Election 2016

Does the Road to the White House Run Through Gary Johnson's New Mexico?

If the former governor wins his home state, he just might block Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump from victory at the ballot box.



Take a look at the map above. It was put together by Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight and it depicts an unlikely but credible scenario in which Gary Johnson wins his home state of New Mexico and neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton get the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election outright.

Silver stresses that "plausible is a long way from likely" but also skylarks that "it's not far-fetched to think the Electoral College would be close enough that New Mexico would make the difference, and it's not totally crazy to think that Johnson could win his home state." Silver points to a new Albuquerque Journal poll that has Clinton at 35 percent, Trump at 31 percent, Johnson at 24 percent, and Green Party nom Jill Stein at 2 percent.

Johnson campaign image

Exactly how that ends up with Johnson winning New Mexico is a Stretch-Armstrong-style reach, but let's play with this a bit. Trump is either in full panic mode after blowing the first debate or getting there between the Miss Universe story and continuining questions about his taxes. In any case, his lack of direct experience and volatility will likely make him less appealing to non-committed independents who otherwise want change. Clinton is not anyone's true favorite and perhaps her comments about Sanders' supporters being history's losers and living in their parents' basements starts some bleeding on the part of her lukewarm supporters. Maybe Wikileaks, which promised a while ago to leak some really bad stuff about Clinton this Wednesday (and then cancelled the event), actually has the goods on her in a way that causes her to crater. And let's assume Johnson takes Matt Welch and other critics seriously, ups his game, and wins over the folks who know him best, New Mexicans, to eke out a victory in his home state.

The guy is pulling down newspaper endorsements, after all, and angering Bill Maher, who recently called Johnson a "fucking idiot." Maher grants that Johnson is a good guy, but he's afraid that apart from being against dumb wars, the surveillance state, and the war on drugs, Johnson will cost Hillary Clinton the election. That sort of articulation can only help Johnson with voters who are indeed socially liberal and fiscally conservative, a group that Maher (and many others) essentially says doesn't exist. Seeing self-consciously edgy, avant-garde types slag Johnson for believing too strongly in free markets, global trade, and technological innovation will help erase doubts raised by the governor's spaced-out answers on Aleppo and world leaders. As the Albuquerque Journal notes, Johnson is pulling more support from Clinton than from Trump in New Mexico.

We live in a country where Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction by a two-to-one margin and large majorities or pluralities hate the major parties, dislike Clinton and Trump, and think the government is trying to do too much that should be left to individuals and businesses. To such people, Clinton isn't any kind of solution to what ails us, and neither is Trump (if nothing else, both are talking about spending more money than our currently historically high levels during peacetime). Each of them is part of the problem and a figure like Johnson may come to be seen as a true alternative: an experienced non-professional politician who promises a smaller but more effective government.

The idea of Johnson winning New Mexico and the two major-party candidates stalling out short of 270 is of course incredibly unlikely. But it is worth thinking about, especially for those of us who stubbornly refuse to buy into the false "binary choice" narrative being pushed by both Republicans and Democrats. Change needs to be seen as possible before it takes place, right? Sometimes change comes in big, revolutionary waves. Other times, it comes from a small but steady rivulet of water that hollows out seemingly impregnable structures. However awful the 21st century has been so far to many of us, it is far worse for established ideologies and political parties, who are really taking it on the chin. The question is, what's the smallest victory it will take to show just how weak and foundering our political duopoly really is?

NEXT: Donald Trump's Billion-Dollar Tax Loss Is a Diversion From More-Serious Matters

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. I would love for this to happen and for the election to be thrown to the House where I would hope it would devolve into a never ending series of fistfights.

    1. If it goes to the House, Johnson wins. Republicans control 30 of 50 state delegations, and the vote is per state, not per district. No way they vote for Trump.

      1. Muh fistfights?

      2. Maybe, but more likely they would vote for Hillary, who is “one of them”. BTW, there is no way that Johnson winning one or two states (New Mexico, Utah, New Hampshire?) could result in the Johnson/Weld TEAM assuming office. If there is no Electoral College majority, the House does vote (by states) from among the top three electoral vote-getters for President. But the Senate then votes for Vice-President from the top TWO electoral vote-getters for Vice-President only. Could Johnson work with Pence or Kaine as his Veep? Oh well, the chances that he will need to answer that are infinitesimal, but it’s an interesting question to ask anyway.

      3. No.

        Most Republicans would vote for Trump, and most Democrats would vote for Clinton. Whatever else happens, party affiliation would be the strongest predictor. This isn’t like the 1824 election where everybody was part of the same party.

        The only remaining question would be, if Clinton has the most popular votes, would enough Republicans pull a John Roberts and vote for her, such that she would win?

    2. Don’t worry. Obama can always issue an executive order, crowning Hillary the winner.

      1. I would like that bitch to try. I mean Obama.

  2. “…Green Party nom Jill Stein…”
    Candidates aren’t food! We’re only supposed to eat lowercase greens.

    1. Somebody’s eaten her.

      1. Artist’s conception

        http://www.hercampus.com/sites…..1/27/Image 4.jpg?itok=7WXhl5oZ

    1. Haha, Breitbart. Some of my conservative friends have such a distorted view of reality, they think Germany has devolved into a Hieronymus Bosch painting.

      “He is living in Germany? How is he handling the crisis?”

      “What crisis?”

      [blank stare]…”You know, the refugee crisis.”

      [confused look]…..”Um, I don’t think he is living in that city?”

      1. Crisis? What Crisis?

        I thought you were talking about a Supertramp album.

        1. stupid wikipedia. perhaps this cover photo will show what I meant

      2. Haha, person who didn’t read the article and just looked at the URL. Here it is in the original German, if you prefer. Or does Breitbart reporting on an article from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung automatically discredit the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung?

      3. “Only part of that wound is green, and it’s a very small percentage of my total body. Nothing to worry about.”

    2. TB is simple skin test, all people from places where it’s endemic should be screened.

      1. People in places where TB is common get TB vaccinations when little. This causes the TB skin test to come out positive, even though they have no TB. Thus, the TB skin test is useless for people that have had the TB vaccination.

    3. OT: Of course there’s no truth to the old stereotype of immigrants bringing in diseases, you xenophobe.

      Should citizens who visit tropical countries where disease is endemic be allowed back? Should they be allowed to travel there? Why or why not?

      1. Westerners who visit Third World countries are much less likely to catch diseases there than the native populations.

        1. That seems like half an answer. I’m sure you can see what I’m getting at – many arguments against “immigrants” seem to apply equally to temporary visitors to the US or US citizens who leave and then return. You seem to focus very strongly on their application only to immigrants. I understand that “we” are under no obligation to non-countrymen, but it seems odd how much you focus on the threat proposed by “immigrants” as if they are unique to them.

          I seem to have hit a rich seam of seeming. /shrug sunday

          1. Also: it’s one thing to deal with risks introduced by citizens, and quite another when dealing with risks introduced by foreigners.

            One could say it’s like saying you shouldn’t lock your business at night because your employees might steal from you.

            1. it’s one thing to deal with risks introduced by citizens, and quite another when dealing with risks introduced by foreigners.

              “Foreigners” here again seems to gloss over immigrants vs. other visitors such as tourists. As far as I know, almost no one is calling for disallowing visits entirely from the countries in question. Why do “we” seemingly not care about the risks posed by tourists from country [x] but do care about immigrants or refugees from same?

              1. Prolonged exposure to diseases such as TB significantly increase probability of contracting/carrying the disease. By definition, temporary visitors would not have prolonged expoure, and it is extremely unlikely that most vacation-oriented travelers would have exposure given typical lodging/travel patterns.

                1. Thank you, RAHeinlein.

                  As for “tourists from country [x],” I want them at least screened, at their expense, if they come from regions that have a high level of communicable diseases. But again, the time factor is important: somebody who comes here for two weeks is obviously less of a disease risk than someone who moves here permanently.

                  1. Sorry guys, still not getting it. Feel like you’re waving your hands to justify a position you already hold. I don’t have a strong counter position, but I feel like it’s incumbent upon you to come up with some actual metrics that help draw a bright line between someone who is a permanent resident and someone who on their B2 Tourist visa can stay up to 6 months. Otherwise fearing one and not the other parses like illogically unfairly applied double standards.

                    1. I find it bizarre that when it comes to risk, you think it should be applied equally to citizens and foreigners. Yes, it is a risk that a citizen, allowed to own guns, might do something bad, but the 2nd Amendment applies. So therefore, is it an “unfairly applied double standard” that we don’t allow foreigners to bring guns into the country? I don’t think so.

                      Of course there is no “bright line” of “actual metrics” between a permanent resident and a six-month tourist. We’re talking about the odds, and about common sense. Common sense should tell you that someone carrying a disease into the US for 6 months is less likely to spread it here than someone here for 7 months, or 7 years, or 70 years.

                    2. So… in other words, we should restrict tourists from those countries as well, and not allow them in our country for 6 months? Or do I understand you properly that the risk is acceptable on a 6 month tourist visa, but not acceptable on a 6 months and one day permanent resident visa?

                      (I note, for the record, that you personally call for “screening” of those coming “from” regions with high rates of disease. Which I guess is the entire third world? Or something? The idea generally seems impracticable given the current state of medical science…)

                      Why does almost everyone who talks about this issue seem to object not-at-all to tourists from countries where there’s disease, but does object to permanent resident immigrants? You just conceded that there is no bright line between them. If that’s the case, why don’t I hear calls for restricting tourists from those countries? Or naturalized citizens of country [x] who were born and lived in [y] until recently? Both of these classes seem just as capable of spreading communicable disease per unit of time as permanent residents..

    4. No truth at all.


      1. You’d think they’d cook the brains first…?

  3. Uhm, it looks to me like if that map ends up being accurate, *even with* Johnson taking NM Clinton wins – by one point. You know what the difference between 266 and 267 electoral votes is? Losing the election.

    1. But you need 270 votes to win.

      1. You need 270 to keep Congress from getting involved.

        267 will get the nod. If not, you can bet it’ll end up at the SC and they’ll give Clinton the nod after the uproar from 2004.

        1. ?
          You need an absolute majority of electoral votes to win or else Congress decides. Absolute majority in 270.

          1. In spite of all the “Never Trump”-ism, I have to assume that if this election somehow got kicked to the House, in the end they’d vote for him — though conceivably there’d be proposals to name a “neutral”, “compromise” candidate.

            1. That would Gary Johnson unless they convince six GOP electors to vote for some other candidate.

              1. Only the top 3 can be voted on in the House.

        2. Also you mean the “uproar” from 2000 and that involved a disputed election of a state.

        3. I don’t care who has the lead if it throws to the house, every republican delegation that throws a vote for Clinton should be immediately recalled.

        4. I don’t get it.

          What happens when the electoral college can’t decide is pretty clear in the constitution. What’s the supreme court going to do?

          1. Change the law like they always do in hot button issues. Clinton will be declared a penaltax.

            1. Violates her equal protection since she doesn’t win.

            2. Just seems like a stretch, even for them. It’s spelled out pretty explicitly and clearly.

          2. When the electors cross state lines to cast their ballots did they engage in any economic activity? Or if they cast them from their home state did they use the post-office? Internet?

  4. Well, we know what Nate Silver thinks about this possibility by his choice of “baby shit yellow” for NM. Seriously, that is an odd color choice. I guess normal yellow was taken by Gary’s tie.

    1. The LP is always yellow (or gold, get it?) and the Greens are always green. The Dems used to be red and the Repubs blue, but the Dems in the media didn’t want their party associated with red commies anymore at some point. But Sliver went with mustard for some reason.

      1. I hadn’t thought of the “gold” connection, but maybe the people at 270toWin did. No, it wasn’t Nate Silver (Silver and Gold?). I guess we should be glad that the LP has gotten a standard color for political maps (yellow). Why yellow? Basically red, blue, green and yellow are the four colors people think of as being sort-of primary colors, like on the Windows logo. Red and blue are taken by the Republicrats, and green logically should go to the Greens, so that leaves yellow for the LP. I guess. As for why red is for Republicans, in what seems to be an inversion of the old Democrats -> Communists -> Reds association, the networks say that, prior to 2000, they used to alternate every four years between red for Democrats/blue for Republicans and the reverse. In 2000, it happened to be the reverse, and because of all the controversy about the election results that year, the association of red for Republicans/blue for Democrats became fixed in the public mind simply because it was being used for weeks, rather than for a single night. So that is what has been used ever since.

    2. That color is from 270toWin, not Nate Silver. He used their electoral college map to create the image.

    1. Why this weirdness?
      I like big butts; make with the twerking.
      Domo arigato, Mr. Mulatto.

      1. No time for that. There is a skeleton war going on.

        1. Is this what you do all day when not teaching English to South Koreans?

        2. WTF?

          This skeleton crap makes me miss IceJJFish. At least I could turn the volume off and gaze pervertedly on the good looking women he featured in his videos.

        3. the thing is that the fuckboys are so basic they don’t even know they’re in a meme war?

          /What HM was really thinking

  5. Hey Jameis? Stop throwing it to the other guys. Thanks.

    1. Jameis will jamais stop throwing interceptions.

      I’m worried about my fellow alum Trevor Siemian, though, I heard he went out with a shoulder injury. We don’t have the game here, have they had any updates on the telecast?

      1. It was collar bone they were concerned with. They say he’s done and play next week.

        1. Stoopit phone. They say he is fine and will play next week

  6. This would be a pretty cool outcome actually. And hey, now I know a Clinton loss in any form will give Maher the rage embalism that could finally shut him up. So it’s the little things to look forward to.

    1. Anything that throws this election into greater dissarray is pretty cool.

    2. I will bet that good portions of at least 3 democrat controlled cities will be on fire the eve of the election if it gets thrown to the house.

  7. So what scenario is preferable? Trump winning and Destroying the Republican Party Forever (at least until 2022 or 2026) and causing people to reject the GOP in favor of a LP that will not totally sell out?….Hey stop laughing at me!

    Or Hillary winning and either dying or being so shitty that it can’t be blamed on Republican kulaks that will lead to the libertarian moment? I mean 8 years of Obama lead to a rejection of Big Government…oh wait. And it doesn’t sound like Ernst Thalmann’s “First Brown then Red!” theory.

    However awful the 21st century has been so far to many of us, it is far worse for established ideologies and political parties, who are really taking it on the chin.

    Citation needed.

    1. Not to mention the Kims, the Castros and Maduro are still in power…

    2. “Citation needed”? Didn’t you click the link? If you did, you’d know that “Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows.”

      I bet Democrat bigwigs are panicking! “Sure, in one generation we’ve gone from a party capable of losing 49 states in a presidential election, to having such an electoral college advantage that we’re now basically starting with 200+ EC votes. But our party identification is too low!

    3. Trump winning is clearly preferable from a libertarian perspective, for many reasons. One is that, of the likely outcomes, it’s the most disruptive of the current establishment and two-party structure. That’s good for third parties.

  8. Stretch Armstrong? Please, Plastic Man!

    NM, save us! You’re our only hope!

  9. Also Dalmia’s Orwellian “correction” is pretty hilarious. So why does she write for Reason again? Beyond loving immigration?

    1. She suffers from TDS, and I makes for great lulz.

      1. Yes, you do makes for great lulz.

  10. So how does Gillespie explain Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin? I thought new tech leads to libertopia? And did Deanna Durbin, I Love Lucy and Lend Lease lead to destalinization?

  11. You know, instead of everyone hating the two major parties and voting for them anyway, what would happpen of everyone voted for a third party!?

    Also, Bill Maher used to be a respectable libertarian, then he whored himself out to the progressives to fit in. Fucking loser….

    1. Bill Maher used to be a respectable libertarian


    2. He used to call himself libertarian, mostly because of drugs. I’m not sure he really embraced anything else.

    3. Bill Maher was never a libertarian, he just wanted legalized drugs. A jackass who didn’t want to identify as a pro-drug progressive does not equal libertarian.

    4. instead of everyone hating the two major parties and voting for them anyway, what would happpen of everyone voted for a third party!?

      If only there were a third choice, people say….

    5. Despite what he says, Maher is and was never a libertarian. His comments over the years, on the aggregate, make him more of a liberal.

      1. make him more of a liberal.

        Zeb and Francisco have a sad.

        1. I think I’ll manage.

  12. being against dumb wars

    So what Obama was saying back in 2008? Good thinking!

    socially liberal and fiscally conservative,

    You know who else engaged in reactionary appeals to a romanticized non-existent 1960’s-1970s past?

      1. Jeez Denver, what do you say when a cop asked you if you know why you were pulled over? 😉

        1. “Because you didn’t do well in high school?”

  13. So are Gillespie and Welch going to have cancel their cocktail party invites? The LP is no longer a stick to beat the GOP with but The Enemy so weed, Mexicans and Ass-Sex won’t save you anymore….

  14. Also I am amused at the Reason editors butt-hurt over the Aleppo moments and the pothead jokes. You guys knew that if libertarianism every became a serious political force then they will face a lot of opposition and a lot of nasty attacks, especially from the progs, right? Or did Gillespie and Welch think that all their talk about the Libertarian Moment meant that everyone will agree with them and allow the Libertarian Agenda to proceed with only fringe opposition?

    1. Spend enough time with progs and the fantasy land mentality they live in starts to rub off.

  15. a Stretch-Armstrong-style reach

    I honestly thought Nick was making an obscure reference to my homeboys

  16. Also I remember back during the shutdown Reason reported on some polls showing that people wanted the politicians to get things done. Reason naturally tried to proclaim it as the part of the libertarian moment but I thought it seemed more like a desire to get things done.

    And of course years later we have Trump and a lot of pro-Hillary stuff is scare different from saying “She’ll Get Things Done!”

    And will this shit show of an election teach us that the politicians have too much power and the system is corrupt so we should become libertarian or that we need a TOP (WO)MAN to Get Things Done?

  17. Then there is the possibility of one or more “faithless” electors. It is more likely to come from an elector in a state that Trump won given that he is disliked much more by the Republican party establishment.

    1. Yeah.

      Thats a much more interesting topic than the theoretical impact of Gay Jay. I have no doubt there will be a few electors who just ignore the popular vote and just go their own way.

      1. And then it becomes interesting. If an elector violates state law to create an outcome to the election other than what would have occurred had they abided by the law, is the final outcome legitimate? I imagine SCOTUS would get to make that decision.

  18. Also how does Reason explain that the Canadian Liberals, American Democrats, UK Labour and various anti-austerity parties in Europe are most certainly not rejecting the old welfare state leftist mindset that was supposedly rejected by the left in the 1990s? Including by HillaryCare Clinton?

  19. Just with a quick glance, I don’t have any big problems with those state predictions except for maybe Maine going red. That could be offset with New Hampshire going red. In the map, they show New Hampshire as blue, but, as we know, Johnson is drawing as much or more support away from Hillary (rather than Trump). In a state with a lot of libertarian minded voters, that should be a big boost for Trump.

    1. That’s only the one congressional district of Maine going Trump. According to RCP, Trump is in fact ahead in that district.

      1. Never thought Trump would be getting New England votes back…

  20. let’s play with this a bit.

    Wasn’t nick just saying something about “stupid distractions” a minute ago?

    On reflection, Shikha-and-Sheldon-sundays are probably not as bad as just letting nick ramble about ‘whatever’.

    1. I much prefer Old Man Gillespie’s navel gazing and two decade old pop culture references to Richman’s vapid Boomer foreign policy philosophizing or Shikha’s dishonest and increasingly deranged attempts at argumentation. It’s mostly harmless and/or pointless, like listening to grandpa talk about his trip to the DMV, while the other two are like dealing with really disingenuous door-to-door Jehovah Witnesses.

      1. Richman’s vapid Boomer foreign policy philosophizing

        Yes, but no one really takes Sheldon seriously. He’s like Reason’s Andy Rooney = a crazy old man they let ramble during the time-slot they had left over. He’s fun reading just to spot the “Where does he blame the jews today?!?” or to see how far he bends certain libertarian ideas to accommodate his lefty-impulses…

        Nick on the other hand will blow a few thousand words on….one big pile of nothing. Its not even interesting enough to mock.

        I honestly hope GJ breaks 5%… well enough that he’s blamed for whomever wins, and the ensuing ~4-year shitshow. It will at least provide some lulz.

        1. I’m disappointed that Derpman hasn’t written anything on the EU or Brexit. I wonder how he will address his hatred of neoliberalism and his hatred of nationalism/localism directed in ways he disapproves of and his fondness for multilateralism.

          1. A better Derpman article would be about how he sees no difference between Malalia, Jose Fernandez and Adam Lanza.

            Dalmia’s next article should be attacking Trump’s statements in an Onion article and how we need Syrian immigrants to clean her shoes and how Indira Gandhi would have saved us from Trump.

        2. How about a Gillespie article about how Bojack Horseman is libertarian and so much better than Gilligan’s Planet which proves that the Libertarian Moment is upon us? Or how Hillary/Trump getting 80% of the vote and all 538 EC votes is proof that libertarian Moment is upon us.

        3. He’s like Reason’s Andy Rooney = a crazy old man they let ramble during the time-slot they had left over. He’s fun reading just to spot the “Where does he blame the jews today?!?” or to see how far he bends certain libertarian ideas to accommodate his lefty-impulses…

          If ‘crazy old man blaming the Jews’ is your thing we might as well just cut out the middle man and let Michael Hihn write for Reason. The pure insanity would be worth it. I’d feel bad for KMW having to be his editor though.

          1. I’m sure Sudermann has some Vox openings for Welch and Gillespie in order to accommodate Hihn you Goober Bully Aggressor!

          2. let Michael Hihn write for Reason

            They probably have an in-person interview for their prospective writers. I wonder if Hihn showing up in the same grimy t-shirt (that he wears for days at a time, sitting in his dimly-lit one-room apartment, yelling out loud about what he reads in the comments section) will be considered a plus or minus by Gillespie.

            1. Well they accepted Terry Michael and Steve Chapman so anything is possible.

            2. That sounds a lot like…


            3. I applied to write for Reason, but when I listed all of Gillespie’s bullshit, as I always do, they were upset.

              Then we have the retards who get PISSED because I merely mention how the Jew got their “homeland” by committing mass genocide of an entire culture, the Canaanites, ruled the land for fewer than 300 years, then lost it entirely on their own when they were invaded … after their own civil war … and their fellow Jews refused to help them defend their very lives. Does that mean the entire Old Testament is anti-semitic? (lol)

        4. Where would be without Derpman’s articles about how libertarians are leftist extreme radical socialist anti-capitalist SJWs because of some obscure Victorian guy who wasn’t all that influential used those terms and could be considered libertarian?

          1. Dude lives inside his head. Needs to get out more.

  21. Funny how the theoretical electoral college maneuvering has already started…

    1. Will be glad to see the end of this election cycle. Hopefully not a repeat of 2000.

  22. I had the 3 part Sons of Liberty on my DVR forever. Just finished watching the last episode. Highly recommend watching if you get the opportunity.

  23. Georgia keeping citizens safe from baby chicks


    1. OMWC hardest hit.

    2. That should give PETA something to froth about

      i’m pretty sure they’ve already published screeds about how Pets are in fact slaves; the idea that people can just ‘dispose’ of juvenile livestock in any way they see fit will surely get housewives across america into some kind of tizzy.

      I recall crazy-bitch-case-study-#20928342109812, long island woman who sparked a protest over a Farmer’s plan to ….(drum roll)…. eat his own cow.

      As a counter-example = I have a vague memory of there being an instance where PETA expressed uncharacteristic lack of concern over the marketing of “PEEPS” candy; in fact, i think they actually said, “they’re fun! go ahead w/ your bad-selves, animal-shaped candy”. Something like that. Maybe whomever was running their blog was high. I can’t seem to find any mention of it unfortunately, although recommendations for “Ethical Easter Baskets” are pretty easy to find.

      1. “You don’t eat family”

        Lol. So sad people think that they live in a Disney movie.

  24. Nick is right. Have we so quickly forgotten what matters?All of these distractions from the important news are ruining our national character.

    My favorite quote from that page didn’t even come from the story:

    Twitter’s recent ban of a sexist troll was a step in protecting women on the Internet ? but we’ve got a long way to go.


    2. protecting women on the Internet

      So much for “Women’s Liberation”. We’re in the digital victorian age.

    3. They always pick the wrong person to stake their SJW cred on.

      Jesus, she wasn’t without fault herself.

  25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin

    In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, “Communism, of course, is the goal.”

    He later turned against Communism but yikes “civil libertarians” can support pretty heinous regimes and ideologies.

  26. OT, give ’em an inch dept:

    “Scientists: World likely won’t avoid dangerous warming mark”
    “Six scientists who were leaders in past international climate conferences joined with the Universal Ecological Fund in Argentina to release a brief report Thursday, saying that if even more cuts in heat-trapping gases aren’t agreed upon soon, the world will warm by another 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) by around 2050.”

    1. The Soliloquy Six.

      They spoke and spoke aloud but did anyone listen?

    2. Scientists: World likely won’t avoid dangerous warming mark

      This sort of reminds me of Henny Youngman’s old joke =
      “My doctor gave me six months to live; i couldn’t pay my bill, so he gave me another 6 months”

      they’ll keep making these ‘warnings’ about how we’re on the brink of no-return, but they’ll still never shut the fuck up about it. Doom will always be *about* to happen, but never actually so far gone as to be 100% guaranteed. Because then their whole theory would be falsifiable… and we can’t have that.

  27. Jesus Christ we just avoided the next Hitler. We should be happy. Now the trick is to reduce Hillary’s damage by electing principled conservatives and libertarians. And then in 4 years hand the presidency to its rightful heir – Rand Paul (or Austin Peterson?).

    Jill Stein approves this message.

    1. Did you steal from Agile Cyborg’s stash?

  28. Any Oscar Wilde fans?


    With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

    At Queensberry’s libel trial he said this:

    works of art are not capable of being moral or immoral but only well or poorly made, and that only “brutes and illiterates,” whose views on art “are incalculably stupid”, would make such judgements about art.

    Funny how the modern left no longer approves such a statement anymore…

    1. HG Wells was a eugenicist, if memory serves.

    2. I always enjoy reading Wilde mainly because he was an unapologetic hedonist and contrarian.

      1. I’ve always found it difficult to get into his stuff. The movie versions of his works all seem tedious.

        Ditto Tolstoy.

        Somerset Maugham, on the other hand….

        1. Herbert Marshall gets a tingle up his leg…um…

          1. The wooden one? And are you talking about his relationship with Jeanne Eagels or Bette Davis?

            1. Did He sleep with them off camera too?

              Marshall also played a Maugham stand-in in the Moon and Sixpence and Maugham himself in the Razor’s Edge along with both versions of the Letter so when you mention Maugham movies I naturally referred to him…

    3. Wow that is quite an indictment of the modern left. You really nailed them.

    4. I’m not a fan of much.

      Except me.

      I’m a fan of me.

        1. Your knowledge of all things Vanelli is…I’m not sure.

          1. It was a Top 10 hit here in the US, back in the days when I was a kid and listened to American Top 40 every week. AFAIK, he had one other hit in the States, “I Just Wanna Stop”. I wouldn’t know any of his other songs.

            I’m a fan of me.

            But you never go there.

    5. That reminds me of something I was just thinking about today: are there any novelists who are libertarians or classical liberals? I like novels from between 1890 and 1940, but it seems like most of the good authors are straight-up communists or at least very hostile to capitalism… John Steinbeck, Jack London, Dashiell Hammett, Theodore Dreiser, Frank Norris… I don’t really care; they’re excellent writers. I’m just wondering if there are libertarians/classical liberal novelists from that era who might write stories with a different perspective.

      1. Ayn Rand! Sorry, just kidding.

      2. Henry David Thoreau is considered libertarian, but he was earlier than the period you describe and not a novelist.

        Robert A. Heinlein is just after the 40s (he started with YA books in the late 40s and 50s), but he’s libertarian.

  29. Trump destroyed the Republican party. So unless the libertarians pick up the pieces, it will soon be a one-party system.

    1. If they survived 1936 I think they will survive Trump.

      1. Did you steal from Agile Cyborg’s stash?

        1. OMG BURN!

  30. Well, hell. Maybe I’ll be voting after all.

  31. Where *is* Agile Cyborg?

    Maybe we could read some Amber Tamblyn instead.

    Her body dies like a spider’s.
    In the shower,
    the blooming flower
    seeds a cemetery.

    A pill lodges in the inner pocket of her flesh coat.
    Her breasts were the gifts of ghosts.
    Dark tarps of success.

    1. The grave’s a fine and private place,
      But none, I think, do there embrace.

        1. As well they ought. It’s a dirty little ditty.

            1. The problem with Marvell is his cavalier attitude toward sex.

              1. He seems anything but cavalier toward sex. He seems very keen on it.

                1. Oops, I must have confused him with Robert Herrick, the Cavalier poet.

                  1. Well, *that* joke was stillborn.

  32. This is from Tracy K. Smith:

    We like to think of it as parallel to what we know,
    Only bigger. One man against the authorities.
    Or one man against a city of zombies. One man

    Who is not, in fact, a man, sent to understand
    The caravan of men now chasing him like red ants
    Let loose down the pants of America. Man on the run.

  33. Johnson is obviously an idiot and will not be seen as a ‘true alternative’. It’s good he didn’t get in the debates – he would have only embarrassed and discredited the party. (Weld on the other hand is an asset.) So the key is to strengthen the party downballot. Instead of constantly complaining, talk about the issues and where the LP can contribute. For example, reducing debt and restoring free markets to education and healthcare. I know, boring. But you gotta do it.

  34. Reason should fire Gillespie and Sullum and replace them with Agile Cyborg. Get the rambling and pro-drug stuff with one stone!

    1. LOL they should. You are font of witticisms to rival Oscar Wilde.

  35. By the way, I’m working of a list of Significant Modern Poets, just in case you think I’m picking these out at random.

    This was read at President Obama’s inauguration.

    One ground. Our ground, rooting us to every stalk
    of corn, every head of wheat sown by sweat
    and hands, hands gleaning coal or planting windmills
    in deserts and hilltops that keep us warm, hands
    digging trenches, routing pipes and cables, hands
    as worn as my father’s cutting sugarcane
    so my brother and I could have books and shoes.

    1. A list you came up with or off a website? Either way, I’d be interested in.

      1. Fine, here.

        These are Modern Poets You Need To Know About.

        1. Thanks. I’m quite ignorant when it comes to poetry but wish that I were not.

          1. I don’t know much about poetry but I know what I like.

  36. Is this the ultimate libertarian film?


    1. I vote for The Mating Game (1959). Paul Douglas leads a Maryland farming family who make their living entirely by the barter system. Their neighbor doesn’t like them and wants their land, so he rats on them to the IRS — and this is portrayed by the movie as an unequivocally bad thing. IRS agent Tony Randall visits the farm, falls in love with daughter Debbie Reynolds, and complications ensue.

      The happy ending comes when it turns out that the government has been dicking the family since the Civil War, and actually owes them an eight-figure sum. Because dicking people is what governments do.

      1. he rats on them to the IRS — and this is portrayed by the movie as an unequivocally bad thing

        Damn Teahadists.

        Maryland farming family….the government has been dicking the family since the Civil War

        White farmers in Maryland dicked over by Lincoln = slaveowner I believe these days. And according to many Reasonoids Lincoln and Grant are they only Real TOP MEN to ever occupy the White House.

        1. Actually, the family’s ancestors “helped” the Union government in the war: the government took some of their horses for the war effort and never reimbursed them per the 5A takings clause.

          1. I know, I read the Wikipedia article. These days it seems that any criticism of Lincoln is a slaver even among many libertarians.

            1. Didn’t Lincoln only free the slaves in the South as a war time tactic? And didn’t he think black people were subhuman and had no place in the future America? Liberia?

              I wonder how he has escaped the social justice wrath where someone like Wilson hasn’t.

              1. Lincoln’s attitude seems to have changed substantially by the end of the war. No doubt he was an opportunist, but he made sure the 13th Amendment passed Congress before the end of the war.

              2. Misinformation by progressives has saved Lincoln. Most people don’t know anything about Wilson either and that is their way to hide how bad Wilson was.

                The shift just has moved to modern Liberal saviors like JFK, LBJ, Clinton and of course Obama.

                FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans is just to hard to hide and ignore for the progressives who know things.

  37. Why am I suddenly surrounded by trolls? Maybe because it’s so late at night…

    Uh-oh, I just thought of something…

  38. This shout out goes to AC, Sevo, DenverJ, Rufus, Aggie, Hyperion, Eddie, and many more to numerous to mention.



    1. “Me like singing that song, it some of my finest work, now give me COOKIES! Nom nom nom nom nom.”

    2. Hampster too, but I never see her on late nights. =D

    3. Thanks, Pirate

  39. To paraphrase my dear old long ago departed Dad, Bill Maher was born with a face for radio.

    1. He was born with an attitude for 40 years to life in a super max.

  40. Hey, I’m doing poetry here!

    No joke, she’s the Poet Laureate of Brooklyn.

    …The child’s devotion was the world
    fabricating a truth. Repairs on the other side of the hemisphere.
    The archeologist found our bones and said we were a strong

    and healthy race, grew more ingenious than any generation before us,
    before we fell away from wit, invention, our own empty embrace.
    We ran to our end like leaping into a volcano. Unstoppable fury.

    1. Do you have a newsletter?

      1. As the new Poet Laureate of Brooklyn, I’m writing obscene verses about you on the walls of bathroom stalls.

        1. Been there, done that.
          You know that the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.

          1. Hello, dorkness, my old friend.

  41. Advocacy Group Claims Lack of Government Programs Proof of Under-Appreciated Crisis
    Totally not just one giant “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”

    Lack of data on sexual rights leaves millions of girls ‘invisible’

    LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Millions of girls are left “invisible” because of a lack of data, a children’s charity said on Monday, and the absence of accurate statistics on issues such as sexual violence means policymakers cannot draw up effective plans to help them.

    There is no data that fully captures the daily realities of girls in poor communities, Plan International said in a report, including why girls drop out of school or how many become pregnant because of sexual violence.

    “We do count how many girls start school, but we actually don’t count how many girls leave school,” said Anne-Birgitte Albrectsen, CEO of Plan International.

    – “This absence of data is just the tip of the iceberg!!”

    We need to spend more money to find out more about the things we need to spend more money on.

    1. *noted =

      Given how orgs like CDC have effectively turned into marketing-departments for radical leftist-feminists by giving them a definition of “Sexual Violence” so broad that “unwanted facebook messages” can be considered ‘assault’…. you can just imagine how many of these selfsame groups (*and gun-grabbers too, btw) look to the UN as the Motherlode of potential “bullshit reporting-generating powers”.

      All they need is a few compliant UN committees and soon they’ll have something like an international version of the DoE’s “office of civil rights”, handing out threats to people all over the US that they need to be reporting X data on an assortment of “sexual rights” issues and demonstrating what they’re doing to ensure there’s no ‘intimidation or harassment’, etc…. else they be considered International Human Rights Violators, or the like.

      Seriously, this isn’t even an exaggeration. This is the sort of thing Hillary would just hand out like party favors to various activist groups, and let them run wild

      (*partly because the attention these people glean from the press from journos like Robby tends to detract/reduce the focus that people spend on otherwise more-serious stuff, like Fiscal Issues, or gigantic regulatory-grabs, etc. which are less click-baity, and more boring-wonk-issues)




    2. “Lack of data on sexual rights leaves millions of girls ‘invisible'”


  42. Trump promises to cut corp taxes from 35 to 15%. He says businesses will bring back jobs ‘like you won’t believe’. Yet, no Top-100 corp execs will support him (a few support Hillary). What’s going on? Could it be that people actually care about the budget as a whole (taxes & spending)?

    1. Yet, no Top-100 corp execs will support him (a few support Hillary).

      Weird. You mean they’d rather deal with someone who has a proven track record of corruption? Crony’s gonna crony.

      1. Also, what top-100 exec is stupid enough to endorse Trump, knowing the shitstorm that will follow from every loudmouth person and agency on the Left? For crying out loud, just writing “Trump 2016” is considered a hate crime in some places!

        Easier just to keep your mouth shut and vote for Trump.

        I think Trump will get several percentage points higher than he gets in most polls on election day, just because of the average person’s reluctance to deal with the crap resulting from saying his name out loud, who will nonetheless vote for him. Whether that will be enough to win remains to be seen.

      2. Do any support Johnson? That is the Libertarian Moment.

        Does Johnson & Johnson support Johnson?

      3. “Weird. You mean they’d rather deal with someone who has a proven track record of corruption? Crony’s gonna crony.”

        A money-manager I know tells me he’s voting Johnson from principal, but says most of his clients and his contacts are holding their noses and voting Clinton.
        The feeling is that she’s within the normal distribution of dishonesty and corruption; the market prefers predictability. Trump is too much of a loose cannon.
        Neither his nor my votes mean a thing; CA’s in the bag for the hag. I’m predicting Clinton at 310EC votes.

        1. Most liberals live in such a bubble that they have no clue of the impending landslide for Trump.

          Remember folks, its states that carry Trump that win electoral college votes. With typical Democrat voters not voting for Hillary and more and more new Republican voters voting for Trump, you get a landslide victory for Trump.

          1. Popular or electoral college?

            Polls don’t 1:1 with reality but we have 47:45 Hillary leading. That one’s fairly close, I doubt either candidate wins by a popular vote land slide, partially just because most people don’t like either candidate.

            However Trump to get a “land slide” would need to flip:

            North Carolina
            Colorado (this would get a win)

            Possible? I guess, but I wouldn’t put money on a land slide.

            1. The fact that polls show Hillary and Trump neck and neck tells me that Trump is ahead. The polls are notoriously skewed to limit bad news for Democrats. The progressives mostly live in big cities and thanks to the Electoral college, city wins- don’t win states.

              Not only is Trump going to win typical Republican states but is going to take typically Democrat states like Pennsylvania and New York.
              https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_ legislative_party_control_of_state_government
              This is the reality of Republican vs Democrat politics. Trump might not get Taxifornia and that’s about it.

              1. Damn link limit.

  43. Face it people. Either the corrupt socialist is going to win, or the corrupt mercantilist is going to win. “Our” goofball is never going to win, because he is slandered in popular culture as a goofball, and his running mate is a drunk like Ted Kennedy.
    You might as well hunker down, and prepare for the Derp Apocalypse 11111111111111111111111


    The shit storm is just getting started. =D

  44. And you guys say Trump supporters are grasping at straws.

      1. When they’re not grasping at straws, yes.

        1. Grasping at Strawmen?

    1. This is Nick “Everything is the Libertarian Moment” Gillespie you are talking about.

  45. I’m not sure how people figure the outcome of this election will be anything other than a landslide victory for Clinton. Who’s going to win New Mexico? Clinton.

    1. If you define landslide, I’ll take that bet.

      1. “an election in which the winner gets a much greater number of votes than the loser” -Merriam-Webster

        In 2012, 332 electoral votes went to Obama and 206 went to Romney. It won’t be that close this time. I’m not betting on this to happen or rooting for this to happen but I think this is what is going to happen. If you are curious about bets, check out the odds being placed in countries where it’s legal (–it’s not even close.)

  46. The Bucs went from 1st and 10 at Denver’s 37 to 4th and 43 at their own 30.

    That’s the kind of can’t do ferociousness I expect out of this team! Bravo, guys!

    1. 4 and oh, baby, 4 and oh.

  47. OT: 2.5 million Iraq and Afghanistan vets. I don’t have the breakdown by branch, but I’d say probably about 70% Army.

    Anyway, for that group, there have been about 100k combat action badge awards and 80k combat infantry badge awards.

    180k / (0.7*2500k) = ~10% are combat veterans

    I read somewhere the rate for Vietnam was about to 30%. No point here, just curious what the numbers were.

    Cool pics of US anti-aircraft gun blasting away at foolhardy Viet Cong sniper:

    1. “I read somewhere the rate for Vietnam was about to 30%. No point here, just curious what the numbers were.”

      WWII, Europe, the riflemen (rifle, mortar, MG) made up 10% of the personnel; dunno about the Arty.

  48. Anybody join the YouTube Heroes! Program? Wish Reason would give me mass flagging privileges. Ooh, what good I could do.

    1. I would join the YouTube Villain’s program !!!! =D

      1. Looks like it allows the mob to get content removed. Not sure so I’m asking.

        1. When Reason’s youtube account is deactivated will Welch and Gillespie proclaim that evidence of the Libertarian Moment?

    2. Also check you fagging privileges.

      Shit Lord.

  49. Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone criticizes the Chicago Tribune’s endorsement of Gary Johnson

    “Clearly on a roll, the Tribune editorial board then turned to Hillary Clinton who, they sensibly observed, “is undeniably capable of leading the United States.” Moreover, “electing her the first woman president would break a barrier that has no reason to be.” In short, Clinton’s election would be an historic milestone in our nation’s all-too-reluctant recognition that women can actually lead. Whereas Trump “couldn’t do this job,” Clinton, the Tribune’s editors boldly proclaimed, clearly can. A good, rational, sensible analysis.

    “But that’s when the drugs took hold. In the next several paragraphs the Tribune’s editorial board launched into a mindless rant that would put even Fox News to shame….

    “The Tribune editorial board then launched into a scathing attack on Hillary Clinton’s honesty and integrity….The plain and simple fact is that, as she has conceded, Hillary Clinton has made some mistakes, and those mistakes raise legitimate questions about her judgment. To be honest, some of those mistakes have made me cringe, but none of them is even remotely disqualifying.

    “None of us, after all, is perfect.”

    1. Uh huh so even though he admits that their attacks have merit the fact they think them disqualifying and support the LP makes them a product of an addled doped-up mind. What a surprise.

    1. That might be the most unappealing link ever – congratulations.

    2. I wonder when the dem robots realize that millennial =/= Bernie Bro. As a filthy millennial myself I will say they are a lot more complicated than most give them credit for. It would be very stupid to think that all people under 30 are socialists. But it is an alarmingly high number.

  50. Vanity Fair has this clever headline:


    “Jeb Bush’s support for the third-party candidate is as good as throwing away his vote.”

    1. Dammit why doesn’t Weed, Mexicans and Ass-sex make them love the Johnson?

      1. They are all Lesbians now. They do not like the Ass Sex, or the Johnson.

        No go cry yourself to sleep Winston.

        With a bottle of Whine, and some cheese.


  51. Oh, no, guys, you’ve lost Esquire!

    “…The [Chicago]Tribune’s reasons [for endorsing Johnson] are as clear as they are detached from objective reality. Donald Trump cannot be president because he’s plainly nuts. Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot be president, even though she is immensely qualified, because Bernie Sanders magically turned her into Emma Goldman and also Benghazi!, BENGHAZI!, BENGHAZI!

    “Which leaves Colonel McCormick’s heirs with the Carmen Sandiego of Weed City.”

  52. What’s funny is how Reason ridicules the perception that 3rd party candidates are taking votes away from the major candidate in one paragraph and then licking their chops at that prospect a few paragraphs later.

  53. Several people on this site have called Lincoln the “Third party candidate” in 1860 which is a rather dubious statement since the Whigs had been wiped out by 1856 and the Republicans were the clear opposition to the Democrats.

  54. Jim Geraghty writes at National Review:

    “The standard argument in favor of third-party candidates is that they don’t get nearly as much coverage as the major party candidates, which is indisputable. Broadcast network news has ignored Gary Johnson almost entirely. But Johnson’s gotten the most coverage of any third-party or independent candidate since Perot…

    “…If Gary Johnson’s 8 percent or so is sufficient, why not Jill Stein’s 3 percent? If you include those two, why exclude Evan McMullin?

    “Sorry, pal. You needed 15 percent, and fell short.”

  55. I gotta hand it to the SoLibs, many of them are turning to the Johnson, I hadn’t expected that at all. I thought they would reluctantly vote for Hillary because Lenin was dead.

    1. Wait, Lenin is dead? When did this happen? If wasn’t in the news.

  56. What do you guys think of this?


    The book advocates a socialist society in which work is performed to satisfy the needs of all rather than to generate profit for a few. A key chapter is “The Great Money Trick”, in which Owen organises a mock-up of capitalism with his workmates, using slices of bread as raw materials and knives as machinery. Owen ’employs’ his workmates cutting up the bread to illustrate that the employer ? who does not work ? generates personal wealth whilst the workers effectively remain no better off than when they began, endlessly swapping coins back and forth for food and wages. This is Tressell’s practical way of illustrating the Marxist theory of surplus value, which in the capitalist system is generated by labour.

    1. continued…

      A major recurring theme in Tressell’s book highlights the inability and reluctance of the workers to comprehend, or even consider, an alternative economic system [other than free market capitalism]. The author attributes this inability, amongst other things, to the fact that they have never experienced an alternative system, and have been raised as children to unquestioningly accept the status quo, regardless of it being potentially inimical to their own interests. In Plato’s work, the underlying narrative suggests that in the absence of an alternative, human beings will accept and submit to their present condition and consider it to be ‘normal’, no matter how contrived the circumstances.

      1. “The first volume of Capital and Interest, which Ludwig von Mises decreed as “the most eminent contribution to modern economic theory”, titled History and Critique of Interest Theories (1884), is an exhaustive study of the alternative treatments of interest: use theories, productivity theories, abstinence theories, and so on.
        Also included was a critique of Marx’s exploitation theory. B?hm-Bawerk argued that capitalists do not exploit their workers; they actually help employees by providing them with an income well in advance of the revenue from the goods they produced, stating “Labor cannot increase its share at the expense of capital.”

        By 1884, it was recognized as horseshit; it ignores time.

      2. Allegory of the cave. Sure.

        The problem is breaking the status quo would rely on there being a better alternative.

        People want to eliminate money? Everyone is free to live their life the way they want to instead of slaving away at a job five days a week until they die? Great. But then how do we motivate people to actually do all the shit we need to do to live the way we’ve become accustomed to? Who in their right mind is going to medical school when it means they eat the same government cheese in the same government apartment as their janitor neighbor?

        The problem with this ideal socialist society is it makes incorrect assumptions about the goodness and selflessness of human nature.

        1. “The problem with this ideal socialist society is it makes incorrect assumptions about the goodness and selflessness of human nature”

          The New Soviet Man never did and never will exist.

          1. Best illustration of that fact that I ever read was Victor Belenko’s book, Mig Pilot. He was raised fully immersed in Marxist bullshit from the day he was born, and he saw through it all and escaped.


        2. “People want to eliminate money?”

          Once I passed the age of 14, the idea of “getting rid of money” always struck me as weird. If there’s no system of currency, how is an orange farmer supposed to buy an automobile? With 30,000 oranges? How is he supposed to produce that many at once? And what if the automobile manufacturer doesn’t want 30,000 oranges at the moment? How would you even stop that many oranges from going bad within a few days?

          1. Doug Casey says that money is life. It represents the value created by a society and by inflating it you are basically stealing life from the people who earned it. Without money you remove the pricing mechanism and the myriad benefits that come with it. People who hate money are Luddites and should be pounded over the head with their IPads.

            1. There is a wonderful book: “The History of Money” (Jack Weatherford).
              In it, he argues convincingly that trade alone (‘Uga give basket to Agu for fish!’) made humanity immensely more prosperous than it was, and that the concept of “money” advanced that result geometrically. See “Croesus: Rich as”. He’s the guy who pretty much started the practice, and his kingdom flourished until it was plundered by those who took the gold and ignored the reason it was there.
              Those who propose “money” be eliminated are ignoramuses not worthy of consideration; they propose that we all return to boiling rocks in the hopes of getting lichen soup.

          2. It only makes sense in the abstract if you don’t really think about the details too much.

            You wouldn’t need to buy a car because you’d either get the same shitty economy car as everyone else or there would be public transportation. But to produce those 30,000 oranges, people would be assigned picking oranges as their government mandated job. How happy do you think those people stuck picking oranges in the hot sun will be? Why can’t I get a job fixing cars like I want? Or helping to develop new medicine. I’m smart! Is it because I’m ________? You racists!

            Every potential philosophy you could apply has its positives and its negatives. But, the grass is always greener.

    2. do we assume that employers do not work? The illustration doesn’t really illustrate capitalism at all. It has the workers doing something meaningless which is not really even close to reality. If we assume he is running a business where they cut bread for a baker as a service (which is a terrible business model) then the entrepreneur in this situation has found a need that someone would pay for and in turn creates wealth and value by providing a service to the baker and the consumer. Plus providing employment to the workers that they would not otherwise necessarily have.

      In this fantasy world (that socialists live in) all business owners do nothing but move money around and only do meaningless value-free activities. Such meaningless employment can only be actualized in the world in Keynesian public-works projects as in the free market they would fail.

  57. It’s October.

    Time for an October surprise.

    Mr. Putin, Mr. Assange, whoever is out there holding onto something. Now’s the time for the other shoe to drop.

    It’s October.

    We shouldn’t be surprised by an October surprise in October.

    But Wikileaks just canceled a highly anticipated “announcement” for Tuesday citing security concerns:


    1. This election is the most dramatic and bizarre in American politics since… I don’t know when.

    2. It’s October. Time to drink some Beer, and eat some food.
      It’s time to celebrate the harvest season.
      The only celebration the Government gives you is nasty cheese, and old dried raisins.
      At least EBT cards are dependent upon private industry.

  58. “…angering Bill Maher…”

    If that’s not a reason to vote for Johnson, I don’t know what is. Fuck that smug prick, Maher.

    1. /raises mug.

        1. Split the mainbrace mateys!

          /drinks rum

    2. “…angering Bill Maher…”

      And if we’re not careful, we might even piss off Lewis Black as well.

  59. OT: questionable tactic

    send 3 humvees to drive slowly on a narrow road in enemy territory and hope they don’t ambush you from the high ground on either side

    I get war involves risk, but what the hell kind of plan is that?

    1. “”what the hell kind of plan is that?””

      “Go out there and walk around until someone shoots at you” seems to have been the SOP for the “war on terror” for a while.

      The film Restrepo followed a platoon around afghanistan, and they seemed to have no other mandate than “Occupy that position” so someone else somewhere could assert that the site was occupied and therefore under American control. When they inevitably became Taliban target practice, they were told to ‘be careful and stuff’ as to not piss off locals and accidentally shoot innocent people when they fired back; well, they were restrained until some was wounded, then whammo – call air strikes, kill 5 locals.

      it seemed like there was little in the way of “Objectives to be achieved” that were based around any on-the-ground assessment of the status-quo;

      methods for ‘winning hearts and minds’ of the locals were either “hand them some free shit they didn’t want/need” (candy? blankets? water) or “try to get them to have sit downs and force them to follow the US directed discussion narrative. this video is sort of the cliche example. 20 year old kid pretends he’s going to be able to “negotiate” with a town full of people who don’t want his presence making them targets. They sort of blithely pretend that “progress is being made” … although they’ve visited the place 6 times, and still don’t actually know who’s in charge in the town.

  60. Which one will occur first? Will Elon Musk land people on Mars or will the Libertarian Party garner 5% of the vote?

    1. Mars-ipan, the new fragrance from Elon Musk…what were you saying?

  61. Australia has a shitload of political parties I could identify with, although they don’t seem to help liberty downunder much.

  62. Anybody still up and looking for an interesting read might like this article. It is by a someone who has developed a new way to study the commonalities of world wide myths, and how he believes many of these myths share common ancestor myths from the paleolithic.

    1. Hey, it’s not 10PM on the left coast!
      Saved it to read tomorrow; thanks, looks good.

    2. The Gods were righting our computer simulation on the cheap.

  63. If GJ wins New Mexico this time, he might win the presidency after four years of a Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich administration. Unfortunately, the next financial collapse is quite likely to happen in that timeframe.


    1. I think the chances of a Libertarian winning the Presidency, before they win a single House or Senate seat or governorship (as Libertarians, at least), are basically zero.

      But I think you’re right about the next financial crisis.

    2. And how exactly is he making up 11% support to catch Hillary while Trump gains 0? Mass plague that selectively kills democrats? Please. This is an asinine article.

    3. I think Rand Paul is more likely to win the Republican nomination than Gary Johnson is to win the general election as a Libertarian.

      Even if Trump wins, he’ll face a full card of challengers in four years. I doubt as many people will support Trump in the Republican primaries again–regardless of all those disaffected Democrats.

  64. my Aunty Maya recently got a stunning yellow Nissan Murano SUV just by working online with a cheap laptop
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  65. 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

  66. 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

  67. 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

  68. 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

  69. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  70. 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

  71. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  72. 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

  73. Gary was a world class gap-covering spoiler to keep Trump outta New Mexico!
    Their parties will die!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.