutual defense that was centered around the foreign policy your nation wanted to enforce. What a message you’ll send, the great United States, unwilling to support the treaty it crafted and throwing its weakest allies to the wolves after years of encouraging them to join up (I mean, holy shit Poland would be pissed).

              Without unanimous support from within NATO itself it would literally be the most moronic diplomatic decision in human history. It would completely delegitimize the United States on the world stage.

              Best way to get Europe off of the U.S.’s military tit is to enforce NATO’s 2% rule. Make them pay their way or they’re out. Either way you win, and you win without looking like the world’s biggest backstabber/coward.

              1. There’s a specific provision for denunciation, which you kindly pointed out to me.

                “You signed a long standing treaty”

                begging the question

                “centered around the foreign policy your nation wanted to enforce”

                that foreign policy was to oppose the designs of a state which no longer exists.

                1. Furthermore, most European countries in NATO have disregarded their obligations under Article 2:

                  “The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.”

                  So which NATO countries in Europe have been complying with this?

                  1. That is, since 1949, which European NATO countries have been strengthening their free institutions and bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded?

                    And which European NATO countries have been promoting conditions of stability and well being?

                2. There’s a specific provision for anyone who isn’t the United States, because they’re the ones who crafted the Treaty, again, to enforce your nation’s foreign policy goals. Denunciation is for member states other than the United States.

                  begging the question

                  It is not begging the question to state that the United States’ diplomatic legitimacy would be absolutely ruined if they backed out of their own long standing treaty for no reason other than “meh, we don’t feel like it anymore.” Especially after, again, you’ve spent the last twenty years encouraging nations next to Russia to join up. Clinton was a moron to think that there was a ‘Reset button’ with Russia. There are no reset buttons in international relations.

                  The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions

                  That’s an argument you can make to the NATO Council as to what defines ‘free institutions’ and ‘peaceful and friendly international relations’. And that result of that argument is holding European nations accountable, not dropping out.

                  And again, I’m all for holding the Europeans to their treaty obligations. That at least has some potential. And if they leave you can plan around it at least, a la France. Dropping out of NATO is like cutting off your entire leg because you have an infected toe, it’s disproportional and stupid.

                  1. “Denunciation is for member states other than the United States.”

                    So that’s your interpretation of the phrase “any Party”?

                    1. Yes, the United States will alert itself to the fact that it’s leaving its own geopolitical alliance. That’s obviously a much more accurate interpretation of the text.

                    2. If we’d wanted to give assurance that the other countries could leave the treaty but we couldn’t, then the language would have been “any Party other than the United States.”

                      But it says “any party.”

                      A country which can put a man on the moon is capable of delivering a document to itself. After which they notify the other parties.

                    3. The point of the notification provision is that every other party to the treaty knows that you’re leaving, not to tie up the denunciation process in legal gotcha games.

                    4. Under your interpretation, what happens if every member of NATO except the U.S. and Belgium denounce the treaty? Can Belgium insist that the US remain bound to a 2-country NATO?

                    5. Oh, and check out Article 11:

                      “The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit.”

                      So the US has to deposit its ratification with itself for the treaty to come into effect at all.

                      Thus, it *is* possible for the U.S. to “alert itself.”

                    6. Except that the United States is incapable of alerting itself of its own denunciation, and it makes no sense in the context of NATO’s actual command structure.

                      Or there may be the possibility that the treaty writers never believed that any American would be legitimately stupid enough to just drop out of the massive international alliance they were the head of.

                    7. “Except that the United States is incapable of alerting itself of its own denunciation”

                      The United States can give notice of ratification to the United States, why not of denunciation?

                    8. The United States can give notice in the context of treaty ratification as per Article 11, what it cannot do is alert itself of its own withdrawal when it remains the head of that organization.

                    9. I simply do not see the difference between notifying yourself that you’ve acceded to the treaty – which you admit is legal – versus notifying yourself that you’re denouncing the treaty – which you say is illegal.

                      And again, under your view, it *makes no difference* whether staying in NATO is in America’s interest, because we legally have to stay if any of the other NATO countries want us to?

                3. that foreign policy was to oppose the designs of a state which no longer exists.

                  Actually the treaty makes no mention of the Soviet Union, and the only time Article 5 has ever been enforced has been in regards to 9/11. Which was supposed unanimously by every member state.

                  1. You said “You signed a long standing treaty of alliance and mutual defense that was centered around the foreign policy your nation wanted to enforce.”

                    I interpreted this to refer to foreign policy existing at the time of signing, was I mistaken?

                    1. Considering that the United States has continuously used NATO as an instrument of their foreign policy up until the modern day, you are. I mean, if you want to revoke the Jay Treaty, go ahead, it’s two hundred years obsolete and didn’t work in the first place. But if you were using the Jay Treaty to this day to obligate the U.K. into something, yes, it’d be rather disingenuous to drop it when it’s politically inconvenient for you.

                    2. Did Jay’s treaty have a denunciation provision?

                    3. I note that you’re very obsessive about the denunciation protocol, and deliberately avoid the whole “This would be the worst diplomatic move in human history” thing.

                    4. You claimed the US could not denounce the treaty.

                      That’s an issue that has to be resolved before we even get to the *wisdom* of denouncing the treaty.

                      So arre you conceding that the US can lawfully denounce the treaty?

                      Then we can get into details about how it makes sense to cut loose from those scroungers in Western Europe, and then discuss which of the *Eastern* European countries we should listen to if they want bilateral guarantees of some kind, and how that would work for us.

                    5. Apparently “obsessive” means responding to your specific concerns.

                    6. But hanging on to the idea that it’s illegal to denounce the treaty makes you look as if you want America to stay in NATO *whether or not* it’s in the national interest.

                      All this based on a very strained, Clintonian reading of the word “any.”

                    7. Seriously, under your argument, the national interest is *irrelevant* – we have to stay in NATO because we can’t legally notify ourselves of a denunciation.

                      Instead of saying “it would be unwise to denounce the treaty because X, Y and Z.”

                    8. Anyone can denounce anything if they have the strength and the will to carry it out. Realism in IR, there’s no law in an anarchic system. What there is, however, is the legitimacy granted by following your own word and following through on the policies you enacted.

                    9. Actually, my entire point is that going against long standing mutual defense treaties is extremely damaging for your nation’s interests, particularly diplomatically.

                      Then we can get into details about how it makes sense to cut loose from those scroungers in Western Europe, and then discuss which of the *Eastern* European countries we should listen to if they want bilateral guarantees of some kind, and how that would work for us.

                      And here we go, with the assumption that this would be a ‘reset button’. When in reality what it would actually mean is that any national government in their right mind would never trust the United States again. Good luck negotiating any kind of agreements with any of the former NATO nations with that reputation. Russia and China would probably take it as a sign of weakness and start making stupid geopolitical moves to further their interests. Long term alliances of the last hundred years would be threatened, and diplomatic relations with those allies that stuck around would not be friendly. Foreign intelligence communities would refuse to interact with the United States (a bigger deal than you’d think, the only way the U.S. keeps getting info about Assad is through the Germans, for example) You’d also get to deal with a screaming U.N., not that big a deal at least, until the other security council members start forming up their own counteralliances against the United States.

                    10. In short, your solution to NATO’s problems is to make the world more unstable, delegitimize the existing international system, and turn the United States into a diplomatic pariah at a time when it really doesn’t need more animosity. And then you claim that I’m the one not considering your national interests.

                    11. Again you said *your* nation.

                      Which is your nation?

                    12. Canada, and I have plenty of complaints about how our armed forces are managed and financed. I would like to see this country fulfill its 2% requirement.

                    13. I’m sure that the U.S. and Canada can have a fruitful relationship, government-to-government and people-to-people, including military alliances.

                      And including being nice on the Internet, but I’m getting tempted in the other direction right now, so I think I’ll disengage.

                      God bless America *and* Canada!

                    14. I’m sure that the U.S. and Canada can have a fruitful relationship, government-to-government and people-to-people, including military alliances.

                      Probably far more likely so if the United States government doesn’t completely disregard the dead Canadians who served in Afghanistan as per the NATO decision. Some of us take our treaty obligations seriously. Now if we could get a government that was into that…

                    15. “following your own word”

                      Again you beg the question. I’ve shown why your legal argument is wrong. Take it up with Bruce Fein.

                    16. Your nation has spent the last sixty years using NATO as a way to further their foreign policy goals. Members of foreign armed forces unrelated to your conflicts have been killed in support of your actions. Yes, people might be a little pissed when you decide to abandon your treaty responsibilities because you don’t feel like it anymore.

                    17. “Your nation”

                      Which nation do you belong to?

                    18. The only specific concerns you’ve touched on is the denunciation.

                      I’m still waiting on how you plan on deconstructing the integrated command structure or if you’re willing to fully pay for the NATO sea lane protection.

                    19. Your kitchen-sink strategy backfired.

                      You claimed the U.S. couldn’t denounce the treaty, and you threw that at the wall along with everything else.

                      I can only cut off one tentacle at a time, and you can always look up people like Fein to see the arguments for the national interest.

                    20. The U.S. can’t denounce the treaty if it wishes to retain its legitimacy as a world power. If it wants to completely discredit itself on the world stage and deal with the massive diplomatic fallout that accompanies it, it is free to do so but not recommended.

                      Or it could actually use NATO to reduce its required force projection by enforcing its own protocols on nations and using that to develop regional counterpowers.

                    21. I admit I lose a bit of interest in debating you when you call me “buddy,” say “anyone with knowledge” etc. and then make an easily-discredited argument, and refer to “your nation,” as if America isn’t your nation

                      Makes me less willing to assume you know what you’re talking about.

                    22. I admit I lose a bit of interest in debating you when you call me “buddy,

                      Learn the lingo, guy.

                    23. say “anyone with knowledge” etc. and then make an easily-discredited argument

                      The ‘easily-discredited argument’ of ‘if you form big mutual defense treaties with your foreign policy at the center of them, and then renege on them, the world might see you as a massively dishonest piece of shit?’

                    24. No, your argument that “any” doesn’t actually mean “any,” and that you can legally notify yourself you’re ratifying the North Atlantic Treaty but can’t legally notify yourself you’re denouncing the treaty.

                      Now if we were going to continue this debate, it would be up to you to back off from the arguments which didn’t work, stop the straw-manning, stop with the “buddy,” etc., etc.

                    25. (but I’m watching the *other* debate, so please let’s just leave our argument where it is, and hope the reader will judge for him/herself, supplementing their knowledge with Bruce Fein’s article)

              2. What’s the difference between Pollocks and leaves?

                Leaves fall out of the trees when they die.

                1. These ethnic jokes are getting pretty abstract-expressionist.

          2. *Meant Article 13.

            1. “Article 13

              “After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.”

              I see what you mean.

              I’m sure they can figure something out.

              1. How about this: I’d interpret “any party” to mean “any party.”

                The US government can give itself a denunciation as a Christmas gift and then inform all the other parties.

      2. OK, I’m a masochist, so I’ll take a look at the debate.

        Meanwhile, here’s an essay by Bruce Fein about why we should get out of NATO.

        As to the legal implications, Bruce Fein knows a thing or two about the law, and he says:

        “The United States should begin the process of renouncing the extra-constitutional trappings of empire by withdrawing from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on one year’s notice as provided in Article 13.”

        “buddy”

        I’m not your “buddy,” pal.

        1. In 2002, NATO leaders in Prague set a floor of 2 percent of GDP for military spending by each member. Twelve years later, only four had satisfied the benchmark: the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, and Estonia.

          Yes, hence why they should actually be enforcing that. I mean, I wouldn’t mind an excuse to kick Turkey out…

          NATO members can defend themselves against Russian or other external aggression. Russia’s defense spending is but a small fraction of the Pentagon’s. Even tiny, isolated Finland during the 1939-40 Winter War delivered fearful blows to the Soviet Red Army

          Yes, let’s use a conflict from sixty years ago from a different political entity using a different army as an example and just take away all context. Either ignorant or not honest.

          We should be unsparing in our resolve to defend our liberty and sovereignty. But we should not spend one cent or devote a single soldier to defend NATO members.

          Considering that the only nation to actually use Article 5 is the United States, that’s amusing. Funny how Fein just sweeps under the rug the dead soldiers of NATO members who supported America when they were called upon.

          Fein also conveniently pretends that NATO’s sole job is to counter Russia, when in reality NATO’s been very useful in the long run for protecting international sea lanes, intelligence sharing, standardization of gear, etc.

  10. I have to say, I really like Matt’s new Richard Spenceresque fashy-do.

  11. Castle would stop making student loans and make student debt dischargeable in bankruptcy.

    1. Except for Belle Knox, since she’s engaged in that icky pronography.

      1. I thought the *point* was that she doesn’t have as much debt because she’s a porn star, and I’m sure once her looks go her university education will have furnished her with valuable skills making the investment totes worthwhile.

  12. Is that a Trump tie?

    1. This is why “Weld” rhymes with “smelled.”

    2. If I were going to vote for him, that would be a really good way to discourage me from doing so.

  13. Finally, tackling the third-rail issues!

  14. More training for police!

    Weld is the gift that keeps on giving.

    1. More training for police!

      I think everyone already understands that ‘Training’ = money

    2. Different training seem like what they need, not more.

    3. Politicians are painted in a corner. They have to propose to do something. Saying maybe black people should quit committing so much crime is verboten. So they’re left with training.

  15. I’m not sure if domestic violence is the best comparison to use when talking about the current BLM protests.

  16. SuperPacs!

    Corporations aren’t citizens!

    And that was Gary, not Billy-boy.

  17. Johnson needs to read *The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech* by Kimberley Strassel, before he goes off about full disclosure again.

    1. I love Kimberly Strassel and her beady little eyes. It’s a shame she had her cutely-crooked teeth fixed but I have to admit they look good on TV.

  18. “as long as those choices don’t harm others”

    Hmmm…not going to comment on *that* one.

  19. Why don’t facebook and twitter videos work on my computer? Youtube and all that other crap works but not facebook and twitter videos…

    1. You have a discerning computer?

  20. YOU UNBUTTON A SUIT WHEN SITTING
    AND FOR @#()*$@()#$* SAKE, WHO LET YOU BUTTON THE BOTTOM ONE?
    (sigh)

    1. Still better than that Blofeld guy, McMullin.

        1. There’s a man who has never lost a wink of sleep over the people he’s killed for money.

    2. No one appreciates the finer points of fashion, Gilmore.

      I just spent a bundle upgrading my tailored suits and shirts.

      1. And here’s the kicker. I don’t even wear suits every day anymore.

        I did it to be civilized.

        /sips glass of dark ginger ale.

      2. That’s not really “fashion”. It’s just “being alive”.

      3. I agree with Gilmore here. But without the princess-ey sass.

    3. What if I want to show off my ill fitting shoulder pads?

      1. You should slouch like bernie

    4. Yes, what on earth is going on there? I can see keeping it’s buttoned if it’s windy, but the bottom button too?? Who ever buttons that?

    5. Two mitigating factors to #1:
      1) It was windy AF out there, and I would have been all flappy.
      2) I’ve grown too accustomed to TV framing, which leaves your lap area alone (and rewards the buttoning).

      #2 was just overkill on the wind.

  21. Facebook comment I saw “Gary Johnson not a wasted vote, just wasted” now I need a silk screening t-shirt maker thing.

    1. You mean a “screen”?

      1. So many word like devices for describing!

  22. The video isn’t working for me, somebody let me know if he answers either of my questions.

    Soft ball question:
    Have you ever tried mountain climbing?

    Hard ball question:
    Do you think HIllary has ever tried anal?

    1. That’s a tough one. The second question.

      Not that I’d like to know.

      Chelsea?

    2. “Have you ever tried mountain climbing?”

      It was the highest I’ve ever been, ha ha.

      “Do you think HIllary has ever tried anal?”

      WELD: That’s my girlfriend you’re talking about there, mister!

    1. What, did Gary run over your dog or something?

      Sheesh.

      1. Bill Weld slept with his wife.

        1. They both gave SIV’s mom a “Johnson-Weld”.

          1. To be fair, we all gave SIV’s mom a “Johnson-Weld”.

          2. And now SIV’s mom is now his dad.

  23. LMFAO! I am getting Border Patrol ads on Reason!

    1. Are they recruitment ads? Extreme offroading Ford Raptors at high speed through the Rio Grande Valley?

      1. Yep they were recruitment ads alright. They went away after I refreshed and my adblocker kicked in.

  24. RE: Gary Johnson and Bill Weld Answer Your Questions on Facebook With Matt Welch
    Reason Staff|Sep. 26, 2016 6:14 pm

    I do not have Facebook.
    But if I did, I would ask Mr. Johnson and Mr. Weld this question:
    What would you do if there was an economic collapse (ala the Weimer Republic) in this country?

  25. If Gary Johnson can’t manage to set-up a Facebook chat on the same level as your average cam whore, can we really trust him with the nuclear button?

    1. I haven’t been to Facebook except by accident in ages.

      I’ve come to think of it this way:

      Twitter users: extremely high strung knee jerkers

      YouTube commenters: merciless and mean

      Facebook users: dumb as a bag of rocks.

      I kept losing respect for more and more of my friends, and rather than unfriend all my family, too, I just stopped logging in.

      1. If you can’t unfriend family, who can you unfriend?

        1. I’d hate to log in. I’m hoping the sting of seeing me ignore them on Facebook all this time has worn off. Logging in might make be like tearing the scab off a healing wound. Make ’em feel the sting all over again.

          But if I were going to ask Gary and Billy Bob a question, it would be to ask them to look into the camera and ask HazelMeade to come back again.

          I think Hazel must have freaked out from all the pro-Trump stuff in comments here. Hazel may have unfriended us all.

          1. If Hazel ever considered any of us friends, it would seriously call her judgement into question.

            1. It’s good to have Hazel around.

              1. If you’re talking about Nutella, yes.

                1. Hazel rocks the dancehall.

          2. Hazel was always a bit nuts but sometimes made sense. The Trump thing however caused her to lose her mind entirely.

      2. Deleted my account 6 years ago. Never looked back.

        1. I keep it for social invites but otherwise never visit. I get bugged with the occasional “your friend just said something totally witty about himself” spam but otherwise it’s a good compromise.

        2. I never made one. I WIN!…right?

    2. I bet that Carlos Danger fellow is an expert on setting up webcam shows.

    3. He doesn’t even have an anime wig on. What the fuck is going on with this campaign!?

  26. I wonder if a prog can ever know the bliss of not giving a big fucking rat’s ass about this debate or the election?

    1. It is like watching NASCAR, I just want to see the crashes.

  27. Lester Holt grew up in Marin County.

    Marin County is like the Limousine Liberal capital of the world.

    Average household income 100k+, some parts two or three times that.

    And politically, Marin County is somewhere slightly left of Berkeley.

    That’s where the moderator grew up.

    If Lester Holt had a son, politically, he’d probably be somewhere to the left of Barack Obama.

  28. Trump:”Whatever is is, I’m against it, unless I’m for it, or unless I already said I’m against it, in which case, I’m for it now.”

    Hillary: “I’m…” (checks poll numbers on iPhone) “…for it” (phone beeps) “Now I’m against it.”

    Now we can save the evening for something productive.

    1. iPhone… huh, same place she gets her state department emails.

      1. Maybe the line should have read “I’m…(checks phone)…terrorist compound in Fuckmeistan…uh…for it!”

    2. We must move forward not backward; upward not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom.

    3. I’ll be surprised if they stick to issues.

      For most voters, I don’t get the sense that issues are really that important anymore.

      It’s whether so and so is a racist, whether so and so is a misogynist, whether so and so is a homophobe, an Islamophobe, an anti-Mexican xenophobe, etc.

      That’s just the state of the union. I wish it were different.

      But if the candidates talked about the issues that are really important to most people, I think those would be the issues right there:

      “Mr. Trump, are you a racist? You’ll be given two minutes”.

      “Ms. Clinton, you have 90 seconds to respond.”

      “A question for you, Ms. Clinton. Is Donald Trump pro-rape?”

      “Mr. Trump, you have 90 seconds to respond”.

      1. For most voters, I don’t get the sense that issues are really that important anymore.

        Anymore?

        1. I was watching a debate between Dole and Bill Clinton earlier today.

          Yeah, we used to talk about issues.

          Everything always being all about social justice started with Obama.

          1. Just because they talked about issues doesn’t mean the public was deciding on issues.

      2. Seriously. Does anyone actually give a shit about the economy anymore?

        1. The economy is about racism and misogyny.

          Women and blacks aren’t wealthy because of racism and misogyny.

          All we need is for the government to make sure there’s no more racism or misogyny, and the economy will grow.

          Don’t you know anything about economics?

    4. You’re missing Torch Song on TCM. It’s hilariously awful, and features Joan Crawford in blackface.

      1. and after is the equally awful and hilarious, Torch Song Trilogy, with Harvey Firestein and Ann Bancroft. I just want to be loved. Is that so wrong?!!”

  29. So do we get crazy eyez hillary or stoned zombie hillary? I’m gonna say stoned hillary. Even in her echo chamber there has to be one person smart enough to know that her bug eyed screeching is a turn off.

    1. Probably it’s going to be Manic Chipmunk Hillary. She’s bound to be loaded with uppers just to keep standing.

    2. I think crazy eyes will come out first, then she’ll dial it back when she sees the audience isn’t in to it.

    3. It’s sort of like NASCAR.

      They have an EMT team offstage and a helicopter on standby, I’m sure.

    4. Stoned Hillary. She must be on all kind of meds to prevent any jerky, sudden movements.

      1. Well they’ve got her on uppers and downers, I’m sure.

        Sometimes she needs some uppers. Sometimes she needs some downers.

        It all ends in being found sitting on the pot, like Elvis.

  30. Matt Welch moderated the proceedings.

    DID MATT FACT CHECK IN REAL TIME? DID HE?

    1. I’d hate to think Welch wasn’t taking this whole surrogant-for-the-public thing seriously.

    2. Did he introduce and confront them with facts?

      1. I don’t know but i hope it’s all been uploaded to YouTube.

  31. I just wanted to take this moment to remind the commentariat that their is a legitimate third option in the 2016 election. Vote for me, and you will never have to suffer through another pointless and vacuous political debate ever again. I intend to set up a thousand-year Reich and anyone who supports me in this battle is a fellow-fighter for a unique spiritual creation.

    SIEG HEIL!

    1. You know who else… Hey, wait.

    2. I don’t want a thousand year reich.
      I want a ten thousand year reich with an option to buy a twenty thousand reich on beach front property.

  32. I wonder if Hilldawg is nervous?

    1. Her medication prevents nervousness.

      1. Drugs are bad, mmkay.

    2. You have to be conscious to be nervous. I wonder if they brought in Keith Richards as a technical adviser for how to perform at a high level while heavily medicated.

  33. Why is Hillary always driven in a van instead of a SUV? Because it’s lower to the ground and therefore easier to get into?

    1. I think that’s part of it?

  34. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK0x6U1aPuk

    Admit it, if Trump entered the auditorium to Also sprach Zarathustra, you would have to vote for him.

    1. If I were Trump, I’d go with Carl Orff’s O Fortuna.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdIpoE2LEps

      And if he wins, I’d change the Presidential fanfare to the theme song from Bonanza, and I’d carry a pre-64 Winchester 94 around everywhere like Longmire.

      1. No. Fan Fair for the Common Man

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdqjcMmjeaA

        Imagine entering the well of the Senate to give the State of the Union to that.

          1. I generally like house mixes of things. That one however sucks ass. Jesus son, listen to some better remixes of old shit. Like this

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcqMDwfnYkA

            or this

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU-WOs-4VYE

      2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgpnlLz7WR0

        Maybe the Prog rock version. And for the record, Neil Peart isn’t fit to hold Carl Palmer’s sticks.

      3. I mean, we are talking about Trump here.

        https://youtu.be/_W-fIn2QZgg

        1. No way. Trump is a You Shook Me All Night Long man if I have ever seen one.

    2. If Elvis walked into the auditorium, I would definately vote for Elvis. Hell if he were just on the ballot I would vote for him.

    3. We are so fucking close to Idiocracy. I love it.

      1. It came so quickly

      2. Close? We sailed right past it at light speed.

    4. Or let her know he’s going for blood

      https://youtu.be/ZvCI-gNK_y4

  35. Normally, I’d expect Reason to have an open thread for the debate, but since the debate is boycotting Johnson, maybe Reason is boycotting the debate.

    1. They said they were going to live tweet it. What do you want? To see it? Masochist!

  36. Is this thread gonna be the Official Debate Running Comment Thread ?

    Seems as though Reason could splurge on a distinct thread for THE DEBATE OF THE CENTURY for hysterical archives search reasons if no other.

    1. Guess I’ll read some of the later posts before I post next time man.

      If there is another next time.

  37. Touchdown FALCONS!

    Is Reason even gonna twitter up the debate ?

    1. You’re the only one who knows. 100 million watching debate. More bullshit to follow.

      1. KM-W usually sets up the group twitter thing but she’s twitter-AWOL. Old Man Gillespie is tweeting every few seconds but no sign of a Reason-thang. They must be really butthurt over GayJay

  38. And I called it, right here on H&R. Nasa’s BIG announcement. Meh. Like this debate.

    Waterspouts on Europa

    1. Sounds like a good choice for colonization.

      1. Until the massive radiation and immense tidal pull of Jupiter fucks up your shit.

        1. . . . These euphemisms are getting extraterrestrial?

      2. Which part of All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there. did you not understand?

        1. I guess “world” since Europa is a moon? Don’t think a moon is technically a world.

        2. But Eve said….

      3. Probably should not have used the term ‘water spout’, maybe geyser or eruption are better terms. But why this would come as a surprise is beyond me. We already knew that there is probably a huge liquid water ocean under Europa’s frozen surface. So the strong tidal pull of Jupiter would make it pretty likely this would be happening. Maybe they think it indicates the water is closer to the surface than previously thought.

  39. You’re running out of time, KMW. Get that live tweet post up!

    Or have you transferred duties to Robby?

  40. Well, this knob rye is delicious.

  41. If the moderator, Lester Holt, were unbiased, he’d have introduced Hillary as a lying sack of shit.

    1. If he did that, how would the audience know who he was introducing?

  42. Marijuana would be humankind’s greatest discovery” lol wut. How about fire, chief?

  43. What’s with Gary and his thumbs? It’s not a new thing. He was doing it as far back as 2012 and possibly earlier. If it’s a nervous tic sort of thing, he really needs to get that sorted out because it’s sort of distracting. Then again, I’ve never seen anyone else ever mention it, so perhaps it’s just me that it distracts. I’d imagine, however, it subconsciously makes people trust him less.

  44. as Jesus said I cannot believe that you able to earn a large amount in a few weeks on the computer
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  45. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  46. ‘Gary, please name your favorite world leader’.

    ‘No, other than Groucho Marx’.

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

  48. Strange Johnson would use Facebook. Most Libertarians hate facebook and refuse to use it. Like myself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.