Gary Johnson

Democrats Pour Millions of Anti-Libertarian Dollars Into Reminding Millennials How Annoying Democrats Are

Anti-corporate progressives use a billionaire's money to warn about Gary Johnson's "hairstyle" and invent a peacenik Al Gore.

|

Bernie Sanders can't go more than a day or two without decrying the malevolent influence that billionaires inflict on America's political system:

Which makes it all the more fun that the democratic socialist and Democratic Party presidential runner-up is the tip on billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer's spear aimed at Millennials flirting with the mortal sin of voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson over Democrat Hillary Clinton. The Hill reports today that Sanders is the Clinton campaign's main weapon in whipping young voters, while Steyer is the main moneybags:

NextGen Climate, the group run by liberal billionaire and environmental activist Tom Steyer, is on the ground in eight battleground states with a message that is almost exclusively aimed at reaching the millennial voters who are energized by the issue of climate change.

Last week, the group threw six figures behind digital ads mocking Johnson as a climate change denier and warning millennials that climate change will cost them trillions of dollars.

The charge that Johnson is a climate change denier is a clumsy lie—as he said Monday night when I asked him about climate policy, "Well, number one is we are concerned with global warming. I do think it's man-caused." But that's hardly the most amusing part of this scare-the-kids campaign. For instance, here's Bernie warning against, uh, a protest vote:

As many of the Bernie-or-bust delegates at the Democratic National Convention told me, the Sanders movement to them was about a "revolution," not obediently following the chief revolutionary's political orders. That's why so many of those (almost universally young) delegates repeatedly booed their own hero, and reacted poorly to the party's heavy-handed attempts to keep them in line.

The new wave of lefty Libertarian-bashing also brings the unintended consequence of reminding young people (and the rest of us) how old and off-puttingly square Democrats can be. For instance, here's House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) shaking her fist at clouds over Gary Johnson's haircut:

Her hair, to be sure, remains perfect. ||| Capitol File
Capitol File

"Do you think most people who have said they're going to be for the Libertarian because they like his hairstyle or whatever it is are going to stick with that?" Pelosi said at a briefing in her Capitol conference room. […]

Pelosi said the Future Forum, a group of House Democrats in their 30s led by Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, has identified four big issues that young voters care about: climate change, college affordability, Wall Street reforms and money in elections.

Pelosi said Sanders emphasized all those issues in his campaign, while the Libertarian Party platform "is to shut down public schools, eliminate clean air, clean water and every kind of protection in terms of regulation, dismantle Social Security, dismantle Medicare."

And the biggest howler of all: That when not they're not busy eliminating clean air, those dastardly Libertarians are pushing the nation toward war, based on the mother of all Transitive Properties in Tim Kaine's Mind:

[V]ice presidential nominee Tim Kaine raised the specter of the Libertarians as spoilers in an interview with Yahoo's Katie Couric last week, arguing that there never would have been a war in Iraq if Nader hadn't cost Gore the election.

"Casting a vote, a protest vote, for a third-party candidate that's going to lose may well affect the outcome," Kaine warned. "It may well lead to a consequence that is deeply, deeply troubling. That's not a speculation — we've seen it in our country's history."

"That's not speculation," Tim Kaine says, speculating that even if you accept the disputed notion that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the presidency, the hawkish Democrat would have reacted to the post-9/11 specter of a possibly re-arming Saddam Hussein by turning the other cheek. This is wishful thinking bordering on historical delusion.

When doves cry. ||| Veterans Today
Veterans Today

Even Salon (circa 2011, anyway), ain't buying it. As senator, Gore goosed his political careeer by casting a decisive vote in favor of the Gulf War. In 1993, the then-vice wrote a letter to Iraqi National Congress (INC) leader Ahmed Chalabi, affirming the Clinton administration's support, backed by military force, of the Iraqi opposition:

I assure you that we will not turn our backs on the Kurds or the other Iraqi communities subjected to the repression of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Our policy toward Iraq is clear. We insist on full Iraqi compliance with all of tlie United Nations Security Council resolutions. This includes U.N. resolution 688, which demands an end to Iraq's repression of its people and highlights the plight of the Kurds. Since April 1991, coalition forces have protected the inhabitants of northern Iraq from Baghdad's repression, and the Administration is committed to continuing that effort. […]

Secretary Christopher, National Security Advisor Lake, and I a solid commitment to INC representatives in our meetings, and we pledged our support for a democratic alternative to the Saddam Hussein regime. I can assure you that the U.S. intends to live up to these commitments and to give whatever additional support we can reasonably provide to encourage you in your struggle for a democratic Iraq.

In 1996, when Republican nominee Bob Dole criticized Clinton for lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq, Gore retorted, "Sometimes the U.S. has to take unilateral action when our interests are at stake." In May 2000, speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference, Gore bragged on being an Iraq hawk and stressed that "it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone":

In 1991, I broke with many in my own party and voted to use force to stop Saddam Hussein's aggression in the Middle East. I believe in bipartisanship, most of all when our national interests are at stake in foreign policy. Throughout my service in the House and Senate, as many of you know, I was frequently among the small group that tried to build bipartisan bridges to bring Democrats and Republicans together in support of policies that would promote what is in our nation's best interest.

Despite our swift victory and our efforts since, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of the Middle East. We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.

We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power. I have met with the Iraqi opposition and I have invited them to meet with me again next month, when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam.

We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-for-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary, and that has been frequently. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a senator, I voted for the use of force, as vice president I supported the use of force. If entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waver. Never waver.

Does that sound like a guy who would give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt in 2002? Of course not. For instance, here's where Al Gore was at in 2002:

In September of 2002, Al Gore, then still a possible Democratic presidential contender, warned of the perils of acting unilaterally against Iraq. He urged Bush to take his case to the Security Council and ask for a resolution demanding "prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time." And if the Security Council failed? "Other choices"—Gore meant force—"remain open." After all, "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Bush, of course, followed Gore's advice.

It is the height of chutzpah to warn Millennials that their preference for an intervention-skeptic over the Democratic Party's biggest hawk could somehow lead to more war, citing as his evidence a candidate who selected Joe Lieberman as a running mate. But then, Hillary Clinton is throwing David Brock and Peter Daou at her Millennials problem, so that's about the level of honesty that you can expect. The next few weeks should make for unintentionally hilarious reading in the left-of-center press.

Advertisement

NEXT: The en banc D.C. Circuit meets the Clean Power Plan

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. If Hillary loses and it turns out that Johnson took more votes from her than he did Trump, which I think is a reasonable possibility, Libertarians just thought they were the enemy of the people. The amount of butt hurt and venom directed by Progs towards Libertarians is going to be epic. It will also be funny as hell watching the same people who three months ago were suggesting that old people no longer be allowed to vote because of the BREXIT results turn on young people.

    The best piece of crazy over this is how so many progs are blaming the Koch brothers for Trump and did everything they could to keep him from getting the GOP nomination. . The Kochs hate Trump. Yet, somehow Trump is all their fault. Is there anything the Kochs can’t do?

    1. According to progs, libertarians are responsible for drug prices going through the roof.

      1. That’s because of the free market. It’s basically the wild west out there. So sayeth Ezra Klein.

        1. Viagra, Epi-Pens and six shooters on both hips. That would be a sight!

          1. No need for cocaine if you have all that power.

      2. 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 $6570 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. Go to this website and go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/GoJob92

    2. Trump is, it seems, insisting on losing the election, despite having it all but handed him by Clinton. Listening again to snippets from Monday’s debate really cements my opinion that he never intended to get this far, and doesn’t intend to serve. That venal, defensive, papier m?ch?-skinned jackass really could not have come off worse to anyone still on the fence.

      1. I called this when he announced. He doesn’t want to win. He can’t be this stupid.

        1. And that is just even more delusional today than it was then. And he is the stupid one? Really? Not the people who have been pronouncing his candidacy dead for the last year? Not the people who said he wouldn’t’ win a single state and would cause the Republicans to lose Congress? Those are not the stupid ones?

          1. I didn’t watch the debate for the same reason I never watched The Apprentice.

            But, for those watched the former yet not the latter ask yourself “who did, and what do I know of their likes, dislikes and voting habits?”

            1. “…what do I really know…”

      2. He should be running circles around Hillary. Remember when Graham clownishly circled back to foreign policy with every questioned asked of him? He wasn’t taking the debate seriously but grandstanding for his cause. That should be Trump: brush off the personal attack and hit back harder on Hillary’s weak points. Instead he only fended her off long enough to punch himself in the face. He knew these attacks were coming: like Hillary, he could have rehearsed very simple feints before leaning in for haymaker. Instead he led with his chin and got clobbered. Idiot.

        1. It is people who see these debates like you do are why the Clintons have been handing Republicans their asses for 25 years. Here is how the Clintons operate. They stand up and tell a series of outrageous and shameless lies. The then let Republicans loose their minds over it while the Clintons explain to the country how much they care about them and want to help. The impression that is left on the public is that sure the Clintons are a bit sleazy but they at least care about the voters and their issues and all the Republicans seem to care about is how much they hate the Clintons.

          If Trump had taken the bait and gone after Hillary on all of the scandals and so forth, it would have made his supporters feel great. It would, however, have accomplished nothing. Anyone who thinks the Clinton Foundation or the emails and such disqualifies her for office is already voting for Trump or at least not voting for Hillary. So pounding her on it would have accomplished nothing except make Trump look mean and have no real reason to be President other than that he hates Hillary.

          1. This has been playing out exactly the same on my Facebook page, only I’m the one l fighting to point out all the lies rather than having a republican do it. Hillary supports could not care less, it’s all strawmen burned in an echo chamber. I gave up.

            1. The point is to win over voters. Everyone knows about Hillary’s scandals and so forth. The irony of her lecturing the country on the dangers of Russian hacking was lost on no one. Pointing it out would not have accomplished anything. People know who Hillary is and they either love her and their opinion can’t be changed or don’t like her but might be willing to live with her as President if there is no other alternative. It is the second group that Trump needed to win over. And he wasn’t going to do that by going on about what a crook she is. He wins them over by explaining why he wants to be President and what he wants to do.

              1. The point of the debates? The point of the debates is for the Democratic and Republican Parties to show there are only 2 choices to vote for. The Dem and Rep racket is what is important. The gravy train is not going to saute itself. The parties need money and corruption to keep things as the status quo.

                Then Trump comes in and pushes many of the corrupt old guard aside and might get a 1984 landslide. Shocker to Dems and Repubs. All the old guard can do is drag their feet and hope Trump is gone after 4 years in office, so they can try and get a RINO or progressive in office to get back to corruption-central.

                Trump is an unpolished speaker but he also annoyed the living fuck out of Holt and Clinton by not playing into their game. People like trump because they hope he will be different and he talks different than the corrupt elite like Hillary.

              2. The only response I wish Trump had made would be to ask Hillary why, if the Russians can so easily penetrate the DNC servers, she ran her official SecState email traffic over an unsecured server.

            2. strawmen burned in an echo chamber

              Now THAT is how you mix metaphors.

              1. Yeah, I kind of chuckled to myself on that one.

          2. John, she spun a fable about Trump’s tightfisted attitude toward his contractors, whom she claims he routinely bilked. And she’s probably correct, inasmuch as a good compromise leaves everyone unsatisfied. But she spun it in such a way as to make Trump out to be an avaricious exploiter rather than a savvy businessman.

            Trump could have brought it back around. He could have said, “Listen, my real estate dealings are successful because contractors want to work for me. If I had the reputation you say I had, if my subs really were so upset with me, I’d have gone out of business decades ago. Clearly I have done something well, and I’ve employed tens of thousands of honest workers in the process. You have spent your entire life in politics. You have never employed a single person that taxpayers haven’t paid for or wasn’t financed by foreign governments and businessmen looking to get an undue leg up over Americans,” etc.

            He could have said that. Instead he says, “That’s just business.”

            1. He could have done better. You are right. He wasn’t great. But neither was she. My point is that he accomplished what he had to do. A better candidate could have destroyed her, although the type of candidate who would have killed her is not what the media and conservatives think. They all think Ted Cruz would have killed her and I think he would have been a disaster. Cruz would have scored all kinds of points but come across as a know it all asshole who only wants to be President because he hates Hillary and thinks himself so smart.

              The two candidates in my lifetime who would have killed her were Reagan and oddly enough George W. Bush. The reason I say that is they both were very funny. Hillary is the most humorless person on earth. Reagan would have said something so funny even she might have laughed and left her totally powerless. Bush would have smirked and make a smart ass remark that would have enraged Democrats and left her fuming but caused everyone else to laugh but feel a little guilty for it. You can’t take the Clintons on head on. Republicans never seem to get that.

              1. You operated a private server to keep your business out of the hands of the public, and you want to critique me on my honesty?

                You spent your entire career in law and politics, and you want to critique my wildly successful business practices?

                You use a private fortune amassed from foreign governments and businessmen as a slush fund for your extravagant lifestyle, and you want to critique my charitable contributions?

                As a senator you cast a deciding vote* for the Iraq war, and you want to question whether I might have expressed support for the troops in media interviews over a decade ago? (*along with everyone else, but.)

                THAT is how to be a slippery newt. Not overexplaining his misadventures in business and finance.

            2. John, she spun a fable about Trump’s tightfisted attitude toward his contractors, whom she claims he routinely bilked. And she’s probably correct, inasmuch as a good compromise leaves everyone unsatisfied. But she spun it in such a way as to make Trump out to be an avaricious exploiter rather than a savvy businessman.

              Envy sells well with the plebes it seems. Hillary has done far worse than anything she accused Trump off, and yet so many seem to only be focused on what trump said or did because of the machine. If this country had an objective press instead of DNC operatives with bylines, we wouldn’t have either of these candidates.

            3. It can be tough to think of these comebacks in real time. If you aren’t a professional politician, you probably won’t be as good at it and it shows with Trump.

            4. But she spun it in such a way as to make Trump out to be an avaricious exploiter rather than a savvy businessman.

              As far as the Left is concerned, savvy or successful businessmen are exploiters.

      3. If the rumors are to be believed, he basically tried to recruit VPs by offering to let them have all the actual power.

      4. You completely misunderstand what happened in the debate and what these debates are. They are not really debates. They are comparative speaking events. The whole point is to define yourself in a good way and y our opponent in a bad light. It is not to score points or look prepared or any of the other bullshit the media obsesses over. The bottom line from Monday is Trump came across as the outsider who sees the country as going off the rails and he painted Clinton as the incompetent insider who thinks outside of race everything is going fine. That is not the impression Clinton wants to leave.

        Trump did fine in the debate. If you don’t believe me, consider this. All of the media and talking heads said the same things about his performance in every one of them. He rambled, he was unprepared, and so forth. And after every debate, Trump went out and won the next primary. After every debate the media was convinced Trump had finally done it this time and imploded and in reality he walked away from each one of them doing better than he was before. That is because the media doesn’t understand what these debates are about or how the public views them.

        1. I think you’re right re: the purpose the debates serve, and it is heartening to see a man as pig-ignorant and rhetorically dumb as Trump holding the line against a debate club elitist like Hillary. And I mean that, as idiotic and intellectually loathsome as I find Trump, the idea that the debates serve as a conduit for truth rather than performance art for the influence-peddling class of political prostitutes is even more irritating.

          That said, Trump can maintain his narrative (and that’s all it is for both of them, narrative-spinning), even counterfactually, while acquitting himself well. He doesn’t need to be a debate club grandmaster to parry the points Hillary had clearly focus-grouped and memorized. He doesn’t need to do her job for her and better than she could.

          1. The political environment is so cynical right now and the public so angry at Washington, he is better off rambling a bit and not being too slick because it makes him look authentic. People fucking loath smooth talking focus group tested politicians. They have just had it. I really don’ t think the people who will decide this election give a shit about how smooth or prepared Trump is. They view that as a feature.

            1. Trump voters, John, and Trump sympathists I’ll grant you. They feel burned and cynical. That’s not who he needs to bring aboard. He needs educated whites. And if anything the self-styled cynical class of intellectually savvy college-educated cognitive analysts are even more suckered by smooth-talking political narrative-spinners than the supposed hicks on welfare. He doesn’t need to be polished, he needs to appear legitimate. Stepping in rhetorical beartraps over and over isn’t just unpolished, it’s delegitimizing.

              1. Stepping in rhetorical beartraps over and over isn’t just unpolished, it’s delegitimizing.

                Normally I’d agree with this, but nearly every online poll after the debates said he won, even though objectively it was a push at best. And that’s with Hillary’s “Correct the Record” army of internet bots available to skew the polls.

                He’s gaining or even with her in states that he needs to get to 270. Outside of her cohort of catlady boomers, no one is actually excited to vote for this woman, and Bernie supporters in particular are waffling on whether they’ll even vote at all because of how he sold out. Despite her huge numbers of minority supporters, she likely won’t turn out the black vote in particular in the same number that Obama pulled, even after he had to hector them to go vote for her.

                Unless Hillary’s team has one hell of an October surprise (and this could get nerfed by more Wikileak material), it really doesn’t matter at this point what rhetorical beartraps he steps in as long as he doesn’t lose his temper.

                1. Online polls have self selected participants. This only proves that Trump’s supporters are more enthusiastic than Clinton’s. In relatively random polls of voters, Clinton consistently won.

                  Granted, she had help from Lester Holt but if Trump had any brains after the debate when asked about Holt’s partiality Trump should have declared:

                  “Holt, no doubt, is fully aware that a much better known TV personality than he, Matt Lauer, made a career threatening mistake by questioning Hillary. Holt has a family that he has to think about and I can’t ask a man to sacrifice his family. It would require enormous courage and conviction and perhaps even recklessness for Holt to have done anything else. I was fully aware that Holt would be under intense pressure and I should have prepared myself better for what was to happen.”

                  1. This only proves that Trump’s supporters are more enthusiastic than Clinton’s. In relatively random polls of voters, Clinton consistently won.

                    That didn’t exactly mean much for Nixon, and if Trump’s supporters are that much more enthusiastic than Clinton’s that doesn’t bode well for her, either. People who are lukewarm about supporting their candidate aren’t going to automatically pull the lever for them come election day and may not even bother showing up.

                    Hillary needs kill shots in the next two debates, or any momentum she may have had is going to be gone. Trump just needs to not blow his stack to show whatever remaining outliers that exist that he’s not going to nuke the NYT building on a whim.

        2. The reason we know that most people saw it as a draw, or Trump win, is that the polls reflect exactly that. Any advantage Clinton could have got out of it was ruined by the meddling CNN moderator. These people are clueless about the way most Americans see them and if they keep it up, they’re going to hand the election to Trump, whether he wants it or not.

          1. Having a biased moderator only works if people don’t perceive the bias and think the moderator is on the up and up. Once the media said in so many words they expected Holt to be biased against Trump or his name was mud the jig was up. Nothing Holt did was going to help Hillary because everyone knew he was expected to do that.

            It is amazing how stupid the media is.

            1. I don’t think it’s so much stupidity as it is hubris. The media wankers really think they’re better than us commoners; after all, they go to cocktail parties with the Big Boys! I think this blinds them somewhat to the reality that many of us see exactly what they’re doing.

              1. It is both. You are right, they think they are smarter than everyone else. In reality, they are a bunch of 20 and 30 something liberal arts majors who have never done anything in their lives except talk out of their asses about subjects they don’t know much about but pretend otherwise.

                There are real reporters out there I respect. They are the ones doing real reporting for local papers on crime and such or out doing travel writing and things. But I hold political reporters and comentators of all stripes in utter contempt. They have absolutely nothing to offer and yet are given a soapbox they have done nothing to earn or deserve. They are just scum, all of them.

      5. Wait until the next debate. I’m sure that Trump will surpass himself in terms of blowing away the opportunity of a dozen lifetimes.

    3. Being an asshole, particularly to progressives, my entire life has fully prepared me for this. I’m ready.

      1. I dispose the term progressive because the only thing that they are progressive about is leading this country into an oppressive, authoritarian left State. Yes, they really are that evil.

    4. The more progs hate us, the more I think we’re right.

      1. Its like a badge of honor, if you ask me.

        Their political ideas are shit and have been shown to be wrong by centuries of successful free market and freedom.

    5. My vote is not owed to anyone. When i vote GayJay over Hillary, it will be because she didn’t earn my vote.

    6. Their hate makes me stronger.
      I feed off it.
      It warms me on these chilly fall nights.

      1. Nice Haiku-even though it is 19 syllables…

      2. Points for the nature/seasonal reference, though.

        Their hate makes me stronger

        I feed off of it

        Chilly fall nights are warmer

          1. What, you sayin’ “their” doesn’t have two syllables?

            Keep in mind, I grew up in Texas.

    7. What the progs can’t grasp is that potential Johnson voters do not like them or their candidate, otherwise they would be supporting her. So they tell them “you MUST vote for Hillary or the polar bears will die, college tuition will go through the roof, waaa, waaa, waaa!!! My guess is that if this has any effect, it will be that more young voters stay home. No worries though, if Trump wins, they will still blame GJ.

      1. No worries though, if Trump wins, they will still blame GJ.

        Of course they will – what are they going to do, blame their shitty policies and corrupt, unlikable candidates?

      2. It certainly doesn’t occur to them that Johnson voters actually believe in individual freedom and limited government. That’s why they keep talking about it likes it’s a protest vote. It’s like a shrill parent who wanted their kid to become a doctor trying to talk them out of their career by shouting ‘seriously, snap out of it already!’ over and over. The thought that so many people, especially young people, genuinely disagree with their socialist or pseudo-socialist vision of the world, just does not occur to them.

        Frankly, I can kind of understand why too. I’m a bit baffled myself that any significant portion of young’uns have libertarian sympathies. Maybe there really is a ‘silent significant minority’ or something.

    8. If that happens I will love the taste of the Progs’ salty tears. In idle moments I will tune in to MSNBC just to laugh at the impotent tears of rage shed by the likes of Chris Mathews and Rachel Maddow.

      1. I think there will be some serious cases of proggies completely losing their shit if Trump wins-1000x worse than when Bush was re-elected. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a mass exodus of them to Canada. Some of the bluest states might try to secede too.

        1. Imagine a landslide like 1984 for Trump. The prog’s heads would just explode. They just cannot believe that their socialist policies are not working and there are still dissidents.

          1. And they would double down! Or just come to the conclusion that they need to be marketed better.

          2. If Trump wins it’ll just mean he’s successfully co-opted their socialist policies. The hate from the left is but small consolation for losing the ideological war against the FSB

            1. It’s pretty much all we’ll get. We won’t even get the lousy t-shirt.

        2. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a mass exodus of them to Canada.”

          Nah… Hardcore progs really don’t have the gumption to actually improve their situation; they just want to complain louder and louder until the government fixes it for them. That’s why they’re screaming for minimum wage hikes, legislated safe spaces, and taxpayer-funded everything. If they had any motivation, they’d be starting businesses, learning valuable skills, and finding ways to provide value to others.

          1. More than that, they won’t move to Canada because politics isn’t about pursuing their individual interests. It’s about imposing a worldview on the country, and you can’t do that from Canada. Progs think of themselves as selfless altruists saving the country; they’ll never flee to Canada. They have work to do here; they mean to save us, each and every one of us, from the 1%/white privilege/the patriarchy/hydra/whatever, whether we like it or not.

    9. If Hillary loses and it turns out that Johnson took more votes from her than he did Trump, which I think is a reasonable possibility

      People voting for Johnson aren’t “taking away” votes from other candidates. If a Bernie supporter refuses to vote for Clinton, she failed to win that vote, it wasn’t taken away from her, because she doesn’t own voters — at least, not outright (fractional slavery and all that applies).

    10. 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 $70h to $86h..Go to this website and click tech tab to start your work.Visit this web… http://tinyurl.com/hygs5jl

    11. And to think it was only eight years ago that I was reading stories about “liberaltarians” and about all the things liberals and libertarians had in common.

      1. Old-time liberals did have quite a bit in common with Libertarians. However, the Liberals were kicked out of the Dem leadership by the Progressives. Progressivism (even in 1900) was, and is, fascism repackaged for an American audience.

        1. They also took our word, liberal, and have been using it out of spite to mock us ever since, while we get stuck with the rundown tenement of a word that is ‘libertarian.’

    12. Apparently they can’y give Gary Johnson enough cash to run a decent campaign.

    13. If Hillary loses to Trump because Libertarians “take” her votes, it would be almost worth it to see Progs go crazy, that is, if you care what happens to the country. But since we’re screwed either way, might as well be amused.

    14. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily.. You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job.. It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish.. It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity. Go to this site home tab for more detail… http://tinyurl.com/h3mergo

  2. Given the crises we face – income inequality, climate change, student debt – this moment in history is not the time for a protest vote.

    Someone needs to progsplain to me what this even means. So… *rubbing my temples in little circles* the next time #BlackLIvesMatter has some kind of protest and demonstration, the proper response is “Given the crises we face – income inequality, climate change, young unarmed black men being gunned down by police – this moment in history is not the time for a protest”?

    1. I means that a protest vote is a vote for Trump.

    2. You can protest all you want, just not in ways that might actually have an impact.

      1. I’m going to a knee in the voting booth.
        Take that Oligarchy!

      2. That seems to be BLM’s standard operating procedure.

      3. Yeah. Honestly even if I were a prog I wouldn’t mind Trump winning. Even plenty of progressives must believe the Democratic Party needs that kick in the nuts, for its own good.

    3. How about:

      Given the crises we face – a stagnant economy, runaway national debt, reckless foreign policy, and an ever growing government unconcerned with civil liberties or the rule of law – this is exactly the moment in time to vote your conscience.

      1. Yep. I would feel soiled if I voted for either of the major candidates.

      2. Given the crises we face – a stagnant economy, runaway national debt, reckless foreign policy, and an ever growing government unconcerned with civil liberties or the rule of law – At this point, what difference does it make (to vote libertarian)?

    4. Translation: “Toe the line, useful idiots. Your petty, selfish concerns are secondary to your duty to support the Party.”

  3. This is pretty good evidence that Johnson is siphoning more votes from Clinton than from Trump.

    1. A siphoning Johnson is terrifying.

  4. Libertarians are evil. I mean, they want government to leave people alone. How fucking evil is that? No asking permission? No obeying orders? How will society function? How will anyone know what to do? Everything will come to a grinding halt without our betters telling us what me may or may not do. Nothing will be invented. There will be no more ideas. No more innovations. No nothing. Without government, society will cease to exist.

    1. You don’t ever do the right thing unless a govt gun is pointed at your head. What’s so hard to understand?

      1. Tony actually said one time that the only reason why parents take care of their children is because the government tells them to. Seriously. Parents would let their children die if not for government. The very existence of our species depends on government because without it, all children would die.

        1. I suspect Tony’s parents were pretty horrible people.

          1. It makes you think that Tony is a horrible person. To think all those people he’s surrounded by on a daily basis, one millimeter away from Tony’s violent, murderous outburst if The State wasn’t staying his hand.

            1. And amsoc is even worse, since he tut-tutted that Jose Fernandez wouldn’t be dead if only he hadn’t been so greedy to escape Cuba.

              Think about that comment for a second, and the kind of repugnant mind that thinks such a thing.

              1. He really commented that? That’s a new low, even for him.

              2. Wow really? Amsoc care to weigh in?

          2. Keeping him locked in the basement all these years…

        2. Tony actually said one time that the only reason why parents take care of their children is because the government tells them to. Seriously. Parents would let their children die if not for government.

          Lol. Be honest, sarcasmic. If you had a two-legged cockroach like Tony for a kid, wouldn’t you wish he’d been strangled in his crib?

    2. Government is the new plastics:

      http://civileats.com/wp-conten…..antoAD.jpg

    3. Progs don’t want to be left alone. That scares the hell out of them. They are under the illusion that the government cares about them and that everyone else owes them something just by them being born.

      1. The recent observation that progs want government to be like a caring parent was way too on point.

      2. More than just care about them. That they are BFFs. They want to force you to have their BFFs too.

        WHY DON’T YOU MUTHERFUCKERS LOVE OBAMACARE?

        These nutjobs really think like this.

      3. They are under the illusion that “the government is US”. My cousin actually said that as an argument.

    4. This is basically what commentators in NY Times said to GJ piece.

  5. I don’t understand why they insist on attacking hilariously inaccurate strawmen libertarians when we give them so many factual things to attack us on.

    1. They insist on that because their candidate is a living and barely breathing strawman of the connected insider gaming the system. The entire Progressive myth is based on the idea of fighting for the little guy for the rich and powerful. And thanks to boomer nostalgia it is also tied to youth and the new generation ushering in a progressive future. The Democrats are running a 69 year old woman who has spent her entire life working in and for the establishment and has made hundreds of millions of dollars selling her and her husband’s connections to the powerful.

      They have to change the subject to some grotesque Libertarian strawman. What the hell else are they going to do?

      1. Again, whenever you hear someone shriek “Koch brothers!”, you may safely hit “ignore,” because it is not a serious person speaking.

        1. Whoops…. belongs with your comment upthread.

        2. Sanders said Sheldon Adelson just buys elections lol

      2. Almost any random, 30 second clip from the LP convention would be just as effective at souring the typical voter on libertarians.

        1. Especially if it’s the naked fat guy dancing around. Even though leftists are always doing things much more goofy and absurd than that.

          1. Plus, NGDA has never started a war, never raised taxes, etc.

    2. All they know is men of straw to be put in boxes that they draw.

      1. that’s strawperson, shitlord

        1. Person of Straw – POS.

          Works for me.

    3. They don’t know anything about libertarians. Only what the talking heads write for them, which is always wildly inaccurate.

  6. “Do you think most people who have said they’re going to be for the Libertarian because they like his hairstyle or whatever it is are going to stick with that?” Pelosi said at a briefing in her Capitol conference room.

    It’s too bad Gary Johnson doesn’t have billionaire backers so he could hire Pelosi’s stylist to do his hair.

    1. That old harridan probably wears a wig in public.

  7. millennial voters who are energized by the issue of climate change

    All 3 of them, sure. Millenials care about “climate change” like I care about the sport of lacrosse.

    When’s the last time a vote was influenced by millennials demanding action on climate change? They must be getting desperate to look for votes under that particular couch cushion.

    1. Every time they do a poll of what voters care about, climate change is always on the bottom of the shit pile. Regular people do not give a shit about climate change. Hucksters and environmental activists care about it. No one else gives a shit. They’ve spent billions of dollars to make people care about it and it’s been money wasted.

      1. Regular people will say they care about that, because it’s the goodthinkful position. But, yes, revealed vs stated preference.

        1. Climate change alarmist: Do you care about global warming?

          Millennial: Of course!

          Climate change alarmist: We’ve launched a campaign to discourage cell phone use because it adds to the warming. Are you willing to give up you…

          Millennial: *runs away*

    2. “They must be getting desperate to look for votes under that particular couch cushion.”

      The ones who care about climate change are already dutifully supporting her highness. The dems can’t stand the fact that the young’uns just aren’t that into them as they were when Obama was on the ticket.

    3. Liberals have been trying to brainwash the children about the environment and global warming their whole lives — kind of funny and sad to see how little impact it really made.

      I remember science books from the 80s when I was in elementary school saying we were almost out of oil and that the rain forests would be gone by 2000.

  8. Tony appeared the other day to explain that, because of climate change, each election really is the most important one ever.

    Then later he said because of the Paris climate agreement, Obama’s presidency really did mark the point at which the oceans began to recede.

    Forgetting how ludicrous both those statements are and just taking them at face value, they still leave only two possibilities: that either 1) the oceans have begun to recede, so this election really isn’t as important as 2012, or 2) if one goes with the idea that a dastardly republican might repudiate the Paris agreement, then there is no theoretical point ever in the future in which any given national election wouldn’t always be the most important ever. So ever election is just going to grow in importance forever until the end of time.

    How stupid.

    1. because of climate change, each election really is the most important one ever.

      The US and Europe could cease ALL emissions 100% tomorrow, and it would still have negligible impact on the total human contribution over the next 100 years. Its basically within the margin of error in the expected emissions growth in China, India, etc.

      Even if you believe the most insane and retarded predictions of climate alarmists …. indeed, BECAUSE of their insane and retarded predictions …. based on their own logic, unilateral US policy re: “Climate Change” is entirely meaningless

      Unless, of course, the US intends to *force* developing nations to cease developing. Which is a proposal I’ve LOVE to see people like Tony make. Because its exactly what their own retarded logic seems to suggest is necessary.

      1. You can’t argue with religion, GILMORE.

      2. No! No no no! We are supposed to redistribute our development to the developing world. We accept less growth so they can grow more.

        1. ^This. Except that our growth will be negative.

          1. And we HAVE to take in millions of foreigners while we HAVE to stifle our economy.

            More people and less food and basic necessities. Nothing like starvation and poverty to make you want to be a socialist.

      3. Which is a proposal I’ve LOVE to see people like Tony make

        Don’t they make it every day?

        The developing countries that escaped any obligation to reduce emissions under Kyoto?notably China, but also India, Brazil, and much of Latin America and Africa?are the source of essentially all the projected growth in global greenhouse gas output. Over the next two decades, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to decline in the industrialized world and nearly double in the developing world

        Also, saying country A produces more emissions that Country B is kind of a ridiculous metric.

      4. Well unilateral US emission cuts would be SOMETHING.

        But not unilateral personal emission cuts from Tony or Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio. Those are pointless gestures.

        1. Well unilateral US emission cuts would be SOMETHING

          If by “Something” you mean,

          “A fart in the wind that would have no impact on the ‘so-called’ problem… but would still impose costs to the global economy such that would effectively stymie/prevent human development for a century or more, halting progress which would vastly aid the wellbeing of everyone on the planet…” etc.

          Yeah, that’s “something”.

          1. and i don’t think i’m exaggerating in the slightest.

            The ‘opportunity-cost’ of any impositions placed on energy-use (in any form) are simply staggering.

      5. Yeah if I recall correctly, if the US went to 0% carbon emissions, then at the end of the 21st century, the average temperature would have risen by something like 3% less than it otherwise would. In terms of actual realistic environmental policy, t’s fractions of a percentage point we’re talking about. And whatever they do will be cancelled out by other prog policies like subsidizing heavy industry, auto manufacturing, agriculture, etc. anyway.

    2. And like most of the climate change yappers, Tony is a giant hypocrite douchebag.

      1. I remember when he unabashedly stated that he didn’t like poor people, but wanted welfare state policies to keep them away from him.

  9. The next few weeks should make for unintentionally hilarious reading in the left-of-center press.

    ….

    ….

    as opposed to the *past year*…. from everyone?

    I’m not sure i’m going to be able to tell the difference between DERPCON 2 and DERPCON 1. I mean, i can’t even CNN already.

  10. Huh. Democrats are lying. Weird.

  11. Our policy toward Iraq is clear. We insist on full Iraqi compliance with all of tlie United Nations Security Council resolutions.

    Al Gore, prepared to “climb the mountain of conflict”.

  12. Young people love it when old people scold them. Winning strategy right there Democrats.

    But seriously, fuck you Democrats and especially you Bernie Sanders. Voting third party isn’t a fucking protest vote. Your candidate is fucking terrible. Give us a better candidate. Same goes with Republicans.

    1. Young people love it when old people scold them.

      Look, if there’s a steady paycheck in it, old people can scold millennials all they want.

  13. The next few weeks should make for unintentionally hilarious reading in the left-of-center press.

    The next few weeks?

  14. “As many of the Bernie-or-bust delegates at the Democratic National Convention told me, the Sanders movement to them was about a “revolution,” not obediently following the chief revolutionary’s political orders.”

    Uh, what do you think a socialist revolution *means,* you retards?

    1. Most of them were under the impression that free stuff would be involved.

  15. What is ironic….progs were complaining about old people for Brexit….but yet the older people are the ones who made HIllary the candidate

    1. It’s never about principle, always about outcome.

      1. Outcome? As if!

        Intentions, man, it is all about having the correct, group think approved intentions.

      2. Unless it pertains to policy. Then it is about intentions

  16. “Tom Steyer turns into newt, Melissa Joan Hart unavailable for comment.”

  17. The charge that Johnson is a climate change denier is a clumsy lie?as he said Monday night when I asked him about climate policy, “Well, number one is we are concerned with global warming. I do think it’s man-caused.”

    I wasn’t aware of this. Thanks for providing yet more evidence that the man isn’t particularly bright.

    1. He also said he doesn’t think there is anything we can really do about it.

  18. New Mexico, from where Johnson hails, population 2M, is a bit of a curiosity. Like many an American bozo I driven through the state a few times without stopping. But I did stop once for a day in Farmington. My GF and I stayed in a low rent motel there that advertised Color TV and HBO. She went to sleep after an argument about my driving and I stayed up to watch “The Man Who Fell to Earth” on the courtesy HBO feed from the satellite dishes behind the office . NM, at least the northern part, is just gorgeous. The man from Mars (played by David Bowie), who was running out water, chose New Mexico as the landing place to save his family. But few earthlings are interested in it.

    1. But I did stop once for a day in Farmington. My GF and I stayed in a low rent motel there that advertised Color TV and HBO.

      Are there other types of hotels in Farmington?

      Actually, now that I think of it, Farmington is the ONLY place in that corner of new mexico with… hotels… full stop.

      When I was helping my (now) ex-wife escape from the clutches of the southwest proper, we got to the place where we needed to stop for the night in Shiprock, NM. There are no hotels in Shiprock, NM. So we had to turn east and go to Farmington. Which isn’t a bad little town actually.

      1. Bloomfield and Aztec NM came up with a couple hotels in a search.

        Whole lotta nothing when Farmington NM is the bright lights big city.

        1. I wonder if that’s because they’re essentially “suburbs” of Farmington.

    2. I’ve been to Las Cruces. White Sands was pretty neat. They put green chiles on everything, which seems like the right thing to do.

      I don’t think I could ever live in the desert though – I’d miss the greenery and the humidity.

      1. Hatch Green chiles. Don’t make the mistake of making that distinction. People from Las Cruces don’t have much to cling to, but what they do have, the guard like a junkyard dog.

        1. I’m well aware. The stingy bastards hardly ship Hatch Chiles out of the state but I always buy what I can get every August/September, even though they are always very mild and not as good as the ones they serve in LC.

          1. HEB must buy all of them for Houston.

            1. HEBs everywhere in Tejas have a Hatch ChiliFest annually. I’ve got a half empty jar of chopped Hatch chilis in my fridge.

          2. The stingy bastards hardly ship Hatch Chiles out of the state

            That’s odd. I’ve been able to buy them by the bushel in season in Texas and Arizona, and a variety of Hatch salsa and sauces year round in both states.

            1. Not everyone lives in the bordering states, cowpoke.

              1. (a) Neighboring states are still out of state.

                (b) Like that’s my problem.

            2. They have them at Wegman’s and Whole Foods in Virginia (I think I’ve seen some half rotting ones at Kroger and Harris Teeter). I usually buy whatever I can get my hands on but they are rarely very spicy.

  19. and warning millennials that climate change will cost them trillions of dollars.

    With no trace of irony, I assume.

    The Renewable Fuels Standard is, thus far, the most costly consequence of climate change.

    1. Don’t they have to have jobs first before anything can cost them something?

      1. Also, isn’t it the goal of climate change alarmists to cost people trillions of dollars that they can make disappear into thin air?

        1. That’s my current understanding of their goal.

    2. warning millennials that climate change will cost them trillions of dollars.

      Left out a key word, there.

      warning millennials that climate change policy will cost them trillions of dollars.

  20. The big push I suddenly started seeing this week is getting millennial to register to vote. YouTube has a page dedicated to it with recommendations keep coming up on my front page, despite the fact I’ve been a registered voter since 1982. Also, tumblr keeps having an annoying pop up on the subject listing all of their perceived crisis issues for the election coming up every time I go to a different page.

    1. I keep getting a pop-up message on FB that I can’t seem to get rid of. It wants me to share that I am registered to vote also. I refuse to post anything political on FB because it is a retarded waste of time given that most of my friends are proggies and I haven’t spoken to about 90% of them since high school.

      1. One of us seems confused as to the definition of “friend.”

  21. “…NextGen Climate, the group run by liberal billionaire and environmental activist Tom Steyer, is on the ground in eight battleground states with a message that is almost exclusively aimed at reaching the millennial voters who are energized by the issue of climate change….”

    He’s also a rent-seeking POS with a large financial interest in ‘green’ energy paid for by the taxpayers. Yep, vote ‘green’ in Tom’s pocket.
    If the Koch’s were as blatant in pushing their self-interest via the power of the state, they’d be hung in effigy.

  22. “reaching the millennial voters who are energized by the issue of climate change….”

    Is Steyer such a dumbass that he doesn’t realize these voters are already voting D? Some may be voting for Stein, but my guess is that a big chunk of GJs millennial support is because (1) he is against wars (2) he is 420 friendly.

    1. Oh, he knows they’re in Hillary’s camp. He just wants to make sure they turn out, which you’ve got to throw money at because Hillary’s such an uninspiring figure in her own right.

      1. I doubt he even cares if they turn out, as long as Hillary wins.

        As with everything involving the Clintons, its about influence peddling. This is Steyer buying his seat at the Clinton table.

    2. Or…. some millennials might support GJ cause they are..you know. ..libertarian.

  23. How can we get the congregation to tithe so the clergy can dine on gold plating? – Climateer

  24. Billionaires, I hate those guys.

    1. Why’d it have to be billionaires?

  25. NextGen Climate, the group run by liberal billionaire and environmental activist Tom Steyer

    It’s totes different when their billionaires do it ’cause they all woke an’ shit.

  26. I consume their fear and it empowers me.

  27. Today’s aristocracy is an American billionaire class that has unprecedented economic and political influence over our lives by means of our coercive government.

    FTFYa, Bernie.

  28. If climate change was such a pressing concern, why does it become so absent right around election time?

  29. warning millennials that climate change will cost them trillions of dollars.

    Shit, I’m gonna need a better paying job.

    1. They got a solution for that too, code named Weimar Wheelbarrows.

  30. I love the “A vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump” argument.

    It is tempting for me to show them what a vote for Trump really is. But I wont.

    Do they really think I would vote for Clinton instead?

    1. I’ve thought of this to-just tell them you will vote for Trump then if its the same thing, why have a middle man?

    2. Yes, they are that smug and full of hubris. They can’t seem to realize that Hillary is the worst Presidential candidate that has run in a century or more. This includes, Gore, Dukakis and GW and Nixon so that is saying something.

  31. If the younger millennials go substantially for GJ (or Stein) and Hillary loses, look for the dems and their media servants to call for raising the voting age back to 21, which it was prior to 1971, or maybe even 25 or 30. They will use some “scientific” reason of course, like young brains aren’t developed enough to realize the long-term consequences of their actions.

    1. I thought it was old people who voted for Brexit who were selfishly saddling the young with the consequences of their short term thinking…

      1. And the dems have hillary thanks to older people

    2. If the younger millennials go substantially for GJ (or Stein) and Hillary loses, look for the dems and their media servants to call for raising the voting age back to 21

      Oh, hell no that ain’t happening. Millenials are still a huge net for Hillary vs Donald, despite the massive apathy and third party votes. Raise the voting age to 21 and the Democrats would lose big up and down the ticket.

      1. Though it would be hilarious to get to literally describe the Democrats as engaging in the most extreme form of voter suppression by outlawing voting by 18-20 y.o.s

        1. Actually, in 2012, 18-21 year olds voted significantly more republican than 21-34 year olds, though the majority of them still voted D.

  32. 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

  33. Haters gonna hate.

  34. Let’s see…

    Young people shouldn’t vote because their brains are too immature.
    Old people shouldn’t vote because their brains no longer function.
    White people shouldn’t vote because their brains are wired for racism.
    Men shouldn’t vote because testosterone warps their brains and turns them into rapists.
    Women who are attracted to men are drawn to rapists, clearly they are brain damaged and shouldn’t vote.

    It looks like only middle aged minority lesbians can vote.

    1. You forgot transgendered persons, but only if they are M->F and are attracted to women.

      1. If you are transwoman and you like women are you a lesbian or straight? And same question for your partner.

  35. They never mentioned us until HRC’s numbers began to tank.

    Now that she is their personal Titanic they are panicking.

    Of course, they want us to vote for her since no one else will.

    First she knifed Sanders in the back and then she turns around and begs his supporters to vote for her.

    Nice job but it only will backfire.

    HRC is sinking….fast.

    The Libertarians are the only sane choice in an insane time.

  36. So what are people’s take of Bernie now that he is supporting Hillary (who ironically is winning the billionaire influence sweep stakes):

    1. Sell out
    2. Was black mailed
    3. A fake to begin with

    1. I’ll go with 2.

      1. Never ever vote ‘socialist’, regardless of the variety. The difference between a democratic socialist and all other socialists is that the latter appoints your executioner and the former allows you to elect your executioner.

    2. 3.

      He’s not a true believer or an actual independent. Just a Howard Dean Democrat who presents himself as an outsider because that’s hip now.

      1. He may be a true believer as long as he doesn’t have to do any actual work…see him getting kicked out of a hippy commune for not wanting to work

  37. I’m no Trump fan but it is astounding how out of touch with EVERYTHING the democrats really are. I’m not sure that you could run a worse campaign even of you tried. Trump is a light weight and their plan is basically:

    – say he is crazy and unfit
    – say he hates women and minorities
    – keep saying that anyone that votes for him is either stupid or deplorable
    – blame, blame, blame
    – finally, blame some more on Johnson and the Libertarians that have less than 10% support.

    All the while ignoring that their choice is a proven constant liar that is about as unlikable as a politician can be. I guess all this covers up the bad policies.

    We note to the democrats. We will all vote for Gary even if it means Trump wins. You elitist pieces of poop only have yourself to blame. It is fine if Trump digs a political grave for the GOP but don’t cheer that because you have dug your own political grave. And ha, ha Biden or Webb would have won in a landslide.

    1. “It is fine if Trump digs a political grave for the GOP but don’t cheer that because you have dug your own political grave.”

      This would be perhaps the only benefit of Hillary winning-it will be the end of the Democrat establishment. A lot like how Bush was the end for the GOP.

  38. “The charge that Johnson is a climate change denier is a clumsy lie…”

    nextGen never said he was. They used direct quotes from him…we should build more coal plants, the sun will envelope the earth, and one where he did say he wasn’t smart enough to know if man is causing climate change.

    He thinks differently now? I guess just like when he said he was open to a carbon tax, and a week later saying he wasn’t.

    If his message on the climate is confused, it’s his fault. Regardless, his stance is to do absolutely nothing about the problem, other than to hope it gets solved by a market that has never been free if carbon costs aren’t accounted for. And they’re not.

    Steyer is absolutely correct in his message to millenials about climate change (an issue they are very concerned about)…if climate important to you, a vote for Johnson is a complete waste of time.

    1. By the way, Dems poured millions of dollars into those ads? Hey, dollars are speech.

      1. Actually, money isn’t speech.

        And that, combined with these ads, should be all you need to know that Citizen’s United was a correct ruling. Because it regulated speech, not money.

        1. “Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment…”

          Hence, money is speech.

          1. Actually, the law that SCOTUS overturned defined “money” as “speech” in that sense, since it banned political expenditures, and then chose to define political expenditures along the lines of “electioneering communications.” )(2 U. S. C. ?441b).

            So, that got struck down.

            I suppose someone might want to go down the route of banning expenditures that aren’t related to speech. That’s sounds like banning doctors from performing abortions and saying “doctors aren’t abortions, you’re free to coat hanger yourself whenever you want”, but go ahead.

            1. It’s what they held that is important, because it’s in the holding that we get new definitions of what is constitutional. And they held political spending (money) is protected speech under the Constitution. You can try to finagle that all you want, but what we are left with is money spent in politics is speech.

              1. Yeah, it’s definitely not “just money”, then, is it?

                A girl goes in to buy an abortion.

                Can I ban the purchase because “money” isn’t “abortion”?

                It’s not like they’re saying they can’t collect income taxes because ALL MONEY IS SPEECH.

                If you want to regulate political speech, simple: amend the constitution.

                I’ll be waiting over here.

                1. Well of course not. The article above is about spending on political ads, which is what we are discussing.

                  1. Yeah, “spending on political ads” == “speech” == “not money” == Citizen’s United FTW.

                    1. Ha! Have a great evening, Brian!

                    2. I will. I just got paid, and I have a wallet full of speech, apparently, because SCOTUS said political expenditures are a form of speech.

                      So that means my wallet is full of speech, and we wall know that’s ridiculous, so Citizen’s United must be wrong! QED!

                    3. You do. Enjoy that beer your speech will buy!

                    4. Er, money.

                    5. I look forward to my wallet being full of abortions, when conservatives ban purchasing abortions, because “money isn’t abortion.”

                      This is fun!: judicial activism through being retarded!

        2. By the way, quite ironic isn’t it that when all that political ad spending was directed at either Republicans or Democrats, and they attacked each other, Reason was AOK with the whole money is speech thing.

          And now money (er, speech) gets directed right at Libertarians and they whine. Humorous.

          1. The main difference is that the libertarians aren’t trying to get the government to force him to shut up.

            Citizen’s United whiners are.

            I have a lot more respect for someone who says:
            “I don’t like what that person said”

            Than I do for the person who says:
            “That can’t be said or this country is going down the toilet! ARGH! DREDD SCOTTT!!!”

            1. Who is trying to get anyone shut up? Those who oppose CU want the right Justices that would overturn it. Alls fair…not just for Libertarians.

          2. I’m confused how you can make coherent arguments yet fail to see the difference between mocking someone’s advocacy and using force to shut it down.

    2. Funny how GJ was mocked for suggesting that we colonize other planets as a solution to climate change the other day, now Elon Musk says the same thing and everyone is oohing and aaahing.

      The truth is that not much can be done about climate change now Jack- even if everyone on the planet stopped burning coal, oil and gas tomorrow, it would take hundreds of years for CO2 levels to return to normal. Well, there is a solution which involves spraying sulfates high in the atmosphere from planes or rockets. It would cool the earth by blocking out some solar radiation, but I know that you and your fellow proggies would go apeshit if anyone proposed that because you want us to pay for our original carbon sin.

      1. The truth is that we can do something about it. It’s called mitigation, which is an attempt to limit it to the best of our ability. Are we making our best effort yet? Nope. And a carbon tax would be a great step forward. But at least we have started, and all Johnson is saying is that he won’t be part of that effort.

        1. Well, your party is allergic to next generation nuclear power which would be the most effective way to mitigate climate change without raising the cost of electricity through the roof. Fracking has also brought natural gas prices down, which produces much less CO2, but you are against that too. Instead, all I hear is “solar and wind, solar and wind!” I guess that’s what keeps Steyer’s cash flowing into DNC coffers.

          1. No one is stopping nuclear other than the market. Obama approved building of 2 plants, NYS just invested money into it. But it’s too expensive to get any real investment.

            1. Due to the NRC. So how about we divert the wind and solar subsidies all to nuclear?

        2. Can you explain how the carbon tax would work? How much would it be, how much would emissions be reduced and what would the effect on the climate be?

            1. How would that abate the threat of climate change? What impact would it have?

            2. How would that abate the threat of climate change? What impact would it have?

          1. It would work great for filling the government coffers to fund pet projects, and they can claim its a win-win because they are making money and discouraging people from using carbon-just like how cigarette taxes are supposed to discourage smoking. If it works too well, or the market presents a suitable alternative to carbon energy, they would start shitting their pants.

        3. Carbon tax = a tax on air. CO2 = plant food. Want mitigation? Plant a tree.

    3. Absolutely, because science is used as a fortune teller all the time. Like when Malthus said we would all starve to death by 1900 or remember that big drought that killed millions, as predicted in the book Population Bomb?

      So we should totally redirect tax dollars to enrich crony capitalists like Elon Musk in order to solve a fictitious problem and then when it never materializes we can claim ‘victory’. Because predicting the future is what science is totally all about.

    4. Global Warming isn’t that important to the young voters, as poll after poll (elections included) show, and will be even less important when they start making money and paying taxes or can’t get a job in an anemic recovery.

      And I wasn’t aware a market required taxes before it was truly free. I wonder if you support Trump’s position that we can’t have free trade without massive tariffs on foreign goods.

      1. Sorry, but it’s very important.

        A November 2015 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 76% of 18-29 year olds say climate change is a serious problem facing us. And is it a serious problem? 63% said it is.

        Oh, and a free market doesn’t require taxes. But it most certainly requires that all costs are accounted for, including future costs. And the only way you can account for those future costs is something akin to a tax. Of course, you can forgo the market if you don’t like accounting for costs, and rely instead on things like regulations, etc.

        1. What would constitute a serious problem here? How do you properly account for future costs?

        2. Link

          http://www.langerresearch.com/…..Change.pdf

          By the way, if you’re so sure climate isn’t important to millenials, you’ve got nothing to worry about. Setter will have wasted his millions…er, speech.

          But it sounds like Matt is worried.

          1. What is there to be worried about exactly? What is your proposal for abatement?

            1. Enjoy your day, tornado!

          2. *Steyer, not setter.

          3. Concede on the polling to clarify: revealed preferences (no election has or will swing on GW). I’m not worried about it, as revealed preferences will continue to show young people placing it lower and lower on their priorities as real life hits them.

            Yes, tragedy of the commons is a tragedy. The solution (as is the case with pollution) is a robust economy since only the rich care and have the means to clean up after themselves. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, it’s hard to swallow the premise when none of the zealots actually sacrifice lifestyle to combat it. I’m naturally averse to taxation and only more so when hypocrites push it.

            1. “As young voters get older” is meaningless for this discussion, and this election. Because young voters are voting now. And if you want to attract them, you have to appeal to their concerns. It sure sounds like Johnson wants to attract them, and Matt is concerned that ads are out there targeting things millenials care about and that Johnson will ignore.

              And Clinton wants them. She knows that to Sanders supporters, climate is a big concern.

              Like I said above, if you think they really don’t care about climate, relax! Steyer will have wasted his money.

              1. Polls show lots of people think terrorism is a serous matter. It doesn’t mean it’s a deciding factor on how people vote. Once you get into the details of counter terrorism measures that might violate someone’s civil rights or trap the nation in more foreign adventures, the voters will adjust their opinion accordingly.

                Do you honestly think that millennials will be down with global warming measures if they learn the details? They’ll ride to work on a bike or ride the bus everyday of their lives? Give up their hair sprays and not turn on the air conditioning? Give me a break. Young people support higher min wage. But once you lay out the potential consequences of that, the support drops.

                You and your liberal pals don’t think beyond superficial labels. So to “attract” immigrant voters, you talk endlessly about amnesty and immigration, even though polls show that issue isn’t even in the top 10 of concerns of Americans anywhere. If climate change was the single issue to millennials, then 20-30 of them wouldn’t be going to GJ. These kids are out of jobs, out of money, with the future looking bleak. Get out of our lefty echo chamber.

  39. climate change denier

    Matt, you badly misspelled “skeptic”, although you’re (sadly) right that GJ isn’t one.

    1. The Global Warming lobby would be far more convincing if most or even some of them actively sacrificed their lifestyle in pursuit of “mitigation”. Like those religious fanatics in Game of Thrones: you knew they fucking meant business because they had face tats and wore potato sacks

      1. *meant for upthread

  40. For such a “tough” guy Daou seems like a gigantic pussy. He blocked me for mocking his wife’s suggesting that we should be talking about “climate change” as the reason for Hillary’s collapse on 9/11. Dead fucking serious.

  41. Jackie…how would a carbon tax be a good first step? What impact on the climate would it have?

  42. Jackie…how would a carbon tax be a good first step? What impact on the climate would it have?

  43. I know this is so far down the comments that no one is likely to read it, but how can one call Seyer an environmentalist. Did you even look at how he made those Billions?

    1. Lol by fossil fuels. He is basically using the environment to enrich himself courtesy of taxpayers.

  44. Democrats Pour Millions of Anti-Libertarian Dollars Into Reminding Millennials How Annoying Democrats Are
    Anti-corporate progressives use a billionaire’s money to warn about Gary Johnson’s “hairstyle” and invent a peacenik Al Gore.

    I’m glad the democrats reminded me how annoying they are.
    Otherwise I would have forgotten and voted for Heil Hitlary.
    Whew.
    That was a close one!

  45. “Where was al gore at in 2002?”

    Hey Matt, where were you at in 2002? I was busy getting pepper sprayed by cops. You were here…

    “Meet Matt Welch, neocon mouthpiece”

    http://www.theamericanconserva…..outhpiece/

    You are a fucking piece of shit.

    1. BUT WHERE WERE YOU FOR SELMA, AMSOC?? HMMM??? FUCKING RACIST!!

      1. It’s really annoying when right-wing douche criticizes Algore for being insufficiently against the Iraq War when he and his fellow right-wingers at a libertarian website were either apathetic or,in Matt’s case, cheerleading for GWB’s criminal war.

  46. why are we worried? spending millions of dollars on political campaigns don’t change votes. Steyer is a rich guy, rich guys spend money to employ people, ergo who are we to criticize a politician who receives rich guy’s money. For shame, Matt, you sound like a proggy faggot.

    1. I was thinking we had to throw Steyer in jail and let him get raped for his crimes of trying to communicate during an election.

      What would Pol Pot do?

  47. It’s the Libertarian moment… Libertarians are cool… Oh, look at the 2 ex-Republican governors running on the Libertarian Party ticket… Let’s interview the Libertarian candidates during prime time… Let’s do a Town Hall… Oh shit, they’re taking votes from Hillary!!!

  48. Thank you for this. This trend is the BEST news! To quote Ron Paul quoting somebody else, “First, they ignore you, then they attack you…”
    It is a true sign of desperation when they attack because they’ve got to know it will help Johnson. It’s interesting to me, because, where Johnson’s profile needs to be raised the most, is in the old media, to reach the old voters. The old media likes to cover wars like this one, so it can really only help Johnson’s name recognition. The millennials and others who rely on new media are showing their impact, and the cross-over is beginning.

  49. re: “The charge that Johnson is a climate change denier is a clumsy lie”
    Unfortunately that is an accurate assessment. But it is Climate Change that is the lie.

  50. A protest vote for Bernie would have to be CPUSA or econazi… both are withering relics of communist ideology.
    But the LP is growing, like communist ideology was growing in 1832. That year the communist surrogates got 8.5% of the popular vote and rammed through an income tax law NEITHER of the Accumulation parties wanted. Genocide by starvation, death camps, slave pens, gulags, Berlin wall snipers, torture and mass repression have tarnished socialism’s image, but Libertarianism is the Unknown Ideal on the rise. Every spoiler vote cast for prohibitionists in 1892 was worth abt 35 votes in clout, and every vote cast for People’s Party looters was worth 6 regular votes in terms of law-changing clout. Bernie is right to fear LP spoiler votes. The violence of mystical prohibitionism and Kleptocracy now cringes in anticipation of a hitherto unknown and never-experienced ideal of libertarian choice in government.

  51. Where have all the anti-war democrats gone?
    Gone to support Hillary Clinton, who is a bigger war monger than Dick Cheney, and she also supports the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs,
    every one.

    When will they ever learn?
    Never.
    Why?
    Because = Team Blue will support their racist war monger because she is a democrat socialist.

  52. It’ simple. If your career – your livelihood – depends on a lie, an open discussion based on fact is your nemesis.

    What will it take to wise us up . . . 8 more years of Hillary, then Sanders. then Kerry?

    IMHO, it will never be be Trump.

  53. It’ simple. If your career – your livelihood – depends on a lie, an open discussion based on fact is your nemesis.

    What will it take to wise us up . . . 8 more years of Hillary, then Sanders. then Kerry?

    IMHO, it will never be be Trump.

  54. 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

  55. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have both touted this as he most progressive agenda in history, like that’s all us millenials needed to be reminded about to come to Hillary. Yeah, that agenda is why I’m voting Johnson in the first place

  56. there’s always going to be another reason why we can’t have nice things. when they fail to convince enough people that they should be for them, they find some reason to make you against everybody else. and the game goes on…and on…and on.

  57. Xavier . I can see what your saying… William `s posting is incredible… last monday I bought themselves a volvo after I been earnin $5905 this-past/5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past munth . without a doubt its the coolest job I’ve ever done . I actually started four months/ago and pretty much immediately brought home at least $69 p/h . look at this now

    ….. http://www.NewsJob3.com

  58. Ralph Nader’s done commentary on why blaming him is stupid, and it’s brilliant. Gore couldn’t win his home state, or he would have been President. Gore lost the presidency based off his own incompetence.

  59. I wish that Matt Welch was more concerned about helping democrats and republicans understand why libertarianism results is more human happiness and less misery. Unfortunately, by the way he continues to write, it appears he cares more about conveying how smart and witty he is. This not only results in his pieces being wordy and difficult to follow, but it also makes them less appealing to those people who do not fully comprehend libertarianism. We get it Matt, your very smart. Now can you get over yourself and move on to more productive things?

  60. He doesn’t want to win
    Great article thanks . flash games

  61. Gilbert and Sullivan had it right:

    I grew so rich that I was sent
    By a pocket borough into Parliament.
    I always voted at my party’s call,
    And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
    I thought so little, they rewarded me
    By making me the Ruler of the Queen’s Navy!
    Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
    If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
    If your soul isn’t fettered to an office stool,
    Be careful to be guided by this golden rule.
    Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
    And you all may be rulers of the Queen’s Navy!

    1. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

      ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  62. Once again, Matt Welch manages to take an interesting and important topic and masterfully lose and confuse the reader with his hurky jerky writing style. Organize and simplify your writing

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.